Login
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL: A group of conservative leaders is calling on the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke, to resign from her leadership position following an explosive report from The Daily Signal.
“The American people have lost trust in your ability to lead the Civil Rights Division,” reads a letter to Clarke, signed by Advancing American Freedom Executive Director Paul Teller, American Accountability Foundation President Tom Jones, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins, and CatholicVote President Brian Burch. “We request that you resign immediately.”
The Daily Signal published a report on Tuesday highlighting evidence that Clarke had not disclosed a 2006 arrest and subsequent expungement during her 2021 nomination to the DOJ—and then explicitly denied ever having been arrested to Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton.
Clarke has not responded to requests for comment from The Daily Signal, though the DOJ acknowledged receipt of these requests. She did speak to CNN on Wednesday, however, confirming that she did not disclose the arrest and expungement and alleging that her ex-husband Reginald Avery domestically abused her. He denied this in a statement to The Daily Signal.
The letter to Clarke from conservative leaders, sent Friday to the DOJ official, repeatedly references The Daily Signal’s reporting and attaches a copy of the Tuesday report itself. The letter also points to Clarke’s enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act against pro-life activists.
“The American people deserve a Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice led with honesty and integrity,” the letter says. “Since taking over the Civil Rights Division, you have weaponized the Department of Justice by wielding the FACE Act against pro-life Americans in an unprecedented manner—even while standing idly by as churches and pro-life pregnancy centers are vandalized, and Jewish students are unable to attend class on college campuses.”
Jones, one of the signers of the letter, began digging into Clarke’s background during her nomination process and spoke to Avery around the same time, as The Daily Signal previously reported. Avery told Jones at the time that Clarke attacked him with a knife, slicing his finger to the bone, during a domestic dispute in July 2006.
“The accusations against Kristen Clarke of lying to Congress and domestic violence are deeply troubling,” Jones told The Daily Signal on Friday. “Clearly she does not possess the character or integrity to be in any position of power. She must resign now.”
On Thursday evening, the New York Post Editorial Board similarly called on Clarke to step down in an editorial titled: “Kristen Clarke lied and must step down from the DOJ — NOW.”
“Clarke’s now arguing that because the arrest was expunged, she wasn’t required to disclose it to lawmakers,” the New York Post Editorial Board wrote. “That’s precisely the kind of razor-sharp logic that top Biden appointees are known for.”
“Then again,” the board continued. “Clarke’s the same dunderhead who muffed a major question about First Amendment litigation last year, claiming in a congressional hearing to be totally unaware of the lawsuit by the state of Missouri against the president over government efforts against ‘disinformation’ — a huge civil rights issue where Team Biden had lost and was appealing to the Supreme Court.”
The New York Post Editorial Board added: “Her defense now is beyond pathetic. She told an unambiguous lie to Congress. Was she thinking she’d never get caught, or that if she did, her political connections would protect her?”
CNN published Clarke’s allegations in a report headlined “DOJ civil rights leader says she was a victim of abuse in extraordinary statement.” That report is drawing accusations from conservative media that the outlet sought to curry favor with President Joe Biden’s DOJ through its framing.
“CNN propagandist Hannah Rabinowitz was asked by DOJ to spread this info op and she complied, hiding the explosive journalism which provoked it,” tweeted Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway.
“Amazing,” noted The Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross. “After @MaryMargOlohan reports that DOJ’s Kristen Clarke lied about being arrested, Clarke runs to CNN with a claim that she lied only because she was the victim of domestic abuse. And CNN spins it with the typical ‘conservatives pounce’ framing.”
Clarke did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
The Daily Signal previously reported that Clarke, who oversees investigations into violations of the FACE Act, has used FACE to charge dozens of pro-life individuals since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This includes Mark Houck, a Catholic father of seven arrested at gunpoint by the FBI and charged with violating FACE in September 2022 (a jury found Houck was not guilty in January 2023, and the DOJ has not commented on this verdict publicly).
Enacted in 1994, the FACE Act prohibits threats of force, obstruction, and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services. It applies not only to abortion clinics, but also to pro-life pregnancy centers and houses of worship.
Though Clarke is the helm of the DOJ’s FACE Act enforcements, she is a vocal abortion proponent who has denounced pro-life pregnancy centers, as The Washington Free Beacon’s Ross previously reported.
The DOJ has charged only five pro-abortion individuals with violating the FACE Act when they attacked pro-life pregnancy centers, even though hundreds of pregnancy centers and Catholic churches have been attacked since May 2022, when the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked, indicating Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has charged zero individuals with FACE for attacking Catholic churches, though it has charged other individuals with hate crimes with defacing a synagogue with neo-Nazi symbols and attempting to burn down a church that planned to host drag show events.
The post EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Leaders Call on DOJ’s Kristen Clarke to Resign Following Daily Signal Report appeared first on The Daily Signal.
A CNN report on the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke, is drawing accusations that the outlet sought to curry favor with President Joe Biden’s DOJ through its framing.
After The Daily Signal published a report on Tuesday highlighting evidence that Clarke had not disclosed an arrest and an expungement during her nomination process to the DOJ—and then explicitly denied ever having been arrested to Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton—CNN published a report on Wednesday headlined “DOJ civil rights leader says she was a victim of abuse in extraordinary statement.”
CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz framed the story around an “exclusive” statement from Clarke to the outlet, in which Clarke confirms that she did not disclose her arrest and expungement and alleged that her ex-husband, Reginald Avery, had domestically abused her for years. Avery, who previously said that Clarke attacked him with a knife in 2006 while they were married, denied his ex-wife’s allegations in a statement to The Daily Signal on Thursday. He also called CNN’s story “a hit piece.”
“Clarke’s now-expunged arrest, which reportedly occurred during a domestic dispute, quickly became a cause célèbre among right-wing media and lawmakers who claim she lied during her 2021 Senate confirmation hearing, with some calling for her resignation,” wrote Rabinowitz, who did not clarify to The Daily Signal why she did not link to the original Daily Signal report.
CNN did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on the story.
Commentator Stephen Miller called out Rabinowitz in a tweet Wednesday evening.
“To be clear what happened here,” he tweeted. “1. Kristen Clarke, the head of Biden’s DOJ Civil Rights Division, did not disclose an arrest from a domestic fight 2. CNN took the original report, omitted that fact she lied under oath, did not link to the original story, and framed Clarke’s own statement.”
To be clear what happened here:
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 1, 2024
1. Kristen Clarke, the head of Biden's DOJ Civil Rights Division did not disclose an arrest from a domestic fight
2. CNN took the original report, omitted that fact she lied under oath, did not link to the original story, and framed Clarke's own… https://t.co/B89z4fFumE
The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway similarly accused Rabinowitz of running cover for the DOJ: “CNN propagandist Hannah Rabinowitz was asked by DOJ to spread this info op and she complied, hiding the explosive journalism which provoked it.”
Author Steve Krakauer, the executive producer of “The Megyn Kelly Show,” said it was “outrageous journalistic malpractice for CNN leadership to hang a young reporter out to dry like this, slapping her byline on propaganda spin of an administration, and diminishing actual journalism in the process.”
Chuck Ross, an investigative reporter at The Washington Free Beacon, also weighed in on CNN’s framing.
“Amazing,” said Ross. “After @MaryMargOlohan reports that DOJ’s Kristen Clarke lied about being arrested, Clarke runs to CNN with a claim that she lied only because she was the victim of domestic abuse. And CNN spins it with the typical ‘conservatives pounce’ framing.”
Amazing. After @MaryMargOlohan reports that DOJ's Kristen Clarke lied about being arrested, Clarke runs to CNN with a claim that she lied only because she was the victim of domestic abuse. And CNN spins it with the typical "conservatives pounce" framing. https://t.co/IOUdYtOuSl pic.twitter.com/BFe0pkUz4S
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) May 1, 2024
“Domestic abuse is never okay,” said Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, in response to the CNN story. “U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said ‘no’ when asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she had ever been arrested for a violent crime. That wasn’t true.”
Domestic abuse is never okay.
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 1, 2024
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said “no” when asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she had ever been arrested for a violent crime.
That wasn’t true.https://t.co/wgiDFIhBoC
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush quickly criticized Lee for the remark, appearing to defend Clarke without acknowledging her omission to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Clarke said she was subjected to years of abuse by her ex-husband—and her arrest for slashing his finger was expunged,” he wrote, in response to Lee. “She said she’s still ‘terrorized and traumatized.’ The senator, who initially presented this incident without that context now makes this statement.”
Ross followed up on Thrush’s remark, challenging him: “Come on. She lied to the Senate about ever being arrested. DOJ didn’t reply to the reporter who broke this story, @MaryMargOlohan. The White House mocked her when she asked for comment. Then Clarke goes to CNN with a defense of her arrest that may or may not be true.”
Come on. She lied to the Senate about ever being arrested. DOJ didn’t reply to the reporter who broke this story, @MaryMargOlohan. The White House mocked her when she asked for comment.
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) May 1, 2024
Then Clarke goes to CNN with a defense of her arrest that may or may not be true https://t.co/O1Twll9npq
“Clarke deceived the Senate too many times during her confirmation regarding her position on defunding police and writing anti-white essays in college for anyone, much less an NYT reporter, to take her claims at face value,” Ross added.
The post CNN Accused of ‘Propaganda’ for ‘Spinning’ Bombshell DOJ Story About Kristen Clarke appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The Justice Department’s Kristen Clarke confirmed Wednesday that she did not disclose an arrest and expungement during her confirmation to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, alleging that she was a victim of domestic abuse.
The Daily Signal reported Tuesday evening that Clarke, who testified in 2021 to senators that she had never been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime, was involved in a violent domestic dispute with her now ex-husband, one in which he alleged that she sliced his finger to the bone with a knife.
The Daily Signal has repeatedly reached out to Clarke about the incident since February with no response, though the DOJ acknowledged receipt.
In a statement to CNN, she addressed the matter, saying she was not required to disclose the expungement. She also told CNN that she was “subjected to years long abuse and domestic violence at the hands of [her] ex-husband.”
NEW: DOJ's Kristen Clarke testified during her confirmation hearings that she was never arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime. I've obtained messages and records indicating Clarke may have been…less than forthcoming with this statement.https://t.co/Wxcusa4yXU
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 30, 2024
“This was a terrorizing and traumatizing period that I have sought to put behind me to promote my personal health, healing, and well-being. The physical and emotional scars, the emotional abuse and exploitation, and the lying are things that no woman or mother should ever have to endure,” Clarke continued.
“When given the option to speak about such traumatic incidents in my life, I have chosen not to,” Clarke added. “I didn’t believe during my confirmation process and I don’t believe now that I was obligated to share a fully expunged matter from my past.”
Clarke has not responded to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.
In a statement to The Daily Signal on Thursday, Avery called CNN’s story “a hit piece” and denied that he had domestically abused Clarke.
“I deny it of course,” he said, “and think this a sad and pathetic effort to make herself a victim, and is revealing of her character.”
CNN’s report did not include Avery’s allegations that Clarke sliced his finger with a knife on the night of July 4, 2006. The CNN report also does not link to The Daily Signal’s reporting.
“I was seeing another woman,” Avery shared in a May 2021 text message exchange with the American Accountability Foundation’s Tom Jones. “She was angry. Attacked me with a knife. I instinctively grabbed it. As I said earlier, I’m not blameless.”
“That’s the story,” Avery insisted. “That’s what happened. She went to jail.”
Prince George’s County Police Department records show that the department was called on nine different occasions by someone at Avery’s and Clarke’s Upper Marlboro, Maryland, household between May 2003 and December 2007.
Seven of those calls were for a “threat” or some type of domestic violence, but most were cleared without a report. The July 4, 2006, call was made by “Mr. Reginald” (Avery’s first name) and accompanied by a 760 code, according to a mainframe print-out from Prince George’s County computer-aided dispatch system obtained by The Daily Signal. That 760 code is the department’s clearance code for “arrest,” the Prince George County Police Department confirmed.
The DOJ official’s ex-husband also shared with Jones that on the night of the incident, he called 911 due to his injury and the “cops came because [his] finger was cut off.” (Avery clarified to The Daily Signal that the finger was sliced to the bone, not cut off.) Police allegedly decided to arrest Clarke, and Avery said he went to the emergency room in Bowie, Maryland, for the injury. He does not have photos of the injury.
During her confirmation, Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton asked Clarke: “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?”
Clarke responded, “No,” according to responses she submitted to the Senate under oath in a document called “Questions for the Record.”
She was asked by the Senate if she was ever arrested. Full stop. And she said no. In normal people world, we call that lying. (The lawyers call it perjuring yourself.) https://t.co/c2AlilnPx0
— Rachel Bovard (@rachelbovard) May 1, 2024
On Tuesday evening, Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee called for Clarke’s resignation.
“Kristen Clarke is in charge of enforcing civil rights laws,” Lee said in a statement posted to X. “She enforces those laws aggressively against anyone who sneezes near an abortion clinic. And not at all against those who vandalize churches. She lied under oath during her confirmation proceedings, and should resign.”
“She lied under oath to mask her arrest for committing a violent crime, yet she zealously prosecutes peaceful pro-life protesters,” the senator added.
The post DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Confirms She Did Not Disclose Arrest, Alleges Domestic Abuse appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee is calling for the resignation of Kristen Clarke, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
“Kristen Clarke is in charge of enforcing civil rights laws,” Lee said in a statement posted to X on Tuesday evening. “She enforces those laws aggressively against anyone who sneezes near an abortion clinic. And not at all against those who vandalize churches. She lied under oath during her confirmation proceedings, and should resign.”
“She lied under oath to mask her arrest for committing a violent crime, yet she zealously prosecutes peaceful pro-life protesters,” the senator added.
Kristen Clarke is in charge of enforcing civil rights laws.
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 1, 2024
She enforces those laws aggressively against anyone who sneezes near an abortion clinic.
And not at all against those who vandalize churches.
She lied under oath during her confirmation proceedings, and should resign. https://t.co/5tHpaG4a2W
Lee weighed in on Clarke following a Daily Signal report revealing that Clarke, who testified in 2021 to senators that she had never been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime, was involved in a violent domestic dispute with her now ex-husband, one in which he alleged that she sliced his finger to the bone with a knife.
Court documents, records, and text messages obtained by The Daily Signal indicate that Clarke was arrested, but that arrest was ultimately expunged.
“Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked then-nominee Clarke in 2021, to which she responded, “No,” according to responses she submitted to the Senate under oath in a document called “Questions for the Record.”
Neither Clarke nor the DOJ has responded to requests for comment from The Daily Signal. The FBI, asked about the background checks it performed on Clarke, declined to comment.
Ed Whelan, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center where he holds the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, similarly called for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to demand Clarke’s resignation.
“Kristen Clarke, loony ideologue at DOJ on transgender issues, appears to have flat-out lied under oath during her confirmation process when she denied ever having been arrested,” Whelan said in an X post on Tuesday night.
“Per article, she was arrested in 2006 for attacking her then-husband with a knife and slicing his finger to the bone,” he continued, before adding: “President Biden and AG [Attorney General Merrick] Garland should demand her resignation.”
“Expungement of arrest record has consequences under Maryland law, but it can’t excuse Kristen Clarke for falsely stating to Congress during her confirmation process that she had never been arrested for committing a violent crime,” Whelan said.
Kristen Clarke, loony ideologue at DOJ on transgender issues, appears to have flat-out lied under oath during her confirmation process when she denied ever having been arrested. Per article, she was arrested in 2006 for attacking her then-husband with a knife and slicing his… https://t.co/TIc9uohRPE
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) April 30, 2024
Whelan further suggested that the establishment media may abstain from covering Clarke out of a bias for Democratic nominees.
“If news broke that controversial DOJ official in Republican administration lied during confirmation process to conceal arrest for violent crime, it would be front-page news in NYT and WaPo,” Whelan said, referring to The New York Times and The Washington Post. “We’ll see if they pay any attention to Kristen Clarke’s lie.”
Clarke was nominated by then-President-elect Biden on Jan. 7, 2021, and later confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2021, to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
The Daily Signal previously reported that Clarke, who oversees investigations into violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, has used FACE to charge dozens of pro-life individuals since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This includes Mark Houck, a Catholic father of seven arrested at gunpoint by the FBI and charged with violating FACE in September 2022.
A jury found Houck was not guilty in January 2023.
The post ‘She Lied Under Oath’: Sen. Mike Lee Calls for DOJ’s Kristen Clarke to Resign appeared first on The Daily Signal.
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL: Before becoming one of the Justice Department’s top leaders, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke was allegedly involved in a violent domestic dispute, according to court documents, records, and text messages—an incident that ended in her arrest and was ultimately expunged. During her Senate confirmation, Clarke specifically denied ever having been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime.
Clarke was nominated by President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 7, 2021, and later confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 25, 2021, to lead the DOJ’s “crown jewel,” as former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. described the Civil Rights Division.
Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris celebrated Clarke as the first black woman to head the Civil Rights Division, promising she would focus on fighting voter suppression and hate crimes “across the country.”
During her confirmation, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked then-nominee Clarke: “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?”
“No,” she responded, according to responses she submitted under oath to “Questions for the Record” from U.S. senators.
Messages as well as records obtained and authenticated by The Daily Signal indicate that Clarke may have been less than forthcoming with this statement.
Clarke’s ex-husband, Reginald Avery, alleged to the American Accountability Foundation’s Tom Jones in 2021 that Clarke attacked him with a knife, deeply slicing his finger to the bone, on the night of July 4, 2006, while they were married and living in Maryland.
According to messages and documents reviewed by The Daily Signal, police arrested Clarke that night. She did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Court records obtained by The Daily Signal show that a criminal case against Clarke was initiated in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County, but on Oct. 17, 2006, the Maryland state attorney entered a request of “nolle prosequi” in the case, which effectively dismissed the charge without trial.
Approximately a year-and-a-half later, Clarke sought an “Order for Expungement of Police and Court Records” in the same case.
A document obtained by The Daily Signal shows that the district court granted that order in January 2008. The document specifically orders “expungement of police records pertaining to [Clarke’s] arrest, detention, or confinement” on or about July 5, 2006, by a “law enforcement officer of the Prince George’s County Police.”
Citing the “True Test” stamp on the expungement order, an official at the clerk’s office for the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County confirmed the authenticity of the expungement order to The Daily Signal.
“That’s a real document,” the official said.
Court records show that Avery and Clarke finalized their contentious divorce in 2009. Clarke had served as a trial attorney for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division until April 2006, several months before the incident.
When the July 4, 2006, incident occurred, Clarke was leading the left-wing National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund’s voting and election efforts.
It is not immediately clear whether Clarke was legally required to disclose her arrest during her nomination process, though this seems to generally be considered the prudential course of action to take during such a process.
According to Maryland law, Criminal Procedure §10-109, “Disclosure of expunged information about criminal charges in an application, interview, or other means may not be required” by an employer or educational institution of a person who is applying for employment or admission or by a “unit, official, or employee of the State or a political subdivision of the State of a person who applies for a license, permit, registration, or governmental service.”
That Maryland code also says that a person does not need to reveal information about an expunged charge when answering a question concerning a criminal charge that did not result in a conviction.
However, the nonprofit law firm Maryland Legal Aid notes that it is probably prudent to disclose expungement records when applying for certain types of jobs that require a security clearance, such as government or military jobs, since these types of employers are still going to be able to see the criminal charges in a person’s background.
Mark Robbins, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under former Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, believes that a DOJ nominee should indeed disclose an expunged arrest when specifically asked.
Robbins noted that though the expungement processes are typically determined by state law, presidential nominees for Senate confirmation go through a political process. There are two sets of paperwork relevant to a nomination, he said: the first from the White House for clearance before nomination, and the second from the relevant Senate committee.
Both of these sets contain questions about criminal and civil legal actions, Robbins said, as well as an open-ended question to the effect of: “Is there anything else that could even unfairly be seen as a potential hurdle to confirmation?”
“An arrest with an expungement likely has a background and explanation,” he said. “Why not disclose it? It isn’t particularly relevant what the legal consequence of expungement is. The issue is the political consequence of an arrest becoming public during or after the confirmation process, thus embarrassing the administration and Senate.”
Robbins concluded: “In my service as general counsel at two federal agencies, if a nominee asked me whether to disclose an arrest and expungement, I certainly would advise to either disclose in the paperwork with an explanation, or at the very least, note for the record that you would like to discuss this personally with someone in the White House or on the Senate committee staff.”
According to the Center for Presidential Transition, every person hired for a federal job is asked to complete a background check, and nominees are asked to complete either a “Questionnaire for National Security Positions,” the SF-86, or a “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions,” an SF 85P.
The SF-86, for example, specifically says that applicants must report information “regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed” (though it notes that applicants don’t need to ‘report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607.'”
Every presidential administration has its own version of another form that supplements the SF-86—the SF-86 Supplement, according to the Center for Presidential Transition. That form includes questions about whether “you or your spouse” have been “the subject of any civil or criminal case, administrative proceeding, or government investigation, other than a minor traffic incident.”
It also asks: “With as much detail as possible, please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, which could suggest a conflict of interest, be a possible source of embarrassment, or be used to coerce or blackmail you.”
Clarke, as a nominee for a DOJ position, would have also been required to fill out a “Questionnaire for non-judicial nominees” from the Senate Judiciary Committee—questionnaires submitted before the hearing.
This would include a confidential section, accessible to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff and members, in which Clarke could have revealed the expunged information.
A source with prior experience in the confirmation process told The Daily Signal that it is unlikely Clarke disclosed the arrest and expungement in the confidential portion. If she had disclosed such an arrest, the source said, members would have likely taken the opportunity to request one-on-one meetings with her to discuss, to hold a closed hearing, or to ask her to discuss the matter publicly.
In 2022, for example, Republicans brought up 6th Circuit nominee Andre Mathis’ three traffic tickets and his “failure to appear in court” related to “extended periods of driving without a license”—information they learned about during his vetting process, as Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.
“Mr Mathis has agreed to discuss this issue publicly and that made possible his appearance today and I thank him for agreeing to do that,” Grassley said, according to a transcript of the hearing, acknowledging that Mathis had agreed to making the tickets public.
“It just speaks to how the process works–when something comes up in the FBI’s background investigation, it’s shared with all the members on the committee and if they want to ask about it either the nominee waives confidentiality or we have a closed portion of the hearing,” a source close to Clarke’s confirmation process explained to The Daily Signal.
A copy of Clarke’s questionnaire obtained by The Daily Signal does not contain any information or questions about possible arrests. The Daily Signal was not able to obtain a copy of the confidential questionnaire.
Multiple sources familiar with the confirmation process told The Daily Signal that they do not believe Clarke disclosed the arrest, not only because they would have been aware of the matter, but also given the nature of Cotton’s written questions, submitted after her confirmation hearing but before the committee voted on her nomination.
“It’s strange beyond strange that Clarke wouldn’t reveal this in the first place,” said appellate litigator Judd Stone, former Texas solicitor general of Texas and former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “Just deeply strange … if you reveal it, and it turns out you can’t get through committee, then they tell you quietly that you can’t proceed with the nomination, it doesn’t go out to the press, you don’t get tarred and feathered, and you go back to what you’re doing.”
“I can’t imagine a Republican nomination getting away with this,” he added.
Jones, head of the American Accountability Foundation, began digging into Clarke’s background during her Senate confirmation process. He reached out to Avery as part of his investigation, and text messages between Avery and Jones illustrate the alleged events of the July 4, 2006, incident.
“I was seeing another woman,” Avery shared in the May 2021 text message exchange. “She was angry. Attacked me with a knife. I instinctively grabbed it. As I said earlier, I’m not blameless.”
“That’s the story,” Avery insisted. “That’s what happened. She went to jail.”
Avery confirmed to The Daily Signal that his text conversations with Jones accurately represent what took place that night, including that he did not ultimately press charges and that he was not contacted by federal authorities about the incident. He declined to comment further.
Prince George’s County Police Department records show that the department was called on nine different occasions by someone at Avery’s and Clarke’s Upper Marlboro, Maryland, household between May 2003 and December 2007.
Seven of those calls were for a “threat” or some type of domestic violence, but most were cleared without a report. The July 4, 2006, call was made by “Mr. Reginald” (Avery’s first name) and accompanied by a 760 code, according to a mainframe print-out from Prince George’s County computer-aided dispatch system obtained by The Daily Signal.
That 760 code is the department’s clearance code for “arrest,” the Prince George County Police Department confirmed.
That call was not cleared for four hours, and Avery maintains it was Clarke who was arrested. Clarke has not addressed the matter, though given multiple opportunities to respond.
The DOJ official’s ex-husband also shared with Jones that on the night of the incident, he called 911 due to his injury and the “cops came because [his] finger was cut off.” (Avery clarified to The Daily Signal that the finger was sliced to the bone, not cut off.) Police allegedly decided to arrest Clarke, and Avery said he went to the emergency room in Bowie, Maryland, for the injury. He does not have photos of the injury.
Jones and Avery speculated via 2021 text messages about why Clarke would hide the arrest: “I assume she just thinks she won’t get caught,” Jones queried, to which Avery responded, “Yes, the arrogance has always been there. But I don’t understand lying on a federal application.”
Staffers who worked on Senate Judiciary Committee during Clarke’s confirmation say that, while they looked into rumors of an arrest and contacted Avery, they never had access to the expungement order or charge dismissal notice. The Daily Signal is reporting first on the existence of both documents.
Avery refused to speak to the Senate staffers who reached out to him in 2021, a Senate source familiar with Clarke’s confirmation process told The Daily Signal. Staff felt they could not just sling allegations at Clarke without more evidence, the source said, but Cotton’s question to Clarke about violent crime was a direct result of the numerous Republican judiciary committee staff discussions surrounding Clarke, Jones’ findings, and the July 4, 2006, incident.
Jones questioned why Avery’s story was not thoroughly examined during the Senate’s review of Clarke’s record and why Clarke’s ex-husband was never contacted by federal officials during the confirmation process.
Jones also published some of his findings online, in which he noted that “congressional staff” confirmed that Avery had never been contacted by the FBI. The FBI declined to comment on the matter to The Daily Signal.
“Speaking to an ex-spouse is some of the most basic type of investigations that one should do when vetting a senior official,” Jones told The Daily Signal.
The DOJ did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Clarke did face scrutiny during her nomination process for remarks and social media posts made before her DOJ role, such as calling Alliance Defending Freedom a “hate group” and Liberty University a “fundamentalist Christian school.” She also said that those protesting Dr. Anthony Fauci should be “publicly identified and named, barred from treatment at any public hospital if/when they fall ill and denied coverage under their insurance.”
Clarke similarly criticized Republican politicians from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to former President Donald Trump. She supported the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate that Amy Coney Barrett was unfit to serve as a justice because she would likely rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, critiqued pro-life laws and courts that upheld them, and called a law protecting Down syndrome babies “draconian.”
Anti-choice activists are intensifying their work to end abortion.
— Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) July 20, 2018
Conservative evangelical and Catholic groups are pouring money into the #Kavanaugh nomination battle.
Make no mistake — A vote for Kavanaugh, is a vote to overrturn #roevswade https://t.co/uo172qM1aj
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who now heads the Tucker Carlson Network, ran multiple segments highlighting Clarke’s comments about racial superiority as well as her role in organizing a 1994 event while at Harvard University that hosted a professor who accused Jews of persecuting black people. Clarke, who was the president of Harvard’s Black Students Association, has since said it “was a mistake” to host the professor.
At the time of the event, Clarke defended professor Tony Martin when he received backlash, writing, “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”
The Daily Signal previously reported that Clarke, who oversees investigations into violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, has used FACE to charge dozens of pro-life individuals since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This includes Mark Houck, a Catholic father of seven arrested at gunpoint by the FBI and charged with violating FACE in September 2022 (a jury found Houck was not guilty in January 2023, and the DOJ has not commented on this verdict publicly).
Enacted in 1994, the FACE Act prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services. It applies not only to abortion clinics, but also to pro-life pregnancy centers and houses of worship.
Though Clarke is the helm of the DOJ’s FACE Act enforcements, she is a vocal abortion proponent who has denounced pro-life pregnancy centers, as the Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross previously reported.
The DOJ has charged only five pro-abortion individuals with violating the FACE Act when they attacked pro-life pregnancy centers, even though hundreds of pregnancy centers and Catholic churches have been attacked since May 2022, when the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked, indicating Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has charged zero individuals with FACE for attacking Catholic churches, though it has charged other individuals with hate crimes with defacing a synagogue with neo-Nazi symbols and attempting to burn down a church that planned to host drag show events.
The post EXCLUSIVE: DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Testified She Was Never Arrested. Court Records and Text Messages Indicate She Was. appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is not going to allow one lone judge to dictate whether the children of Ohio are protected from “transgender” surgeries and hormones, he shared in an interview with The Daily Signal.
Yost asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene after Judge Michael Holbrook issued a temporary restraining order for House Bill 68, the Saving Ohio Adolescents From Experimentation, or SAFE, Act, on Tuesday.
That law bars physicians from performing “transgender reassignment” surgeries on children and from prescribing cross-sex hormones or drugs to block children’s puberty. It also would allow students to sue if they are deprived of a fair playing field in sports due to transgender activism (such as a boy who “identifies” as a girl playing on a girls’ volleyball team) and would protect parents’ rights to raise their children according to their biological sex.
A supermajority of Republican lawmakers voted to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s controversial veto of the bill in January, and before Holbrook blocked it, it was scheduled to go into effect on April 24.
On Monday, Yost, the Medical Board of Ohio, and the state of Ohio filed an emergency motion for a writ of prohibition, asking that Holbrook be ordered to modify his temporary restraining order to “comply with Ohio statutory and procedural limitations.”
The Ohio attorney general discussed the move and what he hopes will ensue from here in an interview with The Daily Signal.
“This is actually a trick that the Left has been using for a long time,” he explained. “Go to court with a couple of sympathetic plaintiffs, get a court order restraining the law from applying to anybody anywhere, and then use it to avoid majority rule and democratic processes that we have here in America.”
“It’s contrary to the law, it’s a misuse of the judicial process, and its fundamentally anti-Democratic,” he said.
Listen to the interview below:
The post Ohio Attorney General Breaks Down Leftist Legal ‘Trick’ to Block GOP Efforts to Protect Kids appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The attorney general of Ohio has asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene in a matter involving an Ohio judge who temporarily blocked a law protecting children from “transgender” surgeries and procedures.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook had issued a temporary restraining order for House Bill 68, the Saving Ohio Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, on Tuesday.
That law bars physicians from performing “transgender reassignment” surgeries on children and from prescribing cross-sex hormones or drugs to block children’s puberty. It also would allow students to sue if they are deprived of a fair playing field in sports due to transgender activism (such as a boy who “identifies” as a girl playing on a girls’ volleyball team) and would protect parents’ rights to raise their children according to their biological sex.
A supermajority of Republican lawmakers voted to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s controversial veto of the bill in January, and before Holbrook blocked it, it was scheduled to go into effect on April 24.
On Monday, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the Medical Board of Ohio, and the state of Ohio filed an emergency motion for a writ of prohibition, asking that Holbrook be ordered to modify his temporary restraining order to “comply with Ohio statutory and procedural limitations.”
“Ohio statutes, civil rules, and equitable principles authorize Ohio courts to grant preliminary injunctive relief only to parties before the court and only as to provisions that allegedly harm them,” the complaint says. “Respondent’s injunction vastly oversteps those express limitations on the court’s authority.”
The Ohio attorney general also argues that immediate relief is required because the judge and the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County “patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to grant preliminary equitable relief to millions of individuals not before the court, or to enjoin statutory provisions that plaintiffs do not allege harm them.”
Additionally, the filing states the judge’s order “foments uncertainty” in a “broad array of institutions and actors” that are affected by the law, including hospitals, schools, and universities.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had filed a lawsuit on behalf of a child who allegedly identifies as transgender and that child’s family. When Holbrook temporarily blocked the law, ACLU of Ohio’s legal director, Freda Levenson, said in a statement that the ACLU was “thrilled and relieved” that “transgender youth can continue, for the near term at least, to access medically necessary health care.”
“Our legal battle will continue until, we hope, this cruel restriction is permanently blocked,” Levenson said. “Ohio families have a constitutional right to make personal health care decisions without government intrusion.”
Yost’s Monday filing came a week after the United States Supreme Court paved the way for Idaho to enforce its law protecting children from so-called gender-affirming care, or transgender surgeries and procedures. A judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, had temporarily blocked Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act in December, The Washington Post reported.
After Idaho appealed the block and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to change the lower court opinion, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
“Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador said in a statement praising the ruling, The Washington Post reported. “No one has the right to harm children, and I’m grateful that we, as a state, have the power—and duty—to protect them.”
The post After Judge Blocks Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Surgeries, Ohio Calls on State Supreme Court to Intervene appeared first on The Daily Signal.
FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Eva Edl turned 10 years old in a World War II-era death camp.
She believes she may die in a United States prison.
Charged by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, Edl faces up to 11 years in prison and $350,000 fines. She is about to turn 89 years old.
“When I was indicted, I began to prepare to die there,” she said thoughtfully in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. “Right now, I am ambivalent. … I’m doing the best I can to get ready. Haven’t talked to a funeral director yet.”
“I’m just being sensible,” she added. “There’s no guarantee that I survive it.”
Drawing on her brutal experiences with communism in what was then Yugoslavia, she refuses to underestimate those who have the power to oppress her, recalling how her mother couldn’t believe they were in danger until it was too late.
“We haven’t done anything wrong! Who would harm us?” she remembered her mother saying.
“Then our whole people was destroyed,” Edl said. “We hadn’t done anything wrong, as far as I know.”
As Danube Swabians, an ethnic German-speaking group, Edl and her family were rounded up in the aftermath of World War II by soldiers under the direction of Yugoslavia’s communist leader, Josip Broz, commonly known as Tito.
She described how she was shipped off in cattle cars to a concentration camp in Yugoslavia at age 9: “We were packed body to body, and being a small child, I could hardly breathe. We had no food, no water … .”
The camp (named Gakowa, or Gakovo, according to Edl) was “primitive,” she said, and its purpose was the extermination of the Danube Swabians. Many of those in Gakowa with Edl died from starvation or disease and were buried in mass graves.
She slept on straw. She had her one dress. Very little food.
“You couldn’t wash your clothes because all you have is that one dress,” she explained. “So, you were filthy. And then we had diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, and rats and anything you could imagine, and we had no toilet facilities to contain all that. We had an outhouse. Well, how do you have masses of people with diarrhea just go to one outhouse? So, you know what happened. And filth and disease went rampant.”
Her mother, forced to work as a slave laborer in the fields, escaped and smuggled herself into the camp in a wagon full of corn, determined to find her young daughter among the thousands of prisoners, Edl says. Soldiers poked through the load of corn with bayonets, just barely missing her mother.
Edl’s mother finally found her young daughter lying on a pile of rancid straw, starving, too weak to walk, “festering” with lice and other creatures.
The scene was so horrific that it caused Edl’s mother to rush outside and vomit, although Edl did not learn this until years later. At the time, she was so weak she could barely register her mother’s presence, and she could scarcely recognize her mother, thin and emaciated as she was. But it seemed to Edl a miracle that they had been reunited—even in a concentration camp.
“I just couldn’t believe it was her,” she explained. “It took a while.”
Edl’s stories of her time in the death camp feature many brave women: her grandmother, who voluntarily chose to go to the concentration camp with her in order to protect her; her mother, who repeatedly risked death to reunite her children and get them safely to the United States; and her sister, who, forced by a soldier to dig her own grave, looked him in the eye and dared him to kill her. (He didn’t, according to Edl.)
So, it should come as no surprise that Edl, after she came to the United States in 1955 and was exposed to a human rights crisis she had never before heard of, decided that she must do whatever was in her power to save lives.
Edl took an English course around 1968, and during the course, someone brought up whether or not the United States should legalize abortion. (Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was a constitutional right to abortion, did not come about until 1973.)
“I didn’t know what [abortion] meant,” Edl said. She was blown away by the explanation she received. As she spoke with The Daily Signal, she reflected that an unborn baby is not a tumor, but a life. No one should have the ability to just end a baby’s life, she said.
“I tried to speak up in that subject, but I must have done a very bad job because I don’t think I convinced the person that I was speaking with. And after that, I just brought the subject up all the time because it bothered me that people would actually think of killing their own children.”
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, she first learned that abortions don’t take place in a secretive, underhanded fashion; rather, that unborn babies are aborted within abortion clinics, places that openly advertise their gruesome services. Edl was shocked.
Hundreds of pro-life protesters demonstrated outside the convention beginning in July 1988. In October 1988, police arrested about 400 protesters in connection to those demonstrations, The New York Times reported.
It was during that time period, after discussing the matter with her husband and getting his blessing, that Edl joined the protesters as they prayed outside an abortion clinic in Atlanta and attempted to dissuade women from going inside and aborting their babies.
“We are doing what we are condemning others for,” Edl says she told her husband at the time. “This is what people should have done for us.”
She was arrested that day with many others, led by Operation Rescue leader Randall Terry.
Edl says the police treated them brutally, dislocating the arms of many of the protesters arrested. The pro-life activists had been warned that police were prepared to be brutal, she explained, and to avoid any appearance of accosting police, the activists crawled on their knees rather than walked.
“I was weeping the whole time,” she said. “I must have left a trail of tears … .”
She was inconsolable that America would even consider aborting its unborn.
“America, in my eyes, was this country of justice and opportunity and everything that is good,” she said. “A beacon for us, over there, that didn’t know what all that meant, because we had nothing but oppression from whoever was ruling us at the time.”
When an officer put his hand on her shoulders, she froze, as she had been instructed.
“I heard somebody say, ‘Just use your nightstick,’ and I thought, ‘Oh, Lord, here they come. They’re going to club me.’ They just put the club, the nightstick, behind my arms. They hung me on it and nearly dislocated my shoulders, and just threw me on the bus. Other people got their shoulders totally dislocated; others got their heads bashed in. Some ended up in the hospital.”
That was her first “rescue”—the term that pro-life activists use for their attempts to stop abortions from taking place at an abortion clinic. Under the FACE Act, such activity is considered a crime.
The FACE Act prohibits use of force, obstruction, or property damage intended to interfere with “reproductive health care services.” Though it theoretically protects houses of worship and pregnancy resource centers, as well as abortion clinics, the Biden administration’s Justice Department has largely used FACE to prosecute pro-life activists like Edl.
Since 2022, the year the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Justice Department has hit a total of 40 pro-life activists with FACE-related charges at five different rescues, or “blockades” as the DOJ calls them.
Edl describes a rescue in the following way: “We would put our bodies in front of the entrance of the abortion clinic, which I call the ‘death camp,’ so nobody could come in and kill the babies.”
Since that October 1988 incident, Edl says, she has been part of more than 50 rescues throughout the United States. She also says that she has been arrested about 50 times.
Now, she faces prison time.
“To the best of my knowledge, I am facing around 11 years in prison and $350,000 fines,” she said.
The Justice Department has thrice charged Edl with violating the FACE Act, first for an “August 2020 blockade” of a Sterling Heights, Michigan, abortion clinic; second for an April 2021 “blockade” in Saginaw, Michigan; and third for a March 2021 incident at a Nashville, Tennessee, abortion clinic. The DOJ charged eight defendants in the Sterling Heights incident and 11 defendants in the Nashville incident.
Edl maintains that she never committed any violence against those at the abortion clinics. (The DOJ would not respond to requests for comment about its charges against her.) She says that her actions are completely justified, given that she is trying to save the lives of babies about to be aborted.
“Let me liken it to something,” Edl explained thoughtfully as we discussed her arrests around the country. She referred back to her time in Gakowa. “When we were rounded up to be killed, we were placed in cattle cars, and our train was headed toward the extermination camp. What if citizens of my country would have overcome their fear, and a number of them stood on those railroad tracks between the gate of the entrance to the death camp and the train? The train would have to stop. And while the guards on those trains would be busy rounding up the ones that were in front of the train, another group could have come in, pried open our cattle car and possibly set us free, but nobody did.”
She has heard stories that people stood by the roadside and wept as the cattle cars went by. “But that didn’t help us any,” she said.
“So, when we place our bodies between the woman and the clinic, we buy time to get our sidewalk counselors the opportunity to speak with women, and hopefully open their hearts with love for their babies and let their babies live,” the death camp survivor said.
“After all,” she added, “we offer them everything there is, including adoptions. I’ve offered to adopt babies on the spot … we’re standing between the killer and the victim.”
Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994, and then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law that same year. Spearheaded by the now-deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the legislation was a response to attacks on abortionists and abortion clinics. Pro-life advocates made sure that the legislation included clauses stating that it also protects churches and pregnancy resource centers.
In recent months, some conservative lawmakers and activists have called for the legislation to be repealed, arguing that it has been weaponized against pro-life activists.
They point to the large number of DOJ FACE charges against pro-life activists, noting that hundreds of churches and pregnancy resource centers have been attacked by pro-abortion vandals since the May 2022 leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned. The DOJ has charged only five pro-abortion vandals in connection with attacks on Florida pregnancy centers and an Ohio pregnancy center.
It appears that no vandals have been charged with FACE for attacking churches.
Edl, who has followed the FACE Act and its application since its inception, said she was arrested in Kennedy’s office when she went to talk to him about it in the 1990s.
“Instead of talking to us, he had us arrested,” she said of Kennedy.
She believes that she and her fellow pro-life activists are being targeted through the FACE Act because they “are in the way of [the Biden administration’s] agenda.” She has lived through 13 presidents in her lifetime, and she says that Biden is the worst of them.
Edl and the other defendants accused of violating the FACE Act have said that they are not allowed to show images or pictures in their trials. They are not allowed to say that they acted in order to save lives—the lives of unborn babies.
At the end of the day, however, she seems very at peace about the possible penalties. She’s getting her affairs in order. She had a bench trial in federal court in Nashville, where a federal judge found her and several others guilty of violating the FACE Act.
Edl and the other three defendants face a maximum of six months in prison, five years of supervised release, and fines of up to $10,000 in this case, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee.
She will be sentenced July 30, she said. And her next trial is in federal court in Detroit on Aug. 6.
“I feel very strongly, because of my background, that human life is sacred,” she said simply. “Government does not have the authority to permit what God forbids.”
“And murder is forbidden by God.”
The post EXCLUSIVE: She Survived a Death Camp. Facing Biden DOJ Charges, She Is Prepared to Die in Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal.
House Democrats released an agenda Thursday that includes a vow to codify a right to so-called gender-affirming care—transgender surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers.
The promise came within the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ agenda, which House Democrats first shared with NBC News. That agenda includes a slew of left-wing interests, including promises of a higher minimum wage and stronger antitrust laws.
“If the progressive base is not excited and enthusiastic—and if they don’t feel like we are trying to earn their votes and that they are important—then I think the horrific idea of a second Donald Trump presidency could become reality,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the progressive caucus, told NBC News in an interview. “We cannot afford to let that happen. And we won’t.”
Although NBC claims that the agenda goes “lighter on cultural issues,” under the category “advancing justice,” it promises to “codify the rights of transgender, nonbinary and intersex people, including gender-affirming care and health care.”
Jayapal did not respond to requests for comment for this article explaining what, exactly, codifying a right to “gender-affirming care” would entail.
In March 2023, she joined with other Democrats in introducing a “Trans Bill of Rights,” citing the rise in parental rights laws, laws protecting kids from gender transitions, and laws prohibiting boys from participating in girls and women’s sports.
“Day after day, we see a constant onslaught of anti-trans rhetoric and legislation coming from elected officials. Today, we say enough is enough,” Jayapal said at the time. “Our Trans Bill of Rights says clearly to the trans community across the country that we see you, and we will stand with you, to ensure you are protected and given the dignity and respect that every person should have.”
That legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include gender identity as “protected characteristics.” It would also amend federal education laws to say that they protect kids from being discriminated against based on gender identity.
The Trans Bill of Rights also called for ensuring that “every child has the right to grow up in a supportive environment by having their authentic identity respected in the classroom, ensuring they can participate in school sports with their peers, and ensuring access to an inclusive curriculum.”
It further called for “expanding access” to trans surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers and codifying rights to abortion and contraception.
Jayapal told NBC News that progressive Democrats assume “this is an agenda for a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.”
She added: “We have to excite our base. We have to show them what the path forward is—not just say, ‘This is the most important election of your life, and we expect you to vote.’ I don’t think that’s going to turn people out. And so, I think this agenda, really, speaks to the needs of poor people, working people, progressives across the country who want us to make that case to them.”
“We are not seeing the momentum that we would like to see,” she told NBC. We’re going to have a tough election. … We know we’re going to have to put together that progressive coalition. And I think this is the thing that allows us to say, “‘Look, here’s what we’re fighting for.’”
The post House Democrats Vow to Codify ‘Rights’ to Trans Surgeries, Hormones, Puberty Blockers appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra refused on Tuesday to condemn or even distance himself from abortions of unborn babies who are ready to be delivered.
During a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Becerra repeatedly told Sen. John Kennedy that he supports the abortion limitations that were encompassed in Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned in June 2022, when asked if he supports aborting babies up until the moment of birth.
Kennedy, R-La., pressed Becerra: “Would you support making it illegal to abort a baby, if the mother is healthy, and the baby is healthy, on the day before that baby is scheduled to be born?”
WATCH:
.@SenJohnKennedy to HHS Secretary Becerra: "Would you support making it illegal to abort a baby, if the mother is healthy, and the baby is healthy, on the day before that baby is scheduled to be born?"
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 16, 2024
Becerra refuses to directly answer.
pic.twitter.com/uSuX9RO1NI
The HHS secretary would not directly respond to the question, claiming that no one wants to get abortions so late in pregnancy.
“I certainly would support the reestablishment of Roe v. Wade,” he responded, adding, “Senator, if you talk to any woman, she’ll tell you that she uses common sense in making her decisions.”
Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt similarly pressed the HHS secretary on Kennedy’s line of questioning.
“If Roe v. Wade were the law of the land, and a woman wanted to take the life of her child the day before her child was due, or the day after her child was due, then you support her ability to do that?”
She followed up on this by adding: “There’s seven states in this country, and the District of Columbia, that allow you to take the life of a child the moment before a child is born, so clearly you support a woman’s right to choose to do that?”
Becerra told Britt that the example she gave was “fiction.”
“Can you give me a particular example?” he asked.
“If it actually is fiction, then why not say no?” she asked. “That that is out of the realm of possibility?”
WATCH:
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra refused today to condemn the abortion of a baby that is about to be born: “The example you gave is fiction.”@SenKatieBritt: “Then why not say no?”
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) April 16, 2024
pic.twitter.com/kLQFnZl1HS
Britt then went on to passionately describe a graphic abortion procedure in which the abortionist crushes and dismembers the unborn baby, delivering the baby breech, opening the baby’s head with scissors, and sucking out the baby’s body.
“If that child is then delivered alive, do you believe that the child on that table, that we should be able to save that child, or do you believe that our taxpayer dollars give this woman the right to say, ‘Don’t save my child?’” she asked.
Becerra is among many officials in President Joe Biden’s administration who refuse to specify what abortion restrictions, if any, they support. Becerra did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal.
The post WATCH: HHS Secretary Won’t Condemn Abortions Up Until Birth appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vaunce News 