John Hall Willing to Sweep Pelosi Problem Under the Rug

Hall Blocks Inquiry into Pelosi’s Attacks on CIA

Washington- Rep. John Hall (D-NY) revealed today that he apparently doesn’t share the American people’s concerns for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s very serious claims that the CIA purposely deceived her and other Members of Congress. In a move that can only be described as shocking, Hall and fellow Democrats are using every trick in the book to block a resolution that would allow the Intelligence Committee to obtain records and conduct an inquiry into Pelosi’s recent statements (House Roll Call 283).

“Nancy Pelosi has launched very serious allegations that the CIA knowingly deceived Members of the United States Congress, and the American people have a fundamental right to know the truth,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “It is a disgrace that John Hall is trying to provide political cover for Nancy Pelosi and is standing by her San Francisco values instead of with his constituents in New York.”

The American people deserve to know, to the fullest extent possible, the truth behind Pelosi’s serious allegations. John Hall and Congressional Democrats have resorted to arcane political procedure in order to prevent holding the Speaker accountable for her actions instead of doing everything in their power to find the truth.

John Hall may not be interested in finding out whether Pelosi’s accusations that the CIA misled her are true or not, but certainly the American people think otherwise:

Augusta Chronicle Editorial: "Nancy Pelosi has accused her government of lying to her. But many are coming to believe that she's the liar. In a partisan fever to jump on the now-trendy anti-U.S. bandwagon, she has turned her back on the people who have kept us safe since Sept. 11, 2001." (Editorial, “Disgraced Pelosi should pack it in,” Augusta Chronicle, May 20, 2009)

Cleveland Plain-Dealer Editorial: "Central Intelligence Agency memos state that Pelosi was informed about the questioning of al-Qaida suspects as early as September 2002; the Republican committee chairman who was in the briefing with her agrees. A flustered Pelosi vehemently denied any such knowledge and said the CIA misled her and others in Congress 'all the time.' That drew a sharp rebuke from CIA Director Leon Panetta, a former Democratic member of the House and a fellow Californian. Pelosi has thus guaranteed that the question of who in Washington knew what about possible torture will not be going away anytime soon -- only, now, full and unambiguous answers will be expected from legislative leaders as well as former members of the executive branch." (Editorial, “What's tortured are Pelosi's explanations of what she knew, and when,” May 19, 2009)

Buffalo News Editorial: "If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s immediate reactions to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 included the idea that absolutely anything would be fair game in the CIA’s efforts to prevent future strikes, she would hardly have been alone. It would not be all that shocking to learn that, in 2002, Pelosi and other key members of Congress knew all about the CIA’s 'enhanced interrogation techniques'—spook-speak for torture—and not only didn’t raise a finger to stop it, but cheered it on." (Editorial, “Pelosi’s permutations,” May 20, 2009)

Palm Beach Post Editorial: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has advocated creation of a 'truth commission' to examine charges that the United States tortured detainees under the Bush administration. Though she no doubt envisioned herself as a judge at such a tribunal, Rep. Pelosi could find herself as a defendant. The Watergate coverup question - What did you know and when did you know it? - is tripping up Rep. Pelosi, who has looked uncomfortable and evasive in recent news conferences." (Editorial, “The truth starts with Pelosi,” May 18, 2009)

Trentonian Editorial: "She led the demands for an inquisition of Bush administration officials who were involved in the use of coercive interrogation tactics to extract possible life-saving information from key terrorist figures. Never mind, as President Obama’s intelligence czar says, the tactics yielded 'high value information.' Pelosi was in the forefront of the partisan mob shouting that Bush administration heads must roll. Her aggressive sanctimony suggested that she was shocked, shocked to learn that the Bush administration had used such tactics. Then it came to light that as a member of the House intelligence committee, she had been informed of these tactics, along with other leading House Democrats, during CIA briefings, and never raised any objections at the time." (Editorial, “Pants on fire,” May 19, 2009)

Chicago Tribune Editorial: "Pelosi apparently didn't have a problem back then with harsh methods that were used on some suspects when the threat of repeat attacks seemed most acute. But now she would like to rewrite history, and extend a political war that voters thought they settled with the last presidential election. Confidence in Pelosi has been eroded by this episode. And, inconvenient for her, that's the truth." (Editorial, “Pelosi and the truth,” May 20, 2009)

Delaware County Daily Times Editorial: "There are significant problems with Pelosi’s attempt to explain herself, not the least of which is her claim that CIA misleads Congress 'all the time.' If that is true, what’s the point of having a CIA? If the agency can’t be counted on to tell our political leaders the truth about what it’s doing, where and when, it should be abolished." (Editorial, “Torture debate is consuming Washington,” May 19, 2009)

Hall Misfires, Opposes Gun Rights

Votes Straight-out Against 2^nd Amendment Protections

Washington- Rep. John Hall (D-NY) let it be known today that he has no interest in protecting his constituents’ constitutional right to bear arms when he voted against upholding their 2^nd amendment rights (House Roll Call 277). There is no way for Hall to spin his way out of this, as it was a very simple yes or no vote:

“The Senate measure also contains a provision that bars the Interior Department from prohibiting individuals from possessing a gun in any national park or national wildlife refuge if such possession is permitted under state law. Currently, only two states and D.C. prohibit all individuals from carrying firearms, and would therefore not be currently affected by the bill's gun provision.” (CQ House Action Reports, May 19, 2009)

“The Senate bill put House Democrats in a tough spot, since they were effectively forced to take a vote against gun control…” (“Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks,” Fox News, May 20, 2009)

“John Hall took an oath to defend the United States Constitution and his vote today against upholding his constituents’ 2^nd Amendment rights flies in the face of his responsibility to represent New Yorkers,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “John Hall is clearly out-of-touch not only with his duties as a public servant, but also with his constituents’ interests and values.”

What’s worse yet is that Hall's position is grossly out-of-touch with not only his constituents, but the nation as a whole. His Democrat Leader in the House even admitted that the overwhelming majority of Americans want their constitutional rights under the 2^nd amendment to be preserved. Recent actions in Congress are a clear sign that any Democrat who doesn’t stand up for Americans’ right to bear arms, is not only on the wrong side of the issue, but isn’t representing their constituents’ interests:

“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admits that Democrats are conceding the gun issue to Republicans for now.

“Republicans have been increasingly using pro-gun amendments to throw a wrench into Democratic legislation, attaching amendments to seemingly unrelated bills allowing for expanded gun carrying privileges in national parks.

“The tactic seems to be working, with Democrats acknowledging that pro-gun members rule in both chambers.

"‘There clearly is a majority in both houses that the Second Amendment rights ... that relate to the national parks are too restricted,’ Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. ‘The reality is that a majority in both houses agree with that position.’" (Isenstadt, “Steny Hoyer says Democrats beaten on guns,” Politico, 5/20/09)

Does John Hall Take the Gitmo Issue Seriously?

Hall Voted to Block Amendment Critical to Ensuring Americans’ National Security

Washington- Rep. John Hall (D-NY) voted today to block an amendment that would put critical safeguards into place to protect American families from terrorists currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (House Roll Call 261).

“President Obama used a Jan. 22 executive order to give the military a year to shut down the prison facility. But nearly four months later the White House, the Defense Department and the Justice Department have not announced what they plan to do with the several hundred detainees still at the facility.” (Molly K. Hooper and Reid Wilson, “Boehner to call for GOP unity on Gitmo detainees,” The Hill 05/13/09)

As Congress takes up an important war spending bill, the issue about what to do with terrorists detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is a critical component of the debate. Democrats in Congress and the President have promised to close Gitmo, but have outright failed to deliver a comprehensive plan for what to do with these detainees and have failed to install certain safeguards to protect Americans from these terrorists.

“John Hall failed to protect his constituents today when he blocked a proposal that would hold the President and Congress accountable for their reckless idea of closing Gitmo with no real plan in place on what to do with the terrorists detained there,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Hall has exposed his unwillingness to take national security seriously at the expense of the safety of American families.”

Today, John Hall voted to block a critical amendment that would have prohibited taxpayer funds from being used to transfer or release Gitmo detainees into the United States. Additionally, this amendment would have required the President to certify in writing that anyone who would be transferred or released does not pose a security risk to the United States. Also, it would require that the President must receive consent from the Governor and State legislature of the State in which the President plans to transfer or release a detainee.

The amendment that John Hall voted to block would have also required that the President submit to Congress a detailed cost analysis for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and related costs to transferring, detaining, prosecuting, or releasing a detainee in the United States by August 22, 2009.

Why doesn’t John Hall want to hold the President and the Congress accountable for their vague idea of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility with no real plan in place?

Despite Murtha's Ethical Woes, John Hall Sticks by His Man

Hall Votes to Block Investigation into Murtha, Inc. Earmark Scandal

Washington- Rep. John Hall (D-NY) apparently has no intention of heeding the calls of the American people and ethical watchdog groups alike to look into the shady earmark dealings of corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha. Today, once again, Hall voted to protect Murtha from a long overdue investigation by the House Ethics Committee (House Roll Call 243). Was he ever sincere about wanting to be a part of the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history?

“…a string of federal criminal investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to Mr. Murtha, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, are threatening to undermine his backroom clout…. In the weeks since the news that prosecutors had raided the offices of the PMA Group — a lobbying firm founded by a former Murtha associate that became a gateway to his office and his biggest source of campaign money — about two dozen rank-and-file Democrats have risked his wrath by calling for a House ethics investigation of the matter. One Democrat has even foresworn seeking earmarks for the military contractors in his district because of ethical concerns about the process.” (David D. Kirkpatrick, “House Heavyweight Feels Threat to Power,” New York Times, 4/25/09)


“Yet again, John Hall has stood by John Murtha and protected him from a House Ethics investigation instead of standing with the American people to clean up the pay-to-play political process,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Hall appears to show no remorse for turning a blind-eye to one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington at the expense of his constituents in New York.”

How much longer will John Hall hold out, as pressure continues to mount against Murtha?

“Democratic leaders have remained in a defensive crouch in the wake of reports that federal investigators are probing the earmark empire of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the defense-spending chief in the House and a close confidant of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“But that position is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Since news broke in February that federal agents raided the offices of the PMA Group and the home of its founder, former House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense aide Paul Magliocchetti, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has kept the issue front and center by calling votes on whether to force an ethics probe. His first attempt gathered 17 votes from the majority party, but Democratic defections on subsequent votes have mounted, reaching 27 on his seventh and latest attempt before the spring recess.

“Those numbers reflect growing anxiety among rank-and-file House Democrats about the ongoing federal probe and the political risk associated with failing to confront it. At a closed-door meeting before the break, Pelosi enlisted Rep. Howard Berman (Calif.), formerly the top Democrat on the ethics committee, to brief lawmakers on why they should continue to resist Flake’s efforts to force a probe. And Berman is expected to reprise the briefing at a longer session, though no date for that has been set yet.” (Tory Newmyer, “Watchdog Groups Want Ethics Panel Probe of PMA Ties,” Roll Call, 4/25/09)

Where Does John Hall Stand on Keeping Terrorists Out of New York?

Under Obama’s Terrorist Importation Executive Order, Gitmo Detainees Could be Relocated to the United States

Washington- One of President Obama’s first executive orders was to close down the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within a year, but with that order came no details about exactly what he would do with the terrorists who are held there. In the absence of a real plan to protect Americans, the terrorists could be relocated to penitentiaries around the United States, potentially ending up in New York.

“President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, one of his first acts after taking office, is putting fellow Democrats on the political hot seat as word spreads that terrorism suspects and other detainees would be relocated to the U.S. or transferred to domestic prisons… States and municipalities around the country are saying ‘not in my backyard,’ and Republicans are raising the prospect of relocated detainees putting Americans in danger.” (Janet Hook, “Democrats face hard time over Guantanamo,” LA Times, May 7, 2009)

But even some of John Hall' fellow Democrats are troubled by Obama’s insistence to close Gitmo without any real plan in place on what to do with the detainees:

“‘They say, “We’re going to close Guantanamo.” OK, fine. How are you going to do that? That’s the question,’ Rep. Neal Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) told POLITICO Thursday. ‘They should have had that worked out from the get-go.’... Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he believed there were prisons in the United States that could handle the Guantanamo detainees, but it’s becoming clear that many states and localities want nothing to do with the terrorist suspects.... On Thursday, House Republicans introduced a bill seeking to make it impossible for Obama to release detainees into the homeland without pre-approval from Congress and individual states.” (Alex Isenstadt, “Democrats see lack of planning on Guantanamo Bay,” Politico, May 8, 2009)

Now that the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act has been introduced into Congress, John Hall has a real opportunity to protect the families in his district, but where does he stand?

“John Hall has the explicit duty to stand up and protect his constituents in the wake of Gitmo’s closing, which could allow dangerous terrorists to be imported to places like New York,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Will John Hall defend the safety of the families in his district and stand up against this dangerous proposal or will he leave the security of American lives in the balance?”

If Rep. John Hall supports this bill, he can stop these terrorists from being imported into his constituents’ backyard. But will he have the resolve to stand up to the president? Or will he stay silent in hopes of avoiding the repercussions by allowing the terrorists to be relocated to places like New York?

Hall campaign manager convicted in Ohio voting fraud probe

Amy Little, former campaign manager for Congressman John Hall, pleaded guilty this week to misdemeanor illegal voting charges.

The fifty-year old resident of New Paltz, New York was sentenced to year of probation, a 60-day suspended jail sentence, and fined $1,000.

Bizarrely, while being investigated and eventually convicted of voter fraud, Little herself was the keynote speaker on a forum on "Democratizing Elections: Permanent Registration, Public Funding, Weekend election Day, and Problems with Electronic Voting Machines" at Manhattanville College earlier this month.

Hall's campaign paid Little $11,139 in consulting and travel fees during the 2008 election cycle.

Little had been charged in Ohio during a get-out-the-vote effort during last year's presidential campaign.