Look How Trey Gowdy Just Fired Back After Getting Hit By Major Legal Action

Congressman Trey Gowdy’s office slammed a lawsuit filed by a fired staffer alleging that the congressman violated the law with his Benghazi committee ,calling it “meritless” and “improper” on Monday.

The November 23 lawsuit filed by a former staffer named Bradley Podliska, an Air Force reserve major who Gowdy, R -S.C., fired in June for mishandling classified information, alleges a long list of violations supposedly perpetrated against him, including that he was improperly fired. But Podliska’s most explosive claim is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi is a “witch hunt” launched to “get” Hillary Clinton for her response to the attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Gowdy’s office calls the whole thing nothing short of an attack against the Committee’s legitimate functions.

“The committee understands that a lawsuit has been filed by Bradley Podliska asserting claims pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, among others,” Gowdy spokesman Jamal Ware said in a statement according to The Blaze. “We disagree strongly with those claims, which are meritless and which improperly strike at the heart of the committee’s legislative functions.”

As to the former staffer’s claims about Clinton, Ware insists that Podliska himself asked committee interns to take up partisan projects, even though he was warned against doing so.

Along with a raft of allegations, the suit claims that Gowdy made statements that damaged Podliska’s reputation.

“Chairman Gowdy, personally and through his agents, tied these defamatory statements to Podliska’s firing to damage Podliska’s reputation and his ability to seek or secure employment in his chosen field, depriving Podliska of his rights under the Constitution,” the suit reads.

Podliska also claims he was the only one punished for improperly handling evidence, and that his firing was improper. “Ultimately, Plaintiff was the only one of the four accused of the trumped-up security violation to be reprimanded by the Majority Staff or subjected to any adverse employment action,” the suit says.

Podliska further alleges that he was fired for taking time off to fulfill his military duties, a claim that Gowdy’s office strongly disputes.

“The committee did not and does not discriminate or retaliate based on military service, military status or any other unlawful factor,” Ware added.

The congressman’s spokesman also pointed out that the committee employs several active members of the military, and that none of them have ever been penalized for fulfilling their duties to the service.

Gowdy’s office assured the American people that all of the claims in Podliska’s suit are false, and that Gowdy’s office will be “fully exonerated.”

Podliska’s lawsuit demands his reinstatement as a committee investigator, recovery of lost wages and other damages. He also seeks “a permanent injunction barring Chairman Gowdy from repeating false, defamatory and injurious statements” that have been made about him.

BREAKING: House Just Stuck It To Obama With Hugely Defiant Vote – 47 Dems Joined In

The House of Representatives Thursday defied President Obama’s threat of a veto and voted, 289-137, to impose new screening requirements on Syrian and Iraqi refugees trying to enter the United States.

The bill was supported by 47 Democrats. Only two Republicans opposed it. The House plan would bar any refugees from Syria or Iraq from entering the United States until the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence certify that each one is not dangerous.

“If our law enforcement and our intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in,” said Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

“The status quo is not acceptable,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas. “The American people want us to act in light of what’s happened.”

Other lawmakers agreed.

“I cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the American public,” said Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb.

“It is against the values of our nation and the values of a free society to give terrorists the opening they are looking for,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

The bill comes after Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. At least one attacker posed as a Syrian refugee, officials have disclosed. These events created new opposition to Obama’s plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.

Despite its passage, the bill on Thursday lacked enough votes to override a presidential veto. Republican aides said that absences could change that picture if an override vote becomes necessary.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t plan to let that happen.

“The problem is not with refugees,” Reid said. “I don’t think we’ll be dealing with it over here.”

When asked about a presidential veto and a potential override, Reid said, “don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?”

If the bill is blocked in the Senate, House Republicans may force the issue through an omnibus government spending bill, which has to be passed by Dec. 11 to keep the government operating.

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said he would vote against a spending bill that doesn’t contain provisions halting the refugee program.

“I think that we have to exert maximum leverage,” Salmon said.

h/t: The Hill

BREAKING: Paul Ryan Calls For HUGE Move Regarding Syrian Refugee Program

After ISIS terrorists launched a massive attack in Paris, a list of up to 27 U.S. governors now say that they oppose President Obama’s plan to continue importing Syrian refugees into the U.S. Responding to the trend, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan added his voice to the call to “pause” Obama’s importation of possible terrorists.

On Tuesday, November 17, the Wisconsin Republican called for a pause in Obama’s intentions of greatly expanding the importation of Syrian refugees so that the House can take up the issue and vote on new legislation.

“This is a moment where it is better to be safe than to be sorry, so we think the prudent, the responsible thing is to take a pause in this particular aspect of this refugee program in order to verify that terrorists are not trying to infiltrate the refugee population,” Ryan said in a press conference Tuesday.

As CNN reports, the newly ensconced Speaker of the House announced that he is creating a task force made up of the Republican chairmen from the Homeland Security, Armed Services, Intelligence, Appropriations, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees to craft legislation concerning the refugee issue, and to look at security measures.

Ryan said he did not want to put the matter off until the vote on a spending bill next month.

“This is not about politics. This is about national security,” he said.

The speaker had no details on what goals this task force might have set for itself, but insisted that there has to be a better plan to address national security issues.

Several members of Congress have been raising the alarm about Obama’s refugee program, saying that it endangers the country.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions warned about this at a hearing on Oct. 2.

“Refugee resettlement also comes with security risks, as we have witnessed with the surge of ISIS recruitment among Somali-refugee communities in Minnesota,” Sessions said. “Anyone claiming to have a serious and honest discussion of refugee resettlement must ask the difficult questions about integration, assimilation and community safety.”

“We have little or no information about who these people are … no ability to determine whether they are radicalized,” the senator added.

Republican House Intelligence Committee member Peter King also noted that there really isn’t any vetting of these refugees, saying, “as a practical matter, there is no vetting.”

Meanwhile, the governors of 27 states have announced that they will oppose the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states, though there are conflicting opinions on whether state governments have the power to prevent such a thing.

The House Just Looked Obama Right In The Eyes And Did Something They Know He’ll Hate

The House easily passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Thursday, which funds the military through fiscal year 2016. However, the bill did not contain a change requested by President Obama when he vetoed an earlier version of the bill last month.

When Obama vetoed the NDAA, he listed the budget situation under the sequester and his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility before the end of his term as reasons. Regarding the former, the president specifically mentioned $38 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding, which was a way the House used to get around the sequester defense spending budget cap.

The budget deal worked out later in the month, which lifted sequester caps on military and domestic spending (a stated goal of the president), addressed, at least in part, his first concern; but the revised NDAA left the restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in place. It also cut $5 billion from a defense budget plan submitted by the Obama administration.

The bill enjoyed broad bi-partisan support, passing the House 370-58, which means even most House Democrats were willing to buck the president on closing Guantanamo, which still holds 112 suspected foreign terrorists.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., has indicated he wants to see the House version go through the Senate without further amendments, according to the Washington Post.

“Democratic lawmakers and aides said they expect Obama will sign the revised bill, even with the Guantanamo restrictions, but the White House has not made his intentions clear,” Reuters reports.

“We’ll have to take a look at exactly what passes Congress before making a determination about what the president will sign,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters. He added that the president has not ruled out using an executive order to close Guantanamo, according to Reuters. 

h/t: Washington Examiner

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear before a select committee looking into the attack on a US facility in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

As might be expected, however, the “Benghazi Committee” hearings have proven not much more than a means for each party to grandstand for political points.

In fact, I would call these Congressional hearings “too much, too late.”

Four years after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Libyan government — which left the country a wasteland controlled by competing Islamist gangs and militias — the committee wants to know whether Hillary Clinton had enough guards at the facility in Benghazi on the night of the attack? The most important thing to look into about Libya is Hillary Clinton’s e-mails or management style while Secretary of State?

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization? There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the U.S. was not engaged in “hostilities.” It didn’t pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it.

When the Obama Administration decided to attack Libya, I joined Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others in an attempt to force a vote on the president’s war. I introduced my own legislation warning the administration that, “the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya.”

We even initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the courts to rule on whether the president broke the law in attacking Libya.

Unfortunately, we got nowhere with our efforts. When it looked like we had the votes to pass a resolution introduced by Rep. Kucinich to invoke War Powers Resolution requirements on the president for the use of force in Libya, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote.

Why were there no hearings at the time to discuss this very important Constitutional matter? Because the leadership of both parties wanted the war. Both parties — with few exceptions — agree with the ideology of U.S. interventionism worldwide.

Secretary Clinton defended the State Department’s handling of security at the Benghazi facility by pointing out that there are plenty of diplomatic posts in war zones and that danger in these circumstances is to be expected. However, she never mentioned why Benghazi remained a “war zone” a year after the U.S. had “liberated” Libya from Gaddafi.

Why was Libya still a war zone? Because the U.S. intervention left Libya in far worse shape than it was under Gaddafi. We don’t need to endorse Gaddafi to recognize that today’s Libya, controlled by al-Qaeda and ISIS militias, is far worse off — and more of a threat to the U.S. — than it was before the bombs started falling.

The problem is the ideology of interventionism, not the management of a particular intervention. Interventionism has a terrible track record, from 1953 in Iran, to Vietnam, to 2003 in Iraq, to 2011 in Libya and Syria. A real Congressional hearing should focus on the crimes and mistakes of the interventionists!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.