davidson, warren Rep 4%
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/warren-davidson">https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/warren-davidson</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4%* 4% life</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) is <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/gop-gun-mass-shooting-bow-arrow-warren-davidson-cnn-banned-gun-ban-1719326" target="_blank" class="rm-stats-tracked">facing deep scrutiny</a>
after insisting that the United States could see an uptick in mass
shootings with arrows if guns are banned. During a recent news
interview, CNN's Pamela Brown asked Davidson if he could admit "that
mass shooting could not happen" without guns.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Republican
lawmaker dismissed Brown's argument and, instead, focused on a different
hypothetical scenario. <b>He pondered the possibility of mass shootings
occurring with arrows if guns end up being banned</b>. As the clip of the
interview began circulating on Twitter, social media users quickly
chimed in to share their criticism of Davidson. </font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Yeah, no such thing
as an 'assault crossbow,' though," one Twitter user pointed out. "So it
kinda takes a lot longer to kill as many people..."</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a36741995/tucker-carlson-january-6-fbi-republicans/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: currentcolor none medium;">https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a36741995/tucker-carlson-january-6-fbi-republicans/</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small;"><p class="body-dropcap" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 1.25rem 47.6px; box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Sedition Caucus within the Republican minority in the House of Representatives. <a class="body-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6/2021/06/15/1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html" target="_blank" data-vars-ga-outbound-link="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/21-house-republicans-vote-against-awarding-congressional-gold-medal-to-all-police-officers-who-responded-on-jan-6/2021/06/15/1fd17ac2-ce25-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: currentcolor none 0px; box-sizing: border-box; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0) linear-gradient(rgb(213, 219, 227) 0px, rgb(213, 219, 227) 100%) repeat-x scroll 0px 100% / 0px 0px; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(255, 58, 48); padding-top: 0.05rem; padding-bottom: 0.05rem; transition: background 0.4s ease-in-out 0s, color 0.4s ease-in-out 0s;">Here is a good place to start</a> if you’re formulating a roster.</font></p><blockquote class="body-blockquote" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px; margin: 1.5625rem 0px; clear: both; line-height: 1.5; padding: 0.3125rem 0px 0.3125rem 4.7rem; position: relative;"><font style="" size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Harris (Md.),</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> Lance Gooden (Tex.)</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Michael Cloud (Tex.), Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.), Greg Steube (Fla.)</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">, Bob Good (Va.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">) and John Rose (Tenn.). Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Barry Moore (Ala.), </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ralph Norman (S.C.)</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">,</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.), </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Chip Roy (Tex.), Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.),</span><b style="background-color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Warren Davidson (Ohio</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">), Scott Perry (Pa.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Mary Miller (Ill.).</span></font></blockquote><p class="body-text" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px 0px 1.25rem 47.6px; box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">My favorites among the bunch are the 10 Republicans who previously voted for awarding the gold medal [to capitol police?] who flipped to vote "no" on Wednesday. What a noble clutch of primates they are. And while some of the names are those of familiar space aliens, there are some newbies in there with whom I was not familiar. For example, there's Mary Miller of Illinois, who wasn’t in office for a week before she started quoting Hitler....</font></p></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nyag push back:</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Honorable Lamar Smith July 26, 2016 Page 7 of 10 the vague and shifting statements of purpose by the Chair and Committee members “leave the matter in grave doubt.” See id. at 206. The Subpoena does not describe the investigation’s subject matter or how the material sought might further the Committee’s inquiry. Nor has the Committee pointed to any specific authorizing resolution. Other sources shed minimal light on the inquiry’s true goal: The May 18, 2016 letter professed (at 1) that the Committee was “conducting oversight of a coordinated attempt to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.” The letter went on to question the state investigators’ “impartiality and independence” and their use of state “taxpayer dollars” (at 4), and whether the investigations “run counter to an attorney general’s duty to serve” the public interest or “amount to an abuse of prosecutorial discretion” (at 1). The letter of June 17, 2016 (at 2) shifted the focus from state to federal taxpayers, relaying a new purpose of “ensuring that all scientists, especially those conducting taxpayer-funded research, have the freedom to pursue any and all legitimate avenues of inquiry.” The letter concluded (at 3–4) by stating that “[t]he Committee’s investigation is intended to determine whether” the various state investigations were “chill[ing] scientific research, including research that is federally-funded.” The letter of July 6, 2016 (at 2) goes farther, calling it “a goal of this Committee” to protect the ability of all scientists “to conduct research uninhibited by the potential adverse effects of investigations by law enforcement”—now apparently without regard for whether the investigation is lawful or chills protected speech, as distinguished from unprotected speech, including speech used to perpetrate fraud. Finally, at a press conference about the Subpoena, the Chair and several Committee members returned to the premise that state officials were abusing their discretion. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">According to Rep. <b>Darin LaHood (R-IL</b>), “[p]rosecutors shouldn’t be in this business. It really is an abuse of power.” To Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), the Attorneys General are acting “way beyond the scope of their job duties.” According to Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), the Attorneys General “are using taxpayer dollars from their states to manufacture charges to send a political message,” which “demonstrates a clear deviation from the legal duties of an Attorney General and the possible abuse of their judgment.</span>” Chairman Smith likened the investigations “to a form of extortion” to prod settlements, so that the Attorneys General “can obtain funds for their own purposes.”5 As the Supreme Court has held, “an authoritative specification” of the investigation’s subject matter is “necessary for the determination of pertinency.” Gojack, 384 U.S. at 717</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2016_07_26_nyoag_letter_to_sst_objecting_to_subpoena.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: currentcolor none medium;">https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2016_07_26_nyoag_letter_to_sst_objecting_to_subpoena.pdf</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div>