I, frankly, think AB-5 was the right thing to do in clarifying the difference between independent and employee, which is what it does.
John Garamendi
The Public Record
John Raymond Garamendi is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California's 8th congressional district since January 3, 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he has focused on issues such as healthcare, education, and environmental protection during his tenure in Congress. Garamendi has also been an advocate for veterans and military families, reflecting California's significant military presence.
We climbed off the bus and congratulated him for speaking the truth that what is the Trump Administration up to, trying to play games with the $400 million of absolutely essential military equipment hardware supplies, as well as the…
For the President to be claiming that his conversation with the President of Ukraine was really all about fighting corruption in Ukraine, and Rudy Giuliani was at the pointy-end of the spear of an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine, is just…
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), my good friend, is a true conservative. I know him. I know him well. We have had many, many discussions. The gentleman is a true conservative, and he really does believe in the Constitution…
I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, this is really about the Constitution. Madison, in the Federalist Papers, wrote that the appropriations power--that is…
But you have not asked for or received specific information on that issue, even though it would be a question of the emoluments and the lease itself?
Is that your view? Is that correct, that he does maintain a financial interest in the property?
All of us have taken the oath of office, and it basically says, 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance…
The Constitution is very, very clear that the President cannot receive an emolument from a foreign power, prince or State, or from the United States beyond his salary, or from a State.
They pushed aside the fundamental constitutional issue of emoluments and simply said, that is not relevant. Is that correct?





