Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

During his testimony, Jim Comey admitted that President Trump had the right to fire Comey. Comey also admitted that President Trump had the right to instruct the then-FBI Director to stop his investigation into Gen. Flynn. We know from this transcript, during Sen. Rubio’s cross-examination that Sen. Rubio said “He said, ‘If one of my satellites’ — I imagine, by that, he meant some of the other people surrounding his campaign — ‘did something wrong, it would be great to know that, as well”?

At that point in Mr. Comey’s testimony, it’s pretty clear that President Trump wasn’t interrupting the FBI investigation. Later in Mr. Comey’s testimony, Mr. Comey admitted that he’d sent some information to friend of his so his friend could leak the information to the NYTimes and trigger the appointing of a special counsel.

Here’s what I’m questioning. President Trump wasn’t attempting to hinder Mr. Comey’s investigation. Further, Comey’s a skilled litigator so he knows that many elements of obstruction of justice aren’t present. Gregg Jarett wrote comprehensively about the required elements of obstruction in this article. Specifically, Jarrett wrote “Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act ‘corruptly.’ The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey.”

I’m questioning Mr. Comey’s integrity because he’s testified that President Trump acted within his authority when the president terminated Comey and because the required elements of obstruction don’t exist.

If that’s true, then what’s Mr. Comey motivation for pushing for a special counsel? President Trump acted lawfully. He certainly didn’t threaten or bribe investigators. He certainly didn’t destroy documents or conceal evidence. At some point, shouldn’t people admit that there’s nothing here? Alan Dershowitz seems to think that we’ve reached that point:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday night on Almanac, they opened their show with a panel of Kathryn Pearson, Larry Jacobs and David Schultz talking about the Comey hearing. Toward the end of the panel, one of the panelists (I can’t remember which) said that, as a result of the hearing, the investigation would focus on the obstruction of justice charges Democrats are pressing against President Trump. Apparently, the panelists weren’t listening during the hearing because the star witness, Jim Comey, said the President didn’t commit obstruction of justice.

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz was paying attention during the hearing. In fact, he’s been saying for months that a president can’t obstruct justice if he’s exercising his constitutional authority, which is what he was doing. Dershowitz told FNC’s Neil Cavuto that President Trump would’ve been within his authority to outright end the investigation by telling Comey not to investigate Michael Flynn or by pardoning Flynn.

It’s time to shut down the House and Senate’s investigations because there’s no there there. Apparently, Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz just want to be faithful Democrats prolonging a fishing expedition as part of the Democrats’ Resistance movement. That doesn’t do anything to fix Obamacare or get the economy running again.

It isn’t just Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz that want to prolong the fishing expedition. Sen. Jack Reed, (D-RI), wants to prolong it, too:

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., however, told “Fox News Sunday” that cutting the collusion probes short would not be appropriate. “We have a separate obligation,” said Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Serves Committee and an “ex officio” member of the intelligence committee which heard testimony from Comey.

A separate obligation for what, Sen. Reed? It’s one thing if you had proof. It’s another when this ‘investigation’ looks more like a fishing expedition. You don’t have a separate obligation to conduct hyper-partisan fishing expeditions while ignoring the health care crisis.

I’m tired of the Democrats constantly being the obstructionist party that never proposes solutions to the biggest crises of the day. It’s impossible to get things done when the Democrats operate in bad faith.

As for Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz, it’s pretty obvious that they’re Democratic Party hacks.

Ben Domenech’s article highlights the media’s war against President Trump. This isn’t surprising. It’s just disgusting at an unprecedented level. The only thing that’s disgusting at a more unprecedented level is the hyper-partisanship in Pinheadville, aka college campuses.

Domenech’s primary example of the media’s hatred of President Trump is CNN, which he described as having “eight-person panels where not one person defending the administration is represented.” Domenech later wrote “A network that once strove to be centrist in their approach is now openly antagonistic, and will run with the thinnest of scoops for hours at a time in order to make their case against President Trump.” Just this week, CNN had to run a correction. They started with an article titled “Comey expected to refute Trump.” When Comey didn’t refute Trump, they changed the title to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction.”

Let’s be clear. CNN and the networks don’t traffic in verifiable information. They traffic in things that make for juicy clickbait. Their primary goal was summed up perfectly in this quote:

analyst Gloria Borger put matters more starkly, saying, ‘Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.’”

Hours later, Ms. Borger had to eat crow. Comey didn’t dispute President Trump’s statements. Ms. Borger’s statement was proven verifiably false in front of 20,000,000 people.

Another important facet of the Hate Trump media’s attack against President Trump is the outright vitriol displayed against him. On Thursday’s late version of Outnumbered, former HRC State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that “Six months into President Trump’s presidency, he is best known for impeachment.”

With all due respect to Ms. Harf, that isn’t difficult to believe considering the constant dishonest bombardment by the Democratic Party, especially the media wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM.

The Democratic Party is totally invested in taking down President Trump. The media wing of the Democratic Party is essentially frantic about Trump’s obstruction of justice, which has been virtually dismantled by Alan Dershowitz:

and Jonathan Turley:

It’s time for Robert Mueller to close shop and report that making foolish statements isn’t a crime, much less something worthy of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, President Trump has nominated “Christopher A. Wray, the former assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to be the next FBI director.”

According to the article, “Wray headed up the Justice Department’s criminal division from 2003 to 2005 under President George W. Bush and is currently a litigation partner at the DC-based law firm King & Spalding, where he chairs the firm’s Special Matters and Government Investigations Practice Group.”

Democrats will have to think twice about their strategy on Wray because he “was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 to lead the Justice Department’s criminal division, where he oversaw several high-profile investigations, from the Enron scandal to the Justice Department’s response to terrorism in the wake of 9/11.” Democrats insisted that the next FBI director be from the law enforcement field.

They quickly rejected Joe Lieberman, (I-CT), when his name was floated as a possible replacement for Director even though he was the Democrats’ nominee for VP in 2000. Since then, the Democratic Party has moved steadily left. Moderates like Lieberman aren’t tolerated.

Technorati: Donald Trump, Christopher Wray, Jim Comey, FBI, Department of Justice

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed highlights Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hostility towards President Trump. It also explains why she must disqualify herself on President Trump’s’ travel ban lawsuit.

Jarrett first highlighted RBG’s comments about Trump last summer when she said “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.  For the country, it could be four years.  For the court, it could be –I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Later, she said “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Jarrett then makes the case that these statements Justice Ginsburg’s “words reflect a clear bias, if not personal animus, toward the man who would go on to become president.” Finally, Jarrett cites the federal statute that requires her disqualification from President Trump’s travel ban case if it’s heard by the SCOTUS. Jarrett notes that “28 USC 455” states that “Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

Finally Jarrett puts a finer point on his argument, noting that “the language of the statute is mandatory: “Any Justice shall disqualify” him or herself.”

There’s no question that Justice Ginsburg’s statements highlight a strong anti-Trump political bias. RBG’s statements can’t be taken as anything except her distrust for President Trump.

Jarrett’s closing argument is stated quite eloquently:

The noble traditions of the Supreme Court will be compromised should Ruth Bader Ginsburg decide she is above the law and beyond the scruples it demands.

Technorati: , , , ,

Susan Rice’s NYTimes op-ed is like her term as President Obama’s NSA. It’s dishonest, intellectually imprecise and long on bloviating.

For instance, Ms. Rice said “With shocking speed, he has wreaked havoc: hobbling our core alliances, jettisoning American values and abdicating United States leadership of the world.” First, it’s uncertain that Ms. Rice could identify America’s core values. Next, it’s impossible to picture anyone in the Obama administration understanding or exercising leadership on the world stage.

When President Trump brought together more than 50 Arab leaders together in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that was more leadership than the Obama administration did in 8 years in office. When President Trump told those leaders that the days of Iran’s hegemony in the region were over, those leaders breathed a huge sigh of relief. Compare that with the Obama administration’s overtures towards Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and their releasing $150,000,000,000 to Iran.

That isn’t leadership. That’s 21st century appeasement that Jimmy Carter would be proud of.

And now the president has pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, putting us at odds with virtually the entire world. Europe and China stand together on the Paris accord, while the United States is isolated.

Of course, China supports the Paris climate agreement. They don’t have any major obligations for the next 20+ years. They get to continue polluting at obscene rates for the next quarter century. Meanwhile, the U.S. promises to continue cleaning the air. Why wouldn’t China support such an agreement?

Further, China gets to keep building coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future, thereby gaining a significant competitive advantage economically. It isn’t surprising that we lost ground economically the last 8 years.

That’s the face of dishonesty and appeasement. Listening to her will put you at risk.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This article highlights the fact that money isn’t everything in politics. According to statistics reported by Minnesota’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Board, “party groups and political action committees supporting DFL candidates outspent their Republican opponents in 2016, according to end-of-year finance statements that were due Tuesday with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board from every candidate, party and committee. Despite totals that far exceed recent elections and sometimes massive imbalances in spending, both seats went to Republicans on election night.”

In fact, the article said “Outside groups spent more than $588,000 in 2016 to support Jensen or bash Jasinski through TV, radio, print and online advertising and other support. The Minnesota DFL Central Committee alone spent $330,000 on pro-Jensen advertisements and another $105,000 against Jasinski. Despite such heavy spending, Jasinski won the vote 59 percent to Jensen’s 41 percent. Of course, Jasinski was not without his own third-party support. The Minnesota Action Network PAC and Freedom Club State PAC together spent almost $23,000 in his support and $128,400 against Jensen. Even so, the combined $150,700 spent on his behalf was barely a quarter of what was spent by Jensen supporters.”

This is proof that terrible candidates with a terrible message don’t automatically win. Apparently, that principle applies equally to national and local races. Hillary had tons of money and lost to President Trump. The point is that Democrats don’t have an appealing message. They have an organization that’s shrinking and some wealthy donors but that’s it. That’s as true in Minnesota as it is nationally.

Not far behind Senate District 24 in independent expenditures was House District 24B, in which Republican Rep. Brian Daniels faced a rematch with former Rep. Patti Fritz, both of Faribault, whom he had defeated two years before. On Election Day, he retained his seat by a margin of 58 percent to 41 percent.

Then there’s this:

All told, independent expenditures from Fritz allies came to almost $388,000, with another $299,000 spent on behalf of Daniels. Combined, the district drew about $687,000, a 916 percent increase from two years before.

Eugene Robinson’s latest article is proof that there aren’t many great strategists left in the Democratic Party. A topnotch political strategist wouldn’t say “In the two weeks since, Trump has only piled outrage upon outrage, as far as progressives are concerned. He took the first steps toward building his ridiculous wall along the southern border, but with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, not Mexico’s. He squelched government experts who work on climate change. He weakened the Affordable Care Act in the hope that it would begin to collapse, which would make it easier for Congress to kill it.”

That’s because they’d know that the ACA started collapsing a year ago. Its collapse is inevitable because it’s terrible legislation. A relatively healthy person is better off not buying insurance because the ACA’s out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductibles) in some states are so high that families are better off paying the penalty rather than buying the insurance. As I’ve written before, the ACA is catastrophic coverage at Cadillac plan prices.

And I can’t help thinking back to 2009. Republicans made an all-out effort to stop the Affordable Care Act. Their motives were purely political; some GOP senators railed against policies they had favored in the past. Ultimately, they failed.  Obamacare became law.

But this losing battle gave tremendous energy and passion to the tea party movement — which propelled Republicans to a sweeping victory in the 2010 midterm election. It is hard not to see an analogous situation on the Democratic side right now.

Democrats haven’t learned the TEA Party lesson, which is that politicians better listen to We The People or else. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t listen to people and lost 12 seats and 63 seats respectively. Chuck Schumer isn’t listening to the people, either. The chances of Democrats picking up Senate seats is remote at best.

Democrats cannot stop Gorsuch from being confirmed. But they can hearten and animate the party’s base by fighting this nomination tooth and nail, even if it means giving up some of the backslapping comity of the Senate cloakroom. They can inspire grass-roots activists to fight just as hard to win back state legislatures and governorships. They can help make 2018 a Democratic year.

This is delusional thinking. Democrats will lose more governorships and legislative seats because they’re owned by special interests. They haven’t talked about doing what’s best for the people. President Trump constantly talks about putting people first. Democrats reflexively side with environmental activists, which has alienated blue collar union rank-and-file.

Democrats in Illinois haven’t pressured Rahm Emanuel to actually crack down on Chicago’s crime-infested streets. New York City’s City Council hasn’t blasted Bill De Blasio’s sanctuary city policies. In both cities, people don’t feel safe. Former President Obama insisted that terrorism wasn’t a threat while ISIS killed people in shopping malls and at Christmas parties. The Obama administration insisted, too, that the borders were secured. Voters knew that wasn’t true.

Voters won’t vote for the party that won’t protect them. Right now, people don’t trust Democrats to handle the basic government functions. Until that happens, people won’t trust Democrats.

It’s clear that Sen. Schumer and his leadership team can’t resist acting like spoiled brats. This article offers an unsightly insight into Sen. Schumer’s peevish mindset. According to the article, “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic Senate leaders refused to meet with Judge Neil Gorsuch Thursday. The act appears to be revenge against Republicans for holding the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia open and not holding a hearing for Obama Supreme Court appointee Merrick Garland.”

Sen. Schumer doesn’t sound like the Senate Minority Leader. He sounds like a toddler going through terrible twos while constantly throwing hissy fits. Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, issued a statement, saying “By refusing to meet with Judge Gorsuch, Senate Democratic leadership is taking Washington gridlock and obstruction to a new low and placing Senators McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester, and other Democrats up for reelection in 2018 on the endangered politicians list.”

Apparently, Sen. Schumer thinks it’s more important to fire up his out-of-touch base than to act like an adult. Lou Dobbs put it perfectly in this video:

Sen. Schumer’s stupidity and tone-deafness will keep him as the Senate Minority Leader until 2022 and possibly longer. He has only himself to blame for that.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t hit a home run. Metaphorically speaking, he hit a grand slam in his first major league at-bat. It’s apparent that it’s a grand slam when the NY Times publishes an op-ed gushing about Judge Gorsuch.

Neal Katyal’s op-ed isn’t something that you’d expect to find on the NY Times’ op-ed page. The fourth paragraph of Katyal’s op-ed is gushy, saying “I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the editors at National Review wrote “Originalism has faced resistance in modern times mostly because liberals would rather not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution in order to edit it to their liking, removing its structural limits on governmental power and putting their preferred policies beyond democratic review. Gorsuch’s record gives us cause to believe that he would use his vote and his voice to side with the actual Constitution.”

President Trump looked totally confident when he announced his pick:

President Trump explained why he picked Judge Gorsuch. He outlined the lengthy, impressive list of qualities Judge Gorsuch possesses. After President Trump finished his presentation, he turned the microphone over to Judge Gorsuch.

One thing that seemed to jump out at everyone was when Judge Gorsuch said that a judge that agrees with every ruling he’s made “is probably a bad judge.” The clear intent of that statement is that judges that agree with their rulings are most likely substituting their policy preferences for the text on the page. For instance, a judge that bans flag-burning isn’t doing his/her job. Few people think that burning the flag is the right thing to do. Most people would criticize it. The First Amendment, though, says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It doesn’t prohibit people from saying things we find hateful.

Based on what’s out there, Judge Gorsuch understands that perfectly. That’s why we should think he’s the best possible pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.