Archive for the ‘Jeff Sessions’ Category

If ABC’s hit piece against Jeff Sessions was meant to rehabilitate Andrew McCabe’s credibility, it failed. ABC might’ve helped McCabe if it hadn’t written “During his confirmation in January 2017, Sessions told the Senate committee that he had not been in contact with anyone connected to the Russian government about the 2016 election.”

Saying that that’s a shortcut through the truth is understatement. Here’s what was actually said:

Sen. Al Franken: CNN has just published a story and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”

Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

First, Sen. Franken either isn’t too bright or he’s exceptionally dishonest. (BTW, I can make a strong case either direction.) Then-Sen. Sessions said that he didn’t “have communications with the Russians” as a Trump campaign surrogate. As a US senator sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would’ve been routine for him to meet with Russian ambassadors or government officials.

The context is important because “Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), and then-Sen. Al Franken, (D-MN), wrote a letter in March 2017 to the FBI urging agents to investigate ‘all contacts’ Sessions may have had with Russians, and ‘whether any laws were broken in the course of those contacts or in any subsequent discussion of whether they occurred.'” Also important in terms of context is the fact that “McCabe authorized the criminal inquiry.”

The ABC article continues, saying “It is a federal crime for anyone to knowingly provide false information to Congress – or to a federal law enforcement agency. No charges have been announced against McCabe, and there’s no indication that the FBI has recommended he be charged.”

It’s impossible at this point to know whether charges will be brought against McCabe. However, Christopher Wray told NBC that “I’m committed to doing things objectively and independently and by the book. I think that has to extend not just to our investigations, our intelligence analysis, but it also has to expand to personnel decisions and disciplinary decisions.”

When asked specifically about the timing, Wray reiterated that the FBI followed its normal process. “I want to be careful what I can say about the process,” he said. “But I will tell you that my commitment to making sure that our process is followed, that it relies on objective input, and that, most importantly, it is not based on political and partisan influence, is something I am utterly unyielding on.”

The thought that Jeff Sessions terminated McCabe out of spite is understandable but it’s completely wrong.

It’s fair to say that ABC’s hit piece attempted to help Mr. McCabe. It’s fair to say, too, that Jeff Sessions followed the proper protocols in determining whether Mr. McCabe should be terminated.

This Washington Free Beacon article brings good news to TEA Party organizations and other conservative organizations that the Obama administration IRS targeted. According to the article, “The Department of Justice announced Thursday that it has entered into settlements with conservative groups that were “improperly targeted” by the IRS over their applications for tax-exempt status. The settlements, which are pending approval by federal district courts, pertain to two cases. One case, Linchpins of Liberty v. United States, contains claims brought by 41 plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The other case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal Revenue Service, was a class action suit that included 428 plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.”

Later, it said “The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration [aka TIGTA] released a report in 2013 finding that, during the Obama administration, the IRS had subjected conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status to extra scrutiny and delays. Former IRS official Lois Lerner said that same year that the agency improperly delayed some groups from obtaining non-profit status because their ‘applications had [Tea Party or Patriots] in the title.'”

In his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Gen. Sessions said “And today we announced that we settled two cases brought by groups whose tax-exempt status was significantly delayed by the Internal Revenue Service based on inappropriate criteria. It should also be without question that our First Amendment prohibits the federal government from treating taxpayers differently based solely on their viewpoint or ideology. There is no excuse for this conduct. Hundreds of organizations were affected by these actions, and they deserve an apology from the IRS. We hope that today’s settlement makes clear that this abuse of power will not be tolerated. These cases against the IRS shouldn’t have happened in the first place. They never would have been necessary if government had acted properly.”

Here’s the video of Gen. Sessions’ speech to Heritage:

That’s great news for the rule of law. More importantly, it’s fantastic news for the First Amendment. Most importantly, it’s a not-so-subtle refutation of the Obama-Holder-Lynch Justice Department and the Obama-Lerner IRS. It’s important to never elect another president who doesn’t put his/her highest priority on maintaining the rule of law. If we don’t have order, if we don’t respect the importance of our great institutions and principles that make the US the greatest nation on earth, then we become ordinary.

That’s unacceptable. We’ve been blessed to be the world’s beacon. During the Obama administration, we stumbled. Fortunately, people like Gen. Sessions is restoring those important principles.

Lots of conservatives appreciate the job that AG Jeff Sessions has done thus far. Thanks to this op-ed on the threats to free speech in the United States, people have another reason to appreciate Gen. Sessions.

One of the most impactful parts of Gen. Sessions’ op-ed came when he wrote “Our legal heritage, upon which the Founders crafted the Bill of Rights, taught that reason and knowledge produced the closest approximation to truth, and from truth may arise justice. But reason requires discourse and, frequently, argument. And that is why the free speech guarantee is found not just in the First Amendment, but also permeates our institutions, traditions and our Constitution. The Federalists against the anti-Federalists, Abraham Lincoln against Stephen Douglas, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. against George Wallace. At so many times in our history as a people, it was speech, and still more speech, that led Americans to a more just, more perfect union.”

Gen. Sessions then wrote “This month, we marked the 230th anniversary of our Constitution. This month, we also marked the 54th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham. Four little girls died that day as they changed into their choir robes because the Klan wanted to silence the voices fighting for civil rights. But their voices were not silenced. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would call them ‘the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity,’ in a eulogy that still should speak to us today. This is the true legacy of free speech that has been handed down to us. It was bought with a price.”

Antifa, the SPLC, By Any Means Necessary and other hard left organizations are trying to silence people. The best way of combatting this modern-day fascism is to insist on more liberty of all kinds. When you hear about warriors like Hannah Scherlacher and others on college campuses, support them to the fullest extent possible. In situations like this, pushing back is an indispensable tool.

This video shows the lengths to which they’ll go to silence people:

I’d strongly recommend you read this article, too. These aren’t people who play by the rules. They’re fascists, which is defined as “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

It’s clear that Antifa and By Any Means Necessary will use any tools at their disposal.

Eric Holder’s op-ed doesn’t sound like a man defending the principle of prosecutorial discretion. It sounds like a man rationalizing the Obama administration’s not enforcing existing immigration law.

In the opening paragraph of Holder’s op-ed, he writes “Our nation’s sense of morality — and of itself — is once again being tested.” Shortly thereafter, Holder wrote “DACA, which gave undocumented young people brought to the United States as children a chance to work and study here without fear of deportation, has been a dramatic success. The program provided a two-year grant of protection and a permit to work legally in the United States, after which enrollees were required to go through a renewal process. To qualify, immigrant youths had to meet a set of stringent criteria: When applying, they were required to have been enrolled in high school, have a high school diploma or equivalent, or have been an honorably discharged military veteran. In addition, they must have lived in the United States continuously at least since June 15, 2007, and not have a criminal record suggesting they pose a threat to national security or public safety.”

First, I’d question why Mr. Holder thinks our “nation’s sense of morality … is once again being tested.” Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to enforce this nation’s laws? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to give lawbreakers an edge over people who follow the rules? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to tell law enforcement, in this case border patrol and our nation’s sheriffs, not to enforce this nation’s immigration laws?

Next, I’d like to ask Mr. Holder what he meant when he wrote “Of course, as Sessions emphasized, we are a nation of laws, and the immigration system is no different. We must ensure that our laws are enforced to maintain the vitality, prosperity and security of our polity. But in painting DACA as a flagrant disregard for our constitutional separation of powers, Sessions exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of what DACA did.” Did Mr. Holder mean that he thinks that presidents should have the authority to unilaterally write new laws? After all, that’s what President Obama did when his EO gave illegal immigrants the ability to get a social security card and to apply for the EITC tax credit. Does Mr. Holder seriously think that President Obama never tried appropriating to the executive branch things that the legislative branch was authorized to do?

If Mr. Holder thinks that then-President Obama didn’t try doing things that only the legislative branch is authorized to do, then I’ll throw the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ruling in his face. That’s the case where SCOTUS ruled that only the Senate could determine when the Senate was in recess. President Obama’s solicitor general essentially argued that President Obama determined that the Senate wasn’t in session. President Obama lost that lawsuit 9-0.

I’d submit that President Obama and Mr. Holder “exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of” the Constitution. Further, I’d submit this video as proof that the Trump administration, especially Attorney General Sessions, knows exactly what he’s talking about:

At what point will Mr. Holder admit that he’s a political hack working for the Democratic Party? It’s painfully obvious that he isn’t constitutional lawyer with integrity.

Technorati: Eric Holder, Barack Obama, DACA, DAPA, NLRB v. Noel Canning, SCOTUS, Nation of Laws, Democrats, Separation of Powers, Social Security Card, EITC

When Jeff Sessions announced this morning that DACA was getting rescinded, he and President Trump put a gun to Congress’s head. Tom Rogan’s article explains why this is a smart strategic and political move, saying “Crucially, however, Trump is leaving it up to Congress to affirm the contours of that resolution. He recognizes, as Obama did not, that the whims of a president are a decrepit legislative partner to the rights of Congress. And it’s important that we remember this fact as the media reports on Tuesday’s events. After all, Trump’s decision will be portrayed as immoral, capricious, and narrowly populist.”

Later, Rogan writes “By giving Congress six months to find a replacement law, Trump is returning power to where it belongs, to the authority the Constitution sets in charge of making laws on naturalization. But in return for Democratic congressional support for securing the border, Trump should call for a DACA replacement law that allows relevant recipients to remain in America to pursue better futures. If he takes this approach, Trump will insulate conservative members of the Republican caucus to vote for such a bill without facing huge blowback in next year’s midterm elections. Again, Trump’s hardline credentials on immigration law mean that he is the perfect messenger for a compromise here, a replacement law that lives up to both moral and constitutional standards.”

I wrote in this post that Democrats have the opportunity to do the right thing. I’m still skeptical that they’ll do that but … The truth is that DACA was about to get obliterated in the courts. Attorneys general in 12 states filed a lawsuit that asked for a ruling on whether then-President Obama had the constitutional authority to unilaterally pass immigration legislation. That ruling would’ve gone badly for President Obama because he didn’t have the authority to write law of any sort.

Also in my earlier post, I said that Republicans are willing to make Democrats an offer they shouldn’t refuse. Republicans are prepared to pass legislation that makes DACA the law of the land the constitutional way in exchange for Democrats voting for funding of Trump’s border wall. It isn’t surprising that Luis Gutierrez, (D-IL), is criticizing President Trump’s decision in the harshest terms imaginable:

I’d expect nothing less from him.

This morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA will be rescinded. In making this announcement, Sessions predictably received tons of criticism. Despite that criticism, Sessions made the case for rescinding the program.

The article opens by saying “The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is being ‘rescinded,’ Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday from the Justice Department. President Obama’s ‘unconstitutional’ executive action cannot stand, the AG explained. In enacting DACA, Obama ‘deliberately sought to achieve’ what Congress repeatedly rejected.” The simple truth is that Democrats chose to put a higher priority on enacting the ACA than they put on passing immigration reform. That’s their decision. Now, it’s time for them to live with their decision.

This wouldn’t be the problem that it is today if President Obama had enforced existing immigration laws. That’s essentially what Gen. Sessions has done. What’s interesting is whether Democrats are willing to do a little old-fashioned legislating. According to this article, Republicans are in Let’s-make-a-deal mode.

According to the article’s opening paragraph, “Senior Congressional Republicans are willing to work with Democrats to keep a program allowing young people who came to America illegally with their parents to stay in the U.S. But Democrats will in return have to give President Donald Trump funding for his border wall.”

It’s likely that Democrats will initially reject this proposal by accusing Republicans of playing with people’s lives. If Republicans hang tough on this, though, they’ll win this fight. The American people are with President Trump and Gen. Sessions on this. Funding the wall is a required part of this deal. Laws can be ignored by administrations. We know that because we’ve seen that happen. Walls can’t be rescinded, though. Once they’re built, they form an imposing, impressive border. This video explains why President Trump is rescinding DACA:

All immigration policies should serve the people of the United States, he continued. It is his duty as attorney general to enforce the rule of law. “We cannot admit everyone who would like to come here,” Sessions explained. “This does not mean they’re bad people,” the AG added. It simply means we are “properly enforcing our laws.”

It’s time for Democrats to decide whether they’ll put Mexicans first or if they’ll put Americans first. It’s impossible to put America first if you won’t enforce their laws.

When the Trump administration announced that they’d start cracking down on sanctuary cities, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel openly stated that he’d challenge the Trump administration’s law enforcement policies. Early in his op-ed, Newt Gingrich wrote “On July 25, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked all cities, states, and territories applying for a very specific federal law enforcement grant to adhere to three new, very reasonable measures: & To openly communicate with the Department of Homeland Security; to allow DHS officers to meet with locally-held prisoners who live in the country illegally and have been arrested for non-immigration related crimes; and to give the Department 48 hours’ notice before releasing such prisoners.”

Newt’s right. These requirements are reasonable and easy to measure in terms of effectiveness. Later in his op-ed, Gingrich wrote about why sanctuary cities pose such a danger, saying “The DEA reported that the foundation of these cartels is the network of people who run the drug trade infrastructure inside U.S. borders. Specifically, the DEA said, ‘Actual members of Mexican TCOs are usually sent to important U.S. hub cities to manage stash houses containing drug shipments and bulk cash drug proceeds.'”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where these cartels will establish their headquarters:

Now, if you led an international drug cartel, would you set up shop in a city where your undocumented gang members would be deported upon arrest or one like Chicago, where local police looked the other way once you made bail? Mayor Emanuel would like us to believe that he is concerned about the safety of his citizens, but his lawsuit is nothing more than a political charade. He is literally welcoming more criminals to the streets of Chicago.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Steve Cortes said that cities like Chicago shouldn’t be called sanctuary cities:

Here’s how Jeff Sessions replied to Mayor Emanuel:

“They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement, Federal, state, and local, and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents… No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents,” Sessions said.

When voter fraud first became a high profile issue, Democrats insisted that it didn’t exist. I coined the phrase that “it’s impossible to find what you refuse to look for.” That phrase fits perfectly with sanctuary cities, which Mr. Cortes says should be called renegade cities. Cortes said “it’s not sanctuary for the victims of these crimes, it’s not sanctuary for the cops who have to deal with known criminals… I’d rather call them renegade cities.”

Emanuel is likely to win the lawsuit that he filed because the money is from President Obama’s budget. Next year, though, it will be a totally different story because the grants will be governed by the restrictions passed by Republicans. In the end, Rahm Emanuel will win Round 1. Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration will win the rest of the rounds.

This article, written by Slate’s Leon Neyfakh, apparently shows that Mr. Neyfakh can’t entertain alternate theories.

In the article, Neyfakh insists that Jeff Sessions is lying because he said that the reason why he recommended Jim Comey’s firing was because he was “disgusted by Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.” Neyfakh insists that that’s a lie because President Trump said his reason for firing Mr. Comey was because “When I decided to just do it,” Trump told Holt, “I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story—it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

Apparently, it hasn’t dawned on Mr. Neyfakh that both statements could be true. I know with certainty that it’s possible that Jeff Sessions wanted to terminate Jim Comey because he mishandled the HRC email investigation, aka HRC “matter.” I’m equally certain that President Trump might’ve terminated Mr. Comey over the fake Russia scandal.

Later, Neyfakh wrote this:

He also said Comey had overstepped his authority as FBI director when he asserted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue charges against her based on the evidence available. “It was a stunning development … a thunderous thing,” Sessions said, by way of explaining why he “had come to the conclusion that a fresh start was appropriate.”

Sessions is right. Comey overstepped his authority by making decisions traditionally left to the AG. That offense alone is grounds for immediate termination.

Yesterday, Sen. Wyden challenged Gen. Sessions. That was a mistake:

Suffice it to say that Sen. Wyden didn’t win that exchange.

By not confirming President Trump’s national security team the first day in office, Democrats are signaling that their resistance, aka their political stunt, takes precedence over national security. That’s a disgusting signal to send.

It’s one thing to not confirm Rex Tillerson immediately. There were legitimate questions about him. It’s quite another to not confirm Jeff Sessions as AG or Mike Pompeo as the director of the CIA. There weren’t any questions about whether Mssrs. Sessions and Pompeo were qualified.

Michelle Goldberg of Slate Magazine insists that “The Trump Resistance will be led by angry women.” That’s possible, though I’m a bit skeptical of that prediction. Right now, it’s being run by idiots like Chuck Schumer, Keith Ellison and Hollywood ‘stars’ like Madonna and Ashley Judd.

Why would anyone think that (I’m stealing a phrase from Rush Limbaugh) this “endless parade of human debris” is the Democrats’ ticket back into America’s hearts? Salena Zito’s column says that President Trump needs to start healing this nation’s divisions. I’d love to see it, though I can’t picture Democrats being a willing partner anytime soon. I can’t picture that after watching this video:

It’s time for Sen. Schumer, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Rep. Ellison and their legion of parasites to stop with the PR stunts and start putting America’s needs first. They can start by telling Sen. Schumer to stop resisting and start confirming President Trump’s nominees to lead his national security team:

To Sen. Schumer: Enough with the shenanigans. Start putting America first for a change.

Technorati: Donald Trump, National Security, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, Trump Administration, Mike Pompeo, CIA Director, Chuck Schumer, Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi, Madonna, Ashley Judd, The Resistance, Democrats

Cory Booker didn’t testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing yesterday. In article after article, TV segment after TV segment, pundits and announcers insisted that Sen. Booker testified. This article is one such article that fits that description.

Caitlin Huey-Burns wrote that “one could almost mark January 11, 2017 as the day the 2020 presidential race began: That was the day New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker took the unprecedented opportunity to testify against colleague Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general.”

I watched parts of Sen. Booker’s performance. I couldn’t watch all of it because it was a lightweight’s performance masquerading as a hit job. His emotions appeared contrived or manufactured. His sincerity was totally missing. He didn’t add anything substantive to the confirmation hearing. Mostly, it was an appeal to be the next identity politics warrior for the Democratic Party. (As though they don’t have enough of those already.)

Putting it bluntly, Sen. Booker is superficial and a lightweight. Watch for yourself:

Then there’s this:

But as they settle into life in the minority in Washington, Democrats have the opportunity “to test-drive the opposition,” says Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “We don’t have to accept the course of the next four years as a foregone conclusion.”

Still, Ferguson cautions that the trick is to oppose Trump’s agenda because “it is the wrong direction for the country, not … merely for the sake of obstructing.”

Thus far, they’re looking like mean-spirited obstructionists. If they continue with that tactic, it won’t be long before they’ll have to accept the course of the next four years as a foregone conclusion. After 2018, the Democratic Party will be reduced to rubble in the Senate. They’re already rubble in the House. If the Democratic Party doesn’t figure out what the voters told them this election, they’ll be in the wilderness an additional decade. That’s certainly the direction they’re heading.

Technorati: Cory Booker, Presidential Ambitions, Testimony, Stump Speech, Identity Politics, Obstructionists, Democrats, Jeff Sessions, Confirmation Hearing, Republicans