Recently Added Videos

An extensive New York Times story published Tuesday purports to take you “inside” President Trump’s “Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him.” But save yourself the precious time and read Trump’s tweets instead.

The news out of the lengthy piece is an allegation that Trump late last year asked then-acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker if it was possible to appoint U.S. Attorney General for Southern New York Geoffrey Berman, a White House ally, to lead the district’s investigation into Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in November to charges of perjury, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations.

The Times reported that Whitaker “knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge, since Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation” and admitted that “there is no evidence that he took any direct steps to intervene in the Manhattan investigation.”

That’s the extent of news in the story, which otherwise recounts everything Trump has said on Twitter or in news interviews — that he was disappointed with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe, that he thought ridding himself of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI Director James Comey would quell the investigation, and that he believes there are conflicted elements at the highest levels of the DOJ working against his presidency.

The Times report asserts that Trump’s conduct has “exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice,” but Trump has made all of his thoughts on all of his actions public over the course of more than a year, and the Times didn’t change anything by repeating it.

The article is an excellent source of information, however, if you want to know what mood Trump was in during any number of private conversations with his advisers.

[Also read: Why Trump doesn’t like Ann Coulter anymore]

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-makes-obstruction-of-justice-case-against-trump-while-admitting-theres-no-evidence-in-long-report

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview Tuesday that he believes it is possible that President Trump is a Russian asset and thinks “that’s why we started our investigation.”

McCabe has said in the past that the FBI had a good reason to launch a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was working with Russia and was a possible national security threat.

The former official was asked on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” if he believes Trump may still be a Russian asset. He said he’s “anxious” to see the conclusion of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor, told the network that McCabe’s comment is “hardly [worth] dignifying with a response.”

“He’s a liar and a leaker,” she said.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

McCabe was also asked if he believes Trump is fit to serve. He said it was not up to him to make the determination.

On Sunday, McCabe told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that he met with investigators after ex-FBI Director James Comey’s firing.

“I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

He added, “I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision.”

McCabe was fired from the Justice Department last year after being accused of misleading investigators during an internal probe into a news media disclosure. Trump has slammed McCabe over Twitter, accusing the ex-official of plotting a coup with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccabe-says-its-possible-trumps-a-russian-asset

Attorneys representing the Kentucky high school student involved in a confrontation that went viral on social media last month announced Tuesday that they were suing The Washington Post for $250 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Kentucky, accused The Post of practicing “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” by targeting Nicholas Sandmann and “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.”

Washington Post spokesperson Kris Coratti told Fox News in an email that the paper was “reviewing a copy of the lawsuit, and we plan to mount a vigorous defense.”

COLORADO TEACHER FACES TERMINATION AFTER MISIDENTIFYING COVINGTON STUDENT, CALLING HIM ‘HITLER YOUTH’

Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, became a target for outrage after a video of him standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, while wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat surfaced in January. Sandmann was one of a group of students from Covington attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples’ March on the same day.

Sandmann and the Covington students were initially accused of initiating the confrontation, but other videos and the students’ own statements showed that they were verbally accosted by a group of black street preachers who were shouting insults both at them and a group of Native Americans. Sandmann and Phillips have both said they were trying to defuse the situation.

CONSERVATIVE LEADERS DEMAND APOLOGY FOR MEDIA TREATMENT OF COVINGTON STUDENTS

The lawsuit claims The Post “ignored the truth” about the incident and says the paper “falsely accused Nicholas of … ‘accost[ing]’ Phillips by ‘suddenly swarm[ing]’ him in a ‘threaten[ing]’ and ‘physically intimidat[ing]’ manner … ‘block[ing]’ Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips ‘to retreat,’ ‘taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,’ [and] chanting, ‘Build that wall,’ ‘Trump2020,’ or ‘Go back to Africa,’ and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct. …”Sandmann’s attorneys accuse The Post of publishing seven “false and defamatory” articles about the incident between Jan. 19 and 21 and claim the paper “knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this month, Sandmann’s attorneys sent preservation letters to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities and politicians — including The Post, The New York Times, CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and actors Alyssa Milano and Jim Carrey — the first step in possible libel and defamation lawsuits.

Last week, investigators hired by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington concluded that the students did not instigate the confrontation with Phillips. Bishop Roger Foys, who initially condemned the students’ behavior, wrote in a letter to parents that they had been “placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening.”

Fox News’ Lucia I. Suarez Sang and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/us/covington-high-students-legal-team-sues-washington-post

Did you notice how, during the Andrew McCabe interview with “60 Minutes,” the former FBI acting director kept talking about “articulable facts?”

Like ex-CIA boss John Brennan and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe was coining his own phrase to explain why the intelligence community started spying the Trump team. But the justification for mounting a probe should not lie in weasel words. It belongs in something known in law enforcement circles as “Paragraph One.”

Paragraph One in federal investigations lays out precisely why the investigation began and how. You can’t skip over it with fanciful phrases or empty verbiage. Yet, in the case of the counter-intelligence probe that targeted Team Trump, it has been two years and we are still waiting for someone to articulate a clear reason why the program began.

MCCABE: ‘NO ONE’ IN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP OBJECTED WHEN TOLD OF FBI’S TRUMP PROBE

McCabe told Scott Pelley the FBI had a bunch of “articulable facts,” but he didn’t bother to articulate them. Earlier, Comey told Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier the investigation was justified by a “mosaic of facts.” The impetus was described by Brennan in still another interview as the “corpus of intelligence.”

Is anybody ever going to describe what this is? Put yourself in Trump’s shoes. He is being investigated as a potential traitor to the United States for colluding with a foreign power and no one has yet described why they were investigating the Trump team during the campaign.

Here’s why they can’t say what the “articulable facts,” “mosaic,” or “corpus” really are. Because it was the dossier, commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and later thoroughly discredited that prompted the never-ending probe. It was compiled by Trump-hating ex-British spy Christopher Steele, on behalf of Fusion GPS, which was hired by a law firm which in turn contracted with Clinton to get dirt – real or fake – on Trump. The dossier was the “predicate crime,” but now that it has been debunked, it is pretty hard to acknowledge what a house of cards this whole investigation has been.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

McCabe has already admitted the Justice Department would never have gotten a FISA warrant to investigate Trump, which gave them the power to monitor him, without the dossier. But you won’t hear him, Brennan or Comey say that anymore.

When the truth is no longer “articulable,” you have to get creative.

CLICK HERE TO HEAR MORE FROM THE DAN BONGINO SHOW

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-bongino-like-comey-and-brennan-mccabe-finds-impetus-of-trump-probe-inarticulable

With these simple, pro-forma words, a national emergency was declared on Friday, February 15, to fund President Trump’s most important pet project, a wall (or should it be called a “barrier?”) along the southwestern U.S.-Mexico border: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America…hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States.” Enter another political bombshell into the Washington, D.C., maelstrom — one certain to end up on the dockets of the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court.

With this emergency declaration, Trump will have the power to tap billions of dollars in the Pentagon budget ordinarily off-limits without congressional approval: $600 million will be taken from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture funds account, $2.5 billion will be swiped from the Pentagon’s counter-drug programs, and $3.6 billion will be re-appropriated from military construction projects. In addition to the roughly $1.3 billion in the latest government funding bill, Trump will have a total of $8 billion at his disposal to expand physical border barriers west of the Rio Grande.

More interesting than where the money is coming from and how the inevitable lawsuits will turn out is the irony of this entire affair. By a single stroke of his pen, Trump managed to shock lawmakers out of their coma with respect to emergency powers. It’s as if Congress suddenly discovered that it actually possessed the ability to block a president from exercising the extensive authorities granted to him during a national emergency.

The National Emergencies Act is one of those laws presidents have used to increase their power during extraordinary circumstances. Except extraordinary has now become ordinary. The Brennan Center of Justice has documented 59 national emergencies (Trump’s border emergency will be the 60th) in the 42 years the NEA has been in effect. Not including Trump’s recent declaration, 32 of those 59 emergencies are still germane. The only time a national emergency has been declared over was when a president no longer found them to be useful. It’s perfectly understandable if one believed that Congress has no say in the matter at all.

This, however, couldn’t be further from the truth. Congress is actually given tremendous power under the NEA, including the ability to end a national emergency the president invokes. In fact, Congress is supposed to meet every six months to review an emergency and determine whether a vote to terminate it is appropriate. Not once has Congress done what the law requires it to do. Not once has Congress met to review an emergency on the books, let alone voted to kill one.

This nauseating history may now come to an end thanks to Trump. Congressional Democrats are already drafting a resolution of disapproval to put on the House floor. Given the Democratic majority in the House, the resolution would most definitely pass if it’s introduced. There seem to be enough Senate Republicans nervous about the precedent Trump’s declaration would set for the willingness of future presidents to levy emergency authority that it could even pass the upper chamber.

Trump would veto any resolution of disapproval that comes to his desk, and his veto would likely be sustained courtesy of loyal Senate Republicans. But the bigger point stands: lawmakers, after four decades of sitting in the peanut gallery and twiddling their thumbs, will actually go through the trouble of following a law Congress itself passed.

Democrats will be reluctant to admit it, but Trump will deserve a big share of the credit for getting the legislative branch to do the job its members were elected to do: abide by the law. That would be no small accomplishment in an era when budgets are late, the government is constantly at risk of shutting down, committee hearings are exercises in partisan warfare, and Senate confirmations languish.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/thanks-to-trumps-national-emergency-congress-might-actually-do-its-job

Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who on Tuesday announced he was running for president, surprisingly said, “I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.”

In reality, maintaining the requirement that major legislation needs 60 votes to pass makes it effectively impossible that his sweeping proposals will ever get enacted.

In an interview with CBS This Morning, host John Dickerson asked Sanders, “Is it possible to have bipartisan ‘Let’s reason together’ in Washington, or do you need to do things like get rid of the filibuster to get through some of the systemic things that block Republicans and Democrats?”

“No, I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster,” Sanders replied. He went on to say, “the problem is, people often talk about the lack of comity, but the real issue is you have a system in Washington that is dominated by wealthy campaign contributors.”

Eliminating the filibuster would seem to be a prerequisite for passing items such as free college, free healthcare, job guarantees, and many other of the massive proposals that Sanders is known for championing. It will be hard enough to get to 51 votes for any of them, but 60 Senate votes would mean getting Republicans to vote for the most radically Left agenda in the history of the U.S.

What’s bizarre is that even as Democrats are embracing policies that are way outside where the median Senator is, they have been so reluctant to call for the end of an enormous roadblock. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who has endorsed both “Medicare for all” and the “Green New Deal,” also recently dismissed the idea of nixing the filibuster, saying, “if you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.”

But it was somewhat more understandable in her case, given that earlier in her career she was more of a traditional liberal.

Sanders, however, has been openly fantasizing about a revolution for decades, and yet he’s somehow attached to this procedural requirement?

One wonders if the experience of the Trump presidency, while in one sense has made Democrats feel less beholden to norms, has in the other sense made them reluctant to remove institutional barriers that could be used by a future Republican president. After all, Democrats have seen how former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s nuking of the filibuster for nominations has allowed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to confirm a flood of Trump judges with relative ease, including two Supreme Court justices.

Though there’s little space to Sanders’ left, his comment has created an opening for an enterprising opponent to making killing the filibuster a central part of his or her campaign, thus demonstrating more commitment to the nuts and bolts of enacting a transformative agenda.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-im-not-crazy-about-getting-rid-of-the-filibuster

A new report from House Democrats reveals disturbing new details about a secretive effort by top Trump administration officials to sell sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia — in defiance of at least some of the nation’s ethics statutes.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee on Tuesday released a report — accompanied by a tranche of internal White House emails — detailing a scheme spearheaded by now-disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to sell technology for roughly 40 nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia.

The plan was already known due to previous reporting by the Wall Street Journal, for example, but the Democrats’ report does add more insight into what was happening behind the scenes to push the proposal through.

The effort was part of a broader Middle East economic development plan Flynn began putting together before Trump’s inauguration while he was serving as an adviser to Trump’s campaign and transition team.

During that same time period, though, Flynn was also working as an adviser for a private company called IP3 International — a firm run by retired US military generals that bills itself as a “global enterprise to develop sustainable energy and security infrastructure.”

In other words, a company that had a clear financial interest in exporting US nuclear energy technology to Saudi Arabia.

Once Trump was inaugurated, Flynn, along with longtime Trump associate Thomas Barrack, worked with other senior officials in the new Trump administration to make the plan a reality.

And it seems they got pretty far: On January 27, 2017 — just seven days after the inauguration — several of the retired generals from IP3 went to the White House to meet with Derek Harvey, a senior staffer on Trump’s National Security Council at the time, to discuss the nuclear plan for Saudi Arabia.

“Immediately after the meeting,” the House report states, “Mr. Harvey directed the NSC staff to add information about IP3’s ‘plan for 40 nuclear power plants’ to the briefing package for President Trump’s call with [Saudi Arabia’s] King Salman.”

As of now it seems the proposal is still under consideration, but there’s no indication one way or the other that the president will agree to it. At a minimum, the White House is still in discussions to sell nuclear equipment to Saudi Arabia despite fierce Democratic opposition.

On the surface, the proposed nuclear deal makes sense: An American business would make a lot of money — possibly billions of dollars — selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, and Riyadh would get a new energy source to power its economy.

But the problem, as some White House officials warned those involved, is that Flynn and Barrack’s scheme was potentially illegal.

What it takes for the US to sell nuclear equipment to Saudi Arabia

For the US to sell nuclear technology to a foreign country, it must sign what’s known as a “123 agreement.” That comes from Section 123 of the 1954 US Atomic Energy Act, which establishes the criteria for the US to sell nuclear materials to other countries.

If a country wants to buy nuclear equipment from the US — say, a nuclear reactor — it must meet nine conditions, including a guarantee that it will not use the technology to make nuclear weapons. Congress doesn’t have to approve the sale.

But according to the Democrats’ report, Harvey, the senior National Security Council staffer (who is also a close Flynn ally), ignored all of that “and insisted that the decision to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia had already been made.”

If true, that means Harvey tried to make the deal happen without arranging for Saudi Arabia to sign the 123 agreement. That’s potentially dangerous, as that could allow Riyadh to pursue a nuclear weapon with US-sold equipment down the line.

On top of that, there’s also the issue of Michael Flynn’s personal involvement in the deal. Flynn used to consult for IP3, ad “whistleblowers” who spoke with House Democrats were concerned about the national security adviser skirting ethics rules.

White House ethics officials apparently brought all of this up. According to the report, one senior political official apparently felt Harvey’s proposal was “not a business plan,” but rather “a scheme for these generals to make some money.” That same official then added: “Okay, you know we cannot do this.”

Clearly, their warnings were ignored — which may be why the whistleblowers spoke to congressional Democrats in the first place.

The big story here is Democrats stepping up their oversight of Trump’s foreign policy

As I said earlier, the broad outlines of this scheme have already been known for a while now, thanks to reporting from the Wall Street Journal and others.

Flynn’s history of pushing specific policies while being on the payroll of the primary beneficiaries of said policies is also well documented. And Barrack, the longtime Trump associate who worked with Flynn to make the Saudi nuclear deal happen, has been extremely vocal about his support for Saudi Arabia.

But armed with insider information and internal documents from those whistleblowers, House Democrats were able to put together a report that fills in a lot of the gaps and shines new light on how this whole Saudi nuclear deal went from being an idea cooked up by Flynn and a few retired generals to a serious policy being pursed at the highest levels of the White House.

This is exactly what Democrats promised to do when they took the House last November. Democratic Congress members and staffers told me they would oversee every aspect of Trump’s foreign policy, from his use of the military to his foreign connections.

If the report didn’t come out, it’s entirely possible that the White House would have an easier time signing the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. That outcome is now in doubt, and any effort to make an agreement will likely be met with stiff resistance from Democrats in Congress.

That means Trump’s ability to conduct global affairs as he wishes is now curtailed. Tuesday’s report is at least a warning shot — but it could be a sign of bigger things to come.

Here’s the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s report.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/world/2019/2/19/18231812/saudi-arabia-nuclear-flynn-trump-democrats

A conservative watchdog is suing the Justice Department for any recordings Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may have made while attending meetings in the White House.

Judicial Watch announced a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on Wednesday, which seeks all records of communications between Rosenstein, the office of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe about using the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

The lawsuit, filed last week in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, also seeks all audio or visual recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the executive office of the president or vice president.

The announcement of a lawsuit comes in the midst of an explosive media tour by McCabe, who is promoting his new book, in which he has provided on-the-record corroboration of months-old reports that Rosenstein told Justice Department officials about wearing a “wire” to record conversations with Trump and that he had discussed invoking the 25th Amendment against the president to remove him from office in the days after FBI Director James Comey was fired in the spring of 2017.

The Justice Department claims his version of events was “inaccurate and factually incorrect” and that Rosenstein never authorized the use of a wire to secretly record Trump.

Meanwhile, Trump has accused McCabe and Rosenstein of planning to carry out an “illegal and treasonous” plan against him.

Judicial Watch said it filed its lawsuit after the DOJ ignored three separate FOIA requests dating back to September, around when it was first reported Rosenstein had discussed the 25th Amendment and a secret wire, seeking records from between April 1, 2017 and May 31, 2017.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment for this report.

“It is no surprise that we are facing an immense cover-up of senior FBI and DOJ leadership discussions to pursue a seditious coup against President Trump,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement. “This effort to overthrow President Trump is a fundamental threat to our constitutional republic so Judicial Watch will do everything it can in the courts to expose everything possible about this lawlessness.”

A DOJ source told CNN on Sunday that Rosenstein plans to leave the department by mid-March but that it has nothing to do with McCabe’s claims over the past couple days and that Rosenstein always intended to leave after helping with the transition for his successor upon the confirmation of William Barr to be attorney general.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watchdog-sues-doj-for-any-secret-recordings-rod-rosenstein-made-in-the-white-house

An extensive New York Times story published Tuesday purports to take you “inside” President Trump’s “Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him.” But save yourself the precious time and read Trump’s tweets instead.

The news out of the lengthy piece is an allegation that Trump late last year asked then-acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker if it was possible to appoint U.S. Attorney General for Southern New York Geoffrey Berman, a White House ally, to lead the district’s investigation into Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in November to charges of perjury, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations.

The Times reported that Whitaker “knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge, since Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation” and admitted that “there is no evidence that he took any direct steps to intervene in the Manhattan investigation.”

That’s the extent of news in the story, which otherwise recounts everything Trump has said on Twitter or in news interviews — that he was disappointed with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe, that he thought ridding himself of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI Director James Comey would quell the investigation, and that he believes there are conflicted elements at the highest levels of the DOJ working against his presidency.

The Times report asserts that Trump’s conduct has “exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice,” but Trump has made all of his thoughts on all of his actions public over the course of more than a year, and the Times didn’t change anything by repeating it.

The article is an excellent source of information, however, if you want to know what mood Trump was in during any number of private conversations with his advisers.

[Also read: Why Trump doesn’t like Ann Coulter anymore]

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-makes-obstruction-of-justice-case-against-trump-while-admitting-theres-no-evidence-in-long-report

An extensive New York Times story published Tuesday purports to take you “inside” President Trump’s “Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him.” But save yourself the precious time and read Trump’s tweets instead.

The news out of the lengthy piece is an allegation that Trump late last year asked then-acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker if it was possible to appoint U.S. Attorney General for Southern New York Geoffrey Berman, a White House ally, to lead the district’s investigation into Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in November to charges of perjury, tax evasion, and campaign finance violations.

The Times reported that Whitaker “knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge, since Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation” and admitted that “there is no evidence that he took any direct steps to intervene in the Manhattan investigation.”

That’s the extent of news in the story, which otherwise recounts everything Trump has said on Twitter or in news interviews — that he was disappointed with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe, that he thought ridding himself of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI Director James Comey would quell the investigation, and that he believes there are conflicted elements at the highest levels of the DOJ working against his presidency.

The Times report asserts that Trump’s conduct has “exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice,” but Trump has made all of his thoughts on all of his actions public over the course of more than a year, and the Times didn’t change anything by repeating it.

The article is an excellent source of information, however, if you want to know what mood Trump was in during any number of private conversations with his advisers.

[Also read: Why Trump doesn’t like Ann Coulter anymore]

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-makes-obstruction-of-justice-case-against-trump-while-admitting-theres-no-evidence-in-long-report

Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who on Tuesday announced he was running for president, surprisingly said, “I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.”

In reality, maintaining the requirement that major legislation needs 60 votes to pass makes it effectively impossible that his sweeping proposals will ever get enacted.

In an interview with CBS This Morning, host John Dickerson asked Sanders, “Is it possible to have bipartisan ‘Let’s reason together’ in Washington, or do you need to do things like get rid of the filibuster to get through some of the systemic things that block Republicans and Democrats?”

“No, I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster,” Sanders replied. He went on to say, “the problem is, people often talk about the lack of comity, but the real issue is you have a system in Washington that is dominated by wealthy campaign contributors.”

Eliminating the filibuster would seem to be a prerequisite for passing items such as free college, free healthcare, job guarantees, and many other of the massive proposals that Sanders is known for championing. It will be hard enough to get to 51 votes for any of them, but 60 Senate votes would mean getting Republicans to vote for the most radically Left agenda in the history of the U.S.

What’s bizarre is that even as Democrats are embracing policies that are way outside where the median Senator is, they have been so reluctant to call for the end of an enormous roadblock. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who has endorsed both “Medicare for all” and the “Green New Deal,” also recently dismissed the idea of nixing the filibuster, saying, “if you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.”

But it was somewhat more understandable in her case, given that earlier in her career she was more of a traditional liberal.

Sanders, however, has been openly fantasizing about a revolution for decades, and yet he’s somehow attached to this procedural requirement?

One wonders if the experience of the Trump presidency, while in one sense has made Democrats feel less beholden to norms, has in the other sense made them reluctant to remove institutional barriers that could be used by a future Republican president. After all, Democrats have seen how former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s nuking of the filibuster for nominations has allowed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to confirm a flood of Trump judges with relative ease, including two Supreme Court justices.

Though there’s little space to Sanders’ left, his comment has created an opening for an enterprising opponent to making killing the filibuster a central part of his or her campaign, thus demonstrating more commitment to the nuts and bolts of enacting a transformative agenda.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-im-not-crazy-about-getting-rid-of-the-filibuster

February 19 at 1:32 PM

Several current and former Trump administration appointees promoted the sale of nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia despite repeated objections from members of the National Security Council and other senior White House officials, according to a new report from congressional Democrats.

The officials who objected included White House lawyers and H.R. McMaster, then the chief of the National Security Council, according to the report, which cited documents obtained by the committee and accounts of unnamed whistleblowers. The officials called for a halt in the nuclear sales discussions in 2017, citing potential conflicts of interest, national security risks and legal hurdles.

But the effort to promote nuclear sales persisted, led by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Trump’s national security adviser, and more recently by Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The possible nuclear power sale was discussed in the Oval Office as recently as last week.

Details about these internal White House battles are contained in a 24-page report released Tuesday morning by House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.). It said the unnamed whistleblowers inside the White House came forward because they were distressed at the continued effort to sell the power plants.

Committee Republicans said Tuesday they were not included in the drafting of the detailed report and had not received a copy until Monday night. They said they had not had a chance to fully assess it.

“This is a delicate and nuanced issue that Chairman Cummings is approaching without bipartisan input and with far flung requests for information,” Charli Huddleston, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the committee, said in a statement.

The report includes a wide range of allegations and suggests the involvement of a long list of high-profile people in Trump’s orbit.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The report’s release comes as Saudi-U.S. relations reach a particularly difficult moment. Following the death of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Congress has expressed reluctance to continue with a business-as-usual relationship with Riyadh.

The Trump White House has balked at endorsing intelligence reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved in the killing.

The Cummings report notes that one of the power plant manufacturers that could benefit from a nuclear deal, Westinghouse Electric, is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, the company that provided financial relief to the family of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser. Brookfield Asset Management took a 99-year lease on the family’s deeply indebted New York City property at 666 Fifth Avenue.

“Multiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress as required by law — efforts that may be ongoing to this day,” the report says.

The whistleblowers also “warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction and backbiting. They noted that White House political appointees repeatedly ignored directives from top ethics advisers who repeatedly — but unsuccessfully — “ordered senior White House officials to halt their efforts.”

The Oversight Committee report, which focuses on the first three months of the Trump presidency, may have special relevance this week as Kushner prepares for a trip to the Middle East.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-trump-appointees-promoted-selling-nuclear-power-plants-to-saudi-arabia-over-objections-from-national-security-officials-house-democratic-report-says/2019/02/19/6a719762-3456-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

CLOSE

An investigation found more than 380 allegations of sexual misconduct by Southern Baptist church leaders over two decades.
USA TODAY

The Catholic Church has required celibacy from its priests for centuries, yet those vows were broken so frequently that the Vatican established a secret set of guidelines for dealing with clerics who fathered children.

This latest revelation, first reported by The New York Times, comes amid a new wave of developments tied to the burgeoning sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the church for close to two decades.

On Monday, the Diocese of Oakland, California, released a list of 45 clergymen and religious brothers it said have had “credible accusations’’ of child sexual abuse made against them, going as far back as the 1960s. Several other dioceses have taken similar steps in recent months.

On Saturday, Pope Francis defrocked former Washington archbishop Theodore McCarrick after he was found guilty of a series of sexual crimes, making him the first American cardinal to be expelled from the priesthood.

Two weeks ago, Francis acknowledged the long-known but rarely addressed problem of nuns being sexually assaulted by priests.

More: The stakes are high for Pope Francis, Catholics worldwide ahead of unprecedented sex abuse summit

Now, just ahead of Thursday’s unprecedented meeting of more than 100 bishops summoned to the Vatican to address the sexual misconduct crisis, the Catholic Church faces yet another sexually related controversy.

Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti acknowledged to the Times and other news outlets the existence of the guidelines, although he would not reveal specifically what they are.

More: The stakes are high for Pope Francis, Catholics worldwide ahead of unprecedented sex abuse summit

Gisotti said the instructions seek to protect the child and require – others contend they only encourage – the priest to request a leave from his clerical duties and “as a layman, assume his responsibilities as a parent by devoting himself exclusively’’ to the child.

Vincent Doyle, an Irish psychotherapist who learned in his late 20s his father was a priest, told the Times that church leaders initially misled him to believe his was a rare instance.

Though there’s no exact count of how many children have been fathered by clergymen, he eventually learned that wasn’t true when an archbishop showed him the Vatican instructions for cases like his.

“It’s the next scandal,’’ Doyle said. “There are kids everywhere.’’

More: Catholic Church: Jesuits name priests with ‘established accusations’ of child sex abuse

Doyle formed a global support group, Coping International, that provides counseling and resources to “children of the ordained,’’ as the church calls them. He said the organization’s website has 50,000 users in 175 countries.

Doyle told CBS News he wants to see them codified so the offspring of clergymen don’t have to live in the shadows. The Irish Catholic Church did as much two years ago, establishing a set of rules that prioritize the child’s well-being and mandate that the priest own up to his parental duties in every way.

“The first problem with children of priests is they’re not recognized,” Doyle said. “When you’re hidden … you are characterized by secrecy.’’

More: Vatican clarifies Pope Francis on issue of ‘sexual slavery’ of nuns

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/19/vaticans-secret-rules-priests-who-father-children/2918042002/

With these simple, pro-forma words, a national emergency was declared on Friday, February 15, to fund President Trump’s most important pet project, a wall (or should it be called a “barrier?”) along the southwestern U.S.-Mexico border: “NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America…hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States.” Enter another political bombshell into the Washington, D.C., maelstrom — one certain to end up on the dockets of the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court.

With this emergency declaration, Trump will have the power to tap billions of dollars in the Pentagon budget ordinarily off-limits without congressional approval: $600 million will be taken from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture funds account, $2.5 billion will be swiped from the Pentagon’s counter-drug programs, and $3.6 billion will be re-appropriated from military construction projects. In addition to the roughly $1.3 billion in the latest government funding bill, Trump will have a total of $8 billion at his disposal to expand physical border barriers west of the Rio Grande.

More interesting than where the money is coming from and how the inevitable lawsuits will turn out is the irony of this entire affair. By a single stroke of his pen, Trump managed to shock lawmakers out of their coma with respect to emergency powers. It’s as if Congress suddenly discovered that it actually possessed the ability to block a president from exercising the extensive authorities granted to him during a national emergency.

The National Emergencies Act is one of those laws presidents have used to increase their power during extraordinary circumstances. Except extraordinary has now become ordinary. The Brennan Center of Justice has documented 59 national emergencies (Trump’s border emergency will be the 60th) in the 42 years the NEA has been in effect. Not including Trump’s recent declaration, 32 of those 59 emergencies are still germane. The only time a national emergency has been declared over was when a president no longer found them to be useful. It’s perfectly understandable if one believed that Congress has no say in the matter at all.

This, however, couldn’t be further from the truth. Congress is actually given tremendous power under the NEA, including the ability to end a national emergency the president invokes. In fact, Congress is supposed to meet every six months to review an emergency and determine whether a vote to terminate it is appropriate. Not once has Congress done what the law requires it to do. Not once has Congress met to review an emergency on the books, let alone voted to kill one.

This nauseating history may now come to an end thanks to Trump. Congressional Democrats are already drafting a resolution of disapproval to put on the House floor. Given the Democratic majority in the House, the resolution would most definitely pass if it’s introduced. There seem to be enough Senate Republicans nervous about the precedent Trump’s declaration would set for the willingness of future presidents to levy emergency authority that it could even pass the upper chamber.

Trump would veto any resolution of disapproval that comes to his desk, and his veto would likely be sustained courtesy of loyal Senate Republicans. But the bigger point stands: lawmakers, after four decades of sitting in the peanut gallery and twiddling their thumbs, will actually go through the trouble of following a law Congress itself passed.

Democrats will be reluctant to admit it, but Trump will deserve a big share of the credit for getting the legislative branch to do the job its members were elected to do: abide by the law. That would be no small accomplishment in an era when budgets are late, the government is constantly at risk of shutting down, committee hearings are exercises in partisan warfare, and Senate confirmations languish.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/thanks-to-trumps-national-emergency-congress-might-actually-do-its-job

BERLIN — The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it’s still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin. The U.S. embassy is flying in LGBT activists from across Europe for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.

“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the event.

Although the decriminalization strategy is still being hashed out, officials say it’s likely to include working with global organizations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as other countries whose laws already allow for gay rights. Other U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts throughout Europe, including the U.S. Mission to the E.U., are involved, as is the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

Narrowly focused on criminalization, rather than broader LGBT issues like same-sex marriage, the campaign was conceived partly in response to the recent reported execution by hanging of a young gay man in Iran, the Trump administration’s top geopolitical foe.

Grenell, as Trump’s envoy to Germany, has been an outspoken Iran critic and has aggressively pressed European nations to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal and re-impose sanctions. But while the Trump administration has had some success in pressuring Iran through stepped-up U.S. penalties, efforts to bring the Europeans along have thus far largely fallen flat.

Reframing the conversation on Iran around a human rights issue that enjoys broad support in Europe could help the United States and Europe reach a point of agreement on Iran. Grenell called the hanging “a wake-up call for anyone who supports basic human rights,” in Bild, a leading German newspaper, this month.

“This is not the first time the Iranian regime has put a gay man to death with the usual outrageous claims of prostitution, kidnapping, or even pedophilia. And it sadly won’t be the last time,” Grenell wrote. “Barbaric public executions are all too common in a country where consensual homosexual relationships are criminalized and punishable by flogging and death.”

He added that “politicians, the U.N., democratic governments, diplomats and good people everywhere should speak up — and loudly.”

Yet by using gay rights as a cudgel against Iran, the Trump administration risks exposing close U.S. allies who are also vulnerable on the issue and creating a new tension point with the one region where Trump has managed to strengthen U.S. ties: the Arab world.

In Saudi Arabia, whose monarchy Trump has staunchly defended in the face of human rights allegations, homosexuality can be punishable by death, according to a 2017 worldwide report from the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). The report identified 72 nations that still criminalize homosexuality, including eight where it’s punishable by death.

That list includes the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Afghanistan — all U.S. allies — although those countries aren’t known to have implemented the death penalty for same-sex acts. In Egypt, whose leader Trump has effusively praised, homosexual relations aren’t technically illegal but other morality laws are used aggressively to target LGBT people.

New U.S. pressure on those countries to change their laws comes as the Trump administration is working to use nascent ties between Arab nations and Israel to form a powerful axis against Iran, a strategy that dovetails with the administration’s planned rollout of an ambitious plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In the Gulf state of Oman, for example, the Trump administration has touted a recent, historic visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a sign that old taboos are eroding. But any campaign to decriminalize homosexuality would ostensibly also have to call out Oman, where prison sentences can be handed out for being gay.

The push to end laws that outlaw homosexuality abroad also stands in contrast to the Trump administration’s mixed record on gay rights at home.

As a candidate, Trump was ambiguous about his position on many gay rights issues, but notably became the first Republican nominee to mention LGBT rights in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. His convention also featured another first: PayPal founder Peter Thiel became the first gay person to acknowledge his sexuality in a speech to the GOP convention, declaring he was “proud to be gay.”

Trump, after being elected, also said he was “fine” with same-sex marriage. But since he took office, his administration has scaled back some workplace protections for gay people and has argued in court that a federal anti-discrimination law doesn’t protect gay employees. He has also announced a ban on transgender people serving openly in the U.S. military, which the Supreme Court last month said could be implemented even as lower-court challenges play out.

U.S. officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is supporting the work by U.S. embassies and consulates to fight violence and discrimination against LGBT people. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Pompeo asserted: “I deeply believe that LGBTQ persons have every right that every other person in the world would have.”

Grenell, known for his hawkish views on national security, is also currently under consideration to be Trump’s ambassador to the U.N., three U.S. officials tell NBC News, after Trump’s previous pick for the job, Heather Nauert, withdrew from consideration over the weekend. Grenell once served as spokesman for the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. when that role was inhabited by John Bolton, who is now Trump’s national security adviser.

Planning for the campaign to decriminalize homosexuality started before the U.N. job became open. It was a topic of conversation over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference, where Grenell discussed it with a visiting congressional delegation that included Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.; and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

Despite the dozens of countries that still outlaw homosexuality, LGBT rights have proliferated in recent years in many parts of the world. Two dozen countries now recognize same-sex marriage, according to the ILGA report, while another 28 recognize domestic partnerships. The last U.S. laws outlawing same-sex activity were invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

Grenell, in his editorial in Bild, pointed out that India, Belize, Angola, and Trinidad and Tobago recently decriminalized same-sex conduct among consenting adults. But he said “reasonable people” must keep speaking out about laws in other places, including Iran and Chechnya, the Russian region where authorities have cracked down violently on gay people in recent years.

“While a student at Evangel University, a Christian liberal arts college in Missouri, I was taught by biblical scholars that all truth is God’s truth, no matter where it is found. The truth for LGBT people is that we were born gay,” Grenell wrote. “People can disagree philosophically about homosexuality, but no person should ever be subject to criminal penalties because they are gay.”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-launches-global-effort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081

Mr. Stone told The Washington Post, meanwhile, that the symbol near Judge Jackson’s head was a “Celtic symbol.” And on a broadcast with the conspiracy site Infowars, he referred to the image as an “occult symbol.”

The Instagram post was not the first time Mr. Stone had transformed his court proceedings into a spectacle. As he emerged from a courthouse after his arrest, he threw up his arms in Richard M. Nixon’s trademark double peace sign.

Mr. Stone’s lawyers did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday afternoon. He told The Post that he planned to attend Thursday’s hearing.

Last month, Mr. Stone pleaded not guilty to felony charges in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was charged with obstruction of justice, witness tampering and making false statements.

Mr. Mueller’s indictment accused Mr. Stone of lying to investigators for the House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own inquiry into the Russian election interference campaign, and of pressuring another witness in that investigation to lie to the committee.

The indictment also said that Trump campaign officials dispatched Mr. Stone to make contact with WikiLeaks during the summer of 2016, when the website was releasing a trove of damaging information about Hillary Clinton that had been stolen by Russian intelligence operatives.

Mr. Stone has fiercely declared his innocence, saying he was “prepared to fight for my life” during the trial.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/roger-stone-instagram-judge.html

With an announcement on Vermont Public Radio Tuesday morning, Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. entered an already crowded field of Democrats hoping to land in the White House in 2020. Bringing his signature promises of free healthcare and the free college tuition to an already promise-heavy field, Sanders also joined the competition to tell voters only what they want to hear — not what is actually possible.

The night before, however, another Democratic candidate, Amy Klobuchar, offered a dose of reality — refreshing because of its rarity.

Speaking at a town hall in New Hampshire, she refused to back free four-year college. “If I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would,” she said. When pushed on the subject and asked specifically about high debt burdens facing students, she held her ground, telling host Don Lemon:

That’s a remarkably candid and balanced approach to tackling a real problem of ballooning higher education costs.

And Klobuchar didn’t stop there. In the same town hall, she called the “Green New Deal” “aspirational” and characterized “Medicare For all” as something better suited to the future than a workable policy proposition in the present.

Klobuchar is right, and her fellow Democrats would do well to pay attention. Pragmatic policy might not be as flashy as grand promises of free goodies, but in the long run, Klobuchar is well on her way to differentiating herself. All she has to do is meet the low bar of being somewhat realistic.

Sanders and the Democrats who have been quick to embrace his proposals as party orthodoxy aren’t “magic genies” any more than Klobuchar is. The difference is that unlike Klobuchar, they aren’t ready to admit that.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/as-2020-democrats-embrace-free-everything-klobuchar-distinguishes-herself-by-being-realistic

A new congressional report says President Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn worked with a group of retired U.S. generals to push a plan to build dozens of nuclear power reactors in Saudi Arabia.

Flynn’s work with the retired military officials, who had formed a private company to promote the plan, was detailed in a report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Flynn and Derek Harvey, whom Flynn hired to oversee Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, ignored several legal and ethical warnings from career White House staff about the proposal. The National Security Council’s top lawyer even ordered the pair to stand down, but they went ahead working to get the proposal on Trump’s agenda during a call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the president’s May 2017 trip to Riyadh.

An unnamed official in the House report referred to the proposal as “a scheme for these generals to make some money.”

Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said the panel would be making requests for documents from the White House and other agencies as it continues to investigate the matter.

In February 2017, two weeks into the fledgling Trump administration, Flynn resigned from the White House after it was revealed that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

He pleaded guilty in December 2017 to a lying to the FBI about his two contacts with the Russian ambassador and agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn participated in 19 interviews with prosecutors, who called his cooperation “substantial.” In exchange, Mueller recommended no prison time for the former Trump aide.

Flynn was supposed to be sentenced in December in the case, but a judge postponed the sentencing, asking both sides to update him on the case in March.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mike-flynn-ignored-white-house-staff-warnings-pushed-plan-to-build-nuclear-reactors-in-saudi-arabia-report

Did you notice how, during the Andrew McCabe interview with “60 Minutes,” the former FBI acting director kept talking about “articulable facts?”

Like ex-CIA boss John Brennan and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, McCabe was coining his own phrase to explain why the intelligence community started spying the Trump team. But the justification for mounting a probe should not lie in weasel words. It belongs in something known in law enforcement circles as “Paragraph One.”

Paragraph One in federal investigations lays out precisely why the investigation began and how. You can’t skip over it with fanciful phrases or empty verbiage. Yet, in the case of the counter-intelligence probe that targeted Team Trump, it has been two years and we are still waiting for someone to articulate a clear reason why the program began.

MCCABE: ‘NO ONE’ IN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP OBJECTED WHEN TOLD OF FBI’S TRUMP PROBE

McCabe told Scott Pelley the FBI had a bunch of “articulable facts,” but he didn’t bother to articulate them. Earlier, Comey told Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier the investigation was justified by a “mosaic of facts.” The impetus was described by Brennan in still another interview as the “corpus of intelligence.”

Is anybody ever going to describe what this is? Put yourself in Trump’s shoes. He is being investigated as a potential traitor to the United States for colluding with a foreign power and no one has yet described why they were investigating the Trump team during the campaign.

Here’s why they can’t say what the “articulable facts,” “mosaic,” or “corpus” really are. Because it was the dossier, commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and later thoroughly discredited that prompted the never-ending probe. It was compiled by Trump-hating ex-British spy Christopher Steele, on behalf of Fusion GPS, which was hired by a law firm which in turn contracted with Clinton to get dirt – real or fake – on Trump. The dossier was the “predicate crime,” but now that it has been debunked, it is pretty hard to acknowledge what a house of cards this whole investigation has been.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

McCabe has already admitted the Justice Department would never have gotten a FISA warrant to investigate Trump, which gave them the power to monitor him, without the dossier. But you won’t hear him, Brennan or Comey say that anymore.

When the truth is no longer “articulable,” you have to get creative.

CLICK HERE TO HEAR MORE FROM THE DAN BONGINO SHOW

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-bongino-like-comey-and-brennan-mccabe-finds-impetus-of-trump-probe-inarticulable

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is highlighting her work bridging the political divide as she embarks on a 2020 presidential campaign – just don’t call her a “moderate.”

The day after the Minnesota Democrat declared her candidacy, she pushed back against the label, telling Rachel Maddow, “I think [voters] should see me as a progressive because I believe in progress and I have worked towards progress my whole life.”

KLOBUCHAR DISMISSES LIBERAL LABEL

The senator then touted a litany of “progressive” accomplishments during her years in Washington and at the state level.

The response underscored how even those candidates considered within the party’s center-left are reluctant to be seen as somehow ignoring the wishes of the – vocal and influential – liberal base. The label “moderate” is scorned, avoided as a potentially fatal term in a primary campaign stacked with left-wing heavyweights like Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey, who speak glowingly of big-government policies like the Green New Deal. Most recently, populist firebrand Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Tuesday launched his second straight bid for the Democratic nomination. And progressive champions Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Merkley of Oregon may soon join the 2020 melee.

Self-described centrists are few and far between. What is emerging is a field where candidates who might otherwise brand themselves moderates are pushing a message of unity while still highlighting their “progressive” bona fides — or, in the case of once-moderate-leaning figures like Beto O’Rourke or Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, openly aligning themselves with the party’s left flank.

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a possible 2020 candidate, pushed back on the “moderate” label during a visit to New Hampshire last week. “I think in many ways I’m more progressive than a lot of these other folks. We’re actually getting it done,” he said.

Last week, former Rep. O’Rourke of Texas, who appears to be leaning toward a presidential bid, called for tearing down existing wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in his home town of El Paso. His push may have been a move to highlight his progressive credentials, following coverage of his voting record in Congress which was more conservative than the average Democrat’s.

Asked about O’Rourke’s comments, Gillibrand signaled a willingness to consider the idea. The New York senator years ago was known for pro-Second Amendment views and strong opposition to illegal immigration. She has since backed calls to eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement, telling “60 Minutes” last year she’s “ashamed” of her past immigration stance.

“It’s clear at this early stage that the most energy is around progressive candidates,” said Wayne Lesperance, New England College vice president of academic affairs and a political science professor.

DEM HOPEFULS SHIFT TO THE LEFT

Lesperance has seen many of the candidates in action as they’ve made their way in recent weeks through the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. He argued that “self-proclaimed moderates have a tougher path to navigate. And those who have taken moderate positions in the past find themselves having to explain those positions — never a good place to be while running.”

Defending such accomplishments that may not sit well with the increasingly liberal progressive base may be an issue for former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s seriously mulling a White House run. While he’s credited with pushing progressive policies during his years as vice president, his more conservative record in the Senate may not play well on the 2020 campaign trail.

The percentage of Democrats identifying as liberal averaged 51 percent in 2018, according to Gallup polling. That’s up from 50 percent in 2017, marking the first time a majority of Democrats have adopted this term, following gradual increases since the 1990s.

But there may still be an opening for a moderate. The Gallup survey found that 47 percent of Democrats still identify as moderate or conservative. And the survey indicated that a majority of Democrats and independents who lean toward the party would like to see the party move more to the center.

Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg appears to have no issues being labeled a moderate or centrist. The billionaire media mogul who’s contributed millions to fight for gun safety and battling climate change recently took aim at the Green New Deal, “Medicare-for-all” and other progressive proposals during a recent stop in New Hampshire, as he weighs launching a presidential campaign.

The Democrat turned Republican turned independent, who returned to the Democratic Party last year, called for “realistic” proposals that could win support from both Democrats and Republicans.

DELANEY TAKES AIM AT GREEN NEW DEAL

Count former three-term Rep. John Delaney of Maryland in that camp.

With many of his rivals for the nomination running to the left, Delaney highlights how he’s carving a more moderate path. And he’s taking aim at both the Green New Deal and “Medicare-for-all.”

At a speech last week at “Politics and Eggs,” a must stop for White House hopefuls campaigning in New Hampshire, Delaney called for a “sense of common purpose and unity” and described himself as a centrist, “which I don’t think is a dirty word.”

Asked by Fox News if many of the other Democratic White House hopefuls are too far to the left, Delaney said: “I think I’m the only one running as a problem solver. And I think there are two ways to seek the presidency. You can try to divide and create some goals that are unrealistic. I think that’s wrong … or you can actually try to unify the country.”

But Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson pushed back against labeling the contenders as progressive or moderate.

Ferguson, who was a senior spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, told Fox News that “voters are far more concerned with who you’re going to stand up for and why you’re going to do it than they are with any label you’re given. They want to connect with a candidate, believe what they are saying and see them as the antidote to Trump.”

“Voters don’t care what labels get pushed onto candidates because those labels don’t reflect the ideologies at play anymore,” he emphasized.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-cringe-at-being-labeled-less-than-liberal

Roger Stone has been ordered to appear in court on Thursday following an Instagram post that criticized the judge in his case. The judge may reconsider her gag order or Stone’s bail.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Roger Stone has been ordered to appear in court on Thursday following an Instagram post that criticized the judge in his case. The judge may reconsider her gag order or Stone’s bail.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

The federal judge in Roger Stone’s case has ordered him to appear in court this week following a critical post about her that was shared on his Instagram account.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson scheduled a hearing for Thursday at which Stone will be required to argue why Jackson should not alter the gag order she has imposed or reconsider the bail Stone was granted after his arrest.

A post appeared on Stone’s Instagram account on Monday with a caption that criticized the “show trial” over which Jackson would preside, the latest element in a publicity campaign Stone has been carrying on since he was charged.

The caption that accompanied the photo of Jackson alluded to legal machinations by the “Deep State” that had set Stone up for a “show trial” in Jackson’s court.

The Instagram post was deleted, and Stone submitted documents apologizing to Jackson.

The judge had held open the prospect of modifying her gag order on Friday in the order that made clear she was trying to preserve her ability to seat an impartial jury and “maintain the dignity and seriousness of the courthouse and these proceedings.”

Stone, meanwhile, has been trying to raise money for a legal defense fund and told supporters in an earlier email that he has been reduced to surviving on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695940185/roger-stone-ordered-to-appear-in-court-following-post-that-criticized-judge