Trump must beware the Cohen trap

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.

President Trump needs to tell Mueller screw you I have nothing to say to you.

Even Jason Turley knows this is a set up and a witch hunt.

The image of FBI agents carting away computers and records of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is just the latest cringeworthy moment from the life and times of the attorney. Few would be surprised by Cohen being criminally charged. However, Cohen’s greatest danger to Trump may be not as a defendant but as bait.

Consider the curious aspect of this referral: A year ago, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had no problem with expanding Robert Mueller’s mandate to allow him to investigate and order a “no-knock raid” on former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Those crimes were far removed from the original purpose of the special counsel investigation, and included business transactions linked to his work in Ukraine and conduct years before the election.

Media is reporting that Mueller went to Rosenstein with the evidence against Cohen for fraud and other offenses in Russia and Ukraine, including campaign finance violations in the very election that is the subject of the original mandate. Yet, now, Rosenstein reportedly wanted Cohen investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. If so, why? The offenses are far closer to Trump and the campaign than those allowed against Manafort.


This is why the referral to the Southern District was a move that may be as cunning as it is hostile. The timing and the manner of the raid have all of the characteristics of a wolf pit, and Trump — not Cohen — could prove to be the prize. For centuries, farmers dug pits with sharp spikes at the base, and place branches over the hole. They placed a piece of meat on the branches to attract the wolf, so that it would fall into the pit.

As I have previously written, Mueller does not appear to have a compelling criminal case against Trump for collusion with the Russians. Indeed, Trump remains a “subject,” not a target, an unchanged status after more than a year of investigation and multiple cooperative witnesses. If Trump simply stays where he is, under cover, he could well run out this investigation without a charge. But that depends on him staying there.

Cohen, however, may be just the right carrion to draw this wolf into the open. Until the raid, Trump appeared, finally, to be following the advice of his lawyers in the White House and preparing for a negotiated interview with Mueller. One day after reportedly starting to prepare for that interview, the president was thrown into a rage over the raiding of his personal lawyer’s office.

Suddenly, Trump was back on camera denouncing Mueller, Rosenstein, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, fired FBI director James Comey and others, as well as discussing the possible firing of Mueller. Most competent lawyers agree that firing Mueller, like the disastrous firing of Comey, would present an existential threat to Trump’s presidency.

Like any good wolf trap, this set-up, first and foremost, protects the hunters. By referring the matter, Mueller and Rosenstein protected themselves from criticism of expanding the investigation. At the same time, they brought into the mix U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who Trump interviewed and nominated, as well as a neutral magistrate who signed the search warrant.


Maxine Waters: Ben Carson ‘doesn’t care about people in public housing’

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill

Maxine Waters is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Ben Carson grew up in public housing and wants to get people out of there and off the DemocRat Plantation.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) ripped into Housing and Urban DevelopmentSecretary Ben Carson in a speech Saturday, saying Carson “doesn’t care about people in public housing.”

“[Carson] knows nothing about the mission of HUD,” Waters said in a speech at the Essence Festival in New Orleans. “He doesn’t care about people in public housing. He believes that if you are poor, it is your own fault. And he doesn’t know the difference between an immigrant and a slave.”

Waters was referring to Carson’s remarks at a March event for HUD employees in which he referred to slaves brought to America as “immigrants.”

“That’s what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity,” Carson had said. “There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less.”

Carson also said in May that poverty was “a state of mind.”

“You take somebody that has the right mindset, you take everything from them and put them on the street and I guarantee in a little while they’ll be right back up there,” he said in a SiriusXM radio interview in May. “And you take somebody with the wrong mindset, you can give them everything in the world, they’ll work their way right back down to the bottom.”

Waters also warned Carson that she would tough on him when he testifies before the House Committee on Financial Services, on which she is the ranking member.

“[If he] thinks that I am going to give him a pass, I am going to take his ass apart,” Waters said.

House Democrat introduces bill to amend presidential removal procedures

1 Comment

H/T The Hill.

This is one of looniest things I have heard recently coming from the DemocRat party.

There is not one living ex president or vice president that I would trust their judgement about President Trump.

I know that Vice President Mike Pence is an honorable man and he would not take part in a witch hunt to remove President Trump.

A House Democrat has introduced legislation to enhance the Constitution’s presidential removal procedures in response to concerns about President Trump’s behavior.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed the bill during the House’s two-week April recess to empower former presidents and vice presidents of both parties, in coordination with the sitting vice president, to determine if a president is fit for office.

“It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the vice president to examine whether the president is able to discharge the duties of the office. When there are questions about the president’s ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country’s best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively,” Blumenauer said in a statement.

Blumenauer’s proposal stems from concern that the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which was adopted five decades ago, would fall short in cases of emotional or mental incapacity.

The amendment states that the vice president assumes the Oval Office in the event that a president is removed from office, dies or resigns.

Alternatively, the vice president and a majority of Cabinet officers can also jointly declare that a president is unfit to serve. The vice president would then take over as president in such a case.

In the event that a president refused to step down, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to vote to force the resignation.

But Blumenauer posited that the mechanism wouldn’t be effective if a mentally unstable president simply fired all the Cabinet members. He argued it’s also possible that Cabinet members might feel pressured to stand by the president in the polarized political environment despite their own personal misgivings.

“Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve. It’s time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Blumenauer said.

Blumenauer first raised concerns about the 25th Amendment in a House floor speech in February during which he expressed worry about what he viewed as “erratic” behavior from Trump. At the time, he pointed to Trump’s baseless claims about voter fraud in the election and stating that it was sunny during his inaugural address when it was, in fact, raining.

A handful of Democratic lawmakers have openly raised questions about Trump’s psychological state since he took office in January, including Blumenauer, Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) and Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.) and John Yarmuth (Ky.).

Webb: Democratic Party has moved ‘very far to the left’


H/T The Hill.

Jim Webb is correct with his observations about the DemocRat party lurching to the left.

The party will continue to go as far left as possible.

I do not refer to the DemocRat party as Democratic because they sure as Hell are not Democratic.

There is a video on The Hill but there is not a link to embed it.

Former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) on Sunday said the Democratic Party has moved “very far to the left” over the past five or six years.

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Webb said the Democrats are looking at 2018 and they “don’t have a message.”

“When you can’t have a Jefferson-Jackson dinner, which was a primary celebratory event of the Democratic Party for years, because Jefferson and Jackson were slaveholders,” Webb, a candidate in the 2016 Democratic primary race, said.

“They were also great Americans in their day. Something different has happened to the Democratic Party.”

Webb said the Democratic Party’s message has “been shaped toward identity politics”

“And they’ve lost the key part of their base,” he said.

“The people who believe that regardless of any of these identity segments, you need to have a voice in a quarters of power for those that have no voice. And we’ve lost that for the Democratic Party.”

Webb said the Democrats haven’t done the kind of “self reflection” they needed starting in 2010.

“You’ve lost white working people. You’ve lost flyover land, and you saw in this election what happens when people get frustrated enough that they say, ‘I’m not going to take this,'” he said.

“There is an aristocracy now that pervades American politics. It’s got to be broken somehow in both parties, and I think that’s what the Trump message was that echoed so strongly in these flyover communities.”

Webb also declined to share his vote in the presidential election.

“I’m comfortable for my vote and my vote is private to me. But at the same time, I will say that I did not endorse Hillary Clinton,” Webb said.

“The Democratic Party’s got to do some real hard looks on whether or not they are going to expand and get back working people who used to be the core of their party.”

WikiLeaks founder: Obama admin trying to ‘delegitimize’ Trum

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.

Obama is doing this to try to save his legacy.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says there’s an “obvious” reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia’s alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Donald Trump‘s electoral win.

“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House,” Assange said during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity airing Tuesday night, according to a transcript of excerpts from the network.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” Assange said during the interview, which was conducted at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been staying.

“Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true,” Assange continued. “But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House.”

Assange reiterated the group’s denial that Russia was the source of the Democratic documents released over the summer.

“Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no,” he said.

In December, Assange told Hannity that the documents the anti-secrecy group received looked “very much like they’re from the Russians” but said his source was not them.

When asked if he thought WikiLeaks influenced the 2016 election, Assange pointed to private comments from members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton‘s campaign in documents published by the group.

“Did [WikiLeaks] change the outcome of the election? Who knows, it’s impossible to tell,” Assange said.

“But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

Five ways Trump could unwind Obama’s environmental policies

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.

When President Trump over turns Obama’s wacko environmental regulations there more jobs created and energy prices will come down.

Many of President Obama’s climate and environmental policies are unlikely to survive under President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump railed against Obama’s record throughout the presidential campaign, promising to repeal regulations, increase fossil fuel production and more.

Since so much of Obama’s record on the environment is built on regulations and executive actions, Trump can scale back or outright reverse much of it without action from Congress.

Trump will be able to start executing many of the changes on his first day in office, while others will require a long regulatory process.

Here are five of the major changes Trump is likely to bring.

Allow more fossil fuel production

Trump promised during the campaign that he would “unleash an energy revolution,” in large part by making it easier to extract oil, natural gas and coal, even though domestic oil and gas production levels are near record highs.

He said that on his first day in office, he would lift “the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal, and we will put our miners back to work.”

One of his top targets is the Obama administration’s moratorium on new leases for mining coal on federal land, which began earlier this year. The administration said it was imposing the moratorium while it reviews the environmental impacts of the federal coal program and possible policy changes such as increased royalty rates.

The coal moratorium falls under the purview of the Interior Department, which Trump tapped Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (R) to lead. Zinke has been an outspoken opponent of the moratorium, which he said has an outsized impact on Montana.

Trump also wants to make more areas available for offshore drilling. Obama recently made final a five-year schedule for offshore leases that excludes the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which prompted congressional Republicans to call for Trump to immediately expand areas for drilling.

Obama’s final years in office have brought numerous regulations on oil and natural gas drilling, including rules regarding hydraulic fracturing and methane emissions.

Companies say those rules severely limit their growth and are pushing for them to be repealed. The rule on fracking on federal land, written by the Interior Department, was struck down in court, and Trump could quickly end the Obama administration’s appeal of the decision.

Repeal regulations

Obama’s regulations have been a hallmark of his environmental agenda. He frequently argued that Congress fell short of its responsibility to protect the environment and tasked his administration with filling the gap.

Since so many of Obama’s policies were regulatory, Trump can use the same regulatory process to roll them back.

The Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule were two of the regulations Trump spoke about unwinding most frequently on the campaign trail. Both are on hold while they are being litigated.

The climate rule limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, while the water rule asserts federal authority over small waterways like streams and wetlands.

Representatives of two dozen conservative states this week wrote to Trump to suggest that he take action on his first day in office against the climate rule. They said he could immediately declare that it is illegal and instruct the EPA not to enforce it, then later work through the regulatory process to wipe it from the books.

Any move by the Trump administration to roll back a regulation would be subject to lawsuits from environmentalists, liberal states and others. Courts are likely to give Trump wide leeway in his regulatory moves, but they might not let him roll back everything he wants to.

Stop international cooperation on climate

Last year’s Paris agreement, in which nearly 200 nations agreed to limit or cut their greenhouse gas emissions, was one of the top items on Obama’s climate agenda.

It’s also one of Trump’s top targets. While he has shown some signs since Election Day of reconsidering, he promised to “cancel” the accord, and his aides have analyzed strategies to quickly pull the United States out of it — potentially within the first 100 days of his presidency.

Obama promised as part of the agreement that the United States would reduce its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025. But the emissions cuts are not internationally binding, so Trump could also choose to ignore them altogether.

Beyond the Paris agreement, Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerrymade climate a top diplomatic priority. In recent years they have used almost every high-level diplomatic communication to push international leaders on the issue.

Trump, by contrast, has shown no willingness to follow suit. Rex Tillerson, his nominee for secretary of State and the outgoing CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., comes from a company that supports the Paris accord, but it remains to be seen if that will inform his work as the country’s top diplomat.

Stop defending Obama’s regulations in court

Nearly every major environmental regulation from Obama garnered a lawsuit from the industries it affects and from conservative states, and much of that litigation is ongoing.

Once Trump takes office, he will have the power to instruct Justice Department attorneys to stop defending the regulations.

Those attorneys could let the courts decide the cases, or could ask the courts to let the agencies go back and rewrite the rules.

Since the fracking rule has been overturned by a district court and is now being appealed, the decision to stop defending it could mean that the rule is dead.

Other major regulations like the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States could potentially be sent back to the agencies. But it is up to the courts to decide.

When the Trump administration declines to defend Obama’s regulations, environmental groups are likely to step in to defend them, whether the federal government wants them to or not.

Weaken environmental enforcement

Trump’s attorneys in the EPA, the Justice Department and other agencies will have great leeway in how they enforce environmental laws against companies that pollute or break other laws.

Recent Republican administrations have taken action to cut back on enforcement at the EPA and elsewhere, while Democrats have ramped it up.

Trump, his attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions and others would have multiple tools at their disposal to ease up on punishments.

They could use prosecutorial discretion to decide which cases to pursue, change budgeting to devote less money to the cause or prioritize resources to certain law enforcement issues over others.

Environmental groups can at times challenge changes to enforcement policy in court. Specifically, greens can sometimes sue companies that break laws if the federal government doesn’t take action, or if they argue that the action is too weak.

Ginsburg appears to wear ‘dissent’ collar on bench

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.

Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg can take her dried up liberal prune ass to New Zealand.,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz286h62pK9uECQQRvD5MML0

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to be wearing her infamous “dissent jabot” on the bench Wednesday morning.

The move is being widely interpreted as a repudiation of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election a night earlier.
Ginsburg typically wears the collar when issuing dissenting opinions in the court, as she explained to Yahoo News in 2014. But no opinions were read Wednesday.
Ginsburg made headlines over the summer when she publicly criticized Trump before later apologizing.
In an interview with The New York Times in July, she said she “can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
For the country, it could be four years,” she said. “For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She later quoted her late husband Martin Ginsburg, saying, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Trump: Clinton’s bodyguards should drop guns and ‘see what happens to her’

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.

Liberals say guns are bad and evil yet they are surrounded by armed guards.
Donald Trump on Friday said that Hillary Clinton’s Secret Service detail should have their guns taken away to “see what happens to her.”

During a rally in Miami, Fla., Trump railed against Clinton’s gun control policies, saying she wants to “destroy your Second Amendment.”

“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons,” he said. “They should disarm. Right? I think they should disarm immediately.

“Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns … let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK? It’d be very dangerous.”

The comment appeared to be similar to another gun rights remark he made in August when he suggested that “Second Amendment people” could stop Clinton from nominating Supreme Court justices if she’s elected.

Anxious Dems urge Clinton to open up

Leave a comment

H/T The Hill.   

Hillary is only passionate about getting money for The Clinton Crime Family (Clinton Foundation) so she can skim off millions.,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz286h62pK9uECQQRvD5MML0

Democratic senators, anxious over Hillary Clinton’s inability to pull away from Donald Trump, have some advice for their nominee: Be more open, show your soul, focus on the economy and talk about blue-collar jobs.

Recent polls show Trump within striking distance of Clinton in the presidential election, defying predictions in Washington that he is doomed in November.

The Republican nominee’s ability to stay competitive while running an unconventional campaign has underscored what Democratic lawmakers see as the need for Clinton to improve in certain areas.

These lawmakers, who served with Clinton in Congress and have known her for years, say her public persona is too guarded.

They struggle to reconcile the charismatic, warm and funny woman they know in private with Clinton’s public persona, which can come across as stern, aloof or annoyed.

Democratic senators say it’s natural for Clinton to put up her guard, because she has been the target of Republican attacks for decades. But they think she might benefit from relaxing a little more on the campaign trail.

“Her decades in this arena have taken their toll,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “When you’re hit a lot there’s almost an unconscious shield that controls the answers to your questions. I think she’s got to get rid of that and just let herself be.”

“Everybody that knows her loves her. They know her heart is full,” she added. “That’s what she ought to do, just take the shield away from the heart.”

Vice President Biden offered similar advice earlier in the week, calling on her to be “more open.”

Clinton has had the most difficulty connecting with white, working-class voters. A nationwide CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Trump beating Clinton among white voters without college degrees, 66 percent to 23 percent.

Many of these voters question her trustworthiness.

The poll showed Trump leading Clinton by 2 points among likely voters nationwide, 45 percent to 42 percent. Voters gave Clinton a slightly higher unfavorable rating.

Biden thinks she can put those doubts to rest by being less guarded.

“Hillary knows it’s a problem, and she’s trying to figure out how to remedy it. And my advice to her, the best way to remedy it, is to talk about what you care about and talk about it with some passion,” he told CNN.

He advised her to “open up” and let voters “see your heart a little more.”

Some Senate Democrats think Biden’s right but caution that Clinton can’t pretend to be someone she’s not.

“It would be great if she showed her soul more, but she’s got to be comfortable and it has to be authentic,” said one senator, who requested anonymity to offer a frank assessment.

The lawmaker said Clinton is not a “soaring orator or a slap-you-on-the-shoulder politician likeJoe Biden” but nevertheless could act more naturally, like she often does in private settings with allies, donors and friends.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus criticized Clinton Wednesday as appearing angry and defensive during a national security forum hosted by NBC.

Clinton defended herself during a press conference Thursday, arguing her demeanor fit the subject matter.

“I had a very short window of time in that event last night to convey the seriousness with which I would approach the issues that concern our country,” she told reporters.

Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, noted some of the critiques of Clinton “have been said for a long time; you have to be more open, you’ve got to show more personality.”

He said that voters have gotten to know Clinton, and most think she’ll do a good job as president. He applauded Clinton’s increased media availability in recent days as something that makes her more accessible to voters.

“That’s a good thing,” Tester said. “The more transparent, the better.”

Clinton’s campaign signaled Thursday that it was taking the advice. A top aide told The Washington Post that Clinton would open up about her faith and values, and she took the first step when she gave a personal address Thursday night to the National Baptist Convention.

Clinton’s tone during speeches and debates has been a charged topic throughout the campaign. Pundits who suggest she should soften her demeanor and lower her voice have faced accusations that such criticism is inherently sexist.

Clinton’s other big vulnerability is the economy. Polls consistently show that voters have more confidence in Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul, to jump-start growth.

Feinstein says Clinton should talk more about the loss of manufacturing jobs and what the federal government can do to rebuild the manufacturing base.

She said Clinton should talk about “keeping companies here” and “enabling tech to do manufacturing here instead of abroad.”

Feinstein said one policy solution would be to give companies with billions of dollars stashed overseas a tax break on repatriating their profits in exchange for pledges to invest in domestic factories.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), the only Democratic senator who endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) during the primary, said Clinton needs to put more emphasis on creating high-paying blue-collar jobs.

“The biggest concern is living-wage jobs,” he said. “She’s laid out a strong infrastructure program that will put a lot of people to work … but I think the issue of living-wage jobs needs to be talked a lot more.”

Merkley says the income erosion suffered by middle-class families is a big reason for the discontent that has roiled this election cycle.

“It’s at the heart of the fact that blue-collar families are not doing as well as they were doing 20 or 30 years ago,” he added.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) gives Clinton high marks for her performance this year and praised her campaign ads as highly effective.

“She’s running her campaign the way it needs to be run,” he said.

He acknowledged that voters have reservations about Clinton but argued they have much deeper concerns about a Trump presidency.

He suggested, however, that she focus on the economy and work on erasing Trump’s lead on the issue.

“I think the economy is still one of the most important issues. She has to concentrate on the economy. At the end of the day, people do vote the economy, so that’s a critical and important part of the campaign,” he said.


This is a war, and Black Lives Matter is the enemy 

1 Comment


Sheriff David Clarke is spot on with his observations the Black Lives Matters Thugs are the enemy.

Milwaukee sheriff says Black Lives Matter is at war with America.

Source: This is a war, and Black Lives Matter is the enemy | TheHill

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: