Obama Built The ‘Cages’ for Illegals, Not Trump, Says Obama ICE Chief

https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-built-the-cages-for-illegals-not-trump-says-obama-ice-chief/

Obama Built The ‘Cages’ for Illegals, Not Trump, Says Obama ICE Chief

June 27, 2019

It was only a few months ago that Democrats were dismissing the crisis at the border as manufactured by Trump, and now they’re comparing migrant detention centers to concentration camps and blaming Trump for “putting kids in cages.”

But for those still trying to blame President Trump, Barack Obama’s former ICE chief, Thomas Homan, has a reality check for them. Speaking at a conference hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, Homan explained that the “cages” Democrats are blaming on Trump were the product of the Obama administration:

“I’ve been to that facility, where they talk about cages. That facility was built under President Obama under (Homeland Security) Secretary Jeh Johnson. I was there because I was there when it was built,” said Thomas Homan, who was Obama’s executive associate director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for nearly four years. 

At an immigration conference today, Homan, under consideration for a new position of “border czar” in the Trump administration, grew visibly angry answering a question about “cages” often cited by Democratic critics of the president.

Homan, who ran Obama’s successful deportation operation, ripped Democrats who question Trump immigration officials on the Obama-era idea.

He cited one Democratic chairman who asked a Trump official, “You still keeping kids in cages?”

Homan, at the conference hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, said, “I would answer the question, ‘The kids are being housed  in the same facility built under the Obama administration.’ If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”

Homan explained that the fencing that separates kids from adults is done for safety reasons. “It’s chain link dividers that keep children separate from unrelated adults. It’s about protecting children,” he said. He also added it’s only temporary accommodations until they are moved elsewhere by the Department of Health and Human Services. According to a Google News search, only conservative media seems to be talking about Homan’s comments. Gee, I wonder why.

July 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Immigration. Leave a comment.

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tariffs-wiped-most-families-080000425.html

Trump’s Tariffs Have Already Wiped Out Tax Bill Savings for Average Americans

June 7, 2019

(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump’s trade wars have already wiped out all but $100 of the average American household’s windfall from Trump’s 2017 tax law. And that’s just the beginning.

That last $100 in tax-cut gains could soon completely disappear — and then some — because of additional tariffs Trump has announced. If the president makes good on his threats to impose levies on virtually all imports from China and Mexico, those middle-earning households could pay nearly $4,000 more.

Subtract the tax cut, and the average household will effectively be paying about $3,000 more in taxes through additional levies on the products they consume.

“It’s giving with one hand and taking with the other,” said Kim Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, who has written a book promoting free trade.

Here’s how the math works. Middle earners got an average tax cut of $930, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The tariffs already in effect cost the average household about $831, according to research from the New York Federal Reserve.

China Goods

Add in the additional tariffs on another $300 billion in Chinese goods that Trump proposed in May and that increases the cost for the average family of four to about $2,294 annually, according to research from Tariffs Hurt the Heartland, a coalition of business groups that oppose tariffs.

Trump has also threatened to levy tariffs on all imports from Mexico, starting with a 5% tax beginning as soon as Monday that would increase monthly to 25% by October. If the tariffs reach their highest level, that would increase costs for households by $1,700 annually, according to Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The full force of the Chinese and Mexican tariffs and subsequent retaliation would mean that consumers are paying an additional $3,994 because of tariffs, more than four times the $930 tax cut for middle earners that the Republican Party touts as its signature legislative achievement.

The tariffs are “clearly demolishing” the benefits of the tax cuts for both businesses and consumers, said Daniel Ikenson, who directs trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Many households and consumers have been spared so far, but the next round of tariffs will be more problematic.”

In the beginning of the trade dispute, Trump and his advisers sought to put tariffs on imports that consumers don’t directly buy, such as steel and aluminum. But as the trade feud with China has escalated, they ran out of non-consumer goods on which to put levies. The most recent round of announced tariffs includes consumer products, such as apparel, sporting goods and kitchen ware.

Trump’s most recent threat on all imports from Mexico would increase prices on cars and auto parts, televisions, phones and air conditioners, as well as produce, such as avocados, citrus and pineapples.

Only the top 5% of earners would continue to see a net tax cut of more than 1%, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. Tariffs would also depress wages by about 0.5% and result in the loss of nearly 610,000 full-time jobs, according to the foundation.

That creates political problems for Republicans in Congress who have continued to back Trump even as they disagreed with his trade policies. Republicans have cited the passage of the tax-cut law, low unemployment rates and wage increases as signs that Trump’s policies have buoyed the economy. But there are signs that support is beginning to fracture.

The tax cuts “vaulted America back into the most competitive economy,” said Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who led the passage of the tax cut legislation in the House. “Higher tariffs and the uncertainty that comes with trade disputes” hurt the economy, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged the administration this week to delay imposing the tariffs until Republicans in Congress could plead their case to Trump. Most Senate Republicans have objected to Trump’s use of tariffs to force tougher border enforcement by Mexico. Lawmakers are weighing moves to block the levies.

“This is a man-made disaster, because Donald Trump is not focused in any way on advancing a well-thought-out doctrine,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a top Democrat from New York. “He seems to be carrying out at times personal vendettas, at other times political objectives and sometimes an effort to distract from the news of the day.”

Little Noticed

The effects of tariffs have yet to become noticeable to average consumers. That could soon change. The tariffs on goods from Mexico are slated to go into effect Monday, barring a last-minute deal between Mexican and U.S. negotiators. The Chinese tariffs hitting consumer goods could go into effect in the coming months.

Negotiators met for a second day Thursday to try to come to some agreement that would avert the tariffs. Mexico pushed for more time, but Vice President Mike Pence said the U.S. plans to impose tariffs on Monday.

“It’s not like all of sudden prices will jump 25%, but they could increase 10% or 11%,” said Brian Yarbrough, a senior equity analyst at Edward Jones, said of tariffs of 25% or more. “At some point, price increases will choke off demand, resulting in fewer sales.”

Republicans are hoping to campaign in 2020 on the message of a strong economy buoyed by their tax reductions and deregulation, which began two years ago. But the fresh sting of tariffs risk erasing any economic goodwill those policies generated.

“For the average household it will be a net loss, no doubt,” the Peterson Institutes’s Hufbauer said. “It will be painful.”

June 7, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Economics. 2 comments.

Time Magazine Columnist’s Trump Quote Went Viral – Then He Admitted He Made It Up

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/26/ian-bremmer-fake-trump-quote/

Time Magazine Columnist’s Trump Quote Went Viral — Then He Admitted He Made It Up

May 26, 2019

Time Magazine columnist Ian Bremmer on Sunday tweeted a quote from President Donald Trump about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that quickly went viral — but it wasn’t real.

“President Trump in Tokyo: ‘Kim Jong Un is smarter and would make a better President than Sleepy Joe Biden.’” Bremmer wrote on Twitter.

While Trump did praise the North Korean dictator’s insult of former Vice President Joe Biden, the president never said what Bremmer quoted him saying — because Bremmer made it up. (RELATED: 9 Times The Media Pushed Misinformation About Brett Kavanaugh)

Bremmer left the false post up for several hours before conceding he made up the quote and deleting the tweet, which he defended as “plausible.”

“This is objectively a completely ludicrous quote. And yet kinda plausible. Especially on twitter, where people automatically support whatever political position they have. That’s the point.” Bremmer wrote in a since-deleted correction.

Bremmer’s tweet went viral among Trump critics before he took it down.

“Don’t shrug your shoulders. Don’t get used to this insanity,” wrote CNN contributor Ana Navarro.

“The President of the United States praising a cruel dictator who violates human rights, threatens nuclear attacks, oppresses his people, and kills political opponents, IS NOT FREAKING NORMAL,” Navarro added.

Her tweet amplifying Bremmer’s fake quote was shared thousands of times across Twitter.

Navarro was far from alone in falling for the made up quote.

Democratic Calif. Rep. Ted Lieu also spread Bremmer’s false tweet. Lieu later wrote that he “removed the retweet” after Bremmer admitted the quote was fake.

Left-wing activist group Media Matters‘ deputy director of rapid response, Andrew Lawrence, also amplified the invented quote.

Lawrence called it “equally incredible how easily manipulated the president is and also that democrats havent [sic] figured out how to take advantage of this yet,” pointing to Bremmer’s false tweet.

Other critics of the president similarly promoted the false information.

May 27, 2019. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Democrats give public housing to illegal aliens instead of to U.S. citizens

I just found out that Democrats are giving public housing to illegal aliens instead of to U.S. citizens.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson said of this:

“There is an affordable-housing crisis in this country, and we need to make certain our scarce public ­resources help those who are ­legally entitled to it.”

President Trump has ordered illegal aliens to get out of public housing within 18 months.

Democrats don’t like that one bit.

New York City Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio said of Trump’s order:

“This is what cruelty looks like.”

Apparently, de Blasio doesn’t think it’s “cruel” to keep U.S. citizens out of these public housing units that are currently being occupied by illegal aliens.

U.S. Congressional Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) said that Carson was

“despicable” for “ripping apart families and throwing children on the street”

Apparently, Maloney thinks that if illegal aliens move out of public housing, this will somehow cause them to abandon their own children.

Also, apparently, Maloney doesn’t think it’s “despicable” that Democrats are causing U.S. citizens to be homeless.

With the demand for public housing exceeding the supply, it is necessary to prioritize who should and should not be allowed to live in it. By choosing to give this housing to illegal aliens instead of to U.S. citizens, Democrats have shown where their true loyalties lie.

May 22, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Immigration. Leave a comment.

Trump Just Drove A Mack Truck Through The Shameless Liberal Hypocrisy On Sanctuary Cities

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2019/04/15/trump-just-drove-a-mack-truck-through-the-shameless-liberal-hypocrisy-on-sanctuary-cities-n2544764

Trump Just Drove A Mack Truck Through The Shameless Liberal Hypocrisy On Sanctuary Cities

By Scott Morefield

April 15, 2019

If the liberal attitude toward immigration and a host of other issues could be summed up with just one saying, it would be this one: “good for thee, but not for me.”

Safely tucked away inside their think tanks, tenured academic positions, lilly-white suburban enclaves, and ESPECIALLY behind their carefully crafted WALLS, it’s easy for liberals to virtue-signal about how the rest of us should be “compassionate” and agree to welcome every migrant who takes a notion to come to the United States. But when it comes to their own personal lives, their “money” is almost never anywhere in the vicinity of their big fat jabbering pie holes.

In other words, just like with the degree of charitable contributions from people all-too-eager to spend YOUR money, liberals are big fat hypocrites.

Such was the case last week when President Donald Trump brilliantly proposed – in a masterful troll job that may very well exceed all of his previous troll jobs – that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) transport illegal border-crossers to … wait for it … sanctuary cities. Sure, it’ll sadly probably never happen, and likely the only reason Trump brought it up was to do exactly what it did – expose liberal hypocrisy. But even so, you’d think liberals would be ALL OVER the notion, right? This should be so EASY, given their worldview, so why not just call Trump’s bluff and say “bring them on in?” I mean, even allowing for the typical degree of liberal hypocrisy, the very definition of “sanctuary city” means that those in charge of designating their cities as such must want them to be, you know, a SANCTUARY for illegal immigrants. The more the merrier, they’re always saying, yet when the bad orange man proposes giving them what they supposedly want, right in their own backyards, they look that gift horse in the mouth like it’s got three eyes.

It’s almost like they think Mexico and Central America aren’t sending their best, or something.

Senator Amy Klobuchar accused Trump of “literally using human beings as pawns in a political game.” If that was the case, it was a checkmate move, Mr. President. Actress Alyssa Milano called the idea “sick and twisted.” Rep. Adam “Pencil-Neck” Schiff called it a “hare-brained scheme.” Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro waxed eloquent about “the cruelty of this administration,” because apparently the definition of “cruelty” is matching liberals up with the reality of their absurd utopian fantasies. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin accused the Trump administration of treating illegals like a “pestilence to spread around the country,” which still begs the question: if they love them so much why would they care?

And then there was Cher, who did a Trump-prompted stark 180 on mass immigration by wondering via Twitter why Los Angeles and California, a city and state that aren’t “taking care of” their “own” should bring in and “take care of more.” This was a woman who, less than two years ago mind you, begged anyone who could to “take a dreamer” into their home. It’s hard to know how long it’ll be before “red-pilled Cher” issues the obligatory profuse apology, but for today at least it’s nice to see a ray of common sense pierce even the most brainwashed of souls.

There were plenty more where those came from, all perfectly summed up by Trump Deputy Director of Communications Matt Wolking, who tweeted: “Seeing left-wing media folks who advocate for open borders lose their minds because immigrants will bring violence and crime to their cities is … quite a sight.”

Indeed. It reminds me of Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s now legendary question to Jorge Ramos last October when the Univision anchor was traveling with the first migrant caravan.

“How many of these migrants are you taking in personally into your home and are supporting once they get into the United States?” Carlson asked Ramos.

“I think that’s a great question and that’s precisely the kind of question that people like you ask when you don’t want to understand that this has nothing to do with individuals,” Ramos responded. After an awkward back and forth, Carlson asked him if he would simply take in “three” migrants, a question Ramos dodged yet again because he CLEARLY wasn’t about to take any of the migrants he supposedly cares so much about into his sprawling, walled (because of course it is) mansion. They might get the carpets dirty, after all.

To his credit, San Jose, California Mayor Sam Liccardo is the only liberal non-hypocrite in America right now. That’s because he offered to take any illegal immigrants President Trump would transfer to his city: “[Donald Trump] plans to release detained immigrants to [San Jose]??” Liccardo tweeted Friday. “We welcome any families willing to endure such extraordinary hardships and to take such tremendous risks to be a part of our great country.”

Liccardo’s non-hypocrisy, on this issue at least, stands in stark contrast to the rest of his ideological brethren. Liberals want to take your money and choose where to spend it, but don’t want to give it themselves. Liberals want walls for their mansions and their neighborhoods, but none for America. Liberals want armed guards and even guns for themselves, but would disarm ordinary Americans whose lives apparently aren’t as “valuable” as theirs.

And as Trump masterfully exposed, they want endless immigration from the Third World, but not anywhere near where they live.

April 15, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Immigration. Leave a comment.

Hypocrite Nancy Pelosi says she supports illegal immigrants, but opposes Trump’s proposal to send them to her own Congressional district

Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that she supports illegal immigrants.

However, she opposes a recent proposal by Trump to send them to her own Congressional district.

Ashley Etienne, Pelosi’s spokesperson, said of Trump’s proposal:

“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated… Using human beings – including little children – as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”

This reminds me of how Ted Kennedy said he supported wind power, but opposed the proposed offshore Cape Cod wind farm that would have been six miles away from his home, because it would have been “visible.”

April 12, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Immigration. 1 comment.

The Nation: The Real Costs of Russiagate

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-real-costs-of-russiagate/

The Real Costs of Russiagate

Its perpetrators, not Putin or Trump, “attacked American democracy.”

By Stephen F. Cohen

March 27, 2019

The very few of us who publicly challenged and deplored Russiagate allegations against candidate and then President Donald Trump from the time they first began to appear in mid-2016 should not gloat or rejoice over the US attorney general’s summary of Robert S. Mueller’s key finding: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.” (On the other hand, those of us repeatedly slurred as Trump and/or Putin “apologists” might feel some vindication.)

But what about the legions of high-ranking intelligence officials, politicians, editorial writers, television producers, and other opinion-makers, and their eager media outlets that perpetuated, inflated, and prolonged this unprecedented political scandal in American history—those who did not stop short of accusing the president of the United States of being a Kremlin “agent,” “asset,” “puppet,” “Manchurian candidate,” and who characterized his conduct and policies as “treasonous”? (These and other examples are cited in my book War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate, and in a recent piece by Paul Starobin in City Journal.) Will they now apologize, as decency requires, or, more importantly, explain their motives so that we might understand and avoid another such national trauma?

Shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union, in 1985, he released a banned film, Repentance, that explored the underlying institutional, ideological, and personal dynamics of Stalinism. The film set off a nationwide media trial and condemnation of that murderous era. Though Russiagate has generated in America some Soviet-like practices and ruined a number of lives and reputations, it is, of course, nothing even remotely comparable to the Soviet Stalinist experience. By comparison, therefore, some introspective repentance on the part of Russiagate perpetuators should not be too much to ask. But as I foresaw well before the summary of Mueller’s “Russia investigation” appeared, there is unlikely to be much, if any. Too many personal and organizational interests are too deeply invested in Russiagate. Not surprisingly, leading perpetrators instead immediately met the summary with a torrent of denials, goal-post shifts, obfuscations, and calls for more Russiagate “investigations.” Joy Reid of MSNBC, which has been a citadel of Russiagate allegations along with CNN, even suggested that Mueller and Attorney General William Barr were themselves engaged in “a cover-up.”

Contrary to a number of major media outlets, from Bloomberg News to The Wall Street Journal, nor does Mueller’s exculpatory finding actually mean that “Russiagate…is dead” and indeed that “it expired in an instant.” Such conclusions reveal a lack of historical and political understanding. Nearly three years of Russiagate’s toxic allegations have entered the American political-media elite bloodstream, and they almost certainly will reappear again and again in one form or another.

This is an exceedingly grave danger, because the real costs of Russiagate are not the estimated $25–40 million spent on the Mueller investigation but the corrosive damage it has already done to the institutions of American democracy—damage done not by an alleged “Trump-Putin axis” but by Russsigate’s perpetrators themselves. Having examined this collateral damage in my recently published book War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate, I will only note them here.

§ Clamorous allegations that the Kremlin “attacked our elections” and thereby put Trump in the White House, despite the lack of any evidence, cast doubt on the legitimacy of American elections everywhere—national, state, and local. If true, or even suspected, how can voters have confidence in the electoral foundations of American democracy? Persistent demands to “secure our elections from hostile powers”— a politically and financially profitable mania, it seems—can only further abet and perpetuate declining confidence in the entire electoral process. Still more, if some crude Russian social-media outputs could so dupe voters, what does this tell us about what US elites, which originated these allegations, really think of those voters, of the American people?

§ Defamatory Russsiagate allegations that Trump was a “Kremlin puppet” and thus “illegitimate” were aimed at the president but hit the presidency itself, degrading the institution, bringing it under suspicion, casting doubt on its legitimacy. And if an “agent of a hostile foreign power” could occupy the White House once, a “Manchurian candidate,” why not again? Will Republicans be able to resist making such allegations against a future Democratic president? In any event, Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign manager, Robby Mook, has already told us that there will be a “next time.”

§ Mainstream media are, of course, a foundational institution of American democracy, especially national ones, newspapers and television, with immense influence inside the Beltway and, in ramifying synergic ways, throughout the country. Their Russiagate media malpractice, as I have termed it, may have been the worst such episode in modern American history. No mainstream media did anything to expose, for example, two crucial and fraudulent Russiagate documents—the so-called Steele Dossier and the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment—but instead relied heavily on them for their own narratives. Little more need be said here about this institutional self-degradation. Glenn Greenwald and a few others followed and exposed it throughout, and now Matt Taibbi has given us a meticulously documented account of that systematic malpractice, concluding that Mueller’s failure to confirm the media’s Russiagate allegations “is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.”

Nor, it must be added, was this entirely inadvertent or accidental. On August 8, 2016, the trend-setting New York Times published on its front page an astonishing editorial manifesto by its media critic. Asking whether “normal standards” should apply to candidate Trump, he explained that they should not: “You have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century.” Let others decide whether this Times proclamation unleashed the highly selective, unbalanced, questionably factual “journalism” that has so degraded Russiagate media or instead the publication sought to justify what was already underway. In either case, this remarkable—and ramifying—Times rejection of its own professed standards should not be forgotten. Almost equally remarkable and lamentable, we learn that even now, after Mueller’s finding is known, top executives of the Times and other leading Russiagate media outlets, including The Washington Post and CNN, “have no regrets.”

§ For better or worse, America has a two-party political system, which means that the Democratic Party is also a foundational institution. Little more also need be pointed out regarding its self-degrading role in the Russiagate fraud. Leading members of the party initiated, inflated, and prolonged it. They did nothing to prevent inquisitors like Representatives Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from becoming the cable-news face of the party. Or to rein in or disassociate the party from the outlandish excesses of “The Resistance.” With very few exceptions, elected and other leading Democrats did nothing to stop—and therefore further abetted—the institutional damage being done by Russiagate allegations. As for Mueller’s finding,the party’s virtual network, MSNBC, remains undeterred. Rachael Maddow continues to hype “the underlying reality that Russia did in fact attack us.” By any reasonable definition of “attack,” no, it did not, and scarcely any allegation could be more recklessly warmongering, a perception the Democratic Party will for this and other Russiagate commissions have to endure, or not. (When Mueller’s full report is published, we will see if he too indulged in this dangerous absurdity. A few passages in the summary suggest he might have done so.)

§ Finally, but potentially not least, the new Cold War with Russia has itself become an institution pervading American political, economic, media, and cultural life. Russiagate has made it more dangerous, more fraught with actual war, than the Cold War we survived, as I explain in War with Russia? Recall only that Russiagate allegations further demonized “Putin’s Russia,” thwarted Trump’s necessary attempts to “cooperate with Russia” as somehow “treasonous,” criminalized détente thinking and “inappropriate contacts with Russia”—in short, policies and practices that previously helped to avert nuclear war. Meanwhile, the Russiagate spectacle has caused many ordinary Russians who once admired America to now be “derisive and scornful” toward our political life.

The scarce good news it is that some Russian officials hope Mueller’s Russiagate exoneration of Trump will enable the president to resume his attempts to cooperate with Moscow. The bad institutional news is that Congress has invited, on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s initiative, NATO’s secretary general to address it on April 3. That figurehead has announced a renewed attempt to bring the former Soviet republic of Georgia into the military alliance. The last such attempt led to the US-Russian proxy war in Georgia in 2008. When it was tried in Ukraine in 2013, it produced the still ongoing Ukrainian civil and proxy war.

The editor of The New Yorker, itself an ardent Russiagate publication, asks whether “the moral and material corruption [Trump] has inflicted will be with us for a long while.” Perhaps. But the institutional costs of Russiagate are likely to be with us for even longer.

March 29, 2019. Tags: , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it.

By Matt Taibbi

March 23, 2019

Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.

As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia.

With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times:

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.

The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.

The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”

The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller’s reputation, noting Trump’s Attorney General William Barr’s reaction was an “endorsement” of the fineness of Mueller’s work:

In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.

Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?

For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:

It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole…

This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?”

The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like itself made galactic errors by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.

Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”
(more…)

March 24, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

Steve Cortes

March 21, 2019

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”

Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all.  No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.”

My colleagues seem prepared to dispute our own network’s correct contemporaneous reporting and the very clear transcripts of the now-infamous Trump Tower presser on the tragic events of Charlottesville.  Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

As a man charged with publicly explaining Donald Trump’s often meandering and colloquial vernacular in highly adversarial TV settings, I appreciate more than most the sometimes-murky nature of his off-script commentaries.  But these Charlottesville statements leave little room for interpretation.  For any honest person, therefore, to conclude that the president somehow praised the very people he actually derided, reveals a blatant and blinding level of bias.

Nonetheless, countless so-called journalists have furthered this damnable lie.  For example, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace responded that Trump had “given safe harbor to Nazis, to white supremacists.”  Her NBC colleague Chuck Todd claimed Trump “gave me the wrong kind of chills. Honestly, I’m a bit shaken from what I just heard.” Not to be outdone, print also got in on the act, with the New York Times spewing the blatantly propagandist headline: “Trump Gives White Supremacists Unequivocal Boost.” How could the Times possibly reconcile that Trump, who admonished that the supremacists should be “condemned totally” somehow also delivered an “unequivocal boost” to those very same miscreants?

But like many fake news narratives, repetition has helped cement this one into a reasonably plausible storyline for all but the most skeptical consumers of news.  In fact, over the weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on why Trump has not given a speech “condemning … white supremacist bigotry.”  Well, Chris, he has, and more than once.  The most powerful version was from the White House following Charlottesville and the heartbreaking death of Heather Heyer.  President Trump’s succinct and direct words:

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Despite the clear evidence of Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville, major media figures insist on spreading the calumny that Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people.”  The only explanation for such a repeated falsehood is abject laziness or willful deception.  Either way, the duplicity on this topic perhaps encapsulates the depressingly low trust most Americans place in major media, with 77 percent stating in a Monmouth University 2018 poll that traditional TV and newspapers report fake news.  In addition, such lies as the Charlottesville Hoax needlessly further divide our already-polarized society.

Instead of hyper-partisan, distorted narratives, as American citizens we should demand adherence to truth — and adherence to the common values that bind us regardless of politics. In the words of our president: “No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.”

March 24, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Media bias, Racism. Leave a comment.

Crybaby Trump is against free speech and doesn’t have a sense of humor!

Here’s a skit from the most recent episode of Saturday Night Live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vQlhWBvAwY

 

And here’s a tweet that Trump made in response: (original, archive)

 

 

The text states:

“Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!”

So Trump wants “retribution,” against people who were peacefully and lawfully exercising their first amendment right to free speech. He also wants them to be “looked into.”

Trump took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. He ought to be ashamed of himself for thinking that the people at Saturday Night Live are somehow exempt from the first amendment’s right to free speech.

February 18, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Humor, Television. Leave a comment.

For liking hamburgers, the Washington Post praised Obama, but mocked Trump

In 2014, the Washington Post published this article, which is called, “President Obama and cheeseburgers: A love story.”

In 2019, the Washington Post published this article, which is called, “‘Trump has turned the White House into a White Castle’: President roasted for serving Clemson fast food.”

Media bias at its finest.

January 18, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Video from Atlanta shows store employee assaulting customer for wearing pro-Trump shirt

This brand new video from Atlanta, Georgia, shows a store employee assaulting a customer for wearing a pro-Trump shirt. The assault occurs at 0:36

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65b7YuGOYMw

December 28, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Social justice warriors. 3 comments.

Shame on Trump for ordering General Motors to “put something else in”

Reuters just published this article about General Motors planning to close a plant in Ohio due to there being less demand for small cars.

Trump responded by saying:

“They better put something else in.”

It’s not the job of the President to tell private companies what products to make or how many kinds of products to make.

Shame on Trump for trying to give himself powers that are not authorized in the Constitution!

November 27, 2018. Tags: , , , . Donald Trump. 7 comments.

Dems to probe Trump’s treatment of CNN, Amazon, Washington Post in triple-threaded abuse-of-power inquiries

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-to-probe-trumps-treatment-of-cnn-amazon-washington-post-in-abuse-of-power-inquiries

Dems to probe Trump’s treatment of CNN, Amazon, Washington Post in triple-threaded abuse-of-power inquiries

November 11, 2018

The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee this week said that when the new Congress is seated in January, Democrats plan to scrutinize whether President Trump abused his authority by taking adverse action against retail giant Amazon and two of his bitter left-leaning media rivals: CNN and The Washington Post.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he and his colleagues will employ committee subpoena powers — which are backed by the legal threat of contempt of Congress — to conduct the triple-threaded inquiry into Trump’s possible use of the “instruments of state power to punish the press.”

Specifically, Schiff charged that Trump “was secretly meeting with the postmaster [general] in an effort to browbeat” her into “raising postal rates on Amazon,” whose founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, separately owns The Washington Post.

“This appears to be an effort by the president to use the instruments of state power to punish Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post,” Schiff said in the interview.

The president signed an executive order earlier this year mandating a review of what he called the “unsustainable financial path” of the United States Postal Service (USPS). And he has reportedly met with Postmaster General Megan Brennan several times to push for hikes to the shipping rates paid by companies like Amazon, although there are no indications he did so to seek political payback.

Trump has long derided the political coverage at the Post, which is fiercely and relentlessly criticial of the White House, as a lobbying tool for Bezos. Most recently, the White House has contradicted the Post’s unequivocal reporting that it had shared a “doctored” video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta making contact with a White House intern during a press conference last week, as a Buzzfeed analysis suggested the changes in the video could have resulted inadvertently from the conversion of the footage to the lower-fidelity .gif format commonly used on Twitter.

But Trump has also feuded specifically with Amazon throughout the year, saying it is taking advantage of taxpayer-subsidized shipping rates.

In March, he argued in a series of tweets that the online retailer’s “scam” shipping deal with the U.S. Postal Service is costing the agency “billions of dollars.”

While the U.S. Postal Service has lost money for 11 years, package delivery — which has been a bright spot for the service — is not the reason. Boosted by e-commerce, the Postal Service has experienced double-digit increases in revenue from delivering packages, but that hasn’t been enough to offset pension and health care costs as well as declines in first-class letters and marketing mail.

Schiff also raised the possibility that the Trump administration’s opposition to AT&T’s $85 billion takeover of Time Warner on antitrust grounds may have been motivated by the president’s animus toward CNN, whose parent company is Time Warner. Trump frequently claims that CNN speads “fake news” and that when it does so, it is acting as the “enemy of the people.”

“We don’t know, for example, whether the effort to hold up the merger of the parent of CNN was a concern over antitrust, or whether this was an effort merely to punish CNN,” Schiff said, without offering evidence.

“It is very squarely within our responsibility to find out,” Schiff said. Along with incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and other top Democrats, Schiff will have a mandate to serve a slew of subpoenas on the Trump administration.

But former GOP Judiciary Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who is now a Fox News contributor, told Politico in October that Cummings and Schiff shouldn’t get their hopes up.

“If [North Carolina Rep.] Mark Meadows and [Ohio Rep.] Jim Jordan can’t get documents out of the White House, I don’t know why Elijah Cummings and the Democrats think they’ll do any better,” Chaffetz said.

Still, Democrats had signaled even before last week’s midterm elections that they would aggressively investigate the Trump administration if they took power in Congress. Bogging down the White House with burdensome document requests and subpoenas could indeed backfire, political analysts tell Fox News, but there is little doubt that the strategy — made more viable by heightened partisanship and loosened congressional norms — would impair Republicans’ messaging and even policy goals for the next two years.

“Well, we are responsible,” House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who is campaigning to reclaim her role as House speaker, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We are not scattershot. We are not doing any investigation for a political purpose, but to seek the truth. So I think a word that you could describe about how Democrats will go forward in this regard is we will be very strategic.”

But Pelosi has previously suggested that she would, indeed, use the threat of subpoenea for political gain.

“Subpoena power is interesting, to use it or not to use it,” Pelosi said at a conference in October, referring to the authority of House committees to summon individuals and organizations to testify or provide documents under penalty of perjury. “It is a great arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects.” She added that she would use the power “strategically.” (Trump has flatly called Pelosi’s plan “illegal.”)

Pelosi’s approach would mark the continuation of a trend. Research conducted by Cornell University political science professor Douglas Kriner, who co-wrote the 2016 book “Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power,” underscores the increasingly political nature of House investigations.

“We examined every congressional investigation from 1898 to 2014 – more than 11,900 days of investigative hearings,” Kriner told Fox News. “What we found is that divided government is a major driver of investigations in the House. This is particularly true in periods of intense partisan polarization. For example, from 1981-2014, the House averaged holding 67 days of investigative hearings per year in divided government, versus only 18 per year in unified government.”

Kriner added that modern congressional probes seem geared toward “maximiz[ing] the political damage on the White House,” rather than producing more substantive results. “Investigations are less likely to trigger new legislation than in previous, less polarized eras,” Kriner told Fox News.

On Election Day, Pelosi vowed to “restor[e] the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration” by enhancing transparency and accountability. But Trump last week signaled he had no patience for that approach, which he characterized as an expensive folly.

“If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!” Trump tweeted.

November 11, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 1 comment.

Feds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-now-have-evidence-trump-broke-the-law-to-become-president-will-whitaker-bury-it

Feds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President. Will Whitaker Bury It?

Prosecutors won’t likely charge a sitting president, yet have implicated him in a criminal scheme to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. What to do then? Go to Congress.

November 10, 2018

Friday’s in-depth Wall Street Journal report suggests the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York and the FBI appear to possess evidence of Donald Trump’s involvement in a criminal scheme that helped get him elected president. This raises serious questions about what comes next, particularly in light of Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker, a political loyalist, as acting attorney general.

Trump played a central role in hush-money payments made to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Journal reports, adding more detail to the case of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer-lawyer who pled guilty to federal campaign finance violations in the Southern District in August.

Recall that when Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court, he stated under oath that he had made the payments “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office”—many assumed that that candidate was Trump, of course. We now know from the Journal that the person who directed Cohen in this criminal scheme was, indeed, Donald Trump. The charging document to which Cohen pled guilty states that he “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.” The Journal reports that “[t]he unnamed campaign member or members referred to Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the document.”

In addition, we now know that the evidence of Trump’s involvement in this criminal scheme is not limited to Cohen. Even accounting for the likelihood that the piece relies in some part on information provided by Cohen himself, there are plenty of other sources weighing in; the reporters note they obtained information from “interviews with three dozen people who have direct knowledge of the events or who have been briefed on them, as well as court papers, corporate records and other documents.”

Of course there is an important caveat here that what can be reported in the Wall Street Journal doesn’t always translate into usable evidence in the grand jury—in other words, people who are willing to talk to the press may not be as willing or as thorough when it comes to giving testimony to federal prosecutors or a grand jury. But, the Journal article contains an important nugget along these lines: “In August, [prosecutors] outlined Mr. Trump’s role—without specifically naming him—in a roughly 80-page draft federal indictment they had been preparing to file against Mr. Cohen.” As former federal prosecutors, that tells us that the SDNY had evidence of Trump’s involvement even before Cohen pled guilty and began cooperating.

All of this, taken together, indicates that evidence of Trump’s involvement in the hush-money scheme would be a combination of witnesses and other evidence not limited to Cohen, which makes it much more difficult for Trump to brush this off as lies concocted by Cohen to save himself, which Trump’s team have already begun arguing.

And, we know more about Trump’s role in this scheme from the article. For example, the story opens with a detailed recounting of a crucial and previously unreported August 2015 meeting between Trump and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker (who reportedly has been granted immunity to testify by the SDNY) during which Trump asked Pecker how he could help the campaign. Pecker reportedly offered to use his tabloid newspaper to purchase and squash the stories of women alleging affairs with Trump (which he did months later with McDougal).

This conversation, on its own, establishes Trump’s direct involvement with and direction of the hush money payment: precisely as Cohen stated when he pled guilty and goes to the heart of the question of Trump’s intent, namely, did he know and intend that these hush money payments would benefit his campaign for president?

So, can President Trump be charged by the SDNY with a crime of violating the federal campaign finance laws? Probably not. First, even assuming that the quality of the evidence is to the level that prosecutors demand, it is currently DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, and SDNY, fiercely independent as it is, is still part of DOJ.

If the feds have evidence of criminality but do not believe they can indict, then what becomes of the information?

If the SDNY charges other people or entities involved in the campaign finance scheme, Trump’s involvement as an unindicted co-conspirator could be laid out in those documents for the public to see. Short of that, it will be challenging for the SDNY to share its evidence and information with other authorities. Rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure strictly governs disclosure of grand jury materials. We do not know how much, if any, of the SDNY’s evidence falls into this category. Even if it does, there is precedent in an opinion by Judge John Sirica in the Watergate case from 1974 that the SDNY grand jury could provide evidence to Congress in the form of a report. A third option is that the SDNY could share the evidence it has, pursuant to a court order, with a state prosecuting authority, such as the New York Attorney General’s Office which is not necessarily limited in its ability to charge a sitting president, assuming there are parallel state crimes.

Further complicating matters is the DOJ’s new boss, who has taken the view that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s finances would cross a “red line.” In 2017, Whitaker wrote an opinion piece for CNN that if Mueller’s office “were to continue to investigate the financial relationships without a broadened scope in his appointment, then this would raise serious concerns that the special counsel’s investigation was a mere witch hunt.” Will the fact that this investigation is now in the hands of the SDNY and not Mueller change that conclusion for Whitaker? It should.

But, given Whitaker’s unusually partisan past and his statements hostile to any criminal investigation of Trump, the American public and Congress need to ensure that any evidence that the SDNY possesses of Trump’s participation in an illegal campaign finance scheme to help get him elected does not get buried by political forces looking to protect him.

November 11, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 1 comment.

Trump should prosecute Barack Obama and Eric Holder for Brian Terry’s murder

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of these guns.

The murderer was sentenced to 30 years in prison, but his accomplices, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, haven’t even been arrested or charged.

In May 2016, it was reported that newly released documents from the Department of Justice suggested that guns from Obama’s Fast And Furious program had been linked to at least 69 killings by Mexican drug cartels.

In September 2012, Obama said that Fast and Furious had “begun under the previous administration.” In reality, Fast and Furious began in October 2009.

Bush and Obama each had a program where the U.S. government put guns into the hands of Mexican criminals. Bush’s program was called “Operation Wide Receiver,” and Obama’s program was called “Operation Fast and Furious.” However, there were three major differences between the two programs:

First, Bush’s program was carried out with the knowledge, permission, and cooperation of the Mexican government, whereas Obama’s program was not. Mexican attorney general Marisela Morales told the Los Angeles Times that she first learned about Obama’s program from the news, and said, “In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans.”

Secondly, many of the guns used in Bush’s program contained radio tracking devices, whereas most of the guns used in Obama’s program did not. In addition, under Bush’s program, U.S. federal agents followed the guns to see whose hands they ended up in, whereas with Obama’s program, U.S. federal agents were ordered not to do this.

Third, Bush’s program did not cause any known deaths, whereas Obama’s program did.

In April 2016, it was reported that the Department of Justice had illegally ignored a court order to turn over certain Fast and Furious documents.

In October 2013, the ACLU announced that it would be defending John Dodson’s first amendment right to free speech, against the Obama administration, which was trying to prevent Dodson from publishing a book about Obama’s Fast and Furious scandal.

Obama illegally ignored Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information requests regarding Fast and Furious.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder illegally refused to release 1,300 pages of information on Operation Fast and Furious, even after he had been subpoenaed to do so.

On October 3, 2011, CBS News aired a story by Sharyl Attkisson which showed that Attorney General Eric Holder had lied under oath regarding Fast and Furious. The report can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JaDEShZIvQ

On October 4, 2011, Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, wrote the following in an email to White House Deputy Press Sectary Eric Schultz:

“I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”

Schultz responded with an email that said:

“Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”

Afterward, CBS made it harder and harder for Attkisson to do reports on Fast and Furious, and she eventually quit her job at CBS.

October 4, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Guns, Violent crime. 1 comment.

Trump is threatening to sue the New York Times for defamation. By comparison, here are 11 times that Obama tried to prevent the media from telling the truth.

The New York Times claims that it just found information which proves that Donald Trump broke the law regarding his taxes. Trump responded by threatening to sue the paper for defamation if they published this information.

Here’s the great thing about defamation law: even if Trump does carry out his threat and files the lawsuit, the only thing the New York Times needs in order to defend itself is for its claim about Trump to be true. As long as the Times’s claim is true, there is nothing that Trump can do to the paper.

Trump is against defamation, which involves saying things that are false.

By comparison, the Obama administration tried to prevent the media from publishing things that were true.

Here are 11 different real world examples of this, as documented in my book The Least Transparent Administration in History.

1) Tried to silence criticism of auto-bailouts

The Obama administration pressured Ford Motor Company to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama’s bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.

2) Complained to YouTube about an anti-Muslim video

In September 2012, the Obama administration phoned YouTube to complain about an anti-Muslim video.

Ben Wizner of the ACLU said that of this

“It does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship.”

Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of this

“I am actually kind of distressed by this… Even though there are all these great quotes from inside the White House saying they support free speech….by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don’t want them to take it down, when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect.”

3) Tried to censor the Washington Post

In August 2013, the Washington Post reported:

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong.

4) Tried to censor the AFL-CIO

In September 2013, Associated Press reported:

The AFL-CIO on Wednesday approved a resolution critical of parts of President Barack Obama’s health care law in spite of efforts by White House officials to discourage the labor federation from making its concerns so prominent.

The strongly worded resolution says the Affordable Care Act will drive up the costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them. Labor unions still support the law’s overall goals of reducing health costs and bringing coverage to all Americans, the resolution says, but adds that the law is being implemented in a way that is “highly disruptive” to union health care plans.

Some individual unions have complained about the law’s impact for months. The resolution marks the first time the nation’s largest labor federation has gone on record embracing that view. Unions were among the most enthusiastic backers of the law when it passed in 2010.

A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution.

5) Tried to censor a book about the “Fast and Furious” scandal

In October 2013, the ACLU announced that it would be defending John Dodson’s first amendment right to free speech, against the Obama administration, which was trying to prevent Dodson from publishing a book about Obama’s “Fast and Furious” scandal.

6) Told reporters to stop reporting his low poll numbers

In Decmember 2013, Joel Benenson, Obama’s pollster, told reporters to stop reporting Obama’s low poll numbers.

7) Tried to censor the Center for American Progress

In March 2014, it was reported that the Obama administration had called the Center for American Progress to complain about its accurate report that Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan had more troops than the highest number during Bush’s presidency.

8) Tried to censor the ACLU and NAACP

In March 2014, it was reported that the ACLU and the NAACP had criticized the Obama administration’s proposal for new regulations that would restrict the speech of non-profit organizations during election campaigns.

9) Prohibited members of the media from bringing cameras or audio recorders when they visited a shelter housing illegal aliens

In July 2014, it was reported that Obama had prohibited members of the media from bringing cameras or audio recorders when they visited a shelter housing illegal aliens.

10) Illegally tried to block a Freedom of Information release of the video that showed Michael Brown committing theft and assault

On August 15, 2014, NRP reported:

[Ferguson Police Chief Thomas] Jackson said he had gotten numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from the media to release the video. “I had to release it,” he said.

“I had been sitting on it and too many people put in FOIA requests for it and I had to release it,” he said.

On August 16, 2014, CBS News reported:

Feds opposed releasing Ferguson robbery video

Federal authorities opposed Friday’s release of a surveillance video showing a man resembling Michael Brown committing a robbery at a convenience store in Ferguson, Mo., CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports.

The Justice Department asked Ferguson police not to release the video, believing that it would roil the community further, and were able to successfully prevent the video from being released Thursday, the U.S. law enforcement official said.

Friday’s release occurred over the objection of federal authorities, the official said.

Here is the video that Obama illegally tried to prevent people from seeing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2z5-H8NSGA

11) Ordered reporters to stop filming Michelle Obama on a public sidewalk at Martha’s Vineyard

In August 2014, the Obama administration ordered reporters to stop filming Michelle Obama on a public sidewalk at Martha’s Vineyard.

October 4, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

September 25, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.

Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.

While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.

In Ms. Blasey Ford’s case she has received threats since she went public with her story, and her team has insisted the committee guarantee her safety as she testifies, as well as limited access to the hearing.

Ms. Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault at a party when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. He has vehemently denied the accusation, and as yet no contemporaneous witness has come forward to verify her allegations.

She has agreed to testify but has laid out a number of parameters and is objecting to some of Republicans’ plans.

One major sticking point is the GOP’s plans to use a female lawyer hired specifically for this hearing to ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators. That lawyer will question both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, according to one email from Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Debra Katz, another of Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, said in a Tuesday morning message they still haven’t been told who that outside lawyer will be.

“Please let us know if you have similarly withheld the name of this person from Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel. If you have not, which we assume to be the case, can you please explain the disparate treatment?” she wrote. “Please also advise whether Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel have been given an opportunity to meet with this individual. We would similarly like the opportunity to meet with her at her soonest availability.”

She said in the email that Mr. Davis was refusing to talk by phone, so Ms. Blasey Ford’s team was asking for an in-person meeting.

A spokesman for Mr. Grassley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

By Adam Mill

September 25, 2018

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Alan Dershowitz: Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/09/22/six-rules-for-conducting-ford-kavanaugh-hearings/ceJUeP97WOmIcKquyMIhzO/story.html

Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

By Alan M. Dershowitz

September 22, 2018

It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.

Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.

Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.

Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.

Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.

Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”

But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.

What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.

Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.

Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.

If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/rhode-island-kavanaugh-made-a-mistake/

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

September 26, 2018

A Rhode Island man who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his friend apologized on Wednesday and said he “made a mistake.”

The man called Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s office and claimed that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh, drunkenly sexually assaulted one of his friends, according to interview transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A committee investigator asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview on Tuesday, which he denied.

The man’s name was redacted in the transcripts released to the public but the investigator quoted verbatim several outlandish anti-Trump tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.”

“Dear Pentagon, please save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House,” Catalan wrote in one tweet. “Our [sic] you waiting until Russians parachute in like in Red Dawn? Please help!”

After Catalan started getting attention on Twitter, he publicly stated that he had recanted the accusation.

“Do [sic] everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” he wrote.

The committee is set to hear testimony on Thursday in a separate and unrelated accusation against Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school, will both testify before the committee. Kavanaugh has adamantly denied Ford’s accusation.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

September 26, 2018

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee’s investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.

The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint,” the release states.

The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it’s unknown whether the men’s claims are being taken seriously.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. “He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter” to staff, the release states.

Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.

The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to “make sure no stone was left unturned.”

In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.

The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, and nominate Ann Coulter instead

President Trump should withdraw Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, and nominate Ann Coulter instead.

September 25, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism. Leave a comment.

43% of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to shut down media

These Republicans are the very definition of fascism.

 

https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/43-of-republicans-say-trump-should-be-allowed-to-shut-down-media/

43% of Republicans say Trump should be allowed to shut down media

August 7, 2018

President Trump’s repeated cries of “fake news” and attacks on journalists as “enemies of the American people” have resonated with his base, with 43 percent of Republicans saying he “should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

The results — suggesting that a plurality of Republicans would have no problem trashing the First Amendment — came from a stunning new poll conducted by Ipsos and reported Tuesday by the Daily Beast.

The survey also showed that just 36 percent of GOP voters disagreed with that statement.

When asked if Trump should close down specific news organizations, such as CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times — all frequent Trump targets — 23 percent of GOP voters agreed while 49 percent did not.

Overall, Republicans were more likely to take a dim view of the media, the website reported.

Forty-eight percent said they believed “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” with only 28 percent disagreeing.

Nearly four out of five — 79 percent — said that they believed “the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly.”

The commander-in-chief — who as recently as January called existing US libel laws “a sham and a disgrace” — has routinely accused journalists of lying, making up sources and knowingly reporting false information to make him look bad.

“The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!” he ranted Sunday in a typical media-bashing tweet.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently refused to respond when she was asked if she thought journalists were the enemies of the people — though first daughter Ivanka Trump said she disagreed with the characterization.

But it’s not only Republicans who think the president should have the power to muzzle the media, a common practice in dictatorships and authoritarian states like Russia, North Korea and China.

According to the survey, 12 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents agreed that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

Conversely, 74 percent of Dems and 55 percent of independents disagreed with the statement.

But 12 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents agreed that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” while 74 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents disagreed.

But there were kernels of positive news for the press in the survey as well.

Overall, 57 percent of those surveyed said they believed the news media and reporters were “necessary to keep the Trump administration honest” — including a 39 percent plurality of Republicans.

And a large majority — 85 percent — believed that “freedom of the press is essential for American democracy,” compared to 4 percent who opposed that statement.

The 43 percent figure roughly corresponds to the president’s loyal base.

Gallup’s most recent weekly tracking poll showed that 41 percent of voters approved of the job Trump is doing while 54 percent disapproved.

 

August 10, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Police state. Leave a comment.

Trump falsely says “If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/trump-grocery-shopping-id/index.html

Trump claims you need ID to buy groceries. You do not.

August 1, 2018

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump used an odd example Tuesday night to call for stronger voter ID laws, saying that identification is required for buying groceries.

There is no such requirement.

“We believe that only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else. Voter ID,” Trump told the crowd of supporters gathered at the Florida State Fairgrounds.

“You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID,” Trump continued. “You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”

He added that “the only time you don’t need it in many cases is when you want to vote for a president, when you want to vote for a senator, when you want to vote for a governor or a congressman. It’s crazy.”

Photo ID is required when purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, and occasionally when verifying purchases made with a credit card. In a small number of states, identification photos are included on food stamp cards for low income families, and several chains, such as Costco, may require identification when applying for membership.

Asked about the remark Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump was referring to liquor purchases.

“If you go to a grocery store and you buy beer or wine, you’re certainly going to show your ID,” Sanders said. “He’s not saying every time he went in. He said, ‘When you go to the grocery store.’ I’m pretty sure that everybody in here who’s been to a grocery store that’s purchased beer or wine has probably had to show their ID. If they didn’t, then that’s probably a problem with the grocery store.”

Trump has repeatedly railed against a “rigged” system that he claims, without evidence, allows people to vote illegally. A widely criticized commission Trump established to look into the matter dissolved in January due to what the White House described as “endless legal battles at taxpayer expense.”

August 3, 2018. Tags: , . Donald Trump. 2 comments.

Next Page »