Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, June 18,2017
Fall River’s Iwo Jima Monument
Our thanks to Atty. Brian Cunha
His generosity made the Memorial Possible
This photograph of two Amarillo, Texas, firefighters comforting children involved in a car crash is going viral. The photo shows the two men providing comfort to a little girl and boy who were passengers in a car that crashed. The children were not injured in the crash but appeared to be distraught.
by BOB PRICE
Ted Nugent Says He Is Going to Tone Down Rhetoric After Scalise Shooting
BY MARTIN LIOLL
Rock star Ted Nugent isn’t known to hold his tongue when it comes to politics. However, in the wake of the Steve Scalise shooting, that’s apparently going to change.
In an appearance on WABC-AM’s “Curtis & Eboni” on Thursday morning, just 24 hours after the Scalise shooting, the “Cat Scratch Fever” singer and conservative icon shocked many when he vowed to tone down what he called his “hateful rhetoric” after the assassination attempt in Washington.
“At the tender age of 69, my wife has convinced me that I just can’t use those harsh terms,” Nugent said, according to Fox News. “I cannot and I will not.”
While Nugent said he would still be “feisty” and “passionate,” he said that he would “avoid anything that can be interpreted as condoning or referencing violence.”
Nugent also reached out to his “friends [and] enemies on the left in the Democrat and liberal world [to say] that we have got to be civil to each other, that the whole world is watching America, where you have the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and we have got to be more respectful to the other side.”
Nugent has often been known to get close to the line (and sometimes go over it) with his rhetoric. He once told Barack Obama to “suck on my machine gun” over gun control and called Hillary Clinton a “worthless b****” back in 2007.
If Nugent can dial that sort of thing back while still remaining entertaining and, as he puts it, “feisty,” that would definitely be a win. Of course, it probably doesn’t hurt that Nugent is possibly considering a 2018 Senate run in Michigan.
While he hasn’t made definitive plans to oppose Democrat Debbie Stabenow public, he refused to rule a campaign out during a February interview with The Daily Caller.
“I’m always very interested in making my country and the great state of Michigan great again and there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can,” Nugent said.
If he were to make a run at the nation’s upper chamber, his more inflammatory statements would likely go over with a thud. The sooner he can distance himself from them, the better.
That being said, it speaks volumes about where the American polity is when one of the few people taking stock of their rhetoric in the aftermath of a shooting directed at Republicans is a conservative responsible for performing “Wango Tango.”
Conspiracy of Silence about Mueller
by Cliff Kincaid
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
I am amazed by the conspiracy of silence, on the right and the left, about former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s bungling of the anthrax case. “In his years as FBI director and as a Justice Department official, Mueller gained a reputation for honesty, integrity, and being a ‘straight-shooter,’” writes Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard.
This is pure hogwash, to use a family-friendly term.
Barnes, a veteran journalist, is not alone in offering such undeserved praise of Mueller. Commentators on the right and left have been repeating this garbage ever since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Interestingly, Rosenstein also received high praise from various commentators. He, too, was seen as a straight shooter. With former FBI Director James Comey, they constitute an unholy alliance that is determined to take down President Donald Trump. With good reason, Trump calls it a witch hunt.
But since Rosenstein appointed Comey’s buddy Mueller as special counsel, people are beginning to see the whole process as a setup. Or as Barnes puts it, the deck is “stacked” against President Trump. Hence, “the sword of impeachment will be hanging over him,” says Barnes.
This didn’t have to happen, if journalists and commentators had been open and honest about Mueller’s real record. Simply put, Mueller can’t be trusted to arrive at the truth. The anthrax letters case proves it. He should never have received the appointment as special counsel. Barnes’ assertion that the deck has been stacked ignores the fact that he and his associates in the Never-Trump movement helped stack the deck. Why didn’t they blow the whistle on Mueller when he was appointed? Why do they ignore his real record now?
The trap has been set by those conservatives in the media, echoing their liberal colleagues, who wanted to pretend that Mueller is overflowing with honor and integrity. By showering him with praise, they have joined hands with the liberal media in setting the stage for Trump’s impeachment and forced resignation from office.
Call me a cynic, but I can’t help thinking that the Never-Trumpers in the media, such as Barnes, know precisely what is happening. They know Mueller is determined to take down Trump, but that he can only do so if he is given a clean bill of health as a first-rate investigator. Hence, they must whitewash Mueller’s corrupt record in advance of him filing charges against Trump and/or his associates.
Only in the swamp known as Washington, D.C. can a failed FBI chief be rehabilitated into a “straight-shooter,” qualified to bring down a president with the powers of a special counsel.
“In 2004,” retired Foreign Service officer and intelligence analyst Kenneth J. Dillon tells Accuracy in Media (AIM), “the FBI learned that the anthrax mailer was an al-Qaeda operative. Under White House pressure, Mueller suppressed this finding and continued to hunt for a domestic suspect. When scientist Bruce Ivins committed suicide in 2008, Mueller blamed him for the mailings, then lied to a Senate committee about it.”
Although the anti-Trump special counsel railroad is on schedule, pending a Trump decision to fire Rosenstein and Mueller, it is still important for the public to know some of the details about how Mueller botched the anthrax case by falsely blaming various American scientists for the letters that killed five people and injured dozens.
At the time of the anthrax attacks, I was working closely with AIM founder Reed Irvine, who never backed down from a search for the truth. A series of AIM Reports challenged the FBI’s handling of the case and examined how various members of the news media, most notably New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, pushed dubious theories targeting innocent American scientist Steven Hatfill. Kristof operated on the basis of a phony theory, fed to him by a leftist, speculating that the anthrax letters were mailed by a right-winger, probably a white guy working for a U.S. lab. The FBI went along with the false premise, ignoring the obvious evidence of an al-Qaeda role.
To illustrate how Mueller botched the case, consider that the FBI didn’t have a shred of evidence against Dr. Hatfill, but drove him out of two prestigious jobs and ruined his career. At one point, the FBI claimed to have fished a piece of Hatfill’s lab equipment, supposedly an anthrax weapons device, out of a pond. The FBI spent $250,000 to drain the pond but found no evidence of anthrax in it. The device was a minnow bucket.
Acting like the KGB, one FBI agent followed Hatfill as he went to buy some paint, and ran over his foot with a car. Hatfill was given a ticket by D.C. police for walking over to the FBI car and trying to take a picture of his tormentor. It appeared that the FBI was trying to provoke Hatfill so they could arrest him on some flimsy charge and claim they were right about him all along. This is similar to how a special counsel operates.
Comey took over for Mueller at the FBI and could have reopened the case in order to determine why, in the end, the Department of Justice awarded Hatfill nearly $6 million in damages. Comey could have cleaned house, purging corrupt agents. Instead, Comey decided to maintain the cover-up and keep Mueller’s so-called sterling reputation intact. As a result, the FBI still maintains that another scientist, Ivins, who was persecuted and driven to suicide, was the culprit.
Even before the embarrassment with the minnow bucket, columnist Dan K. Thomasson had written that the FBI’s handling of the anthrax case “has to be the most incredible display of bizarre ineptness since former FBI director Louis Freeh took personal charge of the investigation to nail Richard Jewell for the bombing in Atlanta’s Olympic Park” in 1996. Jewell wasn’t guilty of anything except some genuine heroism that saved lives.
Ignoring the anthrax investigation debacle, some commentators are noting that Mueller is staffing his operation with Democratic Party lawyers. What else did you expect? His assignment is to bring down Trump. In regard to the President, we said on May 24, “Mueller will produce evidence of a crime out of nothing if he has to.” That’s what they tried to do to Hatfill.
In Trump’s case, it doesn’t matter if the charges are legitimate. All that matters is that they give the appearance of impropriety, so that the impeachment process can get underway.
Since Comey continued the Mueller anthrax letters cover-up, we have to assume that the FBI culture hasn’t changed, and that Mueller, now in charge of dozens of FBI agents as part of his special counsel investigation, will order his investigators to frame President Trump and/or his top aides with some charge or another. This is a vendetta that constitutes revenge on a President they don’t like and who is suspicious of their work.
At first I was amazed by the continuing cover-up surrounding Mueller’s terrible record, which also includes letting Islamists rewrite FBI training materials. Then, I thought about it and considered a major human flaw which characterizes the work of commentators and journalists—they don’t ever want to admit they’re wrong. They accepted Mueller’s work on the anthrax case as legitimate at the time, and now don’t want to revisit the matter because it would put their own judgments under scrutiny. It’s much easier, under these circumstances, to say that Mueller’s work was exemplary, even though such a claim is a blatant lie.
Fake news is all around us, on the left and righ.
'CHOICE' AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD MEANS 1 THING ONLY
'All their options' turns out to exclude adoption, carrying baby to term
Planned Parenthood President Cecile RichardsPlanned Parenthood President Cecile Richards boasted in a television interview of all the options women who contact her abortion-business outlets are counseled to consider.
There’s abortion.
And abortion.
There’s abortion.
And abortion.
And abortion.
Even though it may not be what Richards said in so many words, it’s what investigators for Live Action found in their research of Planned Parenthood clinics.
Richards said some women “also come to us because they have an unintended pregnancy, and they need to make a decision, and we counsel them on all their options.”
But the pro-life activists have released two new videos of their investigation, the first of which reveals Planned Parenthood centers turning away pregnant women who sought prenatal care and adoption help.
The second video features former Storm Lake, Iowa, Planned Parenthood manager Sue Thayer explaining how her organization’s so-called “options counseling” for pregnant women pushes women toward abortion.
“If that’s the one service you offer, that’s the service you are going to try to sell,” Thayer said.
Live Action said Planned Parenthood “is in the fight of its corporate life to save its half-billion dollars in taxpayer funding, claiming it needs the money to deliver ‘vital reproductive health care.'”
But Live Action, she said, “has discovered that Planned Parenthood refuses to use those ‘reproductive health care’ tax dollars to help the people who need them the most: pregnant women who choose to carry their babies to term.”
The videos, Live Action said, “vividly illustrate what was found in Planned Parenthood’s recently released 2015-16 annual report: Its 328,348 abortions in 2015 vastly outnumbered its 9,419 prenatal services and 2,889 adoption referrals.”
The chain aborted nearly 114 children for every one baby it referred out for adoption in 2015, Live Action found.
Lila Rose, president of Live Action, said her investigators repeatedly “went to Planned Parenthood asking for pregnancy support, and repeatedly, they were told that they could only get abortions.”
“Prenatal care and adoption referrals are virtually nonexistent while abortion numbers continue to rise, making it clear that Planned Parenthood’s focus – and its push – is abortion,” she said. “You can’t get those kinds of numbers without constantly promoting abortion.”
Rose said it’s “unconscionable that taxpayers are forced to fund an abortion business.”
“But it’s also alarming that we’re giving over half a billion dollars a year to a business we’re told provides reproductive health care but that refuses to use that money to help women who choose to carry their babies to term. Planned Parenthood’s anti-woman, anti-child agenda make it unworthy of a single dime of taxpayer funding.”
She challenged Congress to fix the problem.
“Congress shouldn’t wait any longer to put legislation on the president’s desk to redirect funding away from Planned Parenthood to local health centers that actually provide legitimate primary and prenatal care to women and their families,” Rose said.
The videos reveal that Planned Parenthood centers in multiple locations simply brushed off requests for prenatal services.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, the request for help was met with, “Um, don’t offer services.”
The caller explains, “I thought you helped with adoptions,” to which Planned Parenthood in Flagstaff, Arizona, responds, “No, we do abortions.”
Live Actions’ videos in their “Abortion Corporation” series already have collected nearly 100 million views on social media.
Planned Parenthood is in the news not only because of Live Action’s videos, but also because of videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, which went undercover and found abortionists talking about their trade in the body part of babies.
The CMP videos have prompted congressional investigations and requests that abortionists be investigated for criminal conspiracy.
The abortion industry has responded with lawsuits over those videos and by trying to conceal them from the American public, which gives $500 million in tax money to abortionists at Planned Parenthood each year.
One such judge hearing the dispute, Judge William H. Orrick III, ordered nationwide censorship of one of the videos.
However, a motion has been filed in court asking to have the judge removed from the case because of his links to an organization that sponsors Planned Parenthood.
WND previously posted the video, and when it was removed on Orrick’s orders, transcribed the statements by abortionists so the public still has access to the information.
Lisa Harris, medical director for Planned Parenthood of Michigan, says in the video: “Our stories don’t really have a place in a lot of pro-choice discourse and rhetoric, right? The heads that get stuck that we can’t get out. The hemorrhages that we manage.”
Susan Robinson of Planned Parenthood of Mar Monte in San Jose, California: “The fetus is a tough little object and taking it apart, I mean taking it apart, on day one is very difficult.’
Talcott Camp, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Health Freedom Project: “I’m like oh my god! I get it! When the skull is broken, that’s really sharp. I get it, I understand why people are talking about getting that skull out, that calvarium.”
Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America: “You know, sometimes she’ll tell me she wants brain, and we’ll, you know, leave the calvarium in ’til last, and then try to basically take it, or actually, you know, catch everything, and even keep it separate from the rest of the tissue so it doesn’t get lost.”
The video was the work of undercover investigators with the Center for Medical Progress, who since 2015 have released more than a dozen videos of abortionists – mostly from Planned Parenthood – talking about their unborn-baby, body-parts trade, their willingness to adjust an abortion procedure to salvage a particular body part sought by a researcher and more.
The request to have Orrick removed cites his status an emeritus board member of a group that has a “key partnership” with the abortionists of Planned Parenthood.
“Judge Orrick’s wife has also posted public comments, pictured with her husband, that are supportive of Planned Parenthood and critical of these moving defendants,” the law firm explained. “For this reason, and the others set forth below, [David] Daleiden and CMP respectfully request that Judge Orrick be recused from this case and that a stay be granted on all proceedings in this case until this motion is heard.”
Orrick, says the legal filing, has a longstanding relationship with Good Samaritan Family Resource Center in San Francisco, which for many years has had a Planned Parenthood clinic on its premises, describing it as a “key partnership.”
“Mr. Daleiden learned Judge Orrick had not only been on the board of GSFRC … but also discovered that Judge Orrick was secretary of the board of GSFRC in 2001, when GSFRC entered into its ‘key partnership’ with PPSP,” the filing explains.
The judge and his wife also have given more than $5,000 to support GSFRC, which donates its space to Planned Parenthood, the brief explains, pointing out that the judge concealed his links to the abortion industry.
“At no time did Judge Orrick disclose to defendants that he sat on the board of an organization that had as a ‘key partner’ an organization defendants allege, both in public statements and as part of their defense, was involved in violation of state and federal law. … Orrick did not disclose his close and long-standing relationship with an organization that houses a facility and hosts Planned Parenthood staff.”
Army general calls for up to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan
By Cristina Corbin
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY:
Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, called the United States’ 16-year-long involvement in Afghanistan a “disgrace” and said some 10,000 to 20,000 additional troops were needed to win the war.
Keane spoke with Fox News on Friday as reports surfaced the Pentagon will send roughly 4,000 additional American forces to fight a reinvigorated Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has not made an announcement on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but a Trump administration official told the Associated Press such an announcement could come as early as next week.
Keane said the 4,000 figure is “only speculation at this point” and not enough to defeat the Taliban and boost the Afghan Army’s military might.
“There’s no doubt the 4,000 will be helpful,” he said. “But the real question is: Will it change the momentum of the war to our favor? My judgment is it’s likely not to.”
The administration official told the AP that the bulk of the additional troops will train and advise Afghan forces, while a smaller number would assist in counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and the Islamic State.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, told Fox News early Friday that no final determination has been made about sending additional troops.
“No decisions have been made,” Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said.
If a few thousands troops are sent, they will be used in the same way the U.S. military is fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, officials told Fox News.
Obama had set a cap a year ago of 8,400 troops in Afghanistan after slowing the pace of what he hoped would be a U.S. withdrawal.
Keane, a retired four-star general who left active duty in 2003, placed blame on the previous administration for what he called a failure to change the momentum in the war.
“It’s 16 years we’ve been involved in this war and it’s an absolute disgrace that we have not ended this war before, favorable to ourselves,” he said.
He said Obama never made the commitment that was necessary to turn the war around and that’s why “we are where we are.”
“When we took the 100,000 plus troops out of Afghanistan – just left 8,000 – we took all the support that the Afghan Army had,” including “attack helicopters and anti-IED intelligence, communications and logistics,” said Keane. “We have to put that back if they’re going to be effective.”
Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that the U.S. and its allies “are not winning” in Afghanistan.
During tough questioning from Sen. John McCain, the committee chairman, Mattis said, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now” and promised “we will correct this as soon as possible.”
“We want a strategy, and I don’t think that’s a hell of a lot to ask,” McCain said.
Keane also stressed it was critical to destroy Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, where he said the Pakistani military provides the network with intelligence on U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
“The Pakistani military is assisting them. That has to stop,” he said. “Those sanctuaries have to go away and the United States has to insist on it or the war will just be protracted.”
Keane spoke with Fox News on Friday as reports surfaced the Pentagon will send roughly 4,000 additional American forces to fight a reinvigorated Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has not made an announcement on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but a Trump administration official told the Associated Press such an announcement could come as early as next week.
Keane said the 4,000 figure is “only speculation at this point” and not enough to defeat the Taliban and boost the Afghan Army’s military might.
“There’s no doubt the 4,000 will be helpful,” he said. “But the real question is: Will it change the momentum of the war to our favor? My judgment is it’s likely not to.”
The administration official told the AP that the bulk of the additional troops will train and advise Afghan forces, while a smaller number would assist in counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and the Islamic State.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, told Fox News early Friday that no final determination has been made about sending additional troops.
“No decisions have been made,” Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said.
If a few thousands troops are sent, they will be used in the same way the U.S. military is fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, officials told Fox News.
Obama had set a cap a year ago of 8,400 troops in Afghanistan after slowing the pace of what he hoped would be a U.S. withdrawal.
Keane, a retired four-star general who left active duty in 2003, placed blame on the previous administration for what he called a failure to change the momentum in the war.
“It’s 16 years we’ve been involved in this war and it’s an absolute disgrace that we have not ended this war before, favorable to ourselves,” he said.
He said Obama never made the commitment that was necessary to turn the war around and that’s why “we are where we are.”
“When we took the 100,000 plus troops out of Afghanistan – just left 8,000 – we took all the support that the Afghan Army had,” including “attack helicopters and anti-IED intelligence, communications and logistics,” said Keane. “We have to put that back if they’re going to be effective.”
Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that the U.S. and its allies “are not winning” in Afghanistan.
During tough questioning from Sen. John McCain, the committee chairman, Mattis said, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now” and promised “we will correct this as soon as possible.”
“We want a strategy, and I don’t think that’s a hell of a lot to ask,” McCain said.
Keane also stressed it was critical to destroy Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, where he said the Pakistani military provides the network with intelligence on U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
“The Pakistani military is assisting them. That has to stop,” he said. “Those sanctuaries have to go away and the United States has to insist on it or the war will just be protracted.”
Man Runs Car Into Trump Motorcade
BY V SAXENA
Less than 24 hours after a deranged liberal activist opened fire on congressional Republicans at a baseball practice session in Virginia, a driver in Washington, D.C., reportedly veered into a motorcade for President Donald Trump Wednesday, striking a Secret Service agent in the process.
Trump was on his way back to the White House from a visit to the hospital treating House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, the Louisiana Republican who was critically wounded in Wednesday morning’s ballfield attack in Alexandria, Virginia.
According to CNN, the Secret Service “had blocked a street for the President’s return to the White House” when the unnamed driver attempted to enter the motorcade route despite verbal and visual commands to stop.
When one agent tried to block the vehicle’s progress into the route, the unnamed driver struck him, causing the agent to land on the hood of the driver’s Mazda SUV. Thankfully, he only suffered minor injuries.
The unidentified driver was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and failure to obey.
He was then taken to a nearby police station for processing, and it was there that he revealed that he was a driver for Uber and that “he was not paying attention to the Secret Service officer but rather ‘another vehicle,'” according to CNN.
He later appeared in court to face only a failure to obey charge, CNN reported. It’s unclear at this point whether the assault with a dangerous weapon charge has been dropped or is simply being saved for another court hearing.
Dovetailing back to the man’s excuse for veering into the motorcade, it honestly sounds awfully sketchy. How blind would one have to be to not notice a presidential motorcade? In Washington?
Regardless, given the recent climate of hate against the president and his Republican peers in Congress — Trump was on his way back from visiting a man who was nearly killed because of it — it’s understandable that Secret Service agents would have been on edge when the driver failed to stop on command.
To be clear, at the moment there’s absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the suspect’s behavior was motivated by anything besides his inability to pay attention while driving.
But this could have ended a lot worse for him than a court date …
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know about the suspicious circumstances surrounding D.C. driver’s decision to veer right into President Trump’s motorcade route.
Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch
BY JORDAIN CARNEY
© Moriah RatnerSenate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which resembled the Clinton campaign line.
The move could allow Republicans to attempt to pivot away from the investigation into Russia's election meddling — which top GOP lawmakers have signaled belongs to the Intelligence Committee — and focus on Lynch, who has long been a target of Republicans.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican who is a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, said it “would be very helpful” for Lynch to testify before the Judiciary panel, which oversees the Justice Department.
“Frankly a lot of what Hillary Clinton was exposed to by Director Comey’s misconduct and the way he handled that was apparently in response to his lack of confidence in the attorney general, and I think there is a lot we could learn from that,” Cornyn said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also wants to hear from Lynch and is pushing for the Judiciary Committee to “get more involved.”
“The accusations now that ... the current and former attorney general were political – that has nothing to do with Russia as much as it has to do with how the Department of Justice is being run,” he said. “I want to find out all about that.”
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman, stressed that no decisions have been made and staffers needed to first “gather evidence."
But the spokesman said it was “likely” after Comey’s remarks before the intelligence panel that Lynch’s testimony before the Judiciary committee “will become necessary at some point.”
President Trump has seized on the Obama administration official as the federal investigation into possible ties between his campaign and Russia heats up.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!” Trump tweeted this week.
Other Trump allies, including the Republican National Committee, have also questioned Lynch's behavior.
"Why is no one investigating Attorney General Lynch's Department of Justice for obstruction of justice in the Clinton email investigation. ...There is compelling evidence to back up the claim that AG Lynch engaged in obstruction of justice,” read one RNC talking point leaked to a Washington Post reporter this week.
The talking points were in response to a Post report that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating in the wake of Comey's firing last month whether Trump obstructed justice.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz said the Texas Republican would “absolutely” support Lynch testifying.
“Well, I kind of would like to get the whole thing behind us, but she should be interrogated [by a committee] because there’s some real questions about whether her actions were proper,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked if Lynch should testify as part of a larger obstruction of justice probe.
Comey apparently raised concerns about Lynch before he was fired. He told the Judiciary Committee in early May that he was worried the Justice Department couldn’t “credibly” decline to prosecute Clinton without "grievous damage to the American people's confidence in the justice system.”
He also privately told Intelligence Committee members that he confronted Lynch on whether she had agreed to shut down the FBI's investigation. Comey worried her controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton had created a conflict of interest, according to Circa, a website tracked closely by conservative media.
Though GOP lawmakers have long been wary of Lynch, placing her back in the spotlight could backfire if it also keeps the public's focus on Comey amid continued fallout over the FBI chief's firing in early May.
Grassley has signaled that potential obstruction of justice during the Obama administration should be included in the committee’s work. The GOP chairman has argued that such a move is relevant because the Trump White House initially pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation to justify his firing.
“The Committee is examining the removal of Director Comey and allegations of improper influence on the FBI’s handling of the Russia and Clinton email investigations. In his recent appearances before both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Comey raised issues about whether these investigations were subjected to inappropriate political influence,” said Taylor Foy, a spokesman for the Iowa Republican.
GOP senators appeared surprised by Grassley’s decision to expand his committee’s investigation, which would also include looking at potential political interference by Trump’s Justice Department into FBI investigations.
The move comes after some Republican members of the committee were already skeptical of Grassley’s threat to subpoena Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee after the former FBI director met with the intelligence panel.
The two Senate panels are conducting separate investigations into Russia’s election meddling, which includes Comey’s firing. But Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the Intelligence Committee chairman, said his panel would steer clear of investigating obstruction of justice, telling CNN that it has “never been part of our” probe.
Any push to pivot to Lynch and the Clinton email investigation would also likely spark pushback from Democrats, who are increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress on the committee’s push to get answers on Russia’s election interference and Comey’s firing.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, signaled that the panel should look into whether Lynch tried to downplay the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email setup.
“I think we need to know more about that. And there's only way to know about it, and that's to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that,” she told CBS in a recent interview.
But she’s also called for bringing in a swath of top Trump administration’s officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other top Democratic lawmakers have held off endorsing digging into Lynch.
Asked about her comments to CBS, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sidestepped saying he wanted to hear from the former Obama official.
“Well, before I say anything further on this, I want to hear what Loretta Lynch’s side of the story is. I haven’t heard that yet,” he told reporters.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added he wanted to talk to Feinstein but warned against rehashing Clinton scandals when “we have a front and center investigation that relates to the national security of the United States.”
“Going back in the previous administration, I guess all of us have some questions about it, but we have a current investigation that is front and center in the American people’s attention span and that’s what we ought to focus on,” he said.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman, stressed that no decisions have been made and staffers needed to first “gather evidence."
But the spokesman said it was “likely” after Comey’s remarks before the intelligence panel that Lynch’s testimony before the Judiciary committee “will become necessary at some point.”
President Trump has seized on the Obama administration official as the federal investigation into possible ties between his campaign and Russia heats up.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!” Trump tweeted this week.
Other Trump allies, including the Republican National Committee, have also questioned Lynch's behavior.
"Why is no one investigating Attorney General Lynch's Department of Justice for obstruction of justice in the Clinton email investigation. ...There is compelling evidence to back up the claim that AG Lynch engaged in obstruction of justice,” read one RNC talking point leaked to a Washington Post reporter this week.
The talking points were in response to a Post report that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating in the wake of Comey's firing last month whether Trump obstructed justice.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz said the Texas Republican would “absolutely” support Lynch testifying.
“Well, I kind of would like to get the whole thing behind us, but she should be interrogated [by a committee] because there’s some real questions about whether her actions were proper,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked if Lynch should testify as part of a larger obstruction of justice probe.
Comey apparently raised concerns about Lynch before he was fired. He told the Judiciary Committee in early May that he was worried the Justice Department couldn’t “credibly” decline to prosecute Clinton without "grievous damage to the American people's confidence in the justice system.”
He also privately told Intelligence Committee members that he confronted Lynch on whether she had agreed to shut down the FBI's investigation. Comey worried her controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton had created a conflict of interest, according to Circa, a website tracked closely by conservative media.
Though GOP lawmakers have long been wary of Lynch, placing her back in the spotlight could backfire if it also keeps the public's focus on Comey amid continued fallout over the FBI chief's firing in early May.
Grassley has signaled that potential obstruction of justice during the Obama administration should be included in the committee’s work. The GOP chairman has argued that such a move is relevant because the Trump White House initially pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation to justify his firing.
“The Committee is examining the removal of Director Comey and allegations of improper influence on the FBI’s handling of the Russia and Clinton email investigations. In his recent appearances before both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Comey raised issues about whether these investigations were subjected to inappropriate political influence,” said Taylor Foy, a spokesman for the Iowa Republican.
GOP senators appeared surprised by Grassley’s decision to expand his committee’s investigation, which would also include looking at potential political interference by Trump’s Justice Department into FBI investigations.
The move comes after some Republican members of the committee were already skeptical of Grassley’s threat to subpoena Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee after the former FBI director met with the intelligence panel.
The two Senate panels are conducting separate investigations into Russia’s election meddling, which includes Comey’s firing. But Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the Intelligence Committee chairman, said his panel would steer clear of investigating obstruction of justice, telling CNN that it has “never been part of our” probe.
Any push to pivot to Lynch and the Clinton email investigation would also likely spark pushback from Democrats, who are increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress on the committee’s push to get answers on Russia’s election interference and Comey’s firing.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, signaled that the panel should look into whether Lynch tried to downplay the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email setup.
“I think we need to know more about that. And there's only way to know about it, and that's to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that,” she told CBS in a recent interview.
But she’s also called for bringing in a swath of top Trump administration’s officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other top Democratic lawmakers have held off endorsing digging into Lynch.
Asked about her comments to CBS, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sidestepped saying he wanted to hear from the former Obama official.
“Well, before I say anything further on this, I want to hear what Loretta Lynch’s side of the story is. I haven’t heard that yet,” he told reporters.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added he wanted to talk to Feinstein but warned against rehashing Clinton scandals when “we have a front and center investigation that relates to the national security of the United States.”
“Going back in the previous administration, I guess all of us have some questions about it, but we have a current investigation that is front and center in the American people’s attention span and that’s what we ought to focus on,” he said.
Carson On Special Counsel: He Won’t Find Anything, So Let Him Hunt
While many conservatives are questioning the motives of special counsel Robert Mueller, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson has a vastly different take on Mueller’s investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“I would give him the chance to see if he could do that because if there’s nothing there — he’s not gonna find anything anyway,” Carson said Friday on Fox News Radio.
“That has been the case now for nearly a year — there’s nothing to find, that’s why they keep going down these empty rabbit holes. That will continue to be the case because there’s nothing there,” Carson added.
Ben Carson: Give Mueller a chance on Russia probe. You call that breaking from trump? I call it support. media fake news. plz stop
But Carson admitted the investigation will impact the Trump administration’s ability to do its job.
“It’s frustrating because it keeps us from getting to the things that need to be done, and I’m not sure that that isn’t the real reason for it,” he said.
Others have been critical of Mueller, a close friend of former FBI Director James Comey, whose ouster by President Donald Trump is among the items being investigated by Mueller.
“Mueller is compromised by the close professional — and I would sure think personal — relationship with Comey,” said Bill Otis, a former special counsel for former President George H.W. Bush. “That is an encompassing standard … that should be interpreted broadly so the public will have maximum confidence in the outcome of the special counsel’s work, however it winds up.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has tweeted that Mueller is not neutral.
Muelleris now clearly the ti[p of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency.
7:28 AM - 15 Jun 2017
“Mueller is now clearly the tip of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency,” Gingrich said on Twitter Thursday, adding in later tweets, “Mueller is setting up a dragnet of obstruction, financial questions and every aspect of Trump’s life and his associates lives. Very dangerous. The brazen redefinition of Mueller’s task tells you how arrogant the deep state is and how confident it is it can get away with anything.”
Robert Ray, a former independent counsel who investigated the Clinton-era Whitewater case, said the administration and its allies should leave Mueller alone.
“I’m sure the White House feels threatened and under siege, but it’s unfortunate that they’re trying to undermine the duly appointed special counsel,” he said. “I’ve lived through this before. It does nothing but prolong the investigation. That’s not in anyone’s interests and will only undermine public confidence.”
A Welcome Win for States’ Rights
On Monday, Citizen Outreach joined a coalition of a dozen conservative organizations submitting a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan urging opposition to HR 1215 – the misleadingly named “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017” – which would have federalized tort reform laws as they relate to medical malpractice lawsuits.
Good news! On Thursday, Inside Health Policy reported that…
“House Republicans postponed a floor vote on medical malpractice legislation because some conservatives are worried about imposing federal standards on states, according to Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows (R-NC). "I think there are some federal nexus issues that some of us have expressed concerns about," Meadows told Inside Health Policy when asked why the House pulled H.R. 1215 from the list of bills that were voted on Thursday.
“The House canceled votes on Wednesday due to the shooting at a GOP softball practice, but when they returned to voting on Thursday, the medical malpractice bill was no longer scheduled for a vote.
“A measure already was added to the bill stating that it does not preempt state laws that allow larger awards than the legislation's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits. It's not clear what else could be added to the bill to placate Republicans who don't think the federal government should dictate tort restrictions to states.”
Thanks to your support for Citizen Outreach, we were able to play a part in, at least for now, helping to derail this latest federal intrusion into the prerogatives of our individual states! I’ll keep you posted if/when this bill rears its ugly head again.
Cheers.
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
P.S. A teenage girl suffering from depression allegedly tells her teenage boyfriend, also suffering from depression, to get back in his truck as it filled up with carbon monoxide - which the boyfriend does voluntarily - and the girl is convicted of manslaughter?
It’s a sad, depressing case to be sure. But it’s not like she put a gun to his head and forced him to kill himself. He chose to get back in the truck on his own and take his own life. It was a suicide, not a murder. When did we get to the point that people aren’t responsible for their own decisions, even horrific ones like this?
G’day…Ciao…….Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_18.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment