Displaying posts published in

February 2018

In Porter Saga, Media Concern About Abuse is Secondary By Julie Kelly

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy told CNN Wednesday morning that his committee is looking into how the White House handed domestic abuse allegations against former staff secretary Rob Porter.https://amgreatness.com/2018/02/14/porter-saga-media-concern-abuse-secondary/

The media has been on a weeklong feeding frenzy since the Daily Mail posted an exclusive interview with Porter’s second ex-wife claiming he emotionally and verbally her during their brief marriage. (The next day, after Porter resigned, the Mail published another exposé, detailing more accusations from Porter’s first wife, including a 2003 photo of her with a black eye, allegedly from him.) Porter has denied the charges, calling them a “coordinated smear campaign” since the tabloid ranan article the week before about his relationship with Trump’s communications advisor, Hope Hicks.

But the fallout is continuing unabated and now Congress is getting involved.

Gowdy blasted both the White House and the FBI for not being more forthcoming about Porter’s employment and security clearance process: “Who knew what, when, and to what extent—those are the questions I think need to be asked, and Congress has a role to play.” This morning, his committee sent letters to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly asking for clarification on apparently conflicting statements by Wray and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about when Porter’s background investigation was completed.

The outrage cycle over the Porter matter quickly shifted from his irrefutable guilt to condemnation of the White House—particularly of Chief of Staff John Kelly—for employing a known abuser. Kelly defended Porter in the first Mail article, calling him a “man of true integrity and honor.” Since the Mail story broke February 6, the Washington Post has published 98 articles and columns targeting Kelly. The day after the allegations appeared, deputy editor Ruth Marcus was already blasting Kelly, claiming—without any proof—that Trump’s chief of staff “knew of the FBI reports.”

Wray’s Contested “Contradiction”

The “they knew!” talking point ostensibly got a boost yesterday when Wray testified on Capitol Hill and answered a question by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) about the FBI’s involvement in Porter’s background check. Here’s how it went down:

Wyden: Was the FBI aware of the allegations related to Rob Porter and domestic abuse? And if so, was the White House informed this could affect his security clearance, when were they informed, and who at the White House was informed?

James Comey gets sneaky again By Monica Showalter

James Comey is proving himself to be a real sneak.

According to information in the Grassley-Graham memo, the former FBI director had a meeting with the White House on Jan. 5 about supposed Russian collusion in the 2016 election and then failed to disclose it to Congress, when he was asked about it in testimony. It turns out that the Obama inner circle, including Susan Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Comey, and President Obama were all pow-wowing together in the White House, and Susan Rice, who questioned whether incoming President Trump should be told at all about the Russian collusion investigation, wrote a memo to herself describing the encounter.

The fact that Comey showed up comes in direct contradiction with Comey’s sworn testimony to Congress, claiming he never met President Obama except on two unimportant occasions, the Daily Caller notes:

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

…and…

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.

The Big Dog Won’t Hunt? Some Democrats don’t want to campaign with Bill Clinton; Republicans enjoy a polling bounce. James Freeman

This column has argued that the Republican tax cut will become increasingly popular among voters and new surveys suggest that’s exactly what’s happening. Meanwhile, Democrats trying to make the case that the predations of their Hollywood sponsors amount to a reason to vote against Republicans seem to be distancing themselves from another of their predatory patrons.

Politico reports:

Democrats are looking to embrace the #MeToo moment and rally women to push back on President Donald Trump in the midterms—and they don’t want Bill Clinton anywhere near it.

In a year when the party is deploying all their other big guns and trying to appeal to precisely the kind of voters Clinton has consistently won over, an array of Democrats told POLITICO they’re keeping him on the bench. They don’t want to be seen anywhere near a man with a history of harassment allegations, as guilty as their party loyalty to him makes them feel about it.

Readers may be wondering why anyone would feel guilty about shunning Bill Clinton. But as Politico elaborates, feelings don’t really have all that much to do with 2018 campaign decision-making:

Several Democratic campaigns have already polled Clinton’s popularity in their races, weighing whether to take the risk of inviting him out. Others say they’d love to see him chip in, so long as he sticks to New York, at closed-door fundraisers for them where no photographs of them together are taken.

This suggests that Mr. Clinton could be in for some awkward moments this fall, assuming he has more capacity for embarrassment than he’s shown to date. Perhaps some Democrats have decided that appearing with Louis Farrakhan is one thing, but standing next to Mr. Clinton is quite another. Politico reports on mixed feelings about the former President:

“People are crass about it and will look to see where his numbers are,” admitted one Democratic member of Congress who is in a tough race and is anxious about going public embracing or trashing Clinton. “He’s still Bill Clinton, and he’s still a draw to certain segments of the party.”

“Depending on the audience, there will definitely be people … [who] will be uncomfortable,” said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.). But there will also “definitely be people who want to see him.”

Separately, Politico reports on its new survey which is bound to have GOP candidates feeling more comfortable:

Republicans have erased the Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot in a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that, for the first time since April, also shows President Donald Trump’s approval rating equaling the percentage of voters who disapprove of his job performance. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump Mideast Plan Is ‘Fairly Well Advanced,’ Tillerson Says Secretary of state, in Jordan to sign increased aid package, says president will decide when it is ready By Felicia Schwartz

Will this be another “peacemeal” destruction of Israel? rsk

AMMAN, Jordan—President Donald Trump’s plan for peace in the Middle East is “fairly well advanced,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday, offering a rare insight into progress on the administration’s proposal for solving the decades-old conflict.

The peace plan, being developed by the White House in a closely held process overseen by President Donald Trump’s aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner, has been on Mr. Tillerson’s agenda while traveling across the Middle East this week.

“I have seen the plan, the elements of the plan,” Mr. Tillerson said in Jordan. “It’s been under development for a number of months. I have consulted with them on the plan, identified areas that we feel need further work.” He added that “it will be up to the president to decide when he feels it’s time and he’s ready to put that plan forward.”

The U.S. is sharply at odds with Palestinian leaders after Mr. Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the contested city as Israel’s capital. Palestinians have sought to replace the U.S. as a peace broker, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to address the United Nations Security Council next week.

Mr. Tillerson spoke to reporters alongside Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, after the pair signed a new foreign-assistance agreement. Under the agreement, the U.S. will commit $1.275 billion a year to boost Jordan’s security and economy.

State Dept. Embraces Islamic Cleric Who OK’d Killing Americans in Iraq, Called for Israel’s Destruction By Patrick Poole

Last Thursday, Sam Brownback was sworn in as the State Department’s new ambassador for religious liberty.

Today — in his first official speech as ambassador — Brownback openly embraced a hardline Islamic cleric who authorized a fatwa in 2004 justifying the killing of Americans in Iraq, and another fatwa in 2012 calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah’s past is no mystery to the State Department. For example, the Obama administration’s State Department had to repeatedly apologize in May 2014 for promoting Bin Bayyah as a moderate. However, the Obama administration then implemented a full-court press with the U.S. media and the D.C. foreign policy “Smart Set” to rehabilitate the image of the Mauritanian cleric.

The presence of multiple senior Trump State Department officials at an “interfaith” event in Washington, D.C. in support of Bin Bayyah’s efforts appears to confirm there will be no change. The Trump administration is continuing the engagement with Bin Bayyah they inherited from Obama — despite the fact that Bin Bayyah’s views on Israel are directly contrary to those of President Trump.

There is also an inherent contradiction in the Trump State Department embracing the interfaith efforts of an Islamic cleric who openly states on his website that Christians are going to hell. Bin Bayyah has also said that interfaith outreach to Jews in Arab lands should only be done with extreme caution — and only with Jews who oppose Israel.

The State Department is promoting Brownback’s speech at Bin Bayyah’s event earlier today:The Obama administration’s attempts to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah were not without controversy. Most embarrassing for the Obama White House was Bin Bayyah’s approval of a 2004 fatwa authorizing the killing of Americans in Iraq and endorsing the Iraqi “resistance.” This information was raised in June 2013 after it was reported Bin Bayyah had been escorted into the White House to meet with senior members of Obama’s National Security Council. CONTINUE AT SITE

Congressman Bobby Rush (D.Ill)Asks if Trump Had ‘Lynching Tree’ at Black History Month Event By Nicholas Ballasy (????!!!)see note please

The best thing Bobby Rush ever did was in 2000 when he faced a primary challenge from State Senator Barack Obama. Rush defeated Obama 61 to 30 percent with other candidates making up the other 9 percent. rsk

WASHINGTON – Asked about President Trump’s remarks at Tuesday’s White House Black History Month ceremony, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who hadn’t seen the event, asked PJM if the administration displayed a “lynching tree” there.

“Lynching? What did they have? A tree like out in Alabama they used to lynch with?” Rush asked during an interview Tuesday evening after the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Avoice Heritage Celebration recognizing African-American veterans.

When Rush was told there wasn’t a lynching tree at the White House, he replied, “Oh, they didn’t have that? He didn’t do a replica of a lynching tree?”

The theme of the White House’s Black History Month ceremony was “African-Americans in Times of War.” During the event, Trump reiterated his remarks about a record-low African-American unemployment. The rate in December was 6.8 percent; the lowest previous rate was 7 percent in April 2000. The current trend began falling in June 2013, when the rate was 14.2 percent.

The 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018

Every year, FIRE chooses the 10 worst colleges for free speech — and unfortunately, 2017 left us with plenty of options: Campuses were rocked by violent mob censorship, monitored by bias response teams, plagued by free speech zones, and beset by far too many disinvitation attempts. Although the number of colleges with the most restrictive speech codes has continued to decline, 90 percent of schools still maintain codes that either clearly restrict or could too easily be used to restrict free speech. https://www.thefire.org/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2018/

Today, we present our 2018 list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech. As always, our list is presented in no particular order, and it includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment; the private colleges on this list, though not required by the Constitution to protect student and faculty speech rights, explicitly promise to do so.

A new feature of this year’s list is our Lifetime Censorship Award. This “honor” goes to the one college or university that is so frequently discussed as a contender for our annual “worst colleges for free speech” list that it deserves special recognition. This year, that school is DePaul University.

Are you a student or faculty member whose free speech rights are imperiled on campus? Submit a case to FIRE. Also, check out FIRE’s Guides to Student Rights on Campus to help you fight for free speech, due process, religious liberty, and more.

Comey Held Secret Obama White House Meeting Before The Inauguration Ricahrd Pollock

FBI Director James Comey held a secret Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama two weeks before Trump’s inauguration and may have deliberately misled Congress about it, according to an email sent by National Security Advisor Susan Rice that GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham partially unclassified

.http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/13/comey-obama-secret-meeting/

The meeting — which Comey never previously disclosed to Congress — occurred in the White House on Jan. 5, 2017. It included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Comey. The topic of the meeting was potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice wrote in an email written the day before the inauguration.

The National Archives gave Grassley and Graham “classified and unclassified emails” about the meeting.

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

College Leaders Think Free Speech Is at Risk Everywhere — Except on Their Own Campuses A new survey sheds light on a troubling mindset. By Frederick M. Hess & Grant Addison

America’s colleges and universities are experiencing an intellectual crisis. While this is usually cast in terms of “free speech,” that is only a symptom of a deeper sickness. The root issue is whether universities remain true to their foundational mission or whether they are no longer invested in safeguarding free inquiry and welcoming heterodox thought. A new survey of college and university leaders offers a revealing look at how the mandarins of higher education view this crossroads. It offers little grounds for optimism.

Conducted by Gallup, Inside Higher Ed’s 2018 Survey of College and University Academic Officers is a representative nationwide sample of 516 campus leaders across 277 public institutions, 223 private institutions, and 16 for-profit institutions. In plowing through the results, one cannot escape the sense that those at the helm of the nation’s higher-education institutions suffer a case of willful blindness — and that, worse, they seem collectively sure that the buck stops somewhere else.

For instance, only 41 percent of college and university leaders said that free-speech rights are secure on the nation’s campuses, and only 36 percent said free speech is secure in the United States as a whole. Yet when asked about their campuses, fully 80 percent insisted that free-speech rights are secure. In other words, campus leaders see threats to free speech everywhere — except on their own campuses.

On every question about the campus experiences of liberals and conservatives, however, even these campus leaders report that disparities exist. For instance, regarding their own campuses, only 68 percent of campus leaders say that politically conservative students feel generally welcome in classrooms. This bears repeating: Barely two-thirds of campus administrators report that conservatives feel welcome — even as 80 percent insist that free speech is secure. (Meanwhile, just 3 percent say that liberal students feel unwelcome in campus classrooms.)

The Curious Michael Flynn Guilty Plea New developments in Flynn’s case raise questions about the circumstances under which he pled guilty to lying to the FBI. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Back in early December, Trump fans started throwing stuff at me for suggesting that we await more information about FBI agent Peter Strzok before demanding that he be drawn and quartered.

Yes, it was clear that Strzok engaged in serious misconduct: The married G-man’s reported extramarital affair with his married FBI colleague Lisa Page was scandalous not only for the obvious reasons but as potential blackmail material against counterintelligence agents. Plus, Strzok appears to have been the main investigator in the Hillary Clinton emails case that the FBI and Justice Department bent over backwards not to prosecute; and there is reason to believe his rabidly anti-Trump text messages with his paramour crossed the line from arrogant political banter to unprofessional investigative decision-making.

But there were dissonant notes, too, cutting against the neat ditty about a high-ranking government agent acting on a corrupt partisan agenda. For one thing, I was hearing from people with good national-security credentials that Strzok was a highly effective counterintelligence agent.

And then there was Mike Flynn.

The first revelations about Strzok’s texts came only days after General Flynn, who had fleetingly served as President Trump’s first national-security adviser, pled guilty in the Mueller investigation to a charge of lying to FBI investigators. Strzok had conducted the interview with Flynn. Combine that with the fact that he had been a principal in all the important FBI interviews in the Clinton caper, and the presumption crystalized: Political hack Strzok went kid-gloves on the Hillary Gang and scorched-earth on Trump World.