Conservative talk radio star Mark Levin praised President Donald Trump while attending a Hanukkah party at the White House on Wednesday.
“It’s an honor to be here with the first Jewish President of the United States,” Levin said to the crowd. “And if he isn’t, he should be.”
Trump grinned in response.
Levin was a guest at the Hanukkah party, but as the president often does, he urged the conservative talk radio legend to say a few words to the crowd during his event address.
Levin thanked Trump for assisting the Jewish people and for supporting Israel:
I want to thank you for everything that you have done for the Jewish people. I want to thank you for everything you’ve done for the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland. You are going to be remembered there for 1000 years.
Levin also thanked Trump for everything he had done for the United States as president and promised to continue fighting to defend him from the media and the Democrats seeking to impeach him for office.
“I want to thank you for what you’ve done for the United States of America, and I want you to know that we will not leave our general out on the battlefield without our support. Period.”
Trump joked that he was surprised at how well Levin did on television, since beginning his Fox News show on Sunday nights.
“You know he had a very successful radio show, who knew that face was going to work so well on television?” Trump asked. “What a great guy, what a great show.”
Trump held two Hanukkah receptions at the White House on Wednesday, the second one attended by Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife, and Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.
Others attending included first lady Melania Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-in-law Jared Kushner were present with their children as well as many members of the Kushner family, including Jared’s father Charlie Kushner.
“I’m truly grateful to have the Jewish faith woven so deeply into my family,” Trump said.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a new legal memo on Wednesday indicating that the Trump administration’s decision to temporarily hold military assistance to Ukraine was a “routine” practice and that the administration was reviewing whether Ukraine complied with U.S. policy.
The memo indicated that the decision to withhold the aid was not a political action to block Congress’ spending decisions.
“The office first began discussing the aid on June 19, the day President Trump learned of the aid from an article in the Washington Examiner and questioned the wisdom of the spending,” The Washington Post reported. “That move sent aides scrambling, according to a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal conversations.”
“The Office of Management and Budget extended the temporary hold on the aid eight times in August and September, the last time being Sept. 10,” the Post added. “Almost immediately after that hold, the money was released, according to the new memo, which was reviewed by The Washington Post.”
OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta issued the memo as a response to a request for information on why the aid was withheld, a request that came from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
In the memo, Paoletta wrote: “For decades, OMB has routinely used its apportionment authority to prevent funds from being used. Often, in managing appropriations, OMB must briefly pause an agency’s legal ability to spend those funds for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the funds are being spent efficiently, that they are being spent in accordance with statutory directives, or to assess how or whether funds should be used for a particular activity.”
The memo reportedly stated that the aid was put on hold due to an administration directive “pending a policy decision,” and discussions about how to proceed with the aid were set for mid-June.
The Post added, “The memo says that ‘at no point during the pause’ did Defense Department attorneys tell OMB the Ukrainian funding would be prevented from being spent before the end of the year.”
The move to release the legal memo comes as Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee held a markup hearing on Wednesday evening to weigh introducing articles of impeachment against the president.
Politico reporter John Bresnahan noted that Democrats were appealing to American’s feelings during the hearing while Republicans stuck to hammering home the message that Democrats have never gotten over the 2016 election and have searched for any reason imaginable to impeach Trump.
“Democrats are making very personal statements during impeachment hearings. They talk about being immigrants, or the child of immigrants, or being a minority, and how Trump allegedly improper behavior impacts other Americans like them. It’s an interesting tactic,” Bresnahan wrote. “Republicans repeatedly pound this message – Democrats have never acknowledged Trump’s victory in 2016 and have searched repeatedly for a reason to impeach Trump.”
/2 Republicans repeatedly pound this message – Democrats have never acknowledged Trump’s victory in 2016 and have searched repeatedly for a reason to impeach Trump
Democrats have sought to impeach the president over a July 25 phone call that he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for allegedly engaging in a quid pro quo.
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Adviser, released a statement last month stating that he was on the call and nothing improper happened: “I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky. As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”
The meeting of the leaders of the Normandy Four countries in Paris became one of the most important foreign policy events of this year. As a result of lengthy and rather nervous negotiations, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, and France, as well as the chancellor of Germany, adopted a final communiqué with three main highlighted points. The first is immediate stabilization measures in Donbass. It is about establishing a ceasefire before the end of 2019, as well as creating three new areas of withdrawal of forces by the end of March 2020. The second point refers to measures for the political implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Besides that, the extension of the law on the special status of Donbass is proposed. The third one dwells on devising schemes for the further roadmap. Here, leaders asked their ministers and advisers to ensure the implementation of the agreements reached and begin preparations for a new meeting in four months. On the same day, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov had a meeting with the U.S. secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with President Donald Trump.
The parties discussed a wide range of global security issues and came to a crucial conclusion: relations between America and Russia should not be paused. Moreover, they should not become hostage to the intriguing conjuncture of individual forces. Such an outcome is significant because the relations between these two great nuclear powers are crucial for the geopolitical well-being of all mankind. Interstate dialogues are not just indicative events, but also important elements in maintaining the red lines. Their violation can lead to unpredictable consequences.
As a result of the Caribbean Crisis of 1962, Moscow and Washington went through a serious test, which subsequently allowed them to develop a certain culture of strategic deterrence. This still plays an important role when it comes to the most sensitive points of political competition. Within the framework of the Ukrainian, Syrian, and Venezuelan crises, there are groups on both sides that seek to use any situation to bring America and Russia into open confrontation. It is difficult to say what the world would be like if General Curtis LeMay had succeeded in persuading John F. Kennedy to take drastic measures against the Soviet Union. Today, there are still many radicals, though the world lacks pragmatic and rational leaders.
The Ukrainian case is a difficult obstacle to normalizing the political dialogue between Moscow and Washington now. President Trump inherited this problem from Obama’s administration, which completely failed regarding foreign policy in Eurasia. Being a classic geopolitician and representative of the power elite, Putin has always made decisions based on rigorous political calculations. From this standpoint, the fundamental priority of Russia’s foreign policy was to maintain balanced partnership relations with the United States and the European Union. On the one hand, they are the most important actors from the point of view of the economic and technological future of Moscow. On the other hand, it is the harmony in U.S.-E.U.-Russia relations that could determine the solution to the major problems of global security. It is difficult to assume that at one point, the pragmatic Kremlin decided to sacrifice all this for the sake of dubious geopolitical adventures. Moscow accepted recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia only after the Georgian side launched active hostilities, as a result of which Russian peacekeepers were killed, though they were deployed there based on international agreements.
In the end, Saakashvili, who actually launched the war, is now wanted. Meanwhile, the current authorities in Tbilisi are trying to develop at least trade and economic relations with the Russians. The same thing happened with Ukraine. Leftist globalists did not know that this country has important political, economic, energy, cultural, and civilizational significance for Russia.
The philosophy of Putinism has never denied that Kiev should develop an active dialogue with the West. However, at the same time, Ukraine must maintain non-aligned status and consider the particularities of economic and energy relations with the Russian side. The figures show that the Ukrainian state cannot exist without Russian energy resources, and the supply of raw materials from other states is too expensive. Instead of pragmatic negotiations, Kiev called to ignore the opinion of a significant part of the Russian-speaking population in Donbass and completely break off diplomatic relations with Moscow. In fact, today, the new Ukrainian leadership has come to the conclusion that the country cannot have a political future without rational, good-neighborly relations with the Kremlin.
Only Democrats are interested in maintaining chaos. They do not want this issue to be resolved during the presidency of Donald Trump. Firstly, this would mean that Trump’s foreign policy strategy is more effective and viable. Secondly, far-fetched reasons for impeachment would immediately disappear, and Trump’s opponents would lose. Thirdly, any success could prove that the United States, the E.U., and Russia can find a common language and, together, find the keys to solving complex regional and global issues. This, in turn, will lead to the understanding that political realism works, in contrast to the liberal theory, which so far creates new problems. In the end, there will be no more barriers for the United States, the leading players in Europe, and Russia to begin the process of forming a new system of international relations.
Areg Galstyan, Ph.D. is a regular contributor to The National Interest, Forbes, and The American Thinker.
The meeting of the leaders of the Normandy Four countries in Paris became one of the most important foreign policy events of this year. As a result of lengthy and rather nervous negotiations, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, and France, as well as the chancellor of Germany, adopted a final communiqué with three main highlighted points. The first is immediate stabilization measures in Donbass. It is about establishing a ceasefire before the end of 2019, as well as creating three new areas of withdrawal of forces by the end of March 2020. The second point refers to measures for the political implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Besides that, the extension of the law on the special status of Donbass is proposed. The third one dwells on devising schemes for the further roadmap. Here, leaders asked their ministers and advisers to ensure the implementation of the agreements reached and begin preparations for a new meeting in four months. On the same day, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov had a meeting with the U.S. secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with President Donald Trump.
The parties discussed a wide range of global security issues and came to a crucial conclusion: relations between America and Russia should not be paused. Moreover, they should not become hostage to the intriguing conjuncture of individual forces. Such an outcome is significant because the relations between these two great nuclear powers are crucial for the geopolitical well-being of all mankind. Interstate dialogues are not just indicative events, but also important elements in maintaining the red lines. Their violation can lead to unpredictable consequences.
As a result of the Caribbean Crisis of 1962, Moscow and Washington went through a serious test, which subsequently allowed them to develop a certain culture of strategic deterrence. This still plays an important role when it comes to the most sensitive points of political competition. Within the framework of the Ukrainian, Syrian, and Venezuelan crises, there are groups on both sides that seek to use any situation to bring America and Russia into open confrontation. It is difficult to say what the world would be like if General Curtis LeMay had succeeded in persuading John F. Kennedy to take drastic measures against the Soviet Union. Today, there are still many radicals, though the world lacks pragmatic and rational leaders.
The Ukrainian case is a difficult obstacle to normalizing the political dialogue between Moscow and Washington now. President Trump inherited this problem from Obama’s administration, which completely failed regarding foreign policy in Eurasia. Being a classic geopolitician and representative of the power elite, Putin has always made decisions based on rigorous political calculations. From this standpoint, the fundamental priority of Russia’s foreign policy was to maintain balanced partnership relations with the United States and the European Union. On the one hand, they are the most important actors from the point of view of the economic and technological future of Moscow. On the other hand, it is the harmony in U.S.-E.U.-Russia relations that could determine the solution to the major problems of global security. It is difficult to assume that at one point, the pragmatic Kremlin decided to sacrifice all this for the sake of dubious geopolitical adventures. Moscow accepted recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia only after the Georgian side launched active hostilities, as a result of which Russian peacekeepers were killed, though they were deployed there based on international agreements.
In the end, Saakashvili, who actually launched the war, is now wanted. Meanwhile, the current authorities in Tbilisi are trying to develop at least trade and economic relations with the Russians. The same thing happened with Ukraine. Leftist globalists did not know that this country has important political, economic, energy, cultural, and civilizational significance for Russia.
The philosophy of Putinism has never denied that Kiev should develop an active dialogue with the West. However, at the same time, Ukraine must maintain non-aligned status and consider the particularities of economic and energy relations with the Russian side. The figures show that the Ukrainian state cannot exist without Russian energy resources, and the supply of raw materials from other states is too expensive. Instead of pragmatic negotiations, Kiev called to ignore the opinion of a significant part of the Russian-speaking population in Donbass and completely break off diplomatic relations with Moscow. In fact, today, the new Ukrainian leadership has come to the conclusion that the country cannot have a political future without rational, good-neighborly relations with the Kremlin.
Only Democrats are interested in maintaining chaos. They do not want this issue to be resolved during the presidency of Donald Trump. Firstly, this would mean that Trump’s foreign policy strategy is more effective and viable. Secondly, far-fetched reasons for impeachment would immediately disappear, and Trump’s opponents would lose. Thirdly, any success could prove that the United States, the E.U., and Russia can find a common language and, together, find the keys to solving complex regional and global issues. This, in turn, will lead to the understanding that political realism works, in contrast to the liberal theory, which so far creates new problems. In the end, there will be no more barriers for the United States, the leading players in Europe, and Russia to begin the process of forming a new system of international relations.
Areg Galstyan, Ph.D. is a regular contributor to The National Interest, Forbes, and The American Thinker.
The long-anticipated Inspector General Report, aka the Horowitz Report, was finally released on December 9th. After two years of investigation, the report was probably a disappointment to some, a thrill to others, and misunderstood by most.
The liberal media immediately latched on to the report and claimed that it validated their breathless reporting of evil doings by the Trump administration when it said the FBI had adequate cause to open its investigations and that there was no documented political bias evident. Conservative media noted that the report proved the whole investigation was a farce from beginning to end. The reality is that this is an inconclusive report because of the limitations of the inspector general.
The Department of Justice inspector general works for the department he is investigating. His job is to keep order in the house. His task was to see if FBI guidelines were followed. In many cases these guidelines were not even written guidelines. He was tasked with determining if there was sufficient basis for opening an investigation. The threshold for opening an investigation is so low there is not much to find.
The question of political bias, from the IG investigation perspective, is almost a non-issue since it pertains almost exclusively to the decision of whether to open the case or not. Since the threshold is so low, it’s hard to imagine anything keeping them from opening a case if they wished to -– and they did wish to. Anything that followed shared the stain of bias.
The key to the IG report was not whether it explicitly said there was or wasn’t reason to open the four investigations. The really important part was the 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and the many additional errors contained in the Woods Procedures (a procedure requiring the vetting of every fact submitted to a FISA court for permission to spy on an American.) The IG report found that many significant facts were withheld from the court and others were altered. It is a damning assessment of the veracity of the FBI and the fundamental basis of the entire investigation. It is also a felony crime.
Of the 17 major errors found in the Page FISA application information, all the errors favored Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign. This is incalculably beyond coincidence. It is facial political bias.
The many errors and omissions were never satisfactorily explained to the Office of Investigations. The report stated that it appeared agents were substituting their own judgements in place of the OI judgements. If this isn’t investigatory bias, what is? The FBI knew that the Steele Dossier contained many errors and much questionable data but never asked Christopher Steele who funded the dossier, even though there was fairly open speculation that it was the Clinton campaign. Why not, other than political bias?
So, when Horowitz answers the question about possible bias by saying there was no “documentable” political bias, what did anyone expect he would find? Clinton’s army were all high-ranking FBI bureaucrats who know how not to leave footprints. There is no question as to their personal bias against President Trump, but Horowitz was not asked to look at personal bias and, like a good bureaucrat himself, only did as instructed. Of course there was personal bias. That is documented in every action and utterance. While the press is trying to portray the IG report as some sort of absolution for the FBI, quite the opposite is true. It portrays a frightening picture of bias, bad judgement, and violations of essential process that should worry every American. The FBI, without doubt, corrupted the FISA Court process and obtained warrants to spy on an American it had no right to obtain. It obtained those warrants by using false information supplied by a duplicitous agent of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The crowning evidence is that the FBI was, in their own testimony, “so concerned that Russia would interfere with the 2016 election that they ramped up their investigation.” They were so concerned that they didn’t bother to tell one of the two candidates. No bias here. Move along. Nothing to see.
The initial FISA warrant was obtained with tainted information and the renewals were obtained with outright doctored and falsified evidence.
As the Horowitz investigation proceeded, a number of lawyers working on the FISA applications were fired, resigned, or were referred for criminal prosecution. As the Russian hoax imploded, the stench of rot grew stronger. The report cites “countless examples of corruption and deceit committed by employees throughout the FBI and DoJ confirming the investigation against Trump was aggressive, politically tainted and bore no fruit.”
So here we have it, the first of two investigations of the FBI and the Clinton campaign attack on Trump. This is supposedly the “toothless” report. Yet to come is the John Durham Report, which is now a wide-ranging criminal investigation that is able to go places the Horowitz investigation was not. Durham and Barr have clearly indicated that they intend to hold people accountable where Horowitz did not. This may well imply a lengthy list of indictments reaching well up the food chain in the FBI and elsewhere. Watch how political bias is converted into felony actions.
The long-anticipated Inspector General Report, aka the Horowitz Report, was finally released on December 9th. After two years of investigation, the report was probably a disappointment to some, a thrill to others, and misunderstood by most.
The liberal media immediately latched on to the report and claimed that it validated their breathless reporting of evil doings by the Trump administration when it said the FBI had adequate cause to open its investigations and that there was no documented political bias evident. Conservative media noted that the report proved the whole investigation was a farce from beginning to end. The reality is that this is an inconclusive report because of the limitations of the inspector general.
The Department of Justice inspector general works for the department he is investigating. His job is to keep order in the house. His task was to see if FBI guidelines were followed. In many cases these guidelines were not even written guidelines. He was tasked with determining if there was sufficient basis for opening an investigation. The threshold for opening an investigation is so low there is not much to find.
The question of political bias, from the IG investigation perspective, is almost a non-issue since it pertains almost exclusively to the decision of whether to open the case or not. Since the threshold is so low, it’s hard to imagine anything keeping them from opening a case if they wished to -– and they did wish to. Anything that followed shared the stain of bias.
The key to the IG report was not whether it explicitly said there was or wasn’t reason to open the four investigations. The really important part was the 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and the many additional errors contained in the Woods Procedures (a procedure requiring the vetting of every fact submitted to a FISA court for permission to spy on an American.) The IG report found that many significant facts were withheld from the court and others were altered. It is a damning assessment of the veracity of the FBI and the fundamental basis of the entire investigation. It is also a felony crime.
Of the 17 major errors found in the Page FISA application information, all the errors favored Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign. This is incalculably beyond coincidence. It is facial political bias.
The many errors and omissions were never satisfactorily explained to the Office of Investigations. The report stated that it appeared agents were substituting their own judgements in place of the OI judgements. If this isn’t investigatory bias, what is? The FBI knew that the Steele Dossier contained many errors and much questionable data but never asked Christopher Steele who funded the dossier, even though there was fairly open speculation that it was the Clinton campaign. Why not, other than political bias?
So, when Horowitz answers the question about possible bias by saying there was no “documentable” political bias, what did anyone expect he would find? Clinton’s army were all high-ranking FBI bureaucrats who know how not to leave footprints. There is no question as to their personal bias against President Trump, but Horowitz was not asked to look at personal bias and, like a good bureaucrat himself, only did as instructed. Of course there was personal bias. That is documented in every action and utterance. While the press is trying to portray the IG report as some sort of absolution for the FBI, quite the opposite is true. It portrays a frightening picture of bias, bad judgement, and violations of essential process that should worry every American. The FBI, without doubt, corrupted the FISA Court process and obtained warrants to spy on an American it had no right to obtain. It obtained those warrants by using false information supplied by a duplicitous agent of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The crowning evidence is that the FBI was, in their own testimony, “so concerned that Russia would interfere with the 2016 election that they ramped up their investigation.” They were so concerned that they didn’t bother to tell one of the two candidates. No bias here. Move along. Nothing to see.
The initial FISA warrant was obtained with tainted information and the renewals were obtained with outright doctored and falsified evidence.
As the Horowitz investigation proceeded, a number of lawyers working on the FISA applications were fired, resigned, or were referred for criminal prosecution. As the Russian hoax imploded, the stench of rot grew stronger. The report cites “countless examples of corruption and deceit committed by employees throughout the FBI and DoJ confirming the investigation against Trump was aggressive, politically tainted and bore no fruit.”
So here we have it, the first of two investigations of the FBI and the Clinton campaign attack on Trump. This is supposedly the “toothless” report. Yet to come is the John Durham Report, which is now a wide-ranging criminal investigation that is able to go places the Horowitz investigation was not. Durham and Barr have clearly indicated that they intend to hold people accountable where Horowitz did not. This may well imply a lengthy list of indictments reaching well up the food chain in the FBI and elsewhere. Watch how political bias is converted into felony actions.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a $738 billion bill that would start funding President Trump’s much-cherished Space force.
The U.S. Space Force would take some existing personnel and shift them to the Space Force, which would become a new branch of the military, as The Daily Mail reported.
President @realDonaldTrump made a promise to the American people that our Nation will maintain leadership in space and the agreement reached on the NDAA marks a historic step by establishing the sixth branch of the military, the Space Force! Promises Made, Promises Kept!
The Hill reported, “Space Force would be housed in the Department of the Air Force in a structure similar to the Marine Corps’s relationship to the Department of the Navy. The service would be led by the chief of space operations, who would report directly to the secretary of the Air Force and become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Al), thechairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subcommittee,told reporters, “People have been trying to kill this baby in the womb for the last three years, and I believe there is going to be some people who want to see it die in the crib. We’re not going to let that happen.”
Rogers and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) “wrote the language to establish a Space Corps under the Department of the Air Force in the 2018 NDAA but their bill was defeated in the House-Senate conference,” as Space News reported. Cooper said, “This is like the birth of a new baby, Its mother is the Air Force for some time. But this child will grow up to be independent. It is just going to take some time.”
Cooper added, “The Air Force was neglecting its space mission and not performing as well as the NRO [National Reconnaissance Office]. We wanted a new independent service under the Air Force. Our vision was not to spend much money, but to put Air Force space money under a new management. We’re going to watch it like a hawk.”
Rogers opined, “It was obvious as we look back over the last decade or two that the Air Force was not making space capabilities a priority.” He said as long as space remained in the Air Force, “it would be one of 11 other missions, never properly resourced and developed. That’s what motivated this. And Congress has come around after we couldn’t get it done two years ago.”
Rogers noted that the House Armed Services Committee had voted 60-1 to establish a Space Corps before President Trump championed it, but credited Trump, who he said, “re-energized it and gave us a second wind.”He also credited Vice-President Mike Pence convincing the Senate Armed Services Committee to support the idea after it had been slow to accept it. He said, “The vice president really helped us on the Senate side.”
Rogers asserted that keeping space in the Air Force would trigger a “battle of resources.” He said the Air Force was “robbing the space programs for air dominance programs,” adding, “Culturally that’s what they’re bred to do. It’s another reason why this had to happen. They allowed space to atrophy. That’s when we started to fall behind China and Russia. We want to get back to the dominant position we used to have.”
Former Vice-President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who has vociferously championed the cause of equal pay for women, saying it is “common sense” and “overdue,” paid full-time female staffers working for him in his 35 years in the Senate an average of 67 cents for every dollar male staffers got, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
At the July 31 Democratic presidential debate, Biden boasted: “I wrote the Violence against Women Act. Lilly Ledbetter. I was deeply involved in making sure the equal pay amendments. I was deeply involved on all these things. I came up with the It’s on Us proposal to see to it that women were treated more decently on college campuses … I’m passionate about the concern making sure women are treated equally.”
The same day, he bragged on Twitter, “Vice President Biden has fought for women’s rights his whole career: ✓Wrote the Violence Against Women Act ✓Co-sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment 9 times ✓Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: 1st Obama-Biden bill signed into law ✓Co-sponsored the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.”
Vice President Biden has fought for women’s rights his whole career:
✓Wrote the Violence Against Women Act ✓Co-sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment 9 times ✓Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: 1st Obama-Biden bill signed into law ✓Co-sponsored the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
As recently as June, when members of the U.S. women’s soccer team publicly complained that they were remunerated less than the men in the U.S. men’s soccer team, Biden tweeted, “In 2019, it’s past time we close the pay gap and ensure women get paid as much as men.”
As we cheer them on in the World Cup, we must support their fight off the field for equal pay. In 2019, it’s past time we close the pay gap and ensure women get paid as much as men. #OneNationOneTeamhttps://t.co/bJQZm2aQMv
In 2015, when he was still vice-president, Biden tweeted, “Equal pay for equal work. It’s common sense. It’s also overdue. Let’s close the gap & let’s do it now.”
In 2012, Biden castigated Paul Ryan, then the GOP candidate for vice-president, saying, “Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter act, which all it said, all Lilly Ledbetter said, was if a woman finds out she’s been treated wrongly, cheated in terms of her salary and benefits at work, then she’s able to sue from the moment she finds out.”
In 2010, urging the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, Biden said, “What it does is say, ‘Hey, let me know what the field is. What the deal is. Just let us know.’ It’s amazing what a disinfectant sunlight is. This is a chance to get on the right side of history. You have to look into the eyes of your granddaughters and the young women who you hired … and say, ‘You know, when it came time, I didn’t step up.’”
Yet according to the Free Beacon:
When Biden joined the Senate in 1973, the average pay for a full-time female staffer in his office was $5,029, about 68 percent of the $7,383 average paid to men during that span, according to the secretary of the Senate’s first spending report for the 93rd Congress. A Free Beacon analysis of spending reports covering Biden’s full Senate tenure found that he never achieved gender pay equity. Over the course of Biden’s time in the Senate, women on average earned just 67 cents for each dollar earned by men.
The Free Beacon added, “Women garnered as little as 44 percent of what Biden’s male employees made in 1983 and 1984. The disparity sat at 45 percent in early 1991, just months before Biden made Clarence Thomas’s treatment of female workers the focus of Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination hearings.”
In a letter sent Monday by a high-powered law firm to Warner Bros. and Clint Eastwood, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution accused the studio and filmmakers behind the iconic director’s historically based film “Richard Jewell” of “false and malicious” portrayals of the paper and its reporters, particularly a female journalist whose reporting helped turn a real-life hero into a public villain. In an interview with The Associated Press, Eastwood was asked to address the controversy and responded by pointing to the paper’s apparent motivation for launching the attack on him and the studio.
“Richard Jewell,” which is generating Oscars buzz, tells the historically based story of a security guard who discovered a pipe bomb in Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics and worked to get others clear of the area. Though his heroic actions saved lives, he went from hero to villain after the media, including AJC’s late-Kathy Scruggs, reported that he had become the FBI’s top suspect.
The film’s portrayal of Scruggs (played by Olivia Wilde) and the paper in general, AJC alleges, amounts to defamation. The paper points to one scene as particularly egregious: the suggestion that Scruggs offers sex to an FBI agent for information on Jewell. “The AJC’s reporter is reduced to a sex-trading object in the film,” reads the letter, sent by Martin Singer’s LA-based law firm Lavely & Singer. “Such a portrayal makes it appear that the AJC sexually exploited its staff and/or that it facilitated or condoned offering sexual gratification to sources in exchange for stories.”
“We hereby demand that you immediately issue a statement publicly acknowledging that some events were imagined for dramatic purposes and artistic license and dramatization were used in the film’s portrayal of events and characters,” the paper insists. “We further demand that you add a prominent disclaimer to the film to that effect.”
Warner Bros. responded Monday by vowing to “vigorously defend” against the paper’s “baseless” claims and pointing out the “ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast.”
In an interview along with the film’s star, Paul Walter Hauser, published Thursday, The Associated Press asked Eastwood for comments on the paper’s accusations, and the director offered a classically Eastwood nonchalant response.
“The editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has criticized the film,” AP said in a question directed to Eastwood. “He’s questioning the accuracy, saying it’s not true that Kathy Scruggs traded sex with an ex-FBI agent in exchange for a tip. And they’re also challenging the notion that the paper ran a story with questionable sourcing. Do you have a response to the criticism?”
“I think the Atlanta Journal probably would be the one group that would be sort of complexed about that whole situation because they are the ones who printed the first thing of there being a crime caused by Richard Jewell,” said Eastwood. “And so they’re probably looking for ways to rationalize their activity. I don’t know for sure. I haven’t — never discussed it with anyone from there…”
Hauser also responded in defense of the film. “But also the biopics — Hollywood biopics are historically under scrutiny, whether it’s the Dupont family in ‘Foxcatcher,’ whether it’s the Catholic Church in ‘Spotlight,’” said the actor. “This is a very obvious thing that’s happening with the AJC and we understand their plight. But we’re telling our story. And I think we did a really good job.”
“The film is based on a wide range of highly credible source material,” Warner Bros. said in the statement reported by Deadline Monday. “There is no disputing that Richard Jewell was an innocent man whose reputation and life were shredded by a miscarriage of justice. It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast. Richard Jewell focuses on the real victim, seeks to tell his story, confirm his innocence and restore his name.”
“The AJC’s claims are baseless, and we will vigorously defend against them,” the studio asserted.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) stomped on the BIG Democrat show… Jordan diverted from the sham proceedings and lectured the committee on the Deep State FISA crimes.
Jordan continues to shine in the proceedings.
Let’s face facts here: At a certain level, the proposed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump have to do with part of the Democrats’ campaign against his re-election.
Certainly, we’ve been told that they’re taking this as a very solemn duty. Morning, noon and evening, powerful Democrats are paraded out in front of the camera to assure us they’re taking this every bit as solemnly as a solemn wedding solemnization at Our Lady of Perpetual Solemnity.
This is somewhat belied when you consider the number of Democrats — including some of their witnesses, like the constitutional law expert who said Trump could be impeached in 2017, long before there was anything even remotely impeachable.
How about another? Here’s Noah Feldman on impeachment, March 2017. Not even TWO months post inauguration.https://t.co/FMiq3Ng48W
This could, of course, backfire. The articles of impeachment are bound to die in the Senate and, given that the rules are significantly different, there’s the chance that the backlash could actually help Trump win a second term. So, what then?
Well, just impeach him again, obviously.
Democratic Rep. Karen Bass of California appeared in a TMZ interview with site founder Harvey Levin on Tuesday. There are so few promising, nuanced political stories that have started with a permutation of that sentence and Bass’ interview didn’t break the streak.
During the interview, Levin presented Bass with a hypothetical situation in which Trump won a second term but the Democrats were able to consolidate gains in Congress.
Do you think Donald Trump will win a second term?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
“There’s no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it’s political,” Levin said.
“Suppose he gets re-elected, but you’re right and you win back the Senate in a big way. If you did that, would you be inclined to take a second bite at the apple and reintroduce the exact same impeachment articles and then send it through again a second time if you have a Democratic Senate on your side?”
“So, you know, yes, but I don’t think it would be exactly the same and here’s why,” Bass said, “because even though we are impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases, there’s a ton of information that could come forward.
“For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he’s owned 100 percent by the Russians.”
It’s the Russkies! They’re back, y’all! Well, actually, they didn’t necessarily go away after the Mueller report but it was mostly the province of the conspiracy theory-minded left, from the Oliver Stone-ish (Rachel Maddow) to the Alex Jones-esque (Louise Mensch).
I must admit as someone who got MTV at the same time “Real World 3” was a big thing, it’s still odd to think of Rachel Campos-Duffy as a political pundit. However, the Fox News contributor had one of the more clear-eyed explanations of why this was thoroughly insane:
“It just underscores what we have always known, that they are not concerned about facts, that they’re completely obsessed with getting rid of Trump. That all of these investigations from the Russia hoax to Ukraine, all of these things have been about trying to find a crime and fit it somehow into this impeachment narrative,” she said during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday.
She then pointed to a poll in Wisconsin — a state the Democrats need to win if they have any chance in 2020 — showing 58 percent of voters disapprove of impeachment.
“They are willing to sacrifice winning in 2020, taking over or keeping their majority in the House and winning over the Senate because this is wildly unpopular where I live here in the middle of America, which is Wisconsin and the Midwest,” she said.
And here’s the thing: What Rep. Bass is saying is completely hypothetical. If they think he’s committed another crime, of course, impeachment would be on the table.
If Elizabeth Warren were elected president and it were proved she knocked over a series of banks with the remnants of the Symbionese Liberation Army in order to advance her anti-corporate agenda, yeah, we would impeach her. This is somewhat less likely than Trump’s tax returns proving he was a fully owned subsidiary of the Kremlin, but not by as much as you might think.
At a certain level, though, Rep. Bass nailed it: This is political. There are accusations of crimes tangentially attached to these articles of impeachment. When those articles fail the Senate — and barring new information, they certainly will — hope for new kinda-sorta-not-really-crimes to attach to new articles of impeachment.
And, in fact, Bass is sure they’re out there. They just need to be “found.”
“You are absolutely right in your scenario, but the only thing I would say slightly different is, it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we would have a ton more information, and then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that, you know, he probably has other examples of criminal behavior,” Bass said.
In other words, she believes this is a fait accompli. Trump “probably has other examples of criminal behavior” — completely unproven, mind you, but I’m sure they’re out there. Hence, you can pretty much pencil in “Impeachmentgate 2: Electric Boogaloo” sometime around January of 2021 if the election doesn’t go the Democrats’ way.
Just a tip: Don’t sound so hopeful, Rep. Bass. That could backfire in more ways than one. In fact, as Campos-Duffy and others would argue, it already has.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
The many errors and omissions were never satisfactorily explained to the Office of Investigations. The report stated that it appeared agents were substituting their own judgements in place of the OI judgements. If this isn’t investigatory bias, what is? The FBI knew that the Steele Dossier contained many errors and much questionable data but never asked Christopher Steele who funded the dossier, even though there was fairly open speculation that it was the Clinton campaign. Why not, other than political bias?
