RUTHFULLY YOURS

Senate Republicans continue to negotiate the details of their health-care reform, and one measure of progress is that their opponents are more manic and disingenuous. Progressives who used to deride the GOP for incompetence are now panicked that they may really succeed, and thus the faux tantrums.

The distortion du jour is that the GOP is operating “in secret.” This week Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Republicans of working “behind closed doors, writing a bill they won’t let the public read. . . . Today, no Member of Congress can read the bill because we don’t know what it is.”

Despite Mr. Schumer’s bewilderment, he still knew enough to assert that the Senate bill will “greatly hurt the American people.” Well, which is it? And if Republicans are trying to suppress a public debate about repealing and replacing Obama Care, then they haven’t prevailed, either now or across the presidential campaign. Health care has been central to U.S. political debate for nearly a decade as Democrats created a new entitlement with little public support.

Compared to that effort, the Senate this time has been a model of deliberative democracy. On Dec. 19, 2009, a Saturday, then Majority Leader Harry Reid tossed the 2,100-page bill the Senate had spent that fall debating and offered a new bill drafted in an invitation-only back room. Democrats didn’t even pretend to care what was in it while passing it in the dead of night on Dec. 24, amid a snowstorm, in the first Christmas Eve vote since 1895.

Liberals excused this legislative sausage-making as the price of making history, which was an insult to sausages. MIT economist and ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber told an academic audience in 2014 that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Mr. Gruber has since re-emerged to complain of the current debate that “I’m just worried about the speed they’re moving at for what that implies, because it implies no effort to actually get this right.” The professor had apologized for what he called his “inexcusable” remarks in 2014 but he’s betting he can con Americans again.

The irony is that the GOP negotiations are so time-consuming because Senators are trying to improve the product as they build a consensus that can get 50 votes. They’re trying to answer the House bill’s critics on the left and right, not that they’ll get any credit.

James T. Hodgkinson, who on Wednesday shot Republican Rep. Steve Scalise and four others, posted this on his Facebook page March 22: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Sitting in the dying light of World War I, the poet T.S. Eliot wrote, “I had not thought death had undone so many.” What’s our excuse? Displays of political or social excess seem to be everywhere. Whatever once fastened the doors of people’s minds to something secure and stable has become unhinged.

Some thought the apotheosis of political derangement had been reached when celebrity Kathy Griffin posted a video of herself holding the bloody, severed head of Donald Trump.

But that wasn’t the end of it. We may assume that as Ms. Griffin was creating her video, the artists at New York’s Public Theater were rehearsing their production of “ Julius Caesar, ” the one in which Central Park audiences watch Caesar as a blond-haired Donald Trump, who is pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated with plunging knives.

The news site Axios runs stories regularly about journalists who have been suspended or fired because of their unhinged postings on Twitter . After Donald Trump used a tweet to revive his long-running feud with the mayor of London amid the June 3 killings, CNN personality Reza Aslan tweeted that Mr. Trump was a “piece of s—.”

Some take comfort that these displays did not go unpunished. CNN wrist-slapped Ms. Griffin by dropping her as co-host of its New Year’s Eve show with Anderson Cooper. Delta Air Lines , American Express and Bank of America withdrew their sponsorship of “Julius Caesar,” though New York City’s Democratic Comptroller Scott Stringer said their pullout “sends the wrong message.”

Advertisers must wake up every morning wondering what political meteorite will hit them next. J.P. Morgan Chase pulled its ads this week from NBC News rather than be associated with Megyn Kelly’s prime-time interview with Alex Jones to discuss “controversies and conspiracies,” such as his notion that the Sandy Hook murders were a hoax. Ms. Kelly justified the interview in part on Twitter because Donald Trump appeared on Mr. Jones’s show and “our job is 2 shine a light.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. This is the exact canard peddled by Stone — and is extremely dangerous if unrebutted. I challenge my old friend (and co-producer of Reversal of Fortune – the film based on my book) to debate me on the following proposition: Did Israel do more to influence the 2016 election than Russia?

When film director Oliver Stone could not come up with a plausible response to Stephen Colbert’s tough questions about why he gave a pass to Vladimir Putin for trying to influence the American presidential election, Stone resorted to an age-old bigotry: blame the Jews – or, in its current incarnation, shift the blame to the nation state of the Jewish people, Israel. Colbert was interviewing Stone about his new documentary, “The Putin Interviews” – a film comprised of conversations he had with the Russian president over the past two years. The exchange regarding Israel did not make it to air but was relayed to the New York Post’s Page Six by a source who was in the audience.

When pressed by Colbert about his apparent fondness of the Russian dictator, Stone replied: “Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia.” He then said again, “Why don’t you ask me about that?” Colbert responded: “I’ll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel!”

If Stone’s absurd response were not reflective of a growing anti-Semitism by the intolerant hard left (of which Stone is a charter member) it would be laughable. Indeed, Stone resorted to the “socialism of fools” (which is what German Social Democrat, August Bebel, coined anti-Semitism) precisely to save face because he was being mockingly laughed off stage by Colbert’s audience for giving Colbert ridiculous answers. Some of Stone’s bizarre pronouncements included:

“I’m amazed at his [Putin’s] calmness, his courtesy…he never really said anything bad about anybody. He’s been through a lot. He’s been insulted and abused.” Stone also expressed his “respect” for Putin’s leadership. But no answer was more ridiculous than his bigoted claim that Israel did more to try to influence the election than Russia.

We know for certain that Russia (and that means Putin) desperately wanted Hillary Clinton to lose. We know that their surrogates timed leaks to cause maximum damage to her campaign. All of our intelligence agencies, in a rare show of unanimity, concluded that Russia went to great lengths to try to defeat Clinton.

Shock waves rippled through Capitol Hill on Wednesday after a shooter targeted Republican lawmakers during a morning baseball practice, wounding House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others.

“An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us,” Speaker Paul Ryan said from the House chamber, where most members gathered Wednesday afternoon following a security briefing on the incident.

Also shot were Zack Barth, an aide to Rep. Roger Williams of Texas; Matt Mika, a lobbyist who was volunteering at the practice; and two Capitol Police officers, Crystal Griner and David Bailey. The gunman died at the hospital, President Trump announced later.

Scalise’s office released a statement saying that prior to entering surgery, the Louisiana Republican was in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone. MedStar Washington Hospital Center later tweeted that the congressman was “critically injured and remains in critical condition.”

The incident seemed to confirm the worst fears among some lawmakers that partisan rhetoric has reached a troubling, even dangerous level. Many expressed concern about their security, particularly in situations like a baseball practice where they gather together.

“It’s a concern we always have,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, “and … until the rhetoric changes, I think it’s a concern we’re always going to have.” He added that “everybody” is responsible, in his view, for deepening divisions.

Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, who witnessed the shooting, still wore his baseball uniform and cleats in the Capitol as he recounted the attack to reporters.

“What that rhetoric and that hatefulness has led to is members of Congress, I believe, having to dodge bullets today at a baseball practice for a game that we play for charity,” Davis said. “This should never happen, and we as Republicans and Democrats have to come together and say, as a team and as members of Congress … that this hate and this rhetoric has got to be toned down, it has got to stop.”

The shooter was identified as James T. Hodgkinson III, 66, from Illinois, according to various news outlets. Hodgkinson had volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, and his Facebook page included a photograph of Sanders as its cover image. He had written anti-Republican and anti-Trump posts, including one with a picture of the president and the message that Trump is a “traitor” and “It’s time to Destroy Trump & Co.” He belonged to a number of anti-Republican groups, according to the Belleville, Ill., newspaper, including one called “Terminate the Republican Party.” The newspaper also released a number of letters to the editor Hodgkinson had written critical of the Republican Party, though none of the letters released specifically mentioned Trump.

“I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president.”https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/14/special-counsel-swamps-watchdog-trump/

That statement by James Comey had this old trial lawyer’s antennae buzzing. While being questioned about his memos-to-self by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) at last week’s big intelligence committee hearing, the former FBI director used the term “recollection recorded” not once but twice. He was rationalizing why he had failed to treat the notes he’d made of conversations with President Trump as government documents (maintaining, instead, that they were his own property).

“My view,” Comey elaborated, was that the “memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”

I won’t belabor the fact that the former FBI director’s memos were government records. It is a moot point. He has surrendered them to Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department.

My focus is on the fact that a special counsel is what Comey says he wanted, even though he repeatedly acknowledged that Trump himself was not under investigation, and even though the investigation in question—a counterintelligence probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—is the kind that ordinarily does not get a prosecutor assigned. Because its objective is not to build a criminal case, a counterintelligence probe is conducted by intelligence agents and analysts, not criminal investigators and prosecutors.

Many other former Obama administration officials wanted a special counsel, too. So did Democrats and their media echo chamber—all convinced that Trump was not merely objectionable but unfit.

So, the question is: Was that the plan all along—to impose a watchdog on Trump?

Obviously, it has not mattered that there is no crime to investigate, even though the governing regulations make that a prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. Was Washington’s push for a special counsel spurred by concern over Russia or revulsion over Trump?

Without an evidence-based predicate for a criminal investigation of Trump, did the intelligence agencies undertake to build the predicate themselves? Did they reckon that the semblance of a criminal investigation would justify installing a monitor from outside Trump’s administration, with jurisdiction sufficiently elastic to keep the president in check?

Rep. Scalise, critically injured, is a strong conservative leader who upholds the Constitution, advocating for the principles of fiscal discipline, lower taxes, an all-of-the-above national energy strategy, a robust national defense, and conservative values.

As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of more than 170 conservative members in the House, he coalesced Members around a unified vision. During his time as chairman, Scalise championed a free-market, patient-centered Obamacare alternative that gained the support of 130 HouseMembers. He also introduced legislation that promotes job creation and economic growth, established an RSC national defense working group, released a conservative budget that would balance in four years, and crafted bills that protect constitutionally-guaranteed rights, like freedom of speech, from unelected Washington bureaucrats.

Passing a conservative alternative to President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” that was supported by outside groups like Americans For Tax Reform.
Banning the implementation of radical climate change regulations, saving millions of taxpayer dollars.
Defunding many of President Obama’s czars.
Eliminating redundant, costly, and time consuming trips for nearly 2 million American transportation workers by reforming the TWIC card process.
Defunding the wasteful spending of the Open World Leadership Center.
Holding the Obama Administration accountable for blocking American energy development through the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.
Reforming the FCC by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome mandates (link is external) on the telecommunications industry.

He is a strong and forthright critic of Obama’s negotiations with Iran, calling them naive and dangerous.He is a very strong supporter of Israel and ranked a -4 by the Arab American Institute.

May he recover swiftly from his wounds. rsk

Well, it finally happened. We’ve been saying for months now that the breathless false narrative created by the media about Trump supporters was going to lead unstable people to do bad things. We’ve seen it in Berkeley, where masked Antifa thugs attacked “Nazis” (or anyone in a Trump hat). Then there was Kathy Griffin’s disgusting mock beheading of President Trump, where she put the Left’s violent fantasies on display, followed up very shortly with Shakespeare in the Park featuring the stabbing assassination of Donald Trump to wild applause and standing ovations. These people are sick in the head.

Now a Republican congressman is in the hospital recovering from a gunshot wound he received during a congressional softball practice. The shooter allegedly asked a Representative Ron DeSantis if there were Republicans or Democrats playing. Upon hearing they were Republicans, he opened fire. Luckily, he was a very bad shot (as we all imagine anti-gun nuts to be). Squeezing off a reported 50 to 60 rounds and only hitting one congressman in the hip in a field full of them seems hard to do. We are all grateful for bad aim and for Capitol Police who returned fire, stopping the attack. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is being treated for his injuries.
Sanders ‘Sickened’ That Alexandria Shooter Was Volunteer on His Presidential Campaign

Meanwhile, as blood still sits on the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, the Shakespeare in the Park players are getting ready for tonight’s bloody performance, where they will symbolically slay the Republican sitting president. I would like to remind you that after Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot, Sarah Palin was blamed by nearly every network for having a map with districts up for grabs shown with targets over them (one of which happened to be Giffords’ district). We were told that her map incited the shooting. These same people, however, aren’t all over CNN right now making the connection between the play featuring Donald Trump being murdered or Kathy Griffin’s bloody beheading and the shooting of Republicans playing ball.

Instead of calls for restraint and civility, Twitter is alive with celebration over evil Republicans being shot and targeted. The demonization continues. CONTINUE AT SITE

There’s law and there’s politics. When it comes to Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to conduct the so-called Russia investigation, the Justice Department did politics. That is why the public discussion of Mueller’s status — including probably farfetched suggestions that President Trump is on the cusp of firing him — has so botched the law.

At this point, unfortunately, the law must accommodate politics. The alarm bells that led to Mueller’s erroneous appointment cannot be un-rung. But legal surgery needs to be done, lest Mueller’s amorphous mandate lead to Scooter Libby 2.0, or worse, another Iran-Contra epic — a fiasco that seemed to have a longer run than Phantom of the Opera.

Bottom line: Trump should not dismiss Mueller, but the Justice Department must revise the special counsel’s jurisdiction. Maybe this time, it could be conformed to, you know, the law . . . specifically, the law that limits special counsels to criminal investigations, not counterintelligence probes.

Before we get down to business, let’s clear away the underbrush.

Mueller’s Potential Conflicts of Interest

As elaborated on in this space before, Bob Mueller is as straight an arrow as they come; he is not right all of the time (is any of us?), but he is always ethical and patriotic. Like others, I worry about the ideological bent and potential for overzealousness of the staff he has assembled. But there is no doubting their legal acumen, and with Mueller calling the shots, I believe the Trump administration and the public will get fair treatment. This situation warrants attention, but not panic.

Similarly, too much is made of Mueller’s being pals with Jim Comey, the former FBI director who succeeded Mueller’s twelve-year run in that lofty post. Mueller is a pillar of Washington’s legal and political communities, which heavily overlap. If cordial relations with people in Washington circles is disqualifying, then good luck finding a high-quality special counsel if you ever need one (which we didn’t in this case, but that ship has sailed).

The batrachian (toad like) Senator Grassley jumps into the swamp…..shame on him…..rsk

WASHINGTON—The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to open an investigation into the circumstances surrounding President Donald Trump’s removal of James Comey as FBI director, a probe that could examine the thorny question of whether Mr. Trump improperly interfered in an ongoing investigation by doing so.

“The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and committee chairman, said in a letter released Wednesday. “It is my view that fully investigating the facts, circumstances, and rationale for Mr. Comey’s removal will provide us the opportunity to do that on a cooperative, bipartisan basis.

“The American people deserve a full accounting of attempts to meddle in both our democratic processes and the impartial administration of justice,” Mr. Grassley said.
Mr. Comey was removed from his position last month by Mr. Trump. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, Mr. Comey said he had felt directed by the president to drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Mr. Trump denies he gave such instructions.

The White House initially said Mr. Comey was removed for performance reasons, but Mr. Trump later suggested he was dismissed in part over the continuing Russia investigation.

Mr. Grassley’s letter came in response to a push from Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Feinstein has asked for Judiciary to conduct its own probe in addition to the other investigations unfolding on Capitol Hill. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. CONTINUE AT SITE

Attorney General Jeff Sessions took aim at unhinged Russian electoral collusion conspiracy theorists, pushing back against left-wingers’ wild claims that by doing his job he somehow betrayed America.

The comments by the former Republican senator from Alabama came during heated testimony yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sessions denied, as he has done before, that he had any inappropriate contact with Russian officials or that he plotted with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government to influence the 2016 election.

Sessions’ testimony came the day after Newsmax Media CEO Christopher Ruddy, a longtime friend of the president, claimed Trump was considering firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the investigation into the Russian conspiracy theory. A few hours before Sessions testified, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein was asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.) if he would fire Mueller. Critics have accused Mueller of a litany of conflicts of interest that they claim ought to disqualify him as an investigator.

“Senator, I’m not going to follow any order unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Rosenstein said during a hearing about President Trump’s $27.7 billion fiscal 2018 budget for the Department of Justice. Mueller “may be fired only for good cause, and I am required to put that cause in writing. That’s what I would do. If there were good cause, I would consider it.”

The attorney general’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee was marked by several testy exchanges with Democrats. The senior Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, set the noticeably prosecutorial tone for his side by interrupting Sessions repeatedly. “The Russians massively interfered,” in the 2016 election, Warner claimed.

In his opening statement, Sessions said:

Let me state this clearly, colleagues. I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States. Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you. And the suggestion that I participated in any collusion that I was aware of, any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and detestable lie.

As attorney general, “I recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against false allegations.”

A grandstanding Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Sessions of being less than forthcoming about his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling. Americans don’t want to hear the answers are privileged and off limits or they can’t be provided in public or it would be inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. We are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable.

Sessions forcefully denied that declining to answer questions about presidential communications constituted stonewalling. “I am following the historic policies of the Department of Justice,” he said.

Throughout the hearing Sessions repeatedly told senators that he wasn’t invoking executive privilege on behalf of President Trump. His default position was that conversations he had about official government business with Trump should be treated as presumptively confidential, at least until the president can make an informed decision about whether to shield the information by invoking executive privilege.

“I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it,” Sessions told Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).