Connect with us

News

Democrat Govorner McCauliffe Threatens to Knock President Trump to Floor – MSNBC Host Can’t Stop Laughing (VIDEO)

Published

on

On Thursday Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe threatened to knock President Trump to the floor.

And MSNBC host Chris Matthews can’t stop laughing.

Chris Matthews: He intimidates his opponents. He takes people like Jeb Bush and makes them look weak. He says “Low energy Jeb” and it works. He refers to somebody as ‘Little Marco’ because he’s not as tall as he is. He finds anybody’s weakness and turns it into something that destroys them. Now Hillary is a friend of yours and is a strong person. But he even did that weird thing where he looked over her like that Godzilla thing during the debate. What would you do in a debate with him if he tried that? If he came over and leaned over the back of you?

Governor McCauliffe: You’d have to pick him up off the floor.

The post Democrat Govorner McCauliffe Threatens to Knock President Trump to Floor – MSNBC Host Can’t Stop Laughing (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Whoa: DOJ Inspector General sends criminal referral for Andrew McCabe to U.S. Attorney

Published

on

By

You know who you can thank for this? James Comey! He’s the one who initiated the IG investigation into leaks to the WSJ in October 2016 about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation, or so he claimed to the Daily Beast. Which makes this tweet from January seem … awkward now:

Comey will be on Jake Tapper’s show for an interview within the hour. I wonder what the first question will be.

The Justice Department inspector general referred its finding that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators who were examining a media disclosure to the top federal prosecutor in D.C. to determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime, according to people familiar with the matter…

Lying to federal investigators is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, and some legal analysts speculated in the wake of the report that the inspector general seemed to be laying out a case for accusing McCabe of such conduct. The report alleged that one of McCabe’s lies “was done knowingly and intentionally” — which is a key aspect of the federal crime

Ironically, Comey — who appointed McCabe to his post as the No. 2 official in the FBI — stressed in his book released this week the importance of telling the truth to federal investigators and holding accountable those who do not.

“People must fear the consequences of lying in the justice system or the system can’t work,” wrote Comey in his new book, per WaPo, and how here we are. Will the next McCabe fundraising webathon be for bail money?

Comey reiterated yesterday on “The View” when asked about McCabe that lying to the feds isn’t okay. McCabe and his lawyer didn’t like that:

“In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has relied on the accuracy and the soundness of the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall Street Journal on the stories in question prior to publication. Neither Mr. Comey nor the OIG is infallible, and in this case neither of them has it right.”

The wrinkle here is that the IG’s recommendation is based partly on a test of credibility between McCabe and Comey himself. McCabe claims that when Comey asked him in October 2016 whether he had authorized any info on the Clinton Foundation probe to be released to the WSJ, McCabe told him yes, that he was working with the paper to correct inaccuracies in the story. Comey, however, told the IG that McCabe told him he didn’t know who’d been talking to the paper. Upon further investigation, the IG agreed with Comey. Which is to say, if this turns into a prosecution — and there’s no guarantee that it will — the star witness against Andrew McCabe might be … James Comey.

The statute here, by the way, is the same statute that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to violating: 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a crime to lie to federal officials. The U.S. Attorney will be under heavy political pressure to indict McCabe in order to show that the “no lying” rule applies to its own officers just as much as it does to Trump’s aides. Although I wonder if Trump might inadvertently let them off the hook by tweeting something celebratory about the McCabe referral, leaving the U.S. Attorney to argue that the president’s endless Twitter attacks on McCabe have made it impossible for him to get a fair trial. As such, he might not be charged or, if he’s amenable, he may be allowed to cop a plea with a wrist-slap penalty. If anything is capable of driving home the lesson to Trump that he shouldn’t be tweeting about pending legal matters, watching McCabe walk free because of his big mouth might be it.

Nah, who are we kidding. Nothing will drive that lesson home. Exit question: What if McCabe and Michael Cohen end up as cellmates in the federal pen? I smell sitcom.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Trump: Feds will not pay for Jerry Brown’s National Guard ‘charade’

Published

on

By

The war of words between President Trump and California Governor Jerry Brown over illegal immigration heated up again this morning. Just yesterday Gov. Brown suggested 400 National Guard troops would be headed for the border and that the federal government had agreed to pay for it. But this morning President Trump tweeted this:

This all started a couple weeks ago when President Trump announced that, since funding for his border wall was stalled, he was calling on states to send National Guard troops to the border. A week later, there was another surprise when Gov. Jerry Brown announced that he would be sending 400 National Guard troops to the border to fight smuggling and drug trafficking. However, Brown also drew a line at getting involved in preventing illegal immigration saying, “It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.”

That made it a bit unclear what California’s troops were actually going to do. National Guard troops are not allowed to arrest people at the border. That’s the job of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Troops from other states were using surveillance equipment and notifying the border patrol if they saw someone trying to cross the border. They were also given jobs doing paperwork and other support roles aimed at freeing up more border patrol officers. But earlier this week the Associated Press reported that California was rejecting most of the actual jobs the border patrol wanted the troops to do.

The state informed federal officials it will not allow its troops to fix and repair vehicles, operate remotely-controlled surveillance cameras to report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, operate radios and provide “mission support,” which can include clerical work, buying gas and handling payroll, according to officials with knowledge of the talks who spoke condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The next day, California officials said they were not backing away from sending troops to the border even as a CBP Deputy Commissioner confirmed the core of the Associated Press report, i.e. Gov. Brown would not let his troops do a number of support jobs for the border patrol.

Wednesday, Gov. Brown released a statement saying 400 troops were headed to the border, “after securing the federal government’s commitment this week to fund the mission.” That certainly makes it sound as if some agreement has been reached. But if so, Trump’s tweet this morning appears to be rejecting that agreement. So far, there has not been a response from Gov. Brown clarifying whether or not his National Guard troops are still headed for the border.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Ted Cruz in Time magazine: Three cheers for Donald Trump

Published

on

By

Someone pointed out this morning that this tweet is still part of the presidential Twitter account two years later. Trump never deleted it, even after he and Cruz made nice.

That came up because Time magazine released its annual “100 Most Influential People” list today, consisting of 100 very short essays about famous people written by other famous people with whom they have some connection — professional, political, artistic, etc. The profile for the Parkland students, for instance, was written by Barack Obama, a salute from one gun-grabber to a group of others. You can imagine Time’s editors brainstorming over who to ask to write the essay honoring Trump and settling on … Ted Cruz. Former rival turned uneasy ally; conservative stalwart versus populist conqueror. It’s an interesting hook, but for one thing. The essays are supposed to be flattering to their subjects and for a hundred different reasons, some of them personal, Ted Cruz would naturally be disinclined to flatter Trump. Or so one might think.

But Time asked anyway. And to the world’s surprise, Cruz accepted:

President Trump is a flash-bang grenade thrown into Washington by the forgotten men and women of America. The fact that his first year as Commander in Chief disoriented and distressed members of the media and political establishment is not a bug but a feature.

The same cultural safe spaces that blinkered coastal elites to candidate Trump’s popularity have rendered them blind to President Trump’s achievements on behalf of ordinary Americans. While pundits obsessed over tweets, he worked with Congress to cut taxes for struggling families. While wealthy celebrities announced that they would flee the country, he fought to bring back jobs and industries to our shores. While talking heads predicted Armageddon, President Trump’s strong stand against North Korea put Kim Jong Un back on his heels.

President Trump is doing what he was elected to do: disrupt the status quo. That scares the heck out of those who have controlled Washington for decades, but for millions of Americans, their confusion is great fun to watch.

It’s strange but Cruz-y that everything there is couched in terms of pwning the elites, up to and including Trump’s actual policy achievements. He could have written a straightforward appreciation for what Trump has accomplished so far but even the value of a peace deal with North Korea seems to lie in making blow-dried idiots on cable news look foolish. Very populist, baby. Very on-brand.

But no one believes Cruz was eager to write this piece. Trump isn’t a buddy or a conservative comrade-in-arms like Mike Lee, he’s the guy who beat Cruz two years ago and insulted his wife, smeared his father, and repeatedly called him a liar in doing so. For all of his heavy breathing about throwing flash-bang grenades into Washington, the only conclusion Cruz could reach on a national stage at the GOP convention in 2016 was that people should vote their consciences. And so the question must be asked: Why did Cruz accept Time’s invitation to write the Trump essay?

Every move he makes politically is carefully calculated but I don’t understand the calculation in this case. He’s up for reelection this fall, sure, but (a) no one thinks an essay in Time will matter in his Senate bid and (b) even if it did matter, Trump’s numbers in Texas are soft enough that praising him might not have the effect Cruz might anticipate on his own popularity. If he wrote it to pander to Trump fans, surely there are more obvious ways to do that than to pen an essay for Time’s not-very-populist readership. One 10-minute segment on “Hannity” backpatting POTUS would have earned more goodwill from Trumpers than this will. Even the usual theory for Republican pols cuddling up to Trump in media, that they’re performing for an “audience of one,” doesn’t make sense. Cruz isn’t on bad terms with Trump and doesn’t need his active support this fall. He could have passed on the essay and lost nothing from the White House.

So he gained little by writing it, and meanwhile he’s getting destroyed by critics for kissing the ass of a guy who belittled and humiliated him repeatedly two years ago. Mika Brzezinski’s reply is representative of the heat he’s taking:

She forgot the time that Trump’s fans at the National Enquirer ran a highly dubious (and highly ironic in hindsight) expose during the primaries essentially accusing Cruz of being a serial philanderer. Thanks to Karen McDougal and Dino Sajudin, the extent to which the Enquirer has quietly colluded with Trump and Michael Cohen to help POTUS politically has been a hot topic in the newspapers lately. People seem to have forgotten the “affair” hit piece on Cruz that the Enquirer ran two years ago, but I guarantee you that Cruz didn’t. Yet here he is in Time fawning over The Human Flash-Bang Grenade.

My best guess as to Cruz’s angle here is that the strategizing for 2024 has already begun. Someone’s going to inherit the Trump base. Cruz, who had spent two years maneuvering to be the great populist hope in 2016 before Trump dove into the race, thinks he can be the great populist hope again. Getting his name linked to Trump’s in a high-profile spread like Time’s “Most Influential” list is something he can point back to in a few years to show Trumpers that he “got” Trump’s appeal from the start. That would also explain why his essay strains so mightily to frame everything, including detente with North Korea, in terms of sticking it to the media, Hollywood, and other populist enemies.

And yet even that doesn’t entirely add up. Benjy Sarlin is undoubtedly right about this:

It’s all too easy to imagine Cruz doing the “conservatism lost its way” shtick after Trump and yet that would be hugely dangerous to his bid to earn the support of Trump’s base, who’ll have choices in the field (starting with Mike Pence) who’ll know better than to speak any ill of the great man. All I can figure is that Cruz thinks he can pull off some sort of synthesis of Trumpism and conservatism, being careful to praise Trump personally — that’s the point of today’s essay — while gently calling for a turn towards more conservative policies circa 2024. Unless Cruz is planning to jettison conservatism entirely and embrace populism full-fold in the interest of winning the next open nomination, and I wouldn’t rule that out, it’s not too early to start laying the groundwork for a synthesis now. That begins with banking brownie points with Trump voters whenever an easy opportunity presents itself, no matter how humiliating.

Exit question: What does Cruz mean when he writes that Trump “fought to bring back jobs and industries to our shores”? Is a little protectionism creeping into the Cruz worldview?

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close