Connect with us

News

Dershowitz: Don’t worry, Republican senators won’t let Trump appoint a crony as AG

Published

on

Does this guy not know any Republican senators?

A key skill for a great lawyer, I guess, is being able to say outlandish things with a straight face. Imagine how great Dersh must be to be able to get through this one without giggling — during a segment on, of all places, Fox News.

Only a man who’s represented O.J. is capable of such discipline in the face of the obvious truth.

Dershowitz said, “There are enough Republican senators who wouldn’t let him appoint a crony, who would at least insist that the person appointed be somebody of distinction and some degree of independence.”

As far as Whitaker is concerned, Dershowitz said there could be “possible recusal” because of the critical op-ed he wrote, adding, “Although I don’t think that’s a ground for recusal.”

Much depends on the definition of “crony.” We’re looking at a likely 54/46 Senate now, which means Schumer would need to flip five Republicans to block a nominee. Could he get five if Trump tried to appoint Jeanine Pirro as AG? Yeah, probably. Someone whom the public widely regarded as unqualified would embolden Trump-wary Republicans like Ben Sasse who carp a lot but normally remain in the fold. Hannity’s not going to be the next Attorney General. (Director of Homeland Security, on the other hand…)

But what about someone who’s an obvious political crony but more qualified for the job, like Chris Christie or Kris Kobach? Some early chatter says Kobach is in contention; if he’s the nominee Democrats will raise holy hell, and not just about his record on immigration and voter fraud. They’ll point to the fact that a Bush-appointed federal judge ordered him to take a remedial class on evidence earlier this year because of how he handled civil procedure in court. A Kobach confirmation fight would absolutely mobilize Trump’s populist base because of his border hawkishness, though. Not to the same extent as the nuclear war over Kavanaugh, but it’ll get hot.

Which Senate Republicans walk under those circumstances? Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski might, especially since their votes are no longer decisive. But who else? Is Romney going to start his tenure in Washington by nuking Trump’s AG nominee? Will Sasse vote no despite his record of siding with the White House on major floor battles? Surely no one expects the new guys, Mike Braun, Rick Scott, and Josh Hawley, to torpedo Trump’s pick so soon after POTUS went to bat for them on the campaign trail. Flake and Corker will be gone as of January, of course. So where are those three other votes coming from? If you don’t like the Kobach example imagine Christie, a former U.S. Attorney, is the nominee instead. He’s qualified but Trump would want and expect Christie to kneecap Mueller for him, which Sessions couldn’t do after he recused himself. Christie would doubtless deny that he’d do that at his confirmation hearing, saying all the right things about prosecutorial independence, yadda yadda, but everyone would understand that he’s been offered the job because Trump expects he’ll loyally ride herd on Russiagate. How do Romney et al. vote?

Dershowitz thinks Trump and acting AG Matt Whitaker will let Rod Rosenstein continue to oversee the Mueller probe since it’s close to the end, at least in theory. Perhaps. If it’s true that Trump is thinking of appointing a crony to oversee Mueller, he’ll have to wait until the new, redder Senate is seated in January to maximize his margins. The question for Mueller is, if he’s planning any major indictments does he do it now or wait until next year? If he waits, who knows what the new crony AG might do to try to stop him. If he does it now, there’s no Democratic majority in the House to cover his back. This is no mere hypothetical either. If you believe Gabriel Sherman’s sources, Donald Trump Jr is telling friends that he’s worried about being indicted for making false statements to Congress and the FBI. If that happens, the paterfamilias will react … poorly. What will Paul Ryan’s expiring House majority do when he does? In case there’s any doubt in Dershowitz’s mind, let me clue him in: Nuthin’.

Exit question: What if Trump decides to nominate Whitaker as Sessions’s permanent replacement? Could he get confirmed? Read this (and this) before you answer.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Mexican Protesters Scream at Illegal Immigrants: “Donald Trump Was Right! This Is an Invasion” (VIDEO)

Published

on

By

They don’t like being invaded either.

MEXICAN PROTESTERS WAVING MEXICAN FLAGS CONFRONTED ILLEGAL ALIENS IN TIJUANA AGAIN ON SUNDAY–

During the protest today one protester screamed at the illegal migrant caravan, “Donald Trump was right! This is an invasion.”

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Trump: I don’t know if Salman lied to me, skips question on weapons sales

Published

on

By

President Donald Trump isn’t really sure if Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman had anything to do with the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace there had been several conversations with Salman over Khashoggi and the story hadn’t changed.

I don’t know, who can really know, but I can say this…he has many people now who say that he had no knowledge.

He told me that he had nothing to do with it. He told me that, I would say, maybe five times at different points…as recently as a few days ago.

Trump also noted it might be one of those situations where the truth will never come out on whether Salman was directly involved in ordering Khashoggi’s murder.

Will anyone really know? Will anyone really know? But he did have, certainly, people that were reasonably close to him and close to him that were probably involved. You saw we put on very heavy sanctions – massive sanctions on a large group of people from Saudi Arabia. But at the same time, we do have an ally and I want to stick with an ally that’s been very good.

The comment goes against the CIA notion Salman had some involvement in at least getting Khashoggi to the Saudi embassy in Turkey where he died. The President is probably right in his assessment – as even the CIA didn’t completely implicate Salman – but it won’t go over well with a lot of people who prefer presidents speak in definitive answers regarding international incidents.

One thing which isn’t questionable is the ridiculousness of suggesting there were “massive sanctions” on the Saudis. Yes, 17 people were sanctioned – but they’d already had their visas revoked. ABC News suggested the sanctions show the U.S. is taking what happened seriously but I’m not convinced it’ll mean anything because there are plenty of questions on whether sanctions actually hinder those they’re meant to hinder.

The more damning statement by Trump is his decision to avoid a question from Wallace on Saudi arms sales.

Wallace: So if Congress were to move to either cut off any U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen or to block any arms sales, you wouldn’t go along with it?

Trump: Well, I want to see Yemen end, but it takes two to tango. Iran has to end it also. And Iran is a very different country than when I took over. It’s far weakened because of what I did with the so-called Iran deal – Iran nuclear deal – which was one of the great ripoffs of all times. But I want Saudi to stop, but I want Iran to stop also.

This is a beyond ridiculous answer and shows the failure of the President to change any sort of foreign policy. Trump is just going along with the previous administration’s policy of being “arms seller in chief.” There is no reason for the U.S. government to be involved in arms sales – and I know it’s because there’s a federal law on the issue.

The logic of those who believe the U.S. government should control who gets American weapons is so they can pick what country gets what. But where is the accountability? How does the public hold the government accountable when it’s full of bureaucrats and so-called ‘policy experts’ who are the ones who actually make the decisions.

The Government Accountability Agency noted in 2016 the U.S. had consistently failed in following procedures (and U.S. law) when it came to arms sales to Egypt (emphasis mine).

The U.S. government completed human rights vetting for 5,581 Egyptian security forces before providing U.S.-funded training in fiscal year 2011 through March 31, 2015; however, our analysis of a sample of names from training rosters of Egyptian security forces who received U.S.-funded training shows that that the U.S. government did not complete all required vetting prior to providing training, in violation of State’s and DOD’s policies. In contrast to State’s vetting requirements for training, State’s policies and procedures encourage, but do not specifically require, vetting for foreign security forces that receive U.S.-funded equipment, including those in Egypt. The primary method State uses in Egypt to comply with Leahy law requirements when providing equipment is to attest in memos that State is in compliance with Leahy law requirements. Various factors have posed challenges to the U.S. government’s efforts to vet recipients of U.S. assistance. Gaps and uncertainties in information have made it challenging for U.S. officials to vet some cases before providing training. Additionally, State has not established procedures for clearing smaller units or individuals within a larger unit that has been deemed ineligible to receive assistance. Finally, Embassy Cairo has recorded little information on human rights abuses by Egyptian officials in INVEST since the beginning of fiscal year 2011, despite State requirements to do so.

This is why it shouldn’t be the U.S. government doing these arms sales, and why Trump’s refusal to answer Wallace’s question regarding Saudi arms sales is disappointing – and more of a story than his “who can really say” answer regarding Khashoggi. Congress needs to stop the arms sales and completely change U.S. policy.

It’s so much easier to hold private companies accountable for sales, especially when there’s no government protection barrier surrounding them. One would think a businessman elected to the presidency would realize this. Apparently not.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

ALL OF ORANGE COUNTY Turns Blue After Democrats Find Thousands of Votes Post Election Day

Published

on

By

Orange County, a traditionally conservative enclave in Southern California turned all blue after Democrats found tens of thousands of votes post election day.

Just two years ago in 2016, only 2 Congressional districts in Orange County voted blue–now just two years later every single district voted blue.

Democrat blue wave? More like Democrat election fraud.

The 39th district was officially called for Democrat Gil Cisneros over Republican Young Kim who was up by 3 points on election night and was set to be the first Korean-American Congresswoman. The Democrats stole this race with ‘late votes.’

Young Kim was up by 3,900 votes on election night with 100% of the precincts reporting according to AP and she ended up losing by 3,000 votes 11 days after the election.

Republican Congresswoman Mimi Walters in California’s 45th district was also ahead on election night then was magically defeated by Democrat Katie Porter several days after the election.

Democrat Katie Porter was trailing Mimi Walters on election night then jumped ahead by hundreds of votes after the Democrats produced thousands of ballots after the election.

There may be something more sinister happening in Orange County, California.


The Gateway Pundit spoke to two concerned voters in California’s 45th district who said when they went to vote, they were told they weren’t on the roster so they were given provisional ballots.

Two registered Republicans in California’s 45th district told this reporter that they have been voting for over 20 years in Orange County and what happened this midterm has never happened to them–EVER.

“I’ve been a registered Republican and an active voter for over 20 years and when I went to vote on election day, I was told that I wasn’t on the roster so I was given a provisional ballot,” a Republican voter told The Gateway Pundit.

Was this an isolated incident or is this more widespread?

One America News reporter Jack Posobiec spoke to a pollworker in California on election day.

The pollworker told Jack Posobiec, “I have received a very large amount of voters whose registration was changed to vote by mail without their consent and then not mailed their ballots. I’m allowing provisional voting. My registrar is giving me the runaround about this and just saying don’t worry. This is not my first election. I have not seen this problem before.”

The Drudge Report featured the story about the stunning losses in Orange County and the responses by concerned voters in Southern California raised eyebrows as well.

One woman who lives in Newport Beach in California’s 48th district said she hasn’t missed a vote in 43 years and was forced to fill out a provisional ballot on election day; her vote still hasn’t been counted.

“I was made to fill out provisional ballot after voting in the same precinct in OC consistently 20 years said I was mail in never have been My vote still has not been counted I check daily. Same with red friends. I’m ind. never missed a vote n 43 yrs,” tweeted a Newport Beach resident named Vanessa Butler.

Where the hell is the GOP??

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close