Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review love watching the Democrats quickly abandon their insistence on no more debates and hastily add one on Monday to help a stumbling Hillary Clinton. They also roll their eyes as Bob Dole says he’d prefer Trump over Cruz. And they separate fact from fiction and spread the blame over the Flint water crisis.
When the story of the 2016 Republican presidential race is written, January 19 might emerge as a critical turning point, as two major moments triggered seismic shifts in the campaign and the state of conservatism and the GOP itsel.
Those moments occured with hours of one another as tea party favorite Sarah Palin endorsed the White House bid of Donald Trump and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad told Republicans not to support Ted Cruz because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies.
They are also moments that longtime conservative activist Richard Viguerie believes help to crystallize the differences between Trump and Cruz.
Viguerie gained fame in the 1960’s as the first man to use direct mail in political campaigning. He is now chairman of conservativehq.com and the author of “Takedown: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It.” He recently endorsed Cruz for the Republican nomination.
The first critical moment Tuesday came when Gov. Branstad told reporters in Iowa that Republicans in his state should reject Cruz over his stand on renewable fuels.
“He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels and he actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He is heavily financed by big oil,” said Branstad.
“We think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things about him attractive but I think it would be very damaging to our state,” added Branstad. “He hasn’t supported renewable fuels and I believe that would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”
Viguerie says Branstad, in addition to touting big government, was deliberately disingenuous. He says this issue is anything but a reason for voters to punish Cruz.
“I think the person who should be punished is Gov. Terry Branstad. He’s the one who just lied. He said that Ted Cruz opposes renewable fuel. No. He does not oppose renewable fuels. He opposes subsidized, taxpayer-subsidized renewable fuel. Big, big difference and he knows that. He just flat out lied,” said Viguerie.
In fact, Viguerie applauds Cruz for not groveling to Iowa voters over ethanol.
“This is just an example of how Ted Cruz is the limited government, constitutional, principled conservative in the race, the only one at a top tier level,” said Viguerie.
So Viguerie was less than enthused to see tea party favorite and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin endorse Trump on Tuesday.
“I’m sorry to see it. I think it’s a big mistake. I think it will have limited value,” said Viguerie.
Why is it a mistake?
After taking a hands-off approach to Trump for months, Viguerie says he now sees Trump acting more like a typical politician, even vowing to increase ethanol subsidies if elected. But there’s something even more fundamental at work.
“He is in no way a conservative. He’s got a lifetime record, 40 years plus of being a political liberal person,” said Viguerie.
He says Trump’s record of supporting eminent domain against private property owners, backing abortion at all stages of development, endorsing same-sex marriage and donating to many prominent liberal politicians proves he’s no tried and tested conservative.
Viguerie also says voters should not be swayed just because the GOP figures who frustrate them are also critical of Trump.
“Your enemy’s enemy is not necessarily your friend. Because the establishment in this country is so opposed to Donald Trump does not mean that he’s our friend. He has a 40-year record of espousing big government solutions to the problems,” said Viguerie.
He also says the most important ingredient in a Republican win come November is party unity. Viguerie says Trump’s record of being socially liberal means he cannot bring the GOP together and he will face the same results as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Curiously, Viguerie believes Cruz is the only Republican candidate capable of uniting the party. That assessment is likely to cause many Republicans to spit out their coffee. After all, Cruz is detested by GOP leaders for repeatedly and publicly defying them. Nearly all of his Senate colleagues have endorsed someone else.
And lately, even names synonymous with the Republican establishment, such as Bob Dole, are starting to prefer Trump to Cruz.
So how does Cruz ever emerge as a unifying figure? Viguerie says Cruz fits five of the six requirements to unite the party, such as being conservative on economics, social issues and national security. He also believes Cruz would be appealing to tea party members and libertarians. That leaves the moderates.
“Since Cruz checks all five of those first boxes, with his vice presidential choice he can bring the establishment moderate Republicans and have a united ticket. With his vice presidential choice and other appointments, he has an opportunity to unite the party in a way that no other candidate does,” said Viguerie.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are amused to see the Clinton campaign accusing Republicans and the intelligence community inspector general of conspiring to accuse Hillary Clinton of having beyond top secret emails on her server. They also blast Republicans for attacking Ted Cruz for his opposition to crony capitalism in ethanol and they discuss why tea party darling Sarah Palin would endorse Donald Trump. They react to news that a Fast and Furious gun capable of downing helicopters was found with El Chapo. And they mourn the death of Ben Carson staffer Braden Joplin.
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton said there should be “no individual too powerful to jail” and the author of the explosive book alleging Clinton used the State Department for favors to Clinton Foundation donors says that rule should apply to the Democratic front-runner as well.
“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer says the Clintons are also still profiting off the pardon of Marc Rich, one of the ugliest – and last – acts of President Bill Clinton in 2001.
In a debate hosted by NBC and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, the Democratic White House hopefuls were asked about their differences in reforming Wall Street. Sec. Clinton scolded Sen. Bernie Sanders for being critical of her and President Obama for accepting campaign donations from Wall Street, but he also highlighted where their positions are similar.
“There is no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that,” said Clinton.
Clinton is under FBI investigation for conducting all of her State Department business through a home server and possibly breaking the law for how she handled classified and top secret information. Last week, reports revealed that the FBI expanded its probe of Clinton into whether she used the State Department to reward donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Schweizer says as long as everyone seems interested in punishing corruption in the markets, in politics and elsewhere, Clinton ought to be closely investigated as well.
“If you look at recent prosecutions for political corruption, whether that’s Gov. (Bob) McDonnell in Virginia, whether that’s Sen. (Rober) Menendez in New Jersey or a former governor down in Alabama, people have been prosecuted on far less developed patterns of taking payments and doing favors than in the case of Hillary Clinton,” said Schweizer.
While Schweizer’s book contends there is a pattern of corruption from Hillary Clinton at the State Department, he says the Clintons were clever in how they constructed their charitable organization.
“They basically circumvented laws that say you can’t take money from foreigners in a way that will influence a political campaign. So they take it instead as speaking fees and as donations to the Clinton Foundation,” said Schweizer.
But he says they still have huge legal problems.
“The international anti-bribery standards, which Hillary Clinton endorsed as secretary of state says that bribery can include donations going to a charity run by a politician. So the fact the Clinton Foundation does charitable work really does not let them off the hook,” said Schweizer.
So what will come of the FBI investigation?
“We want to believe and think that decisions to prosecute for criminal conduct are just going to be based on the facts and there’s not going to be a political component to it, but I think very few of us are naive enough to think that’s the way the world actually works,” said Schweizer.
“I would say the odds of a criminal referral from the FBI are fairly high but I think the Department of Justice actually acting on that I would say is fairly low,” said Schweizer.
He also believes if there are any charges they will be minor ones related to the server and classified information and Clinton will face no charges on corruption. The probe into classified information got another jolt on Tuesday when a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community was released that showed even more highly sensitive material was discovered on Clinton’s unsecure server.
But Schweizer says there is much more on the corruption front as well. A case in point he says, is the ongoing windfall the Clinton Foundation appears to be getting 15 years after Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Schweizer detailed the money chain recently in the New York Post.
The pardon came on January 20, 2001, Clinton’s final day in office.
“Marc Rich was an international fugitive. He was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List. He made a lot of money by trading with rogue regimes like the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, apartheid South Africa, North Korea. He basically acted as an oil middle man for these roguish governments,” explained Schweizer.
At the time, even many liberal voices like the New York Times and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., slammed Clinton for the pardon. Clinton himself later said it was one of his biggest political mistakes. But Schweizer says the shady details didn’t end in 2001.
“A lot of people were shocked and then when they found out Denise Rich, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, had donated $450,000 to the Clinton Foundation and another million to the Democratic Party right before that pardon took place, people immediately drew those connections. I think those connections are real but that’s not the end of the story,” said Schweizer.
Namely that the pardon is still paying dividends.
“If you look at some of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation, you will find that these are individuals who were longtime business partners with Marc Rich, that they were his personal attorneys, that they were his media people. There’s a collection of individuals that have poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation that are directly tied to Marc Rich,” said Schweizer.
It will ultimately be into the billions because Schweizer says Gilbert Chagoury has promised to donate a billion dollars by himself to the Clinton Foundation. He says Rich and Chagoury smuggled oil out of Nigeria and sold it on the black market.
But the real total of Rich-related donations remains a mystery.
“The Clinton Foundation, contrary to their promises, has actually not even disclosed all of its contributors. We know there are at least a thousand, based on some of their fundraisers, that were never disclosed and those donors were people that were precisely in Marc Rich’s industry,” said Schweizer.
Rich died in 2013 and the pardon was 15 years ago, but Schweizer says if the money coming in is directly the result of that action, a crime is still being committed. He says McDonnell was convicted and Menendez charged with corruption based on much more speculation than is taking place with the Clintons.
“It behooves us, I think, to get an explanation from prosecutors as to why these individuals get prosecuted but the Clintons don’t,” said Schweizer.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review react to the Defense Department considering demoting David Petraeus for his mishandling of classified information and the message this sends to those investigating Hillary Clinton. They also slam Marco Rubio for continuing to say he thinks all illegal immigrants who are not felons should be able to stay in the U.S. once they’ve been here a certain time. And they discuss the uproar over an alleged lack of diversity in the Oscar nominations.
Politicians are often accused of being in bed with the special interests, but in Missouri, a lobbyist who literally hits the sheets with a lawmaker would have to report the liaison as a gift if a new bill makes it into law.
The legislation sponsored by Republican State Rep. Bart Korman would require lobbyists to report any sexual encounter with a member of the legislature as a gift with the state ethics commission. Korman says recent indiscretions in the Show Me State prompted his effort to clean up the system.
Last year, two sex scandals involving lawmakers and interns rocked Jefferson City. In May, Republican State House Speaker John Diehl stepped down after sexually charged texts with an intern were discovered. Two months later, Democratic State Sen. Paul LeVota resigned in response to allegations he sexually harassed two interns.
“I looked at the law and there’s really no statute against that type of relationship. After some of the allegations against some of the members of the General Assembly last year and a priority of ethics reform after having discussion this year, I put the two subjects together and put this bill forward,” said Korman.
Korman doesn’t believe sexual relationships between politicians and lobbyists are rampant in Missouri, but he says there is enough chatter around the capitol to make his plan necessary.
“I don’t think there’s very much of that activity but you always hear of a situation or two out there of rumors that you don’t know exist or not. After last year’s situation, I figured maybe it’s time to put something like this forth,” said Korman.
While the argument will likely emerge that the state has no right to know about the personal affairs of lawmakers, Korman says the people they serve certainly do.
“One, I think if a relationship like that occurs, the citizens of Missouri should know that it’s going on,” said Korman. “Two, hopefully with the reporting process, it would deter that type of activity altogether which would probably be the best thing for everybody.”
He explained what his bill would require in terms of transparency.
“Lobbyists are required to report any gift activity on a monthly basis,” said Korman. “I put it so it’s zero value and I put it into the current ethics reporting system because I didn’t want to create a bigger bureaucracy here in Missouri.”
While Korman is intent on raising ethical standards in the Missouri government, he does not demonize lobbyists in general. He says they perform an important function.
“Lawmaking is probably different than any other process out there. It’s one that is interactive and lobbyists are just as much a part of the process as citizens because a lot of citizens have an organization that hires lobbyists to watch what’s going on here on a daily basis,” said Korman.
There is no precedent for the legislation anywhere in the U.S. Korman says the closest they came was some confusion over the law in North Carolina.
Korman introduced the bill Jan. 6. He says the response from his colleagues gives him tentative hope the bill has a chance to pass.
“A lot of members think it’s a good bill, however I’ve got no co-sponsorships on it so we’ll see how that changes in time. There’s a few snickers here and there as well,” said Korman.
Even he has no formal allies yet for the bill, it’s already in the legislative pipeline.
“The more co-sponsors you get, the more the speaker and the chairman that has the bill would know that there’s support for it. The speaker did refer it to committee, so now it will be up to the committee chairman to see if he wants to have a hearing on the bill or not,” said Korman.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review review the three most intense exchanges from Thursday’s Republican presidential debate. They praise Ted Cruz for his defense of his eligibility to be president against accusations to the contrary by Donald Trump. They also conclude Trump got the better of Cruz on the squabble over New York values by invoking the spirit following 9/11. And they discuss the dueling flip-flop charges over immigration and more between Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the implosion of Al Jazeera America. They also slam Secretary of State John Kerry for thanking Iran for its treatment of 10 U.S. sailors after our women and women were humiliated on video. They slam Chelsea Clinton for suggesting Bernie Sanders and Republicans have the same position on Obamacare. And they pay tribute to the late actor Alan Rickman, villain from “Die Hard,” the official movie of the Three Martini Lunch.
The congressman who first challenged John Boehner as Speaker of the House is now spearheading an effort to censure President Obama over his handling of national security.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., says it’s time for Congress to hold Obama accountable for acts that repeatedly weaken our security and embolden our enemies. He officially filed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.
“We’ve entered this resolution of censure and condemning his lack of energy and strategy strictly on national security. This is going to be a significant thing because at the very end it says Congress will act if the president doesn’t change course,” said Yoho.
The resolution is just four pages. In addition to making general accusations, including Obama contributing to global instability and failing to enforce laws and honor his constitutional oath, several items get more specific.
“Whereas President Obama has willfully failed to follow the counsel and expert advice provided by United States military and intelligence advisors by prematurely with-drawing troops from Iraq, thus leading to further destabilization of the Middle East and increased threats to national and global security,” reads one charge.
“Whereas the dereliction of duty and miscalculations of President Barack Obama have allowed the combined terrorist organizations of the world to control more land, and increase membership, armament, and resources more than during any other time in history,” states another in reference to ISIS and the Taliban.
“Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to instruct the Department of Justice to take action to end the practices of certain State and local governments that refuse to abide by standing immigration laws,” adds another in light of Obama defending the concept of sanctuary cities..
The resolution also condemns Obama for failing to halt the Iran nuclear deal after Iran violated the terms through multiple ballistic missile tests and for lacking any discernible strategy in Libya. It culminates by asking lawmakers to formally rebuke Obama for his failure to act in the best interests of national security.
“Resolved, That the House of Representatives (1) does hereby censure and condemn President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy; and (2) does hereby put President Barack Obama on notice and strongly urges the President to reverse course and begin fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities,” concludes the resolution.
The allegations contained in the censure resolution paint a very different picture from the one Obama offered Tuesday in his final State of the Union message. In discussing ISIS, Obama urged everyone to take the long view.
“They have to be stopped but they do not threaten our national existence. That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious. And sure don’t need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions,” said Obama Tuesday.
Yoho says Obama offered nothing new.
“He’s been saying that since the beginning. It’s his failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, where he announced troop withdrawals and he pulled out with a date. That has led to the creation of ISIS. They didn’t pay attention to them. They allowed for a foothold to get started,” said Yoho.
He says the results of Obama’s weakness are obvious.
“Today, under this president and this administration, the Taliban controls more land mass than they’ve ever controlled in history. Number two, ISIS came out of our dropping the ball, not paying attention to the insurgency that was arising,” said Yoho.
Yoho says Obama has misplayed ISIS every step of the way, from dismissing it as the “jayvee team” to running a handful of sorties against the terrorists for months while they established their foothold and gained land and resources in Iraq and Syria.
“It was his miscalculations, his missteps and his lack of a strategy that has allowed ISIS to become the terrorists with the largest, most well organized, most well armed and the largest membership in the world,” said Yoho.
In first announcing U.S. policy against ISIS in September 2014, Obama cited Yemen and Somalia as examples of how the U.S. can influence major results with a light military footprint. Yoho says Yemen is now another depressing example of Obama’s foreign policy.
“Yemen is a perfect example of our intervention. Yemen is a disaster. He can tout some of the things he wants to about his accomplishments, but the one thing he can’t talk about are his accomplishments in foreign affairs and it’s made not just our country but the Middle East and the world less safe,” said Yoho.
While Yoho and others, including several GOP presidential candidates, urge a tougher ISIS policy from the military and through diplomacy and public statements, Obama insisted Tuesday he’s on the right course.
“Fortunately there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies. but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us and make sure other countries pull their own weight,” said Obama in his address.
Yoho pulled no punches in response.
“I think it’s BS. He doesn’t have a strategy,” said Yoho, who says military leaders he’s spoken with reach the same conclusion.
“I’ve sat with these guys. I sit on foreign affairs. There is no strategy to defeat ISIS.” he added. “He can say all those things like, ‘Oh, we have a smarter strategy. We built a coalition.’ We had no coalition. So what he’s talking about is pure, simple sophistry, concocting a story to make it sound good but underneath it’s a lie.”
The congressman says proof of Obama’s toothless approach includes dropping leaflets to let ISIS convoy drivers know we will drop bombs soon, clearing out the Guantanamo Bay detention center as quickly as possible and showing common cause with cities that refuse to hold criminal aliens so the federal government can deport them..
Yoho says the censure resolution is a warning to Obama that he needs to reverse course because Congress has only one more penalty to pursue but he insists impeachment is not something he wants to pursue now.
For now, Yoho says he needs the public to rally behind the censure resolution. It needs a simple majority to pass the House and would likely have to meet a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. He is asking citizens to apply pressure to every member to get on board.
“Members have a decision to make. They either get on this, condemning the president’s lack of a foreign policy that’s jeopardized not only us here domestically but around the world. Your constituents are going to put pressure on their members of Congress, whether House or Senate, to support this resolution,” said Yoho.
“If not, they say they agree with the president’s action and they think he’s doing a fine job. We all know that’s not true,” he said.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer most of Nikki Haley’s Republican response to the State of the Union, especially her personal story and the contrast she paints between the visions of Republicans and Democrats. They also slam President Obama for telling everyone to calm down about ISIS since they can’t destroy our entire nation. And they shake their heads as Obama contends the arrest of one man for the Benghazi attacks shows he will do whatever it takes to bring terrorists to justice.
