Radio America Online News Bureau

Archives for October 2017

Judge Halts Most of Trump Ban on Transgenders in Military

by

A federal judge is placing injunctions on two critical aspects of President Trump’s ban on transgenders serving openly in the military, but a key supporter of Trump’s policy says the judge is jumping the gun since no has been harmed by the policy and appears to be sympathetic to the media’s perspective that this is a civil rights issue.

On Monday, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly placed an injunction on Trump’s reinstatement of the ban and also blocked any ban on recruitment of transgenders.  However, Kollar-Kotelly did not block Trump’s order not to use taxpayer dollars to pay for gender reassignment surgery and related treatments.

Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton nominee to the federal bench, but was also a Reagan nominee for the D.C Superior Court earlier in her career.  She gained widespread notoriety years ago as the judge in the government’s prolonged antitrust suit against Microsoft.  The case is Jane Doe v. Donald Trump, as multiple unnamed transgender service members are behind the suit.

But given that the Obama administration unilaterally ended the ban on transgenders serving in the military, does the law side with Trump in his efforts to put the ban back in place?  Family Research Council Senior Fellow in Policy Studies Peter Sprigg thinks so.

“I certainly think that this is an executive branch decision and not one for the courts to interfere with,” said Sprigg.

“This was a policy decision on the part of the Obama administration to reverse the longstanding policy that excluded transgender persons from the military.  It is a policy decision of the Trump administration to reverse that.  This is really not a constitutional issue, although the judge tries to frame it that way,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg believes the sympathetic media coverage of LGBT issues is influencing judges like Kollar-Kotelly.

“I think that the judge has internalized the way that the media covers this, which is that it’s a civil rights issue.  It’s a matter of discrimination.  It’s a matter of irrational animus towards people because of who they are.  They’re simply failing to look at the real issues,” said Sprigg.

So what are the real issues?  First of all, Sprigg says no one has standing to challenge the ban yet.

“The presidential memorandum (issued in August) basically said, ‘We are going to have the Pentagon look at this and make plans for how to undo the Obama policy and to report back on those by March 23, 2018.

“At the moment, the practice of the military remains as it was after July of 2016 under the Obama administration.  In other words, people who came out as transgender are serving as openly transgender service members in the military, right now are continuing to do so even following the president’s announcement and will continue to do so until March of next year,” said Sprigg.

Sprigg says there is also no grounds to contest the ban on recruitment yet.

“No one has ever been recruited into the military as a transgender person.  That policy was supposed to begin on July 1 of this year.  Secretary of Defense James Mattis had already postponed that policy by six months before the president announced his decision on the overall policy,” said Sprigg.

“The July 2016 status quo is still in place right now.  Therefore, these plaintiffs don’t really have an injury they can point to,” said Sprigg.

Once the timetables play out, the debate will continue.  The argument in favor of allowing transgenders to serve is that anyone who is willing to serve and can meet the requirements ought to be given the chance to serve.

Sprigg says there are three compelling reasons to bring back the ban.

“[It’s] not because of any sort of discrimination or animus towards them because of who they are.  It is for very specific medical reasons, both because of mental health and physical health considerations.

“People who identify as transgender do suffer from a mental disorder that is known as gender dysphoria.  That has always been a disqualifying condition from a mental health perspective,” said Sprigg, who says there are physical standards in play as well.

“People who have had sex reassignment surgery are disqualified from a physical health perspective, as is anyone who has some sort of abnormality or mutilation of the genitalia for any reason,” said Sprigg.

He also points out that the military refuses to deploy anyone undergoing specialized medical treatment, and hormone treatments associated with gender reassignment would render service members unable to be deployed.

Sprigg says the judge doesn’t seem to care about why the previous policy existed.

“Although she quoted the previous policy about the physical and mental health issues when she actually analyzed whether this policy was justified, she didn’t address those issues at all. For the most part, the media does not address those issues either,” said Sprigg.

Share

Benghazi Terrorist Caught, Hollywood & Pedophilia, Megyn Kelly’s Odd Turn

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome the news that another major figure in the Benghazi terrorist attack is now in U.S. custody – only hundreds more to go.  They also shudder as the accusations of  actor Kevin Spacey allegedly preying upon a 14-year-old boy years ago elicits another round of “everybody knew” in Hollywood.  And they discuss the odd transformation of Megyn Kelly, from presidential debate moderator and hard-hitting interviewer to lighthearted morning host discussing Halloween decorations and dance moves.

Share

‘This Has Nothing to do with Collusion’

by

The political world is abuzz Monday with the news of multi-count indictments against two Trump campaign officials and a guilty plea of a third, but a former federal prosecutor says virtually none of the charges are related to the Trump campaign and none of it comes anywhere close to collusion with the Russians.

After teasing the media with word that indictments could be coming down as soon as Monday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller ordered former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Manafort’s longtime business associate, Richard Gates, to turn themselves in.

By late morning, a 12-count indictment was revealed against the men on charges ranging from conspiracy against the United States to tax fraud and money laundering.  Soon after that, Mueller’s office revealed that Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty earlier in October to charges of making false statements.

Reaction was swift and wide-ranging.  Many in the media and political operatives on the left posited that Monday’s announcements are just the tip of the iceberg that could result in major political and legal problems for other Trump advisers and even some family members.  Supporters of the president say the only charges filed so far have nothing to do with the original purpose of Mueller’s probe.

Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova says the latter argument is the big takeaway from Monday.

“This has nothing to do with collusion with the Russians.  That’s number one.  It involves previous work that Manafort did for the Ukranian government and various Ukranian organizations, which he failed to report to the U.S. government because he was doing work on their behalf, lobbying the U.S. government in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” said diGenova.

“It has nothing to do with the campaign and it involves activities from 2006-2015, before [Manafort] got anywhere near the Trump campaign,” said diGenova.

As for Papadopoulos, diGenova says those crimes also had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

“He was actually questioned about connections – while he was working for the campaign – with Russians, all of which he admitted do and which were perfectly legal.  But he lied to the bureau about those connections and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his activities, both before and while he was working for the campaign,” said diGenova.

But diGenova says it is critical to note that Papadopoulos was not charged with anything else.

“That touches on the campaign but it does not involve any illegal activity by the campaign or by Mr. Papadopoulos while he was a member of the campaign.  It’r really quite bizarre.  It’s an example of the old adage: it isn’t the crime, it’s the cover up,” said diGenova.

The mainstream media is actively suggesting that the conversations Papadopoulos had with Russians is the beginning of the evidence needed to show collusion.  diGenova says there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the communication campaigns can have with foreign governments.

“It’s not illegal to talk to a foreign government during a campaign.  It’s not illegal to have meetings with foreigners or foreign governments during a campaign.  It’s not illegal to travel overseas to meet with foreign governments or foreign officials, all of which Mr. Papadopoulos did,” said diGenova.

“The other stuff that people are making out of this is nothing that campaign hasn’t already admitted to.  They admitted that they met with people from Russia.  Some of it was pretty goofy stuff.  Some of it was minor in terms of policy.

“But so far, there is no evidence in either one of these indictments of anything involving the word collusion,” said diGenova.

As for the charges against Manafort, diGenova says those are very serious.  He says allegations of not paying taxes on the money he earned and effectively laundering it through overseas real estate deals not only put him in legal jeopardy but he effectively forced his accountants and lawyers to unwittingly pass false information on to the government as well.

Ultimately, diGenova expects Manafort to accept a plea bargain.  He says he’d be very surprised to see the case go to trial.

So do these charges fit the instructions given to Mueller to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 elections or is this too far afield?  diGenova says the Justice Department never gave Mueller any specific crime to investigate, leaving his mission very open ended.

“I think it was a mistake to give such a broad mandate to Mr. Mueller.  That’s not Mr. Mueller’s fault.  That’s a decision the Department of Justice made and I think it was a bad one,” said diGenova.

However, diGenova still believes the most important questions about shady connections between the U.S. and Russia revolve around the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves to Russia near the same time major donations were made to the Clinton Foundation.  He wants a special counsel appointed to investigate that case.

But diGenova says the revelations of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying millions of dollars for a former British intelligence officer to mine his Russian sources for dirt on Donald Trump is the biggest bombshell of all.

“The dossier could be in the jurisdiction of Robert Mueller.  But if it isn’t, that certainly needs to be investigated by another special counsel or the Department of Justice,” said diGenova.

“I think the most serious stuff that’s come out recently is the dossier.  I think that is directly related to the campaign and the use of Russian influence to try and discredit a candidate,” said diGenova.

Share

Manafort Indicted, Papadopoulos Pleads Guilty, Racist Ad from Dems in Virginia

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and note that none of the charges appear to be connect to the Trump campaign.  They also discuss the guilty plea from former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos on charges of making false statements.  And they are aghast as a new ad from the Latino Victory Fund paints anyone who supports the GOP candidate for governor in Virginia as racists who want to kill minority children.

Share

Economic Growth, School Choice Results, Presidential Trends

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review with Chad Benson, filling in for Greg Corombos of Radio America. In advance of the Q3 estimate, GDP appears to have hit the 3% mark. Jim and Chad discuss what this means for the average American. Next, Megan McArdle makes the case that expanding school choice has only generating minor improvement in the country’s education system. Finally, the Trump presidency may have the unfortunate side effect of encouraging reality stars with no experience in government to run for the top office.

Share

‘This May Very Well Save Christianity in the Cradle of Christendom’

by

Human rights advocates are vigorously applauding the Trump administration’s decision to stop sending aid to Iraqi Christians and Yazidis decimated by ISIS through the United Nations and to provide the help directly from now on.

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence announced the shift in policy.

“Christians in the Middle East should not have to rely on multinational institutions when America can help them directly.  Tonight, it is my privilege to announce that President Trump has ordered the State Department to stop funding ineffective relief efforts at the United Nations.

“From this day forward, America will provide support directly to persecuted communities  through USAID,” said Pence, referring to the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, was a leading human rights advocate in Congress for more than three decades.  He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative.  He is very happy to see the Trump administration make this move.

“It’s a very good decision that the administration and President Trump and Vice President Pence have made,” said Wolf.  “This may very well save Christianity in the cradle of Christendom.  more biblical activity took place in Iraq than any other country of the world other than Israel.”

Wolf says relief efforts organized by the United Nations failed for a number of reasons.

“Many in the Christian communities say they were afraid to go in some of the UN-run camps,” he said.  “Secondly, the aid was not getting to the Christian communities.  Many of the Christian communities and Yazidi communities wanted to return to where they were from.  Their towns were liberated but they were not getting any assistance through the UN.”

Wolf says Christians were fearful of entering UN camps because of the Sunni Muslim refugees there.  Not knowing which families had relatives fighting alongside ISIS, the Christians were afraid the Sunnis in those camps would report them and put their lives in danger.

Now that ISIS has largely been rooted out of Iraq, Wolf says the displaced people are eager to return home.  However, with the UN failing to provide aid, going home if almost impossible.

“They were concerned about security.  They were also concerned that they were seeing the money funded to different groups but not to them.  They couldn’t rebuild their water treatment plant, couldn’t rebuild their electrical grid, couldn’t restore some of their communal property,” said Wolf.

But while the removal of ISIS is a good thing, Wolf is very concerned about the Shia militias, called Hastashabi, that seem to be filling the vacuum.

“The Hastashabi are Iranian-backed, sometimes paid for by the Iranian government, Shia militias who are now filling in the gaps.  We went to checkpoints where there were Shia militias who had taken over for the others,” said Wolf, who was in northern Iraq just two weeks ago.

He says the rise of Shia militias is greatly concerning given Iranian ambitions in the region.

“The Iranians want to create what they call a land crescent or a land bridge, so you’ll be able to drive from Tehran, through Iraq, through Syria, to a port on the Mediterranean, whereby they will be able to aid terrorist groups with guns and missiles and weapons,” said Wolf.

“So there are problems as you see ISIS defeated.  There are some potential problems out there, particularly with regard to the militias,” said Wolf.

Standard Podcast [ 9:41 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

FBI Informant Cleared to Testify, Sandy Hook Shooter Warnings, Kid Rock Bails

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy a late lunch today as they cheer the Justice Department for allowing the FBI informant to testify about his knowledge of a massive Russian bribery scheme to influence U.S. nuclear policy.  They’re also exasperated as FBI files show people warned authorities about the Sandy Hook shooter’s fascination with mass killings and pedophilia and his specific statements about killing his mother and students.  And they react to Kid Rock announcing he is not running for Senate and never had any intention of doing so, but Him explains why he thinks that explanation is bogus.

Share

McCarthy Breaks Down Dossier Revelations

by

The revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the ongoing production of the infamous anti-Trump dossier leads former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy to assert there are even more critical questions that need answers now.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post revealed that after months of denying any connection to the dossier, it is now confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC provided part of the funding for the ongoing work into the dossier after the still unknown Republican who first started the project backed down.

The Post story points out the funding from the Democrats and the Clinton team ran from April-October 2016.  It was only after the Democrats got involved that former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was brought onto the investigation.

In addition, the report states the FBI briefly picked up the tab for the work on the dossier to continue even after Election Day.  The bureau dropped the effort after Steele’s identity was made public.

McCarthy says some things are now clearer about this controversy.

“What we now know is that the source of all this, to the extent that it was funded, were obviously opponents of Donald Trump.

“Apparently, it was initially a Republican outfit or rival of Trump’s that started this ball rolling.  Around April or so of 2016, the effort was taken up by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a law firm called Perkins Coie,” said McCarthy.

As the Washington Post explained, the Washington-based research firm Fusion GPS was already working on the dossier when the Democrats and the Clinton campaign started funding the effort.  Perkins Coie did the finances, paying Fusion GPS from the Clinton campaign and the DNC through the law office.

And McCarthy says that’s not the only odd role played by Perkins Coie in the sordid 2016 campaign.

“That…is the same law firm that retained Crowdstrike, which is the cybersecurity outfit that examined the Democrat National Committee servers when they learned that they were hacked, also around April of 2016.  I think it’s a very interesting coincidence that these two scandals seem to be colliding at this point,” said McCarthy.

The reaction to the Democrats being deeply connected to the dossier is drawing an interesting response from the left.  Just months after accusing Trump campaign officials of collusion and possible treason for being willing to meet with Russians at Trump Tower to get a look at opposition research on Clinton, they say there’s nothing to see in Clinton and the DNC funding an effort, based largely on Russian contacts, to torpedo Donald Trump.

“The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election,” former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told the Post.

“But if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it.Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it. I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election,” said Fallon.

McCarthy says the differing responses are jarring.

“The media acts horrified that Trump would be doing opposition research on Hillary and with respect to this story on the dossier, we’re now supposed to see it as politics as usual.  So there is a double standard in the coverage,” said McCarthy.

However, McCarthy is not letting the Trump team off the hook.  He says they created their own public relations nightmare.

“The biggest problem the Trumps had is that they weren’t forthcoming about the reason for the meeting.  When they were originally asked about it, they said there had never been any such meeting.  Then when it turned out there was a meeting, they said it was about one thing and then when it turned out the New York Times had their emails, they came clean about what the meeting was about,” said McCarthy.

McCarthy says there are many critical questions going forward.  For him, the most important issues concern the federal government use of a dossier funded by partisans to instigate surveillance on Trump associates.

“Specifically, there’s a claim that they’ve used information that was in this dossier that we now know was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  The report is that they used information from that dossier in presenting their warrant application to the FISA court and then they were given authority to do this eavesdropping,” said McCarthy.

He says that may or may not constitute a scandal depending upon the facts.

“That’s not necessarily a scandal, as long as they corroborated whatever information from the dossier they used before they brought it to the court and as long as they had a good faith reason for the people they wanted to surveil were actually acting as Russian agents.

“If any of those things isn’t true, that would be a big problem,” said McCarthy.

He says another key question is what the court was told about how and where the feds go their intelligence.

“It would also be very useful to know what representations did they make about the source of the information that they got from the dossier, assuming they did that as reported,” said McCarthy.

The dossier story is just one headache for the Clintons and their associates.  In the past week, reports also reveal special counsel Robert Mueller is now conducting a criminal inquiry into the Podesta Group, which has close ties to Clintons.  John Podesta served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

In addition, congressional hearings will soon be held to follow up on revelations that the FBI conducted an undercover investigation into the Russian bribery scheme to steer U.S. nuclear policy in Moscow’s favor, including the awarding of 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to the Russians.  Despite years worth of evidence, the FBI did not intervene to stop the Uranium One contract.

McCarthy says there are two critical questions to be answered on that emerging story.

“I’d like to see testimony from this witness who’s been identified as they informant in that Uranium One deal, where Russia ended up getting 20 percent of our uranium reserves and the Clinton Foundation was grotesquely enriched,” said McCarthy.

He’s especially dumbfounded that the uranium deal was allowed to proceed.

“Not only how did it help the national security to allow Russia to acquire these reserves, but why was that allowed to be done when we had a pending provable, prosecutable racketeering investigation on the outfit that was acquiring the reserves?” said McCarthy.

Share

Dossier Twist Points to Dems, Jeff Flakes Out, Fact Check Flop

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss the Washington Post revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided some of the funding for the infamous and largely discredited Trump dossier that involved significant collaboration with officials in Russia, and they shake their heads as Democrats insist this was just simple opposition research.  They’re also unmoved by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake’s denunciation of President Trump or Flake’s decision to fight back by retiring from the Senate, when it’s obvious the real reason he ended his campaign was because he can’t win.  And they get a kick out of the Washington Post fact checkers making a big deal out of determining that Virginia GOP gubernatorial nominee Ed Gillespie was wrong by claiming there were 2,000 MS-13 gang members living in one Virginia county when the best guess of law enforcement is there are just 1,400 violent criminals from that gang roaming area streets and neighborhoods.

Share

Tax Bill is Put Up or Shut Up Time for GOP

by

After a frustrating failure on repealing or even reforming Obamacare, Senate Republicans are about to embark on a tax reform debate that prominent House conservative says will either pass and spark badly needed economic growth or spell doom for the GOP majority in Congress.

“If the Senate doesn’t vote yes for tax reform, we’re out of business.  They might as well pack their bags and head for home,” said Rep, Dave Brat, R-Virginia, a former economics professor and member of the House Freedom Caucus.  He also sits on the House Budget Committee.

The first step towards unveiling and advancing specific tax reform legislation is for the House and Senate to agree on a budget.  The House version contains far more in spending cuts but GOP leaders are urging House members to approve the Senate bill as it stands since nothing better will emerge in a conference committee.

Brat bristles at the thought of losing so many cuts because that limits how aggressive Republicans can be in their tax cut proposals but he says getting tax reform done soon is vital.

“We had $200 billion in mandatory reforms that we were pretty happy about achieving.  We’re going to be giving that up, but if we don’t move on taxes right now the alternative is giving up about three weeks and then maybe not getting tax (reform) done before Christmas,” said Brat.

And why would that delay be so bad?

“The longer you wait, the more the swamp engages and takes away their special loopholes and deductions.  Those are called pay-fors.  If you lose that money, then we will not have the money we need to lower the rates for the middle class,” said Brat.

Given the Senate’s inability to pass anything on the health care front, Brat understands why skepticism abounds over this legislation as well.  However, he says the crafting of this legislation has been far different, with key leaders in the House, Senate and the White House agreeing strongly on the framework for legislation.

That includes dropping the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, the S Corp or small business rate to 25 percent, providing middle class tax relief and easing the repatriation process for business to return to the United States.

While nothing is guaranteed in this political climate, Brat is confident about the progress to this point.

“If five or six folks in the Senate decide to put up a roadblock, we’re going to be in trouble again, but so far, no one’s put up any stark red lines yet,” said Brat.

One reason for that, Brat suspects, is that politicians who scuttle tax reform will pay a severe price back home.  He says the people who flocked to Trump – and to some extent Bernie Sanders – want more money in their paychecks.  And he says tax reform is the key to making that happen.

“They haven’t had a wage increase in 30 years.  They rightly know that the swamp and the system up here is rigged in favor of elites and against them.  They’re demanding attention, so I wouldn’t want to be the senator who holds that up.  I don’t think it’ll go too well for them,” said Brat.

Finding support among Democrats is going to be difficult in any meaningful numbers, as leaders on the left accuse the GOP of catering to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class and being unconcerned about adding to the deficits after spending eight years castigating President Obama for doubling the national debt.

Brat says a look at the facts proves who is more serious about fiscal responsibility.

“The progressive Democrat budget they put in two weeks ago: we put in tax cuts and we’ve got to overcome $1.5 trillion in 10 years with economic growth, which we think we can pull off with some of the other levers as well.

“But the Democrats put in a $10 trillion tax increase over 10 years and $11 trillion in new spending and end up with more debt and deficits than we do even though they raise taxes by $10 trillion,” said Brat.

Brat is also weighing in on a couple other controversies associated with the legislation that still hasn’t been introduced.  Earlier this week, a tweet from President Trump poured cold water on the reported plan to cap 401(k) contributions at $2,400 per year.  Brat says that was never on the table.

He also defended the GOP goal of eliminating federal income tax deductions for state and local taxes, saying national tax policy shouldn’t be formulated based on what states decide to levy in taxes.

“I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of picking winners and losers and subsidizing rates that vary across states,” said Brat.

Eliminating the deduction would hit taxpayers hardest in high-taxing states like New York, California, and New Jersey.

“They have high taxes.  They have high government services and they like it that way.  Why should someone in a low-tax state like Texas or the Midwest be paying for elites on the beaches,” said Brat.

Brat did not weigh in to a large extent on the Twitter feud  between President Trump and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn, other than to say he prefers discussing policy goals rather than social media zingers.

“I’m in favor of getting rid of picking winners and losers, saving $1.5 trillion, giving everybody a tax cut, getting economic growth going, putting a couple thousand dollars back in the average family’s pocket and getting their kid a job when they get out of college,” said Brat,

He says this will be a moment of great possibility for young people.

“The one thing I can tell them with a straight face is, ‘I’m going to pop this economy for you.  I’m going to give you a chance.  If you want to jump in and go pro-business, I’m going to provide an opportunity for you to set up the rest of your life.  I highly encourage everyone to take advantage while we get this economy moving right now,” said Brat.

Share