Radio America Online News Bureau

President Trump

Pence to Keep Heat on Kim, Trump & Treason, Criminal Illegal Kills NFL Player

by


Happy Reagan’s Birthday everyone!  Today, Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Vice President Mike Pence for bringing Otto Warmbier’s father as his guest to the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in South Korea and keeping the focus on North Korean repression in the midst of the communist regime’s charm offensive during in the games.  They’re also exasperated as President Trump gives his political opponents and the media new fodder for criticism as Trump flippantly suggests Democrats were treasonous for not applauding good news during his State of the Union address last week.  And they’re deeply frustrated as an illegal immigrant previously deported for drunk driving is now charged with the death of Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and his Uber driver – once again while drunk and in the U.S. illegally.  They also slam the media for biased coverage of the immigration debate, dismissing stories like this and focusing almost exclusively on the success stories of young people in the nation illegally.

Share

Memo Released, Now What?

by

The memo alleging major missteps by the FBI and Justice Department will not likely result in criminal charges, but a former federal prosecutor says that doesn’t mean the issues at stake are any less serious and he says law enforcement officials have done a terrible job explaining the Russia investigation to the American people.

On Friday, the memo from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee accused FBI and Justice Department officials of obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, warrant on American Carter Page based on a discredited dossier.  They also allege officials failed to tell the FISA judge that the contents of the dossier had not been verified and that it had been paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The GOP memo also quotes former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as testifying the warrant never would have been issues without presenting the dossier as probable cause.

But is any of this likely to result in criminal prosecution?

“I doubt that they’ve committed a criminal offense.  More likely, what they’ve done is violate court rules and norms for the Justice Department’s performance when it refers evidence to the court and asks for use of the court’s processes like warrants,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review.

McCarthy says prosecution in these cases is unlikely unless it rises to “an egregious level” of obstructing or perverting justice.  But he says these allegations are still serious and could carry some major repercussions.

“It’s a very serious matter and can be grist for all kinds of administrative discipline and even impeachment,” said McCarthy.

He says it’s the difference between abuse of power and criminal conduct.

“There are some varieties of abuse of power that we address in the criminal law but there are many we don’t.  That doesn’t mean that the abuses are less serious than crimes,” said McCarthy.

One of McCarthy’s greatest frustrations lies in what he sees as the FBI and Justice Department needlessly confusing the American people on what the Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller is all about.

McCarthy does not believe that the memo is grounds for scrapping the Mueller probe, but he says it’s understandable why people are reaching that conclusion.

“It’s the fault of the FBI and the Justice Department that they’re taking that position,” said McCarthy, who says the government announced a counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 campaign and that part of the probe would look at any Trump campaign officials who had improper ties to the Kremlin.

“That was a completely inappropriate thing to say publicly because the FBI and the Justice Department should never comment on whether investigations are going on and if they are going on what the focus on them is.  The government’s not supposed to talk about investigations,” said McCarthy.

“The real problem is that by doing it the way they did it, they conflated in the public mind the overarching Mueller mission…with this whole idea of a Trump-Russian collusion angle.

“And since in the public mind those two things are the same, then it’s perfectly understandable that people would say that if the Trump-Russia collusion angle is a complete fabrication and that a lot of it was built on this dossier, that Mueller’s investigation is illegitimate.  I don’t think that’s true but I can see how they feel that way.

They feel that way because of what the FBI and Justice Department said about this investigation, which was very misleading and very wrong,” said McCarthy.

The Democrats’ counter-memo is likely to be the next development in this political drama.  But McCarthy remains skeptical of their motivation in this investigation.

“What I’m afraid of is that it’ll just be a partisan political attack.  The reason I say that is not just because they’re Democrats and that’s what they do, although I must say on some level I do believe that.

“The other reason I’m fearful is that they were invited by the majority of the intelligence committee to make additions or changes to the [GOP] memo.  They really didn’t want to cooperate in it.  I think they just wanted to attack it in a partisan way,” said McCarthy.

McCarthy says there are only two possible reasons for Democrats not to cooperate and try to add the context to the memo that they claim is sorely missing.

“The fact they didn’t do that suggests to me either that it doesn’t exist or they would rather package it in a way that was more of a partisan attack than an effort to get out one document that more fully explained what we’re dealing with,” said McCarthy.

He also cautions Americans following the story to be prepared for frustrations at how difficult it is to make more information public, noting that intelligence investigations are necessarily secretive so as not to damage national security and intelligence interests.

In addition to the response from Democrats, McCarthy says the significance of the memo and more will depend on exactly the role the dossier played in securing the FISA warrant.

“If they had other information that would have supported the issuance of a FISA warrant, then the use of the Steele dossier is much less important.

“But if the Steele dossier was critical to getting the warrant issued, that means the government brought to a court information that was unverified and uncorroborated to get surveillance authority – in essence to spy on one presidential campaign with what turns out to be opposition research that was provided to the government by the other presidential campaign,” said McCarthy.

Standard Podcast [ 14:17 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Dissecting the Memo

by

President Trump declassified the high anticipated memo from House Intelligence Committee Republicans on Friday, and the four-page summary of federal FISA abuses convinces former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that the government manipulated the system for partisan purposes and that the entire FISA system must be reformed.
The memo casts a critical eye on actions taken by FBI and Justice Department officials since October 2016, the first time they obtained a foreign intelligence surveillance, or FISA, warrant to keep tabs on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page over concerns about his ties to Russia.
The committee Republicans contend the warrant to conduct surveillance on Page was based on a dossier compiled by avowed Trump critic Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.  Furthermore, the memo says recently ousted Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe testified just weeks ago that the warrant would never have been issued without the dossier.
The head of the FBI’s counterintelligence unit, Bill Priestap, testified that the bureau had not even vetted the dossier before using it to obtain the warrant, telling lawmakers their corroboration efforts were in their infancy at the time the initial warrant was granted.
That information was not presented to the court, neither was the information that the dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli III says one revelation stands out above the rest.
“The biggest single piece of this is that Deputy Director McCabe, no big fan of Donald Trump as best we can tell, testified a little more than a month ago that without the Steele dossier they would not have gotten the initial FISA warrant,” said Cuccinelli.
“Even today McCabe acknowledges that without that dossier information, which has now been largely discredited, they would not have gotten a warrant in this most super-secretive courts that we have in this country,” said Cuccinelli.
Cuccinelli has argued before the FISA court and says the shadowy way it functions ought to be the second biggest headline in this story.
“Is this super-secret court working in a way that we as American citizens are comfortable with?  I’m not, and I think this memo is going to educate a lot more Americans about what’s wrong with how this court works over and above the political gamesmanship that went on with it, coming out of the FBI in the 2016 presidential election,” said Cuccinelli.
The memo reveals that former FBI Director James Comey signed off on the pursuit of the FISA warrant and two renewals.  McCabe signed another, as did former Justice Department officials Sally Yates and Dana Boente.  Current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe headed by Robert Mueller, also authorized a renewal.
Cuccinelli says getting a renewal is much easier than getting the initial warrant since FISA court judges are inclined to continue what one of their colleagues already approved.  In addition, Cuccinelli notes that the FISA court approves more than 99 percent of all warrant requests.
“It’s overwhelming.  It would strike you as laughable.  It really begs the question of why do we bother having a court that’s supposed to act as an independent filter?” asked Cuccinelli.
Yet he says politicians keep approving the FISA system to keep functioning in the same way, including a multi-year reauthorization in recent weeks.
“Here you have all these people who have voted to let this process go through.  Virtually the majority in both parties has voted for this multiple times and now they’re upset about it,” said Cuccinelli.
Democrats worked feverishly to prevent public release of the memo – or at least delay it long enough to release their own counterpoints.  In addition to concerns about providing the full context, Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat in the intelligence panel, and other federal officials expressed concern about exposing sources and methods in the memo.
Cuccinelli says those need to be feverishly protected but that nothing of that nature appears in the memo.
“There’s nothing in here and this wasn’t changed very much.  We understand there was one change made at Schiff’s request, but there’s nothing in here that touches on sources and methods other than the dossier itself and a Yahoo news article that was also informed by Chris Steele,” said Cuccinelli.
The bottom line, says Cuccinelli, is that a lot of people
“It is Monday morning quarterbacking but this is a constitutional republic and this is what we call accountability.  This does not make the decision-making in the FBI nor the use of the FISA court look very good in the rear view mirror,” said Cuccinelli.
He says Democrats will likely try to make the case that the warrant would have been issued apart from the dossier, regardless of McCabe’s testimony.  Indeed, the memo does mention that George Papadopoulos was being investigated in July of 2016.
Cuccinelli sees the probe of the Trump team and its alleged ties to Russia as a house of cards, and he says there’s only one reason it still has any oxygen.
“This is genuine conspiracy theory stuff.  The only reason it’s treated more respectably is because the media wants to.  They do it for the same reason they were all covering Donald Trump so thoroughly in the Republican primaries – ratings,” said Cuccinelli.
In the end, Cuccinelli suggests Democrats ask themselves a serious question.
“How would the Democrats feel if the Trump administration’s law enforcement arms were able to do this in the fall of 2020?  How do you think they would like?  I don’t think they would like it very much and I think it ought to be fixed before we get there,” said Cuccinelli.
Standard Podcast [ 14:44 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

The Dire Need for Civil Service Reform

by

President Trump fired a major shot in the effort to enact civil service reform during his State of the Union address on Tuesday, creating what one leading workforce expert hopes will be an effort to root out the “intransigence and incompetence” from the federal workforce.

In his speech, Trump hailed the passage of legislation in 2017 that gave more authority for Veterans Affairs Secretary Dr. David Shulkin to fire people failing to perform at levels needed to provide veterans the service they deserve.  He then said that flexibility should be available to all cabinet secretaries.

“Tonight, I call on Congress to empower every cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people,” said Trump.

American Legislative Exchange Council Education and Workforce Development Task Force Director Inez Stepman studies civil service issues and detailed the problem in a Federalist column Wednesday.

Stepman says getting rid of most incompetent and uncooperative federal workers is exceedingly difficult.

“I think the average American has very little idea how difficult it actually is to fire a federal worker.  The process is usually over 300 days long.  It includes two appeals that are conducted at the same standard of proof as a civil trial.

“That means there is a discovery period.  You can call witnesses.  You can call Bob from across the cubicle and say, ‘Well, Bob says I’m doing a great job.  Why are you firing me?'” said Stepman.

She says the recent false alert for a missile attack in Hawaii is a perfect example of the problem.

“The guy who believed the drill in Hawaii and then sent out that horrible message that basically said, ‘Duck and cover, there’s a nuclear missile on the way to Hawaii,’ that guy was known to be a problem in the department for ten years.  but you can’t get rid of someone like that under our current civil service laws,” said Stepman.

It doesn’t have to be that dramatic.  Stepman says Americans are plagued by slow, subpar service on a daily basis.

“Almost anyone who’s ever tried to apply for a passport, who’s ever tried to go to the DMV, who has ever tried to go to any government outlet – since this is a problem at the state level as well – has been frustrated with how slow and incompetent government employees seem to be.  And this has a lot to do with that,” said Stepman.

Current civil service laws largely stem back to legislation passed in 1883 that was designed to make civil servants apolitical by hiring based on merit and making it very difficult to remove them by the changing of administrations.

Instead the system left Americans stuck with with too many slow and incompetent workers.  But Stepman says the impact on the functioning of our government is the bigger problem.

“It’s a deeper constitutional problem.  We have 2.8 million federal workers all over the country, but many of them in D.C.  They have very little political accountability.  They stay in office no matter who the people vote in or what policies the voters want to be enacted,” said Stepman.

The other goal of the 1883 reforms was to keep civil servants politically impartial.  Stepman says Federal Elections Commission records from 2016 prove that effort a failure too.

“Ninety-five percent of the donations over $200 that were made by federal employees went to Hillary Clinton in 2016.  It was 99 percent at the State Department.  That’s not an apolitical civil service.  That’s a civil service that has its own interests in growing government.  We’re talking about millions of people who make decisions for the American people, where the voters have absolutely no say over whether they stay or go,” said Stepman.

Stepman says we see this bias rise up against President Trump on a regular basis.

“Even in instances where you can see President Trump is trying to shake something up, often times he’s dealing with a flood of leaks.  He’s dealing with openly rebellious staff in most of his departments.

“Those people cannot be fired.  Donald Trump cannot say, ‘You are obviously trying to slow walk my policy…It’s time for you to go.  If you can’t get in line with the program the American people voted for, it’s time to get someone else.’  He can’t do that, nor can any other president.  Bill Clinton complained about the same thing,” said Stepman.

Stepman says some states are addressing the problem.  Georgia, for example, changed their hiring policy for state employees and is now seeing a big difference.

“The State of Georgia, a couple decades ago, said all their new hires would be at-will.  They couldn’t do much about the union contracts from the past, but all their new hires were going to be at-will.  Now their civil service is about 88-90 percent at-will and functioning a lot better than most other states,” said Stepman.

She says following the template of the Veterans Affairs reform bill would be a great legislative plan at the federal level.

“I think an easy first step would be to take the exact same language from that VA bill that was passed overwhelmingly with both parties and say, ‘Why is this only good for the VA?  Don’t you want the Department of Education or the Department of Energy to have the ability to cultivate a good workforce as well,” said Stepman.

Stepman expects labor unions and other interests to fight back if this idea gains legislative traction, but she says the push is now on after Trump’s speech.

“President Trump saying this as part of the State of the Union is the first major coverage this issue has received outside of super wonky circles.  So I think it’s important that we keep informing the American people about the fact that federal employees enjoy so many job protections that most Americans do not at their jobs,” said Stepman.

Standard Podcast [ 10:57 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Trump Denunciation of North Korea A Call for Regime Change

by

A leading expert on the North Korean nuclear threat says President Trump’s condemnation of the communist regime through powerful stories also served as an American declaration that it’s time for a regime change in Pyongyang, but warned that military action would be a big mistake.

During Tuesday evening’s, State of the Union address, Trump focused his final foreign policy item at the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and punctuated it by telling two gripping stories

First, he recounted the story of American college student Otto Warmbier, who was sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a political poster and was returned to the U.S. in coma last year.  Warmbier died days later.  His grieving parents were in the gallery for the speech.

Next, Trump detailed the harrowing account of North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho, who was also present for the speech.

“In 1996, Seong-ho was a starving boy in North Korea. One day, he tried to steal coal from a railroad car to barter for a few scraps of food. In the process, he passed out on the train tracks, exhausted from hunger. He woke up as a train ran over his limbs.

“He then endured multiple amputations without anything to dull the pain. His brother and sister gave what little food they had to help him recover and ate dirt themselves — permanently stunting their own growth,” said Trump.

He then fast-forwarded to Ji’s courageous escape from North Korea.

“Later, he was tortured by North Korean authorities after returning from a brief visit to China. His tormentors wanted to know if he had met any Christians. He had — and he resolved to be free.  Seong-ho traveled thousands of miles on crutches across China and Southeast Asia to freedom. Most of his family followed. His father was caught trying to escape, and was tortured to death.

“Today he lives in Seoul, where he rescues other defectors, and broadcasts into North Korea what the regime fears the most ‑- the truth.  Today he has a new leg, but Seong-ho, I understand you still keep those crutches as a reminder of how far you have come. Your great sacrifice is an inspiration to us all,” said Trump.

According to North Korea expert Gordon Chang, Trump was not just exposing the horrors of the Kim Jong-un regime but declaring it is unacceptable for Kim to remain in power.

“What President Trump did last night was really landmark.  He made the case for regime change in North Korea.  Of course he talked about the threat to the American homeland, but he linked that back to the nature of the Kim family regime.

“He did that by telling those two stories, the one of brutality towards Otto Warmbier and the other of the triumph of the human spirit, which is the escapee Ji Seing-ho.  That really was, for me, the most inspirational moment of the night, when Ji held up his crutches in his right hand in a signal of victory,” said Chang, who is also author of “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World.”

“That was just so important, because what President Trump is saying is, ‘This is the regime that is threatening us,'” said Chang.

While the precise timetable is unknown, Chang says North Korea is getting closer and closer to its ultimate goal.

“The ambition for them now, as it was from the very first day of North Korea, is to take over South Korea.  That is the core goal of the Kim family and is considered by the Kims to be essential for their own survival.  You’ve got two Koreas, one rich and one poor and side-by-side of course and the people in the poor Korea are not going to put up with this forever,” said Chang.

“If the Kim family can’t do that, poor North Koreans are not going to sacrifice indefinitely,” added Chang.

But if Kim is inching closer to attacking South Korea and regime change is required, what is the best way to achieve that?  Chang says Trump is off to a good start by going after the money.

“From the beginning, the Trump administration has tried to cut off the flow of money to North Korea.  We’ve seen this for example in his landmark Sept. 21st executive order, which said if you do business with North Korea or you handle their money, you’re not doing business with the United States.  That’s important.

“Also, last year the Trump administration pushed through three sets of UN sanctions.  That’s a very sound policy,” said Chang.

Trump also got the Chinese to make promises to clamp down financially on Kim as well.  But Chang says the commitment from Beijing is still inconsistent.

“They’re getting more serious, but they’re also violating UN sanctions.  They’ve been doing that almost openly since October.  We’ve seen these ship-to-ship transfers of oil.  Also, North Korean ships that are under sanctions, in other words are not allowed to visit ports outside North Korea, they’ve been turning on their transponders in Chinese ports.

“When all of this activity occurs, with China smuggling commodities in and out of North Korea, it also means that Chinese financial institutions are almost surely involved.  It’s up to the Trump administration to hold China accountable.  It signaled that it would do that, but it really has yet to apply the full weight of American pressure to protect the American people,” said Chang.

Chang says if China was truly serious about defusing the North Korean threat, it would be acting much differently.

“They would cut off all financial transactions with North Korea.  The Chinese banks would get out of the business of handling North Korean money.  Also, we would see China not buying and selling commodities that are prohibited by UN sanctions.  We would basically see an end to commerce between North Korea and China,” said Chang.

But while Chang and most in the Trump administration prefer to tighten the economic screws on North Korea, there are people calling for more aggressive actions.

“There are voices in the administration that are thinking that this is not a time for sanctions, this is a time to strike North Korea.  That is something where I think the administration has not decided on what to do,” said Chang, who strongly discourages that course.

“I think it would be an exceedingly bad idea, but right now there are a lot of voices (advocating military action).  This is where the contention is, both inside the administration and outside the administration,” he said.

Chang also hopes the State of the Union message puts an end to the efforts of some Trump critics to suggest Trump and Kim are on a similar level of malevolence and instability.

“I’ve never bought that narrative.  That is really a false equivalence.  President Trump is trying to contain the Kim family.  The Kim family has been a threat, not only to the United States, but to the rest of the international community well before Trump became president,” said Chang.

“North Korea did not become instantly dangerous on January 20th at noon of last year.  This is a problem for the entire planet, and Trump is doing his best on a very dangerous situation,” added Chang.

Next week, the Winter Olympics will commence in South Korea.  In recent weeks, leaders from north and south have agreed to cooperate on some aspects of the games, including having their athletes march in to the opening ceremony together and have a joint women’s hockey team.

Chang says the cooperation has some positive elements, but fears the South Koreans are doing too much to accommodate the regime that wants to conquer them.

“South Korea should not be paying for North Korea’s team, which it is doing.  And there are a lot of these inter-Korean Olympic projects, which look like violations of UN sanctions.  The U.S., for a variety of reasons, has allowed this to continue, but the South Korean public is starting to rebel against this jointness, especially this joint women’s ice hockey team.

“South Korean athletes have been turfed off their own team to make way for the North Koreans.  That’s played very poorly in South Korea,” said Chang.

Nonetheless, he still hopes some good comes from this moment on the world stage..

“I’m happy to have the North Koreans participate in the Olympics.  It gives an opportunity for them to see the outside world and to defect,” said Chang.

Standard Podcast [ 9:05 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘Good Trump’ Speech, Kennedy’s Disingenuous Response, Dems Balk at Lib Ideas

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review is back!  He and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud much of President Trump’s State of the Union address, including the list of positive economic data and the powerful stories of a soldier’s heroism, families devastated by criminal illegal aliens, and the North Korean amputee who hobbled to freedom on crutches.  However, Jim wonders whether the goodwill from this speech will last or whether Trump’s Twitter instincts will create problems.  They also roll their eyes as Rep. Joseph Kennedy III delivers the Democratic response and blames Republicans for the government shutdown and dividing Americans by groups, and Jim points out that a Kennedy is exactly the wrong Democrat to denounce elitism, privilege, and abuse of women.  And they are amazed as Democrats refuse to applaud good economic news for minorities and the few liberal ideas in Trump’s speech simply due to their animosity for the president.

Share

Gillibrand’s #MeToo Mess, Hillary Nixed Firing of Harasser, Trump’s Worst Enemy

by


Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America give a quick preview of what they look forward to at the spectacle known as State of the Union before dishing out martinis.  Then, they shake their heads as New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand first demands that President Trump resign over sexual harassment allegations and then immediately starts waffling when Meghan McCain brings up the Clintons.  They also express disgust at Hillary Clinton after Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager reveals that she recommended that Clinton fire her faith adviser following credible accusations of harassment in 2007, only to have Hillary reject that idea and give the adviser a slap on the wrist.  And they point out that stories of President Trump’s pettiness are driving away people who might otherwise be inclined to support him, the latest example being an ugly and pointless exchange between Trump and the recently ousted Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Share

Toensing Reacts to McCabe Exit, Rips Politics at FBI

by

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is abruptly leaving his position just weeks before his scheduled retirement, triggering a frenzy of speculation from the left and the right, but a former federal prosecutor says McCabe is just one part of a baffling approach to the Russia investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department.

Another Monday stunner is the revelation, reportedly in the FISA memo from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ordered surveillance former Trump campaign figure Carter Page based on the dossier compiled by former British agent Christopher Steele and funded for months by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Word of McCabe’s rapid exit was first reported Monday afternoon.  Democrats and many mainstream media figures quickly wondered whether President Trump forced McCabe out given some critical tweets in the past.  Conservatives quickly tied the news to FBI Director Christopher Wray viewing the highly touted FISA memo on Capitol Hill over the weekend.

So far, no concrete answers have been given, but former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing strongly doubts Trump ordered this move.

“It’s all speculation as to whether it was Wray.  I can’t imagine it was Trump because Trump probably wanted him out of there months ago.  That’s my reaction.  Why now?  So little so late,” said Toensing.

Toensing notes that McCabe has amassed enough sick leave and vacation time that he can stop working now and still receive full retirement benefits, leaving her to conclude this development may have nothing to do with politics at all.

Toensing is highly critical of McCabe on multiple fronts, starting with his allegedly soft handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.  Even though McCabe recused himself from the probe while his wife was running as a Democrat for state office in Virginia, Toensing says the failure to record Clinton’s testimony or put her under oath was inexcusable.

She is also furious over what she’s sees as McCabe’s slick manner in getting former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to talk with the FBI.

“He called Flynn’s office and said, ‘The FBI would like to talk to you,’ and made it appear like the talk was going to be about personnel and background.  Instead, the FBI showed up with Peter Strzok and surprised the general with, ‘What did you say to the Russian ambassador?'” said Toensing.

Strzok is the agent removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team for persistent Trump-bashing.

Toensing says the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe and the failure to put any guardrails on Mueller have deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and the Justice Department.

“I’ve worked with the FBI and I’m such a great admirer of their professionalism.  I’ve worked with them as recently as the last month at the local level,” said Toensing.

“But the hierarchy came in and took over.  That’s a shame and it’s effecting their credibility.  There’s a recent poll where 49 percent of the people think the FBI is hiding information from Congress.  That’s not good.  The FBI should be wanting to get it out, not hiding it,” she said.

What hierarchy is Toensing referring to?  Specifically, she lists McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, former President Barack Obama, and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

She says the revelations to date on “unmasking” of figures in the Trump campaign proves Obama was deeply involved in all of this.

“The new Trump administration people found evidence of the Obama White House unmasking the Trump campaign and listening in,” said Toensing.

“The Trump NSC staff found those documents and that’s how (House Intelligence Committee Chairman) Devin Nunes was called up to the White House to review documents that he them revealed and the Democrats went after him for revealing classified information,” said Toensing.

While McCabe’s departure cannot be tied to the FISA memo immediately following the reports of his departure, the memo is apparently the source for revealing that Rosenstein used the FISA powers of the United States to spy on Carter Page.

Toensing says that news demands answers.

“[Page] was an American citizen, traveling to Russia which is what he did.  This is what he did.  He had Russia as an interest.  Why was he being surveilled in any way whatsoever?” asked Toensing.

Toensing says Rosenstein has even more to answer for, including how he based a decision to keep tabs on Page based on a dossier that has at least partly been discredited.

“I would have hoped that he would have looked behind that dossier and gotten some kind of cooperation, rather than just a document by a political adversary.  I would have hoped that he would have asked, ‘What is the basis for this document saying all these things?'” said Toensing.

“I signed FISA warrants when I was at the Justice Department.  I know how to go behind the facts.  So I would have hoped he had done that,” said Toensing.

She also blames Rosenstein for allowing the Russia investigation to get diverted from its original purpose, virtually from the start.

“Whatever the Russians did to our election should have been investigated [as a counter-intelligence matter], not as a criminal prosecution.  So by setting up a special counsel to make a criminal investigation, Rod really went off the reservation,” said Toensing.

 

Standard Podcast [ 11:25 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

America Backs 20-Week Abortion Ban, Wolff’s Haley Smear, Hillary’s Grammy Cameo

by


Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are deeply disappointed that the Senate is unlikely to pass a bill banning the vast majority of abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy, but are heartened that most Americans support the restrictions, including a majority of Democrats and a majority of women.  They also hammer “Fire and Fury” author Michael Wolff for his sleazy efforts to suggest that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is having an affair with President Trump and they praise Haley for her clear and dignified denials.  And they roll their eyes as the Grammy Awards telecast shoehorns Hillary Clinton reading an excerpt from “Fire and Fury” into the show, a move made even more baffling in this #MeToo environment by recent reports that the 2008 Clinton campaign took no action against Hillary’s faith adviser for sexual harassment.

Share

Trump Blasted from Right Over Immigration Blueprint

by

Immigration policy conservatives are giving President Trump’s immigration reform blueprint a thumbs down after the plan moves to the left on two key issues, leaving activists fearing a more timid final bill and no end in sight to the dangerous flood of illegal immigration into the United States.

The Trump framework focuses on four key areas: spending $25 billion on border security including additional portions of a wall, extending legal status and a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who either enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or are eligible for it, limiting chain migration to only spouses and minor children, and ending the visa lottery.

The Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, sees two major problems with Trump’s more moderate approach: a sudden embrace of amnesty and a refusal to tighten the screws enough on chain migration.

CIS Research Fellow Andrew Arthur says Trump’s offer of a pathway to citizenship goes far beyond the DACA recipents and will ultimately include way more than 1.8 million.

“We’ve seen similar proposals in the past.  There have been amnesties floated, amnesties passed.  Inevitably, the number of people who end up being granted is higher than the number that was anticipated.

“Inevitably there is going to be a certain level of fraud in this process.  Logically, you’re going to have to identify that you’ve been in the United States since a [certain time] and the documents you can offer are generally fairly vague,” said Arthur.

And by including illegal immigrants who are not part of the DACA program, Arthur says Trump is inviting a bureaucratic nightmare for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.

“If it was simply the 690,000 DACA people, USCIS already knows who those people are and can do a one to one match.  When you’re talking about an additional 1.1 million individuals, that’s going to require brand new files being opened, documents being reviewed, and the fact is USCIS just doesn’t have the bandwidth to do that work right now,” said Arthur.

Arthur is generally pleased with the movement to limit chain migration, keeping it to spouses and minor children, as opposed to current law which allows adult children, siblings, and parents.  However, he says Trump is making a big mistake in how he wants to implement the plan.

“The problem is that the framework will also make these changes prospectively, not retroactively.  It’s going to process through the four million people who are currently in that backlog, people who have had petitions filed on their behalf and who are awaiting a number in order to apply and go through the process of being vetted,” said Arthur.

“That’s a pretty big concern of ours because of course you’re going to end up potentially giving an additional four million people status,” said Arthur.

But while some conservatives are wary of Trump’s plan, most Democrats are greeting Trump’s policy retreat with full condemnation.

“Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who says Trump is reaching for a hardline immigration agenda on the backs of young people.

Arthur is not surprised.

“That’s just plain sanctimony.  I could have anticipated what Dick Durbin was going to say and I could have written it myself,” he said.

Democrats and liberal immigration activists accuse Trump of clamping down on legal immigration because of his efforts to limit chain migration and kill the visa lottery.  But Arthur says there’s a very good reason for imposing limitations.

“The proposals set forth in the framework are necessary changes that we need in order to ameliorate the problems that got us here to begin with.  The fact is there are huge loopholes in the law that allow unaccompanied alien children to show up at a port of entry.  They don’t even have to enter illegally.

“Once in the United States, United States government officials complete the work of the smugglers that brought them to the border to begin with and reunite them with family members or friends or other individuals in the United States who will take care of them.  This is a huge problem and it’s a huge magnet that draws minors to the United States,” said Arthur.

Why is that a huge problem?  Arthur says that magnet leaves kids vulnerable to unspeakable horrors at the hands of their smugglers so long as the parents of those kids think their children are virtually guaranteed a chance to live in the U.S.

“The people who engage in these activities don’t simply smuggle people for money.  The fact is they rob, they rape, they hold people ransom for money.  They do that with children as well.  Turning off that magnet is an absolutely crucial element of any plan that’s going to grant any kind of amnesty to any population of DACA people,” said Arthur.

Arthur sees positives and negatives for the political path forward on immigration.  He’s deeply concerned that Trump’s willingness to compromise at the outset will ultimately lead to a far worse bill.

“Inevitably, bills like this are a race to the bottom.  If you say (you’re going to allow) 1.8 million people who got here on X date, why not people who got here on X date plus one year, or (if we accept) people who came here below the age of 16, why not people who got here below the age of 18,” said Arthur.

At the same time, he says some House conservatives are not happy with Trump’s plan and may be able to improve it.

“There are some individuals in the House who are vociferously opposed to any plan like this.  You can anticipate that those individuals will attempt to pare back the amazingly generous proposal that the president has made,” said Arthur.

While he has serious problems with Trump’s concessions, Arthur says Democrats are foolish to demonize a major outreach on Trump’s part.

“Quite frankly, if the Democrats don’t take this deal and end up scuttling it, this is going to be on their heads,” said Arthur.

Standard Podcast [ 10:48 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share