June 6-12, 2017
Jun 06 08:39 Ginsburg's anti-Trump hostility Jun 06 17:07 Health care failure isn't an option Jun 07 08:15 Trump's new FBI director Jun 08 05:21 Minnesota loses more jobs Jun 09 06:23 Comey is Thursday's biggest loser Jun 09 07:23 Trump will be investigated Jun 11 01:01 Media's hate Trump campaign Jun 11 11:25 Democrats' fishing expedition Jun 12 14:20 The DFL's constitutional stupidity
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ginsburg's anti-Trump hostility
Greg Jarrett's op-ed highlights Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hostility towards President Trump. It also explains why she must disqualify herself on President Trump's' travel ban lawsuit.
Jarrett first highlighted RBG's comments about Trump last summer when she said "I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -I don't even want to contemplate that." Later, she said "He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?"
Jarrett then makes the case that these statements Justice Ginsburg's "words reflect a clear bias, if not personal animus, toward the man who would go on to become president." Finally, Jarrett cites the federal statute that requires her disqualification from President Trump's travel ban case if it's heard by the SCOTUS. Jarrett notes that "28 USC 455" states that "Any justice: shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself: where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party."
Finally Jarrett puts a finer point on his argument, noting that "the language of the statute is mandatory: 'Any Justice shall disqualify' him or herself."
There's no question that Justice Ginsburg's statements highlight a strong anti-Trump political bias. RBG's statements can't be taken as anything except her distrust for President Trump.
Jarrett's closing argument is stated quite eloquently:
The noble traditions of the Supreme Court will be compromised should Ruth Bader Ginsburg decide she is above the law and beyond the scruples it demands.
Posted Tuesday, June 6, 2017 8:39 AM
No comments.
Health care failure isn't an option
This morning on Outnumbered, Sandra Smith asked #OneLuckyGuy Rep. Jason Chaffetz if failure to pass health care reform was an option politically. With all due respect to Ms. Smith, that's the wrong question. With people getting hit with unaffordable health insurance premiums and skyrocketing deductibles, the question that should be asked of Democrats is whether people can afford the Not That Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The lead-in to the segment on health care was video of Sen. Ed Markey playing the scare tactic card, saying that Republicans wanted to throw Grandma and Grandpa out of the nursing home (with Alzheimer's) to give tax cuts to the rich.
First, the media should stop obsessing over the non-issue of Russia working with President Trump to win the election. It's time for the MSM to start asking important questions about issues that people care about. That means starting with asking Democrats why they haven't offered anything substantive to fix Obamacare. Thus far, all they've done is employed scare tactics to win points politically for 2018.
The truth is that Obamacare is collapsing. Insurance companies are leaving exchanges on a weekly basis. This week's exit is Anthem leaving "the Obamacare exchange in Ohio next year." The result of that is the "move would leave participants in 20 counties without any insurer."
Here's the video of Sen. Markey's blather:
Next, it's time for the media to start doing its job by asking tough questions of Democrats about the ACA. Third, it's time that the MSM to stop pretending that the ACA just needs a few tweaks to fix things. It's a disaster waiting to happen. It's time Democrats started coming up with substantive improvements ASAP.
Fourth, it's time for Republicans to bury their differences and to settle on a sensible plan that fixes what's wrong with the ACA. It's beyond time to fix what's broken. It's time to eliminate differences, set aside egos and fix this disaster for the good of the nation. That's the only thing that matters at this point.
Posted Tuesday, June 6, 2017 5:07 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 10-Jun-17 09:14 AM
I still think the GOP is making this too complicated. Nobody understood Obamacare when it was passed, so nobody should try to understand it well enough now to "fix" it. They should simply repeal the whole darn mess, with two provisions: First, Congress loses its exemption by the next enrollment period in November. Second, anybody already with insurance through the exchange may continue for four more years, but the illegal subsidies (through the federal exchange) end in 2019. THEN, Congress rushes to pass a much better, free-market, replacement that allows them to "keep the plan they like" and lets everybody else choose something better.
Trump's new FBI director
According to this article , President Trump has nominated "Christopher A. Wray, the former assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's criminal division, to be the next FBI director."
According to the article, "Wray headed up the Justice Department's criminal division from 2003 to 2005 under President George W. Bush and is currently a litigation partner at the DC-based law firm King & Spalding, where he chairs the firm's Special Matters and Government Investigations Practice Group."
Democrats will have to think twice about their strategy on Wray because he "was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 to lead the Justice Department's criminal division, where he oversaw several high-profile investigations, from the Enron scandal to the Justice Department's response to terrorism in the wake of 9/11." Democrats insisted that the next FBI director be from the law enforcement field.
They quickly rejected Joe Lieberman, (I-CT), when his name was floated as a possible replacement for Director even though he was the Democrats' nominee for VP in 2000. Since then, the Democratic Party has moved steadily left. Moderates like Lieberman aren't tolerated.
Posted Wednesday, June 7, 2017 8:15 AM
No comments.
Minnesota loses more jobs
After reading this article , it's clear that the DFL's regulatory system is screwed up almost beyond fixing. The only way Minnesota's regulatory system can be fixed is if Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and there's a Republican governor. (Hopefully, that'll happen in 2018.)
The reason for writing this is because Minnesota Power has decided to build a 550-megawatt natural gas power plant in Superior, WI. Officially, Julie Pierce, Minnesota Power vice president of strategy and planning, said that the reason for this was "It's really about giving customers affordable, reliable, less carbon-intensive energy. What we're doing with this is bringing in flexible generation : to back us up." The real reason for this decision is to avoid Minnesota's regulatory system, starting with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
According to the article, the power plant will be called the "Nemadji Trail Energy Center." Further, "Minnesota Power will split the cost and ownership of the natural gas plant with Dairyland Power Cooperative." Finally, the "550-megawatt plant, to be located near the Calumet refinery, will employ up to 25 people long-term."
Speaker Kurt Daudt issued this statement after getting the news:
Republicans want Minnesota Power made in Minnesota - not forced to relocate to Wisconsin. It's unfortunate that once again, Democrats' resistance to improving our regulatory process has resulted in Minnesota families losing out on hundreds of good-paying jobs and millions in private investment. One of our top priorities next session should be putting Minnesota jobs first and overhauling our regulatory process so we can protect our environment without losing major opportunities for economic growth.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL haven't put a high priority on job creation. They've stood in the way of good-paying jobs, especially in the mining and construction fields.
Posted Thursday, June 8, 2017 5:21 AM
No comments.
Comey is Thursday's biggest loser
Today's biggest loser in the Comey spectacle was Jim Comey. Comey came across as a spineless wimp at times. He was especially wimpy when a) he didn't stand up to Loretta Lynch after her meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona and b) he didn't resign when Lynch told him to characterize the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton as a matter, not an investigation.
Further, Comey admitted that he leaked a memo to a Columbia professor , who then leaked the memo to the NY Times. Besides that, Comey called President Trump a liar. He also admitted that he leaked the memo to the Columbia professor to get a special counsel named against President Trump.
Other than that, Comey had a fine day testifying to the Senate.
Loretta Lynch was yesterday's other major loser. After her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, it's clear that she became a recruit for the campaign. She told then-FBI Director Comey to not refer to the Clinton campaign investigation as an investigation. Lynch told him to use the term "matter" instead:
According to this article , Comey leaked his notes to the press through a friend to the press to get an independent counsel named:
Comey, who was fired by Trump on May 9, revealed during his testimony that he had a friend, later identified as Columbia University Law Professor Dan Richman, leak contents of his private memos to the media in hopes of prompting the "appointment of a special counsel."
Many of DC's talking heads said Trump took a hit Thursday. While he took a few minor hits, it was Comey and Lynch, especially Comey, who sustained the hardest hits.
Posted Friday, June 9, 2017 6:23 AM
No comments.
Trump will be investigated
According to Jim Comey's testimony , Comey said "I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct," Comey said. "I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try to understand what the intention was there and whether that's an offense."
That investigation shouldn't last long. There's nothing for Trump to obstruct. Just because CNN's Jeffrey Toobin breathlessly insists that Trump obstructed justice doesn't make it so. Toobin said, in a heated debate with Prof. Dershowitz, that Watergate established the standard for obstructing justice. Apparently, Toobin can't read a statute. Greg Jarrett, in this article, proved that he care. In this article , Jarrett said "The law demands much more than that. Felony obstruction requires that the person seeking to obstruct a law enforcement investigation act 'corruptly.' The statute specifically defines what that includes: threats, lies, bribes, destruction of documents, and altering or concealing evidence. None of that is alleged by Comey."
Further, Nixon obstructed justice in Watergate, which was an investigation into a verified crime: the break-in of the DNC Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. There isn't a verified crime yet committed in the Russia collusion case. That alone eliminates the possibility of obstruction of justice. This exchange between Sen. Risch and former Director Comey settles that score:
Later in his article, Jarrett explains what obstruction of justice is:
The president's statement is not an order or mandate. It is not even a 'request,' though Comey insists he understood it to be. But even if we construe it as such, it is not enough to constitute obstruction. Not even close. There must be a 'corrupt' act that accompanies the directive.
For example, if the president had said, 'Bury whatever incriminating evidence you have, exonerate Flynn, and terminate the investigation of him entirely: or I will fire you.' That is, arguably, obstruction. It includes two corrupt elements -a threat and concealing evidence. However, this is not what happened.
That doesn't mean Mueller will wrap up the investigation quickly. That isn't what special prosecutors usually do. Still, barring additional proof of corruption, I'm confident of saying there is no obstruction of justice here.
Posted Friday, June 9, 2017 7:23 AM
No comments.
Media's hate Trump campaign
Ben Domenech's article highlights the media's war against President Trump. This isn't surprising. It's just disgusting at an unprecedented level. The only thing that's disgusting at a more unprecedented level is the hyper-partisanship in Pinheadville, aka college campuses.
Domenech's primary example of the media's hatred of President Trump is CNN, which he described as having "eight-person panels where not one person defending the administration is represented." Domenech later wrote "A network that once strove to be centrist in their approach is now openly antagonistic, and will run with the thinnest of scoops for hours at a time in order to make their case against President Trump." Just this week, CNN had to run a correction. They started with an article titled "Comey expected to refute Trump." When Comey didn't refute Trump, they changed the title to "Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction."
Let's be clear. CNN and the networks don't traffic in verifiable information. They traffic in things that make for juicy clickbait. Their primary goal was summed up perfectly in this quote:
analyst Gloria Borger put matters more starkly, saying, 'Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he's asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.'
Hours later, Ms. Borger had to eat crow. Comey didn't dispute President Trump's statements. Ms. Borger's statement was proven verifiably false in front of 20,000,000 people .
Another important facet of the Hate Trump media's attack against President Trump is the outright vitriol displayed against him. On Thursday's late version of Outnumbered, former HRC State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that "Six months into President Trump's presidency, he is best known for impeachment."
With all due respect to Ms. Harf, that isn't difficult to believe considering the constant dishonest bombardment by the Democratic Party, especially the media wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM.
The Democratic Party is totally invested in taking down President Trump. The media wing of the Democratic Party is essentially frantic about Trump's obstruction of justice, which has been virtually dismantled by Alan Dershowitz:
and Jonathan Turley:
It's time for Robert Mueller to close shop and report that making foolish statements isn't a crime, much less something worthy of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Posted Sunday, June 11, 2017 1:01 AM
No comments.
Democrats' fishing expedition
Friday night on Almanac, they opened their show with a panel of Kathryn Pearson, Larry Jacobs and David Schultz talking about the Comey hearing. Toward the end of the panel, one of the panelists (I can't remember which) said that, as a result of the hearing, the investigation would focus on the obstruction of justice charges Democrats are pressing against President Trump. Apparently, the panelists weren't listening during the hearing because the star witness, Jim Comey, said the President didn't commit obstruction of justice.
Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz was paying attention during the hearing. In fact, he's been saying for months that a president can't obstruct justice if he's exercising his constitutional authority, which is what he was doing. Dershowitz told FNC's Neil Cavuto that President Trump would've been within his authority to outright end the investigation by telling Comey not to investigate Michael Flynn or by pardoning Flynn.
It's time to shut down the House and Senate's investigations because there's no there there. Apparently, Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz just want to be faithful Democrats prolonging a fishing expedition as part of the Democrats' Resistance movement. That doesn't do anything to fix Obamacare or get the economy running again.
It isn't just Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz that want to prolong the fishing expedition . Sen. Jack Reed, (D-RI), wants to prolong it, too:
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., however, told 'Fox News Sunday' that cutting the collusion probes short would not be appropriate. 'We have a separate obligation,' said Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Serves Committee and an 'ex officio' member of the intelligence committee which heard testimony from Comey.
A separate obligation for what, Sen. Reed? It's one thing if you had proof. It's another when this 'investigation' looks more like a fishing expedition. You don't have a separate obligation to conduct hyper-partisan fishing expeditions while ignoring the health care crisis.
I'm tired of the Democrats constantly being the obstructionist party that never proposes solutions to the biggest crises of the day. It's impossible to get things done when the Democrats operate in bad faith.
As for Pearson, Jacobs and Schultz, it's pretty obvious that they're Democratic Party hacks.
Posted Sunday, June 11, 2017 11:25 AM
No comments.
The DFL's constitutional stupidity
This morning on At Issue, Ember Reichgott-Junge said something off-the-charts stupid in terms of understanding the Constitution. She was asked about Gov. Dayton exercising his line-item veto on the legislature's budget. Reichgott-Junge said that it's a political issue and that she thought the court would refuse to accept the Republicans' lawsuit. Sarah Janacek disagreed with ERG, saying that this also has a constitutional aspect to this lawsuit, which is obviously true. Later in the segment, Ms. Reichgott-Junge said that a judge could just order the legislature and the governor to sit down and work out their differences.
That's just kicking the can down the road. Neither side will budge an inch until public opinion starts going against them. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Gov. Dayton would lose this PR fight. It's one thing to play hardball to get some tax cuts passed. It's quite the other thing to shut down an entire branch of government for the next 4 years. That's what Gov. Dayton's line-item veto did.
First, this is a fight Gov. Dayton shouldn't have picked. It shows him to be a petulant, little man. Next, this is a PR fight that Gov. Dayton won't win because he's acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way.
Since announcing that he wasn't seeking re-election, Gov. Dayton has picked fight after fight, sometimes against Republicans, sometimes against Democrats. (Think about his fights with Tom Bakk about commissioner pay raises and Sen. Bakk's agreeing to a bipartisan budget agreement with Speaker Daudt.) Since that announcement, he's been an ornery cuss, getting grumpier and more unreasonable by the week.
It's time Gov. Dayton stopped acting like a total jerk. It's time, too, for Gov. Dayton's apologists to stop apologizing for his inexcusable actions. He's done things the past 2-3 years that've made nonpartisans scratch their heads.
Posted Monday, June 12, 2017 2:20 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 14-Jun-17 07:57 PM
It would be easy to say that Mark Dayton is getting bad advice from his staff. But does he / did he listen? It's hard to believe even his own people could get this situation so wrong. The only "easy" way out is if GOP lawsuit succeeds, but to justify court intervention, expect a strongly worded rebuke in the opinion. Either way, Mark Dayton the Governor will flame out like Mark Dayton the Senator.
