A Missed Opportunity

For 68 years the National Prayer Breakfast has been a political oasis , a chance for Republicans , Democrats , and national and world leaders to assemble and pray for each other and the nation .
One could tell where things were headed when President Donald Trump arrived later than most other presidents and held up two newspapers with the headline “ Acquitted , ” a reference to the vote by the GOP majority in the Senate the day before , which refused to convict him of two articles of impeachment written by the Democratic majority in the House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of those at the head table , apparently because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was sitting on the other side of the podium .
It was Trump who refused to shake Pelosi ’ s hand at the State of the Union address last Tuesday night and it was Pelosi who tore up her copy of his speech for all to see .
The co-chairs of the 2020 breakfast , Rep. John Moolenaar , R-Mich. , and Rep. Thomas Suozzi , D-N.Y. , spoke of their deep personal relationship and their ability to bridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former head of the American Enterprise Institute , a Washington , D.C.-based think tank that researches government , politics , economics , and social welfare , and also a Harvard professor and columnist for The Washington Post , spoke of reconciliation and loving one ’ s enemies .
When it was Trump ’ s turn to speak , he said , “ Arthur , I don ’ t know if I agree with you , ” and then went on a tear proving he didn ’ t .
He criticized those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misuse their faith for political ends .
He implied that “ those in this room ” ( more than 3,000 attended ) all support him and those who don ’ t are not genuine Christians .
Here ’ s the thing about reconciliation : It has a power that is the antithesis of political power , which in reality is no power at all .
If the person who believes he , or she , has been wronged by another reaches out and offers forgiveness , it can have the effect of disarming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and personal temperature .
Since Jesus is at the center of this annual event , the president should consider what Jesus said on the subject of loving one ’ s enemies : You have heard that it was said , ‘ Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
’ But I tell you , love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you , that you may be children of your Father in heaven .
He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good , and sends rain on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you love those who love you , what reward will you get ?
Are not even the tax collectors doing that ?
And if you greet only your own people , what are you doing more than others ?
( Matthew 5:43-48 ) .
Lest someone think this is only a Christian ideal , consider Proverbs 25:21-22 : “ If your enemy is hungry , give him food to eat ; And if he is thirsty , give him water to drink ; For you will heap burning coals on his head .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his remarks , Brooks said if people can ’ t sincerely practice forgiveness and reconciliation , they should “ fake it.
” His point was that reconciliation has a power all its own , even if one initially is not sincere about it .
Perhaps it is time to suspend this annual event , or to hold it without this president attending if he can ’ t accept the nonpartisan theme that has been its tradition for nearly seven decades .
He clearly missed a grand opportunity .
It would have cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand and in doing so he might have heaped coals of fire upon her head if she did not respond in kind .

For 68 years the National Prayer Breakfast has been a political oasis, a chance for Republicans, Democrats, and national and world leaders to assemble and pray for each other and the nation.
Not this year.
One could tell where things were headed when President Donald Trump arrived later than most other presidents and held up two newspapers with the headline “Acquitted,” a reference to the vote by the GOP majority in the Senate the day before, which refused to convict him of two articles of impeachment written by the Democratic majority in the House.
The president then shook hands with only half of those at the head table, apparently because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was sitting on the other side of the podium.
It was Trump who refused to shake Pelosi’s hand at the State of the Union address last Tuesday night and it was Pelosi who tore up her copy of his speech for all to see.
The co-chairs of the 2020 breakfast, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., and Rep. Thomas Suozzi, D-N.Y., spoke of their deep personal relationship and their ability to bridge differences because of it.
Arthur Brooks, the former head of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that researches government, politics, economics, and social welfare, and also a Harvard professor and columnist for The Washington Post, spoke of reconciliation and loving one’s enemies.
When it was Trump’s turn to speak, he said, “Arthur, I don’t know if I agree with you,” and then went on a tear proving he didn’t. He criticized those who claim to pray for him and misuse their faith for political ends. He implied that “those in this room” (more than 3,000 attended) all support him and those who don’t are not genuine Christians.
Here’s the thing about reconciliation: It has a power that is the antithesis of political power, which in reality is no power at all. If the person who believes he, or she, has been wronged by another reaches out and offers forgiveness, it can have the effect of disarming the other person and lowering the political and personal temperature.
Since Jesus is at the center of this annual event, the president should consider what Jesus said on the subject of loving one’s enemies:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? (Matthew 5:43-48).
Lest someone think this is only a Christian ideal, consider Proverbs 25:21-22: “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head. And the Lord will reward you.”
In his remarks, Brooks said if people can’t sincerely practice forgiveness and reconciliation, they should “fake it.” His point was that reconciliation has a power all its own, even if one initially is not sincere about it.
Perhaps it is time to suspend this annual event, or to hold it without this president attending if he can’t accept the nonpartisan theme that has been its tradition for nearly seven decades.
He clearly missed a grand opportunity. It would have cost him nothing to shake Pelosi’s hand and in doing so he might have heaped coals of fire upon her head if she did not respond in kind.
(c) 2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-02-13--House Democrats Ponder Impeaching Trump Again

On the day the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial , a headline in The Atlantic stated that a second impeachment could be America ’ s only hope .
Less than a month later , Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , is denouncing Trump again , saying that “ it would be a blatant abuse of power if President Trump has in fact intervened to reverse the recommendations of career prosecutors at the Department of Justice.
” Schiff led the impeachment effort as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and , later , as the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
The California Democrat condemned , as an abuse of power , Trump ’ s tweet about supporter Roger Stone ’ s impending sentencing in federal court .
Abuse of power was one of the House ’ s two articles of impeachment against Trump in the Ukraine matter .
“ Adam Schiff seems to believe everything Trump does is an abuse of power , ” Curt Levey , a constitutional lawyer and president of the Committee for Justice , told The Daily Signal .
“ Democrats will be smart enough not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Levey said .
“ But if we take Schiff at his word–which might be a mistake–even if it was a legitimate acquittal , if he thinks the Senate trial was a sham that would give Democrats even more standing in their minds to impeach again.
” Lawyer and pundit George Conway wrote in The Washington Post this week that the House should impeach Trump again , this time for removing Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council staff and transferring him to a job in the Pentagon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment hearings .
“ As we ’ ve now seen , his rage leads to retribution and misconduct , which beget more criticism , and more investigation , and even more rage , retribution and misconduct , ” wrote Conway , who is the husband of top White House aide Kellyanne Conway .
“ So America beware : The state is Trump , and he ’ s very , very angry .
We might , indeed , have to do it again.
” Even before the long-expected Senate acquittal , several other House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a second time .
In an interview last month , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , wouldn ’ t rule out bringing additional articles of impeachment .
“ Politically and practically it might be tough , but where is this starting from ?
It ’ s not from a specific act , ” Levey said .
“ It started with a pretext that ‘ This is a dangerous man and a criminal and we have to find a reason for impeachment.
’ ” The Democrat-controlled House voted Dec. 18 to impeach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress in connection to his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
According to an official White House transcript released by Trump , the two leaders talked about former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s role in ousting a top Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company that put Biden ’ s son , Hunter Biden , on its board .
The House vote was along party lines .
Only four Democrats didn ’ t vote for at least one of the two articles of impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges Feb. 6 , losing only one Republican–Mitt Romney of Utah–on the abuse of power charge .
Because the Democrats ’ base has called the Senate trial a “ sham , ” Levey said , another House impeachment in 2020 is quite plausible .
Shortly after the Senate verdict , Rep. Al Green , D-Texas , told BuzzFeed that the House stands “ ready to bring charges ” if Trump commits impeachable acts , and also to impeach the president again for acts he “ already committed.
” “ My belief is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Green said .
Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif. , chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee , led the “ Impeach 45 ” movement long before Trump ’ s impeachment over the Ukraine matter .
Waters is leading an investigation into the president ’ s financial records .
In January , Waters said on MSNBC : “ The subpoenas that I have issued that have gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the Supreme Court in March .
We will not stop .
Whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know.
” Also in January , ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi : “ You said he ’ s violating the Constitution again and again .
Do you think it ’ s possible that the House might have to file new articles of impeachment ?
” Pelosi responded , referring to the Senate trial that was still ahead : “ Well , let ’ s just see what the Senate does .
The ball will be in their court soon , and as I say , we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about saying ‘ Yes , we do want to see witnesses.
’ ” In an interview , TMZ asked Rep. Karen Bass , D-Calif. , if she would reintroduce articles of impeachment .
Bass said that notion was “ absolutely right.
” “ Because even though we ’ re impeaching him now , there ’ s still a number of court cases , ” Bass told TMZ .
“ There ’ s a ton of information that could come forward .
For example , we could get his bank records and find out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Russians .
… The odds of that—sadly enough—is that he probably has other examples of criminal behavior.
” Despite such comments , Rep. Ben Cline , R-Va. , who was part of impeachment hearings as a member of the House Judiciary Committee , said he doubts Democrats will try impeachment a second time .
“ I know they are obsessed with continuing investigations of this president , ” Cline told The Daily Signal on Wednesday .
“ It ’ s not out of the realm of possibility.
” “ But because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fell short , and now we are seeing exactly the bounce this president has gotten in polls and the momentum he has gained from being acquitted , I think they may have learned trying and failing doesn ’ t get them where they want to be , ” Cline said .
The Atlantic ’ s White House reporter , Peter Nicholas , wrote Feb. 5 that Trump would feel emboldened by his acquittal and that “ it ’ s reasonable to assume he won ’ t change his approach to politics now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But if any impediment might cause Trump to pull back , it ’ s the prospect of getting impeached a second time , ” Nicholas wrote .
There is nothing to prevent House Democrats from impeaching Trump again , but they likely would face some political consequences , said Hans von Spakovsky , a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation .
“ There is nothing constitutionally that would prevent the House from undertaking a second impeachment investigation , but I believe it would be an abuse of power and misuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Daily Signal .
Levey said that it ’ s highly unusual for courts to be involved in impeachment proceedings .
However , in extreme circumstances , legal and constitutional grounds might exist , he said .
“ This would be an extreme example , but if the House began sending articles of impeachment to force a Senate trial once per month , at some point courts would say this is unreasonable , ” Levey said .
“ This would be unreasonable abuse , and tying up the executive branch .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

On the day the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial, a headline in The Atlantic stated that a second impeachment could be America’s only hope.
Less than a month later, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is denouncing Trump again, saying that “it would be a blatant abuse of power if President Trump has in fact intervened to reverse the recommendations of career prosecutors at the Department of Justice.”
Schiff led the impeachment effort as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and, later, as the head of the seven impeachment managers in the Senate trial.
The California Democrat condemned, as an abuse of power, Trump’s tweet about supporter Roger Stone’s impending sentencing in federal court. Abuse of power was one of the House’s two articles of impeachment against Trump in the Ukraine matter.
“Adam Schiff seems to believe everything Trump does is an abuse of power,” Curt Levey, a constitutional lawyer and president of the Committee for Justice, told The Daily Signal.
“Democrats will be smart enough not to impeach him again for the same charge,” Levey said. “But if we take Schiff at his word—which might be a mistake—even if it was a legitimate acquittal, if he thinks the Senate trial was a sham that would give Democrats even more standing in their minds to impeach again.”
Lawyer and pundit George Conway wrote in The Washington Post this week that the House should impeach Trump again, this time for removing Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council staff and transferring him to a job in the Pentagon. Vindman testified against Trump during the House impeachment hearings.
“As we’ve now seen, his rage leads to retribution and misconduct, which beget more criticism, and more investigation, and even more rage, retribution and misconduct,” wrote Conway, who is the husband of top White House aide Kellyanne Conway. “So America beware: The state is Trump, and he’s very, very angry. We might, indeed, have to do it again.”
Even before the long-expected Senate acquittal, several other House Democrats were warning they would impeach Trump for a second time.
In an interview last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wouldn’t rule out bringing additional articles of impeachment.
“Politically and practically it might be tough, but where is this starting from? It’s not from a specific act,” Levey said. “It started with a pretext that ‘This is a dangerous man and a criminal and we have to find a reason for impeachment.’”
The Democrat-controlled House voted Dec. 18 to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection to his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
According to an official White House transcript released by Trump, the two leaders talked about former Vice President Joe Biden’s role in ousting a top Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian energy company that put Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, on its board.
The House vote was along party lines. Only four Democrats didn’t vote for at least one of the two articles of impeachment.
The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Trump on both charges Feb. 6, losing only one Republican—Mitt Romney of Utah—on the abuse of power charge.
Because the Democrats’ base has called the Senate trial a “sham,” Levey said, another House impeachment in 2020 is quite plausible.
A second-term impeachment is “almost inevitable” Levey added.
Shortly after the Senate verdict, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, told BuzzFeed that the House stands “ready to bring charges” if Trump commits impeachable acts, and also to impeach the president again for acts he “already committed.”
“My belief is that the House of Representatives is on watch,” Green said.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, led the “Impeach 45” movement long before Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine matter. Waters is leading an investigation into the president’s financial records.
In January, Waters said on MSNBC: “The subpoenas that I have issued that have gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the Supreme Court in March. We will not stop. Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, I don’t know.”
Also in January, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi: “You said he’s violating the Constitution again and again. Do you think it’s possible that the House might have to file new articles of impeachment?”
Pelosi responded, referring to the Senate trial that was still ahead: “Well, let’s just see what the Senate does. The ball will be in their court soon, and as I say, we think the American people have been very fair about saying, ‘Yes, we do want to see witnesses.’”
In an interview, TMZ asked Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., if she would reintroduce articles of impeachment. Bass said that notion was “absolutely right.”
“Because even though we’re impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases,” Bass told TMZ. “There’s a ton of information that could come forward. For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he’s owned 100% by the Russians. … The odds of that—sadly enough—is that he probably has other examples of criminal behavior.”
Despite such comments, Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., who was part of impeachment hearings as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said he doubts Democrats will try impeachment a second time.
“I know they are obsessed with continuing investigations of this president,” Cline told The Daily Signal on Wednesday. “It’s not out of the realm of possibility.”
“But because the Democrats essentially took their best shot and fell short, and now we are seeing exactly the bounce this president has gotten in polls and the momentum he has gained from being acquitted, I think they may have learned trying and failing doesn’t get them where they want to be,” Cline said.
The Atlantic’s White House reporter, Peter Nicholas, wrote Feb. 5 that Trump would feel emboldened by his acquittal and that “it’s reasonable to assume he won’t change his approach to politics now that the impeachment saga is done.”
“But if any impediment might cause Trump to pull back, it’s the prospect of getting impeached a second time,” Nicholas wrote.
There is nothing to prevent House Democrats from impeaching Trump again, but they likely would face some political consequences, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
“There is nothing constitutionally that would prevent the House from undertaking a second impeachment investigation, but I believe it would be an abuse of power and misuse of the impeachment power,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.
Levey said that it’s highly unusual for courts to be involved in impeachment proceedings. However, in extreme circumstances, legal and constitutional grounds might exist, he said.
“This would be an extreme example, but if the House began sending articles of impeachment to force a Senate trial once per month, at some point courts would say this is unreasonable,” Levey said. “This would be unreasonable abuse, and tying up the executive branch. It could interfere with separation of powers.”


dailysignal--2020-02-13--YouTube Nixes Video of Rand Paul Mentioning Alleged Whistleblower’s Name During Trump’s Trial

YouTube removed a video clip of Sen. Rand Paul mentioning the name of the alleged whistleblower responsible for filing a complaint that led to President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment .
The social media platform nixed the clip of Paul reading the question on the Senate floor after Chief Justice John Roberts blocked it during the impeachment hearing in February .
The Republican mentioned the name of the alleged whistleblower , a person who many believe is behind the complaint .
The Daily Caller News Foundation has not independently confirmed the name of the whistleblower .
“ Videos , comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention the leaked whistleblower ’ s name violate YouTube ’ s Community Guidelines and will be removed from YouTube , ” YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi said , Politico reported Thursday .
She added : “ We ’ ve removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name .
Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload.
” Paul told Politico that he never accused the person he named of filing the complaint .
“ It is a chilling and disturbing day in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube decide to censure speech , ” the Kentucky Republican said .
“ Now , even protected speech , such as that of a senator on the Senate floor , can be blocked from getting to the American people.
” Choi did not clarify when The Daily Caller News Foundation asked if the platform nixes all mentions of the alleged whistleblower ’ s name or if it removes only content that links the person to the complaint .
She has not responded to follow-up questions about whether the company will update the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump on Feb. 5 of two charges , obstruction of Congress and abuse of power .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

YouTube removed a video clip of Sen. Rand Paul mentioning the name of the alleged whistleblower responsible for filing a complaint that led to President Donald Trump’s impeachment.
The social media platform nixed the clip of Paul reading the question on the Senate floor after Chief Justice John Roberts blocked it during the impeachment hearing in February. The Republican mentioned the name of the alleged whistleblower, a person who many believe is behind the complaint.
The Daily Caller News Foundation has not independently confirmed the name of the whistleblower.
“Videos, comments, and other forms of content that mention the leaked whistleblower’s name violate YouTube’s Community Guidelines and will be removed from YouTube,” YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi said, Politico reported Thursday.
She added: “We’ve removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name. Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload.”
Paul told Politico that he never accused the person he named of filing the complaint.
“It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech,” the Kentucky Republican said. “Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people.”
This is a based Rand Paul speech that everyone needs to see
pic.twitter.com/4XGcfFQFTL — Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 4, 2020
Choi did not clarify when The Daily Caller News Foundation asked if the platform nixes all mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s name or if it removes only content that links the person to the complaint. She has not responded to follow-up questions about whether the company will update the policy given the ambiguity.
Senate Republicans acquitted Trump on Feb. 5 of two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-02-18--‘I’m Not Going to Be Bullied’: Barr Speaks on Roger Stone Case

In a surprising rebuke Thursday , Attorney General William Barr criticized President Donald Trump ’ s tweets about Roger Stone ’ s case and other Justice Department matters .
“ I think it ’ s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases , ” Barr told ABC News ’ Pierre Thomas in an interview .
Trump on Tuesday blasted federal prosecutors ’ recommendation that Stone serve up to nine years in prison for a conviction that stemmed from a case that started under the special counsel .
Trump called the recommendation a “ miscarriage of justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone , his longtime associate .
The Justice Department told reporters hours later that officials were “ shocked ” by the steep prison recommendation .
Hours after that , four prosecutors on the Stone case withdrew , with one of them quitting the Justice Department altogether .
The U.S. attorney ’ s office in Washington , D.C. , which handled Stone ’ s case , submitted a new sentencing recommendation for the GOP operative , saying he deserved to spend time in prison , but for “ far less ” time than initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Democrats who accused him of doing Trump ’ s bidding .
Trump did not help matters when he thanked Barr in a tweet Wednesday for “ tak [ ing ] charge ” of the Stone case .
Barr said Thursday that it was “ preposterous ” to suggest that he intervened in the Stone case to lower the sentence at Trump ’ s request .
“ I ’ m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it ’ s Congress , a newspaper editorial board , or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m gon na do what I think is right , ” he continued , adding , “ I can not do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.
” He also expressed frustration in general at Trump ’ s tweets about pending Justice Department cases .
“ Yes , ” he said when ABC ’ s Thomas asked if Trump ’ s tweets bother him .
“ Well , I have a problem with some of , some of the tweets .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement , the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it .
And I have done that and I will continue to do that , ” said Bar .
“ And I ’ m happy to say that , in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our original content , email [ email protected ]

In a surprising rebuke Thursday, Attorney General William Barr criticized President Donald Trump’s tweets about Roger Stone’s case and other Justice Department matters.
“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas in an interview.
Trump on Tuesday blasted federal prosecutors’ recommendation that Stone serve up to nine years in prison for a conviction that stemmed from a case that started under the special counsel.
Trump called the recommendation a “miscarriage of justice,” and suggested he might pardon Stone, his longtime associate.
The Justice Department told reporters hours later that officials were “shocked” by the steep prison recommendation. Hours after that, four prosecutors on the Stone case withdrew, with one of them quitting the Justice Department altogether.
This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice! https://t.co/rHPfYX6Vbv — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2020
The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., which handled Stone’s case, submitted a new sentencing recommendation for the GOP operative, saying he deserved to spend time in prison, but for “far less” time than initially proposed.
Barr came under intense scrutiny from Democrats who accused him of doing Trump’s bidding.
Trump did not help matters when he thanked Barr in a tweet Wednesday for “tak[ing] charge” of the Stone case.
Barr said Thursday that it was “preposterous” to suggest that he intervened in the Stone case to lower the sentence at Trump’s request.
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr told ABC.
“I’m gonna do what I think is right,” he continued, adding, “I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
He also expressed frustration in general at Trump’s tweets about pending Justice Department cases.
“Yes,” he said when ABC’s Thomas asked if Trump’s tweets bother him.
“Well, I have a problem with some of, some of the tweets. As I said at my confirmation hearing, I think the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that and I will continue to do that,” said Bar.
“And I’m happy to say that, in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-02-18--Too Often, Trump Critics Rely on False, Dangerous Ideas About National Security

No question , President Donald Trump is an unconventional statesman .
On the global stage he looks like a fullback at a field hockey match .
Different doesn ’ t always mean wrong—except to the critics who have gone to absurd lengths to weaponize policy differences to undermine the legitimacy of the president ’ s decisions .
One of the most extreme and wrongheaded complaints is that this administration has violated how policy must be made .
Critics complain the president seems to have a mind of his own and the audacity to not reflexively implement the recommendations the bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it wrong to suggest the White House must follow only the policy proposals its “ experts ” devise , it can at times be the worse step a president can take .
It is risky business for the Oval Office to make policy in a vacuum .
But there are a lot of ways for the White House to get good advice , and Trump actually may be better than most presidents when it comes to gathering information for decision-making .
The modern national security decision-making process emerged after World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act of 1947 .
The law created the National Security Council to create better coordination among the key government departments engaged in defense and foreign policy .
The establishment of the National Security Council facilitated a more systematic process for developing and making recommendations to the president .
Department representatives and National Security Council staff members would get together to hash out proposals and pass them to a deputies committee that included high-ranking department officials .
These committees would , in turn , pass along their thinking to “ principles committees ” made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in turn , make recommendations to the president .
This bottoms-up approach solidified under President Dwight Eisenhower .
As former military man , Eisenhower appreciated the rigor of staff work and frequently chaired National Security Council meetings .
Every president has had his own version of a national security policy-making process .
The process isn ’ t codified in law and rarely looks like the flow chart in textbooks—just as the way Congress crafts legislation often doesn ’ t match what students are told in their civics lessons .
These advisers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president make decisions ; not to put him in a straitjacket that allows the bureaucracy to hold the president ’ s policies hostage .
There are crucial , important moments in history when president ’ s ignored the “ best ” advice and did the right thing .
Harry Truman recognized Israel against the recommendations of his Cabinet .
JFK made all the tough calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis .
Ronald Reagan turned down Mikhail Gorbachev ’ s deal at Reykjavik .
And all three emerged with better outcomes .
There also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and came to regret their decisions .
President Jimmy Carter announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea—only to find almost no one in Washington , not even his own secretary of defense , was willing to go along .
Reagan turned over Iran-Contra to a few staffers in the National Security Council—and that didn ’ t end well .
Decision-making at the top is at least as important as bottom-up deliberations , particularly when the bureaucracy isn ’ t delivering good policy options .
That said , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office can result in ghastly groupthink that ’ s no better than the mind-numbing same old , same old the agencies often crank out .
Smart presidents will shake things up and seek outside advice .
FDR famously ranged far and wide for recommendations during World War II , consulting everyone from columnists to heads of state .
Trump is more in the FDR mode ; he likes to hear lots of opinions .
Also like FDR , he is very much the decider-in-chief .
This is how Trump has chosen to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like it can vote him out .
But it ’ s wrong to suggest the president is not legitimate or responsible because he doesn ’ t govern the way critics prefer .

No question, President Donald Trump is an unconventional statesman. On the global stage he looks like a fullback at a field hockey match.
Different doesn’t always mean wrong—except to the critics who have gone to absurd lengths to weaponize policy differences to undermine the legitimacy of the president’s decisions.
One of the most extreme and wrongheaded complaints is that this administration has violated how policy must be made. Critics complain the president seems to have a mind of his own and the audacity to not reflexively implement the recommendations the bureaucracy cranks out.
Nonsense. Not only is it wrong to suggest the White House must follow only the policy proposals its “experts” devise, it can at times be the worse step a president can take.
It is risky business for the Oval Office to make policy in a vacuum. But there are a lot of ways for the White House to get good advice, and Trump actually may be better than most presidents when it comes to gathering information for decision-making.
Past as Prologue
The modern national security decision-making process emerged after World War II with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law created the National Security Council to create better coordination among the key government departments engaged in defense and foreign policy.
The establishment of the National Security Council facilitated a more systematic process for developing and making recommendations to the president.
Department representatives and National Security Council staff members would get together to hash out proposals and pass them to a deputies committee that included high-ranking department officials. These committees would, in turn, pass along their thinking to “principles committees” made up of Cabinet-level officials, who would, in turn, make recommendations to the president.
This bottoms-up approach solidified under President Dwight Eisenhower. As former military man, Eisenhower appreciated the rigor of staff work and frequently chaired National Security Council meetings.
Every president has had his own version of a national security policy-making process. The process isn’t codified in law and rarely looks like the flow chart in textbooks—just as the way Congress crafts legislation often doesn’t match what students are told in their civics lessons.
These advisers and this process are meant to help the president make decisions; not to put him in a straitjacket that allows the bureaucracy to hold the president’s policies hostage.
There are crucial, important moments in history when president’s ignored the “best” advice and did the right thing. Harry Truman recognized Israel against the recommendations of his Cabinet. JFK made all the tough calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ronald Reagan turned down Mikhail Gorbachev’s deal at Reykjavik. And all three emerged with better outcomes.
There also are instances where presidents went it alone and came to regret their decisions. President Jimmy Carter announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea—only to find almost no one in Washington, not even his own secretary of defense, was willing to go along. Reagan turned over Iran-Contra to a few staffers in the National Security Council—and that didn’t end well.
Judge Policy by Outcomes, Not Process
Decision-making at the top is at least as important as bottom-up deliberations, particularly when the bureaucracy isn’t delivering good policy options. That said, making decisions in the isolation of the Oval Office can result in ghastly groupthink that’s no better than the mind-numbing same old, same old the agencies often crank out.
Smart presidents will shake things up and seek outside advice. FDR famously ranged far and wide for recommendations during World War II, consulting everyone from columnists to heads of state. Trump is more in the FDR mode; he likes to hear lots of opinions. Also like FDR, he is very much the decider-in-chief.
This is how Trump has chosen to run his presidency.
Those who don’t like it can vote him out. But it’s wrong to suggest the president is not legitimate or responsible because he doesn’t govern the way critics prefer.


dailysignal--2020-02-19--Trump, Top Republicans Praise Barr Amid Calls for Resignation

President Donald Trump vouched for Attorney General William Barr as top Republicans came to his defense after nine senators from the Democrat caucus demanded his resignation .
Trump said , “ I have total confidence in my attorney general.
” “ He ’ s a man with great integrity .
The attorney general is a man with incredible integrity , ” Trump said .
Trump took media questions Tuesday at Andrews Air Force before he was set to leave for Los Angeles .
The questions on Barr come just days after an ABC News interview in which the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constant background commentary ” from others—make it “ impossible ” for him to do his job .
“ I do make his job harder .
I do agree with that .
I think that ’ s true , ” Trump told reporters Tuesday , somewhat uncharacteristically acknowledging a criticism from one of his top Cabinet officials .
In the ABC News interview , Barr said : “ The president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.
” “ However , to have public statements and tweets made about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department , our men and women here , about cases pending in the department , and about judges before whom we have cases , make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we ’ re doing our work with integrity , ” Barr said .
Trump said he doesn ’ t plan to stop social media .
“ I probably wouldn ’ t have gotten here without social media because I certainly don ’ t get fair press.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have a great attorney general and he ’ s working very hard , ” Trump said .
“ He ’ s working against a lot of people that don ’ t want to see good things happen , in my opinion.
” Barr ’ s criticism came after the Justice Department suggested a lighter sentence for Roger Stone , a supporter of Trump during the 2016 election , though he didn ’ t work on the campaign .
Trump had tweeted about the matter .
Stone was convicted of obstructing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , and witness tampering .
Prosecutors in the case initially suggested seven to nine years—far more than the federal sentencing guidelines .
“ I never spoke to him [ Barr ] about the Roger Stone situation , ” Trump said .
“ Roger Stone , just so you know , didn ’ t work for my campaign .
It was a very , very rough thing that happened to Roger Stone.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden accused Barr of “ abuse of power , ” and called for him to resign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department officials have called for Barr to resign .
Meanwhile , eight Democrat senators and one independent last week have called for Barr ’ s resignation .
The Democrat sanators are Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts , Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , Pat Murray of Washington state , Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon , Chris Van Hollen of Maryland , and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii .
They are joined by Bernie Sanders of Vermont .
However , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , House Minority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , issued a joint statement backing Barr on Tuesday .
“ Attorney General William Barr is a man of the highest character and unquestionable integrity , ” the Republicans said in a statement .
“ The Senate has attested to this fact by confirming him four times to positions of the utmost public trust .
In each case , his commitment to the rule of law , the Constitution , and the American people has proven this trust to be well-placed.
” Trump said he did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have .
“ Just so you understand , I chose not to be involved .
I ’ m allowed to be totally involved , ” Trump said .
“ I ’ m actually the chief law enforcement officer of the country , but I ’ ve chosen not to be involved .
But he is a man of great integrity.
” Despite the Barr criticism over Trump ’ s tweets , Trump said he wouldn ’ t be president without social media .
“ Everybody has the right to speak their mind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ I guess I use it well because here I am .
I ’ m here and I probably wouldn ’ t have gotten here without social media because I certainly don ’ t get fair press .
I wouldn ’ t have gotten here without social media and perhaps you had all the hoaxes .
You had the impeachment hoax .
You had the Mueller hoax .
You had Russia , Russia , Russia .
All are scams .
If I didn ’ t have social media , I probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump vouched for Attorney General William Barr as top Republicans came to his defense after nine senators from the Democrat caucus demanded his resignation.
Trump said, “I have total confidence in my attorney general.”
“He’s a man with great integrity. The attorney general is a man with incredible integrity,” Trump said.
Trump took media questions Tuesday at Andrews Air Force before he was set to leave for Los Angeles. The questions on Barr come just days after an ABC News interview in which the attorney general said Trump’s tweets—among other “constant background commentary” from others—make it “impossible” for him to do his job.
“I do make his job harder. I do agree with that. I think that’s true,” Trump told reporters Tuesday, somewhat uncharacteristically acknowledging a criticism from one of his top Cabinet officials.
In the ABC News interview, Barr said: “The president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.”
“However, to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity,” Barr said.
Trump said he doesn’t plan to stop social media.
“I probably wouldn’t have gotten here without social media because I certainly don’t get fair press.”
“He’s a very straight shooter. We have a great attorney general and he’s working very hard,” Trump said. “He’s working against a lot of people that don’t want to see good things happen, in my opinion.”
Barr’s criticism came after the Justice Department suggested a lighter sentence for Roger Stone, a supporter of Trump during the 2016 election, though he didn’t work on the campaign. Trump had tweeted about the matter.
Stone was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation, making false statements to Congress, and witness tampering. Prosecutors in the case initially suggested seven to nine years—far more than the federal sentencing guidelines.
“I never spoke to him [Barr] about the Roger Stone situation,” Trump said. “Roger Stone, just so you know, didn’t work for my campaign. It was a very, very rough thing that happened to Roger Stone.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden accused Barr of “abuse of power,” and called for him to resign. Also, more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials have called for Barr to resign.
Meanwhile, eight Democrat senators and one independent last week have called for Barr’s resignation. The Democrat sanators are Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Pat Murray of Washington state, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. They are joined by Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a joint statement backing Barr on Tuesday.
“Attorney General William Barr is a man of the highest character and unquestionable integrity,” the Republicans said in a statement. “The Senate has attested to this fact by confirming him four times to positions of the utmost public trust. In each case, his commitment to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people has proven this trust to be well-placed.”
Trump said he did not get involved, but that he could have.
“Just so you understand, I chose not to be involved. I’m allowed to be totally involved,” Trump said. “I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer of the country, but I’ve chosen not to be involved. But he is a man of great integrity.”
Despite the Barr criticism over Trump’s tweets, Trump said he wouldn’t be president without social media.
“Everybody has the right to speak their mind. I use social media,” Trump said. “I guess I use it well because here I am. I’m here and I probably wouldn’t have gotten here without social media because I certainly don’t get fair press. I wouldn’t have gotten here without social media and perhaps you had all the hoaxes. You had the impeachment hoax. You had the Mueller hoax. You had Russia, Russia, Russia. All are scams. If I didn’t have social media, I probably wouldn’t be here.”


dailysignal--2020-02-22--‘Here We Go Again’: 4 Things to Know About New Russia-Trump Election Meddling Narrative

Democrats are raising a ruckus about a news report that Russia plans to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign to help reelect President Donald Trump .
But further Russian election interference was expected , as special counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year after his report about Moscow ’ s meddling in the 2016 campaign .
Here ’ s what to know about the newest reports about what Russia is up to .
1 .
What ’ s Different About Russia ’ s Plans to Interfere ?
Several intelligence agencies reported in 2017 that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , with a clear preference for Trump over the 2016 Democratic candidate , Hillary Clinton .
The Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and paid more than $ 100,000 for Facebook ads .
After an investigation lasting nearly two years , Mueller concluded in a 448-page report that “ the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
” The Times report said the Russians are “ undeterred by American efforts to thwart them , ” and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other social media.
” The Times story , online Thursday and in the newspaper Friday , does not allege any collusion or conspiracy between Trump or his 2020 campaign and the Russians .
“ Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation , the officials said , ” the Times story says , referring to unnamed sources .
“ That strategy gets around social media companies ’ rules that prohibit ‘ inauthentic speech.
’ ” The Times also reported that Russian hackers “ infiltrated Iran ’ s cyberwarfare unit ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear the action came from Iran .
2 .
What Did Trump Have to Say About It ?
Trump tackled the issue head-on at a rally Friday afternoon in Las Vegas .
The president said that he has dealt with “ three years of witch hunts and partisan Democrat crusades.
” “ By the way , I think they are starting another one , ” he said .
“ Did you see that ?
I see these phonies , the do-nothing Democrats .
They said today that Putin wants to be sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
Here we go again .
Did you see it ?
” The crowd booed over the reference to the news report .
Trump noted that Clinton , his vanquished 2016 rival , recently described both Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , D-Hawaii , and the Green Party ’ s 2016 presidential candidate , Jill Stein , as Russian agents .
Of the new Russia allegation , Trump said , “ That ’ s Pencil Neck again , ” his nickname for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , who led Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Senate voted against removing Trump from office after a trial .
“ I was told a week ago , you know , they ’ re trying to start a rumor , ” Trump said at the rally .
“ It ’ s disinformation .
That ’ s the only thing they ’ re good at .
They get nothing done .
… These people are crazy .
They don ’ t think about the country .
They don ’ t think about jobs .
They don ’ t think about lowering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are crazy.
” 3 .
What Does New Information Say About Intelligence Community ’ s Politics ?
The New York Times ’ story is based on a Feb. 13 briefing conducted by intelligence officials for the House Intelligence Committee , which Schiff chairs .
The Times reported that Trump was angry at his outgoing acting director of national intelligence , Joseph Maguire , for allowing the briefing to take place .
Trump has replaced Maguire with Richard Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany .
Schiff tweeted that this move backs up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he welcomes foreign interference in U.S. elections .
“ We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections , ” Schiff tweeted .
“ If reports are true and the President is interfering with that , he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling .
Exactly as we warned he would do.
” Trump long has publicly suspected that powerful members of the intelligence community have a political bias .
CNN anchor Jake Tapper , not known for fairly covering Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the narrative pushed by the Times story about Russia trying to reelect Trump .
“ A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told , and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment , ” Tapper says in a series of eight tweets , referring to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence .
“ What ’ s been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , the official says … ” The factual questions indicate a real problem , said Peter Flaherty , president of the National Legal and Policy Center , a government watchdog group .
“ This shows that the president is still faced with people in the bureaucracy that want to impede and destroy his presidency .
It also shows how intelligence is being politicized , ” Flaherty said .
“ Intelligence should bear some resemblance to reality .
It would seem the Kremlin would want Democrats to win.
” “ Someone in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Flaherty said .
“ But they are not offering specifics .
If they have specifics , make them public.
” 4 .
How Long Has Russia Meddled in U.S. Campaigns ?
The fact that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 presidential election shouldn ’ t come as a shock to anyone , said J. Christian Adams , a former Justice Department lawyer who is now president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation , an organization that advocates election integrity .
“ This is what Russia always does .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not going to stop , ” Adams told The Daily Signal .
“ The Times and the left ignored interference in campaigns from Moscow from 1932 to 2017 .
The Democratic Party completely ignored it in the 1980s , and suddenly they are interested.
” What Russia did in 2016—particularly with social media—is largely a more high-tech means of doing what it previously has done , Adams said .
“ Social media trolling is just propaganda that Russia has used since 1932 , ” Adams said .
“ Hacking is a cybercrime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National Committee ] and John Podesta ’ s emails , it was a way to [ mine ] political intelligence , but it didn ’ t affect the election process.
” Podesta , former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and counselor to President Barack Obama , was chairman of Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign .
Past instances of Russian interference in American elections include 1948 , when the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party , whose candidate for president was Henry Wallace .
Wallace , who served as vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman ’ s hawkish stance during the Cold War .
Truman fired Wallace as secretary of commerce .
The Wallace campaign included several Soviet operatives .
“ If it had not been for the Communists , ” journalist I.F .
Stone wrote at the time , “ there would be no Progressive party.
” But Wallace got just 2 % of the popular vote and no electoral votes , coming in fourth place behind incumbent Truman , Republican Thomas Dewey , and States Rights “ Dixiecrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another instance , Sen. Ted Kennedy , D-Mass.
, covertly reached out to Soviet leaders during two election cycles , while he was a presidential candidate in 1980 and ahead of the 1984 election , when President Ronald Reagan won his second term .
In 1980 , Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination .
According to Soviet archives , Kennedy sent former Sen. John Tunney , the California Democrat defeated for reelection in 1976 , as a liaison to Soviet officials in March 1980 .
As documented in Paul Kengor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Tunney informed the Soviets that Kennedy supported the policies of then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and was concerned about an “ atmosphere of tensions ” in the Cold War “ fueled by Carter.
” The KGB archives describe Kennedy ’ s words as “ acceptable to us.
” Carter beat Kennedy for the nomination , but lost in a landslide to Reagan in November .
Kennedy again made overtures to the Soviets in 1983 , seeking to prevent Reagan ’ s reelection .
Related correspondence first was reported Feb. 2 , 1992 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline “ Teddy , the KGB and the Top Secret File.
” Kengor revealed the entire file in his 2006 book “ The Crusader : Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
” In a letter addressed to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov dated May 14 , 1983 , KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “ counter the militaristic policies ” of Reagan and undermine the president ’ s reelection chances .
Kennedy reportedly suggested doing so by helping the Soviet leader set up interviews with American TV news anchors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
Andropov died later that year , and didn ’ t get a chance to act on Kennedy ’ s advice with regard to the 1984 election .
Kennedy ’ s outreach and Tunney ’ s trips are documented in the Mitrokhin papers filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington .
The papers are named for Vasili Mitrokhin , a former KGB agent who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992 .

Democrats are raising a ruckus about a news report that Russia plans to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign to help reelect President Donald Trump.
But further Russian election interference was expected, as special counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year after his report about Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 campaign.
Here’s what to know about the newest reports about what Russia is up to.
1. What’s Different About Russia’s Plans to Interfere?
Several intelligence agencies reported in 2017 that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to meddle with the U.S. presidential campaign, with a clear preference for Trump over the 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
The Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and paid more than $100,000 for Facebook ads.
After an investigation lasting nearly two years, Mueller concluded in a 448-page report that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The Times report said the Russians are “undeterred by American efforts to thwart them,” and have made “more creative use of Facebook and other social media.”
The Times story, online Thursday and in the newspaper Friday, does not allege any collusion or conspiracy between Trump or his 2020 campaign and the Russians.
“Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation, the officials said,” the Times story says, referring to unnamed sources. “That strategy gets around social media companies’ rules that prohibit ‘inauthentic speech.’”
The Times also reported that Russian hackers “infiltrated Iran’s cyberwarfare unit” to target the U.S. and make it appear the action came from Iran.
2. What Did Trump Have to Say About It?
Trump tackled the issue head-on at a rally Friday afternoon in Las Vegas. The president said that he has dealt with “three years of witch hunts and partisan Democrat crusades.”
“By the way, I think they are starting another one,” he said. “Did you see that? I see these phonies, the do-nothing Democrats. They said today that Putin wants to be sure that Trump gets reelected. Here we go again. Here we go again. Did you see it?”
The crowd booed over the reference to the news report.
Trump noted that Clinton, his vanquished 2016 rival, recently described both Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and the Green Party’s 2016 presidential candidate, Jill Stein, as Russian agents.
Of the new Russia allegation, Trump said, “That’s Pencil Neck again,” his nickname for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led Democrats’ effort to impeach Trump in the House.
The Senate voted against removing Trump from office after a trial.
“I was told a week ago, you know, they’re trying to start a rumor,” Trump said at the rally. “It’s disinformation. That’s the only thing they’re good at. They get nothing done. … These people are crazy. They don’t think about the country. They don’t think about jobs. They don’t think about lowering your drug costs. Infrastructure. These people are crazy.”
3. What Does New Information Say About Intelligence Community’s Politics?
The New York Times’ story is based on a Feb. 13 briefing conducted by intelligence officials for the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff chairs.
The Times reported that Trump was angry at his outgoing acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, for allowing the briefing to take place.
Trump has replaced Maguire with Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany.
Schiff tweeted that this move backs up his point about Trump being untrustworthy because he welcomes foreign interference in U.S. elections.
We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections.
If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.
Exactly as we warned he would do. https://t.co/viSBlnA1nb — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 21, 2020
“We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections,” Schiff tweeted. “If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. Exactly as we warned he would do.”
Trump long has publicly suspected that powerful members of the intelligence community have a political bias.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper, not known for fairly covering Trump, reported Friday that his sources challenged much of the narrative pushed by the Times story about Russia trying to reelect Trump.
“A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told, and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment,” Tapper says in a series of eight tweets, referring to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “What’s been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again. But the intelligence doesn’t say that, the official says … ”
A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told, and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment.
Thread/ — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
The factual questions indicate a real problem, said Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
“This shows that the president is still faced with people in the bureaucracy that want to impede and destroy his presidency. It also shows how intelligence is being politicized,” Flaherty said. “Intelligence should bear some resemblance to reality. It would seem the Kremlin would want Democrats to win.”
“Someone in the bureaucracy seems to be coordinating with Schiff,” Flaherty said. “But they are not offering specifics. If they have specifics, make them public.”
4. How Long Has Russia Meddled in U.S. Campaigns?
The fact that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 presidential election shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone, said J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who is now president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that advocates election integrity.
“This is what Russia always does. It’s not surprising, and it’s not going to stop,” Adams told The Daily Signal. “The Times and the left ignored interference in campaigns from Moscow from 1932 to 2017. The Democratic Party completely ignored it in the 1980s, and suddenly they are interested.”
What Russia did in 2016—particularly with social media—is largely a more high-tech means of doing what it previously has done, Adams said.
“Social media trolling is just propaganda that Russia has used since 1932,” Adams said. “Hacking is a cybercrime. When Russians hacked the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and John Podesta’s emails, it was a way to [mine] political intelligence, but it didn’t affect the election process.”
Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and counselor to President Barack Obama, was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Past instances of Russian interference in American elections include 1948, when the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party, whose candidate for president was Henry Wallace. Wallace, who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, split with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman’s hawkish stance during the Cold War. Truman fired Wallace as secretary of commerce.
The Wallace campaign included several Soviet operatives.
“If it had not been for the Communists,” journalist I.F. Stone wrote at the time, “there would be no Progressive party.”
But Wallace got just 2% of the popular vote and no electoral votes, coming in fourth place behind incumbent Truman, Republican Thomas Dewey, and States Rights “Dixiecrat” Party candidate Strom Thurmond.
In another instance, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., covertly reached out to Soviet leaders during two election cycles, while he was a presidential candidate in 1980 and ahead of the 1984 election, when President Ronald Reagan won his second term.
In 1980, Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. According to Soviet archives, Kennedy sent former Sen. John Tunney, the California Democrat defeated for reelection in 1976, as a liaison to Soviet officials in March 1980.
As documented in Paul Kengor’s book, “Dupes,” Tunney informed the Soviets that Kennedy supported the policies of then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and was concerned about an “atmosphere of tensions” in the Cold War “fueled by Carter.”
The KGB archives describe Kennedy’s words as “acceptable to us.”
Carter beat Kennedy for the nomination, but lost in a landslide to Reagan in November. Kennedy again made overtures to the Soviets in 1983, seeking to prevent Reagan’s reelection.
Related correspondence first was reported Feb. 2, 1992, in the Times of London under the headline “Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.” Kengor revealed the entire file in his 2006 book “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”
In a letter addressed to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov dated May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “counter the militaristic policies” of Reagan and undermine the president’s reelection chances.
Kennedy reportedly suggested doing so by helping the Soviet leader set up interviews with American TV news anchors Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters, among others. Andropov died later that year, and didn’t get a chance to act on Kennedy’s advice with regard to the 1984 election.
Kennedy’s outreach and Tunney’s trips are documented in the Mitrokhin papers filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. The papers are named for Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB agent who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992.


dailysignal--2020-02-28--Sen. Joni Ernst Reveals the Soviet Union Trip That Influenced Her Views on Socialism

In 1989 , Sen. Joni Ernst , R-Iowa , traveled to the Soviet Union .
What she saw and heard during her time there influenced her , as she discusses in today ’ s podcast .
Read the lightly edited interview , posted below , or listen on the podcast : We also cover these stories : • The Trump administration releases new details about its coronavirus response plan .
• Japan will close schools for a month , due to coronavirus concerns .
The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [ email protected ] .
Enjoy the show !
Rachel del Guidice : We ’ re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa .
Sen. Ernst , thank you so much for being with us today .
Sen. Joni Ernst : Thanks , Rachel .
Great to be here .
del Guidice : We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Political Action Conference ] in National Harbor , Maryland , and during this conference you ’ re talking about one of the things that you ’ re passionate about , which is socialism versus the American dream .
You have your own … personal story about this ; can you share that with us ?
Ernst : I sure do .
When I was at Iowa State University during the summer between my freshman and sophomore year , I had the opportunity to attend an Ag exchange in the Soviet Union .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ family in the Soviet Union living on a collective farm and was able to get to know the host family , the members of the community .
There were a number of us Iowa students that were there .
… We got together in the evening , and [ were ] just going through the experience of living on that collective and how they lived .
No running water , no refrigeration , no telephone , no automobile .
They shared one bicycle in the whole family .
Going through that on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wagons .
This is 1989 , OK ?
So going through that experience … But in the evening the community members had the opportunity to get together with us students and they would ask questions .
And the first thing they asked was , “ What is it like to be an American ?
” I mean , they hungered for the freedoms that we have in the United States .
So for those that are seeking socialism , I would say all you have to do is look around this world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how people that live in those countries so long to be free .
del Guidice : We see it .
You mentioned how socialism is being pushed as a viable way to govern .
And we even see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House , she ’ s pushing socialist policies a lot .
What would you say to people who maybe think , “ Oh , free health care would be so wonderful ” ?
Or , “ Free college would be so wonderful ” ?
What is your response when people … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they just see the free stuff that ’ s offered ?
Ernst : Right .
And free , free , free .
And we all understand that free , when they are talking about free , it doesn ’ t really mean free .
… Just for example , using health care .
Having that free health care , and they describe it as “ Medicare for All.
” It ’ s socialized medicine , let ’ s just get beyond that nice phrase of “ Medicare.
” Let ’ s talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of care will go down .
The length of waiting times will shoot far out there .
Folks will be waiting for procedures .
It ’ s rationed care .
If that ’ s what they think is great , well , by all means , you can move to other countries and get rationed care .
But that ’ s not how we operate here in the United States .
I would say the same of any other free opportunity that exists out there .
They really need to scrutinize it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not free .
It comes at significant cost .
But then the quality and the type of care goes down .
del Guidice : Well , you and your colleague , Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee , you two are the first Republican women on the Judiciary Committee .
What has that experience been like ?
Ernst : Oh , it ’ s been wonderful .
Absolutely wonderful .
And I can not believe that Marsha and I are the first Republican women to serve on the Judiciary Committee .
Long , long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a really great experience .
I would say probably for Marsha as well .
But to be able to sit on that committee , to work on the types of issues that are coming before that committee—and it ’ s not just about confirming judges , which is pretty extraordinary , but it is also about looking at different patent issues , intellectual property issues , looking at issues like abortion .
We ’ ve talked about so many things on that committee that I think are really important and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their eyes on these issues as well and input .
del Guidice : Something that you ’ re passionate about is immigration reform and you have a piece of legislation called Sarah ’ s Law .
Can you tell us about that and especially the story behind this legislation ?
Ernst : Yes , absolutely .
… I ’ ll start with a story and work into the legislation .
Sarah Root was a beautiful young woman from Council Bluffs , Iowa , and she had just graduated from college—4.0 student , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the evening of her graduation she was struck and killed by a man who was driving a car three times over the legal limit .
He was drunk and he was an illegal alien .
He came into the country , he was arrested , taken to prison , but he was released .
ICE [ Immigration and Customs Enforcement ] did not detain him .
He was released on bond and did not come back , did not come back .
So we don ’ t know if he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know if he has gone back to his originating country .
We have no idea .
So Sarah ’ s family has not seen justice .
What my bill would do is force ICE and the local authorities to work together and they would detain any illegal immigrant who has caused bodily injury or death to an American citizen .
Sarah ’ s family , her mother , Michelle Root ; and her father , Scott Root ; will likely never see justice because he wasn ’ t detained by ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing that and thank you for your leadership on that .
Something else , recent developments in the Senate .
The Senate recently voted to defeat one bill that would provide medical care for babies who survive abortion and then another bill that would have prohibited late-term abortions .
What are your thoughts on the Senate not being able to pass both of these pieces of legislation ?
Ernst : I am so disheartened , Rachel .
I am disheartened that the Democrats have gone so far on the abortion issue .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Protection Act ] is a bill that was introduced by [ Sen. ] Ben Sasse .
I ’ m an original co-sponsor of that bill .
And that would require a physician to provide the same lifesaving services that they would provide to any other baby born at the same gestational age .
And we are not talking about abortion bribes , a woman ’ s right to choose .
We ’ re not talking about any of that stuff .
This is about a baby who is lying before us on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baby separate from the womb , separate from the mother .
It is a baby .
And all we are saying is that that baby should require medical attention , be given to it , just as any other baby would .
Unfortunately , the Democrats blocked that .
The pain-capable baby is a baby at 20 weeks of gestational age or older .
And this bill [ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act ] was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham .
Again , I ’ m an original co-sponsor on this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows late-term abortions and amongst those nations : Russia , China , North Korea—all horrible human rights violators , not good company to be in .
And we need to reconsider that .
But again , Democrats have gone so very far .
They ’ re out of step even with their own party on that issue .
del Guidice : Well , thank you for stopping by .
Thank you for speaking with us today , Sen. Joni Ernst .
Thank you for being with us on The Daily Signal Podcast .

In 1989, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, traveled to the Soviet Union. What she saw and heard during her time there influenced her, as she discusses in today’s podcast. Read the lightly edited interview, posted below, or listen on the podcast:
We also cover these stories:
The Trump administration releases new details about its coronavirus response plan.
Japan will close schools for a month, due to coronavirus concerns.
Vice President Mike Pence criticizes socialism in a speech.
The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa. Sen. Ernst, thank you so much for being with us today.
Sen. Joni Ernst: Thanks, Rachel. Great to be here.
del Guidice: We’re here live at CPAC [the Conservative Political Action Conference] in National Harbor, Maryland, and during this conference you’re talking about one of the things that you’re passionate about, which is socialism versus the American dream. You have your own … personal story about this; can you share that with us?
Ernst: I sure do. When I was at Iowa State University during the summer between my freshman and sophomore year, I had the opportunity to attend an Ag exchange in the Soviet Union.
And so, I was with a family in the Soviet Union living on a collective farm and was able to get to know the host family, the members of the community.
There were a number of us Iowa students that were there. … We got together in the evening, and [were] just going through the experience of living on that collective and how they lived. No running water, no refrigeration, no telephone, no automobile. They shared one bicycle in the whole family.
Going through that on a daily basis—their farming was done by horses and wagons. This is 1989, OK? So going through that experience …
But in the evening the community members had the opportunity to get together with us students and they would ask questions. And the first thing they asked was, “What is it like to be an American?”
I mean, they hungered for the freedoms that we have in the United States. So for those that are seeking socialism, I would say all you have to do is look around this world and see where socialism has failed and how people that live in those countries so long to be free.
del Guidice: We see it. You mentioned how socialism is being pushed as a viable way to govern. And we even see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House, she’s pushing socialist policies a lot.
What would you say to people who maybe think, “Oh, free health care would be so wonderful”? Or, “Free college would be so wonderful”? What is your response when people … don’t go on the policy, they just see the free stuff that’s offered?
Ernst: Right. And free, free, free. And we all understand that free, when they are talking about free, it doesn’t really mean free. …
Just for example, using health care. Having that free health care, and they describe it as “Medicare for All.” It’s socialized medicine, let’s just get beyond that nice phrase of “Medicare.” Let’s talk about socialized medicine.
It means quality of care will go down. The length of waiting times will shoot far out there. Folks will be waiting for procedures. It’s rationed care.
If that’s what they think is great, well, by all means, you can move to other countries and get rationed care. But that’s not how we operate here in the United States.
I would say the same of any other free opportunity that exists out there. They really need to scrutinize it and understand, one, it’s not free. It comes at significant cost. But then the quality and the type of care goes down.
del Guidice: Well, you and your colleague, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, you two are the first Republican women on the Judiciary Committee. What has that experience been like?
Ernst: Oh, it’s been wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. And I cannot believe that Marsha and I are the first Republican women to serve on the Judiciary Committee. Long, long time overdue. But it has been a really great experience. I would say probably for Marsha as well.
But to be able to sit on that committee, to work on the types of issues that are coming before that committee—and it’s not just about confirming judges, which is pretty extraordinary, but it is also about looking at different patent issues, intellectual property issues, looking at issues like abortion.
We’ve talked about so many things on that committee that I think are really important and it’s a very good thing that conservative women have their eyes on these issues as well and input.
del Guidice: Something that you’re passionate about is immigration reform and you have a piece of legislation called Sarah’s Law. Can you tell us about that and especially the story behind this legislation?
Ernst: Yes, absolutely. … I’ll start with a story and work into the legislation.
Sarah Root was a beautiful young woman from Council Bluffs, Iowa, and she had just graduated from college—4.0 student, promising future. She had just graduated and the evening of her graduation she was struck and killed by a man who was driving a car three times over the legal limit.
He was drunk and he was an illegal alien. He came into the country, he was arrested, taken to prison, but he was released. ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] did not detain him.
He was released on bond and did not come back, did not come back. So we don’t know if he’s still in the country. We don’t know if he has gone back to his originating country. We have no idea. So Sarah’s family has not seen justice.
What my bill would do is force ICE and the local authorities to work together and they would detain any illegal immigrant who has caused bodily injury or death to an American citizen.
Sarah’s family, her mother, Michelle Root; and her father, Scott Root; will likely never see justice because he wasn’t detained by ICE.
del Guidice: Thank you for sharing that and thank you for your leadership on that.
Something else, recent developments in the Senate. The Senate recently voted to defeat one bill that would provide medical care for babies who survive abortion and then another bill that would have prohibited late-term abortions. What are your thoughts on the Senate not being able to pass both of these pieces of legislation?
Ernst: I am so disheartened, Rachel. I am disheartened that the Democrats have gone so far on the abortion issue.
The first bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors [Protection Act] is a bill that was introduced by [Sen.] Ben Sasse. I’m an original co-sponsor of that bill. And that would require a physician to provide the same lifesaving services that they would provide to any other baby born at the same gestational age.
And we are not talking about abortion bribes, a woman’s right to choose. We’re not talking about any of that stuff. This is about a baby who is lying before us on a hospital table. That is a baby separate from the womb, separate from the mother. It is a baby. And all we are saying is that that baby should require medical attention, be given to it, just as any other baby would.
Unfortunately, the Democrats blocked that.
The pain-capable baby is a baby at 20 weeks of gestational age or older. And this bill [the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act] was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham. Again, I’m an original co-sponsor on this.
We are 1 of 7 nations that allows late-term abortions and amongst those nations: Russia, China, North Korea—all horrible human rights violators, not good company to be in. And we need to reconsider that. But again, Democrats have gone so very far. They’re out of step even with their own party on that issue.
del Guidice: Well, thank you for stopping by. Thank you for speaking with us today, Sen. Joni Ernst. Thank you for being with us on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Ernst: Thank you.


dailysignal--2020-02-28--Ted Cruz Sees a ‘Verdict’ on Gulf Between Left and Right

The divide between the values of the Democratic and Republican parties continues to widen , Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , said Thursday during an annual gathering of conservative activists outside Washington .
“ All of us grew up thinking that the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the working class , ” Cruz said .
“ Today , the Democrats are the party of Hollywood celebrities , Silicon Valley , and Wall Street tycoons , and they look down on the working class.
” Cruz said the Republican Party will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on protecting blue collar jobs and getting people off welfare and unemployment benefits .
“ The Republican Party is the party of truck drivers and steel workers and oil workers and farmers and ranchers and firefighters and waiters and waitresses , ” Cruz said .
“ And the Democratic Party says : ‘ You silly little people , you deplorables , you don ’ t need a job.
’ ” Cruz and Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles were joined on the CPAC stage by Ronna McDaniel , chairwoman of the Republican National Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pair ’ s hit podcast , “ Verdict With Ted Cruz.
” “ I think that message connects a lot better with the American people than the message that there are 57 genders and we need to steal everybody ’ s property , ” Knowles responded to Cruz ’ s remarks .
The conversation was an offshoot of the two men ’ s podcast , which covered President Donald Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial .
“ This podcast launched on the very first night of the impeachment trial , ” Cruz said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night after the proceedings , I would jump in a truck and we would record at midnight or 2 in the morning .
[ The podcast ] went from nonexistent to being the No .
1 podcast in the world.
” McDaniel , the RNC chairwoman , came out halfway through the segment to talk about the importance of remembering those who feel forgotten by most politicians .
She said she used this strategy successfully to swing Michigan to the Republican column during the 2016 presidential election , when she was chairwoman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw these forgotten men and women [ while campaigning ] who really felt like Washington had left them behind , ” McDaniel said .
“ They felt that the Democrats had become this redistributionist , coastal , elite party of the left that forgot about the middle of the country.
” Cruz said prosperity has risen significantly in such “ forgotten ” communities since Trump took office , as demonstrated by a town he said he visited last week in south Texas .
“ The mayor told me that the median income has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 46,000 , ” Cruz said .
“ The power brokers in the Democratic Party think that doesn ’ t matter , but $ 6,000 in a working family ’ s pocket can mean a new car , maybe two new cars.
” CPAC , the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists , runs Thursday through Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor , Maryland , just outside Washington .

The divide between the values of the Democratic and Republican parties continues to widen, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Thursday during an annual gathering of conservative activists outside Washington.
“All of us grew up thinking that the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the working class,” Cruz said. “Today, the Democrats are the party of Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street tycoons, and they look down on the working class.”
Cruz said the Republican Party will continue to see success because of its focus on protecting blue-collar jobs and getting people off welfare and unemployment benefits.
“The Republican Party is the party of truck drivers and steel workers and oil workers and farmers and ranchers and firefighters and waiters and waitresses,” Cruz said. “And the Democratic Party says: ‘You silly little people, you deplorables, you don’t need a job.’”
Cruz and Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles were joined on the CPAC stage by Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, for a live episode of the pair’s hit podcast “Verdict With Ted Cruz.”
“I think that message connects a lot better with the American people than the message that there are 57 genders and we need to steal everybody’s property,” Knowles responded to Cruz’s remarks.
The conversation was an offshoot of the two men’s podcast, which covered President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
“This podcast launched on the very first night of the impeachment trial,” Cruz said, describing its success. “Each night after the proceedings, I would jump in a truck and we would record at midnight or 2 in the morning. [The podcast] went from nonexistent to being the No. 1 podcast in the world.”
McDaniel, the RNC chairwoman, came out halfway through the segment to talk about the importance of remembering those who feel forgotten by most politicians.
She said she used this strategy successfully to swing Michigan to the Republican column during the 2016 presidential election, when she was chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party.
“We saw these forgotten men and women [while campaigning] who really felt like Washington had left them behind,” McDaniel said. “They felt that the Democrats had become this redistributionist, coastal, elite party of the left that forgot about the middle of the country.”
Cruz said prosperity has risen significantly in such “forgotten” communities since Trump took office, as demonstrated by a town he said he visited last week in south Texas.
“The mayor told me that the median income has gone from $39,000 a year to $46,000,” Cruz said. “The power brokers in the Democratic Party think that doesn’t matter, but $6,000 in a working family’s pocket can mean a new car, maybe two new cars.”
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs Thursday through Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.