dailysignal--2020-01-07--Trump Judicial Adviser Teams Up With Conservative PR Executive in New Initiative

One of the leading voices behind President Donald Trump ’ s drive to appoint originalist judges to the federal courts is teaming up with an influential public relations executive in the Washington area to launch a new project .
Leonard Leo is leaving his post running the Federalist Society , a network of conservatives lawyers , and is partnering with Greg Mueller , president of CRC Public Relations , to form CRC Advisors .
“ We have both worked for over three decades to build winning ventures , and our many partnerships have brought success across a wide range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation battles undertaken as part of a broad effort to reshape the federal judiciary , reform our legal system , advance the rule of law , and protect our country ’ s freedoms , ” Leo and Mueller said in a joint statement .
Leo will be chairman of CRC Advisors , while Mueller will be its CEO .
The first focus of the group will be launching an issue advocacy campaign on the judiciary during the 2020 election cycle that will reportedly spend at least $ 10 million .
Leo is leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Federalist Society , but he will remain as co-chairman of the conservative legal group ’ s board of directors .
The new venture , intended to provide resources across the conservative movement , is reportedly set to be a counterweight to the liberal group Arabella Advisors .
Leo and Mueller studied a tax filing that led them to Arabella , a group behind the Sixteen Thirty Fund , a network of about 50 separate liberal groups at the state and local level that promoted Democratic candidates in 2018 , Axios first reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of CRC , which is based in Alexandria , Virginia .
In 2017 , Kellyanne Conway sold her firm , the Polling Company , to CRC Public Relations to take a job at the White House as a top adviser to Trump .
Leo has been with the Federalist Society for more than 25 years , and helped the group increase its membership of conservative lawyers by more than 70,000 .
Leo advised Trump on the Supreme Court nominations of both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
He was also a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Previously , President George W. Bush appointed him as chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s John Malcolm , vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies , praised Leo .
For more than two decades , Malcolm has worked with Leo through his involvement with the Federalist Society and also served as general counsel at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom when Leo was chairman .
“ Leonard is one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals I have ever met , ” Malcolm told The Daily Signal .
“ I have no doubt this new venture will be a success , and the conservative movement will be all the better for it.
” Leo and Mueller played significant roles in the public debate in pushing through the confirmation of Kavanaugh during 2018 amid an onslaught of opposition from the left .
Mueller worked as a senior aide for the Republican presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 and of Steve Forbes in 2000 .
During his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm handled campaigns for numerous top-tier conservative organizations , political causes , conservative books , and right-leaning media organizations .
According to the joint statement from Leo and Mueller : This story was updated after publication .

One of the leading voices behind President Donald Trump’s drive to appoint originalist judges to the federal courts is teaming up with an influential public relations executive in the Washington area to launch a new project.
Leonard Leo is leaving his post running the Federalist Society, a network of conservatives lawyers, and is partnering with Greg Mueller, president of CRC Public Relations, to form CRC Advisors.
“We have both worked for over three decades to build winning ventures, and our many partnerships have brought success across a wide range of challenges, most notably the many judicial confirmation battles undertaken as part of a broad effort to reshape the federal judiciary, reform our legal system, advance the rule of law, and protect our country’s freedoms,” Leo and Mueller said in a joint statement.
Leo will be chairman of CRC Advisors, while Mueller will be its CEO.
The first focus of the group will be launching an issue advocacy campaign on the judiciary during the 2020 election cycle that will reportedly spend at least $10 million.
Leo is leaving his post running the day-to-day operations of the Federalist Society, but he will remain as co-chairman of the conservative legal group’s board of directors.
The new venture, intended to provide resources across the conservative movement, is reportedly set to be a counterweight to the liberal group Arabella Advisors.
Leo and Mueller studied a tax filing that led them to Arabella, a group behind the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a network of about 50 separate liberal groups at the state and local level that promoted Democratic candidates in 2018, Axios first reported.
The move marks the latest growth of CRC, which is based in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2017, Kellyanne Conway sold her firm, the Polling Company, to CRC Public Relations to take a job at the White House as a top adviser to Trump.
Leo has been with the Federalist Society for more than 25 years, and helped the group increase its membership of conservative lawyers by more than 70,000. Leo advised Trump on the Supreme Court nominations of both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
He was also a member of the Trump transition team in 2017. Previously, President George W. Bush appointed him as chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, praised Leo. For more than two decades, Malcolm has worked with Leo through his involvement with the Federalist Society and also served as general counsel at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom when Leo was chairman.
“Leonard is one of the most strategic, intelligent, and hard-working individuals I have ever met,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “I have no doubt this new venture will be a success, and the conservative movement will be all the better for it.”
Leo and Mueller played significant roles in the public debate in pushing through the confirmation of Kavanaugh during 2018 amid an onslaught of opposition from the left.
Mueller worked as a senior aide for the Republican presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 and of Steve Forbes in 2000. During his time with CRC, the public relations firm handled campaigns for numerous top-tier conservative organizations, political causes, conservative books, and right-leaning media organizations.
According to the joint statement from Leo and Mueller:
CRC Advisors will leverage the combined experience, expertise, resources, and networks of our merged teams to create a new model for identifying and solving problems, whether in public policy or private enterprise. CRC Advisors will strengthen our clients by providing strategic guidance and bring together the capabilities they need to win—whether that means shaping public policy, defending reputations, promoting their mission and brands, or any other public-affairs challenge. We will also incubate public-policy projects, coalitions, and groups which are mission-driven, focused, and results-oriented. And we will connect best-in-class professionals, successful nonprofits, and savvy philanthropists, forging partnerships among them that are tailored for success.
This story was updated after publication.


dailysignal--2020-01-08--MAGA Hat-Wearing Teen Just Got a Settlement From CNN. Media: Learn Your Lesson.

While the media often portray themselves as noble guardians of the truth who keep a close watch on those in power , the reality is quite the opposite : It is they who are in power and often swoop down to crush the powerless .
This was the case in the frenzy surrounding Nick Sandmann , a teenage student at Covington Catholic High School who donned a “ Make American Great Again ” hat and became cast as a national villain overnight .
On Tuesday , Sandmann enjoyed some measure of vindication .
After suing multiple media outlets for libel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that CNN had reached a settlement with him for damages and “ emotional distress ” caused by the network ’ s coverage of the viral incident that took place in 2019 .
The financial terms of Sandmann ’ s settlement were not disclosed .
In January 2019 , a series of major media outlets published stories about a videotaped encounter he had with a Native American activist in Washington , D.C. That viral video proved to be highly deceptive , as was the media account about the incident , which painted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a shameful example of media outlets rushing to fuel a preconceived narrative , recklessly pursuing a story with a high potential for “ rage clicks ” as well as high potential to permanently harm a teenager who never sought the public spotlight .
This story was fake news built on top of fake news , a leading example of why Americans have lost trust in media and journalists .
It was Example A of how the media can fail to act with appropriate objectivity in the search to shine a light on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be weaponized against the powerless who don ’ t have favored status in America ’ s elite newsrooms .
Celebrities , politicians , and social media mobs did the work of piling on to destroy a young person who had been carelessly dropped into the maelstrom .
In a now-deleted tweet , former CNN host Reza Aslan said that Sandmann had a “ punchable face.
” The whole situation was a fine example of why the Founders distrusted unchecked democracy .
Crowds can easily be ginned up into a mob by false information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rights and very lives of individuals can be ruthlessly trampled on .
None of this would have happened if CNN and other outlets had been more cautious in their reporting on a story with such explosive potential .
Instead , they were derelict .
They chose to push the tale that Sandmann acted in an aggressive and racist manner toward a Native American man , who simply wanted to protest peacefully and play music .
As my colleague , Katrina Trinko , wrote at the time : “ Finally , [ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that supported their cherished narrative : that most Trump supporters were bigots and racists who backed the wall and other initiatives because of their racist views.
” Only after these stories were published , and the mobs had been armed with their digital pitchforks , did a slow trickle of information begin to reveal the reality of the situation .
With time , it became clear that the facts did not support the misleading initial reports and commentary .
Sandmann , it turns out , had not been the aggressor in the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phillips , actually approached the teen after being egged on by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites , a black nationalist group , who had been yelling out racist and other derogatory comments , but were completely absent in the initial reporting .
In addition , many outlets initially reported ( falsely ) that Phillips was a “ veteran , ” which of course increased the rage toward Sandmann .
That turned out not to be true after a review of his military records , which revealed that he had briefly been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the end , the media ’ s forced story collapsed under the weight of evidence .
One would hope that the Covington fiasco would be a wake up call for the media , a “ teachable moment.
” But given all of the other media follies in the last few years and a poor response to public criticism , it seems unlikely the media will change their ways .
To win back the public , media outlets need to ditch their preconceived narratives and work harder to find the truth .

While the media often portray themselves as noble guardians of the truth who keep a close watch on those in power, the reality is quite the opposite: It is they who are in power and often swoop down to crush the powerless.
This was the case in the frenzy surrounding Nick Sandmann, a teenage student at Covington Catholic High School who donned a “Make American Great Again” hat and became cast as a national villain overnight.
On Tuesday, Sandmann enjoyed some measure of vindication. After suing multiple media outlets for libel, including the Washington Post, he confirmed that CNN had reached a settlement with him for damages and “emotional distress” caused by the network’s coverage of the viral incident that took place in 2019.
Yes, We settled with CNN. — Nick Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) January 7, 2020
The financial terms of Sandmann’s settlement were not disclosed.
In January 2019, a series of major media outlets published stories about a videotaped encounter he had with a Native American activist in Washington, D.C. That viral video proved to be highly deceptive, as was the media account about the incident, which painted a complex scene in simple terms.
It was a shameful example of media outlets rushing to fuel a preconceived narrative, recklessly pursuing a story with a high potential for “rage clicks” as well as high potential to permanently harm a teenager who never sought the public spotlight.
This story was fake news built on top of fake news, a leading example of why Americans have lost trust in media and journalists. It was Example A of how the media can fail to act with appropriate objectivity in the search to shine a light on those in power, and can instead be weaponized against the powerless who don’t have favored status in America’s elite newsrooms.
Celebrities, politicians, and social media mobs did the work of piling on to destroy a young person who had been carelessly dropped into the maelstrom.
Omaha elder and Vietnam War veteran Nathan Phillips endured hateful taunts with dignity and strength, then urged us all to do better.
Listen to his words: https://t.co/ymHRxVA91K — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 20, 2019
I am so deeply grieved and angry by this as young kids in MAGA hats surrounded and mocked a beloved Native American elder yesterday.
When your power is centered in your whiteness, mocking others who are unlike you makes you feel strong.
But it’s weak. And despicable. pic.twitter.com/38FtzGtowL — Shaun King (@shaunking) January 19, 2019
In a now-deleted tweet, former CNN host Reza Aslan said that Sandmann had a “punchable face.”
The whole situation was a fine example of why the Founders distrusted unchecked democracy.
Crowds can easily be ginned up into a mob by false information, and as the frenzy peaks, the rights and very lives of individuals can be ruthlessly trampled on.
None of this would have happened if CNN and other outlets had been more cautious in their reporting on a story with such explosive potential. Instead, they were derelict.
They chose to push the tale that Sandmann acted in an aggressive and racist manner toward a Native American man, who simply wanted to protest peacefully and play music.
As my colleague, Katrina Trinko, wrote at the time: “Finally, [the media] had a piece of proof that supported their cherished narrative: that most Trump supporters were bigots and racists who backed the wall and other initiatives because of their racist views.”
Only after these stories were published, and the mobs had been armed with their digital pitchforks, did a slow trickle of information begin to reveal the reality of the situation.
With time, it became clear that the facts did not support the misleading initial reports and commentary.
Sandmann, it turns out, had not been the aggressor in the situation. The Native American man, Nathan Phillips, actually approached the teen after being egged on by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites, a black nationalist group, who had been yelling out racist and other derogatory comments, but were completely absent in the initial reporting.
In addition, many outlets initially reported (falsely) that Phillips was a “veteran,” which of course increased the rage toward Sandmann. That turned out not to be true after a review of his military records, which revealed that he had briefly been in the U.S. Marines, but never deployed.
In the end, the media’s forced story collapsed under the weight of evidence.
One would hope that the Covington fiasco would be a wake up call for the media, a “teachable moment.”
But given all of the other media follies in the last few years and a poor response to public criticism, it seems unlikely the media will change their ways.
To win back the public, media outlets need to ditch their preconceived narratives and work harder to find the truth.


dailysignal--2020-01-10--House Democrats Pass War Powers Resolution Criticizing Trump’s Killing of Suleimani

The Democrat-controlled House approved a resolution late Thursday aimed at reining in President Donald Trump ’ s future actions on Iran and condemning him for not notifying Congress before last week ’ s drone strike that killed an Iranian terrorist leader , who was one of the country ’ s most senior officials .
The resolution passed 224 to 194 , with three Republicans joining the Democratic majority in supporting it and eight Democrats opposed .
Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan , a Republican-turned-independent , voted for the symbolic resolution .
“ Last week , the Trump administration conducted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian military officials , and he did so without consulting Congress , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said on the House floor .
Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Gen. Qassim Suleimani , head of the Quds Force , the terrorist arm of Iran ’ s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , on Jan. 3 .
Suleimani commanded numerous terrorist attacks , which killed about 600 Americans , according to the State Department .
“ When I first heard from the administration , the secretary of defense and chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Why did you not consult Congress ?
’ ” Pelosi said .
“ They said , ‘ Because we had to keep this close.
’ You had to keep it close from the ‘ Gang of Eight , ’ the leadership of Congress ?
” The “ Gang of Eight ” comprises the House speaker and House minority leader , Senate majority and minority leaders , and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees .
The House on Thursday passed the measure as a concurrent resolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be forwarded to the Senate or president—who would be unlikely to sign it anyway—and would not carry the force of law .
Rather , it ’ s a statement by the House against the administration ’ s action .
“ We know full well , better than many in the administration , the importance of classified information , ” Pelosi said .
“ So , who were they keeping it close from ?
They admitted they were keeping it close from the Congress of the United States.
” The nonbinding resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D-Mich. , who has a background with the CIA and the Defense Department .
Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , has introduced companion legislation in the Senate .
The Senate is controlled by Republicans , where it is unlikely to get a vote .
The War Powers Act is a 1973 law that obligates the president to provide notification to Congress about a military action within 48 hours and gives Congress limited ability to prohibit further action .
During the House floor debate , Trump retweeted former national security adviser John Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , saying he agreed that the law was unconstitutional and should be repealed .
Earlier Thursday , in remarks at the White House , Trump defended the decision to kill Suleimani .
Rep. Mark Meadows , R-N.C. , noted that the administration took action to kill a dangerous terrorist and criticized the Democrats who are attacking him for it .
“ I never thought that I would hear , on this House floor , an apology to the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified , taking out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The North Carolina lawmaker noted the carnage caused by the Iranian general killed in the strike .
We have a gentleman who gave his legs in service to this country , and yet we are apologizing to the Iranians with a nonbinding resolution that is nothing more than a press release .
It has no effect .
It doesn ’ t do anything .
… All they are doing is trying to get a press release to keep them from having a primary opponent .
This is a sad , sad day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech to try to take on the president of the United States for actually taking out a terrorist .
I would ask my colleagues the opposite .
How many Americans does a terrorist have to kill before they join with us ?
Is 600 not enough ?
Does it have to be 1,000 , or 10,000 ?
A million ?
At some point , we have to stand up and let the long arm of justice go in and take out these terrorists .
In retaliation for the strike that killed Suleimani , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases in Iraq on Tuesday , but there were no casualties .
Trump announced on Wednesday he would be pushing more sanctions on Iran in response to the attack .

The Democrat-controlled House approved a resolution late Thursday aimed at reining in President Donald Trump’s future actions on Iran and condemning him for not notifying Congress before last week’s drone strike that killed an Iranian terrorist leader who was one of the country’s most senior officials.
The House adopted the resolution 224 to 194, with three Republicans—Reps. Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney of Florida and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—supporting it and eight Democrats opposed.
Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a Republican-turned-independent, voted for the symbolic resolution.
“Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials, and he did so without consulting Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on the House floor.
Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, head of the Quds Force, the terrorist arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, on Jan. 3. Suleimani commanded numerous terrorist attacks, which killed about 600 Americans, according to the State Department.
“When I first heard from the administration, the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I said, ‘Why did you not consult Congress?’” Pelosi said. “They said, ‘Because we had to keep this close.’ You had to keep it close from the ‘Gang of Eight,’ the leadership of Congress?”
The “Gang of Eight” comprises the House speaker and House minority leader, Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
The House Democrats who voted against the resolution were Ben McAdams of Utah, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, and Max Rose and Anthony Brindisi of New York.
The House adopted the measure as a concurrent resolution, which means it’s nonbinding and will not be forwarded to the Senate or president—who would be unlikely to sign it anyway—and does not carry the force of law. Rather, it’s a statement by the House against the administration’s action.
“We know full well, better than many in the administration, the importance of classified information,” Pelosi said. “So, who were they keeping it close from? They admitted they were keeping it close from the Congress of the United States.”
The nonbinding resolution was sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., who has a background with the CIA and the Defense Department.
Today, we're voting on a resolution I introduced to make it clear that if the President wants to take us to war, he must get authorization from Congress.
If our loved ones are going to fight in any protracted war, the President owes the American people a public conversation: pic.twitter.com/zBFzU6wHMd — Rep. Elissa Slotkin (@RepSlotkin) January 9, 2020
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The Senate is controlled by Republicans, where it is unlikely to get a vote.
The War Powers Act is a 1973 law that obligates the president to provide notification to Congress about a military action within 48 hours and gives Congress limited ability to prohibit further action.
During the House floor debate, Trump retweeted former national security adviser John Bolton’s criticism of the War Powers Act, saying he agreed that the law was unconstitutional and should be repealed.
Smart analysis, I fully agree! https://t.co/0YMU7GunDt — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2020
Earlier Thursday, in remarks at the White House, Trump defended the decision to kill Suleimani.
"Iran will never have a nuclear weapon." pic.twitter.com/Zi9FF2K6x1 — The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 9, 2020
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., noted that the administration took action to kill a dangerous terrorist, and criticized the Democrats who are attacking him for it.
“I never thought that I would hear, on this House floor, an apology to the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified, taking out a terrorist,” he said.
The North Carolina lawmaker noted the carnage caused by the Iranian general killed in the strike:
We have a gentleman who gave his legs in service to this country, and yet we are apologizing to the Iranians with a nonbinding resolution that is nothing more than a press release.
It has no effect. It doesn’t do anything. … All they are doing is trying to get a press release to keep them from having a primary opponent.
This is a sad, sad day. Yet here we are, having another speech to try to take on the president of the United States for actually taking out a terrorist.
I would ask my colleagues the opposite. How many Americans does a terrorist have to kill before they join with us? Is 600 not enough? Does it have to be 1,000, or 10,000? A million?
At some point, we have to stand up and let the long arm of justice go in and take out these terrorists.
In retaliation for the strike that killed Suleimani, Iran launched missiles at two U.S. military facilities in Iraq early Wednesday local time, but there were no casualties or major damage.
Trump announced later Wednesday that he would be imposing more sanctions on Iran in response to the attack.
This report has been updated since publication to specify which lawmakers crossed party lines on the resolution.


dailysignal--2020-01-09--Media Lawyer Explains Why CNN Settlement in Libel Case Is a Big Deal

Will media outlets learn the right lessons after CNN settled in a lawsuit with Nick Sandmann , the MAGA-hat wearing teen who became the center of a widely botched , viral story ?
That was the answer from Charles Glasser , a lawyer who teaches media ethics and law at New York University and the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York , in an interview with The Daily Signal .
Sandmann became the center of a media storm nearly one year ago after a viral video emerged of him wearing a “ Make America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of a Native American man at the National Mall in Washington , D.C. A deluge of media outlets portrayed Sandmann as the aggressor and a racist before more facts emerged to disprove that narrative .
“ I keep wishing and I keep hoping that they will learn their lesson , that being responsible instead of being first wins the day , ” Glasser said .
Glasser , who is also a legal adviser to The Daily Signal and former global media counsel to Bloomberg News , said that the media ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to what happened to Richard Jewell .
Jewell , who is now the subject of a recently released movie directed by Clint Eastwood , “ Richard Jewell , ” became the center of a similar media controversy when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution connected him to a bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta .
Jewell was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing .
“ This is playing out , at least so far , both legally and in the real world , very much like the trials and tribulations of Richard Jewell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishes a false story and then numerous other publications follow suit .
Jewell took legal action and sued a variety of media outlets .
“ What Jewell did , and we ’ re seeing it here … the plaintiff ’ s team [ is ] pushing for a settlement on those republishers , ” Glasser said .
What is particularly interesting and mostly overlooked about the CNN case , Glasser said , is the legal arguments it was using to avoid legal repercussions .
“ [ CNN ] initially filed a motion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somebody a ‘ racist ’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel , ” Glasser said .
“ I think it ’ s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can ’ t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.
” The problem with this line of argument , Glasser said , is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact .
“ It ’ s fascinating that there is a news organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right in the eye and say , ‘ We report facts and the fact is , Trump is a racist , ’ ” Glasser said .
“ To go into court and say that it ’ s not a possible fact , it can ’ t be a fact , that ’ s a disconnect that really deserves , from a societal standpoint , some thought and discussion.
” Though CNN is in the news business , and frequently labels Trump a racist , in court it argues that calling someone racist is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Glasser said .
“ So you ’ ve got this political , societal section that says that being a racist is bad … and at the same time they go into court and say it ’ s not provably true , calling somebody a racist , ” Glasser said .
“ I find that stunning.
” Glasser explained why he thinks CNN settled in its case with Sandmann , which ended up being for an undisclosed amount of money , instead of trying to win outright .
“ The sympathy out there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer sees reporters as Woodward and Bernstein crusading , but instead they think of Jayson Blair and Sabrina Erdely who make things up to suit their own agenda , ” Glasser said .
Blair was a New York Times reporter who resigned in 2003 over making up information in stories , and Erdely was a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine whose story about a student who claimed to be raped at the University of Virginia turned out not to be true .
CNN ’ s desire to avoid discovery , a legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails and other communications that can act as evidence in the trial , could also be a reason for settling out of court rather than continuing the fight .
“ A lot of material , it may have been embarrassing or case-killing , it could have been discoverable , ” Glasser said .
“ I ’ m not saying that there was anything like that , I ’ m not aware of anything like that , but it certainly goes into the mix.
” Glasser said he is not a proponent of heavy-handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could hamper the field of journalism .
He instead argued that the best solution in the Sandmann case would be for outlets to issue a public apology : At the end of the day , media outlets can protect themselves by focusing on getting the facts correct before publishing rather than rushing to be first , Glasser said , especially in cases where there isn ’ t a compelling public interest in running the story .
Nevertheless , the media has an obligation , especially in cases where a minor is involved , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
“ That ’ s where they took a wrong turn , ” Glasser said .

Will media outlets learn the right lessons after CNN settled in a lawsuit with Nick Sandmann, the MAGA-hat wearing teen who became the center of a widely botched, viral story?
“No. They don’t learn.”
That was the answer from Charles Glasser, a lawyer who teaches media ethics and law at New York University and the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, in an interview with The Daily Signal.
Sandmann became the center of a media storm nearly one year ago after a viral video emerged of him wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat and standing in front of a Native American man at the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
A deluge of media outlets portrayed Sandmann as the aggressor and a racist before more facts emerged to disprove that narrative.
“I keep wishing and I keep hoping that they will learn their lesson, that being responsible instead of being first wins the day,” Glasser said.
Glasser, who is also a legal adviser to The Daily Signal and former global media counsel to Bloomberg News, said that the media’s handling of the Sandmann story was very similar to what happened to Richard Jewell.
Jewell, who is now the subject of a recently released movie directed by Clint Eastwood, “Richard Jewell,” became the center of a similar media controversy when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution connected him to a bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
Jewell was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.
“This is playing out, at least so far, both legally and in the real world, very much like the trials and tribulations of Richard Jewell,” Glasser said, where one outlet publishes a false story and then numerous other publications follow suit.
Jewell took legal action and sued a variety of media outlets.
“What Jewell did, and we’re seeing it here … the plaintiff’s team [is] pushing for a settlement on those republishers,” Glasser said.
A Strange Argument on Racism
What is particularly interesting and mostly overlooked about the CNN case, Glasser said, is the legal arguments it was using to avoid legal repercussions.
“[CNN] initially filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that calling somebody a ‘racist’ is not a provable fact and therefore does not rise to the level of libel,” Glasser said. “I think it’s extremely telling—it really got overlooked—that CNN argued that there can’t be a factual basis for calling somebody a racist.”
Glasser cited CNN’s argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued:
Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. … Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.
The problem with this line of argument, Glasser said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Donald Trump and others racist as a statement of fact.
“It’s fascinating that there is a news organization that will look the [audience] right in the eye and say, ‘We report facts and the fact is, Trump is a racist,’” Glasser said. “To go into court and say that it’s not a possible fact, it can’t be a fact, that’s a disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.”
Though CNN is in the news business, and frequently labels Trump a racist, in court it argues that calling someone racist is not fact-based, but an opinion, Glasser said.
“So you’ve got this political, societal section that says that being a racist is bad … and at the same time they go into court and say it’s not provably true, calling somebody a racist,” Glasser said. “I find that stunning.”
Glasser explained why he thinks CNN settled in its case with Sandmann, which ended up being for an undisclosed amount of money, instead of trying to win outright.
“The sympathy out there and the attitude of the American jury pool no longer sees reporters as Woodward and Bernstein crusading, but instead they think of Jayson Blair and Sabrina Erdely who make things up to suit their own agenda,” Glasser said.
Blair was a New York Times reporter who resigned in 2003 over making up information in stories, and Erdely was a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine whose story about a student who claimed to be raped at the University of Virginia turned out not to be true.
CNN’s desire to avoid discovery, a legal process in which the court may obtain emails and other communications that can act as evidence in the trial, could also be a reason for settling out of court rather than continuing the fight.
“A lot of material, it may have been embarrassing or case-killing, it could have been discoverable,” Glasser said. “I’m not saying that there was anything like that, I’m not aware of anything like that, but it certainly goes into the mix.”
The Right Outcome?
Glasser said he is not a proponent of heavy-handed financial costs for media outlets, which could hamper the field of journalism. He instead argued that the best solution in the Sandmann case would be for outlets to issue a public apology:
If I were Sandmann, instead of asking for money … my big ask would be an on-air correction and an on-air apology, and, you know, something in the permanent record of the internet, that they would publish a retraction and apologize. I think that’s the equitable thing and that’s the right thing.
At the end of the day, media outlets can protect themselves by focusing on getting the facts correct before publishing rather than rushing to be first, Glasser said, especially in cases where there isn’t a compelling public interest in running the story.
Nevertheless, the media has an obligation, especially in cases where a minor is involved, to report in a clear and precise way.
“That’s where they took a wrong turn,” Glasser said.


dailysignal--2020-01-10--Pelosi Is Realizing Impeachment Was a Mistake

America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
“ Both have drawn firm lines in the sand .
Someone ’ s got to give , ” one reporter recently declared .
There is , of course , nothing to “ give.
” Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial ; no constitutional right or political leverage .
Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end , one way or another , with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi ’ s decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority doesn ’ t want them .
One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece isn ’ t that Pelosi—portrayed as courageous risk-taker—had gotten the bright idea from CNN ; it ’ s that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean , Nixon ’ s former White House lawyer .
Now , Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic , whistleblowing impeachment expert—which is true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught .
His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years .
Surely Pelosi , blessed with preternatural political instincts , wouldn ’ t rely on Dean ’ s advice ?
Surely Pelosi wasn ’ t browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America ’ s least popular major cable news network ?
Because whatever you make of the case against President Donald Trump , it ’ s getting increasingly difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort by the House has been effective .
After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings , a pretend standoff and massive cooperative coverage from the media , poll numbers haven ’ t budged .
They may even have ticked back toward Trump .
Yet , to hear Time tell it , Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process , from signing off on every committee report and press release— ” aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee ’ s final report before it went out ” —to picking furniture that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the more diminutive Rep. Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , look like equals .
My working theory is this : Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake .
She didn ’ t want the president to be able tell voters that he had been exonerated by the Senate .
The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen , or perhaps circumvent , that inevitable moment .
In the process , however , Pelosi destroyed the Democrats ’ justification for rushing impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff both argued that Trump ’ s tenure in office constituted a national emergency , and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly .
McConnell , on the other hand , had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton—with a rules package that passed 100-0 in 1998 .
Under the Clinton precedent , the Senate would allow both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawyers to make their case , with questions from the Senate to follow .
Pelosi ’ s defenders are running out of arguments .
Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine “ will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump ’ s wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial .
That would make for a disastrous , humiliating legacy.
” The gaping hole in this argument , and the reason Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump ’ s wrongdoing .
They claimed they had proof of bribery , but they didn ’ t include it in the impeachment articles .
They claimed to have proof in the Mueller Report that Trump obstructed justice , yet it ’ s not in the articles of impeachments either .
Rubin herself has alleged , dozens of times , that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense .
In truth , if the House had made a persuasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Republicans to act in a different manner .
That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean ’ s silly idea—which has drastically backfired .

America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “Both have drawn firm lines in the sand. Someone’s got to give,” one reporter recently declared.
There is, of course, nothing to “give.” Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial; no constitutional right or political leverage. Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end, one way or another, with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing.
A new piece in Time magazine does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi’s decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority doesn’t want them.
One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece isn’t that Pelosi—portrayed as courageous risk-taker—had gotten the bright idea from CNN; it’s that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean, Nixon’s former White House lawyer.
Now, Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic, whistleblowing impeachment expert—which is true insofar as he planned the Watergate coverup, and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught.
His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years.
Surely Pelosi, blessed with preternatural political instincts, wouldn’t rely on Dean’s advice? Surely Pelosi wasn’t browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America’s least popular major cable news network?
Because whatever you make of the case against President Donald Trump, it’s getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective.
After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings, a pretend standoff, and massive cooperative coverage from the media, poll numbers haven’t budged. They may even have ticked back toward Trump.
Yet, to hear Time tell it, Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process, from signing off on every committee report and press release— “aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee’s final report before it went out”—to picking furniture that would make Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the more diminutive Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., look like equals.
My working theory is this: Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake. She didn’t want the president to be able to tell voters that he had been exonerated by the Senate.
The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen, or perhaps circumvent, that inevitable moment.
In the process, however, Pelosi destroyed the Democrats’ justification for rushing impeachment in the first place. Nadler and Schiff both argued that Trump’s tenure in office constituted a national emergency, and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly.
McConnell, on the other hand, had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton—with a rules package that passed 100-0 in 1998.
Under the Clinton precedent, the Senate would allow both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers to make their case, with questions from the Senate to follow.
Pelosi’s defenders are running out of arguments. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine “will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial. That would make for a disastrous, humiliating legacy.”
The gaping hole in this argument, and the reason Democrats are losing the debate, is that they’ve already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing. They claimed they had proof of bribery, but they didn’t include it in the impeachment articles. They claimed to have proof in the Mueller report that Trump obstructed justice, yet it’s not in the articles of impeachments either.
Rubin herself has alleged, dozens of times, that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense.
In truth, if the House had made a persuasive case, there would be public pressure on Republicans to act in a different manner. That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced Dean’s silly idea—which has drastically backfired.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-01-10--House Democrats Approve War Powers Resolution Criticizing Trump’s Killing of Suleimani

The Democrat-controlled House approved a resolution late Thursday aimed at reining in President Donald Trump ’ s future actions on Iran and condemning him for not notifying Congress before last week ’ s drone strike that killed an Iranian terrorist leader who was one of the country ’ s most senior officials .
The House adopted the resolution 224 to 194 , with three Republicans—Reps .
Matt Gaetz and Francis Rooney of Florida and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—supporting it and eight Democrats opposed .
Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan , a Republican-turned-independent , voted for the symbolic resolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials , and he did so without consulting Congress , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said on the House floor .
Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , head of the Quds Force , the terrorist arm of Iran ’ s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , on Jan. 3 .
Suleimani commanded numerous terrorist attacks , which killed about 600 Americans , according to the State Department .
“ When I first heard from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chairman of the Joint Chiefs , I said , ‘ Why did you not consult Congress ?
’ ” Pelosi said .
“ They said , ‘ Because we had to keep this close.
’ You had to keep it close from the ‘ Gang of Eight , ’ the leadership of Congress ?
” The “ Gang of Eight ” comprises the House speaker and House minority leader , Senate majority and minority leaders , and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees .
The House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ben McAdams of Utah , Joe Cunningham of South Carolina , Elaine Luria of Virginia , Kendra Horn of Oklahoma , Stephanie Murphy of Florida , Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey , and Max Rose and Anthony Brindisi of New York .
The House adopted the measure as a concurrent resolution , which means it ’ s nonbinding and will not be forwarded to the Senate or president—who would be unlikely to sign it anyway—and does not carry the force of law .
Rather , it ’ s a statement by the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We know full well , better than many in the administration , the importance of classified information , ” Pelosi said .
“ So , who were they keeping it close from ?
They admitted they were keeping it close from the Congress of the United States.
” The nonbinding resolution was sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin , D-Mich. , who has a background with the CIA and the Defense Department .
Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , introduced companion legislation in the Senate .
The Senate is controlled by Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vote .
The War Powers Act is a 1973 law that obligates the president to provide notification to Congress about a military action within 48 hours and gives Congress limited ability to prohibit further action .
During the House floor debate , Trump retweeted former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s criticism of the War Powers Act , saying he agreed that the law was unconstitutional and should be repealed .
Earlier Thursday , in remarks at the White House , Trump defended the decision to kill Suleimani .
Rep. Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration took action to kill a dangerous terrorist , and criticized the Democrats who are attacking him for it .
“ I never thought that I would hear , on this House floor , an apology to the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified , taking out a terrorist , ” he said .
The North Carolina lawmaker noted the carnage caused by the Iranian general killed in the strike : In retaliation for the strike that killed Suleimani , Iran launched missiles at two U.S. military facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there were no casualties or major damage .
Trump announced later Wednesday that he would be imposing more sanctions on Iran in response to the attack .
This report has been updated since publication to specify which lawmakers crossed party lines on the resolution .


dailysignal--2020-01-14--Roger Scruton Was a Giant of Conservatism

Roger Scruton has died .
Conservatism has lost one its great thinkers .
Scruton , who died Jan. 12 at age 75 , authored more than 50 books on an astonishing number of subjects .
He wrote about conservative political philosophy and Western civilization with erudition and grace , and was a trenchant critic of leftist thought .
But Scruton also wrote about other aspects of philosophy , aesthetics , art , music , architecture , literature , conservation and environmentalism , religion , sexual desire , hunting , and wine .
He also wrote novels and operas .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t academic or ponderous .
They explain .
They are clear , compelling , and a joy to read .
His work deepens our understanding of what it means to be human and how to promote human flourishing .
Among British conservatives , he was rightly regarded as a national treasure .
He was knighted in 2016 .
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted , “ RIP Sir Roger Scruton .
We have lost the greatest modern conservative thinker – who not only had the guts to say what he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas and events not only in Britain , but around the world .
At significant personal risk , he spoke to , taught , and assisted dissidents in communist Czechoslovakia , Poland , and Hungary during the Cold War .
Many of those he helped became leaders in post-communist central Europe .
Those seeking an introduction to Anglo-American conservative thought could do no better than to read Scruton ’ s 2018 book “ Conservatism : An Invitation to the Great Tradition.
” Those seeking to hear him discuss the importance of private property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other topics ) could watch “ An Interview with Roger Scruton , ” recorded during his visit to The Heritage Foundation in October 2018 .
In 2015 , Heritage published his paper , “ The Good of Corporations.
” Later that year , he gave a lecture at The Heritage Foundation , “ The Future of European Civilization : Lessons for America.
” In 2003 , he spoke at Heritage about “ The United States , the United Nations , and the Future of the Nation-State.
” Sir Roger Scruton is gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his body of work to inform us , to challenge us , and to help us continue the work of conserving a free society .

Roger Scruton has died. Conservatism has lost one of its great thinkers.
Scruton, who died Jan. 12 at age 75, authored more than 50 books on an astonishing number of subjects. He wrote about conservative political philosophy and Western civilization with erudition and grace, and was a trenchant critic of leftist thought.
But Scruton also wrote about other aspects of philosophy, aesthetics, art, music, architecture, literature, conservation and environmentalism, religion, sexual desire, hunting, and wine. He also wrote novels and operas.
His books reflect deep learning, but they aren’t academic or ponderous. They explain. They are clear, compelling, and a joy to read. His work deepens our understanding of what it means to be human and how to promote human flourishing.
Among British conservatives, he was rightly regarded as a national treasure. He was knighted in 2016. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted, “RIP Sir Roger Scruton. We have lost the greatest modern conservative thinker – who not only had the guts to say what he thought but said it beautifully.”
RIP Sir Roger Scruton. We have lost the greatest modern conservative thinker – who not only had the guts to say what he thought but said it beautifully. — Boris Johnson #StayAlert (@BorisJohnson) January 13, 2020
Scruton influenced ideas and events not only in Britain, but around the world. At significant personal risk, he spoke to, taught, and assisted dissidents in communist Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary during the Cold War. Many of those he helped became leaders in post-communist central Europe.
Those seeking an introduction to Anglo-American conservative thought could do no better than to read Scruton’s 2018 book “Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition.”
Those seeking to hear him discuss the importance of private property and markets (and a wide variety of other topics) could watch “An Interview with Roger Scruton,” recorded during his visit to The Heritage Foundation in October 2018.
In 2015, Heritage published his paper, “The Good of Corporations.” Later that year, he gave a lecture at The Heritage Foundation, “The Future of European Civilization: Lessons for America.” In 2003, he spoke at Heritage about “The United States, the United Nations, and the Future of the Nation-State.”
Sir Roger Scruton is gone, but we are fortunate to have his body of work to inform us, to challenge us, and to help us continue the work of conserving a free society.


dailysignal--2020-01-14--Attorney General Reveals Stricter Procedures for Counterintelligence Investigations of Presidential

Attorney General Reveals Stricter Procedures for Counterintelligence Investigations of Presidential Campaigns

The attorney general and FBI director will have to approve counterintelligence investigations of future presidential campaigns , Attorney General William Barr said at a press conference Monday .
“ The opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on and the attorney general would have to sign off on , ” Barr told reporters .
Barr announced the policy change in response to a question about a series of reforms that the FBI plans to implement in the wake of an inspector general ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) in order to get warrants to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page .
The report said the FBI withheld information from the FISC that undercut the notion that Page was a Russian agent .
Investigators also failed to tell the FISC about information that raised questions about the reliability of Christopher Steele , a former British spy whose dossier the FBI used in its wiretap applications .
FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a list of proposed reforms to the FISC on Jan. 10 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference whether he will propose other changes to how counterintelligence investigations are conducted .
The head of the FBI ’ s counterintelligence division opened the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , dubbed Crossfire Hurricane , on July 31 , 2016 .
Former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the investigation early on .
The inspector general ’ s report said that Loretta Lynch , who served as attorney general , did not recall being briefed on the existence of the investigation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ]

The attorney general and FBI director will have to approve counterintelligence investigations of future presidential campaigns, Attorney General William Barr said at a press conference Monday.
“The opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on and the attorney general would have to sign off on,” Barr told reporters.
Barr announced the policy change in response to a question about a series of reforms that the FBI plans to implement in the wake of an inspector general’s report that found that the bureau misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to get warrants to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
The report said the FBI withheld information from the FISC that undercut the notion that Page was a Russian agent. Investigators also failed to tell the FISC about information that raised questions about the reliability of Christopher Steele, a former British spy whose dossier the FBI used in its wiretap applications.
FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a list of proposed reforms to the FISC on Jan. 10. A reporter asked Barr at the press conference whether he will propose other changes to how counterintelligence investigations are conducted.
The head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division opened the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, on July 31, 2016. Former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the investigation early on.
The inspector general’s report said that Loretta Lynch, who served as attorney general, did not recall being briefed on the existence of the investigation.
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 for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-01-15--What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers

Longtime Trump-hunters were joined by far less familiar faces , including a former police chief , a former judge , and a former Army ranger , as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named impeachment managers .
The House managers appointed Wednesday will act as prosecutors , making the case to remove President Donald Trump from office during the Senate impeachment trial expected to begin next week .
In a near party-line vote , the Democrat-controlled House on Dec. 19 impeached Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Democrats contend that Trump–during a call with Ukrainian President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election by talking about the role of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter as a highly paid board member of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma .
Chief Justice John Roberts , as provided by the Constitution , will preside over the Senate trial .
Here ’ s what to know about the seven impeachment managers .
Schiff , D-Calif. , is a former federal prosecutor in California .
This marks the third time he has been a manager in a Senate impeachment trial .
In 2009 and 2010 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges .
Schiff , 59 , pushed the “ Russia collusion ” narrative in the House , first as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , and then as the chairman after Democrats won the House majority in the 2018 elections .
Schiff first was elected in 2000 , interestingly by running against the incumbent Republican , Rep. James Rogan , over his role as an impeachment manager in the 1998 Senate trial of President Bill Clinton .
Schiff came under scrutiny during his committee ’ s first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 call to Zelenskyy , when he mischaracterized what the president said as captured by an official White House transcript .
When Republican lawmakers and others called him on it , Schiff said his summary of Trump ’ s words was a “ parody.
” Schiff also didn ’ t tell the truth when he initially said that neither he nor his staff had previous contact with the whistleblower who brought the Trump-Zelenskyy call to public attention .
The Washington Post ’ s fact-checker gave him “ four Pinocchios , ” PolitiFact ranked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Factcheck.org said Schiff was “ wrong.
” Nadler , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , was among those on that committee who spoke out loudly against impeaching Clinton in 1998 .
The New York Democrat called the Clinton impeachment a “ coup d ’ etat ” and said : “ Members of Congress have no power , indeed they have no rights , to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat.
” Nadler , 72 , first was elected to the House in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was a member of the New York State Assembly , where he clashed with then-real estate mogul Donald Trump over a Manhattan development project .
Lofgren , a California Democrat , was among the 69 lawmakers who boycotted Trump ’ s inauguration .
First elected to the House in 1994 , she previously was a staffer for the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry targeting President Richard Nixon in 1974 .
A former immigration lawyer , Lofgren , 72 , also has clashed with the Trump administration as chairwoman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration and citizenship .
Jeffries , D-N.Y. , chairman of the House Democratic Caucus , first was elected to the House in 2012 .
He previously was a member of the New York State Assembly from 2006 to 2012 .
Jeffries , 49 , was part of the law firm of Paul , Weiss , Rifkind , Wharton & Garrison .
He later worked as a corporate counsel for Viacom and CBS .
In a House floor speech on June 12 , 2017 , he drew a connection between Trump and racism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment managers are lawyers , Demings , a Florida Democrat , comes to the case with a 27-year career in law enforcement that culminated in becoming the first female police chief in Orlando , Florida .
Demings , 62 , first was elected to her seat in 2016 .
She is married to Jerry Demings , mayor of Orange County , Florida .
Crow , of Colorado , was elected as part of the Democrat wave of 2018 .
A lawyer , he was formerly an Army ranger who served in both Afghanistan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bronze Star .
Crow , 40 , defeated the Republican incumbent , Rep. Mike Coffman , and became the first Democrat to hold the Colorado seat .
Garcia , also a freshman House member , previously served as a Houston Municipal Court judge , appointed by that city ’ s mayor and reappointed by a subsequent mayor .
Garcia , 69 , was elected as Houston city controller in the late 1990s .
In 2013 , she won a special election for a Texas state Senate seat , and held it until being @ @ @ @

Longtime Trump-hunters were joined by far less familiar faces, including a former police chief, a former judge, and a former Army Ranger, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named impeachment managers.
The House managers appointed Wednesday will act as prosecutors, making the case to remove President Donald Trump from office during the Senate impeachment trial expected to begin next week.
Today, I have the privilege of naming the Managers of the impeachment trial of the President. #DefendOurDemocracy pic.twitter.com/Y2613Ni3pC — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 15, 2020
In a near party-line vote, the Democrat-controlled House on Dec. 19 impeached Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Democrats contend that Trump—during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election by talking about the role of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
Chief Justice John Roberts, as provided by the Constitution, will preside over the Senate trial.
Here’s what to know about the seven impeachment managers.
1. Rep. Adam Schiff
Schiff, D-Calif., is a former federal prosecutor in California. This marks the third time he has been a manager in a Senate impeachment trial. In 2009 and 2010, he helped lead two bipartisan cases against federal judges.
Schiff, 59, pushed the “Russia collusion” narrative in the House, first as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and then as the chairman after Democrats won the House majority in the 2018 elections.
Schiff first was elected in 2000, interestingly by running against the incumbent Republican, Rep. James Rogan, over his role as an impeachment manager in the 1998 Senate trial of President Bill Clinton.
Schiff came under scrutiny during his committee’s first hearing focused on Trump’s July 25 call to Zelenskyy, when he mischaracterized what the president said as captured by an official White House transcript.
When Republican lawmakers and others called him on it, Schiff said his summary of Trump’s words was a “parody.”
Schiff also didn’t tell the truth when he initially said that neither he nor his staff had previous contact with the whistleblower who brought the Trump-Zelenskyy call to public attention.
The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave him “four Pinocchios,” PolitiFact ranked the claim as “false,” and Factcheck.org said Schiff was “wrong.”
2. Rep. Jerry Nadler
Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was among those on that committee who spoke out loudly against impeaching Clinton in 1998.
The New York Democrat called the Clinton impeachment a “coup d’etat” and said: “Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat.”
Nadler, 72, first was elected to the House in a special election in 1993. Before that, he was a member of the New York State Assembly, where he clashed with then-real estate mogul Donald Trump over a Manhattan development project.
3. Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Lofgren, a California Democrat, was among the 69 lawmakers who boycotted Trump’s inauguration.
First elected to the House in 1994, she previously was a staffer for the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry targeting President Richard Nixon in 1974.
A former immigration lawyer, Lofgren, 72, also has clashed with the Trump administration as chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration and citizenship.
4. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries
Jeffries, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, first was elected to the House in 2012.
He previously was a member of the New York State Assembly from 2006 to 2012.
Jeffries, 49, was part of the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. He later worked as a corporate counsel for Viacom and CBS.
In a House floor speech on June 12, 2017, he drew a connection between Trump and racism, saying:
Why were so many people who worship at the altar of white supremacy drawn to Donald Trump’s campaign? What was it about this individual that so many folks dripping in hatred flocked to his candidacy? That’s not to say that every American who voted for Donald Trump is a racist. We do know that every racist in America voted for Donald Trump. That’s a problem. But this president has a responsibility to address the rise in hate crimes that have taken place on his watch, whether or not his election is directly connected to it.
5. Rep. Val Demings
Although most of the House impeachment managers are lawyers, Demings, a Florida Democrat, comes to the case with a 27-year career in law enforcement that culminated in becoming the first female police chief in Orlando, Florida.
Demings, 62, first was elected to her seat in 2016. She is married to Jerry Demings, mayor of Orange County, Florida.
6. Rep. Jason Crow
Crow, of Colorado, was elected as part of the Democrat wave of 2018.
A lawyer, he was formerly an Army Ranger who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He was awarded a Bronze Star.
Crow, 40, defeated the Republican incumbent, Rep. Mike Coffman, and became the first Democrat to hold the Colorado seat.
7. Rep. Sylvia Garcia
Garcia, also a freshman House member, previously served as a Houston Municipal Court judge, appointed by that city’s mayor and reappointed by a subsequent mayor.
Garcia, 69, was elected as Houston city controller in the late 1990s.
In 2013, she won a special election for a Texas state Senate seat, and held it until being elected to Congress.


dailysignal--2020-01-16--4 Things to Know About Lev Parnas, the Left’s New Hero

An associate of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , one of the president ’ s personal lawyers , is the left ’ s new hero going into the Senate impeachment trial .
He is a native of Ukraine named Lev Parnas , and he and his business partner were arrested in October as they appeared to try to leave the country while under federal indictment for violating campaign finance laws .
Parnas gave a damning interview Wednesday night to MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow in which he threw gasoline on President Donald Trump ’ s upcoming impeachment trial over issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what was going on , ” Parnas , 49 , told Maddow .
“ He was aware of all my movements .
I wouldn ’ t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani , or the president.
” Before his arrest , Parnes boasted to the media that he knew of information the government of Ukraine had on former Vice President Joe Biden , which he said U.S. officials were neglecting .
Now , Democrats are eager to work Parnas and the interview into Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t have made it more clear—the Senate must hear from firsthand witnesses and demand the White House turn over documents related to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine , ” Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , tweeted .
Trump dismissed the matter Thursday while acknowledging that he and Parnas may have had their photograph taken together .
“ He ’ s trying probably to make a deal for himself .
I don ’ t even know who this man is , ” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I took a picture with him .
I ’ m in a room , I take pictures with people .
I take thousands and thousands of pictures with people all the time .
I don ’ t know him .
Perhaps he ’ s a fine man .
Perhaps he ’ s not.
” Here are four key things to know about Parnas .
Parnas and Igor Fruman , his partner who also is charged with campaign finance violations , both were born in the former Soviet Union and are naturalized U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Odessa , located in today ’ s southwestern Ukraine .
At the time it was still part of the Soviet Union .
His family brought Parnas to Detroit at the age of 3 .
They later moved to Brooklyn .
He attended Brooklyn College and Baruch College before going to work in real estate .
At Giuliani ’ s behest , Parnas and Fruman traveled to Ukraine in 2018 to investigate conflicts by Biden and his son , Hunter Biden , related to Burisma Holdings , a Ukrainian energy company widely described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also in Ukraine to find information to counter findings in special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow to influence the 2016 presidential election .
Giuliani , also a former federal prosecutor in New York , acted as the president ’ s personal attorney during the Mueller probe .
The investigation eventually determined that Russians interfered in the election campaign , but found no evidence that either Trump or his campaign conspired with them .
The White House dismissed what Parnas had to say on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by a man who is currently out on bail for federal crimes and is desperate to reduce his exposure to prison , ” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a formal statement Thursday .
A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Parnas and Fruman on charges of making $ 325,000 in illegal campaign donations to a pro-Trump political action committee .
Prosecutors say the two men tried to hide the source of the donations while working with foreign nationals who had “ Russian roots ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas and Fruman also are charged with trying to lobby members of Congress on behalf of the Ukrainian government .
They were arrested and taken into custody at Dulles International Airport near Washington , D.C. , while holding one-way tickets to exit the country .
The arrests came after the two were called to appear before three House committees in the early portion of the Trump impeachment inquiry that was held behind closed doors .
Regarding the charges against him , Parnas was quoted as saying : “ We didn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no ideas of the rules and regulations .
I made it very clear [ to the super PAC ] the donation was from Global Energy Producers.
” Global Energy Producers is a company started by Parnas and Fruman .
In the early 1990s , Parnas worked at Kings Highway Realty in Brooklyn and sold housing for the Trump Organization , the Trump family ’ s business in New York .
Parnas left New York in 1995 for Florida , where he worked for several real estate companies before starting his own company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into business with Fruman , who reportedly was born in 1966 .
The two men established a limited liability company , Global Energy Producers , which prosecutors allege was for purposes of concealing the source of their campaign contributions .
The Miami Herald reported that Parnas left a “ long trail of debts in Florida and beyond.
” He reportedly was sued numerous times for unpaid debts and was evicted from several properties .
One litigant told the Miami newspaper that Parnas was a “ con man.
” The Washington law firm run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas in July 2019 as an interpreter in its representation of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash , who was charged by the United States in a 2014 corruption case and was being held in Vienna .
Firtash ’ s lawyer paid $ 1 million to Parnas .
Two others indicted in the alleged scheme were David Correia of Florida and Andrey Kukushkin of California , who established an insurance company with Parnas in Boca Raton , Florida , called Fraud Guarantee .
Parnas reportedly selected the name to clean up his Google search results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud.
” The National Legal and Policy Center , a conservative watchdog group based in Falls Church , Virginia , looked into some of the information Parnas promoted and determined that he was “ disreputable , ” said Tom Anderson , director of the center ’ s Government Integrity Project .
Well before his airport arrest , Anderson said , he warned other reporters to ignore information from Parnas .
“ If the Democrats take anything from him , they will end up getting burnt , ” Anderson told The Daily Signal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ information from him .
I ’ m surprised Democrats are going anywhere near him.
” House Democrats , ahead of sending the two articles of impeachment Wednesday to the Senate , released copies of text messages between Parnas and Robert Hyde , a former Republican candidate for the House from Connecticut .
The messages appear to say that former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—who Trump recalled from her post last year—had been under surveillance .
Yovanovitch , who testified during House impeachment hearings , remains employed by the State Department with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel , D-N.Y. , said the text messages “ suggest a possible risk ” to Yovanovitch ’ s security .
A screenshot of a handwritten note to Giuliani that Parnas provided to House Democrats said the priority was to “ get Zalensky [ sic ] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated .
”

An associate of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of the president’s personal lawyers, is the left’s new hero going into the Senate impeachment trial.
He is a native of Ukraine named Lev Parnas, and he and his business partner were arrested in October as they appeared to try to leave the country while under federal indictment for violating campaign finance laws.
Parnas gave a damning interview Wednesday night to MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow in which he threw gasoline on President Donald Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial over issues involving Ukraine.
“President Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas, 49, told Maddow. “He was aware of all my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani, or the president.”
Before his arrest, Parnes boasted to the media that he knew of information the government of Ukraine had on former Vice President Joe Biden, which he said U.S. officials were neglecting.
Now, Democrats are eager to work Parnas and the interview into Trump’s impeachment trial.
Last night’s Lev Parnas interview couldn’t have made it more clear—the Senate must hear from first-hand witnesses and demand the White House turn over documents related to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 16, 2020
“Last night’s Lev Parnas interview couldn’t have made it more clear—the Senate must hear from firsthand witnesses and demand the White House turn over documents related to the withholding of military aid from Ukraine,” Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted.
Trump dismissed the matter Thursday while acknowledging that he and Parnas may have had their photograph taken together.
“He’s trying probably to make a deal for himself. I don’t even know who this man is,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I guess he attended fundraisers, so I took a picture with him. I’m in a room, I take pictures with people. I take thousands and thousands of pictures with people all the time. I don’t know him. Perhaps he’s a fine man. Perhaps he’s not.”
Here are four key things to know about Parnas.
1. Born in the USSR
Parnas and Igor Fruman, his partner who also is charged with campaign finance violations, both were born in the former Soviet Union and are naturalized U.S. citizens.
Parnas was born in 1972 in Odessa, located in today’s southwestern Ukraine. At the time it was still part of the Soviet Union.
His family brought Parnas to Detroit at the age of 3. They later moved to Brooklyn. He attended Brooklyn College and Baruch College before going to work in real estate.
At Giuliani’s behest, Parnas and Fruman traveled to Ukraine in 2018 to investigate conflicts by Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, related to Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company widely described as corrupt.
Parnas and Fruman were also in Ukraine to find information to counter findings in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Giuliani, also a former federal prosecutor in New York, acted as the president’s personal attorney during the Mueller probe.
The investigation eventually determined that Russians interfered in the election campaign, but found no evidence that either Trump or his campaign conspired with them.
2. Criminal Charges
The White House dismissed what Parnas had to say on MSNBC.
“These allegations are being made by a man who is currently out on bail for federal crimes and is desperate to reduce his exposure to prison,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a formal statement Thursday.
A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Parnas and Fruman on charges of making $325,000 in illegal campaign donations to a pro-Trump political action committee.
Prosecutors say the two men tried to hide the source of the donations while working with foreign nationals who had “Russian roots” to send money into Nevada politics.
Parnas and Fruman also are charged with trying to lobby members of Congress on behalf of the Ukrainian government.
They were arrested and taken into custody at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C., while holding one-way tickets to exit the country.
The arrests came after the two were called to appear before three House committees in the early portion of the Trump impeachment inquiry that was held behind closed doors.
Regarding the charges against him, Parnas was quoted as saying: “We didn’t have the right accounts opened up. I had no ideas of the rules and regulations. I made it very clear [to the super PAC] the donation was from Global Energy Producers.”
Global Energy Producers is a company started by Parnas and Fruman.
3. Business Controversies
In the early 1990s, Parnas worked at Kings Highway Realty in Brooklyn and sold housing for the Trump Organization, the Trump family’s business in New York.
Parnas left New York in 1995 for Florida, where he worked for several real estate companies before starting his own company, Parnas Holdings. He eventually went into business with Fruman, who reportedly was born in 1966.
The two men established a limited liability company, Global Energy Producers, which prosecutors allege was for purposes of concealing the source of their campaign contributions.
The Miami Herald reported that Parnas left a “long trail of debts in Florida and beyond.” He reportedly was sued numerous times for unpaid debts and was evicted from several properties.
One litigant told the Miami newspaper that Parnas was a “con man.”
The Washington law firm run by Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing hired Parnas in July 2019 as an interpreter in its representation of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, who was charged by the United States in a 2014 corruption case and was being held in Vienna. Firtash’s lawyer paid $1 million to Parnas.
Two others indicted in the alleged scheme were David Correia of Florida and Andrey Kukushkin of California, who established an insurance company with Parnas in Boca Raton, Florida, called Fraud Guarantee.
Parnas reportedly selected the name to clean up his Google search results, which consistently included the word “fraud.”
The National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group based in Falls Church, Virginia, looked into some of the information Parnas promoted and determined that he was “disreputable,” said Tom Anderson, director of the center’s Government Integrity Project.
Well before his airport arrest, Anderson said, he warned other reporters to ignore information from Parnas.
“If the Democrats take anything from him, they will end up getting burnt,” Anderson told The Daily Signal. “We’ve never used any information from him. I’m surprised Democrats are going anywhere near him.”
4. Text Messages
House Democrats, ahead of sending the two articles of impeachment Wednesday to the Senate, released copies of text messages between Parnas and Robert Hyde, a former Republican candidate for the House from Connecticut.
The messages appear to say that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—who Trump recalled from her post last year—had been under surveillance.
Yovanovitch, who testified during House impeachment hearings, remains employed by the State Department with no change in pay.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said the text messages “suggest a possible risk” to Yovanovitch’s security.
A screenshot of a handwritten note to Giuliani that Parnas provided to House Democrats said the priority was to “get Zalensky [sic] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”


dailysignal--2020-01-16--Kamala Harris, Advocacy Groups Push to Suspend Judicial Confirmations During Impeachment Trial

Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , and a coalition of left-wing advocacy groups are pressing Senate Republicans to suspend consideration of judicial nominations during President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
Harris , who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee , said it would be “ wholly inappropriate ” to confirm judges while the Senate considers whether Trump should be removed from office .
“ The president is charged with high crimes and misdemeanors , and the Senate must take seriously its constitutional role in this process , ” Harris said in a statement Wednesday .
“ During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , it would be wholly inappropriate to advance the president ’ s nominees to the federal judiciary.
” A coalition of 29 advocacy organizations sounded a similar note in a Jan. 7 letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , and Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , who chairs the Judiciary Committee .
The letter warned a president facing removal for “ assaulting the legitimacy of our elections ” should not appoint the judges who safeguard the political process .
“ Federal judges are appointed to positions that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law and the preservation of our constitutional democracy , ” the letter reads .
“ Federal judges have a unique role in protecting our most fundamental rights , including the right to vote.
” Signatories include advocacy groups such as the NAACP , Planned Parenthood Federation of America , and Sierra Club .
Historical practice indicates that judicial confirmations continued unabated when a sitting president was impeached or otherwise under investigation .
Between delivery of the Starr report and the impeachment proceedings of former President Bill Clinton , the Senate confirmed four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees .
The Senate even confirmed one of former President Richard Nixon ’ s judicial nominees the day he announced his resignation in 1974 .
Harris counters that no Clinton judicial nominee was confirmed between delivery of the impeachment articles and issuance of the Senate ’ s verdict .
Clinton ’ s trial ran from Jan. 7 , 1999 , to Feb. 12 , 1999 .
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to advance six more nominations to the Senate floor for final confirmation votes Thursday morning , including nominees for the 11th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court of International Trade , and federal trial courts in Arizona , Alaska , and Missouri .
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 [ email protected ]

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and a coalition of left-wing advocacy groups are pressing Senate Republicans to suspend consideration of judicial nominations during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
Harris, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it would be “wholly inappropriate” to confirm judges while the Senate considers whether Trump should be removed from office.
“The president is charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, and the Senate must take seriously its constitutional role in this process,” Harris said in a statement Wednesday. “During the time when articles of impeachment are before the Senate, it would be wholly inappropriate to advance the president’s nominees to the federal judiciary.”
A coalition of 29 advocacy organizations sounded a similar note in a Jan. 7 letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who chairs the Judiciary Committee. The letter warned a president facing removal for “assaulting the legitimacy of our elections” should not appoint the judges who safeguard the political process.
“Federal judges are appointed to positions that are the most central to maintaining the rule of law and the preservation of our constitutional democracy,” the letter reads. “Federal judges have a unique role in protecting our most fundamental rights, including the right to vote.”
Signatories include advocacy groups such as the NAACP, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Sierra Club.
Historical practice indicates that judicial confirmations continued unabated when a sitting president was impeached or otherwise under investigation.
Between delivery of the Starr report and the impeachment proceedings of former President Bill Clinton, the Senate confirmed four appeals court judges and 22 trial court nominees. The Senate even confirmed one of former President Richard Nixon’s judicial nominees the day he announced his resignation in 1974.
Harris counters that no Clinton judicial nominee was confirmed between delivery of the impeachment articles and issuance of the Senate’s verdict. Clinton’s trial ran from Jan. 7, 1999, to Feb. 12, 1999.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to advance six more nominations to the Senate floor for final confirmation votes Thursday morning, including nominees for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court of International Trade, and federal trial courts in Arizona, Alaska, and Missouri.
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--2020-01-16--Trump Administration Illegally Withheld Aid From Ukraine, GAO Finds

The Trump administration violated the law by withholding $ 214 million in security assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 2019 , according to a legal opinion by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office .
“ Today , GAO issued a legal decision concluding that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $ 214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine , ” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong said in a written statement Thursday .
“ OMB [ Office of Management and Budget ] told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a manner that could conflict with the President ’ s foreign policy , ’ ” Armstrong said .
“ The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons , ” he added , and said the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 grants the president “ narrow , limited authority to withhold appropriations.
” The White House Office of Management and Budget ordered the withholding of funds to Ukraine in summer 2019 amid President Donald Trump ’ s attempt to convince the Eastern European country to open an investigation into Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden , and the gas company he worked for , Burisma .
The GAO is an independent watchdog agency that works for Congress .
OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel rejected the legal opinion in a statement to The New York Times .
“ We disagree with GAO ’ s opinion , ” Semmel said .
“ OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President ’ s priorities and with the law.
” However , the GAO report stated that OMB and the State Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withholding of funds .
“ We will continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to the Congress after we have received the necessary information , ” the report states .
“ We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance.
” The GAO ’ s legal opinion comes as the Senate is preparing to hold a trial on whether to remove Trump from office .
House impeachment managers formally delivered two articles of impeachment to the Senate on Wednesday .
Multiple Senate Democrats said the GAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump abused his office for personal gain .
“ The GAO opinion is forceful and it is unambiguous : When President Trump froze congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine , he did so in violation of the law and the Constitution , ” Sen. Patrick Leahy , D-Vt. , said in a written statement .
“ It is the responsibility of the Senate to defend our Constitution ’ s carefully balanced separation of powers and , in doing so , judge whether President Trump abused his office for personal gain when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violation of the Impoundment Control Act , ” Leahy said .
Sen. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md.
, said Thursday that the GAO ’ s “ bombshell ” opinion shows that the Trump administration “ illegally withheld assistance from Ukraine and the public evidence shows that the president himself ordered this illegal act.
” 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 [ email protected ]

The Trump administration violated the law by withholding $214 million in security assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 2019, according to a legal opinion by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.
“Today, GAO issued a legal decision concluding that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine,” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong said in a written statement Thursday.
“OMB [Office of Management and Budget] told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,’” Armstrong said.
“The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons,” he added, and said the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 grants the president “narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget ordered the withholding of funds to Ukraine in summer 2019 amid President Donald Trump’s attempt to convince the Eastern European country to open an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, and the gas company he worked for, Burisma.
The GAO is an independent watchdog agency that works for Congress.
OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel rejected the legal opinion in a statement to The New York Times.
“We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”
However, the GAO report stated that OMB and the State Department have failed to provide information surrounding the withholding of funds.
“We will continue to pursue this matter and will provide our decision to the Congress after we have received the necessary information,” the report states. “We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance.”
The GAO’s legal opinion comes as the Senate is preparing to hold a trial on whether to remove Trump from office. House impeachment managers formally delivered two articles of impeachment to the Senate on Wednesday.
Multiple Senate Democrats said the GAO’s legal opinion provides further evidence that Trump abused his office for personal gain.
“The GAO opinion is forceful and it is unambiguous: When President Trump froze congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine, he did so in violation of the law and the Constitution,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a written statement.
“It is the responsibility of the Senate to defend our Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and, in doing so, judge whether President Trump abused his office for personal gain when he withheld Congressionally-appropriated funds from an ally in violation of the Impoundment Control Act,” Leahy said.
As Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have some thoughts on the GAO’s powerful decision this morning, just BREAKING NOW: pic.twitter.com/PNgPJ7spJJ — Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) January 16, 2020
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said Thursday that the GAO’s “bombshell” opinion shows that the Trump administration “illegally withheld assistance from Ukraine and the public evidence shows that the president himself ordered this illegal act.”
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.