Trump: Why Didn’t Obama Do Anything About Something I Said Never Existed?

Donald Trump denied on more than one occasion that the Russians attempted to meddle in the 2016 election even as late as a few days ago. Once the story broke in The Washington Post about Obama’s lack of a response to the meddling, President Trump took on a whole new outlook.

Going back over 2016, Donald Trump denied Russian involvement in election interference on a number of occasions:

September 2016During the first presidential debate, Trump made his first public denial.

October 2016During the second presidential debate, Trump suggested there was no hacking at all and why Russia was blamed.

December 2016After the election, Trump rejected a CIA assessment that said Russia intervened in the election in the hopes he’d win. “I don’t believe it.”

December 2016Trump’s transition team dumped on the CIA pointing to their assessment that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction

It wasn’t until the DNI released a report that said the NSA, CIA, and FBI all agreed that Russia meddled in the election that Trump was forced to acknowledge the obvious.

That didn’t stop Trump from occasionally tweeting it was all a “hoax” or “made up.”

All of that suddenly changed when the Washington Post released their story revealing President Obama didn’t take action against Russia because he was concerned about the political impact.

Trump tweeted the following in response:

What meddling, Mr. President? A day earlier he was still calling it a hoax:

I am sure the President’s loyal followers will claim he is engaged in another brilliant scheme to throw his accusers off base when in reality he doesn’t think. He reacts. When asked about his sudden turnabout, he’ll likely deny the interference again but say if it happened, Obama should have done something.

In other words, it will be a day that ends in ‘y.’

The post Trump: Why Didn’t Obama Do Anything About Something I Said Never Existed? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Bernie and Jane Sanders Under FBI Investigation For Bank Fraud

Bernie Sanders plays up his support for the “little guy” more than any politician alive. The Vermont socialist who wants to give everybody in the United States everything for “free” without detailing how he’d pay for it, may be in trouble for using his authority to strong-arm a bank into providing a loan to some somebody not qualified to receive it.

From CBS:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders’ top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents’ allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People’s United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders’ office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby “Scooter” Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.

Joe wrote of this when it first broke citing Sanders dismissal of it as nothing more than an exercise in partisanship. Apparently the F.B.I. doesn’t think so.

Distorting donor levels and using the power of a Senator’s office to secure a $10 million loan, certainly doesn’t sound something a “man of the people” would do.

Heck, it looks like something Donald Trump would do. We all know how Bernie would react if that were the case.

The post Bernie and Jane Sanders Under FBI Investigation For Bank Fraud appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


In 2016, Barack Obama Chose Politics Favoring Hillary Clinton, Over National Security

President Obama blinked after engaging in a stare-down with Russian President Vladimir Putin and in doing so, reveals that he was more interested in the political ramifications of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

If you remember, President Obama held a news conference in the middle of December following the election, claiming he told Putin on election interference, to “cut it out.” The President, doing his best impersonation of Rober De Niro as Al Capone in ‘The Untouchables’ (“Somebody messed with me, I’m going to mess with him.”) also said he sent a message to the Kremlin saying, “we can do stuff to you.”

It was all an act. 

The Washington Post published a lengthy story detailing the Obama administration response to Russian interference, and the story is quite startling, especially when Obama, informed in August 2016 of the interference, effectively did nothing, even after being told Putin was going to continue. Options presented to the President included:

The early options they discussed were ambitious. They looked at sectorwide economic sanctions and cyberattacks that would take Russian networks temporarily offline. One official informally suggested — though never formally proposed — moving a U.S. naval carrier group into the Baltic Sea as a symbol of resolve.

Following that is this eye-popping revelation:

What those lower-level officials did not know was that the principals and their deputies had by late September all but ruled out any pre-election retaliation against Moscow. They feared that any action would be seen as political and that Putin, motivated by a seething resentment of Clinton, was prepared to go beyond fake news and email dumps.

It’s insanity on a level that’s hard to comprehend. Essentially, Barack Obama failed to act because he was too afraid Vladimir Putin might release information that might be more damaging to Democrats and particularly, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Obama administration, believing at that point Hillary was going to win, decided it was better to sit back and do nothing, rather than risk the scorn of Donald Trump whining about the election being “rigged.” Why would it matter? Trump blathered about the process as “rigged” going back to the primary.

People can say, “What about the measures the administration took at the end of December?” From the Post story:

But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Emphasis mine. The package had nothing to do with the Russia’s interference with the election, but that’s how the administration sold it.

This escapade reveals that while Obama administration thought Hillary would win, but they were not convinced. If they were certain she’d win, they’d have done something about Russia’s meddling. Obama did not.

He allowed politics to overtake his role as Commander-In-Chief and that’s a legacy for which he should be ashamed.

The post In 2016, Barack Obama Chose Politics Favoring Hillary Clinton, Over National Security appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Nebraska Democrat Caught On Tape Saying He’s Glad Scalise Was Shot

What kind of person outside social media trolls say they’re glad Rep. Steve Scalise was shot? A Nebraska Democrat and party official (since fired) did.

Here is the story from a local Nebraska news station:

A Nebraska Democratic Party official is now in hot water. An audio recording was posted on YouTube Thursday with Phil Montag, a technology chairman, voicing how glad he was that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., got shot last week at a GOP baseball practice. Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb confirmed to FOX 42 News Thursday it was really his voice.

“His whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to (expletive) kick people off (expletive) health care. I’m glad he got shot,” said Montag in the audio recording.

Montag is now looking for a new job; Kleeb let him go after the recording became public.

“I wish he was (expletive) dead,” said Montag in the recording.

When you combine this with Senator Elizabeth Warren saying the GOP Senate health care plan is “blood money,” there is a recipe for disaster.

Why is the media not continuing to talk about the shooting and the “extreme political rhetoric?” In the wake of a politically motivated shooting, Democrats are claiming the AHCA will “kill” people and they’re not reporting it yet weeks after Gabby Giffords was shot, the media was still talking about “rhetoric” when her shooting had nothing to do with politics.

The media double standard is astounding.

 

The post Nebraska Democrat Caught On Tape Saying He’s Glad Scalise Was Shot appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Trump Tapes: His Twitter Buffoonery Gets Him In Trouble and For What?

Trump implied he had tapes of his and James Comey’s conversations and the hilarious narrative making the rounds is he did it on purpose. The only people buying that line are sycophants and reflexive defenders who do so because Democrats suck and the media is terrible.

Trump isn’t that clever. He’s impulsive, impetuous and has thinner skin than his predecessor. That people take the result and try to work a Memento narrative to where the start is part of some brilliant scheme on Trump’s part is about as credible as an email from a Nigerian barrister informing of the riches that await if only they could have your bank account information.

Here is Trump’s tweet that got the ball rolling:

Trump, feeding off the narrative of his supporters said in an interview with Fox News he was just trying to keep Comey honest before his testimony which is laughable. For all of the blather that Trump was again playing a form of chess and had all the right moves, why did he deny two of the allegations raised by Comey in his testimony?

Trump denied he ever asked Comey about an oath of loyalty. It was true. 

Trump denied he ever asked Comey to back of the investigation of Michael Flynn. It was true. 

If Trump was being the cunning schemer people are suggesting, why would he deny allegations he knew to be true and would come out in Comey’s testimony?

I get that people want to think the best of Trump, believing he has a plastic mustache he puts on his face to twist as he leaves a trail of enemy destruction behind him, but it’s just absurd, especially when I see intelligent people buying into all of it. Trump’s lack of impulse control gets him into trouble. It is not tactical.

It just isn’t normal for a President to be so consumed with the petty issues on a daily basis, but he is. People keep pointing the finger at the media for a Russia “obsession” but it is the President who cannot stop tweeting about it. Instead of allowing the official statement about the appointment of Robert Mueller stand after his appointment as special counsel, Trump couldn’t help himself. The next morning, Trump tweeted it was all a “witch hunt.”

Time is growing short. The question isn’t if Trump will say something negative about Robert Mueller on Twitter. The question is how long can he hold out?

When it happens, we’ll be right back to the same debate.

The post Trump Tapes: His Twitter Buffoonery Gets Him In Trouble and For What? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Elizabeth Warren Irresponsibly Tweets The Senate Healthcare Bill Is “Blood Money”

Steve Scalise is still in the hospital, recovering from gunshot wounds suffered after an angry Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on the Republican baseball practice.

In the wake of that shooting, the media in their infinite wisdom resurrected talk of political rhetoric, how dangerous it is and how it contributed to the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011. Except, of course, it did not. Giffords shooting had nothing at all to do with political rhetoric, but the media and others were happy to use the Scalise incident to wag a finger at “both sides” and warn of the consequences.

I cannot wait to see the reaction to this tweet by Senator Elizabeth Warren:

Maybe Senator Warren’s social media interns are too young and therefore too ignorant to understand what the phrase “blood money” means. Typically, it means a payment of some sort made to the next of kin of a murder victim or money paid to a hired killer.

What a United States Senator is saying in this tweet is, “The Republican health care bill is going to kill people and the money saved will be used to fund tax cuts for the Republican’s wealthy friends.”

Isn’t this irresponsible? Whenever one talks about actions of one causing harm to another, are there not people out there who think they have a responsibility to step in and do something?

If not, why not? Elizabeth Warren is saying the GOP will kill people with their health care plan. The price of tax cuts for “the wealthy” will be paid for by the blood of those who die as a result of this bill becoming law.

Right? Isn’t that what’s she saying? If not, what is she saying?

And will she defend it?

 

The post Elizabeth Warren Irresponsibly Tweets The Senate Healthcare Bill Is “Blood Money” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Buzzfeed Title: Documents Leaked by Manning Did No Harm! Story: Yes, It Did!

The differentiation between headlines and the story are often amazing to see. For years, pro-Wikileaks people have argued the release of the documents by Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks who then publicly displayed them didn’t harm national security.

A new story published by Buzzfeed appears to confirm that point of view. The story is entitled:

Secret Government Report: Chelsea Manning Leaks Caused No Real Harm

In a culture where people are prone to read headlines and not the content of the story it appears to be pretty damning, does it not?

“Hey, the government is saying it caused no harm! Now, what are you going to say?”

Except, when reading the story, it doesn’t back up the title:

The heavily redacted report also determined that a different set of documents published the same year, relating to the US war in Afghanistan, would not result in “significant impact” to US operations. It did, however, have the potential to cause “serious damage” to “intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population,” and US and NATO intelligence collection efforts. The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”

Emphasis mine.

So what’s with the title? Go back to the start of the piece, and it says the following:

It says the disclosures were largely insignificant and did not cause any real harm to US interests.

This is hair splitting on a major level. The leaks may not have impacted the United States directly, but what good is having cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors if they’re going to wind up dead because of Manning’s actions?

Chalk it up as another reason why the media is so distrusted.

 

The post Buzzfeed Title: Documents Leaked by Manning Did No Harm! Story: Yes, It Did! appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Trump Job Approval At 36 Percent and Here’s Why He’s To Blame

Donald Trump and Republicans exhibit weakness when they blame the media and Democrats for their problems. Trump never takes responsibility for his problems. Unfortunately for him, the public doesn’t want to hear his whining, and they’re expressing it in job approval numbers that parallel George W. Bush towards the end of his presidency.

A new CBS poll came out today, and Trump’s support is at the lowest point since he took office in January:

President Trump’s job approval rating has dipped in recent weeks, pushed down by negative reaction to his handling of the Russia investigations, and he’s seen some slippage among Republicans as well. A third of Americans say his approach to the issue has made their opinion of him worse, and his handling of that matter gets lower marks than any of his others, like the economy or terrorism, for which he rates higher.

Americans of all stripes do seem inclined to want to get to the bottom of things: most believe that the Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation will be impartial, and that the president should not do anything to try to stop it — a view that also runs across partisan lines.

It is easy for people to blame others as Senator Ted Cruz did this morning on Fox and Friends.:

This is all a political circus at this point. Democrats, and much of the liberal media are using this as an an excuse just to attack the president. They want this president to fail, they want the administration to fail. That is really unfortunate.

Spare me, Senator.

Let’s retake a step in time to try and gain an understanding of where we are and why we are here:

Who was it that hired Paul Manafort and used Carter Page as an advisor despite their ties to Russia that could prove to be problematic?

Who was it that shouted at campaign stops, “I love Wikileaks!” and would then read from hacked emails? Emails everybody in the IC knows to Wikileaks via Russian hackers?

Who steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Russia tried to interfere with our election process even after being shown a report from the DNI stating the NSA, CIA, and FBI all believed Russia sought to interfere and that their preference in the election was one, Donald J. Trump?

Who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge what the intelligence community concluded?

Who was it that brought in Michael Flynn as his National Security Adviser, knowing he was already under investigation by the FBI?

Who was it that chose an Attorney General who had to recuse himself from any involvement in the inquiry because of his contact with the Russian ambassador during the campaign?

Who was it that tweeted nonsense about President Obama tapping his phones in Trump Tower before the election?

Who was it that asked his FBI director for an oath of loyalty?

Who was it that asked his FBI director to back to off the investigation of Michael Flynn?

Who was it that kept behaving as though the FBI director was supposed to be his PR person?

Who was it that fired James Comey, claiming he did it on the advice of Rod Rosenstein and then changed his mind saying he did it all on his own?

He undermined his own Deputy Attorney General to the point he had no choice but to appoint a Special Counsel?

Who was it the day after Robert Mueller was named, took to Twitter and called the investigation a witch hunt?

Who is it that continually calls the Russian interference into our election a “made up story” and a “hoax” perpetrated by Democrats despite acknowledging the intelligence community’s report that Russia did indeed attempt to interfere?

The answer to every single one of these questions is, of course, President Donald Trump.

In the same CBS poll, Trump’s approval on the Russia investigation is 28 percent. Does anybody for a second think it’s entirely the fault of the “liberal media” and the Democrats for this putrid number?

When asked who people trust more:

The President disputed former FBI Director James Comey’s account of their private meetings, and who Americans believe is driven by partisanship. Overall, most Americans (57 percent) believe Comey more. Most Republicans (64 percent) believe the president — though a quarter do not — while Democrats (84 percent) and Independents (55 percent) believe Comey.

25 percent of Republicans believe Comey is more trustworthy than Trump. Again, the liberal media? Democrats?

The president problems are of his making because he cannot allow any slight, no matter how minor to go unaddressed. Whereas Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton let staff and a communications team handle the usual nonsense related to presidential administrations, Trump can’t stop tweeting when he thinks he’s been wronged. The latter three got things done because they didn’t sweat the small stuff. Donald Trump consumes his presidency with the little things.

His impetuous nature along with being the most thin-skinned man alive and an inability, to tell the truth, is the reason he’s below 40 percent in job approval polls.

The post Trump Job Approval At 36 Percent and Here’s Why He’s To Blame appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Howard Dean’s Tweet About the Free Beacon Shows Why He’s a Clown and Not President

Howard Dean will never be President and will be remembered more for a scream than anything else. Often, Dean reveals that while he’s obviously an intelligent man (he is a medical doctor, after all), he sometimes says the dumbest things.

Washington Free Beacon reporter Brent Scher is in Georgia to cover the race between Karen Handel and Jon Ossoff. Ossoff’s campaign had an event last night, and his campaign wouldn’t allow Scher to go in. He tweeted:

It’s ironic coming from a Democrat, especially as they have lambasted the Trump administration for its treatment of the press. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post (soon he will be with The Daily Beast) tweeted the following in support of Scher:

He’s right. The Free Beacon, while leaning right, is legitimate mainstream news outlet with quality reporters who break big stories. It’s not Breitbart or Gateway Pundit.

Along comes Howard Dean to unload his unique brand of asininity:

Dean was asked to provide examples of the so-called “fake news” and “propaganda, ” but he never replied. Of course, he didn’t. Apparently, being a doctor gives him the ability, unlike others, to talk out of his rear end.

Dean should read this piece from Mother Jones since he’s obviously been spending too much time reading Daily Kos diaries to separate fact from fiction.

The post Howard Dean’s Tweet About the Free Beacon Shows Why He’s a Clown and Not President appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Stakes In GA-06 Are Big; Bigger Than Any Other Special Election This Year

Voters go to the polls today in Georgia’s sixth congressional district for a special election. Polls heading into voting day show the race is a dead heat. Karen Handel or Jon Ossoff will win at the end of the day, and the results may be a harbinger of things to come.

The district has a long history with Democrats owning the seat from 1845 all the way until 1978 when thirty-five-year-old Newt Gingrich won the seat. He held it until 1999 when he retired. After that, Johhny Isakson held the position until he ran for the Senate in 2004. Tom Price has held it since, and when President Trump nominated him to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, the seat opened up.

The race is a referendum on the Presidency of Donald Trump, young as it may be.

Ironically, neither Republican Karen Handel nor Democrat Jon Ossoff spends much time talking about the President. Ossoff, with a lot of donations received from outside the district, is running a campaign that is more reminiscent of a moderate Republican, than a Democrat with ads emphasizing his willingness to cut spending and eliminate waste and fraud in government programs. Ossoff’s priorities page discusses healthcare, but Obamacare doesn’t merit a single mention.

Ossoff is hoping to attract crossover Republican voters in a district won by Donald Trump with a slim margin over Hillary Clinton. Based on polling data, Handel won’t come close to matching Price’s near 62% of the vote he received in 2016, the lowest since he first ran in 2004. A defeat will be especially embarrassing for Handel. She failed to secure the nomination in two state-wide races (one for Governor, the other for the Senate) and allowing the seat to return to Democrats for the first time in nearly 40 years will give Democrats a big boost going into 2018.

Make no mistake, Handel losing will be directly attributed to President Trump. Trump’s defenders will say Handel’s refusal to embrace Trump is responsible for her loss, but that makes little sense in light of Trump’s average job approval rating of 40 percent (and that’s due in part to the outlier of Rasmussen showing Trump’s job approval at 48 percent). Her loss will give Democrats reason to believe they can take back the House in 2018 with the Senate being a long-shot.

Democrats are convinced even if Handel wins by a slim margin; it gives them momentum. That’s where I part ways with conventional wisdom. The race is expensive with $50 million being spent by both sides. Since January, Ossoff took in more than $23 million, most of it from outside the state. If he cannot mount a campaign to win after raising that much cash, there are no moral victories. If Ossoff wins, it is big news. If he loses, it becomes just another congressional race next year.

With all of the money spent and with all of the media attention focused on this race, the President and his team will be watching closely as will the Democrats. A win by Handel, regardless of margin, is a win.

A win by Ossoff will be a disaster for Republicans and give a significant boost of confidence to Democrats.

The post The Stakes In GA-06 Are Big; Bigger Than Any Other Special Election This Year appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State