Archive for the ‘Trump appointments’ category

The Truth About John Bolton, The Iraq War and WMD Diplomacy

November 23, 2016

The Truth About John Bolton, The Iraq War and WMD Diplomacy, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, November 23, 2016

bolton1

Source: Breitbart News Network

You’re probably heard the criticism of Ambassador John Bolton by the left that he would not be a good choice to be the next Secretary of State because Bolton was an architect of the Iraq War and a hawk who has little use for diplomacy.

This is completely false. The truth is that Bolton was frozen out of Iraq War planning. This criticism also ignores Bolton’s successful diplomacy as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security to pressure rogue states to comply with WMD treaties and his work as UN ambassador to take strong and meaningful action in the UN Security Council against WMD proliferation and terrorism.

The record shows John Bolton had little to do with promoting the Iraq war or war planning. Check out the State Department’s archive page of Bolton’s speeches, op-eds in 2002 and early 2003. You won’t find anything calling for military action against Iraq.

Bolton was not involved in any decision-making or planning for the Iraq War because Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage froze him out. As Bolton’s chief of staff, I witnessed this first hand. I remember well how State Department offices were told by Powell’s and Armitage’s staffs not to share any information with Bolton and his staff about Iraq war planning.

Looking back on this, Bolton believes Powell did him a favor. He says on pages 165-166 of his 2007 book Surrender is Not an Option:

I played no significant decision-making role on Iraq policy, because Powell and Armitage largely excluded me from these issues, no doubt fearing that my views would be similar to Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s and not their own.  It was the greatest favor Powell ever did for me, utterly unintentionally, to be sure, and my Iraq-related activities were only at the margins of the central decisions.

I believe Bolton’s liberal critics are falsely portraying Bolton as an architect of the Iraq War for two reasons.

First, they want to obscure his successful diplomatic efforts to address cheating on WMD treaties by rogue states. Bolton did this by calling out major violators of treaties to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention.

 Bolton also negotiated the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a global effort now composed of 103 countries to stop and interdict shipments of WMD technology to rogue states. PSI’s most important success occurred in September 2003 when it led to the inspection of a ship transporting nuclear technology to Libya. This interdiction was a major reason why Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi decided to give up his WMD programs.

And second, after holding three confirmed foreign policy positions and a reputation for toughness, John Bolton is the last person the foreign policy establishment wants to see leading the State Department. They know he has an intimate knowledge of the State bureaucracy and will exercise the leadership to ensure it implements the president’s policies. The foreign policy establishment is only too aware that no one is better qualified to drain the swamp at State than John Bolton.

In short, the Iraq War architect argument that Bolton’s opponents are using against him is a ruse intended to play on Mr. Trump’s opposition to the Iraq War. I am confident that as President-elect Donald Trump and his team look at John Bolton’s entire record, they will see a man committed to making America safe again with a sophisticated understanding of national security who knows how to be tough and how to use diplomacy.  They also will find someone who will work hard and loyally to bring the Trump revolution to the State Department and the world.

RIGHT ANGLE: Mattis for SECDEF?

November 23, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Mattis for SECDEF? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, November 22, 2016

The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

November 22, 2016

The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back, Center For Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, Jr., November 22, 2016

lie

Source: Breitbart

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Will Team Trump Air Obama’s Iran Secrets?

November 21, 2016

Will Team Trump Air Obama’s Iran Secrets? Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, November 21, 2016

For years, Republicans and conservatives have charged that President Obama has shielded embarrassing intelligence and other information regarding Iran in order to limit opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and Obama’s conciliatory approach to Tehran. The charge seems well-founded. After all, it took Sens. Tom Cotton and Rep. Mike Pompeo to discover secret side agreements attached to the nuclear deal.

Eli Lake suggests that the Trump administration may well stop covering for the mullahs. Certainly, as Lake argues, Trump’s early high level personnel picks suggest so.

Trump’s nominee for CIA Director is none other than Mike Pompeo. Not only did he and Sen. Cotton uncover side deals to the nuclear agreement, he also pressed hard for answers about the cash payments the U.S. delivered to the mullahs in exchange for the release of hostages.

Pompeo wrote to Attorney General Lynch asking for answers as to how the cash payments were approved by the Justice Department. Lynch stonewalled him. Perhaps Jeff Sessions will be more cooperative.

Mike Flynn is the other key appointment for purposes of airing Obama’s Iran secrets. Lake points out that in 2011 General Flynn ran a team at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that reviewed the troves of material captured in the 2011 Osama bin Laden raid.

Under Obama, only a small fraction of these documents have been declassified and released. After he retired from the military, Flynn charged that the disclosures were selective.

Flynn noted, for example, that some documents captured in the bin Laden raid show a much tighter relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda than previously disclosed. In The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies (written with Micheal Ledeen), Flynn states: “One letter to bin Laden reveals that al-Qaeda was working on chemical and biological weapons in Iran.”

Given Obama’s desire to deal with Iran and, indeed, for a rapprochement, you can see why the administration shielded such intelligence. Given the well-deserved contempt by Pompeo and Flynn for Obama’s Iran policy, you can see why they might want relevant facts to come to light. As a general matter, these are facts the public has a right to know.

If such facts are made public, Obama won’t have much standing to complain. Lake reminds us:

Obama himself in 2008 campaigned against the sitting president’s policies on waterboarding and enhanced interrogation. One of the first things his government did when he took office was to declassify and release the legal memos that justified and revoked these practices.

It looks like the Republicans are about to return the favor.

Hamas-linked CAIR urges Trump to “cut ties” with “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist”

November 19, 2016

Hamas-linked CAIR urges Trump to “cut ties” with “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist,” Jihad Watch,

America’s largest Muslim advocacy organization urged President-elect Donald Trump to cut ties with a national security adviser the group described as an “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist.”

The Hill doesn’t mention the Hamas ties and opposition to counter-terror efforts of “America’s largest Muslim advocacy organization.” The “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist” in question is Frank Gaffney. Considering that the source of this label is CAIR, it’s a compliment to Gaffney. Islamic supremacists and their leftist enablers are now quaking in their boots at the mere thought of Trump in the White House — all the more because he is surrounding himself with strategists who support freedom, democracy and Israel. CAIR’s gig as flourishing unindicted co-conspirators may well be drawing to a close.

gaffneyFrank Gaffney

“Muslim group to Trump: Drop ‘anti-Islam conspiracy theorist’ as adviser,” by Mark Hensch, the Hill, November 18, 2016:

America’s largest Muslim advocacy organization urged President-elect Donald Trump to cut ties with a national security adviser the group described as an “anti-Islam conspiracy theorist.”

“Discredited conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney should not come within 100 miles of any administration that seeks to maintain credibility on the world stage or uphold longstanding American values of religious diversity and inclusion,” Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement Wednesday.

“With these kinds of associations, President-elect Trump is dividing America at a time when we are most in need of unity.”

Reports emerged Tuesday that Trump’s transition team has added Gaffney as a national security adviser.

Gaffney, who served in the Pentagon under former President Ronald Reagan, is now a radio host and founder of the Center for Security Policy.

Reports added that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and former Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) also joined Trump’s transition team alongside Gaffney. The trio was brought on after former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and lobbyist Michael Freedman were fired earlier this week.

Gaffney reportedly backed the theory that President Obama is Muslim and born outside the U.S. The former Reagan administration official has also insisted the government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, describes Gaffney as “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.”

Gaffney told Breitbart News Daily the day after Trump’s White House win the billionaire should focus on curbing Muslim Brotherhood influence on the U.S. when he takes office, saying an early goal should be “stopping, designating, rolling up the Muslim Brotherhood in America as the terrorist organization it is.”

“It’s going to be vital to everything else he’s trying to do. We’ve got to stop taking counsel from them, direction from them, and allowing them to operate in our midst subversively, and that’s what’s been going on for some 50 years now,” he said…

Freakout by Elizabeth Warren [Updated]

November 19, 2016

Freakout by Elizabeth Warren [Updated], Power LinePaul Mirengoff, November 18, 2016

The left is going to make attacking Jeff Sessions the cornerstone of its early resistance to Donald Trump. Elizabeth Warren, a possible presidential contender in 2020, sounded the call almost immediately, asserting a moral imperative to block Sessions’ confirmation.

The alleged moral imperative is based on stale and, in some cases, disputed claims of mildly racist comments that were alleged 30 years ago when Sessions was denied confirmation for a federal judgeship. Warren stated:

Thirty years ago, a different Republican Senate rejected Senator Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship. In doing so, that Senate affirmed that there can be no compromise with racism; no negotiation with hate. Today, a new Republican Senate must decide whether self-interest and political cowardice will prevent them from once again doing what is right.

But did the Senate get it right 30 years ago? Arlen Specter, who cast the deciding vote against Sessions, later concluded it did not. Specter, who has never big on confessing error, called his vote a “mistake” that “remains one of my biggest regrets.”

Specter was right. Let’s look beyond disputed allegations about stray remarks to Sessions’ record.

Mark Hemingway points out:

As a U.S. Attorney, [Sessions] filed several cases to desegregate schools in Alabama. And he also prosecuted the head of the state Klan, Henry Francis Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager selected at random. Sessions insisted on the death penalty for Hays.

When he was later elected the state Attorney General, Sessions followed through and made sure Hays was executed. The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan, effectively breaking the back of the KKK in Alabama.

In Warren’s terms, Sessions refused to compromise with racism and negotiate with hate.

Sessions also voted across party lines to confirm Eric Holder as the first African-American U.S. Attorney General. If he were a racist, it would have been easy for Sessions to join the 21 of his conservative Republican colleagues who voted “no” on Holder’s confirmation.

At the time Sessions said he was sure Holder would be “a responsible legal officer and not a politician.” Even the best Senators make mistakes.

Opposition to Jeff Sessions isn’t a protest against racism. Even Sen. Warren must know that Sessions isn’t a racist.

The attack on this good man is in part an attempt to lash out at Donald Trump and in part an effort to rile up African-American voters who, collectively, weren’t sufficiently riled to deliver the votes Hillary Clinton needed in cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

In Warren’s case, this probably is also an attempt to boost her credentials with civil rights leaders in case she runs for president. (Ironically, Sessions and Warren have something in common; both were elected to the Senate after failing to be confirmed by that body.)

The Democrats don’t have the votes to block Sessions’ confirmation. Thanks to rules changes pushed through by Harry Reid, it no longer requires 60 votes to confirm presidential appointees.

The filibuster is dead when it comes to such confirmations. Posturing is alive and well.

UPDATE: Watch Tucker Carlson take on Roll Call’s Jonathan Allen on the issue of alleged racism by Sessions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp7jyFzflW4

 

Sessions Looks to Face Tougher Grilling for Attorney General Job Than Trump’s CIA Pick

November 19, 2016

Sessions Looks to Face Tougher Grilling for Attorney General Job Than Trump’s CIA Pick, PJ MediaBridget Johnson, November 18, 2016

confirmationsThen-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), chat during committee meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 13, 2010. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s nominations to lead the Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency received mixed reactions today, with the harshest criticism from Democrats reserved for the position that will not come before the Senate for confirmation — national security advisor.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was the first senator to endorse Trump, and in the 1980s and early ’90s was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

After the news broke of Trump’s pick for the nation’s top cop, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said Sessions “will make a great attorney general.”

“The attorney general has the responsibility to act as an independent public servant who will uphold the law and keep our communities safe,” Toomey said. “Jeff will do just that.”

“Jeff has been a strong advocate for our men and women in uniform, and for our nation’s safety and security,” Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said. “He has also shown a willingness to listen to and work with senators on both sides of the aisle. I support his nomination to be the next attorney general, and I look forward to his timely and fair hearing in the Senate.”

The chairman who will preside over that hearing, Judiciary Committee leader Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), predicted Sessions’ nomination will pass the committee.

“Sen. Sessions is a respected member and former ranking member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked across the aisle on major legislation,” Grassley said. “He knows the Justice Department as a former U.S. attorney, which would serve him very well in this position.”

Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said “the American people deserve to learn about Senator Sessions’ record at the public Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.”

“The attorney general must be independent and fair. The attorney general must be deeply committed to the rule of law and must ensure that all people are treated equally before the law. This means that he or she is also the chief protector of civil rights and civil liberties for everyone in our nation,” Leahy said. “That has never been more important than in this moment, when hate crimes have spiked across the country, especially against Muslim and LGBTQ Americans. And when we have a president-elect who has proposed religious tests, a return to torture, and a deportation force that threatens to remove millions of immigrants.”

Leahy acknowledged he and Sessions “have had significant disagreements over the years, particularly on civil rights, voting rights, immigration and criminal justice issues,” but “unlike Republicans’ practice of unprecedented obstruction of President Obama’s nominees, I believe nominees deserve a full and fair process before the Senate.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who will be the top Judiciary Dem in the next Congress, stressed that “the attorney general is the lawyer for the people, not the president.”

“His or her primary loyalty must be to the Constitution and the rule of law — and sometimes that means telling the president no,” she said. “Senator Sessions has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years so he’s well aware of the thorough vetting he’s about to receive.”

Trump picked Tea Party Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), a member of the House Intelligence Committee and the Select Committee on Benghazi, to lead the CIA. He served in the Army and was an attorney before entering Congress in 2011.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said he was “confident” that Pompeo’s nomination “will be widely supported within the CIA.”

“Mike has spent an immense amount of time in the field all across the world meeting with our intelligence professionals and service members on behalf of the House Intelligence Committee,” Nunes said. “One of the most respected voices in the House of Representatives on national security issues, Mike will undoubtedly develop a close working relationship with Congress in his new post.”

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who quit Trump’s transition team on Monday, said that “once confirmed,,” Pompeo’s “military and legal backgrounds will serve him well in one of the United States government’s most demanding jobs.”

“As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I watched how Mike Pompeo worked. Smartly, deliberately, and quietly,” Rogers added. “That ethos will fit in perfectly at CIA.”

The leading Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), told CNN that Pompeo is “very well qualified” and “a solid pick.”

“A very smart guy. Hard working. He can be partisan. We’ve certainly had our differences over Benghazi. But I’m confident he’ll put that aside,” Schiff said. “The CIA role is a role of supplying the best intelligence to the administration and the Congress. And I know he’ll play a very good role and do a very good job.”

Schiff, who said he’d spoken with Pompeo already to offer his congratulations, said he thinks the Kansas lawmaker’s nomination won’t be all that controversial with Senate Dems.

“There will certainly be apprehension about the very vocal role in Benghazi. He was among just a couple of members to file a dissenting report to even the majority report, not feeling the majority report was strong enough,” he noted. “But he’s a very talented guy. I think he will do his homework. He’ll do the very best to manage the agency well. I have a lot of confidence in his abilities.”

Schiff wasn’t feeling so positive about Trump’s pick for national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

“One, on a lot of policy matters, his views really scare me, frankly. He has difficult time differentiating between the entire faith of Islam and those who pervert it, like al-Qaeda and ISIS. A lot of his statements are inflammatory that play into the narrative that ISIS has that it’s the West against Islam. Very concerned about that,” the top House Intelligence Dem continued.

“Also, profound questions about his temperament. This is someone, I think, at DIA, had a reputation of being very hotheaded. Not a consensus builder. In the NSA position, you need to bring together disparate voices within the national security infrastructure to come together on tough policy. Those aren’t really his skills… in running an agency, in tamping down the impulsive nature of the president-elect, to have another volatile character in the Oval Office scares me.”

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, noted that “Trump has vowed to be a president for all Americans, but, with his selection of General Flynn, I don’t think he is making good on that promise.”

“I know that General Flynn and I are united in our goal of defeating and destroying ISIS, but the inflammatory and hateful remarks he has made only further fuel those who wish to do us harm,” Carper said. “In order to continue to take the fight to ISIS on the battlefield, we must be ready to keep working with Muslim Americans as well as our allies abroad from predominantly Muslim countries, and offensive generalizations about Islam are not only uncalled for, but entirely unproductive.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Ben Cardin (D-Md.), sponsor of the Magnitsky Act signed in 2012 to sanction Russian officials involved in the death of whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, said he’s “disturbed by General Flynn’s relationships and ties with Russian actors,” among other issues.

“I am concerned about General Flynn’s relationship with RT, a television network funded by the Russian government and well-known for promoting the Kremlin’s political agenda, but which Flynn has characterized as no different than CNN or MSNBC. General Flynn was paid to attend RT’s 10-year anniversary gala in Russia, where he gave a talk on world affairs and was photographed sitting next to Russian President Vladimir Putin – a photograph Mr. Putin has used repeatedly to promote his own causes,” Cardin said. “…I have serious questions about the fact that while General Flynn was sitting in on the classified national security briefings given to Donald Trump since August 2016, his lobbying firm, the Flynn Intel Group, was providing foreign government clients with ‘all-source intelligence support.’”

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of Trump’s transition team, told MSNBC today that Trump “is taking a non-traditional and unexpected approach.”

Asked about Flynn’s assertions that people are talking too tough on Russia and Vladimir Putin, Blackburn replied, “What we have to do is look at the fact that Russia is intertwining themselves with other countries. Whether it is China, whether it is Iran, whether it is other nation states, if you will, who have cyber warfare units. So Russia is not singular unto itself. And having individuals there that understand the way these threats move, the way they coalesce and form their participations I think is important.”

“Looking at China and their propensity for embedding hardware. Indeed, The New York Times had an article in this week about their embedding spyware into their hardware, and looking at these points of vulnerability in the virtual space,” Blackburn added. “That is something that you want your NSA director and your CIA director to have an appreciation and an understanding for as well as the physical threat.”

Crying Wolf on Race: Top Sessions Critic Gerry Hebert Has History of Making it Up

November 19, 2016

Crying Wolf on Race: Top Sessions Critic Gerry Hebert Has History of Making it Up, PJ MediaJ. Christian Adams, November 18, 2016

sessions

Gerry Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues — so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert’s voting cases.

Reporters like Cameron Joseph at the New York Daily News (@cam_joseph) have already used quotes from Gerry Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, to portray Senator Sessions as a racist. Almost 30 years ago, Hebert and his allies in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department were responsible for sabotaging a judicial nomination for Sessions.

gerry-hebertGerry Hebert

The reporters using Hebert as a source do not mention Hebert’s history of making up stories about purported racism, yet documentation of that history is easily located in the public record. Hebert’s exaggerations about racism in one federal court case resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.

As I wrote in my book Injustice, Hebert is not to be trusted as a credible source:

In United States v. Jones, the Voting Section was sanctioned $86,626 for bringing a frivolous case in Alabama. The DOJ brought the suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to block over fifty white voters from participating in an election in a majority black district.The appeals court ruled that the lawsuit was filed “without conducting a proper investigation of its truth [and was] unconscionable … Hopefully, we will not again be faced with reviewing a case as carelessly instigated as this one.”

You can read the entire scolding Hebert received from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — for bringing a flimsy case that relied on trumped-up exaggerations about racism — here.

The court ruled:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters …Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination made by the United States.

We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.

So ironically — or of course — the media rushed to press using Gerry Hebert as THEcredible source on perhaps THE ONE TOPIC where Gerry Hebert kinda should be scratched off as a possible source.

Hebert is up to his old tricks, now wrongly branding a good man in Senator Sessions. But it’s worse than that.

Notice the scolding the Court gave Hebert about the damage to race relations caused by these Justice Department lawyers. Hebert’s attack on Sessions is now doing the same, using phony stories to smear a good man.

Hans von Spakovsky covered Hebert’s flimsy racial accusations here:

Not only did Hebert lose, but Justice was castigated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418 (1997), for what it concluded was “a very troubling case.” (Hebert is listed as the Justice counsel of record in the district court opinion, U.S. v. Jones, 846 F.Supp. 955 (1994)).

Let’s watch how many reporters continue to rely on Gerry Hebert as a source to smear Senator Sessions.

Let’s see if any of those reporters include Hebert’s history of racial exaggerations, claiming that racism was at play when it wasn’t.

Reporters who take Hebert seriously on charges of racism should be held accountable to their editors.

In the meantime, Hebert is only making it worse for his pals in the Civil Rights Division. Some of the lawyers who attacked Sessions are still working there, and so are their friends and allies. Seems a good time for them to update their resumes.

The Michael Flynn Selection

November 19, 2016

The Michael Flynn Selection, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, November 18, 2016

Donald Trump has selected Michael Flynn to be his national security adviser. The selection is a natural one. Flynn was Trump’s go-to guy on national security matters during the campaign.

The retired Lt. General is already under attack on a number of fronts, both personal and substantive. The focus should be on substance.

I don’t know Flynn’s views on the full range of national security related topics. I agree with his line on two vital issues — ISIS and Iran. His general view of the threat posed by Islam also strikes me as sound, if not always expressed with sufficient nuance.

As for Russia, Flynn will continue to take fire for his recent trip to Moscow. However, as we noted here, Flynn criticized Russian foreign policy while in Moscow.

Flynn’s recent book, discussed below, also comes down on Russia. It takes issue with the view, advanced by Trump, that Russia can be a reliable partner in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

Keep this in mind as those speaking out against Flynn make him out to be pro-Putin. Critics of the Russian autocrat may end of being pleased that Trump is getting advice from Flynn.

Folks who have heard Flynn speak — be it at the Republican Convention, on cable news, or in person — may share my impression that he isn’t very articulate. Flynn probably comes across well in conversation, though. Otherwise, it’s unlikely that Trump would elevate him to national security adviser, however loyal Flynn has been. Indeed, it’s unlikely that Flynn would gotten Trump’s ear to begin with.

Flynn’s views on the all-important issue of combating radical Islam come through clearly in the book, mentioned above, that he wrote with out friend Michael Ledeen — The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies. In evaluating Flynn’s approach to radical Islam, his book, not his tweets or off-hand comments, should be the touchstone.

Finally, when critics complain that Flynn’s selection is just a reward for his loyalty to Trump, think of Susan Rice, the current national security adviser. She got the job after loyally peddling the Obama-Clinton tale that the attacks in Benghazi were due to an anti-Islam video.

Flynn may be loyal, but to my knowledge he never spread falsehoods on behalf of Trump.

Is Flynn an ideal national security adviser? Not in my view. However, he’s the voice Trump wants most to hear on national security issues. I believe that most of what Trump hears from Flynn will be sound.

FULL INTERVIEW — Ted Cruz SLAMS the hypocrisy of Democrats over President Elect Donald Trump’s big win!

November 17, 2016

FULL Ted Cruz SLAMS the hypocrisy of Democrats over President Elect Donald Trump’s big win! Fox News via YouTube, November 17, 2016

(I had hoped that Senator Cruz would support and help President Elect Trump. He seems to be doing so. — DM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyP4qIDAklQ