Trump Protester Hit in Groin by Gas Round Faces Criminal Charges

The protester seen getting hit in the groin by a pepper ball following President Donald Trump’s Aug. 22 rally in Phoenix has been criminally charged.

Police arrested Joshua Cobin, 29, that night and he was charged with three felony counts of aggravated assault against police and a misdemeanor count of unlawful assembly.

Following an outbreak of violence, police repeatedly called on the protesters, including Cobin, to disperse before firing tear gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets into the crowd, KTVK reported.

According to court documents, police stated that Cobin tried to kick a smoking canister back at police, and then picked it up and threw it at them.

Later he picked up a second canister and threw it at police.

The Scottsdale, Arizona, resident disputed the charges.

“I don’t equate kicking or putting back tear gas canisters as attacking police. I never attacked a police officer,” Cobin said.

“That was not an unlawful assembly and that I had every right to be there. And that tear gas was in the way of myself and every other peacefully assembled protesters being there,” he added.

The Phoenix Police Department stated that Cobin admitted to the charges.

“He has posted images and admissions to his crime on social and local media outlets,” Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Jonathan Howard wrote in an email announcing the arrest.

“Thanks for all the kind words, what a crazy night last night! My hand feels a lot better..and for EVERYONE who asked, my nuts are fine lol, the cops missed by a few inches so I have a nasty baseball size bruise there,” Cobin wrote in a Facebook post. (For more the author of “Trump Protester Hit in Groin by Gas Round Faces Criminal Charges” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Won’t Release Clinton’s Documents Due to Lack of Public Interest

The FBI rejected a request Monday from a lawyer seeking information relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, as the bureau claimed there was a supposed lack of public interest to justify the release.

The lawyer, Ty Clevenger, said he has made mutliple attempts to have Clinton and several of her personal lawyers disbarred for the manner in which they handled classified information on Clinton’s private email server during her time as secretary of state.

FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy wrote a letter to Clevenger Monday, claiming he has not shown the public is committed to the issue surrounding Clinton’s emails.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” the letter said.

“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Hardy added.

The decision by Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, to send and receive classified information through her private email server was a top issue during the 2016 presidential election.

Then-FBI Director James Comey announced in July 2016 that he would not recommend charges against Clinton, even though he said what she did was “extremely careless.”

Comey questioned Clinton’s judgment, indicated she gave misleading statements surrounding her use of the private email server and suggested it was possible hostile foreign governments had at some point been able to access her email account.

The FBI indicated it is common practice to only release records if the subject of the inquiry consents to their release or is deceased, or if public interest in the matter supersedes privacy issues.

Clevenger told The Washington Times it was unclear why the bureau felt the public has lost interest in Clinton’s email scandal.

Clevenger said he cited the fact that House Republicans recently requested an investigation into whether Clinton perjured herself during testimony before Congress regarding her email scandal.

“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama administration is still running the FBI,” Clevenger said.

“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he added. (For more from the author of “FBI Won’t Release Clinton’s Documents Due to Lack of Public Interest” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Justice Department Still Defending Obama Contraception Mandate

Advocates for religious liberty are dismayed that little has changed with respect to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, even after President Donald Trump signed a religious freedom executive order earlier this year.

“I believe the president is committed to religious freedom and that Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions is a good man. But their goals simply haven’t played out,” Douglas Wilson, CEO of the Catholic Benefits Association, told The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court punted on the Little Sisters of the Poor’s religious liberty case against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, though broadly gave the Catholic charity a victory in vacating lower court rulings and asking that parties submit proposals to settle the situation.

After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration imposed a mandate that employers pay for insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The Catholic Benefits Association, which was begun in 2013 and represents 1,000 Catholic employers, won a preliminary injunction lawsuit against the Obama administration rule in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The Justice Department appealed that ruling and has refused to drop the appeal. As recently as July 31, it filed a motion to keep the appeal moving forward. The motion referred to unspecified regulatory resolution that the administration was trying to reach.

However, the Department of Health and Human Services had already presented a draft regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget in May that concluded the Obama-era contraception mandate was illegal and not necessary to protect women’s health, Wilson noted in a letter to Trump. The draft regulation has never been implemented.

“It’s an Obamacare rule, but this particular regulation came out of the HHS and could be overturned by the administration,” Wilson said.

In an Aug. 16 letter to Trump, Wilson wrote:

Had Congress repealed and replaced Obamacare, I would not be writing you today. However, I write to draw your attention to a particularly unpopular and onerous part of Obamacare that is directly within your control to fix, and that you have previously pledged to fix: the imposition of Obamacare’s contraception, sterilization and abortifacient (abortion-causing drugs) mandate upon the faith community. …

HHS, OMB, and DOJ could end this six-year nightmare almost immediately by:

1. Stopping the defense of Obamacare Mandates in court.

2. Agreeing to a permanent injunction protecting plaintiffs in all such cases.

3. Publishing, unchanged, the excellent proposed HHS regulation.

“The department is committed to robust enforcement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but we will not comment on ongoing settlement discussions,” Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior told The Daily Signal.

In signing an executive order in May, Trump invited the Little Sisters of the Poor to the podium during a Rose Garden ceremony, and said, “Congratulations, you sort of just won a lawsuit.”

There’s an apparent disconnect between what Trump and Sessions are talking about and the actions of the Justice Department, said Montse Alvarado, executive director of the Becket Fund, a legal group that litigates for religious liberty that is representing the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“The Justice Department is not doing what the president promised the Little Sisters of the Poor in the Rose Garden,” Alvarado told The Daily Signal. “DOJ negotiations have been going on for three months. Seven months into this administration, we expected something different [from the Trump administration] than what we got from the Obama administration.”

Asked about the issue last week, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she was not aware of the complaints and referred a reporter to the Department of Health and Human Services.

“To ensure fairness, the Administrative Procedure Act limits the ability of government officials from disclosing any non-public information regarding rulemaking and regulations,” HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd told The Daily Signal in an email.

The Obama administration initially carved out a very narrow exemption for religious institutions. But other religious employers, among them hospitals, schools, and charities, as well as businesses, were still responsible for complying with the Obamacare mandate. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case provided protection to privately held businesses, but many private employers were still subject to the mandate.

During the Rose Garden event in May, Trump said the “long ordeal” of religious employers was coming to an end, and it hasn’t, said Melanie Israel, research associate for the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

“The mandate is a burden on employers, individuals, and religious organizations who, because of their beliefs concerning the protection of unborn human life, are faced with the decision to violate sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, pay steep fines, or forgo offering or obtaining health insurance entirely,” Israel told The Daily Signal in an email.

“It is time for the Trump administration to make good on the promise made four months ago and ensure that these groups’ ‘long ordeal’ with the contraception mandate comes to an end,” she added. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Justice Department Still Defending Obama Contraception Mandate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Risks Spending Confrontation With Trump

GOP leaders seeking a way out of their September logjam are talking about tying a disaster aid bill for Hurricane Harvey to a larger measure funding the government and raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

Including the disaster aid would almost certainly win some Republican votes for the package, which will otherwise be unpopular with GOP lawmakers who oppose a “clean” debt ceiling hike and would like to impose restrictions on government spending.

But the move risks a confrontation with President Trump, who is demanding that the end-of-month bill include $1.6 billion in funding for his southern border wall.

Trump has repeatedly suggested he is willing to shut down the government to win funding for his wall, an outcome GOP leaders want to avoid just more than a year ahead of midterm elections where they will be defending majorities in the House and Senate.

Trump on Monday vowed to win quick disaster relief funding for Harvey’s victims, but he suggested that he saw the aid package and the wall as separate issues. (Read more from “GOP Risks Spending Confrontation With Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Professor Says ‘Trump-Lovin’ Texas Deserved Hurricane

. . .The whole disaster is probably just karma for those Republicans who voted for President Trump in 2016.

At least that’s what a former assistant professor at the University of Tampa claimed in a tweet that stunned the Twittersphere Sunday.

The assistant professor, Kenneth L. Storey, posted a tweet suggesting Texans deserved Hurricane Harvey devastation for voting for Republicans such as President Trump.

And now Storey is out of a job.

Storey, who taught sociology and had worked at the university since 2011, posted the following tweet Sunday before later deleting it: “I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them.” (Read more from “Professor Says ‘Trump-Lovin’ Texas Deserved Hurricane” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jury Refuses to Convict in Bundy Ranch Standoff

By Ken Ritter. A federal jury in Las Vegas refused Tuesday to convict four defendants who were retried on accusations that they threatened and assaulted federal agents by wielding assault weapons in a 2014 confrontation to stop a cattle roundup near the Nevada ranch of states’ rights figure Cliven Bundy.

In a stunning setback to federal prosecutors planning to try the Bundy family patriarch and two adult sons later this year, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges, and delivered not-guilty findings on most charges against Scott Drexler and Eric Parker.

More than 30 defendants’ supporters in the courtroom broke into applause after Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Lovelien and Stewart freed immediately and set Wednesday morning hearings to decide if Parker and Drexler should remain jailed pending a government decision whether to seek a third trial. (Read more from “Jury Refuses to Convict in Bundy Ranch Standoff” HERE)

___________________________________________________

“Fed’s Taking it Personally”: Decide to Retry Two Defendants a THIRD Time

By Robert Anglen. Federal prosecutors who didn’t succeed in the Bundy Ranch standoff trial will retry and retry again.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas confirmed Wednesday it will go back to court for the third time in an attempt to convict two men accused of taking up arms against federal agents.

Less than 24 hours earlier, a jury had acquitted two standoff defendants and dismissed the most serious charges against two others. Now federal prosecutors say they will retry the men next month on outstanding weapons and assault charges.

The move pushes back the trials for 11 other defendants in the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff, including Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who have spent 18 months in prison while awaiting their court date. (Read more about the Bundy ranch stan off acquittals HERE).

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan Surrender Unconditionally

Once again, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have demonstrated how good they are at surrendering to the unarmed.

Even if Republicans had 80 percent majorities in Congress along with the White House, they would find an excuse for giving Democrats everything they want on the debt ceiling and the upcoming budget bill. The reason is simple: They have no interest in conservative governance. They love giving Democrats what they want, even if they have the power to pass a good bill and even if they’d win a stare-down over a shutdown.

McConnell fights the doctors, not the illness

Earlier this week, McConnell wanted Democrats to understand that he will not let them try to get him to win. Unconditional surrender is the only way forward:

“There is zero chance — no chance — we won’t raise the debt ceiling. No chance. America is not going to default, and we’ll get the job done in conjunction with the secretary of the Treasury.”

There are a couple of important observations about this statement:

1. McConnell is right that there is zero chance of default. As I’ve noted before, our revenue stands at about $3.4 trillion a year, and interest on the debt is $270 billion. We have enough funds to deal with the interest and all the other vital functions of government without issuing any more debt. Unfortunately, this is not what McConnell meant by not defaulting. He is using the other side’s false talking point about default.

2. The only way we will actually default and, in the long run, have trouble paying interest payments, is not if we fail to raise the debt ceiling but if we fail to lower the debt floor. Why is McConnell making the debt ceiling the problem rather than the actual debt?

3. Why would anyone preemptively tell Democrats they will give them anything they want because they are so scared of their obstruction, even when they are in the minority? Putting the repeal of the filibuster aside for a moment, yes, it’s true that Republicans don’t have 60 votes in the Senate. But neither do Democrats! And they don’t have the White House, the House, or a majority vote in the Senate with the leverage to threaten reforms to the filibuster.

The answer to all of these questions is simple: Republicans don’t share our values and goals. Whereas Democrats view brinksmanship as leverage to advance their goals, Republicans view it as the plague to be avoided precisely because they have no interest in our goals. They could have 99 Senate seats, and they would still find an excuse not to do the right thing.

Fear of government shutdown is a phony excuse to perpetuate the status quo

And so it goes with the government funding bill. Republicans have an opportunity to get up in front of the people and declare their priorities in what they plan to fund in the budget and what they plan not to fund. They should fund border security and missile defense while defunding Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities, refugee resettlement, and other harmful aspects of government. Americans care more about these issues than a 17 percent shutdown of the bureaucracies.

Yet Republicans, in their insular thinking and their broken political barometer, believe that Americans care about what the D.C. media cares about — a government shutdown — and that Democrats would always win a stare-down. It’s kind of like their fear of the monument issue, where every poll shows super-majority opposition to tearing down monuments, yet Republicans are running scared. It’s why they have no interest in fighting sanctuary cities, fighting for free market health care reform, reclaiming power from the courts, or pushing voter ID.

Take a look at what Paul Ryan said about a government shutdown:

“I don’t think a government shutdown is necessary and I don’t think most people want to see a government shutdown, ourselves included,”

Notice the difference in tone between GOP leaders and Chuck Schumer. Democrats will pound the lectern and declare their beliefs and assert their red lines on policy, even when they are extremely unpopular. Yet Republican leaders sound more like cable commentators opining on the state of play with a government shutdown, refusing to fight for their policies.

That is because they don’t have any policies other than pursuing power as an end to itself.

Which brings us to President Trump

Trump was correct to call out McConnell and Ryan for sabotaging the agenda on the debt ceiling and the budget funding over the border wall, which, by the way, is required by current law. Sadly, we are not going to change this leadership until they are defeated or we start a new party. But Trump can fix the way his administration behaves. Guess who was standing next to McConnell while he made his comments on the debt ceiling? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Trump’s own Treasury secretary has been running around for months calling for what Trump himself is now repudiating. And he has been pressuring conservatives to capitulate. So rather than his administration uniting behind his supposed agenda, his personnel are actually fueling the very behavior from Ryan and McConnell that Trump has rebuked. This is absurd.

The president needs to double down from yesterday’s tweets and get his administration singing in the same key. He needs to create a list of red lines in the budget, red lines that, if crossed, will trigger his veto pen. He should make some form of free market health care reform the condition for raising the debt ceiling, because health care is the largest driver of the debt. Then he must fully support candidates who are willing to have his back and not support McConnell puppets like Luther Strange.

Overall, the president must remember that Twitter is not a policy outcome, especially when almost all his advisers and cabinet members are rowing in the opposite direction. He should remember who supported his campaign agenda and who opposed it and stop banishing supporters while embracing opponents.

As the party stands now, there is not much Trump can do about congressional leaders. But he can consolidate his own message and behavior by bringing his own administration on board. (For more from the author of “Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan Surrender Unconditionally” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sheriff Joe May Run for Senate – Perhaps to Punish RINOs McCain, Flake, Ryan, Others for Criticizing Trump’s Pardon

By Washington Examiner. After receiving President Trump’s first pardon, Joe Arpaio’s plans have gone from possible prison to book-writing, speeches and potentially another run for office in Arizona, with Sen. Jeff Flake’s seat one opportunity he is eyeing.

The former Maricopa County sheriff told the Washington Examiner he’s upset at negative reaction to the Friday pardon, and that he feels Republican politicians are insufficiently supportive of the president, who he calls a great man.

“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate,” Arpaio said Monday. One particular race, however, is likely to gain significant attention: the GOP primary next year facing Flake, R-Ariz., a forceful Trump critic. (Read more from “Sheriff Joe May Run for Senate – Perhaps to Punish RINOs McCain, Flake, Ryan, Others for Criticizing Trump’s Pardon” HERE)

__________________________________________

Schumer, Ryan Criticize Trump for Arpaio Pardon

By Emily Goldberg. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s Friday pardon of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his directive to halt recruitment of transgender troops Friday — just as Hurricane Harvey was barreling towards the Texas coastline.

“As millions of people in TX and LA are prepping for the Hurricane, the President is using the cover of the storm to pardon a man who violated a court’s order to stop discriminating against Latinos and Ban courageous transgender men and women from serving in our nation’s Armed Forces,” Schumer posted in a series of tweets.

“Then he ran to Camp David. The only reason to do these right now is to use the cover of Hurricane Harvey to avoid scrutiny. So sad, so weak.”

In a separate tweet, Schumer blasted Arpaio, known for his aggressive treatment of Latinos in Arizona.

“Joe Arpaio ignored the courts of law in order to systematically target Latinos in AZ. The definition of racism and bigotry,” Schumer posted. (Read more from “Schumer, Ryan Criticize Trump for Arpaio Pardon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary-Linked G-Man Still Investigating Trump

Politically compromised deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe continues to run an investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with Russia, bureau sources familiar with the probe say – even though it overlaps with the special counsel’s investigation, and even though McCabe, whose wife is a Democrat activist, is under investigation for political conflicts of interest.

As the subject of no fewer than three separate investigations of his own, McCabe is operating under a growing ethical cloud, critics inside the bureau complain.

Yet, “He is still running that investigation,” an FBI source said. “He didn’t recuse himself from the Hillary Clinton case, and he won’t recuse himself from the Russian matter.”

President Trump has questioned McCabe’s objectivity and called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remove him, because he “got $700,000 for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives.”

Trump’s recent tweet referred to financial and political connections McCabe had to the Clinton machine last year via Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton operative. A PAC tied to McAuliffe and the Democratic Party of Virginia together pumped $675,288 into Jill McCabe’s campaign for a state senate seat, while the FBI was investigating Clinton for mishandling classified information and possible espionage at the State Department. (Read more from “Hillary-Linked G-Man Still Investigating Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Prison for the Wrong Pronoun?

Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson took on a Democratic strategist who supports a California bill that would sentence elder care workers to jail time for addressing transgender residents by the wrong pronoun.

Carlson debated Robin Biro, who supports the bill that was authored by Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco. He challenged Biro right out of the gate, starting the interview by saying the bill “doesn’t sound very American” because it could send people to jail for saying something others don’t want to hear.

“You can be put in jail for saying what you think is true,” Carlson said. “This bill criminalizes free speech.”

Biro repeatedly skirted around the direct issue of potential imprisonment of employees for the use of a different pronoun than a patient prefers, and instead tried to emphasize other aspects of the bill, such as its prohibition for care providers to deny treatment to someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

When he finally addressed the free speech issues with the bill, he called the intentional misuse of pronouns toward transgender people “abuse” and compared it to former first lady Michelle Obama being called a man. (Read more from “Prison for the Wrong Pronoun?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.