Posts

Trump: May Cancel Briefings for ‘Sake of Accuracy’

President Donald Trump tweeted several times Friday morning after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, defending the narrative and timeline his administration gave for the decision.

He questioned whether his administration should cancel all future press briefings and, instead, replace them with written responses to questions, “for the sake of accuracy.”

The president’s advisers said this week that Trump fired Comey on Tuesday in response to a recommendation by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Later, however, they said that Trump had planned to fire Comey regardless. (Read more from “Trump: May Cancel Briefings for ‘Sake of Accuracy'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Past Time to End This Democratic Witch Hunt

I don’t deny that President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey was handled poorly, but it pales in comparison with the Democrats’ ongoing partisan witch hunt against President Trump concerning Russia. That should be the story.

Shortly after Trump’s dismissal of Comey, Trump defenders had plenty of ammunition. Widely respected and nonpartisan Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had reportedly recommended that Trump fire Comey.

Trump’s Communications

But then the communications from Team Trump on the matter seemed to muddy the waters. Though maintaining that Rosenstein’s recommendation was pivotal, Trump spokespeople added other reasons. They claimed that Trump had fired Comey based on his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and because numerous FBI agents and employees were dispirited by Comey’s actions.

Then acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified, “The vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey.” A number of retired FBI officials also apparently showed solidarity with Comey by using his face for their Facebook profile photos. And though Rosenstein has contradicted mainstream media reports that he was contemplating resigning over the narrative that he had recommended Comey’s dismissal, he reportedly claims that he did not expressly recommend the firing. Oh, boy.

Trump added more to the mix when he told Lester Holt in an interview that he had decided to fire Comey irrespective of the reported Rosenstein recommendation. Media outlets are having a field day with this alleged contradiction. Trump has thrown his communications team under the bus, they say, because his spokespeople clearly said that Trump’s firing was a response to the recommendation. Trump’s tweets concerning possible recorded conversations between him and Comey didn’t help, either.

What a mess.

Trump’s Constitutional Authority

Though it doesn’t look good that Trump’s version arguably varies from that of his spokespeople, I don’t see any major inconsistency here. I suspect that Trump was increasingly frustrated with Comey and wanted to fire him and that the recommendation helped justify it. Either way, Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey, and it would be scandalous only if he did so to impede a legitimate investigation into his alleged collusion with Russia, which is not the case.

Trump is obviously exasperated that the Democrats are impeding his policy agenda with their obsessive hammering of the bogus charge that he and his team conspired with Russia to interfere with the presidential election.

No Evidence of Collusion

Despite the incessant media reports and congressional investigations, not a shred of evidence has emerged to substantiate the charge of collusion. We keep saying this, but the media and Democrats keep pretending otherwise. It’s unconscionable. Even James Clapper, former President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, has admitted that there is no evidence of collusion and that he has no reason to suspect it.

The real scandal is not Trump’s firing Comey — even if Trump’s supporters are unhappy with the timing and the way it was handled and communicated. The scandal is the liberal establishment’s coordinated conspiracy to falsely allege that Trump stole the presidency by colluding with Russia. Liberals absolutely know that it’s not true, but they will not quit bearing false witness. How dare they posture indignantly about Trump’s supposed dishonesty?

Liberals’ Counterfeit Hysteria

Their counterfeit hysteria knows no bounds. Not long ago, Democrats were demanding Comey’s head, alleging that his public announcements had sabotaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Now they are claiming the firing is a “constitutional crisis” and a “coup.” Not only did Trump have the authority to fire Comey but also the termination does not end the investigation.

Author Jon Meacham claimed on Morning Joe that Trump had removed someone “in charge of an investigation that could lead to treason.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said the firing may well lead to impeachment hearings. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign.

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, said: “We have a deeply insecure president who understands that the noose is tightening because of this Russia investigation. And that’s why I believe he has let Jim Comey go.”

Kaine knows better. There is no evidence that there is any noose, much less that it’s tightening, and the media’s claim that Trump fired Comey because he was seeking more funds to investigate him has been expressly denied by acting Director McCabe. CNN’s Van Jones said that the only people who are happy about the firing “are sitting in the Kremlin.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews claimed that the firing was “a little whiff of fascism.” Countless liberal media and political figures are comparing the Comey firing to the Saturday Night Massacre, in which Richard Nixon fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Nonexistent Scandal

The way this firing transpired is unfortunate, but we wouldn’t be talking about this if Democrats and the media weren’t lying every hour of every day about a nonexistent scandal. This bogus investigation should end forthwith, no matter who is heading it, because it is based on nothing but innuendo and partisanship. You conduct an investigation not because you want something to be true but because you have some evidence suggesting it may be. There is no such evidence here, and they’ve admitted it. Let’s move on. (For more from the author of “Past Time to End This Democratic Witch Hunt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s How Far Behind Trump Is on Political Appointments Compared to Obama, Bush

President Donald Trump has begun to move on naming federal judges and will eventually be naming a new FBI director, but more broadly, he remains slow in filling political appointments compared to his predecessors.

Trump has made 85 nominations to the Senate at this point in his presidency as of Friday, according to the Center for Presidential Transition, which tracks presidential appointees. In that same period of his first term, President Barack Obama made 212 nominations, President George W. Bush made 161 nominations, President Bill Clinton made 182 nominations, and President George H. W. Bush made 135 nominees by this point.

Trump, so far, is leaving key management positions unfilled, said Mallory Barg Bulman, vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service, the parent organization to the Center for Presidential Transition.

“Leadership matters a lot, as does having the right people in place,” Bulman told The Daily Signal. “You can’t start the game until the whole team is on the field.”

Trump has no nominee for 460 of the 557 key leadership positions, as of Friday, according to Partnership for Public Service. Trump has nominated 49, announced the nomination of 19, and 29 people have been confirmed.

Earlier this week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the administration is taking time to vet employees.

“We’re actually going through the Office of Government Ethics and FBI clearances before announcing most of these individuals,” Spicer said at the Monday press briefing. “And so, there’s a little bit of a difference in how we’re doing this. But we are well on pace with respect to many of these [appointments] to get the government up and running.”

Trump has not yet even named a director to run the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the federal workforce, noted Robert Moffit, a former assistant OPM director under President Ronald Reagan.

“The bottom line is that the president can’t run the federal government out of the White House and secretaries can’t run giant agencies huddled in an executive suite,” Moffit, now a senior fellow for health policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Unilateral disarmament is a victory for the swamp. The swamp creatures have won the fight. Unless you control the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy controls you.”

Moffit, who also worked in the Reagan administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, said Reagan took control of the federal bureaucracy shortly into his presidency.

He said congressional relations is a key area where political appointees should be working, instead of leaving it to career civil service employees in some cases. That’s because, Moffit stressed, it’s the job of the career civil service employees to execute administration policy but the job of political appointees to advocate and explain those policies to Congress.

The president can name about 4,000 political appointees.

Out of that, 1,242 are key leadership positions that need Senate confirmation, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Another 472 political appointees—largely White House staff—don’t require Senate confirmation, according to the partnership. Further, 761 non-career senior executive positions can be filled throughout the executive branch—though not all are presidential appointees. Finally, 1,538 non-career federal employees report directly to a presidential appointee.

The partnership did not have a final number on how many of these positions are filled or unfilled, because it only tracks key leadership positions—most of which require Senate confirmation.

The White House Transition Project measures a different metric, but still finds Trump well behind other presidents going back through Reagan. Trump officially fell behind in March, said Terry Sullivan, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the executive director of the project.

Rather than measuring 4,000 jobs, which includes all U.S. marshals, U.S. attorneys, and every inconsequential U.S. ambassador, the White House Transition Project looks primarily at 221 government appointments that are required for the essential function of government, have policy roles, and have the potential to be controversial, Sullivan said.

“This is not a result of a policy predisposition to shrinking government,” Sullivan told The Daily Signal. “He wants a tax cut but he isn’t staffing up the Treasury Department. He doesn’t want more EPA regulations, but he isn’t moving slower or faster with that agency than Veterans Affairs or Health and Human Services, things he cares about.” (For more from the author of “Here’s How Far Behind Trump Is on Political Appointments Compared to Obama, Bush” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

States Sue Over Trump Decision to Sell Coal Leases on Federal Lands

Four U.S. states filed a lawsuit Tuesday over President Donald Trump’s decision to restart the sale of coal leases on federal lands, saying the Obama-era block of the leasing program was reversed without studying what’s best for the environment and for taxpayers.

The attorneys general of California, New Mexico, New York and Washington, all Democrats, said bringing back the federal coal lease program without an environmental review risks worsening the effects of climate change on those states while shortchanging them for the coal taken from public lands.

“Climate change has to be considered when we are talking about compensating states and New Mexico citizens for their resources,” said Cholla Khoury, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas’ director of consumer and environmental protection. (Read more from “States Sue Over Trump Decision to Sell Coal Leases on Federal Lands” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Establishes Panel to Probe Voter Fraud

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday establishing a panel to investigate voter fraud, a commission he first talked about in early February.

The president named Vice President Mike Pence to lead the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, and named a bipartisan group of members that includes chief state election officials.

“The president is committed to the thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections and that’s exactly what this commission is tasked with doing,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a press briefing Thursday after Trump signed the order.

She later added:

The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of federal elections and provide the president with a report that identifies system vulnerabilities that lead to improper registrations and voting. We expect the report will be complete by 2018. The experts and officials on this commission will follow the facts where they lead. Meetings and hearings will be open to the public for comments and input.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican, will be the vice chairman under Pence. Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson will also be on the commission, as will New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, a Democrat, and Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democrat. The commission will also include former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, and U.S. Elections Assistance Commission member Christie McCormick.

Other members will be named at a later date.

Trump has asserted he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election had it not been for illegal votes cast. However, he hasn’t provided direct evidence. According to a study by Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, hundreds of thousands of noncitizens could have voted in the November election.

Based on an extrapolation of previous election studies, Richman determined more than 800,000 noncitizens likely voted in the 2016 presidential race, significant, but not nearly enough to overcome Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory.

The commission is facing some opposition.

“This commission is a sham and distraction,” Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal legal group based at the New York University School of Law, said in a public statement.

“It’s simply an effort to try and find proof of the president’s absurd claim that 3-5 million people voted illegally in November. It tries to pivot from the fact that this week Trump fired the chief law enforcement officer in charge of probing whether his advisers colluded with Russia to influence our elections. He fired the person investigating a real threat to election integrity, and set up a probe of an imaginary threat.”

However, since 2016, there have been cases of voter fraud in North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Illinois, Colorado and Wyoming, said Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a voter integrity group.

“This order is a step in the right direction in response to widespread concern about failures in our election systems that can lead to fraud and other irregularities,” Churchwell said in a public statement. “The issues of faulty voter registration procedures and record maintenance are ripe for review. Perennial questions surrounding the actual scope of ineligible voters and their rates of participation can only be answered when federal offices share information.”

Trump’s executive order says:

The commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the following:

(a) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;

(b) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and

(c) those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.

(For more from the author of “Trump Establishes Panel to Probe Voter Fraud” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Has Vowed to Eradicate MS-13. What You Need to Know About the Gang.

In describing its effort to enforce immigration laws aggressively, the Trump administration repeatedly has invoked the threat of MS-13, a violent international gang with ties to Central America.

Responding to a recent surge of violence linked to MS-13 on Long Island, New York—punctuated by the April 13 discovery of four men killed near a public park—U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited with local law enforcement late last month, and vowed to eradicate the gang by cracking down on illegal immigration.

“The MS-13 motto is kill, rape, and control,” Sessions said at the U.S. Courthouse on Long Island. “Our motto is justice for victims and consequences for criminals. That’s how simple it is. Prosecute them, and after they’ve been convicted, if they’re not here lawfully, they’re going to be deported.”

In interviews with The Daily Signal, law enforcement experts who study MS-13—and have been working to help combat it—welcomed President Donald Trump’s tough approach to the gang, but cautioned that the federal government should not lose sight of other violent gangs with footprints in the U.S.

According to the FBI’s most recent statistics, there are about 33,000 active gangs in the U.S., with about 1.4 million members.

“The threat of MS-13 and their violence is real enough, but they are not the only gang in town,” said Wes McBride, the executive director of the California Gang Investigators Association, in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Experts such as McBride, who served 28 years in the gang unit of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office, say that immigration enforcement is only one element of a strategy that the U.S. has waged for decades against MS-13.

“People tend to talk about MS-13 as a gang of illegals, and it sort of is, but a lot of them now were born here, so they are second generation,” McBride said. “This is a long-term problem without a simple solution.”

‘Fertile for Gang Proliferation’

Mara Salvatrucha, known as MS-13, originated in Los Angeles in the 1980s, when thousands of people from El Salvador, a country of Central America’s northern triangle, fled civil war.

A 2008 Congressional Research Service report describes MS-13’s early membership as consisting of former guerillas and El Salvadoran government soldiers with combat experience. Those initial members helped the gang develop a reputation of using unusual methods of violence—most prominently, its choice of machetes as a murder weapon.

Eric Olson, the associate director of the Latin America program at the Wilson Center, said the new arrivals from El Salvador formed MS-13 as a form of self-preservation to compete with other Los Angeles-based gangs.

“The Salvadorans were suddenly confronted with Mexican gangs in the high schools, and African-American gangs, so almost as a self-protection thing, they formed cliques and gangs,” Olson told The Daily Signal.

Olson and other experts say MS-13 expanded when, in the mid-1990s, the U.S. government changed immigration law to hasten deportation of the gang’s members back to El Salvador.

MS-13 became the first street gang to be labeled a “transnational criminal organization”—one that operates internationally—by the U.S. government.

“While many of the gang members eventually got deported, they had to reconfigure themselves in El Salvador, and so you had a very vulnerable population fall back on their larger gang family [there] as a protection mechanism,” Olson said. “MS-13 became bigger and more powerful in El Salvador.”

Nelson Arriaga, president of the International Latino Gang Investigators Association, which provides training to law enforcement conducting anti-gang operations, says the U.S. government did not give proper support to Salvadoran authorities who were ill-equipped to handle the return of their troubled nationals.

“Law enforcement in Central America were completely oblivious to the criminal element being exported from the U.S. to those countries, and to the level of sophistication gang members were bringing with them,” Arriaga told The Daily Signal in an interview.

“Those countries were fertile for gang proliferation.”

As MS-13 grew its ranks from deportees returning from the U.S. to El Salvador, members also migrated back to the U.S.

“When we started deporting them, some would turn around and come right back,” McBride said. “It became a circular problem.”

Enforcement Crackdown

Today, the Justice Department estimates that MS-13 has roughly 30,000 members worldwide and more than 10,000 in the U.S. MS-13 is active in 40 states plus the District of Columbia, the department estimates, with an especially significant presence on the East Coast, in New York, Virginia, and Maryland.

While Trump has blamed the Obama administration’s less strict immigration policies for MS-13’s growth, a Justice Department fact sheet, dated April 18, credits “great progress made” by federal, state, and local law enforcement in “diminishing” and disrupting the gang’s impact during 2009 and 2010.

Indeed, McBride says he does not blame the Obama administration for the spread of MS-13. The California gang expert notes that President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department in 2012 sanctioned the gang as a transnational criminal organization.

In January 2016, the Justice Department indicted 56 MS-13 members in the Boston area on federal racketeering conspiracy charges, some related to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and drug trafficking. In March of this year, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York indicted more than a dozen MS-13 members in seven killings on Long Island spanning three years, including the deaths of several high school students last year.

The FBI started an MS-13 National Gang Task Force in 2004 to coordinate the investigative efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against the gang.

Arriaga, a retired sergeant in the Inglewood Police Department who focused on gangs, says the FBI and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents today are embedded in Central America to help local police in those countries deal with the MS-13 threat.

“The MS-13 threat in Central America is on steroids compared to the threat here,” Arriaga said. “It’s good to see the Trump administration making greater emphasis of MS-13, but the enforcement aspect of this has already been there.”

Threat ‘Stays Here’

Despite these efforts, law enforcement experts acknowledge that MS-13 remains strong.

Gang members in the U.S. have preyed on recent arrivals from Central America, many of them teenagers who traveled here alone in a surge of illegal immigration from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala over the past few years.

“The best way to tackle the problem is to convince young people to stay away from the gangs,” Sessions said during his April 28 speech in Long Island.

While MS-13, which has a decentralized structure with little coordination, is not considered a major player in international drug smuggling, Olson said, the gang uses extortion to control local drug markets.

“Extortion is really their bread and butter, so if you are in a poor neighborhood and your job isn’t paying enough, or you don’t have a job and sell tortillas on the corner, [MS-13] force you to pay a tax,” Olson said. “They are extorting all economic activity. Their control of legal markets and extortion is absolute. And when they are in conflict with one another and the police, they become extraordinarily violent.”

Olson called for a multipronged strategy to defeat MS-13:

It’s not like removing a tumor, where you can cut it out and it’s gone. It stays here. Anti-gang work in the U.S. and in Central America needs to go way beyond simply trying to deport and incarcerate people. I wouldn’t say border security won’t have any impact. It’s already had a big impact. It’s one element of an overall challenge.

(For more from the author of “Trump Has Vowed to Eradicate MS-13. What You Need to Know About the Gang.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Donald Trump Could Teach Ellen DeGeneres About Diversity and Tolerance

OK. I admit it. The title of this article is meant to be catchy. But there’s an important truth I want to convey, which is simply this: tolerance and diversity are two-way streets.

While appearing on The Ellen Show, the Today Show’s Matt Lauer turned the tables and began to interview his host, asking her about her coming out as a lesbian, since this is the 20th anniversary.

He then asked her if she would have President Trump on her show, to which she replied, “No.”

Ellen explained, “Because I’m not going to change his mind. He’s against everything I stand for. We need to look at someone else who looks different than us, and believes in something that we don’t believe in and still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

And for that reason Ellen won’t have him on her show? Look at her reasoning again. She won’t have him on her program because “we need to look at someone else who looks different than us, and believes in something that we don’t believe in and still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

So, Ellen is refusing to sit across from someone who looks different than her and believes in something that she doesn’t believe because we need to be able to sit with those very people? Am I the only one who sees a glaring contradiction here?

Acceptance Through Nonacceptance?

Let’s parse Ellen’s words carefully, not to attack her but rather to probe how tolerant and inclusive our friends on the left really are.

First, she says, “I’m not going to change his mind.”

But is that the criterion for being a guest on her show? That you either agree with her or else must be willing to have your mind changed? How about healthy interaction with those with whom you differ? Isn’t that an important part of tolerance and diversity?

I recently took exception to an article written on the Huffington Post by a humanist journalist. So I wrote an article in response, after which I invited him to join me on my radio show. He joined me earlier this week, and we had a delightful one-hour discussion in the midst of our disagreements. How can discussions like this hurt? What if Ellen, who is obviously a master host, had a civil discussion with the president? Couldn’t we all benefit from that?

Second, Ellen said, “He’s against everything I stand for.”

Perhaps that’s true on several issues. But the president has hardly been an aggressive opponent of LGBT activism. He’s been strong on pro-life issues and has appointed men to his administration like Dr. Ben Carson and Jeff Sessions, both of whom oppose LGBT activism. But Trump has sought to present himself as a friend of the LGBT community, and it appears that Ivanka and Jared Kushner certainly push him in that direction.

I hoped that Trump would take a more conservative stand when it comes to LGBT activism. But it’s hard to understand how Trump is “against everything” Ellen stands for. If they spoke face to face before Ellen’s massive audience, maybe a few areas of agreement would emerge?

Third, how I can tell you that we should be able to sit and talk with those we differ with, only to turn around and say, “I won’t sit and talk with you because we differ”? (I once had a company refuse to work with me because they were “inclusive.” Come again?)

Fourth, Ellen says that when it comes to people who are different than us, we must “still accept them and still let them have their rights.”

Is this, then, Ellen’s way of accepting Trump, by saying she would not have him on her show? (I’m sure this is of no concern to the president, who hardly needs to find a way to get more TV exposure. I’m simply addressing the issue.)

Whose Rights Does Ellen Affirm?

When it comes to people having “rights,” we could obviously debate many aspects of LGBT rights. For example, does a biological male who identifies as a female have the “right” to use the ladies’ bathroom? But right now, President Trump is not campaigning to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex “marriage” (again, I would be glad if he did), so I’m still not sure whose “rights” he is opposing.

It would be odd if Ellen wasn’t thinking about LGBT issues at all in her statement, given the immediate context of the interview. The context was her coming out as a lesbian, then asking if she’d have Trump on her show. Perhaps she has caricatured the president even beyond his own caricatured personality?

And when it comes to rights, is Ellen willing to affirm the right of a photographer not to be forced to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony because of deeply held, sacred beliefs? Do Christian conservatives and other people of faith have rights too?

A Good Host — But a Bad Move

This is the kind of discussion that I think Ellen really should have on her show. Why further demonize each other? And as bombastic and combative as Trump can be, he also seems to like sitting face to face with those who differ with him. After all, isn’t that a part of negotiating and deal-making?

There are many reasons why Ellen DeGeneres is so loved by so many Americans. She must have many fine qualities as a human being created in the image of God. The fact that she is so dismissive of the president of the United States that should we not welcome him on her show is a point against her, not for her. (For more from the author of “What Donald Trump Could Teach Ellen DeGeneres About Diversity and Tolerance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance

Former NSA Director James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee this week about the unmasking of surveillance on Trump and his associates. It was part of a congressional investigation into whether Russia interfered in the election. Democrats claim the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election.

The questioning focused heavily on Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor. Flynn was forced to resign after the unmasking revealed he had lied to the vice president about a conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Media coverage of the testimony is focusing on the fact that Trump did not act right away to remove Flynn. But that is only a small part of what was revealed. More importantly, Clapper and Yates did not provide any evidence of collusion with Russia. They also revealed more evidence of the surveillance of Trump’s team.

Unmasking

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked several piercing questions. He asked the two if they reviewed classified documents where Trump or his associates had been “unmasked.” The identities of Americans taped talking to a foreign official are “masked,” unless a request to unmask them is approved.

Clapper and Yates both responded yes, but refused to provide details.

Grassley asked them if they had any evidence that Trump or his associates colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election. Clapper responded no. Yates refused to answer. She added, perhaps tellingly, “Just because I say I can’t answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes.”

Next, Grassley asked, “Did you request the unmasking of Trump, his associates or any members of Congress?” Clapper said yes, but would not disclose any details. Yates said no.

Grassley asked the pair if they know how details of Yates’ conversations were leaked to The Washington Post. They both denied being the source.

Should Michael Flynn Have Been Fired Earlier?

Yates testified that she warned Trump’s White House counsel Donald McGahn about Flynn almost three weeks before Flynn was forced to resign. He was “compromised by the Russians” and “could be blackmailed,” she said.

Surveillance recorded a conversation Flynn had with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak on December 29 about recent U.S. sanctions against Russia. When Vice President Mike Pence asked Flynn about it, Flynn denied discussing the sanctions.

The lie, not the conversation, reportedly led to his resignation. Members of a presidential transition team frequently speak with foreign officials. Yates refused to name what of Flynn’s behavior she thought illegal.

Flynn didn’t resign until 18 days after Yates warned Trump. However, Reince Priebus, Trump’s Chief of Staff, explained on CBS’s Face the Nation in February that the White House legal department “said they didn’t see anything wrong with what was actually said.” When Yates told McGahn about Flynn, he told her that the White House was concerned that taking action might interfere with the FBI probe.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Flynn was forced to resign due to a “trust issue,” not a legal issue. The White House became aware of the lie on Friday, February 10. Flynn was asked to resign the next business day, on Monday, February 13.

Former President Barack Obama told Trump two days after the election not to hire Flynn. In 2014, Obama fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn worked on Trump’s presidential campaign and had been considered as a running mate. Spicer dismissed the warning as “sour grapes” from a “sore loser.”

Was Surveillance Really Just Part of ‘Incidental Collection?’

When Yates was asked whether Flynn was unmasked due to “incidental collection,” she declined to answer. Nor would she reveal whether anyone had asked to unmask Flynn. She said answering the question would reveal classified information.

Members of Trump’s transition team were reportedly caught in surveillance of foreign officials. Trump maintains that he was subject to surveillance. The Obama administration insists it was routine surveillance of Russians, who happened to be speaking with Trump and his associates.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has asked the House Intelligence Committee to disclose whether the Obama administration conducted surveillance on him or other members of Congress. He said an anonymous source told him it occurred. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, was caught in a lie about unmasking Trump or his associates. At first she denied having any role in unmasking. After evidence emerged showing otherwise, she admitted she requested unmasking. She has refused to testify before Congress.

Republicans also questioned Yates about her refusal to enforce Trump’s travel ban. Yates was fired after refusing to enforce the ban. Judicial Watch is suing for Yates’ emails. (For more from the author of “Yates, Clapper Refuse to Reveal Details on Trump Surveillance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

LA Times: Ignore Insurance Death Spiral, Trump Is Fearmongering

The mainstream media continue to live in a fantasy world of its own making, where Obamacare works great and the evil Republicans, led by President Trump, are trying to take people’s health insurance away.

A Friday headline from Brian Bennett, reporting for the Los Angeles Times, reads “’Death spiral!’: Trump is stoking fear that the Obamacare markets will collapse if Congress doesn’t act.”

“Stoking fear,” eh? Last week, the president tweeted about Aetna’s exit of the Obamacare insurance markets, exclaiming “Death Spiral!”

“Many health care experts and industry officials believe the marketplaces need to be tweaked, and the withdrawal of insurers has left consumers in some parts of the country with few options,” Bennett reported, before denying that the “death spiral” exists.

“That said, health care experts have not seen signs of a so-called ‘death spiral’ for the exchanges, and have seen enrollment on the marketplaces remain relatively steady, even with recent premium hikes.”

So, according to the L.A. Times, Trump is fearmongering. But the truth is, the president has repeatedly claimed, correctly, that Obamacare is imploding; premiums continue to increase and individuals are unwilling to pay the higher prices, driving insurers out of the marketplace.

When United Health Care announced last year it would withdraw from the Obamacare exchanges, Conservative Review contributor Logan Albright explained how Obamacare has created the insurance death spiral Trump is talking about.

The death spiral works like this: When the pool of people who sign up for health insurance is older and sicker than insurance companies expect, costs end up being higher than projected. Companies have to raise their prices (premiums) in order to make a profit. Higher prices cause some people to drop their plans as being too expensive, and the people most likely to do this are the ones who need insurance the least. This makes the remaining pool still more costly than before, and the cycle begins again, until nobody can afford insurance anymore.

While Bennet writes that “health care experts have not seen signs” of the death spiral, in Maryland:

This Washington Post article by Carolyn Y. Johnson, published the same day as Bennet’s piece in the Times, quotes health care expert Chet Burrell, chief executive of CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, stating that the Obamacare marketplaces “were in the early stages of a death spiral.”

“The head of the largest insurer in the Mid-Atlantic region warned Thursday that the Affordable Care Act marketplaces were in the early stages of a death spiral, a statement that came as the company announced its request for massive, double-digit premium increases for next year.” (Emphasis added)

CareFirst, which The Washington Post reports insures about 215,000 people thorough the Obamacare exchanges, has lost $600 million since entering the marketplaces four years ago. They are asking Obamacare regulators to approve a more than 50 percent premium rate hike in Maryland to cover their costs.

“What we’re seeing is greater sickness levels. The pool of beneficiaries is becoming sicker, in part because healthier people are not coming in at the same level we hoped,” said Burrell.

The explanation is straight from the definition of a death spiral. Obamacare’s insurance mandates and “consumer protection” regulations have driven up the cost of insurance plans, pricing healthy people out of the market. Without those people paying in to subsidize the sick, insurance costs must increase to make up the difference. The resulting higher premiums and deductibles price more people out of the market, and the cycle repeats ad nauseam.

“We were hoping for more stability. The factors that I have described to you today lead to instability and to a spiral, and we think we are in the beginning of that,” Burrell explained to the Post.

Obamacare is collapsing. Insurers in the health exchanges are indeed in a death spiral, and the president is telling the truth. The Los Angeles Times is being dishonest with the American people about the failure of Obamacare by accusing President Trump of “stoking fear.”

Campaigning against Obamacare’s visible failures has been a winnings strategy for Republicans in every election since the bill’s passage. Unfortunately, the Republican American Health Care Act, as passed by the House of Representatives, does not solve the problem.

“As a Marylander who know pays three times more for premiums in order to get less coverage and be subject to a $13,100 deductible, I can say this is an issue that fully resonates with residents of the state,” Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz said. “The problem is that Trump continues to promote a bill that accepts that premise of Obamacare that is causing these rising premiums.”

That premise is the continued demand for protective regulations for individuals with pre-existing conditions, community rating, and the insurance mandates from the federal government that micromanage what coverage insurance companies are permitted to offer to consumers. Those elements of Obamacare are preserved in the GOP reform bill, not repealed whole cloth as was promised.

“It takes talent, at a time when Obamacare is making families pay another mortgage, for Republicans to take the focus off the ills of Obamacare and transfer it to the ACHA,” Horowitz said.

“Yet, this is what happens when they focus on half-baked replace instead of repeal.” (For more from the author of “LA Times: Ignore Insurance Death Spiral, Trump Is Fearmongering” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump OKs Arms for Syrian Kurds, Despite Turkish Objections

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will arm Syria’s Kurdish fighters “as necessary” to recapture the key Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa, despite intense opposition from NATO ally Turkey, which sees the Kurds as terrorists.

The decision is meant to accelerate the Raqqa operation but undermines the Turkish government’s view that the Syrian Kurdish group known as the YPG is an extension of a Kurdish terrorist organization that operates in Turkey. Washington is eager to retake Raqqa, arguing that it is a haven for IS operatives to plan attacks on the West.

Dana W. White, the Pentagon’s chief spokeswoman, said in a written statement that President Donald Trump authorized the arms Monday. His approval gives the Pentagon the go-ahead to “equip Kurdish elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces as necessary to ensure a clear victory over ISIS” in Raqqa, said White, who was traveling with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Europe. (Read more from “Trump OKs Arms for Syrian Kurds, Despite Turkish Objections” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.