TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
The Smearing of a Trump Judicial Nominee
by Guy Benson 
.
clown-Schumer - Not Trump,
But All Other Presidents Deserve to Have Picks Confirmed
by rickwells.us
{ rickwells.us } ~ With the obstructionist Senate Democrats opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State... at a time when there are serious international issues that demand the attention of a capable professional on all sides, and with Mike Pompeo being a very capable individual, it’s interesting to listen to how Democrats addressed the issue when it was Hussein liar-nObama’s choices that needed approval. In November of 2013, Democrats voted by a margin of 52 to 48, along party lines, to ban the use of the filibuster to prevent nominees from being confirmed. At the time Majority Leader dinky-Harry Reid derided Republicans for “blocking nominees” in the pursuit of unrelated legislative goals. He said, “For the first time in the history of our republic, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President liar-nObama from appointing an executive team and from appointing judges. The need for change is so, so very obvious. It’s clearly visible. It’s manifest we have to do something to change things.” It’s unfortunate that he was able to get so many activist judges through the system as a result....
Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte and
Trey Gowdy Respond to Release of Comey Memos
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ “We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain... subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not. Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier. The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/19/devin-nunes-bob-goodlatte-and-trey-gowdy-respond-to-release-of-comey-memos/.Key DOJ and FBI Names Likely to
Surface Amid IG Investigative Reports and Referrals
by sundance
{ theconservativetreehouse.com } ~ With Inspector General Michael Horowitz submitting a criminal referral for fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe... and with knowledge of federal prosecutor John Huber paralleling Horowitz for months within the investigation; it might be worthwhile going through the names of some officials likely to surface in the next few days/weeks. The most interesting people in the ongoing investigation are those principals who clearly were in/around the center of 2015/2016 activity; were caught in 2017, yet remain inside the FBI and DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) ie. Main Justice... ."Belgium companies sold deadly
chemicals to Assad in violation of sanctions"
by Benjamin Weinthal
{ jpost.com } ~ Antwerp’s Criminal Court has opened cases against three Flemish companies for the alleged violations of EU sanctions... relating to the sale of illegal chemicals to the Syrian regime, according to a Wednesday report from the Belgium newsweekly Knack. The magazine reported that the Belgian companies – AAE Chemie, Danmar Logistics, and the shut-down Anex Customs – exported the chemicals to the Syrian regime, which included isopropanol, a chemical that can be used in the manufacturing of sarin nerve gas. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used sarin gas in a massive chemical attack on civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in 2013, resulting in the deaths of 1,4000 people. The joint media report said: “UN Comtrade statistics show that Belgium was the only EU member state that continued to export [iso]propanol to Syria since EU sanctions were imposed in 2013.” The report also showed that Belgium had sold deadly chemicals to Lebanon. The criminal trial in Antwerp involving the companies is slated for May 15... http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Belgium-companies-sold-deadly-chemicals-to-Assad-in-violation-of-sanctions-551224As Republicans dither on
liar-nObamacare, Democrats plot its expansion
by Philip Klein
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ When Republicans fail to advance a limited government agenda when they have power, it does not merely entrench the status quo... it paves the road for liberals to fulfill their expansionist dreams when they’re in charge. There is no better example of this than on healthcare policy. For decades, Republican inaction and acquiesce has allowed liberals to make uneven yet substantial progress toward their ultimate goal of imposing government-run healthcare on the United States. This time, Republican dithering may just enable Democrats to reach that promised land. In 1994, Republicans cheered after defeating President liar-Clinton’s push for national healthcare.They moved on to other issues, and avoided comprehensive free market healthcare reform when they had unified control of government during the second Bush administration. Democrats regrouped, learned from their mistakes, and honed their policies and messaging as they waited for their next opportunity. When given the chance, they passed liar-nObamacare....
.
The Smearing of a Trump Judicial Nominee
{ townhall.com } ~ Did you hear the one about the 'racist' Trump judicial nominee? Wendy Vitter, whom the president has selected to a federal District Court bench in Eastern Louisiana, declined at her confirmation hearing this week to weigh in on the correctness of the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education striking down segregation. The Left-wing outrage industry -- already eager to see her defeated -- seized on the exchange to paint Vitter as a crypto-segregationist:
“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked. “I don’t mean to be coy,” Vitter responded. “But I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.” After a pause, Blumenthal repeated the question. Vitter said: “Again, I would respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it. And if I start commenting on ‘I agree with this case’ or ‘don’t agree with this case’ I think we get into a slippery slope.”
This clip made the rounds, with liberal commentators melting down over how astonishing and amoral her response was. Take a look at some of these headlines. But the very same former Assistant US Attorney who many on the Left and others were favorably quoting earlier in the week regarding the FBI raids against President Trump's personal attorney took to Twitter to expose what he described as the "deceit" involved in launching this smear:
What Vitter was doing in this instance was resorting to -- or retreating to -- a version of the 'Ginsburg Standard,' established by ultraliberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearings. At the time, she said she would decline to comment specifically on any cases or issues that may come before her as a justice. Here's a contemporaneous New York Times report:
In her opening statement to the committee, which began its hearings today on the nomination, Judge Ginsburg also sought to set a clear boundary on what kind of questions she was willing to answer. She said she would not discuss specific cases or issues that might come before her. "It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide," she said. "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process." Although such unwillingness to engage in specifics has frustrated and annoyed some senators in the past, it was clear today that it will make no difference for Judge Ginsburg, who seems bound to win Senate approval easily.
Indeed, she sailed through by a 96-3 vote. As Ken White (aka "Pope Hat") says, "a significant number of nominees" have adopted a similar approach to answering questions about specific cases. Vitter undoubtedly believes Brown v. Board was rightly and justly decided, as do all Americans beyond the racist fringe. But like others before her, she chose not to go down the path of opining on the wisdom or rectitude of various Supreme Court rulings on any subject. If there were any shred of evidence at all that she might not believe in racial integration, that would certainly be cause for serious alarm. But her response to this question does not constitute such evidence. Also, a conservative attorney points out that Vitter specifically says she's bound by the Brown v. Board precedent:
My strong guess is that Vitter knows that this specific decision is a no-brainer, but discerned that if she started offering her views on "easy" cases, the line of questioning would proceed to much more controversial matters like Roe, Heller, Obergefell, etc. You may think it was a tactical error to stay silent on this narrow question in order to avoid the category entirely others have weighed in on settled, slam-dunk cases like Brown without wading into others. You may think that judges should be more transparent on such matters in general. But that's not the point of this nasty attack. The point of this nasty attack is to imply that the nominee, and the man who nominated her, are retrograde racists. I cannot speak to the qualifications of Ms. Vitter for the position, and I happen to agree that her past anti-abortion activism and initially incomplete disclosures are reasonable issues for opponents to raise; conservatives would do the same if the ideological shoe were on the other foot.
But this particular smear, which has gained a great deal of attention just perform a web search of her name, seems grossly unfair and misleading. I'll leave you with this: The Time Magazine piece I quoted above asserted that Vitter once advanced the "false statement" that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 American females per year. But that claim is absolutely true if one believes that (a) each abortion ends a life, and (b) roughly half of all abortions in America target unborn females Planned Parenthood performs approximately 300,000 abortions per year. Each element of that belief is backed up by science. Pro-choice or pro-abortion people may not believe that those lives ought to be legally recognized or protected, but that opinion does not change the scientific facts. It's almost as if journalists are overwhelmingly biased on the issue of abortion.
Comments