Connect with us

Media

NYT: Let bygones be bygones, as long as it’s Clinton and Uranium One

Published

on

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker thinks it’s wrong for President Trump to ask the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One scandal. He thinks it’s okay to let bygones be bygones, as long as they are committed by Democrats.

Look at the quotes he included in his latest piece “Trump shatters longstanding norms by pressing for Clinton investigation.”

From Karen Dunn, one of the Obama White House lawyers and a Clinton adviser: “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.” From former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon: “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

Trump Shatters Longstanding Norms by Pressing for Clinton Investigation | Peter Baker, New York Times

The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners. The issue will almost certainly energize what was already shaping up to be a contentious hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, when Mr. Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

He buried the lede of the substance of the Justice Department’s review many paragraphs down. In July, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the Justice Department asking them to look further into Uranium One (Baker doesn’t mention the timing here, only Trump’s tweets about it). In late September, the Judiciary Committee again requested the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Uranium One, since that investigation appears “to be outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.”

Finally, Baker closed the case all by himself.

Donors related to Uranium One and another company it acquired contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank for a speech. But there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton participated in the government approval of the deal, and her aides have noted that other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signed off on it as well. The company’s actual share of American uranium production has been 2 percent; the real benefit for Russia was securing far greater supplies of uranium from Kazakhstan.

Nothing to see here. Move along, because “there is no evidence.” That doesn’t mean “no evidence has been found,” or “investigators have turned up no evidence.” Baker is asserting that no evidence exists, therefore, no investigation is necessary.

Thank you to the New York Times for closing the case.

With Democrats in office, it’s okay for the Justice Department to help craft deals to funnel settlement slush fund money to liberal causes and away from conservatives. It’s okay for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton in a hush-hush private-plane on the tarmac confab just days before then-FBI Director James Comey recommended no prosecution for Hillary. It’s okay for the Obama White House to exert political pressure to end the Clinton email investigation before the election. It’s okay for the FBI to continue investigating Donald Trump’s Russia connections, paying the same operative used by Fusion GPS to compile the “Trump dossier,” and use secret FISA wiretaps against targets.

It’s okay for those FISA warrants and investigations to become the foundation of Robert Mueller’s cases against George Pappadopoulos, Carter Page and Robert Manafort. It’s okay for Mueller to strong-arm those indicted individuals (convicted, in Pappadopoulos’ case) in order to move further into President Trump’s inner circle. It’s okay to use Wikileaks-obtained documents to force release of White House communications, against the advice of White House counsel Don McGahn, to further the Russia investigation.

And it’s okay with the New York Times to continue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation despite the fact that no evidence of collusion has turned up yet (at least not leaked to the public yet, and we know if it existed, it would be leaked).

But when it comes to things that Hillary did and got away with (so far), it’s called “weaponizing” the Justice Department to revisit those things when the House Judiciary Committee has requested it.

It’s so nice to let bygones be bygones, when you’re an unabashed liberal pretending to be impartial.

Further reading

Goodlatte & Judiciary Republicans Renew Call for Second Special Counsel to Address Issues Outside the Scope of Mueller’s Investigation | U.S. House of Representatives

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=978Recently, we wrote to you to request responses to those and other unanswered questions pertaining to the Clinton investigation. However, as the most recent Comey revelations make clear, ignoring this problem will not make it go away. Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

Jeff Sessions considers investigating Hillary Clinton, others involved in Uranium One deal

http://noqreport.com/2017/11/13/jeff-sessions-considers-investigating-hillary-clinton-others-involved-uranium-one-deal/Update: President Trump Tweeted a teaser last night. Some are betting on it being and announcement about the investigation. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930320191699017730 https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/930330913094885376 https://twitter.com/libbybakalar/status/930329180599861249 Original Story Reports out of DC indicate Attorney General Jeff Sessions is weighing the options for investigating the Obama-era Uranium One deal that gave a Russian-owned company partial control over our nuclear energy…

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

Jim Acosta is building his own celebrity, not seeking the truth

Published

on

Jim Acosta is building his own celebrity not seeking the truth

The press shouldn’t be part of the news. It happens from time to time based upon proximity; because they have to be close to situations, they occasionally get drawn in. What a good journalist should never do is intentionally insert himself into the news, but that seems to be exactly what CNN’s Jim Acosta is doing.

He doesn’t care about reporting. It’s as if he now enjoys being the news. That’s the only logical conclusion one can come up with when viewing his actions over the past several months. Once an obscure media figure during the Obama era, Acosta has found true celebrity status by going after the President and his staff.

He tasted blood and he liked it. Now, it seems he’s addicted to it.

The latest “outburst” against him came from the President himself. It happened during an event with the President of Kazakhstan in which Acosta asked an unrelated question:

‘OUT!’ Trump orders CNN star Jim Acosta to leave Oval Office after reporter’s newest outburst

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/01/16/out-trump-orders-cnn-star-jim-acosta-to-leave-oval-office-after-reporter-s-newest-outburst.html“Did you say that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from Norway? Is that true Mr. President?” Acosta frantically shouted.

“I want them to come in from everywhere… everywhere. Thank you very much everybody,” Trump responded as Acosta continued to bark questions.

That’s all acceptable, albeit slightly inappropriate considering the reason for the event. Acosta took it up several notches with his followup question:

“Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts of the world… people of color.”

This was intended to insert himself into the news once again. It’s a ridiculous question to ask and embarrassed the President and the nation on an international stage. “Journalists” like Acosta are willing to harm the country and its people as long as they can harm the President at the same time.

I’ve treated the President fairly since he was elected. When he pushes a big-government agenda, I voice my concerns. When he does well, I give praise. I would never attempt to shame him (and the nation as a result) with petulant outbursts of absurd questions. Jim Acosta apparently doesn’t hold such standards.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Rich Lowry on Dick Durbin’s desire to make a DACA deal work

Published

on

Rich Lowry on Dick Durbins desire to make a DACA deal work

Based upon Senator Dick Durbin’s actions the last few days regarding President Trump’s “s***hole” comments, one would think his intention was to derail talks and have a valid reason to blame Republicans in general and Trump in particular. If he really wanted a DACA deal, wouldn’t he have handled it differently?

JD Rucker had some thoughts on this:

Trump was wrong to say what he said. Durbin was wrong to reveal it.

http://noqreport.com/2018/01/12/trump-wrong-say-said-durbin-wrong-reveal/Durbin crossed that line. He took comments that paint the entire country through the President himself in a way that harms our ability to work with other nations. He wasn’t championing the nations Trump spoke out about. He had a single intention: harm.

Will this help with negotiations? Possibly, but at what cost?

National Review’s Rich Lowry wasn’t quite as accusatory, but he did question Durbin’s motives and whether or not he really wanted to make a DACA deal happen. Perhaps he was just greatly offended. Then again, perhaps he was just being a politician. Here’s Lowry’s quote:

“Everyone seems to think that Durbin really wants a deal, which makes it weird that he has gone out of his way to blow up the s***hole meeting.”

Read all of his comments:

Trump’s “Shithole” Comments, DACA & Political Fallout

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455430/trump-shithole-comments-daca-political-falloutOne benefit of a merit-based system is that it would move us away from special ethnic pleading in immigration policy. The visa lottery began as affirmative action for Irish immigrants. My understanding is that Dick Durbin said in the meeting that he wanted to preserve the visa lottery in a slightly changed form because the Congressional Black Caucus wanted it. This is not how we should be making decisions about who comes here and who doesn’t.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Rand Paul defends President Trump’s sentiment

Published

on

Rand Paul defends President Trumps sentiment

On an interview today with Chuck Todd, Senator Rand Paul defended the President’s sentiment in his infamous “s***hole” comment. While not defending the language, he noted that if the language itself had been more politically correct, the sentiment of what the President said was true.

He also turned blame on the media and Democrats for derailing immigration talks by focusing on the President’s comments.

“I do want to see an immigration compromise and you can’t have an immigration compromise if everybody’s out there calling the President a racist,” Paul said.

My Take

For the most part, the Senator is correct. This has become a distraction and a roadblock to important talks. The incessant desire to discredit the President has the rabid media keeping us focused on how the President talks rather than his actions.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.