Latest Obama-Rice Scandal Comes into Focus

Gulag Bound

"What started out last year as an investigation by the Obama administration into Russian interference in our presidential elections has turned into the latest scandal involving both former President Barack Obama and his national security adviser, Susan Rice. The media are in full panic mode, attempting to keep the focus of the investigation on President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, while trying to shield Obama and Rice from the consequences of their actions.

"What has become clear during the past week is that the focus of the investigation should clearly be shifting from alleged collusion between President Trump’s associates and the Russian government, in order to influence the election—for which no evidence has emerged—to the role of the Obama administration in surveilling, incidental or otherwise, unmasking and leaking information about the Trump campaign and transition teams, for which all sorts of evidence has emerged.

"The question for the Republicans, who control every congressional committee as well as the executive branch, is whether or not they have the fortitude and integrity to ignore the pressure from the corrupt, liberal media and to expand or re-direct the investigation wherever the new evidence compels them to go.

"The latest development is the unmasking of former national security adviser Susan Rice. Rice was outed this week as someone who requested the unmasking of people associated with Trump’s campaign and transition team." . . .

Why do the Democrats only believe in unmasking the good guys?

“I know nothing.” - Susan Riceequivocating,“Sure I did it, but not for political purposes. And I didn’t leak anything.” – Susan Riceand dissembling,“I voted against it (unmasking) before I voted for it.” – Susan RiceOr why, when caught, they always blame their enemies for their own transgressions: “The accusation against Susan Rice by the Breitbart crowd and by people in this building that I think are tossing around slanderous accusations without evidence.” – Rep. Schiff

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal  "Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates' information that was widely disseminated. Here's why that's significant."

Thinking About Pence and Bill O'

Jewish World Review  "Last week, we spent six or seven days gawping at Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, for their supposedly bizarre or retro marriage rules. Pence, as even villagers in Bora Bora doubtless know by now, does not attend one­on­one dinners with women other than Karen, and he does not drink alcohol in social settings when Karen is not with him. 

"Progressives were by turns confused and disgusted. They assumed that this conveyed a primitive view of relations between men and women. Does he imagine that all women are sirens, some wondered, prone to turn an innocent dinner into an opportunity for sexual adventure? What a caveman view! Or was he so vain as to think himself an Adonis whom women would be unable to resist? Besides, this private rule between spouses represents a setback for women in the workplace. Don't most deals take place over dinner? Wouldn't women be the losers if all men had such rules? 

"Conservatives had a bracing time with rebuttal. Mike Pence's lieutenant governor was a woman! Avoiding "occasions of sin" isn't primitive; it's actually kind of elevated. Each couple may draw the line in a different place, but drawing lines around marriage is a very healthy impulse, not a weird one. In typically pithy fashion, Jonah Goldberg noted: "Elites say we have no right to judge adultery, but we have every right to judge couples who take steps to avoid it." 

"My own take on the Pence brouhaha is that feminists who demand respect for women should never disdain the honor that good men show their wives by their constancy. Extremism in defense of fidelity is no vice. " . . .

Democrats block Gorsuch consideration, paving way for Senate rules change

WaPo

"Democrats successfully blocked Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court from advancing in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, sparking what is expected to be a bitter clash with Republicans over how the chamber confirms high court nominees.

"Gorsuch failed to earn the 60 votes needed to end debate on his nomination. In response, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has vowed he will change Senate rules in order to confirm Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees with a simple majority vote.

"A final confirmation vote on Gorsuch is not scheduled until Friday, when 52 Republicans and at least three Democrats — from states won by Trump in last year’s election — are expected to vote to have him replace the late Antonin Scalia on the high court." . . .

WATCH LIVE: Senate Cloture Vote and Nuclear Option on Neil Gorsuch nomination

From Israel: A Senate showdown is at hand over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and it could change the Senate and the court for years to come

“Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Donald Trump nominated her,” McConnell said, naming one of the more liberal sitting justices. “There is simply no principled reason to oppose this exceptional, exceptional Supreme Court nominee.” 

Legal Insurrection

"The Senate is scheduled to vote to end debate (“cloture”) on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

"Under current rules, 60 votes would be needed to end debate. Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, have promised to filibuster, i.e., vote against ending debate. Based on prior statements by Senators, Democrats should have at least 41 votes against ending debate, thereby preventing the nomination unless Republicans change the Senate rules to allow cloture by a simple majority of 51 votes (the Nuclear Option).

"Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote, so Republicans have the power to go nuclear. Changing the Senate rules on judicial cloture votes was first implemented by Democrats in 2013 for all positions below the Supreme Court.

"Watch Live below as the Senate votes.

To nuke or not to nuke

Chuck Schumer Forces the Question: What to Do with Insane Liberals?   . . . "Worse, a Democrat return to power would bring with it serious payback – revenge that would most likely find its form in their own efforts to lock up Trump supporters, given that Maoist-style reeducation camps remain a favored progressive staple, one already field-tested by Democrat FDR's confinement of the Japanese during World War II.

"After all, in leftist eyes, Trump's election was a sign that history had errantly veered from the dead-end wall of Marxism toward the unsettling open road of self-determination.  Progressives are salivating at the chance to set that script right."

Eerily reminiscent of the scene from Marathon Man – where the Holocaust survivor shouts attention to the Nazi war criminal walking her streets – Schumer's Trump j'accuse  in midtown Manhattan carried the same potential for street justice as a Nazi accusation delivered in an Hassidic neighborhood.

 

Republicans Get Ready to Go Nuclear  . . . "The votes to end debate on the judge’s nomination and change the rule are expected Thursday morning.
"As Sen. Tom Cotton explained, there’s a big difference in Republican and Democratic use of the nuclear option. 

“For 214 years the Senate had never, not once, in a partisan filibuster defeated a nominee to the courts or to the executive branch,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday.

“That all changed in 2003 when Chuck Schumer persuaded Democrats to begin filibustering judges. Then that continued under the Obama era, and the Democrats used the so-called nuclear option in 2013.

“There’s a world of difference between Republicans using a tool that the Democrats first abused in 2013 to restore a 214-year-old tradition that the Democrats first violated in 2003." . . .

America's M1 Abrams Tanks are Getting a Big Upgrade: 'Shields'

National Interest

"The Army has purchased an emerging technology for Abrams tanks, Bradleys and Strykers designed to give combat vehicles an opportunity identify, track and destroy approaching enemy rocket-propelled grenades in a matter of milliseconds, service officials said.

"Called Active Protection Systems, or APS, the technology uses sensors and radar, computer processing, fire control technology and interceptors to find, target and knock down or intercept incoming enemy fire such as RPGs and Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, or ATGMs. Systems of this kind have been in development for many years, however the rapid technological progress of enemy tank rounds, missiles and RPGs is leading the Army to more rapidly test and develop APS for its fleet of Abrams tanks. 

“ 'The Army is looking at a range of domestically produced and allied international solutions from companies participating in the Army's Modular Active Protection Systems (MAPS) program,” an Army official told Scout Warrior." . . .

Susan Rice Lied about Syrian Chemical Weapons

I forget; was it Hillary or Susan Rice that William Safire once called "a congenital liar"?

comicallyincorrect

Daniel John Sobieski  "The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.

"On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress, gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:" . . .

Obama destroyed Libya for no good reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillary Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.

Dolly Parton Exposes Why CMAs Cut Her Speech Short ...

Country Rebel  "Watch the video below of Dolly Parton speaking with press after the event, and at the end she touches on her shortened speech. "

"Blessed with one of the biggest honors of the night, this country legend was forced to exit stage left in the middle of her acceptance speech and never got to finish what she had worked so hard on. 

"Dolly Parton is a true American treasure and a wonderful part of the world of country music. She has given so much wonderful and touching music to the world that the CMA chose to honor her with the Willie Nelson Lifetime Achievement Award during this year's CMA Awards ceremony - but there was one big part of the award missing: her acceptance speech! 

"After being announced as the recipient of the award, Parton also got a heart-warming tribute from some of country music's biggest female singers and walked on stage to accept the honor and speak about what it means to her. 

"That lasted for just a brief moment before the crew behind the show signaled her to leave the stage - forcing her to cut her speech short! " . . .

The Confirmation Process for Presidential Appointees

Heritage

Key takeaways:

The Constitution divides responsibility between the executive and judicial branches - the president and the Senate.

A president’s most visible and consequential nomination may occur when a seat opens on the Supreme Court.

Historically, the Senate has confirmed most presidential nominations, but “in rare instances” a vote to confirm has failed.

"Americans tend to think of their president as the most powerful person in the world, but the Constitution limits the power of all three branches of government—the president as well as the Congress and the federal courts.In the case of filling top positions in the executive and judicial branches, the Constitution divides responsibility between the president and the Senate. Article II, Section 2 empowers the president to nominate and—“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”—to appoint principal officers such as department heads as well as subordinate ones such as deputies.The process of the president’s nomination of Cabinet secretaries, and the Senate’s confirmation of them, is perhaps best known to the public but still somewhat mysterious.Steps in the ProcessThe Congressional Research Service, which studies and analyzes legislative matters for members of the Senate and House, breaks it down this way:First, the White House selects a prospective appointee and sends a formal nomination to the Senate.Second, the Senate determines whether to confirm the nomination.Third, the president presents a signed commission to the successful nominee and he or she is sworn in, assuming authority to carry out the duties of the office.The appointments clause of the Constitution specifies that the presidentshall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

President Trump is methodically undoing Obama's policies bit by bit . . .

. . . "from abortion to climate change - but it hasn't all been smooth sailing "

UK Daily Mail

"Amid the turmoil over staff shake-ups, blocked travel bans and the Russia cloud hanging overhead, President Donald Trump is steadily plugging away at a major piece of his agenda: Undoing Obama.

"From abortion to energy to climate change and personal investments, Trump is keeping his promises in methodically overturning regulations and policies adopted when Barack Obama was president.

"It hasn't all been smooth sailing.

"Trump recently failed to fulfill his pledge to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which continues to stand as Obama's most recognizable domestic policy achievement. 

"Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan couldn't persuade enough fellow Republicans to back new health care legislation last month. Ryan pulled the measure just before a scheduled House vote.

"Trump has had better outcomes in other areas." . . .   Read more on the list here.

The Russian Emperor's New Clothes

Ann Coulter  "The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won't stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team. 

"Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election -- even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine -- has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.

"But for now, let's just consider the raw plausibility of the story.

"The fact-less claim is that (1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and (2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton's primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

"First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who'd already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.

"The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous "reset" button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America's uranium production, under Hillary's careful management -- in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

"(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! -- LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! -- because Trump referred to 20 percent of America's "uranium," not to 20 percent of America's "uranium capacity." This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.) 

"The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that's only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia's only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.

"But let's say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first." . . . 

It's Time For Conservatives To Celebrate This President

"If the president's approval rating really is in the 30s, this makes overt support for him all the more imperative. Whether you like his tweets or not, his fate is our fate."

Dennis Prager

. . . "I say this as one who vigorously opposed him during the Republican contest for the nomination. I said from the beginning, in print and on my radio show, that I would support Trump if he became the nominee, but I dreaded his becoming the nominee. His comments about the size of his hands, Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war and former President George W. Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; his lack of any history as a conservative; and the seeming absence of a filter between his brain and his Twitter app made it difficult for me to imagine him as a serious president of the United States.

"Nevertheless, once he was nominated, I just as vigorously supported him on the simple and — I still believe — unanswerable grounds that while no one could be certain how Trump would govern, we were all certain about how Hillary Clinton would govern — as a leftist. And I truly believed that another four years of left-wing rule would mean the end of America as it was founded to be.

"That is why I found the arguments of the conservatives who were Never-Trumpers, many of whom I work with, admire and count as friends, not just unpersuasive but incomprehensible. That a conservative could prefer Clinton — which was the only upshot of a Never Trump position — to any Republican could only mean that we have an entirely different understanding of the damage the left has done and would have done to America and the Western world if Clinton had won." . . .