In a brazen attempt to re-write history, President Barack Obama in a speech on Friday blamed “the politics of resentment and paranoia,” which he said had found a home in the Republican Party, for “wild conspiracy theories – like those surrounding Benghazi.” What a reprehensible way to frame an event that killed four Americans while they waited for rescue and protection they deserved from people Barack Obama never sent. Of course, you only heard about Obama’s characterization of Benghazi if you pay attention to conservative media. By and large the mainstream press excluded references to Benghazi from their reporting of the speech. Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the heroes who watched his friends die that night in Benghazi, called Obama’s comments “disgusting,” tweeting: “Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent.” He’s right to be offended. The real conspiracy of Benghazi was the false narrative that the whole thing was the result of an offensive video – an objectively proven lie born from the resentment and paranoia within Obama’s own administration. They didn’t think the truth was compatible with getting Barack Obama re-elected six weeks after the attack. In reality, Obama himself contradicted this conspiracy narrative before he even left office. Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked him in April 2016 to identify the worst mistake of his presidency. “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” At least he got one thing right: Benghazi (or what he euphemistically refers to as the aftermath of his war in Libya) WAS a terrible mistake. What it was not is a conspiracy theory. With President Trump methodically erasing the Obama legacy, this bizarre attempt to reframe the narratives around Obama’s greatest failures should fool no one. Barack Obama took us to war with Libya. His State Department refused multiple requests to meet minimum security standards at the Benghazi consulate. President Obama never sent anyone to rescue or protect our ambassador or our own people during the 13 hours they were under attack. Four brave men died as a result and many other heroes had their lives forever altered. That is not a conspiracy. That is fact – no matter how inconvenient Democrats may find it. This is one part of the Obama legacy that Trump should not erase. We all need to remember the lessons learned from Obama’s worst mistake.
Agreed! Obama’s lies about his, and Hillary’s, epic failure with respect to Benghazi are unconscionable. It shows just how much of a coward he is. At best (and this is being WAY too generous), his and Hillary showed a spectacular lack of judgement and decision making when that horrific event happened. If you’re an honest Democrat, that is the ONLY defense you can possible muster. At worst, and this is FAR more accurate..there were a series of bad decisions, followed by a cover-up, and then when it was realized..Susan Rice was sent out to all of the major networks to lie about what they knew. That is exactly how it all went down. And, then.. When four brave Americans died as a result of this, Obama has the nerve in hindsight with the facts and videos out there to back it up…with his self-righteous, arrogant, metro-sexual manner to go out and suggest that the whole thing was a “Republican conspiracy?” Seriously?!? What a disgusting, nauseating tool… Shame on you Obama…and shame on the media for not calling him out, to his face…on camera. Thanks to former Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, who was the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, for setting the record straight.
For precisely what federal crimes is the president of the United States under investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department? It is intolerable that, after more than two years of digging — the 16-month Mueller probe having been preceded by the blatantly suspect labors of the Obama Justice Department and FBI — we still do not have an answer to that simple question. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein owes us an answer. To my mind, he has owed us an answer from the beginning, meaning when he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017. The regulations under which he made the appointment require (a) a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation or prosecution has been committed; (b) a conflict of interest so significant that the Justice Department is unable to investigate this suspected crime in the normal course; and (c) an articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes — which shapes the boundaries of the special counsel’s jurisdiction. This last provision is designed to prevent a special counsel’s investigation from becoming a fishing expedition — or what President Trump calls a “witch hunt,” what DAG Rosenstein more diplomatically disclaims as an “unguided missile,” and what Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, invoking Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret-police chief, pans as the warped dictum, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In our country, the crime triggers the assignment of a prosecutor, not the other way around. Sound reasons undergird the regulations. If a Democrat were in the White House, we would know them by heart at this point. Republicans once knew them well, too. That was before Donald Trump’s character flaws had them shrugging their shoulders, resigned that he deserves to be investigated whether he committed a crime or not. Yet, the rationale for the regulations relates to the presidency, not to the man or woman who happens to occupy the office at a particular time. It is too debilitating to the governance of the United States, to the pursuit of America’s interests in the world, for us to permit imposing on the presidency the heavy burdens of defending against a criminal investigation unless there is significant evidence that the president has committed a serious crime. As illustrated by this week’s hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats are too Trump-deranged in this moment to recognize their interest in avoiding a prosecutor’s cloud over future Democratic administrations. (Of course, they probably calculate that no Democratic attorney general would appoint a special counsel, no matter the evidence, and that the media would compliantly play along.) It is therefore up to Republicans to respond to the damage being done to the office. This can be hard to do. If policy were all that mattered, the Trump presidency would be a rousing success. The economy is humming. The yokes of tax and regulation have been eased to the extent that, despite tariff hijinks, unemployment has plummeted and employers have trouble filling positions. Meanwhile, the federal courts are being stocked with exemplary jurists who, for decades, will be faithful stewards of the Constitution. Alas, there’s a lot more to it than policy. You want to slough off as unreliable the latest ABC/Washington Post poll that has Trump’s job approval at just 38 percent (with 60 percent disapproving)? Okay . . . but since he seems hell-bent on personalizing the midterms as a referendum on him, it is less easy to ignore that the so-called generic ballot is swinging the Democrats’ way: by nearly 10 points according to FiveThirtyEight, while even more Trump-friendly Rasmussen reflects a recent Democratic surge to a four-point lead. As the Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger observes, the president’s loyal base, consisting of roughly a third of the voting public, is going to be with him and, presumably, with Republicans. Still, if a Democratic takeover of the House is to be avoided, the GOP desperately needs the voters who reluctantly pulled the lever for Trump only because he was not Hillary Clinton. You may notice that Mrs. Clinton is not on the ballot this time.
Thank God.. For more on this piece by attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, click on the text above. Andrew does a great job at really delving into the central question… “What EXACTLY is Pres. Trump, and his administration/campaign, being investigated for?” If you ask an average American, regardless of political party affiliation, what the answer to that questions is, they don’t have a clue. As Andrew quite rightly notes.. Normally, in America, a crime has been committed FIRST. THEN, an investigation is done to determine who committed it. In this case, a Special Counsel, along with a very partisan staff, has been hired for over 16 months…at enormous expense to we-the-taxpayers…to see if the President or his campaign may have committed a crime. That’s Stalinist fascism at its worst; the kind of thing we’d expect to see in North Korea or China….but not here in the United States. DAG Rosenstein owes us an answer now!
Dana Perino called out the unnamed White House official Wednesday on The Five who penned a New York Times opinion piece blasting President Trump. The piece, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” is written by an anonymous senior official who said other top White House officials are “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [President Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations.” Perino, who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, called the author of the op-ed “extremely self-indulgent.” “You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post.” President Trump addressed the piece during a meeting with sheriffs from across the country at the White House, calling it “gutless.” “If I weren’t here, I believe the New York Times probably wouldn’t exist,” he said. Perino said that something about the release of the op-ed is suspicious, given that it was published just a day after excerpts of veteran journalist Bob Woodward’s book on Trump’s White House were published by The Washington Post. “If you are this person, you really should resign tonight,” she said. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a statement regarding the story Wednesday evening, agreeing with Perino’s sentiment. “This coward should do the right thing and resign,” Sanders wrote.
Agreed… Dana Perino is spot on here. So, kudos to her for calling out whoever the heck this is. The whole idea of a treasonous almost shadow-like entity within the White House trying to undermine the President, who was duly elected by the people, should be terrifying to everyone regardless of political party affiliation or persuasion. Hopefully this loser is found and fired soon…and IF he is guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, also charged for those crimes. Newsflash to whoever this is.. You don’t work for Trump. You work for US; we-the-people. We pay your salary. Like Dana said.. If this person really exists, and thinks all of this, then he/she should resign immediately. For more, or to watch this segment from The Five, click on the text above.