Democrats complaining about special counsel Robert Mueller's lack of authority to indict the president as the reason there are no more indictments coming are ignoring "the logical conclusion: There was no collusion," according to Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga.
"At this point the president has been proved right," Rep. Collins, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told "Fox News Sunday" of "no collusion" and "witch hunt" claims by President Donald Trump. "I think he was obviously frustrated during this time, and rightfully so, as this report seems to show."
Democrats have long argued the special counsel would get to the bottom of 2016 election meddling after President Trump's victory, which has been delegitimized in the eyes of some Democrats. But continuing House Democrat investigations post-special counsel suggest it was never going to be enough to vindicate the president in their partisan view.
"In their main core of the collusion or investigation of obstruction, they're seemingly coming to the point that the president and those around him had nothing to do with this," Collins told host Chris Wallace. "That is the core finding at least in what we’re seeing so far."
As far as Democrats trying to "paint the president" by pointing to the indictments delivered thus far by Mueller's team – including Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn – they also prove nothing, according to Collins.
"I just think it shows you've got three people who chose to lie to investigators when nobody told them to lie to investigators as far as anything has been pointed out," Collins told Wallace. "If this report comes back – as it seems to be coming back – that there was no collusion on the president or the part of the campaign, then that is the part that we need to take and move from here.
"Why people lie, Chris, that’s a discussion for them and their lawyers and why they chose to do that."
Source: NewsMax Politics
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Sunday he wants to "see all" of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Trump campaign collusion, including what was behind the FBI’s "extraordinary use of government surveillance power."
In an interview on NBC News’ "Meet the Press," Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "we want to learn as much as we possible can that’s allowed and permissible" under Justice Department policy and "of course, the law."
"I want to see all of it, what was the underlying criminal predicate for the entire investigation," he said. "Let's see the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] investigations because this is an extraordinary use of government surveillance power…. Show us what those were."
"Let's see all of that and put all of that out there so we can pass judgment about how the investigation was conducted or at least the predicate for the investigation was conducted during the Obama years," he added.
According to Rubio, the completion of the the Mueller report now also means the intel committee can question people that it has wanted to interview for its own probe.
"The end means there should nobody out there, and there shouldn't be anyone out there that we shouldn't be allowed to interview … There's no reason for anyone to not talk to us," he said.
Source: NewsMax Politics
Regardless of the revelations of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, the reality is former FBI Director James Comey knew Russia was meddling in the 2016 presidential election and did "nothing" because he "thought Hillary [Clinton] would win the election," according to retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"In the last Congress that I served in, I wrote a letter in August to the director of the FBI Comey and said 'Russia is meddling with our elections and you need to do something about that' and by October he had done nothing," Reid told "The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y., per The Hill.
"The hindsight from his troops are 'well he didn't do it because he thought Hillary would win the election. He therefore thought it'd be too political for him to get involved."
Reid added to host John Catsimatidis, Russia's meddling campaigns might have been exposed, but they are not yet curtailed or stopped.
"The Russians interfered with our elections," Reid said. "They've done it in the past. They're doing it as we speak in European countries, and they're going to do it again in America."
Comey criticism is not unusual from Reid, who has long blamed Clinton's loss on Comey's actions and inaction on Russia's election meddling.
Source: NewsMax Politics
The letter from Attorney General William Barr sent to Congress "shows that the Russia collusion investigation is exactly what President Trump always said it was – a witch hunt," former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., wrote for RealClear Politics.
It will not be just a function of what is in special counsel Robert Mueller's report, but we should not be "overlooking the significance of what's not in it," according to Huckabee.
"Not one of the Democrats' high-value targets — Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or any other Trump family members — were indicted by Mueller, and the Department of Justice has already said there will be no more indictments forthcoming," Huckabee wrote.
"Of course, Mueller didn't subpoena the president, either, crushing the hopes of the mainstream media journalists and pundits who had been confidently expecting that very outcome from the start of Mueller's probe. If President Trump really was an agent of Russia, as they fervently believe he is, then surely Mueller would have taken the added step of at least interviewing him before ending the investigation.
"Among those who were indicted in the Mueller investigation, moreover, not one was charged with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election – the entire purpose of assigning a special counsel."
Huckabee also noted the fact the special counsel's investigation has concluded on its own volition, meaning "President Trump did a lousy job" of obstructing it or justice.
"Here we are, two years and $30-plus million in taxpayer funds later, and nothing to show for it, except some completely discredited media commentators and partisan members of Congress who breathlessly all but guaranteed there would be evidence of the president and members of his family and staff colluding with the Russians," Huckabee wrote. "I won't hold my breath for their admissions and apologies.
". . . With the Mueller witch hunt behind him, perhaps now the President Trump can finally focus his full attention on the job that the American people elected him to do: making America great again."
Source: NewsMax Politics
The flu has not been as severe as in recent years, but it is extending into spring at historical highs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The rate of medical visits due to the flu is double the baseline 2.2 percent, recording a 4.4 percent for the week ending March 16, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports. It is the highest mark this late in the year since the CDC began recording the data 20 years ago.
"The CDC expects flu activity to remain elevated for a number of weeks, suggesting this season is likely to be relatively long," according to the report, per USA Today. ". . . Flu activity is expected to remain elevated nationally through April."
The flu season generally runs from October to May, and 44 states have widespread flu reports, while 26 are reporting high activity.
"Influenza-like-illness levels have been at or above baseline for 17 weeks this season," CDC reported. "By this measure, the last five seasons have averaged 16 weeks, with a range of 11 to 20 weeks."
Flu symptoms include: stuffy nose, fever, cough, muscle or body aches, headaches, and tiredness.
There have been 76 flu-related pediatric deaths nationwide, according to the report.
Source: NewsMax America
In the first major speech of her presidential campaign Sunday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is set to deliver a rebuke of the U.S. president as a "coward," according to notes obtained by AP and Reuters.
The speech is set at the front of Manhattan's Trump International Hotel & Tower, which she will call "a shrine to greed, division and vanity," according to AP.
"We're bringing the fight to Trump’s doorstep," the event's page reads.
Unlike some of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates, Sen. Gillibrand has not been shy to call President Donald Trump by name.
"President Trump is tearing apart the moral fabric of our country," she plans to say, Reuters reported, per The Hill. "He demonizes the vulnerable and he punches down. He puts his name in bold on every building.
"He does all of this because he wants you to believe he is strong. He is not. Our president is a coward."
Sen. Gillibrand's campaign platform will call for universal healthcare, paid family leave, and gun control.
In her remarks for Sunday, Gillibrand praises the bravery of high school students organizing to end gun violence, young people brought to the country illegally as children who are fighting for "their right to call this country home," and "of course, the formerly well-behaved women who organized, ran for office, voted and won in 2018."
"That is brave," she says.
Gillibrand also talks about her own courage, which she says is evidenced by her ability to win a House seat in a district seen as a Republican stronghold, by fighting for funds to cover the cost of medical care for rescue workers and survivors of the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and by fighting on behalf of survivors of sexual assault and harassment at the Pentagon, in Congress and on college campuses.
Information from the AP was used in this report.
Source: NewsMax Politics
The War on Poverty worked. Contrary to President Reagan’s joke about it, it wasn’t poverty that won.
What we called poverty back in 1963 when we started on the adventure pretty much doesn’t exist in the United States today. So, yes, we got rid of it, abolished it. We won, not poverty.
This is not how we normally hear about it of course, from any side. This sort of victory would mean that taxing richer people to give money to poorer people works in reducing poverty. There are those who’d rather this weren’t so, or perhaps generally known. On the other side, all sorts of people would really rather we didn’t know that we have won. If that’s true, there’s no argument in ever higher taxation of the rich in order to send ever more to the poor, is there?
This is a point I’ve made around here before. More than once. Poverty is a lack of money; sending poor people more money makes them less poor. How can it be otherwise? Sure, it might not make them happier, won’t make them better educated, won’t heal broken family structures, and won’t delay gratification impulses. There are all sorts of things the simple transfer of money won’t do, but it will make people less poor.
The “Economic Report of the President” has an excellent chapter on this very point this year. Start at page 427 — I read it so you don’t have to go through all of it. As I’ve been saying, in fact, as all woke economists have been saying, the problem is that we’ve just not been counting the effects of what we do to reduce poverty on the amount of money poor people have, nor, therefore, the number of poor people.
The earned income tax credit, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid — all these are things sent off to poor people. Yet we don’t include them in our calculations of how many poor people there are.
Effectively, the official poverty measure is a reading of how many people would be poor if there wasn’t any government help. That’s a useful number, certainly. But what we want to know is how many are still poor after what government does. Only with that can we decide whether we need do more, or perhaps even that we should cut back. That’s the one number we’ve not had as an official measurement, until this report.
When we do add in everything we already do, then we get to:
It’s difficult to think of anything at all which government gets right to a margin as small as 2 percent. I think it fair therefore to declare victory. We had that War on Poverty, and we won.
It’s worth noting that this is even more so with child poverty, the one thing the American welfare system really is good at is concentrating aid onto families with children.
This will of course disappoint those who hoped it didn’t work, so we could stop doing it. But it will enrage those who want us to do even more than we already do. For if poverty doesn’t for all intents and purposes still exist, then what is the argument in favor of higher, crippling taxes upon the rich?
We know what the answer will be: inequality. But that’s going to fail the electoral test.
People might not always get the details of everything quite right. Quite what the delusion is that makes my fellow countryman Simon Cowell popular, I’m not sure of. But in aggregate and on big issues, there’s great wisdom out there. That’s exactly why we use this system called democracy to decide the big things, of course.
Americans will pay taxes and volunteer and charitably donate in large numbers in order to beat poverty. There’s no real reason why a child in a country as rich as this should be destitute. Absent serious mental or addiction problems with the mite’s parents, they’re not. Americans won’t mobilize in the same manner to beat inequality, which is exactly why so much of the debate is framed as poverty, which is what it was about, instead of inequality, which is what it is now.
Americans don’t obsess over Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos and their hundred billion dollars. Unless it’s to marvel at the wonder that their kids are growing up where it’s possible to do that and heck, they might, eh? They’ll dig deep for a pair of shoes for the barefoot, but worry not about an unequal distribution of Air Jordans where some might have more than others.
Another way to put this is that, well, if we don’t worry much about inequality, and we have in fact beaten poverty, then what is the Left going to complain about?
Tim Worstall (@worstall) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. You can read all his pieces at the Continental Telegraph.
Grandparents are more and more forced into the role of raising their children's children amid the latest drug epidemic tied to opioids, particularly for low-income white Americans, census data suggests, according to The Washington Post.
"As the middle generation has been hollowed out by the abuse of opioids and other substances, the oldest generation has become increasingly responsible for their grandkids, experts say," the Post's Andrew Van Dam wrote.
"It's a responsibility that many didn't expect and weren't prepared for. Retired folks find themselves trading their sedans for minivans, moving out of their adult-only communities and searching for work to cover the expenses that come with raising a child."
With the shear number of kids who need care as their parents either die from drug addiction, are jailed, or need rehab, the foster care system in communities are flooded, forcing areas to seek out extended family to take over care, sometimes without notice, according to the report.
"Unlike traditional foster parents who typically plan and go through a series of trainings, and plan for months or years to take on the role of caring for an additional child, grandparents and other relatives typically step into the role of raising children with little to no warning," Generations United deputy executive director Jaia Lent told the post. "They often get a call in the middle of the night, saying, 'Pick up your grandchild, or they'll go into foster care.'"
According to Generations United, about 95 percent of caregiving relatives work outside the foster care system and often lack financial means and support to meet needs, per the report.
Source: NewsMax America
Without a mention of John McCain after breaking from the president's criticism of his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham delivered loyalty and laughs in a light-hearted, GOP fundraiser speech Friday as President Donald Trump looked on, Politico reported.
"If Lindsey's speaking, I want to come down here for two reasons," President Trump said, per a video posted by a Politico reporter. "No. 1: He's a great speaker; and No. 2, I know if I'm here, he's not going to say anything bad about me."
The media was shut out of attending the annual Lincoln Day Dinner, a Palm Beach County Republican Party fundraiser, per the report. President Trump had not planned to attend, but he did announce Sen. Graham after having dinner with the first lady Melania and his son Barron, according to attendees.
"We found a lot in common: I like him and he likes him," a jovial Graham joked in a light-hearted speech, those in attendance told Politico.
Among the other one-liners from Graham, who spoke "off the cuff," according to Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop:
- On hailing the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: "There will be a Trump hotel there in 10 years," he cracked.
- Graham jokingly asked the crowd if they wanted to see former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., on the Supreme Court. Gowdy was in attendance and "mingling with the president," according to Politico.
- After the crowd started a "lock her up" chant about Hillary Clinton, Graham quipped: "Don't lock her up! We want her to run again."
"Pretty typical Lindsey," one attendee told Politico of the 30-minute speech, which President Trump arrived for and left when it was done.
The following from the Trump inner-circle and Florida GOP were in attendance, per the report.
- Emcee ex-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
- Donald Trump Jr. and girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle.
- Florida Lt. Gov Jeanette Núñez.
- Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla.
- Former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
- Republican National Committee co-chair Tommy Hicks, Jr.
- Conservative activist James O'Keefe.
One topic that was not broached, as the Mueller report was delivered to the Justice Department, was the Russia investigation.
"Nobody mentioned anything, other than all of us saw our phones and knew the report dropped," an attendee told Politico.
Source: NewsMax Politics