Ben Carson Punches Back Against Ilhan Omar Remarks

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson fired back at freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) after she publicly criticized him after he testified in a hearing on Tuesday.

Omar tried to bash Carson during his testimonial before the House Financial Services Committee.

She said, “Not sure he was fully awake, maybe he meant to reclaim his time back to sleep.”

Omar was hinting at Carson’s request to reclaim time during a heated battle with Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass).

Carson fired back on Twitter.

The freshman progressive has been facing the heat with numerous controversial statements. On Tuesday, while being interviewed on the Nation, she bashed on Republican supporters by saying America has a major problem with ignorance, and that problem is “pervasive.”

Click here to listen to the exchange here.


Marissa Martinez is a political contributor for Accuracy in Media. She is the former political director to Massachusetts Governor’s re-election campaign, alumna of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and political consultant to national PACs. Follow her AIM border stories, @MarissaAlisa


Go to Source
Author: Marissa Martinez

Advertisements

Chicago Tribune Struggles to Fairly Cover Concealed-Carry Incident

Bias against Second Amendment rights came through in a story in the Chicago Tribune on the death of a man who was shot by his intended victim.

“Man paralyzed by concealed carry holder in 2017 dies from injuries, police say,” read the headline on William Lee’s piece in the Tribune.

“A south-suburban quadriplegic who died at a suburban hospital over the weekend succumbed to injuries he suffered in 2017, when he was shot and paralyzed by a concealed carry permit holder in the city’s Calumet Heights neighborhood on the South Side, authorities said,” read the lead.

The next paragraph offers details on the many who died but saves a key detail for later in the story.

“Brian Ford, 20, was pronounced dead Saturday at Ingalls Memorial Hospital in Harvey, according to the Cook County medical examiner’s office. An autopsy performed Wednesday showed that Ford died from a gunshot wound to the neck, along with complications of quadriplegia, according to the agency.”

Only in the next paragraph does the Tribune report how Ford came to be shot. His injury, Lee wrote, “stemmed from a Dec. 12, 2017, shooting that began with the then 18-year-old pulling his gun on a 27-year-old man driving his vehicle into a rear yard in the 9100 block of South Harper Avenue, according to Chicago police.

“The older man, a concealed carry holder, pulled his own firearm and shot the victim, police said. Ford was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn for treatment and was later charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and misdemeanor aggravated assault. But the case against Ford was dropped by Cook County prosecutors nine days after the first court hearing.”

According to the Gun Violence Archive, the gun Ford pointed at the victim had been used in other crimes. It characterized him as an “armed robber” and said the “Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine” had been “established.” In other words, concealed carry worked – a man prevented a late-night robbery in his own backyard with a weapon.


Go to Source
Author: Brian McNicoll

CNN Runs Factless Fact-Check on Trump Booting Dems From Infrastructure Meeting

CNN attempted to fact-check President Donald Trump on Thursday after he canceled a meeting with Democrats in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accusing him of conducting a cover-up of unspecified crimes. It did not go well.

In “Trump spreads false claims about Mueller as Democrats start tightening the screws,” Marshall Cohen of CNN asserted President Trump “spread at least four false claims Wednesday about the conclusions and costs of the Russia investigation while pushing back against Democratic leaders who are trying to pick up where special counsel Robert Mueller left off.”

The first involved “efforts to obstruct the investigation.”

“The Wall Street Journal just wrote today, just a little while ago … I saw it, ‘Mr. Mueller wasn’t obstructed in any way.’ This is the Wall Street Journal editorial today,” the president was quoted as saying.

In particular, Cohen took issue with a paragraph in the Wall Street Journal editorial that read: “He wants a show,” referring to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) “He wants to use (former White House counsel Don) McGahn as a prop to spend three hours claiming that Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation. Yet Mr. Mueller wasn’t obstructed in any way, his copious report was released for all to see, and there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.”

Cohen’s response reads, “The editorial cited by Trump isn’t an accurate portrayal of the Mueller report. Mueller found substantial evidence of obstruction by Trump, though his hands were tied by Justice Department policies from bringing an indictment. The report also laid out how some Trump aides took steps that hampered the investigation, and others were charged with lying.”

As to the steps taken to hamper the investigation, the piece contends there was “substantial evidence” Trump obstructed, including his efforts to fire the special counsel and have McGahn lie about it to the press.” It further claims “Prosecutors from Mueller’s team went to extraordinary lengths to explain how they had everything they needed to charge Trump but didn’t, at least partially because of the Justice Department policy of presidential immunity.”

But there was no “effort” to fire Mueller. The president always had the power to fire Mueller and chose not to. Moreover, the only evidence cited in the Mueller report that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller is a New York Times story from Jan. 25, 2018, that made the claim based solely on anonymous sources – a fact CNN did not acknowledge.

Attorney General William Barr declined immediately to prosecute the president on obstruction of justice charges and pointed out in a press conference that he disagreed with some of the legal theories by which Mueller’s team asserted the president had obstructed justice.

Will Chamberlain of Human Events wrote that the dispute is over subsection 1512(C)(2) of the U.S. Code and that Mueller “adopted an expansive, acontextual and constitutionally questionable interpretation of … it and used it to justify an extensive investigation into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.”

Barr’s interpretation, wrote Chamberlain, who is a constitutional attorney, “was for more textually and constitutionally sound” and “would have made it almost impossible for Mueller to justify investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.”

Cohen admits Trump could have invoked executive privilege and prevented his aides from testifying, but he made them all available. But not all of the 500 people Mueller’s team interviewed required Trump’s approval.

He says “Trump touts his ‘transparency’ with the Mueller investigation, [but] he never mentions his adamant refusal to agree to a sit-down interview.” What Cohen doesn’t point out is that Trump’s legal team provided detailed answers to every written question the Mueller team presented.


Go to Source
Author: Brian McNicoll

Kamala Harris Pays Men More Than Women

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ campaign and official office this week are struggling to justify why men are paid more than women as she has been vocal against companies who don’t pay women and men equally.

On Monday, the Californian stated she will take “executive action” and bypass Congress to fine companies and ban federal contractors who do not meet her “Equal Pay Certification.”

While on the campaign trail, Harris called this plan “historic,” and the “first of its kind.” 

But her own campaign would not hold up against her standards. The Washington Free Beacon broke the story and analysis showing how Harris’ 2020 campaign and Senate office fail on equal pay standards.

  • From April 1, 2018, to September 31, 2018, the median male salary disbursement was $34,999, and the median female salary disbursement was $32,999.
  • That gives women 94 cents of every dollar paid to men in her office.
  • In Harris’s presidential campaign for February 2019, the median female salary disbursement was $5,763.97 compared to $6,632.23 for men.

Harris’ equal pay plan would include harsh penalties on companies for not “meeting her executive ordered certification standard. For every 1% gap that exists after accounting for differences in job titles, experience, and performance, companies will be fined at 1% of their average daily profits during the last fiscal year.”

Harris’ plan makes no mention of having females come forward with complaints, a standard professional practice that has been proven effective in the workforce.

The Republican National Committee punched back at Harris on Fox News.

“We don’t need to strap new regulations, burdens, or fines on businesses to create opportunities for women, and President Trump’s economic record is a testament to that,” said Blair Ellis, RNC press secretary.

Marissa Martinez is a political contributor for Accuracy in Media. She is the former political director to Massachusetts Governor’s re-election campaign, alumna of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and political consultant to national PACs. Follow her AIM border stories, @MarissaAlisa


Go to Source
Author: Marissa Martinez

Trump Refuses to Back Down Against Pelosi, Democrats

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had a blowout public feud, with the “president detonating bipartisan negotiations over the speaker’s accusations of a ‘cover-up.’”

Trump did not back down from the speaker; he declared that he will not work or negotiation with congressional Democrats if they keep up their ongoing ‘witch hunt’ investigation into him and his administration.

Though Pelosi was caught in a major flip-flop just hours before on Capitol Hill she continued on as if nothing was wrong. Early Wednesday, in a private meeting, she strongly urged her 235-member caucus to back down from calling out and pushing for a Trump impeachment.

Immediately after she told multiple reporters that, “We [Democrats] believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.”

Trump called on the press in the Rose Garden saying, “I don’t do cover-ups. You people know that probably better than anybody.”

Moments later, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer held their own press conference. Pelosi said, “I pray for the president of the United States, and I pray for the United States of America.”


Trump and senior White House officials have said that they are the party serious about things important to the American people — such as infrastructure and the economy.

Trump said, “I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. I’d be really good at that. That is what I do. But you know what, you can’t do it under these circumstances. So get these phony investigations over with.”

Throughout Wednesday Trump flexed his muscle against Pelosi and Democrats in a series of tweets. On top of that the Mueller investigation that was supposed to highlight Trump and Russian collusion completely failed.

BRP Business & Politics wrote:

Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to accuse the president of criminal activity and keep fruitless, costly investigations going into things that have already been thoroughly investigated and then they want the president to smile and make the extra effort to ignore these comments and these investigations. If Democrats truly wanted bipartisanship, then they would drop the publicity stunts and look to the future with the president and get some real work done.


Marissa Martinez is a political contributor for Accuracy in Media. She is the former political director to Massachusetts Governor’s re-election campaign, alumna of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and political consultant to national PACs. Follow her stories, @MarissaAlisa.


Go to Source
Author: Marissa Martinez

AP Continues to Push Democratic Party to Begin Impeachment Process

Democrats are still trying to decide whether to move toward impeaching President Trump, but their friends in the media already have made up their minds, stoking the fires with incendiary language when writing about the controversy.

An Associated Press story, entitled “Vocal Democrats pressing Pelosi as impeachment talk swells,” by Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro, illustrates the case.

More Democrats are calling – “and more loudly” – for impeachment “after [President Trump’s] latest defiance of Congress by blocking his former White House lawyer from testifying,” Jalonick and Mascaro wrote.

The growing number of rank-and-file Democrats who support impeachment were “incensed by former counsel Don McGahn’s empty chair in the Judiciary Committee hearing room on Tuesday.” They’ve “confronted” the speaker and “pushed her and other leaders to act.” Trump, for his part, has “broadly stonewalled most all of their investigations.”

The piece noted that Rep. Jim Clyburn of Georgia, the No.3 Democrat in the House, “counseled caution” and recommended the House “follow a methodical process to get to the facts about Trump’s actions.”

A report Tuesday said that the Department of Justice has agreed to turn over some documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“Amid the impeachment talk and despite Trump’s broad pledge to stonewall, there was one rare détente between House Democrats and the administration,” Jalonick and Mascaro wrote.

It also pointed out Hope Hicks, former White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, a former aide to McGahn, have been subpoenaed, and that Donaldson “was the most-cited witness in Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation report, recounting the president’s attempts to interfere with the probe. And that makes his silence all the more infuriating for Democrats.”

It then again made the case for impeachment.

Pelosi’s strategy of continuing to build a case the American people could get behind “hasn’t been swift enough for some lawmakers,” Jalonick and Mascaro wrote. Several members, particularly on the Judiciary Committee, “feel they must take the lead in at least launching impeachment proceedings.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a radical Democrat from Maryland, “led others in arguing that an impeachment inquiry would consolidate the Trump investigations and allow Democrats to keep more focus on their other legislative work.”

It further noted that “With a 235-197 Democratic majority, Pelosi would likely find support for starting impeachment proceedings, but it could be a tighter vote than the margin suggests. Some lawmakers say voters back home are more interested in health care and the economy. Many come from more conservative districts where they need to run for re-election in communities where Trump also has support.”


Go to Source
Author: Brian McNicoll

Politico: Judge’s Ruling Against Trump ‘Eviscerated’ and ‘Delivers Striking Blow’

Politico cheered on a lower court judge’s ruling Tuesday that President Trump’s accounting firm had to turn over private records of Trump’s personal finances to a congressional committee.

The ruling, which the Trump administration already has appealed, calls on the firm Mazars USA to surrender eight years of the president’s financial records and set up a standoff between the president and Congress over its power to compel documents or witnesses be produced by the executive branch.

Politico reporters Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney clearly showed where they stand on these issues in “Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records” – subhead: “The judge, Amit Mehta, ruled that Congress can investigate the president without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.”

The judge argued Congress “is well within its rights to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president,” Cheney and Desiderio wrote in their lead.

The ruling by Mehta – an Obama appointee and contributor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – “delivers a striking blow to the president’s efforts to resist Democratic investigations and is certain to give Democrats further legal basis to investigate Trump, his finances and his presidential campaign,” they wrote.

The decision, wrote Cheney and Desiderio, “is a sweeping repudiation of Trump’s claim to be largely immune from congressional scrutiny, particularly in matters of potential legal violations” and “emphasizes that lawmakers have the authority to investigate Trump’s conduct from both before and after he took office.”

What Congress can investigate is not at issue. What is at issue is what it can compel the Executive Branch to produce in the way of witnesses or documents – a fact the story does not mention.

The ruling represents the first time a federal judge has ruled on questions of what evidence can be compelled and may not stand up under even its first challenge, but the Politico team stated it “is likely to provide a blueprint for other judges who are set to make their own rulings on Trump’s vow to defy all congressional subpoenas.”

The 41-page opinion “systematically dismantled the Trump legal team’s arguments against the validity of the subpoena – and he pushed back on claims from congressional Republicans that the House Judiciary Committee must formally launch an impeachment inquiry before issuing such subpoenas.”

Politico reported Mehta “noted that Congress had twice investigated alleged illegal activity by presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton” and the judge stated “Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”

Politico also reported that the president sued last month to block the subpoena, “arguing that it amounted to an improper and overtly political abuse of congressional authority.”

But it then reported “Mehta eviscerated that argument, too, emphasizing that a judge’s analysis of a congressional investigation ‘must be highly deferential to the legislative branch.’” Therefore, the judge couldn’t get into the business of determining whether the investigation was in service of legitimate legislative goals or political retribution.

The ruling “wasn’t entirely unexpected,” Politico reported, because last week, “the judge cast serious doubts” on arguments put forth by President Trump’s legal team.  

It closed by saying, “Trump and his GOP allies have argued that the Democrats’ probes are illegitimate and amount to an abuse of power.” It offers no explanation of why Republicans say this.


Go to Source
Author: Brian McNicoll

2020 Democrats Won’t Take Corporate Money – But are First on Wall Street

Democrats have pledged and sworn off lobbyist and corporate contributions left and right in order to court progressives. The Daily Caller reported that Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are the only presidential challengers who have not been actively courting Wall Street. Warren has even taken it a step further and has said she will not host top dollar exclusive fundraising tickets to events and dinners.

  • Pete Buttigieg: In February he met with Wall Street veteran Charles Myers
  • Kamala Harris: In March Citigroup Inc.’s managing director, Yann Coatanlem, hosted a fundraiser in his apartment on Fifth Avenue.
  • Amy Klobuchar: In March Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner, Bruce Heyman, raised over $100,000 in Chicago. Sources said he is in the works of planning a fundraiser for Joe Biden for the fall.

Heyman said, according to Bloomberg, “I’ve talked to about half of them, and I have not run into a single one who said, ‘Hey you worked for Goldman Sachs, I can’t take your money.’”

2020 Democrats have focused on delivering a grassroots appeal but have to raise a massive amount of cash for the Iowa caucuses, and June’s Democratic debates in June.

In April, Buttigieg had to return $30,250 from lobbyists to keep his favorability up in a crowded field of Democrats.

Steven Billet, a professor of legislative affairs and expert on PAC management said PACs do not typically give in presidential primaries, thus a candidate taking a stance against PACs means very little right now.

A report on Splinter News stated that before taking the no PAC money pledge the following candidates all cashed at least $129,000 in PAC contributions — Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris.

Walter Shapiro, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and columnist at Roll Call, told the Washington Examiner the Democratic Party pledge to refusal corporate PAC money “is, shall we say, a feel-good pledge that no one is going to have to worry about the consequences of adhering to.”

Marissa Martinez is a political contributor for Accuracy in Media. She is the former political director to Massachusetts Governor’s re-election campaign, alumna of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and political consultant to national PACs. Follow her stories, @MarissaAlisa.

  


Go to Source
Author: Marissa Martinez

BREAKING: Trump Hires Cuccinelli for Senior Role at DHS

FROM THE BORDER – Former Virginia General Counsel and conservative firebrand Ken Cuccinelli II will be hired by the Trump administration to oversee the coordination of immigration policy at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Cuccinelli will report to acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan who is providing daily briefs to senior White House officials and President Donald Trump.

The leadership at DHS has been shuffled in recent months. Most notably former secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was let go as the Trump administration wanted to go in a strong direction as illegal [Central American] immigrant apprehensions are on the rise and have been at a record high in a dozen years.

Today, there are between 11 million and 22 million illegal aliens living across the U.S., according to Breitbart.

As the crisis grows the Trump administration has moved in a stronger direction and demanded tougher responses from the agency and senior officials. White House adviser Steven Miller is said to support Cuccinelli for the role according to the New York Times

Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was in the run for the spot but was rumored to have pulled out after submitting a list of 10 demands for the position. One of the demands included the need for a private jet to travel to the border and back to his home in Kansas. The list of demands turned off White House officials considering resumes for the role.

Cuccinelli will not take on the role of “immigration czar,” but will focus on ensuring the White House’s immigration priorities are carried out accordingly and timely.

Unlike higher up positions, Cuccinelli will not require Senate confirmation.

Cuccinelli was a CNN legal commentator and backed Trump over the past two years on the southern border crisis. He served as Virginia’s attorney general from 2010 to 2014, and was a strong supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) presidential run. While in Virginia, Cuccinelli sponsored bills focused on integrating undocumented immigrants by compelling employees to speak English in professional workplace settings. He also attempted to repeal birthright citizenship, a stance Trump has endorsed.


Marissa Martinez is a political contributor for Accuracy in Media. She is the former political director to Massachusetts Governor’s re-election campaign, alumna of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and political consultant to national PACs. Follow her stories, @MarissaAlisa.

Photo by Gage Skidmore


Go to Source
Author: Marissa Martinez

NY Times Overlooks Basic Questions in Interview with Anita Hill

The New York Times ran an interview with Anita Hill about 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and failed to mention basic, important questions that would add more balance and journalistic credibility to the unchallenged assertions by Hill.

The Times’ interview allowed Hill to paint herself as a victim of Biden during her high-profile hearings of claims of sexual harassment. Not surprisingly, given the Times’ bias, rather than giving any response from Clarence Thomas, the person accused of sexually harassing Hill (who was approved for the Supreme Court decades ago and is not running for office) any chance to respond to Hill’s allegations.

And in her piece, the Times’ Katie Glueck chose to ignore the multiple, public allegations by women against Biden–who is currently running for office–that he touched them inappropriately. She also didn’t mention that Biden has come under criticism by some Democrats for his response to the inappropriate touching allegations, which have been called by some as flippant and joking.

Glueck’s story framed the entire Biden-Hill exchanges with the presumption of Thomas’ guilt and also offered no specific examples of mistreatment by Hill, other than that her questioners happened to be white and male in a politically-charged environment.

“Ms. Hill’s testimony in the Thomas hearings and the hostile questioning she faced from an all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee has led to questions this year about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is leading in early polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, and criticisms that he allowed Ms. Hill to be treated poorly as the committee’s chairman,” Glueck wrote, highlighting Hill’s race as an African-American without mentioning that Thomas is also African-American. Glueck offered no analysis of Hill’s evidence against Thomas or statements from Thomas supporters suggesting that the high-profile judge was mistreated or faced hostile questions from white, male Democrats.


Go to Source
Author: Carrie Sheffield