OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:57 PM PT – Thursday, July 11, 2019
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
recently discussed the heightened threat posed by Iran. The two leaders
spoke on the phone Thursday to address the latest developments in the
Middle East as well as regional security challenges. The president said the Ayatollah regime may face a new round of
sanctions in response to its ongoing support for Islamic terror groups.
This comes as Netanyahu said he would greatly appreciate an increased
pressure on Iran as it has recently vowed to destroy Israel, yet again.
I spoke with US President Donald Trump. We
discussed regional developments and security issues. Foremost among them
was Iran. I thanked President Trump for his intention to increase
sanctions against Iran.
President
Donald Trump arrives to speak at the “Presidential Social Media Summit”
in
the East Room of the White House, Thursday, July 11, 2019, in
Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Meanwhile, Ayatollah regime officials are threatening to end America’s presence in the Middle East.
“The number one power of the world,
the biggest power in international politics, the U.S. couldn’t write
down one line against Iran. America’s role in world politics has ended.
America feels that it has been defeated in the campaign theater of
Middle East.”
— Mohammad Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister – Iran
President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu also vowed to boost
bilateral security cooperation to curb Iran’s efforts to export the
Islamic Revolution across the Middle East.
FILE - In this May 29, 2019, file photo, special counsel
Robert Mueller speaks at the Department of Justice Wednesday, in
Washington, about the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster,
File)
Three omnipresent factors dominate everything on Capitol Hill. They’re known as “the three P’s.” Politics, policy and procedure. Politicians
may quibble as to whether the politics are right about an issue. Are
members politically in step with their districts or states on a topic?
Maybe so. Maybe not. They don’t have to be. And, if a lawmaker strays
too far afield from his or her voters, they often pay the price. Lawmakers
wrestle constantly about policy. This is the right approach for
defense. No, this is the right policy for defense. No, you’re both
wrong. Pols may be at odds over how to handle issues at the border,
immigration, health care or even the debt ceiling. Their disposition may
be right or flawed. But it doesn’t matter. Lawmakers don’t have to be
right on the policies they support or reject. And then there is procedure. The
politics can be off-kilter. The policy can be iffy. But the procedure
cannot be out of alignment. Congressional rules are the Congressional
rules. The Constitution is the Constitution. House and Senate precedent
is House and Senate precedent. The only one of the three P’s which must
be on target is the procedure. This
brings us to next Wednesday’s hearings with Special Counsel Robert
Mueller before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The
committees are still negotiating with Mueller’s team about the structure
of the hearing. First of all, Mueller was only willing to come under a
subpoena. So, the House issued a subpoena. Now, Mueller’s agreed to only
submit to two hours of questioning apiece for both panels. But two
hours may not be sufficient. There is a time problem. House Rule
XI, Clause 2(J) says that “each committee shall apply the five-minute
rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as
each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to
question in each witness.” In other words, everyone is required to get five minutes to pose questions. The
Judiciary Committee is comprised of 41 members: 24 Democrats and 17
Republicans. If the committee abides by the House rule, that’s 205
minutes of Q&A alone. Three hours and 25 minutes. And things on
Capitol Hill always consume much more time than expected. Things
are a little better for the Intelligence Committee. That panel has 22
members: 13 Democrats and nine Republicans. That would entail 110
minutes or an hour and 50 minutes. Still, there’s not much wiggle room. Consider
this: There are almost always opening statements by the chair, ranking
minority member and the witness. Housekeeping consumes a few minutes. At
a hearing of this magnitude, there’s a high possibility for disruptions
from the audience and “parliamentary inquiries” from members about how
the panel is proceeding. Those issues could start to devour the
allocations pretty fast. On the first day of confirmation hearings
for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last September, senators
wrangled for one hour and 17 minutes over procedure, documents, dilatory
tactics and endured various crowd disruptions before Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) could finally read more than 12
words of his opening statement. All of that was even a couple of weeks
before anyone heard anything about Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey
Ford. So what happens if lawmakers don’t get to engage Mueller in questions? Unclear. But the procedure would be off. No one is quite sure where this is going. House
Judiciary Committee Democrats held a lengthy, closed-door session about
the structure of the hearing on Wednesday night. Most lawmakers emerged
with few answers. Nearly all replied that things were “in flux.”
Reporters staking out the conclave even asked if “in flux” was a unified
talking point Democrats agreed to. They denied it. “These are ongoing discussions,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) as he headed down a corridor to avoid reporters. “Is this going to be settled tonight?” asked yours truly. “It’s ongoing discussions,” replied Correa. “It may not be settled until the day of the hearing.” Rep.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is a freshman member of the Judiciary
Committee. She’d likely be one of the last members to question Mueller,
due to her lack of seniority. Reporters asked if she’d be allowed to
question Mueller. “We are talking on the format. We haven’t
decided yet,” replied Mucarsel-Powell. “We’re still negotiating with
Mueller’s team on the timing and how much time we’re going to have.” Rep.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is one of the most outspoken members on the
Democratic side of the aisle. She rarely shies away from a reporter’s
question in the hall or a TV camera. But not Wednesday night. Jackson
Lee headed straight for the elevator. “We are preparing for a full
hearing with Mr. Mueller,” said Jackson Lee matter-of-factly as she
slid into an elevator, the door closing on cue. And it’s not just Democrats who are perturbed. “I’m
really irritated,” said Judiciary Committee member Rep. Debbie Lesko
(R-AZ), who just joined the House 14 months ago. “I don’t even get to
question him? This is just plain wrong. I’ve been elected just like
anybody elsewhere and for the leadership in the committee to decide that
only certain members and certain members even on (the Democratic side)
of the aisle – that’s just plain wrong.” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL)
tried to engage Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on the
issue during a meeting of the panel Thursday morning. “Could you
lay out for us what exactly, with respect to the Muller hearing next
week, what exactly you agreed to and why you agreed to it?” asked Roby. Nadler finally responded after a pregnant and awkward pause. “I’m not going to comment on that at this hearing. It is beyond the scope of this hearing,” replied Nadler. The
consternation for this hearing anyway, exacerbated by the time
constraints. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she wouldn’t infuse
herself into the debate in an effort to preserve the institution’s rules
or to broker an agreement. “I wish we had more time. But I’m glad
we have the time we have,” said Pelosi. “On distribution of timing in
committees, I’ll leave that up to the chairmen.” So, Mueller is
coming next Wednesday. The politics of having Mueller come could be
right or wrong. The policy stances of Democrats and Republicans on the
Russia probe could be right or wrong. And
if they only stick to two hours for each committee – thwarting many
members from asking questions under House rules, the procedure is wrong.
It was obvious from the outset that the media didn’t think much of Donald Trump’s social media summit. Before
yesterday’s White House event got under way, a New York Times news
story declared: “The guest list has alarmed critics who fear it is
bringing together people who disseminate threats, hate speech and actual
fake news, and who sometimes have their messages elevated with the
velocity of a presidential tweet.” That was mild compared to the
Times’ savvy tech columnist, Kevin Roose, who scoffed at the red-carpet
treatment for “right-wing trolls,” calling the guests “a motley grab bag
of pro-Trump influencers (who) have taken to Twitter to brag about
their invitations.” But the president, in his morning tweets,
didn’t exactly convey that this was some fair-and-balanced look at the
problems of Big Tech. He said the purpose is to examine “the
tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression practiced by
certain companies. We will not let them get away with it much longer.” He added: “The Fake News Media will also be there, but for a limited period.” It’s
rather odd, to say the least, to hold a summit and not allow reporters
in to draw attention to the issue at hand. The White House later decided
to grant access to the press pool, but never released a guest list. So
the event was shrouded in a bit of mystery. So
you have the establishment press saying that POTUS is catering to
purveyors of fake news, and Trump saying he’s limiting the ability of
fake news to cover the summit. The grand fake-off sort of crystallizes
the complete lack of trust on both sides. The president offered what he viewed as high praise, telling his guests that “the crap you think of is unbelievable.” Trump
complained that he was getting less engagement on his tweets, which he
found suspicious. “I used to watch it like a rocket ship when I put out a
beauty,” he said. “Remember I said somebody was spying on me? That was
like a rocket.” (That was his 2017 tweet that Barack Obama had
wiretapped him, for which there remains no evidence.) A prominent
attendee was Sebastian Gorka, a White House official until he was pushed
out. When Trump moved the show to the Rose Garden, where he talked
about the census and citizenship, Gorka walked past the press pool and
got into a high-decibel exchange with liberal CNN contributor Brian
Karem, with Gorka calling him a “punk.” Several of the guests began chanting “Gorka!” The
theatrics belie some serious issues. It’s not that Twitter, Facebook
and Google—which weren’t invited--don’t deserve a ton of criticism. The
companies all lean left. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack
Dorsey have acknowledged this is a problem. They apply their so-called
standards inconsistently, in a number of instances against
conservatives, and sometimes have had to apologize for that. And they’ve
done a lousy job of policing hate speech, disinformation and Russian
propaganda, fueling calls for government regulation. Still, the
White House invited some controversial characters, as the press was all
too happy to point out. They include James O’Keefe, whose conservative
outfit does surreptitious taping to embarrass liberals, and who once
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in a case involving Mary Landrieu for
entering a building under false pretenses. They include Ali
Alexander, who recently tweeted that Kamala Harris had falsely implied
that she was descended from “American Black Slaves.” The biracial
senator has been quite open about her parents being from Jamaica and
India. And they include a Trump supporter using the screen name
Carpe Donktum, who tweeted an obviously doctored video of Joe Biden’s
shoulders being massaged by a second Biden at a time the former veep was
being accused of inappropriately touching women. There’s
an important debate raging in the country about the Silicon Valley
giants, once among America’s most admired companies, and whether they
are biased and allowed their platforms to become a toxic cesspool. The
White House session may have scored some points, but mainly from one
side.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., added to the mounting Democratic criticism of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., slamming
her "inappropriate" suggestion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., is singling out the New Yorker and her "squad" of fellow
freshman because of their race. Speaking to Fox News on Thursday night, Clay hammered Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion. "It
was such a weak argument to say she was being picked on and that four
women of color were being picked on by the speaker," he said. "It tells you the level of ignorance to American history on their part as to what we are as the Democratic Caucus. "It is so inappropriate. So uncalled for. It does not do anything to help with unity. It was unfair to Speaker Pelosi." Clay
continued his broadside, saying the comment exposed how much
Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and
Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., have to learn when it comes to being
"effective legislators". "It’s going to take a process of maturing
for those freshman members. They will have to learn to be effective
legislators," he said. "It shows their lack of sensitivity to
racism. To fall back on that (trope) is a weak argument. It has no place
in a civil discussion." The lawmaker closed his remarks by suggesting the four freshmen could hurt Democratic chances in upcoming elections. "It
shows they have no sensibility to different members from our caucus.
Some come from red districts and those are the ones who gave us the
majority. We need them all," he said. His comments followed a feud between Pelosi and freshman congresswomen, like Ocasio-Cortez, that involved racially-charged criticism. Ocasio-Cortez's
chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, previously compared moderate
Democrats to racists -- prompting Pelosi, at the request of some of her
members, warn House Democrats not to attack each other on Twitter. "You
got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet
about our members and expect us to think that that is just ok," she
reportedly said. On the same day of that caucus meeting, Ocasio-Cortez
called out Pelosi for what she sees as the speaker continually targeting
her and other freshmen lawmakers of color. "Their ignorance is beyond belief," Clay also said while in the Speaker's Lobby, according to The Hill. Clay
wasn't the only one to attack Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday. "The View"
hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg criticized her's and others'
decision to attack Democrats like Pelosi. "I think this is more BS,"
Goldberg said of Ocasio-Cortez's comments on race. Pelosi, meanwhile, refused to provide further comment on the feud while discussing it during her weekly press briefing. “I've said what I'm going to say…What I said in the caucus yesterday had an overwhelming response from my members," she said. "Because
they know what the facts are and what we are responding to. We respect
the value of every member of our caucus. The diversity of it all is
a wonderful thing. Diversity is our strength. Unity is our power." Fox News' Alex Pappas contributed to this report.
Fox News' host Sean Hannity said Wednesday he has had enough of House Democrats abusing their power calling their investigations into President Trump and Russia "presidential harassment." "There
is no more ambiguity. There's no questions to ask anymore. House
Democrats. They're now conducting what is the fifth and sixth
investigation into collusion, so-called collusion, that didn't happen,"
Hannity said on his television show Wednesday. "The
only collusion that happened was Hillary Clinton's dirty dossier.
That's how Democrats are spending your tax dollars. This is nothing more
at this point than presidential harassment and an abuse of power by
them." Hannity blasted Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and accused them of bankrupting "innocent Americans." "People
like Nadler and the cowardly Schiff leading these brand new probes
wasting the country's time and they're now having innocent American
citizens that have to once again lawyer up they're going bankrupt in
some cases as they're called to answer the same questions for a fourth
fifth and sixth time," Hannity said. "And
by the way every time they answer they better answer it perfectly the
way they did the last time or else they'll determine that that's
perjury. They'll get charged with that and they'll need more lawyers." The
radio host advised those testifying before the House Judiciary and
Intelligence committees to plead the fifth in order to avoid legal costs
and stand up to Democrats. "My advice to all of those people that
willingly testified to Congress that cooperated with the Mueller probe.
You know you can plead the Fifth and you know what. It won't cost you a
dime. You don't have to hire any more lawyers and you can stand up to
this abuse of power," Hannity said. Hannity also called Nadler and Schiff "content creators" for cable news channel MSNBC. "Nadler
and Schiff they're no longer lawmakers this isn't oversight. This is
now them merely can content creators for [MSNBC] and 'Roswell' Rachel
Maddow's nonstop anti-Trump conspiracy hours," Hannity said.
Fox News' Laura Ingraham spoke directly to California Governor Gavin Newsom Wednesday criticizing his response to the homeless crisis after his state gave illegal immigrants Medicaid benefits. "Gavin,
you have runaway homelessness in your state, it's a total crisis right
now. Most notably in San Francisco and L.A. It's creating filthy and
infectious conditions for Californians and especially those low income
citizens who don't send their kids to fancy private schools," Ingraham
said Wednesday on "The Ingraham Angle." Newsom signed a bill
into law Tuesday making young illegal immigrants eligible for the
Medicaid program in California, making it the first state to offer such
taxpayer-funded health benefits to low-income adults age 25 and younger
regardless of their immigration status. The Fox News host
criticized California Democrats and warned that the rest of the country
could become like California if Democrats have their way. "My
friends, it's all a Democrat-induced disaster. Instead of focusing on
things like, I don't know, mental health, infectious disease problems
that are plaguing this state, the politicians of California are spending
$98 million more to extend health care to illegals. That's on top of
the billions they already spend on them," Ingraham said. "The whole country will soon become the next California if the Democrats get their way." Ingraham pointed out that Democrats should prioritize Americans over other nationalities who "violate our laws." "These
California Democrats and those seeking national office need to
recognize that they were elected to represent the American people in
this country, not the people from elsewhere who violate our laws to
enter our country," Ingraham said. Fox News' Frank Miles contributed to this report.
Amy McGrath
said late Wednesday that she would not have voted to confirm Brett
Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after all -- just hours after she told a
Kentucky newspaper that she "probably" would have supported Kavanaugh's
contentious nomination because there was nothing to "disqualify" him. McGrath's
initial support for Kavanaugh, and her ensuing flip-flop, sparked a
fierce backlash from progressive activists supporting her bid to
unseat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Because McGrath had
condemned Kavanaugh last year, some observers accused her of committing a
rare "double flip-flop." The dramatic public stumble blunted
McGrath's momentum on the same day she announced her campaign had raised
$2.5 million in its first 24 hours. It also fueled criticisms from both
Republicans and Democrats that the Marine combat aviator may not be a
winner in congressional politics. McGrath was already being widely criticized for her claim in
a televised interview earlier on Tuesday that President Trump's
election was similar to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and her close defeat
in a House race last year disappointed national Democrats. "You know, I think that with Judge Kavanaugh, yeah, I probably would have voted for him," McGrath told The Louisville Courier-Journal on Wednesday. She also said that it was a "good question" to ask. "I
didn't listen to all of the hearings. I don't think there was anything,
and I'm not a lawyer or a senator on the Judiciary Committee, so I
don't know the criteria," McGrath offered. "But I was very concerned
about Judge Kavanaugh, what I felt like were the far-right stances that
he had. However, there was nothing in his record that I think would
disqualify him in any way. And the fact is when you have the president
and the Senate, this is our system and so I don't think there was
anything that would have disqualified him in my mind."
Although McGrath called Christine Blasey Ford's accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in high school "credible," she reiterated that she did not view them as "disqualifying." "Well,
I mean I think again, I think it's credible but given the amount of
time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't
think it would really disqualify him," McGrath said. Four hours
after her remarks were published, McGrath tweeted a mea culpa that
immediately drew scorn from both Democrats and Republicans. "I was
asked earlier today about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and I answered based
upon his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. But upon further
reflection and further understanding of his record, I would have voted
no," McGrath wrote. She continued: "I know I disappointed many
today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett
Kavanaugh. I will make mistakes and always own up to them. The priority
is defeating Mitch McConnell." Reaction on social media was unsparing. "This, my friends, is what we call an unforced error," journalist Yashar Ali observed. "Take
your third position on this later, the night is young," said Jake
Wilkins, the communications director for North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer. Read the headline of an article on the left-wing blog Jezebel: "Unfortunately, the Woman Trying to Unseat Mitch McConnell Also Kind of Sucks." McGrath narrowly lost a House race to
an incumbent Republican in Kentucky last year. During that race,
McGrath slammed Kavanaugh and suggested she would not support his
confirmation -- leading some prominent commentators on social media to
charge that McGrath's flip-flop was actually multi-layered. "I
echo so many of the concerns that others have articulated over the
nomination of Judge (Brett) Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," McGrath
wrote July 2018 on Facebook. "He
has shown himself to be against women’s reproductive rights, workers'
rights, consumer protections and will be among the most partisan people
ever considered for the court." In a tweet on Wednesday, McGrath
added: "I echo the concerns over the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. He's
been against women’s reproductive rights, workers' rights, consumer
protections, and is a hard-core partisan. But we are reminded, again,
that elections have consequences, and this will be with us for a
generation."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in D.C. back in January. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
And after Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh came to light, McGrath said she found her to be "compelling." "That
really stands out for me, not to mention the vast disparity in their
temperaments and demeanors while testifying," McGrath wrote in a September 2018 Facebook post. "Dr. Ford's testimony was quite compelling." McGrath's
campaign launch Tuesday was aided by a breathless NBC News report hours
earlier that McConnell's distant ancestors owned slaves -- a revelation
blunted by McConnell pointing out that President Barack Obama's ancestors did as well. In
another striking moment, an eager MSNBC anchor also urged McGrath to
tell viewers how they could easily donate to her campaign online. For
her part, despite the apparent assistance from NBC, McGrath
acknowledged Tuesday she has a tough task in trying to defeat one of the
most entrenched officials in Washington. But she said she sees him as
vulnerable because of his lengthy tenure in Washington and his stance on
health care. Her decision to enter the race represented a rare
victory for Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who has had
difficulty persuading top-tier candidates in other states to take on
incumbent Republicans with control of the Senate at stake. The
contest will also test the power of incumbency against a call for
generational change, and hint at Trump's popularity is transferable. McGrath
will almost certainly be able to raise enough money to mount a serious
challenge to McConnell, 77, but she is still a decided underdog in a
state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford
in 1992. "I've been always somebody who stepped up to the plate
when asked, when I felt like my country needed me, and this is one of
those times," McGrath said in an interview. She has said that
Kentucky voters are not fans of either political party and they
supported Trump in part because of his promise to "drain the swamp" in
Washington, lower drug prices and deliver a more effective alternative
to the Affordable Care Act. "Those things haven't happened because of guys like Senator McConnell," she said. McConnell
struck back quickly in a Twitter message that presaged what a race
between him and McGrath would look like. The tweet strung together a
series of quotes from McGrath that depicts her as an out-of-touch
liberal who also opposes Trump, and notably his call for a U.S.-Mexico
border wall. McConnell campaign manager Kevin Golden said McGrath
lost in 2018 "in a Democratic-wave election because she is an extreme
liberal who is far out of touch with Kentuckians." The
Senate majority leader's tone was more sanguine. "It'll be a spirited
race," he said Tuesday at the Capitol. He says unlike others, "I
actually enjoy campaigns." Fox News' Sam Dorman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Worst thing ever happening to the Democrat Party was allowing Anti American Muslims into the US Government, Period! Love seeing them eat their own :-)
The public spat between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif,
got a lot nastier on Wednesday, with the freshman congresswoman
suggesting that the speaker is "singling out" her and her colleagues
based on their race. Pelosi has worked to keep the Democratic
caucus in line, specifically four newly-elected outspoken
progressives: Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Rashida
Tlaib, D-Mich., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.. However, a feud
between Pelosi and the quartet escalated after Congress passed a border
funding bill that the four young Democrats opposed. Pelosi discussed
the bill, and those in her party who oppose it, in an interview last
weekend. She told the New York Times: "All these people have their
public whatever and their Twitter world, but they didn’t have any
following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got." Ocasio-Cortez said to The Washington Post on Wednesday that the "persistent singling out" by the Speaker may be more than "outright disrespectful." "When
these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping
the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect
more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “But
the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just
outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected
women of color.” In an earlier interview with The New Yorker Radio Hour, Ocasio-Cortez accused Congress of using women and minorities as "bargaining chips." "When it comes to women of color in Congress, particularly the freshman,
it's that we both have encountered and represent communities that have
been auctioned off and negotiated off for the last 20 years. And we're
over it," Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday. "We
see in these negotiations all the time--- it's like fighting for black
communities or policies that help women. They're bargaining chips. And
they're the first chips that are reached for in any legislative
negotiations." On Wednesday, Pelosi also delivered a stern message
to her caucus, telling House Democrats: "You got a complaint? You come
and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect
us to think that that is just okay."
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
