Conservative Blogger
Friday, January 25, 2019
MAGA caps under fire as Trump-haters blame his supporters
Now it's about the hats.
That is, people who despise Donald Trump are now aiming their anger at those who wear the red caps in support of the president.
This is dangerous stuff, and not just because of the absurdity that fashion has become the latest political battleground.
The sudden burst of invective aimed at those wearing "Make America Great Again" hats crosses an important line.
If Trump's liberal critics want to call him racist, fascist, incompetent, unhinged or all the other highly charged insults hurled at him, have at it. He's the president, he's fair game, and he obviously doesn't hesitate to slam his opponents.
But when they're denouncing people in MAGA hats — and this is obviously an outgrowth of the Covington controversy — they are blaming people who support Trump. They are saying that anyone who likes this president is, by definition, a racist.
In short, they are denouncing the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump, regardless of their choice of haberdashery.
COVINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT'S MOM SPEAKS OUT ABOUT VIRAL VIDEO ENCOUNTER
CNN contributor Angela Rye went there the other day, saying she is "triggered" by the hats.
"This 'Make America Great Again' hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood," she said. "That is the type of hatred his policies represent."
Think about that. It's like a hood. She is comparing people who back Trump to members of the Ku Klux Klan. They are, in this view, just out-and-out, torch-bearing racists.
Actress Alyssa Milano, a leader of the #Me-Too movement, is also in this camp. She tweeted that "the red MAGA hat is the new white hood." Not much nuance there.
Writing on The Wrap, Milano complained that "right-wing pundits and anonymous trolls alike screamed for my head — literally and figuratively. My husband received death threats on his cell phone. Many demanded an apology."
I don't condone threats of any kind, but when you make that kind of inflammatory accusation, you should expect some pushback.
But Milano insists she was right: "I won't apologize to these boys. Or anyone who wears that hat."
The reason why the hats have become intertwined with the national uproar over the Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky is clear. If some of them hadn't been wearing the MAGA hats, this never would have become a story. The video of their standoff with Indian activist Nathan Phillips would never have gone viral. The narrative was that Trump-loving kids were harassing this Native American elder.
NATIVE AMERICAN ACTIVIST IN VIRAL VIDEO CONFRONTATION NEVER DEPLOYED OVERSEAS, MARINES SAY
Of course, we now know it was Phillips who initiated the confrontation, changed his story several times and falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran (though he did serve in the military). But never mind: we're still debating the hats.
The ugliness directed at Trump supporters has its roots in the campaign. As I point out in my book Media Madness, the Huffington Post ran a post-election headline that said: "A VOTE FOR TRUMP WAS A HATE CRIME." Lovely.
During the debate over ObamaCare, some respected liberal pundits said they hoped Trump supporters wound up losing their health insurance, that it would serve them right. Again: If you back the president, you deserve an awful fate.
Robin Givhan, the provocative Washington Post fashion critic, went off on the hats yesterday, saying they have been "transformed into an open wound, a firestorm of hate and a marker of societal atavism. An aesthetically benign baseball cap is a 21st-century grotesquerie."
Givhan, who is African-American, makes her feelings about Trumpism clear. While the MAGA cap's definition has evolved, she writes, "there’s nothing banal or benign about the hat, no matter its wearer's intent. It was weaponized by the punch-throwing Trump rallygoers, the Charlottesville white supremacists, Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Kanye West and proponents of the wall, the wall, the wall.
"The hat has become a symbol of us vs. them, of exclusion and suspicion, of garrulous narcissism, of white male privilege, of violence and hate."
I've never worn a hat with a political statement, unless you include a Yankees cap. But it's really no different than a bumper sticker or T-shirt with a message.
Imagine what liberals would say if there was a backlash against people who wore a sweatshirt with the famous Obama "HOPE" logo.
The message from some on the left is now clear: if you associate with President Trump in any way — especially with a visible red cap — we will brand you a KKK-style racist. And yet they don't see themselves as fueling the divisiveness in America.
That is, people who despise Donald Trump are now aiming their anger at those who wear the red caps in support of the president.
This is dangerous stuff, and not just because of the absurdity that fashion has become the latest political battleground.
The sudden burst of invective aimed at those wearing "Make America Great Again" hats crosses an important line.
If Trump's liberal critics want to call him racist, fascist, incompetent, unhinged or all the other highly charged insults hurled at him, have at it. He's the president, he's fair game, and he obviously doesn't hesitate to slam his opponents.
But when they're denouncing people in MAGA hats — and this is obviously an outgrowth of the Covington controversy — they are blaming people who support Trump. They are saying that anyone who likes this president is, by definition, a racist.
In short, they are denouncing the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump, regardless of their choice of haberdashery.
COVINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT'S MOM SPEAKS OUT ABOUT VIRAL VIDEO ENCOUNTER
CNN contributor Angela Rye went there the other day, saying she is "triggered" by the hats.
"This 'Make America Great Again' hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood," she said. "That is the type of hatred his policies represent."
Think about that. It's like a hood. She is comparing people who back Trump to members of the Ku Klux Klan. They are, in this view, just out-and-out, torch-bearing racists.
Actress Alyssa Milano, a leader of the #Me-Too movement, is also in this camp. She tweeted that "the red MAGA hat is the new white hood." Not much nuance there.
Writing on The Wrap, Milano complained that "right-wing pundits and anonymous trolls alike screamed for my head — literally and figuratively. My husband received death threats on his cell phone. Many demanded an apology."
I don't condone threats of any kind, but when you make that kind of inflammatory accusation, you should expect some pushback.
But Milano insists she was right: "I won't apologize to these boys. Or anyone who wears that hat."
The reason why the hats have become intertwined with the national uproar over the Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky is clear. If some of them hadn't been wearing the MAGA hats, this never would have become a story. The video of their standoff with Indian activist Nathan Phillips would never have gone viral. The narrative was that Trump-loving kids were harassing this Native American elder.
NATIVE AMERICAN ACTIVIST IN VIRAL VIDEO CONFRONTATION NEVER DEPLOYED OVERSEAS, MARINES SAY
Of course, we now know it was Phillips who initiated the confrontation, changed his story several times and falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran (though he did serve in the military). But never mind: we're still debating the hats.
The ugliness directed at Trump supporters has its roots in the campaign. As I point out in my book Media Madness, the Huffington Post ran a post-election headline that said: "A VOTE FOR TRUMP WAS A HATE CRIME." Lovely.
During the debate over ObamaCare, some respected liberal pundits said they hoped Trump supporters wound up losing their health insurance, that it would serve them right. Again: If you back the president, you deserve an awful fate.
Robin Givhan, the provocative Washington Post fashion critic, went off on the hats yesterday, saying they have been "transformed into an open wound, a firestorm of hate and a marker of societal atavism. An aesthetically benign baseball cap is a 21st-century grotesquerie."
Givhan, who is African-American, makes her feelings about Trumpism clear. While the MAGA cap's definition has evolved, she writes, "there’s nothing banal or benign about the hat, no matter its wearer's intent. It was weaponized by the punch-throwing Trump rallygoers, the Charlottesville white supremacists, Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Kanye West and proponents of the wall, the wall, the wall.
"The hat has become a symbol of us vs. them, of exclusion and suspicion, of garrulous narcissism, of white male privilege, of violence and hate."
I've never worn a hat with a political statement, unless you include a Yankees cap. But it's really no different than a bumper sticker or T-shirt with a message.
Imagine what liberals would say if there was a backlash against people who wore a sweatshirt with the famous Obama "HOPE" logo.
The message from some on the left is now clear: if you associate with President Trump in any way — especially with a visible red cap — we will brand you a KKK-style racist. And yet they don't see themselves as fueling the divisiveness in America.
Minnesota's Rep. Ilhan Omar gets $250G book deal amid uproar over her comments
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar,
a freshman Democratic lawmaker from Minnesota, has entered a book deal
worth up to $250,000 for a memoir chronicling her path from refugee to
congresswoman.
The book by Omar, the first Somali American to serve in Congress, has the working title, “This Is What America Looks Like,” and will be published by Dey Street. It will touch upon Omar's upbringing in Somalia, her years as a refugee in Kenya and her subsequent arrival in the United States.
HARD-LEFT DEM ACCUSED OF 'BREATHTAKING BIGOTRY' AFTER CLAIM THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM IS 'COMPROMISED'
According to Forbes, which first reported the book deal, the agreement is listed as a “good deal” – meaning Omar will be getting between $100,000 and $250,000.
“Her voice on the page is very much as it is in real life — fresh and positive even when she is tackling serious issues, with real empathy and deep knowledge,” Dey Street executive editor Alessandra Bastagli told the outlet.
“Her story counters everything we keep hearing from the current administration and the right-wing media about refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women. This memoir presents an urgent and important counter-narrative.”
But the book deal came in the wake of a series of controversies involving Omar. A day before the deal, the congresswoman was forced to explain comments she made that were deemed homophobic and bigoted, after she repeated a far-left conspiracy theory that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is somehow being blackmailed into supporting President Trump.
Her baseless remark came the same day that MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle came under fire for implying that Graham was being blackmailed by Trump over “something pretty extreme.”
Omar also came under fire more recently after she falsely accused Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky of taunting “5 black men,” despite video evidence showing the men were part of the Black Hebrew Israelites – a known hate group – who shouted hateful comments toward the students.
“The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled 'it's not rape if you enjoy it' ... They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants ... [student Nick] Sandmann's family hired a right wing PR firm to write his non-apology,” she wrote in a now-deleted tweet.
The book by Omar, the first Somali American to serve in Congress, has the working title, “This Is What America Looks Like,” and will be published by Dey Street. It will touch upon Omar's upbringing in Somalia, her years as a refugee in Kenya and her subsequent arrival in the United States.
HARD-LEFT DEM ACCUSED OF 'BREATHTAKING BIGOTRY' AFTER CLAIM THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM IS 'COMPROMISED'
According to Forbes, which first reported the book deal, the agreement is listed as a “good deal” – meaning Omar will be getting between $100,000 and $250,000.
“Her voice on the page is very much as it is in real life — fresh and positive even when she is tackling serious issues, with real empathy and deep knowledge,” Dey Street executive editor Alessandra Bastagli told the outlet.
“Her story counters everything we keep hearing from the current administration and the right-wing media about refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women. This memoir presents an urgent and important counter-narrative.”
But the book deal came in the wake of a series of controversies involving Omar. A day before the deal, the congresswoman was forced to explain comments she made that were deemed homophobic and bigoted, after she repeated a far-left conspiracy theory that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is somehow being blackmailed into supporting President Trump.
Her baseless remark came the same day that MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle came under fire for implying that Graham was being blackmailed by Trump over “something pretty extreme.”
Omar also came under fire more recently after she falsely accused Covington Catholic High School students from Kentucky of taunting “5 black men,” despite video evidence showing the men were part of the Black Hebrew Israelites – a known hate group – who shouted hateful comments toward the students.
“The boys were protesting a woman's right to choose & yelled 'it's not rape if you enjoy it' ... They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants ... [student Nick] Sandmann's family hired a right wing PR firm to write his non-apology,” she wrote in a now-deleted tweet.
Washington Post Fact Checker defends column after Ocasio-Cortez callout: ‘She’s wrong’
A Washington Post fact checker defended his "three-Pinocchio" rating of comments made by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in response to her claim on Twitter that his column relied on a study that served corporate interests.
The New York Democrat claimed that columnist Glenn Kessler relied on a "Walmart-funded" study when he analyzed her statements from earlier this week that the vast majority of the country doesn't earn the minimum wage.
"If the point of fact-checking is to enforce some objective standard, why would @GlennKesslerWP use a Walmart-funded think tank as reference material for wage fairness? That’s like citing the foxes to fact-check the hens. Here’s 4 Geppettos for your contested Pinocchios," she wrote.
In his response, Kessler tweeted a screenshot of an addition to his story that said Jason Furman - the author of the study – previously served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Barack Obama, before telling his followers "don't always believe what you see on Twitter."
In his Thursday column, Kessler took issue with her math.
"Ocasio-Cortez would have been fine if she had said “more than a third” or even “almost half.” Instead, she said “a vast majority," Kessler wrote. “Ocasio-Cortez deserves credit for using her high profile to bring attention to income inequality. However, she undermines her message when she plays fast and loose with statistics.”
He also said the congresswoman's assertion that companies like Walmart and Amazon "essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage” was not true. He cited Amazon's support of raising the minimum wage and that entry-level workers at Walmart are paid $11 per hour, not including benefits. Amazon pays its employees at least $15 an hour.
The New York Democrat claimed that columnist Glenn Kessler relied on a "Walmart-funded" study when he analyzed her statements from earlier this week that the vast majority of the country doesn't earn the minimum wage.
"If the point of fact-checking is to enforce some objective standard, why would @GlennKesslerWP use a Walmart-funded think tank as reference material for wage fairness? That’s like citing the foxes to fact-check the hens. Here’s 4 Geppettos for your contested Pinocchios," she wrote.
In his response, Kessler tweeted a screenshot of an addition to his story that said Jason Furman - the author of the study – previously served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Barack Obama, before telling his followers "don't always believe what you see on Twitter."
In his Thursday column, Kessler took issue with her math.
"Ocasio-Cortez would have been fine if she had said “more than a third” or even “almost half.” Instead, she said “a vast majority," Kessler wrote. “Ocasio-Cortez deserves credit for using her high profile to bring attention to income inequality. However, she undermines her message when she plays fast and loose with statistics.”
He also said the congresswoman's assertion that companies like Walmart and Amazon "essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for paying people less than a minimum wage” was not true. He cited Amazon's support of raising the minimum wage and that entry-level workers at Walmart are paid $11 per hour, not including benefits. Amazon pays its employees at least $15 an hour.
Bernie Sanders acknowledges 'economy is a disaster' in Venezuela, as Omar accuses Trump of coup effort
Vermont Independent and self-described Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders acknowledged on Thursday that the "economy is a disaster" in Venezuela -- but he cautioned against U.S. involvement in that county's affairs and condemned what he called "inappropriate" past interventions.
Meanwhile, far-left Minnesota Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted Thursday, without evidence, that President Trump has personally engaged in "efforts to install a far right opposition [that] will only incite violence and further destabilize the region" and that "a US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face."
Sanders, a fierce advocate for progressive proposals like Medicare for All and boosting both corporate tax rates and the federal minimum wage, made the comments in a statement and a series of social media posts as Venezuela, a socialist nation, continued its descent Thursday into political and economic turmoil.
OMAR ALLEGES LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS BEEN COMPROMISED, OFFERS NO EVIDENCE
Venezuela's government -- which in recent years has limited citizens' access to foreign currency, implemented substantial subsidies and price controls on food and other items, and fallen victim to sweeping corruption -- effectively collapsed this week. Some analysts have placed the principal blame on the country's socialist policies, while others have pointed to fallen oil prices and mismanagement.
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido declared he was temporarily assuming presidential powers in a bid to unseat Nicolas Maduro, whose powerful loyalists went on the offensive Thursday in support of the embattled leader.
"The Maduro government has waged a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election many observers said was fraudulent," Sanders wrote. "The economy is a disaster and millions are migrating."
Sanders continued, "The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of dissent."
Sanders then seemingly responded to suggestions that the U.S. might military intervene in the county. President Trump reportedly considered a military strike in Venezuela last summer, and top Republicans have refused to rule out an armed response to the current crisis.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said this week that if Maduro harms any U.S. diplomats, the consequences will be "swift and decisive."
As for Sanders, he wrote: "We must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups—as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil & the DR. The US has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American nations; we must not go down that road again."
Guaido has disappeared from view since swearing before tens of thousands of cheering supporters to uphold the constitution and rid Venezuela of Maduro's dictatorship, and his whereabouts remained shrouded in mystery on Thursday.
A defiant Maduro, meanwhile, called home all Venezuelan diplomats from the United States and closed its embassy, a day after ordering all U.S. diplomats out of the country by the weekend. Washington has refused to comply, but ordered its non-essential staff to leave the tumultuous country, citing security concerns.
The Trump administration says Maduro's order isn't legal because the U.S. no longer recognizes him as Venezuela's legitimate leader.
Tensions soared between the U.S. and Venezuela after Trump recognized Guaido's leadership. Attention has been on the military, a traditional arbiter of political disputes in Venezuela, as a critical indicator of whether the opposition will succeed in establishing a new government.
WATCH: LINDSEY GRAHAM SAYS OCASIO-CORTEZ 'HELL-BENT' ON MAKING US LIKE VENEZUELA
Venezuela's top military brass pledged unwavering support to Maduro, delivering vows of loyalty earlier Thursday before rows of green-uniformed officers on state television.
A half-dozen generals belonging largely to district commands and with direct control over thousands of troops joined Maduro in accusing the United States of meddling in Venezuela's affairs and said they would uphold the socialist leader's rule.
Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, a key Maduro ally, later delivered his own proclamation, dismissing efforts to install a "de-facto parallel government" as tantamount to a coup.
Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Trump said officials were closely monitoring the situation in Venezuela -- and he took a swipe at a proposal by another high-profile Democratic socialist in the U.S., New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to implement a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich.
"We’re looking at Venezuela, it’s a very sad situation," Trump told reporters. "That was the richest state in all of that area, that's a big beautiful area, and by far the richest -- and now it's one of the poorest places in the world. That's what socialism gets you, when they want to raise your taxes to 70 percent."
The president's comments mirrored those of South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who charged on Thursday that Ocasio-Cortez "and her new socialist colleagues seem hell-bent on making sure that our last 12 years will be spent as Venezuelan socialists, not Americans" -- a reference to Ocasio-Cortez's claim that the world will end in 12 years due to climate change.
Much of the international community is rallying behind Guaido, with the U.S., Canada and numerous Latin American and European countries announcing that they recognized his claim to the presidency. Trump has promised to use the "full weight" of U.S. economic and diplomatic power to push for the restoration of Venezuela's democracy.
Meanwhile, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey have voiced their backing for Maduro's government.
China's Foreign Ministry called on the United States to stay out of the crisis, while Russia's deputy foreign minister warned the U.S. against any military intervention in Venezuela.
Russia has been propping up Maduro with arms deliveries and loans. Maduro visited Moscow in December, seeking Russia's political and financial support. Over the last decade, China has given Venezuela $65 billion in loans, cash and investment. Venezuela owes more than $20 billion.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Media use unnamed sources to trash Giuliani over missteps
The knives are out for Rudy Giuliani.
In classic Washington fashion, the press is now using anonymous sources to trash Donald Trump's lawyer, to suggest that the president and top aides are fed up with him, even to intimate that he has a drinking problem.
It's the dark side of D.C., the art of character assassination.
Now it's true that Giuliani's recent performances have been anything but smooth. He keeps stumbling and having to backtrack. And that, to be sure, is fair game for scrutiny and criticism.
But instead, it's being turned into a "Game of Thrones."
I smelled this coming on Tuesday when a single paragraph in a New York Times story indicated that some in the White House were getting fed up with Giuliani.
Things reached fever pitch yesterday, with Politico declaring: "Rudy Giuliani has a growing list of enemies in the White House — which now includes his boss, President Donald Trump."
Now they're enemies?
The potshots against the former New York mayor continued:
"Trump was apoplectic after a pair of weekend media interviews by his personal lawyer, in which Giuliani said that the president had been involved in discussions to build a Trump Tower in Moscow through the end of the 2016 campaign — a statement that enraged Trump because it contradicted his own public position, according to two sources close to the president. Trump spent much of Sunday and Monday fuming to aides and friends about his lawyer's missteps."
So Trump is mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore?
Not according to Maggie Haberman, the New York Times White House correspondent, who said on CNN: "He's generally happy with what Giuliani has done. Giuliani has served as something of an extension of his client's id over the last several months. That might make other people unhappy but not the president."
And here's the killer blind quote in Politico about who is handling Giuliani, from an unnamed White House aide: "Handling Rudy's f---ups takes more than one man."
The AP is in the same camp, saying Giuliani's latest blitz "agitated President Donald Trump and some of his allies, who have raised the possibility that the outspoken presidential lawyer be at least temporarily sidelined from televised interviews.
"Trump was frustrated with Giuliani, according to three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations."
Trump is said to believe (justifiably) that the Rudy-generated controversies stepped on a positive story for the president, Robert Mueller's partial knockdown of the BuzzFeed piece saying he encouraged Michael Cohen to commit perjury.
Over the weekend, Giuliani told "Meet the Press" and the Times that the president had informed him he discussed the Russian Trump Tower project with Cohen throughout the election, telling the Times the discussions were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won." But afterward, he put out a statement saying he had been speaking hypothetically.
There was another head-slapper in an interview with The New Yorker. Asked how he knew the BuzzFeed story was wrong, Giuliani said, "Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails ... "
Uh, reporter Isaac Chotiner asked, what tapes?
"I shouldn't have said tapes," Rudy said.
Politico, to its credit, interviewed the onetime prosecutor, who said he has a good grip of the facts, that Trump hasn't complained to him, "and nobody in the White House would complain to me. They just do it behind my back." He blamed the media for the confusion over some of his comments, saying they don't understand the legal technique of arguing in the alternative.
But there was one part of the Politico piece that shouldn't have been published:
"Some of Trump's allies have suggested that Giuliani be barred from evening interviews because of concerns that he was going on TV after drinking, according to three Republicans close to the White House."
Sorry, but you can't accuse the president's lawyer of being sloshed on the air without someone willing to go on the record or some evidence of inebriation.
Giuliani is a veteran pol who knows full well that he's getting scuffed up. He had a pungent response when The New Yorker asked if his current performance would tarnish his legacy:
"I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. 'Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.' Somehow, I don't think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I'll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter."
Now that's taking the long view.
In classic Washington fashion, the press is now using anonymous sources to trash Donald Trump's lawyer, to suggest that the president and top aides are fed up with him, even to intimate that he has a drinking problem.
It's the dark side of D.C., the art of character assassination.
Now it's true that Giuliani's recent performances have been anything but smooth. He keeps stumbling and having to backtrack. And that, to be sure, is fair game for scrutiny and criticism.
But instead, it's being turned into a "Game of Thrones."
I smelled this coming on Tuesday when a single paragraph in a New York Times story indicated that some in the White House were getting fed up with Giuliani.
Things reached fever pitch yesterday, with Politico declaring: "Rudy Giuliani has a growing list of enemies in the White House — which now includes his boss, President Donald Trump."
Now they're enemies?
The potshots against the former New York mayor continued:
"Trump was apoplectic after a pair of weekend media interviews by his personal lawyer, in which Giuliani said that the president had been involved in discussions to build a Trump Tower in Moscow through the end of the 2016 campaign — a statement that enraged Trump because it contradicted his own public position, according to two sources close to the president. Trump spent much of Sunday and Monday fuming to aides and friends about his lawyer's missteps."
So Trump is mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore?
Not according to Maggie Haberman, the New York Times White House correspondent, who said on CNN: "He's generally happy with what Giuliani has done. Giuliani has served as something of an extension of his client's id over the last several months. That might make other people unhappy but not the president."
And here's the killer blind quote in Politico about who is handling Giuliani, from an unnamed White House aide: "Handling Rudy's f---ups takes more than one man."
The AP is in the same camp, saying Giuliani's latest blitz "agitated President Donald Trump and some of his allies, who have raised the possibility that the outspoken presidential lawyer be at least temporarily sidelined from televised interviews.
"Trump was frustrated with Giuliani, according to three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations."
Trump is said to believe (justifiably) that the Rudy-generated controversies stepped on a positive story for the president, Robert Mueller's partial knockdown of the BuzzFeed piece saying he encouraged Michael Cohen to commit perjury.
Over the weekend, Giuliani told "Meet the Press" and the Times that the president had informed him he discussed the Russian Trump Tower project with Cohen throughout the election, telling the Times the discussions were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won." But afterward, he put out a statement saying he had been speaking hypothetically.
There was another head-slapper in an interview with The New Yorker. Asked how he knew the BuzzFeed story was wrong, Giuliani said, "Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails ... "
Uh, reporter Isaac Chotiner asked, what tapes?
"I shouldn't have said tapes," Rudy said.
Politico, to its credit, interviewed the onetime prosecutor, who said he has a good grip of the facts, that Trump hasn't complained to him, "and nobody in the White House would complain to me. They just do it behind my back." He blamed the media for the confusion over some of his comments, saying they don't understand the legal technique of arguing in the alternative.
But there was one part of the Politico piece that shouldn't have been published:
"Some of Trump's allies have suggested that Giuliani be barred from evening interviews because of concerns that he was going on TV after drinking, according to three Republicans close to the White House."
Sorry, but you can't accuse the president's lawyer of being sloshed on the air without someone willing to go on the record or some evidence of inebriation.
Giuliani is a veteran pol who knows full well that he's getting scuffed up. He had a pungent response when The New Yorker asked if his current performance would tarnish his legacy:
"I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. 'Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.' Somehow, I don't think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I'll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter."
Now that's taking the long view.
National Shrine confirms report that Native American activist allegedly tried to disrupt Mass
Officials
at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in
Washington, D.C., on Wednesday confirmed earlier reports that a Native
American rights activist led several dozen people in an attempt to enter the shrine during a Saturday evening Mass.
In a statement to Fox News on Wednesday, basilica officials said a Mass was being celebrated at 7 p.m. when Nathan Phillips and his group “attempted to enter the building while chanting and hitting drums.”
“At this time, Mass was being celebrated in the upper church where the individuals attempted to enter,” the statement read. “In respect and reverence for the Mass, the individuals were not permitted to enter the Basilica due to the disruption it would have caused during the solemn Mass. The individuals were asked to leave the property after it was determined they did not intend to share in the celebration of Mass.”
The group assembled across the street from the shrine, the Catholic News Agency reported. Video footage showed one demonstrator telling other protesters that they had been ordered off the property by police, according to CNA.
Phillips, 64, was thrust into the national spotlight over the weekend when video of an encounter with a group of students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky went viral. He was seen singing and playing a drum near the Lincoln Memorial as he stood face-to-face with Covington student Nick Sandmann while other students were standing behind Sandmann.
Other footage revealed the teens were being taunted by a third group nearby, leading to criticism of the media for a so-called rush to judgment.
In a statement to Fox News on Wednesday, basilica officials said a Mass was being celebrated at 7 p.m. when Nathan Phillips and his group “attempted to enter the building while chanting and hitting drums.”
“At this time, Mass was being celebrated in the upper church where the individuals attempted to enter,” the statement read. “In respect and reverence for the Mass, the individuals were not permitted to enter the Basilica due to the disruption it would have caused during the solemn Mass. The individuals were asked to leave the property after it was determined they did not intend to share in the celebration of Mass.”
The group assembled across the street from the shrine, the Catholic News Agency reported. Video footage showed one demonstrator telling other protesters that they had been ordered off the property by police, according to CNA.
Phillips, 64, was thrust into the national spotlight over the weekend when video of an encounter with a group of students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky went viral. He was seen singing and playing a drum near the Lincoln Memorial as he stood face-to-face with Covington student Nick Sandmann while other students were standing behind Sandmann.
Other footage revealed the teens were being taunted by a third group nearby, leading to criticism of the media for a so-called rush to judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
