Third Party & Independents Archives

Never Mind Flynn - How About Jared and Ivanka?

Sally Yates - the former acting AG who was fired by Trump for refusing to enforce his immigration order - is no hero. She directly and flagrantly disobeyed the President and theatrically set up her firing, for personal future political gain almost certainly. And because she disagreed with the policy. Why weren’t we consulted? - she whined at the hearings in the Senate this Monday. As if it was up to her to clear any policy the the White House might decide to enact. On political grounds that is.

And even as former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper had to admit that as far as he knows, no evidence has been found to suggest collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Yates could not bring herself to admit this. She instead preferred a putatively neutral statement - I can't say because that would involve classified information. Which she soon followed up with a: I didn't meant to suggest that yes I have information on actual collusion, which was a qualified denial of her previous implied suggestion that itself was a partisan deflection of a reasonable question.

It must have been a joy to read her memos at the DOJ. And the sad thing is, it surely was a joy for many of the progressive DOJ lawyers ensconced at 950 Penn Ave NW.

No bombshells or deep dark secrets emerged from Monday's hearings, which will make it harder slogging for media anxious to reboot the Russia story after the House actually passed the AHCA. Maybe they should focus not on Flynn but on Ivanka and Kushner. Both have nice little stories that might be possibly associated with them.

Jared Kushner has sold off his interests in the Kushner Companies to a family trust earlier this year. Let's get that out of the way first. But, a luxury property being developed in New Jersey - One Journal Square - has been shopping for $150 million in funding in China, where it is touted as a great EB-5 visa program for wealthy Chinese. Put down at least $500,000 and get yourself a visa is how the game works. Yes it's legal. Yes, Jared Kushner did the "ethical" thing by selling his stake to a family trust. But it feels more than a little uncomfortable, doesn't it?

Ivanka, on the other hand, is never mentioned in a story that apparently originated in Canada, and that claims that unnamed White House officials asked Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, to help talk President Trump out of withdrawing from NAFTA. Seeing Ivanka thinks Justin is kinda neat and peachy, it is more than probable that she nudged said officials to do the phoning, after clearing it with the Prime Minister first. Maybe not, however, with her father, until a little later. Like after the Prime Minister phoned Trump.

Oh he called did he? You know, he just might have a point, don't you think?

But it's much more fun to speculate on Flynn and Russian blackmail. Even if it's all theoretical at this point. Flynn may indeed be guilty of more than poor judgement. But so far, that evidence is lacking or hidden away. Jared Kushner on the other hand, has been impeccable so far in his ethical compliance. Does that make you just a touch uncomfortable? As in look at how quickly he's adapted to swampy mid-Atlantic environments. Even if he (and she) disappears below the surface by going skiing in a mountain valley in Colorado. Kushner and Ivanka's defenders insist that the are conservatives, who care about the family's brand. That's reassuring? Yes, Trump cares about his brand. But as he's finding out, the presidency is alotta work. How is Jared - and his wife - taking care of their brands?

Posted by AllardK at May 9, 2017 4:08 PM
Comments
Comment #415929

“Which she soon followed up with a: I didn’t meant to suggest that yes I have information on actual collusion, which was a qualified denial of her previous implied suggestion that itself was a partisan deflection of a reasonable question.”

That was laugh-out-loud wonderful Allard.

Senator Kennedy from LA also make me laugh.

“At what point does an Act of Congress or an executive order become unconstitutional?” Kennedy asked. “I can look at a statute and say ‘I think that’s unconstitutional.’ Does that make it unconstitutional?”

After Yates began stammering, Kennedy said, “What I’m getting at, and I don’t mean disrespect….Who Appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?”

Yates doubled down with the contention that it’s the Attorney General’s responsibility to say no if they believe an order is unlawful, “and that’s what I did.”

“I believe you believe what you’re saying,” said Kennedy.

Even if that is the case, that does not make it constitutional.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 9, 2017 6:01 PM
Comment #415942

Somebody will have to tell me, do you want to know more about ongoing investigations into classified info, or do you want the information be secured.

And please, please stop with this fallacy of insisting that just because results haven’t been announced yet in the investigation, there’s nothing going on. You can claim that when the FINDINGS are released.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2017 12:17 AM
Comment #415966

OK Stephen, I’ll bite. Please, please tell us who is being investigated and for what.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 4:13 PM
Comment #416000
please stop with this fallacy of insisting that just because results haven’t been announced yet in the investigation, there’s nothing going on.

The minute your side stops with the fallacy of insisting because an investigation is taking place that there’s something ‘there’ I’m sure their side will stop with their defense and reminding people about the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty that the left has conveniently abandoned.

And while we are at it, can we stop talking about this being the ‘greatest constitutional crisis’ hyperbole? Hell, the left defended charges of Clinton giving missile technology to China for campaign contributions and lying under oath during a sexual harassment trial (violating the very law he championed and sign into effect)… so the pho-outrage falls on deaf ears at this point.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2017 3:51 AM
Comment #416100

The president said that the immigration order was a ban on Muslims, and necessary for the security of the country. Since the security argument held no water (none of the countries were ones we’ve ever had terrorists come from), the order was unconstitutional on the grounds that it barred a religion from the United States. This was all pretty obvious (thanks to Trump), and held up by subsequent court rulings across the country. I’m not sure what else she could do, as Trump was asking her to break the law…

The need for an impartial investigation into Trump’s team is also pretty blatant. Members of his team met with Russian operatives, were given money, and then lied about it, at the same time as Russians were likely giving Hillary’s stolen emails to Wikileaks and promoting false stories about Hillary on the news. Even if you don’t think anything is necessarily fishy here (?!), the American public deserve to know whether or not our election was rigged for sure and who was involved. In other words, whether the evidence exists, whether or not Trump and aides are blameless, is beside the point.

Posted by: Max at May 12, 2017 4:41 PM
Comment #416103

I don’t think he said the immigration order was a ban on Muslims. In fact, the left claimed it was a ban on Muslims. There are more than 6 Muslim countries, so it wasn’t a ban on Muslims in general at all. Also, there are more than one type of Muslim. There are the Shea and the Sunni. Two different religions.

He did say a temporary stop to immigration was in order to get things under control. The rest of this nonsense is a faux outrage manufactured by the left completely out of whole cloth.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 12, 2017 4:59 PM
Comment #416117

He promised it multiple times during the campaign: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video

Posted by: Max at May 12, 2017 7:05 PM
Comment #416118

What you’re left with is what the courts were left with, which is if the immigration ban is not a start to Trump’s promised ban on Muslims, then what is it? It’s not for security, because those arguments were found to have no merit.

Posted by: Max at May 12, 2017 7:08 PM
Comment #416206

The left is always claiming to protect the separation of powers. The courts can’t encroach the president’s authority to control immigration. Why does the left pick and choose what the separation of powers means?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 14, 2017 7:47 PM
Post a comment