SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED vs FAKE RUSSIA RUINED 2016 ELECTION THEORIES

SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED vs FAKE RUSSIA RUINED 2016 ELECTION THEORIES:

WHY DO YOU STILL NEED A TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE IF YOU ARE NO LONGER A DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE OR NO LONGER AN FBI DIRECTOR??

WHY DO FORMER FED GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ARE NOW PRIVATE CITIZENS, STILL NEED TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCES?

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON POLITICIANS, PRIVATE CITIZENS OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

SECURITY CLEARANCE PRIVILEGES SHOULD NOT BE SOLD FOR PARTISAN POLITICS.

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO CORRUPT THE U.S. GOVT VIA FALSE INFORMATION.

REVOKING SECURITY CLEARANCES DOES NOT VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT’S PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

EACH ELECTED U.S. PRESIDENT HAS LEGAL DISCRETION TO GRANT OR REVOKE SECURITY CLEARANCES.


Post Sources: Washington Times, Politico, Fox News, Youtube


****** Trump threatens to revoke Obama officials' security clearances


President Trump threatened Monday to revoke security clearance from top Obama administration officials who have fanned the flames of Russian collusion conspiracy theories, a retaliation by the White House that legal scholars said would be unprecedented but not illegal.

On the president’s security clearance hit list are former CIA Director John O. Brennan, former Director of National Security James R. Clapper, former FBI Director James B. Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice and National Security Agency Director Michael V. Hayden, said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“They’ve politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service security clearances,” she said. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russiaagainst the president is extremely inappropriate.”

Former intelligence officials typically keep their high-level security clearances after leaving government jobs and sometimes provide informal advice to current officials.

These six officials publicly leveled accusations of criminal wrongdoing — including treason — against Mr. Trump in frequent TV news appearances.

Several also pocket paychecks for doing it.

‌
Mr. Brennan is a paid analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. Mr. Clapper and Mr. Hayden are paid analysts for CNN.

Mr. Clapper also is suspected of leaking to CNN in January 2017 information about the anti-Trump dossier that helped spur the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation.

Mr. Brennan took several jabs at the president last week after his meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???” he tweeted.

Mrs. Sanders said the president thinks top-security clearance for former officials who make “these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer specializing in security clearance cases, said the president was in uncharted territory but as commander in chief had carte blanche authority to revoke security clearances.

“There is nothing legally that would preclude the president from taking that action,” he said.

What’s more, the only recourse to challenge a security clearance revocation is through an administrative appeal process that the president could deny, said Mr. Bigley.

The president’s opponents in Washington quickly accused him of politicizing security clearances.

Mr. Clapper responded on CNN, “It’s kind of a sad commentary, where for political reasons, this is kind of a petty way of retribution, I suppose, for speaking out against the president.”

He said all of the former officials have been speaking “out of genuine concerns about President Trump.”

Others called it an attack on free speech.


Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has spearheaded accusations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, said the president had set “a terrible new precedent.”

“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. Is there no length Trump will not go to stifle opposition? Wake up GOP,” Mr. Schiff tweeted.

“This is what totalitarianism looks like,” tweeted Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, raised the idea of targeting Mr. Brennan’s security clearance in a tweet early Monday and later presented the suggestion to Mr. Trump in a meeting at the White House.

Mr. Paul has been one of the most vocal defenders of Mr. Trump’s performance at the Helsinki meeting, and Mr. Brennan has been one of the loudest critics.

“Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees,” Mr. Paul tweeted.

The White House announcement followed Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Paul.

The unusual circumstances engulfing Mr. Trump’s presidency made the scrutiny clearance threat “very appropriate,” said David K. Rehr, a scholar of Washington politics at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.

He said that all of the Obama intelligence officials on the list had their fingers in the Trump collusion conspiracy and now had a financial incentive to promote the conspiracy theories.

“People need to know that if they are public servants that they are public servants and not servants of political campaigns,” he said.

Mrs. Sanders rejected the accusation that the president was seeking to punish the former officials for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

“The president doesn’t like the fact that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearances,” she said. “When you’re the person that holds the nation’s deepest, most-sacred secrets at your hands, and you go out and you make false accusations against the president of the United States, he thinks that is something to be very concerned with, and we’re exploring what those options are and what that looks like.”

The politicizing of security clearances and the security clearance process is not entirely new to Washington.

Democrats pounced on the Trump White House for the slow pace of security clearance approval for top aides such as Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation to strip Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton of her security clearance over use of a secret email account and email server for official business as secretary of state.


Mrs. Clinton also came under fire from Republicans for arranging top-secret security clearance for her attorney David Kendall amid the email scandal.

Mr. McCabe lost his security clearance when he was fired as FBI deputy director in January.

“You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps,” said McCabe spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz.

Mr. Comey has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Mr. Trumpsince the president fired him in May 2017.

Ms. Rice said Sunday on a talk show that she didn’t know Mr. Trump’s motivations for seeking a better relationship with Russia, but “I think that’s a legitimate question.”

She called Mr. Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin “a historic mistake.”

As national security adviser under Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice was widely criticized for initially explaining the terrorist attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The performance prevented her from being nominated as secretary of state.

Mr. Clapper raised questions last August on CNN about Mr. Trump’s “ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office. I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.”

Mr. Hayden has published a book this year titled “The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies.” He said on CBS this spring of Mr. Trump, “We’ve had presidents who disagree with us; we’ve had presidents who lie. We’ve not had presidents for whom objective reality doesn’t seem to be compelling.”

Former House intelligence committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican, called Mr. Trump’s action petty.

“It’s certainly below the stature of the office of the president of the United States,” he said on CNN. “I just wish that the president would be bigger than that.”

He said of Mr. Brennan, “It’s also not customary for the former CIA director to be off the reservation where he is, either. I don’t think John Brennan should do it.”

GOP LEADERS vs TRUMP & PUTIN - "THESE HOES AIN'T LOYAL" (TWO PARTIES MORPH INTO ONE)

GOP LEADERS vs TRUMP & PUTIN - "THESE HOES AIN'T LOYAL"):

TRUMP HELPS GOP WIN IN 2016 & THEY TURN ON HIM.

IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT PUTIN, RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, NOR ELECTION FRAUD.

INSTEAD IT IS JUST DIRTY POLITICS AS USUAL PREPARING FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

GOP TOP BRASS FINALLY REVEALS TWO PARTY GOV'T NO LONGER EXISTS.......TRUMP IS JUST A SCAPEGOAT.

DEMOCRATS AND THE GOP HAVE MORPHED INTO ONE GOV'T.

WHICH POLITICAL PARTY WINS IN 2020?

BOTH PARTIES WILL WIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORPHED INTO ONE.


Post Sources: ABC News, NBC News, NY Times, CNN, Youtube


***** Republicans Rebuke Trump for Siding With Putin as Democrats Demand Action


For nearly two years, Republicans have watched uncomfortably, and often in silence, as President Trump has swatted away accusations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential race, attacked his own intelligence agencies and flattered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

On Monday, even for members of his own party, Mr. Trump apparently went too far.

The president’s extraordinary news conference with Mr. Putin in Helsinki, Finland, stunned Republicans across the ideological spectrum and the party’s political apparatus, leaving them struggling to respond after the president undermined his national intelligence director, blamed both the United States and Russia for poor relations between the two countries and seemingly agreed to Mr. Putin’s suggestion that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, cooperate with Russia.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, declared, “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.” Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Trump adviser, declared the news conference “the most serious mistake of his presidency.” Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and current Senate candidate from Utah, called it “disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles.”

The effect extended far beyond official Washington. One local official — Chris Gagin, the chairman of the Republican Party in Belmont County, Ohio — resigned his post, announcing on Twitter that he “did so as a matter of conscience, and my sense of duty.” Neil Cavuto, a Fox Business Network host, called Mr. Trump’s performance “disgusting,” adding, “I’m sorry, it’s the only way I feel. It’s not a right or left thing to me, it’s just wrong.”

Yet no Republican in Congress pledged any particular action to punish Mr. Trump, such as holding up his nominees or delaying legislation, nor did any Republican promise hearings or increased oversight.

It was left to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, to demand actual action. He called for increased sanctions on Russia; for Mr. Trump’s national security team to testify before Congress; for defense of the Department of Justice and other intelligence agencies; and for Mr. Trump to press Mr. Putin to extradite the 12 Russian intelligence agents who were indicted Friday.

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President Trump has supported President Putin,” Mr. Schumer said.

He added: “A single, ominous question now hangs over the White House: What could possibly cause President Trump to put the interests of Russia over those of the United States? Millions of Americans will continue to wonder. The only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.”

Republican leaders largely tempered their remarks, confining their backhanded comments to denunciations of Russia and expressions of faith in American intelligence agencies. But even they appeared to have given up hope that they could shape the actions of an erratic and unpredictable president.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, concluded that Mr. Trump was unable to distinguish between the fact that Russia had interfered in the election and the accusation — as yet unproven — that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.

“In the president’s mind, I think he’s conflating different things — the meddling and the collusion allegations for which there does not appear to be any evidence,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who has defended Mr. Trump amid the Russia inquiry, was not quite as charitable: “I understand in the bigger picture the president genuinely feels that he can establish better relations with Russia the way Nixon did with China,” Mr. King said in an interview, “but the nuance eludes him.”

And as to Mr. Trump’s openness to having Russia cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Mr. King said, “It would be like bringing ISIS into a joint terrorism task force.”

At least one Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, veered from the script and delivered a full-throated defense of Mr. Trump: “I think it’s a good idea to have engagement, and I guess I don’t quite understand all of the people who have gone completely deranged criticizing the president.”

Elected Republicans have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views toward Russia and his willingness to embrace Mr. Putin since Mr. Trump first grabbed the attention of the party as its primary contest heated up in summer 2015. Many thought that once he was in office, surrounded by Washington’s national security experts, Mr. Trump would adopt the wary stance that has guided previous American presidents.

Instead, time and again he has defied those expectations, as he repeatedly called into question the collective conclusions of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other intelligence agencies, and ignored his own advisers’ advice in seeking a personal relationship with Mr. Putin.

For most Republicans on Capitol Hill and around the country, Mr. Trump’s stance toward Mr. Putin, coupled with his recent attacks on the United States’ allies in Europe, have presented a challenge: either defend the post-World War II international order, and risk angering a president who is immensely popular with their voters, or hold their tongues.

That challenge is especially tricky for Republican leaders, who must work closely with Mr. Trump and are especially reluctant to criticize him in public.

Hours passed on Monday before Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, commented. During a rare hallway interview in the Capitol, he uttered three terse sentences: “The Russians are not our friends. I’ve said that repeatedly, I say it again today. And I have complete confidence in our intelligence community and the findings that they have announced.” He refused to answer questions.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan was a bit more pointed. “The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally,” he said in a carefully worded statement. “There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals.”

Democrats wanted more than carefully calibrated statements.

“This is a disgraceful moment. The president’s party knows better,” John Kerry, the former secretary of state and senator, wrote in a statement. “America needs them to speak out with clarity and conviction not just in this news cycle, but until there’s common sense governing America’s foreign policy.”

Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, suggested on Twitter that if Republicans “were serious,” they would pass a long-stalled legislation protecting the jobs of special counsels such as Mr. Mueller.

But Republican leaders did not appear ready to go beyond measured phrases. Mr. Cornyn told reporters that it was “wishful thinking” to expect Mr. Putin to agree to the extradition of the 12 Russian agents. “Much of what Senator Schumer’s asking for, I think we’ve already done,” he added.

As Republican leaders struggled to come up with tactful ways to respond to a stunning news conference, responses from some of their colleagues signified a moment when Republicans could not defend their president.

Mr. McCain’s was undoubtedly the harshest.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout — as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience,” said Mr. McCain, who has brain cancer.

“But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician,” he continued. “These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.”

Mr. McCain’s fellow Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, released his own rebuke: “I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression. This is shameful.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican Alaska, struck a mournful tone: “Sadly President Trump did not defend America to the Russian president, and for the world to see. Instead, what I saw today was not ‘America First,’ it was simply a sad diminishment of our great nation.”

Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska and a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, echoed the sentiment. “Everyone in this body should be disgusted by what happened in Helsinki today,” he said Monday in a speech on the Senate floor.

Even for congressional Republicans used to avoiding commenting on the president’s outbursts, Mr. Trump’s performance in Helsinki was difficult to ignore. For those who are accustomed to speaking out against Mr. Trump, and those whose impending retirements have freed them to do so, it was yet another occasion for public hand-wringing.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the retiring chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he “did not think this was a good moment for our country.”

It was, he added, a very good moment for Mr. Putin.

“It was almost an approval, if you will, a public approval by the greatest nation on earth towards him,” Mr. Corker told reporters. “I would guess he’s having caviar right now.”

HILLARY CLINTON PONDERS CHALLENGE OF 2016 ELECTION; SHE SHOULD RUN AGAIN IN 2020

HILLARY CLINTON PONDERS CHALLENGE OF 2016 ELECTION; SHE SHOULD RUN AGAIN IN 2020:

HILLARY LOST BECAUSE SHE HAD A BAD, MISMANAGED CAMPAIGN.

HILLARY HAD TOO MANY PEOPLE ON HER TEAM WHO JUST WANTED FAME & PAYCHECKS.

OBAMA DIDN'T REALLY WANT HILLARY TO WIN EITHER.

IF HILLARY HAD ME ON HER TEAM SHE WOULD HAVE WON.

TRUMP WON BECAUSE HE HAD A VERY WELL-FOCUSED CAMPAIGN, I SUPPORTED HIM AND HE DIDN'T WASTE MONEY.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS I STILL LIKE TRUMP BUT I WANT TO SEE HILLARY RUN AGAIN.

SHE WON'T REST UNTIL SHE RUNS AND WINS.

STOP BLAMING EVERYONE AND JUST RUN AGAIN TO WIN.

HILLARY BELONGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS THE FIRST WOMAN U.S. PRESIDENT.


Sources: NY Post, CNN, Youtube


***** Hillary Clinton still wants to challenge election results


Hillary​ Clinton just can’t face the fact that Donald Trump is in the White House and she’s not.

Ten months after her stunning defeat​ in the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic nominee held out the possibility of challenging the results if there’s solid proof of Russian interference beyond what has already been made public.

“I wouldn’t rule it out​,” Clinton told National Public Radio on Monday.


That seemed to floor the interviewer, Terry Gross.

“So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way,” Gross said, grasping for a follow-up.

“It is,” replied Clinton.

But when asked how she would file such a challenge, Clinton was stumped.

“I don’t know if there’s any legal, constitutional way to do that​,” she admitted.

“There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, but I don’t think they’re on strong ground. But people are making those arguments. I just don’t think we have a mechanism,” she said.

Clinton got 3 million more popular votes than Trump but lost the presidency in the Electoral College, an institution she said should be eliminated.

“I do believe we should abolish the Electoral College, because I was sitting listening to a report on the French election and the French political analyst said, ‘You know, in our country the person with the most votes wins, unlike in yours.’ And I think that’s an anachronism. I’ve said that since 2000​,” she told NPR​.

Clinton insisted that if the roles were reversed — and Trump won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College — she would still be pushing for a full probe of Russia’s involvement in the election.

“Let me just put it this way — if I had lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, ‘The Russians influenced the election,’ I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, ‘We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.’ I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else,” she said.

The NPR interview was part of a tour for Clinton’s new book, “What Happened,” in which she claims then-FBI Director James Comey cost her the election by announcing a new investigation into her ­e-mails 11 days before voters went to the polls.

In her chat with NPR, Clinton charged that Comey held her to a higher standard than Trump.

“Where I part company with him — and think he violated every rule in the book as a FBI director — was what he did on Oct. 28 [2016], because what he did then was to send a letter acting like he was reopening an investigation that had been closed to Congress, knowing it would be immediately leaked. And later on when asked, Well weren’t you also conducting an investigation into the Trump campaign and their connections with Russia? Yes. Well, why didn’t you tell the American people that?
Because it was too close to the election,” she claimed.

TRUMP SAYS NO DACA DEAL W/OUT WALL, BUT DEMS SAY YES HE AGREED TO DEAL (FRENEMIES)

TRUMP SAYS NO DACA DEAL W/OUT BORDER WALL, BUT DEMOCRATS SAY YES HE AGREED TO DEAL:

KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE AND YOUR FRENEMIES CLOSER.

IS THIS DEAL DONALD'S WAY OF STICKING IT TO GOP LEADERS WHO DISSED HIM OVER OBAMACARE?

TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN WHO JUST WANTS A DEAL BUT WILL HE ABANDON HIS BASE WHO ELECTED HIM?



Sources: ABC News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, CNBC, Fox News, NBC News, Youtube



***** Trump Says ‘No Deal’ Was Reached With Democrats to Extend DACA



President Donald Trump insisted Thursday that there was no deal with Democrats yet to extend protections for so-called Dreamers, but the president pleaded with congressional leaders to reach one, while he vowed to push ahead with his border wall "later."

"No deal was made last night on DACA.

Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote," Trump tweeted in a series of posts.

"The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built," he wrote.

"Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!" Trump posted about DACA recipients. "They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own — brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security."

Trump did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.

And, in brief comments to reporters Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later" and that Republican congressional leaders were "on board" with the talks.

"We’re working on a plan. We’ll see how it works out," he said as he was departing to tour the hurricane damage in Florida. "We’re going to get massive border security as part of that."

"The wall is going to be built. It will be funded a little bit later," Trump said.

Later in Florida, the president said, "if the wall is going to be obstructed ... then we're not doing anything."

When asked if he supported amnesty, Trump cupped his hands to his lips and said, "DACA — the word is DACA."

Trump also said he was "not looking at citizenship" or "amnesty" for Dreamers but instead the discussion is about "taking care of people."

Earlier, the president said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., backed the plan.

McConnell's office said Trump had called Thursday morning, and the senator said in a statement, "We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal."

Trump's tweets and remarks came just hours after he held a dinner meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after which the pair said they’d reached a deal with the president "to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides."

Schumer and Pelosi, in a joint statement Thursday morning, added that Trump's tweets "are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night."

The pair said "there was no final deal" but that "both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement."
"The President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it," they said.

Dropping the demand for a border wall could make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.

Following the Wednesday night joint statement from Schumer and Pelosi, however, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that, "While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to."

But earlier Wednesday, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told an industry trade group that the border wall does not have to be a part of an agreement on DACA, one attendee at the meeting said.

The Trump administration announced last week that the Obama-era program would end in six months. The president said as part of the announcement that, "I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act."

Ending DACA — a program allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain and get work permits in the country — could affect as many as an estimated 800,000 people.

Sources told NBC News Wednesday night that Schumer and Pelosi told Trump they are prepared to deliver votes on a measure that would pair the existing DREAM Act text with additional border security that does not include the border wall funding.

Specifics on what type and level of border security were not disclosed.

The DREAM Act would have offered those who came to the U.S. as children the opportunity to potentially gain permanent legal residency.

The act was first introduced in August 2001 by Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. It has resurfaced several times, always failing to get through Congress.

At a press conference later Thursday morning, Pelosi said the DACA recipients wouldn't be granted amnesty under a DREAM Act deal with Trump, but would have "the opportunity to earn their path to citizenship."

"It’s a long path, a 15-year path, and this is an earned path," she said. "We’re not looking at amnesty; we were never looking at amnesty."

Discussion of a possible deal marked the second time in as many weeks that Trump spurned his own party to pursue an agreement with Democrats.

Last week, Trump struck a deal with Schumer and Pelosi that combined disaster aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey with measures to keep the government open and extend the debt ceiling for three months, leaving some Republicans reeling.

News of another potential deal was met immediately with criticism from conservative Republicans.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an anti-immigration hardliner tweeted Wednesday that, if there was an agreement,

"Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair.

No promise is credible."

Trump did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.

And, in brief comments to reporters Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later" and that Republican congressional leaders were "on board" with the talks.

"We’re working on a plan. We’ll see how it works out," he said as he was departing to tour the hurricane damage in Florida. "We’re going to get massive border security as part of that."

"The wall is going to be built. It will be funded a little bit later," Trump said.

Later in Florida, the president said, "if the wall is going to be obstructed ... then we're not doing anything."

When asked if he supported amnesty, Trump cupped his hands to his lips and said, "DACA — the word is DACA."

Trump also said he was "not looking at citizenship" or "amnesty" for Dreamers but instead the discussion is about "taking care of people."

Earlier, the president said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., backed the plan. McConnell's office said Trump had called Thursday morning, and the senator said in a statement, "We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal."

Trump's tweets and remarks came just hours after he held a dinner meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after which the pair said they’d reached a deal with the president "to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides."

Schumer and Pelosi, in a joint statement Thursday morning, added that Trump's tweets "are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night."

The pair said "there was no final deal" but that "both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement."

"The President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it," they said.

Dropping the demand for a border wall could make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.

Following the Wednesday night joint statement from Schumer and Pelosi, however, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that, "While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to."

But earlier Wednesday, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told an industry trade group that the border wall does not have to be a part of an agreement on DACA, one attendee at the meeting said.

The Trump administration announced last week that the Obama-era program would end in six months. The president said as part of the announcement that, "I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act."

Ending DACA — a program allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain and get work permits in the country — could affect as many as an estimated 800,000 people.

Sources told NBC News Wednesday night that Schumer and Pelosi told Trump they are prepared to deliver votes on a measure that would pair the existing DREAM Act text with additional border security that does not include the border wall funding. Specifics on what type and level of border security were not disclosed.

The DREAM Act would have offered those who came to the U.S. as children the opportunity to potentially gain permanent legal residency.

The act was first introduced in August 2001 by Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. It has resurfaced several times, always failing to get through Congress.

At a press conference later Thursday morning, Pelosi said the DACA recipients wouldn't be granted amnesty under a DREAM Act deal with Trump, but would have "the opportunity to earn their path to citizenship."

"It’s a long path, a 15-year path, and this is an earned path," she said. "We’re not looking at amnesty; we were never looking at amnesty."

Discussion of a possible deal marked the second time in as many weeks that Trump spurned his own party to pursue an agreement with Democrats.

Last week, Trump struck a deal with Schumer and Pelosi that combined disaster aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey with measures to keep the government open and extend the debt ceiling for three months, leaving some Republicans reeling.

News of another potential deal was met immediately with criticism from conservative Republicans.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an anti-immigration hardliner tweeted Wednesday that, if there was an agreement, "Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair. No promise is credible."

A potential deal would also go against the views of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who as a White House aide was credited with helping Trump emphasize a message centered on economic nationalism.

Bannon, who following his White House exit returned as the head of Breitbart News, told CBS' "60 Minutes" last week he didn't agree with Trump's decision to give Congress a window to save DACA legislatively, and that "the guys in the far-right" and "on the conservative side" were "not happy" with it either.

MICHAEL SAVAGE WARNED TRUMP ABOUT REINCE PREIBUS, VOTERS REJECTED ESTABLISHMENT

MICHAEL SAVAGE WARNED TRUMP ABOUT REINCE PREIBUS:

SAVAGE SAYS PREIBUS CLOSE TIES TO GOP ESTABLISHMENT IS WHY VOTERS REJECTED JEB BUSH AND VOTED FOR TRUMP.

I THOUGHT PREIBUS WAS A NICE GUY WHO DESERVED HIS ROLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

WAS I WRONG??

DID TRUMP ONLY HIRE PREIBUS AS A WAY TO SAY "THANK YOU" WHEN HE KNEW PREIBUS WOULD POSSIBLY UNDERMINE HIM?

REINCE PREIBUS IS GREAT AT ESTABLISHMENT POLITICS.

REINCE PREIBUS IS GREAT AT WINNING NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

HOWEVER REINCE PREIBUS DID NOT MAKE A GREAT CHIEF OF STAFF IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHAT'S NEXT FOR REINCE PREIBUS?


Sources: Breitbart, Michael Savage, Fox News, Newsmax, Telegraph.co.uk, PoliticsUSA, Youtube


***** Michael Savage Warns Donald Trump: ‘Rinse’ Reince; He’s ‘Everything the Voters Rejected’


President-elect Donald Trump should not select Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff, says Michael Savage, the national talk radio host and author of the new book Scorched Earth: Restoring the Country After Obama.

Priebus is “the enemy within,” Savage warns.

“He’s the RNC! Everything the voters rejected,” Savage tells Breitbart News. “He will steer Trump away from every policy we sent him to D.C. to change. He is the enemy within. He is [Paul] Ryan, [Mitch] McConnell, and the Old Guard. They do not want change. ‘Out with the old, in with the new.'”

A close Ryan ally, Priebus was responsible for the GOP “autopsy” following the Romney-Ryan loss of 2012.

One of its conclusions held that, to win elections, Republicans must embrace an immigration agenda that would import future voters who tend to overwhelmingly support Democrat policies.

The Priebus manifesto argued against opposing amnesty and appealing to the Republican electorate’s “core constituency.”

We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only,” the Priebus report stated.

By contrast, for years Savage has argued that Republican candidates should run campaigns on “borders, language, and culture.”

“I call him ‘Rinse,'” Savage said of Priebus, adding that’s “what Trump should do with his advice.”

Savage’s talk radio show, which is one of the most listened-to talk radio programs in the country, reaches an audience over 20 million listeners and is syndicated by over some 400 stations nationwide. This week, Savage will be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in the category of Spoken Word On-Air Personality.

PREIBUS & TRUMP: MATCH MADE IN HELL WHO SWALLOWED PRIDE TO WIN 2016 ELECTION (BUT TRUMP DOESN'T FORGET)

PREIBUS & TRUMP WERE A MATCH MADE IN HELL WHO SWALLOWED THEIR PRIDE TO WIN 2016 ELECTION (BUT TRUMP DOESN'T FORGET):

PREIBUS IS A POLITICIAN WHO PLAYED BOTH SIDES.

TRUMP NEVER TRUSTED PREIBUS.

SCARAMUCCI NEVER TRUSTED PREIBUS.

PREIBUS MAY HAVE LEAKED INFO ON TRUMP & SCARAMUCCI.

TRUMP WHITE HOUSE SHAKE UP IS ALL ABOUT TRUST.

TRUMP IS NOT OBAMA, HE DOESN'T ENCOURAGE NOR REWARD LEAKERS.


Sources: WND, NY Times, Fox News, ABC News, YouTube


**** Savage warns Trump on Priebus:
Looks like 'Jeb Bush won'


As one of his biggest supporters during the presidential election campaign, Michael Savage vowed to hold Donald Trump’s feet to the fire should he win, ensuring that the real-estate billionaire fulfills his promise to reform Washington.

Less than a week after Trump’s victory, the nationally syndicated talk-radio host is keeping his word, criticizing the appointment of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff.

“We’ve gone from RINOs to Rinso in one election,” Savage told WND, dubbing Priebus with the name of the iconic laundry soap.

Savage said he wanted to make it clear he was not turning on Trump.

“I’m not attacking Trump at all,” he told WND. “I am advising Trump to beware. Because, if he loses his base on the first day, what’s going to happen in the first month?

“This is a criticism of the establishment that is so all-powerful that they’ve already entangled him,” Savage explained.

Savage has described his latest book, “Scorched Earth: Restoring the Country After Obama,” as “an architectural plan for Trump.” Trump has been a frequent guest on the “The Savage Nation,” including on Election Day in the hours before Trump stunned establishment media and pundits with his victory over Hillary Clinton.

He noted Priebus has argued for embracing “comprehensive immigration reform,” which opponents regard as de facto amnesty. And back in April, Savage pointed out, Priebus said he would not let the Trump campaign take over the Republican Party apparatus if he won the nomination, the New York Times reported.

“If we don’t raise our voices now, and say, ‘No, over our dead bodies you’re not doing this to us again, Boehner and McConnell, who are they going to put on the Supreme Court?” Savage asked.

“Are we going to get the conservative judges we were promised, or are we going to get middle-of-the-roaders like Roberts, RINO-Rinso judges?” he asked. “On trade, will the Rinsos pass TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), after we were told they were going to oppose TPP?

“We know what they did to us in 2014,” Savage said, referring to the omnibus spending bill and other measures regarded as a betrayal of a party base that gave the GOP sizable majorities in Congress in the midterm elections. “Didn’t Boehner do exactly this, Boehner and McConnell? They promised all and gave nothing.”

Savage acknowledged that the appointment of former Breitbart chief Steve Bannon as senior adviser to Trump provides a counterbalance to Priebus, but he argued Priebus will be leading the effort to fill 4,000 administration positions.

“Priebus will create the top layer of bureaucracy in the country, not Bannon,” Savage said. “Trump could have chosen Bannon, but he didn’t.”

What do YOU think? How will Obama handle his final days in office? Sound off in today’s WND Poll

He also noted that the chief of staff is the gatekeeper to the White House.

“He decides who sleeps in the Lincoln bedroom,” Savage said.

“We’re going to have lobbyists; we’re going to have Republican loyalists. We’ll have the same, exact thing we got under Boehner and McConnell,” said Savage.

“Who do you think they’re going to pick? They’re not going to pick young Turks who want to change Washington. They want the status quo.

“It’s going to be the Chamber of Commerce. It’s as though Jeb Bush won.”

Savage added a word of perspective, however, imagining the alternative.

“Even if we only get 10 percent of what Trump promised us, we’re 1,000 percent better than if she had won,” he said, referring to Clinton.

“Remember what she would have done,” Savage said.

“The Second Amendment would have been gone, the First Amendment emasculated. She would have increased the surveillance state, she would have flooded America with Muslims, raised taxes on the middle class, and day and night propaganda about the evils of the white race.”

51 - 50 JOHN MCCAIN RETURNS TO VOTE FOR REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (HISTORY)

51 - 50 JOHN MCCAIN RETURNS TO VOTE FOR REPEAL OF OBAMACARE (HISTORY):

US SENATE MAJORITY VOTES TO CLEAR TEST VOTE FOR FLOOR DEBATES.

AUTHENTIC AFFORDABLE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS POSSIBLE.

NOT TAXES AND POPULATION CONTROL DISGUISED AS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUT AUTHENTIC UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

GOP LEADERS MUST KEEP THEIR HEALTH CARE CAMPAIGN PROMISE TO AMERICAN VOTERS WHO GAVE THEM CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE.


Sources: Fox News, Euro News, Youtube


***** Senate health bill clears test vote, aided by McCain


Senate Republicans on Tuesday resuscitated their health care legislation for now, narrowly clearing it past a key hurdle with the help of Sen. John McCain’s dramatic return to the chamber for the first time since his brain cancer diagnosis.

The Senate voted 51-50 to start debate, with Vice President Pence casting the tie-breaker. The procedural vote once again brings the ObamaCare overhaul legislation back from the brink of collapse, after intense pressure from President Trump who had demanded senators skip recess until they act on health care.

The bill still faces a tough road ahead. But it was a heavy lift just to get to this point.

No Democrats supported the motion, leaving Republicans to corral the necessary 50 votes. They got exactly that, requiring Pence to break the tie, for the fifth time under the Trump administration.

The airtight vote made McCain’s return all the more significant, as the measure could not have advanced without him.

The result was kept in suspense for a while. Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, voted no from the start. Several other Republican senators then delayed casting their vote, with no wiggle room left for additional defections on the GOP side.

Applause then broke out as McCain entered the chamber, pointing at his colleagues and shaking hands. As he joined, the last GOP holdout, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., voted with the Arizona senator to start debate.

Trump applauded the development in a statement, urging the Senate to follow through:

"I applaud the Senate for taking a giant step to end the Obamacare nightmare. As this vote shows, inaction is not an option, and now the legislative process can move forward as intended to produce a bill that lowers costs and increases options for all Americans. The Senate must now pass a bill and get it to my desk so we can finally end the Obamacare disaster once and for all."

Tuesday’s procedural vote kicks off what is likely to be another intense round of debate on health care, in which senators are sure to propose numerous changes to the plan – which could either boost or doom its chances. If a bill passes, it would still have to be reconciled with the House version.

McCain warned colleagues after the test vote that he would not support the bare-bones, “shell” bill in its current form as he urged lawmakers from both parties to reach across the aisle.

“We’re getting nothing done my friends,” McCain said from the floor, adding “something has to be done” on health care.

As the test vote began, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged his Republican colleagues to follow through on campaign promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

“We have a duty to act. … The president is ready with his pen,” he said. “We can’t let this moment slip by.”

Moments earlier, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., beseeched Republicans to “turn back.”

“We know the ACA is not perfect. But we also know what you’ve proposed is much worse,” he said.

A rowdy group of protesters also interrupted the start of proceedings, chanting, “kill the bill, don’t kill us” and “shame.”

For their part, Democrats uniformly oppose the effort to tear down President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement. Republicans control the chamber 52-48, meaning they could afford to lose just two Republicans with McCain around.

Trump had kept up the pressure on GOP lawmakers, tweeting that "After 7 years of talking, we will soon see whether or not Republicans are willing to step up to the plate!" He added: "ObamaCare is torturing the American People. The Democrats have fooled the people long enough. Repeal or Repeal & Replace! I have pen in hand."

McConnell's original bill would abolish much of Obama's law, eliminating its tax penalties on people not buying policies, cutting Medicaid, eliminating its tax boosts on medical companies and providing less generous health care subsidies for consumers. But at least a dozen GOP senators have openly said they oppose or criticized the measure, which McConnell revised as he's hunted Republican support.

For the time being, he won over Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who backed starting debate. He said McConnell told him the Senate would debate Paul's proposal to scuttle much of Obama's law and give Congress two years to enact a replacement -- an amendment that seemed certain to lose.

Moderates also were seeking additional money for states that would be hurt by cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, the disabled and nursing home patients. Conservatives wanted a vote on a proposal by Ted Cruz, R-Texas, letting insurers offer bare-bones policies with low premiums, which would be illegal under Obama's law.

With leaders still struggling to line up enough votes to approve a wide-ranging overhaul of Obama's law, there was talk of trying to pass a narrow bill -- details still unclear -- so House-Senate bargainers could craft a compromise.

US POSTAL SERVICE ILLEGALLY FAVORED HILLARY DURING 2016 ELECTION & TARGETED GOP VOTERS' MAIL (HATCH ACT)

US POSTAL SERVICE ILLEGALLY FAVORED HILLARY DURING 2016 ELECTION & TARGETED GOP VOTERS' MAIL (HATCH ACT):

I WARNED EVERYONE THAT USPS MAIL CARRIERS WERE SPYING ON GOP VOTERS' MAIL IN 2015 & 2016.

ESPECIALLY IN STATES LIKE GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

MANY PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE ME BUT NOW YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.

IT'S TIME TO PRIVATIZE THE US POSTAL SERVICE & HOLD USPS WORKERS ACCOUNTABLE.


Sources: ABC News, Fox News, Washington Post


**** USPS takes hearing heat for 'favoring' pro-Clinton union's campaign work


The United States Postal Service took heat during a congressional hearing Wednesday for allegedly violating federal law by “favoring” a union doing pro-Clinton campaign work.

According to a report released Wednesday morning by the Office of Special Counsel, USPS engaged in “systemic violations” of the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits certain political activities of federal employees.

While employees are allowed to do some political work on leave, the report said the Postal Service showed a “bias” in favor of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) campaign operation, letting employees take leave without pay to participate in pro-Clinton campaign efforts.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony from OSC and USPS officials on Wednesday, along with the USPS mail carrier who shared complaints with Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., in October 2016.

“’Postal Service leadership ‘took official actions with the intent of enabling’ the campaign activity of its union, and ‘with a clear understanding of what that activity involved,’” Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said in his prepared opening statement, citing the OSC report.

“Based on these findings, it is legitimate to wonder why no one will be held accountable, how Postal Service leadership allowed this systemic violation of the Hatch Act to go on for twenty years, and is this occurring in other federal agencies?”

Johnson was first notified of the “violations” in October 2016 by Tim Kopp, a letter carrier for the USPS and member of the NALC. Kopp thought the actions were “illegal” and was concerned the Postal Service “incurred unnecessary overtime costs” and “improperly coordinated” with NALC when it released several members for weeks of “union official” leave without pay to participate in partisan campaign work.

“I want things done fairly and I don’t want things done on a partisan issue—the union is always involved in highly political activities and I didn’t want this to be a partisan thing—I wanted this to be a thing where the general public does not lose trust in the postal service,” Kopp told the Senate panel Wednesday. “There are a lot of good employees, but the way this was done—it was a nightmare.”

According to the OSC report, roughly 97 NALC members requested the leave without pay to participate in get-out-the vote efforts in primarily 2016 battleground states: Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The NALC, which endorsed Clinton last June, compensated those USPS workers using the Letter Carrier Political Fund, the union’s PAC.

Officials at multiple levels apparently were involved.

According to OSC Acting Special Counsel Adam Miles, the NALC provided lists of letter carriers to participate in campaign activity to a senior headquarters USPS labor relations official, who then emailed the lists to other USPS officials across the country.

According to Miles, the local officials “interpreted the communications as directives” from USPS headquarters to release the carriers on union official leave without pay.

“The practice also put non-union employees, or union employees who supported other candidates, at a disadvantage,” Johnson said. “If those employees sought unpaid leave for several weeks for campaign activity, they would not have received the same treatment.”

The OSC found an “institutional bias” in favor of union-endorsed candidates, all of which were Democrats.

“USPS, through its longstanding practice of honoring these kinds of requests, failed to administer its programs in a politically neutral manner in violation of the Hatch Act,” The OSC report said.

Committee Ranking Member Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said that the USPS is “emblematic of a systemic problem not limited to one individual or one election cycle.”

“USPS has failed to implement sufficient controls to ensure compliance with the Hatch Act,” McCaskill said.

But USPS Postmaster General Megan Brennan told lawmakers that “senior postal leadership did not in any way guide union leadership in selecting the candidates for whom NALC employees could campaign” and that USPS “did not approve or choose candidates for the unions to support” or “ask the union to advocate for political candidates on behalf of the Postal Service.”

“I also note that our postal unions do not speak for the Postal Service, and the Postal Service does not speak for our unions,” Brennan wrote in her prepared testimony, insisting USPS did not seek to assist the NALC’s “favored candidates.”

Brennan said the practice to grant leave without pay for NALC political activity had been in place for approximately 20 years, but that all violations of the Hatch Act were “unintentional.”

“We will change our practice in consultation with the OSC and based upon OSC’s guidance.

This will ensure that we do not put our people in harm’s way and they do not unintentionally run afoul of the Hatch Act,” Brennan said.

“As we have previously communicated to both this committee and to the OSC, and as the OSC has acknowledged, the Postal Service has always been ready, willing and able to end or modify our practice as appropriate, consistent with OSC’s recommendation.”

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NUMBERS GREATLY REDUCED THANKS TO TRUMP'S BORDER CONTROL POLICIES (WHERE'S THE MSM?)

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NUMBERS GREATLY REDUCED THANKS TO TRUMP'S BORDER CONTROL POLICIES (WHERE'S THE MSM?)

ANOTHER TRUMP CAMPAIGN PROMISE FULFILLED.

WHY WON'T MSM REPORT ON THIS POSITIVE NEWS?


Sources: The Blaze, Fox News, Youtube


****** New illegal immigration numbers reveal Trump’s incredible impact on the border


One of President Donald Trump’s central (and most controversial) campaign promises was to shut down the flow of immigrants illegally crossing into the United States, especially from Mexico.

Newly released figures show Trump appears to be making good on his promise.

An analysis by the Daily Caller News Foundation found that from February through May in 2016, 188,000 people were caught attempting to illegally enter the United States from Mexico.

During the same period in 2017, only 76,000 were captured or deemed inadmissible, a decline of 59 percent.

In May alone, the number caught in 2017 was less than half (19,967) that recorded in 2016 (55,442), a truly remarkable turnaround considering Trump’s much-talked-about border wall has still yet to be financed by Congress.

“They’ve done more than any administration in the history of the world,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the Daily Caller.

“So, I’m pretty happy that they’ve done so much in such a short period of time so it would really be difficult for me to criticize them on that issue because there’s no comparison with any other administration as far as how quickly and effectively they’ve approached the problem on many different fronts,” Paxton also said.

In May, Ronald Vitiello, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee the decline is due to Trump’s January executive orders mandating a shift in policy and resources on the border.

“As a result of the executive orders issued by the president, and the implementing policies issued by the secretary, as well as earlier policy changes and the significant investments we have made in border-enforcement personnel, technology, and infrastructure, we are seeing a historic shift in illegal crossings along the southwest border,” Vitiello said, according to the Washington Examiner.

SEAN SPICER'S DEPARTURE MEANS TRUMP IS ROLLING UP HIS SLEEVES TO MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN (WH SHAKE-UP/ WHO IS ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI?)

SEAN SPICER'S DEPARTURE MEANS TRUMP IS ROLLING UP HIS SLEEVES TO MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN (WHITE HOUSE SHAKE - UP):

WHO IS ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI?

TRUMP IS PREPARING TO ACHIEVE ALL HIS AGENDA OBJECTIVES WITH CONGRESS' HELP.

SPICER WILL MOST LIKELY REMAIN ONBOARD BEHIND THE SCENE BECAUSE HE IS STILL VALUABLE TO THE TEAM.

WHO WILL REPLACE SPICER??

IT WILL NEED TO BE SOMEONE TOUGH AS NAILS, SHARP WITH A CALM STEELY DEMEANOR.



Sources: Fox News, Washington Times, Youtube


***** Shake-up underway: Sean Spicer leaving White House podium for behind-the-scenes role


White House press secretary Sean Spicer plans to move out of his role as the president’s daily spokesman, while President Trump is souring on often-hostile televised media briefings and is limiting traditional press access in favor of taking his message to audiences directly.

After only five months on the job, the embattled Mr. Spicer is searching for a replacement to take his place at the podium to conduct press briefings and allow him to shift into a less visible role managing White House communications.

Mr. Spicer, whose combative exchanges with reporters at daily briefings have become legendary, has been easing out of the daily briefing job for a month. He has increasingly shared that duty with White House deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders.

But asked about his reported move, Mr. Spicer said from the press briefing podium Tuesday, “I’m right here.”

“It’s no secret we’ve had a couple vacancies, including our communications director, who’s [been] gone for a while,” Mr. Spicer said, referring to Michael Dubke, who resigned in late May after only three months on the job. “We’ve been meeting with potential people that may be of service to this administration. I don’t think that should come as any surprise.”

“And when we have an announcement of a personnel nature, we’ll let you know,” he said.

It was his first televised press briefing in eight days.

However long Mr. Spicer remains in the high-pressure job, Tuesday was his 152nd day as press secretary.

Only three White House press secretaries since 1960 have worked shorter stints: Jerald terHorst served 31 days under President Gerald Ford, George Stephanopolous served 138 days as de facto press secretary at the start of the Clinton administration, and Jake Siewert held the post for 112 days in the final months of the Clinton presidency.

Mr. Spicer has been carrying out dual roles as communications director and press secretary before Mr. Dubke was hired in February — and again since he quit. He interviewed candidates to replace him at the podium, including conservative radio host Laura Ingraham and Daily Mail editor David Martosko, Politico reported Monday.

Beyond Mr. Spicer’s changing role, there are other signs that Mr. Trump and his aides are fed up with coverage by the White House press corps that is heavy on questions about Russia and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Mr. Spicer and Ms. Sanders have scaled back the frequency and duration of televised press briefings.

After Mr. Trump openly suggested last month that it would be a “good idea” to stop press briefings altogether, the White House also has shifted its media strategy in recent weeks to include Cabinet secretaries who limit questions to topics such as reform of the Veterans Affairs Department.

“The White House press briefing on-camera has worn out its welcome with the Trump White House,” said a Republican ally familiar with the thinking in the West Wing. “Trump understands that he’s not getting the value out of it.

Because of the crises and the inability of the administration to get their message out through the televised briefings, they decided to change it up in a variety of ways.”

This Republican emphasized that the White House is “not abandoning the on-camera briefings.”

“But they are getting away from the addiction that cable news TV had to feeding its audience with ‘gotcha’ questions,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It’s not working for the Trump folks. Why put his press secretary out there to take the arrows when it’s unnecessary?”

One White House reporter sympathized with the White House’s move to limit televised briefings, saying “there’s some rationale for it on their part” to want to avoid “stumbling or friction in the briefing room.”

The problem for the media, this reporter said, is that journalists get hit with a “double-whammy” when there are fewer briefings and the president also doesn’t take questions from reporters at a given event.

To get his message out, Mr. Trump is continuing to communicate with his millions of followers on Twitter and holding occasional campaign-style rallies in battleground states.

On Wednesday he will travel to Iowa to visit a community college and hold a rally.

Ms. Sanders rejected the suggestion that the White House is restricting press access, saying the White House is making a more concerted effort not to distract from Mr. Trump’s message when he holds public events.

On Monday, when Mr. Spicer chose to give a 32-minute briefing off camera, Mr. Trump had a routine schedule that included an Oval Office meeting with the president of Panama and a session with CEOs of technology companies.

“It’s less about limiting [press access] and more about highlighting these events,” she said. “No one is a better advocate of the president’s policies and agenda than the president himself.”

The curtailed press access is rankling the White House press corps, particularly TV journalists who are chafing at the infrequency of televised briefings. Jim Acosta, a veteran White House reporter for CNN, blasted the Trump communications team on air this week, referring to Mr. Spicer as “getting to a point … where he’s just kind of useless.”

“If he can’t come out and answer the questions, and they’re just not going to do this on camera or audio, why are we even having these briefings or these gaggles in the first place?” Mr. Acosta said.

On Twitter Mr. Acosta said, “Make no mistake about what we are all witnessing. This is a WH that is stonewalling the news media.”

The president infamously referred to Mr. Acosta and CNN as “fake news” at a press conference during the transition when Mr. Acosta tried to ask a question about Russia.

In the first weeks of his presidency, Mr. Trump showed an eagerness to engage with the media, sometimes inviting reporters to observe his meetings at the White House for 30 minutes or more, far longer than the usual “photo-ops” held by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

But those lengthy sessions of presidential press access are rare now. And as reporters ask repeated questions about Russia or the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey, the number of televised briefings has dwindled.

Asked again Tuesday whether Mr. Trump believes that Russia interfered in the presidential election last year, Mr. Spicer replied, “I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing. Obviously, we’ve been dealing with a lot of other issues today.”

Mr. Acosta, whom Mr. Spicer didn’t call on for a question Tuesday, called out, “Didn’t he say it was ‘fake news,’ Sean?”

White House aides say Mr. Trump has granted the press generous access, conducting many individual interviews with various media outlets.

Mr. Spicer said the daily press briefing is merely “one aspect of what we do.”

“We’re here really early in the morning and really late at night, available to [answer] all of your questions, whether it’s email or in person,” he told reporters.

REPEAL & REPLACE OBAMACARE vs LYING GOP SENATORS (BROKEN CAMPAIGN PROMISES)

REPEAL & REPLACE OBAMACARE vs LYING GOP SENATORS (BROKEN CAMPAIGN PROMISES):

GOP SENATORS PUSHED "REPEAL OBAMACARE" AGENDA TO WIN CONGRESS & WHITE HOUSE.

NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP THEIR VOWS.

REPLACING OBAMACARE WITH TRUE UNIVERSAL AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

IT JUST REQUIRES HARD WORK AND WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.


Sources: AP, Fox News, The Hill, Youtube


**** Trump plays hardball on ObamaCare repeal


President Trump on Wednesday admonished Republican senators over their stalled healthcare push and demanded they resume work on a bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare, setting up a last-ditch attempt to avoid an embarrassing defeat.

Trump invited Republican senators to the White House for lunch a day after their healthcare legislation appeared dead, telling lawmakers they should not leave Washington before reaching a solution, even if it means scrapping their already-delayed August recess.

"Frankly, I don't think we should leave town unless we have a health insurance plan," the president said at the start of the lunch in the State Dining Room. "Because we're close; we're very close."

The president's public tongue-lashing appeared to produce results. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the luncheon that he would forge ahead with the repeal-and-replace negotiations.

"Next week, we'll be voting on the motion to proceed, and I have every expectation that we'll be able to get on the bill," McConnell told reporters on the White House driveway.

But success is far from guaranteed. Following the meeting, it wasn't immediately clear whether McConnell would move to a straight repeal of ObamaCare - something the White House had urged earlier in the week - or the repeal-and-replace bill. As of Wednesday, both measures lacked the votes necessary to advance.

The initial collapse of the repeal-and-replace plan was a major failure for both Trump and McConnell and sparked mutual recriminations on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, including complaints from senators that the president did little to sell the initiative.

Trump on Wednesday appeared hell-bent on making up for lost time. As television cameras rolled, the president personally challenged GOP senators to get on board, reminding them of their campaign promises to overturn President Obama's signature healthcare law.

He seated himself next to Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), a vulnerable incumbent who opposed the legislation, and ticked off what he said were the benefits of the plan, promising it would stabilize individual insurance markets and lower premiums by "60 and 70 percent."

Trump made it clear that he isn't afraid to use strong-arm tactics to persuade the holdouts.

"Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn't he?" Trump said of Heller. "I think the people of your state, which I know very well, I think they're going to appreciate what you hopefully will do."

The president added, "Any senator who votes against starting debate is really telling America that you're fine with ObamaCare."

Heller appeared to take the ribbing in stride, tilting his head back and chuckling.

"That's just President Trump being President Trump," Heller told reporters at the Capitol following the lunch.
Trump also took a swipe at Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), the two conservatives who announced their opposition to the repeal-and-replace bill Monday night, stopping it dead in its tracks.

"The other night I was surprised when I heard a couple of my friends - my friends, they really were and are. They might not be very much longer, but that's OK," he said.

While the president seemed recommitted to using the bully pulpit to advance the healthcare effort, it's unclear whether it will be enough to get wavering senators behind a bill that is deeply unpopular with the public.

Only 17 percent of Americans approve of the Senate GOP legislation, while 55 percent disapprove, according to a late June NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the measure had only 12 percent support in key counties won by Trump in 2016.

Trump's own approval rating has plummeted - down to only 36 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll - raising the possibility that vulnerable senators such as Heller will feel emboldened to ignore his pleas.

The president has offered mixed messages on healthcare, and his demand on Wednesday for a repeal-and-replace bill may have added even more confusion to the process.

Just one day earlier, he said that Republicans in Congress should simply abandon their legislative effort and "let Obamacare fail."

That came after a Monday tweet in which Trump appeared to endorse the repeal-without-replace option.

"Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!" he wrote.

White House legislative director Marc Short denied that Trump's message has been inconsistent.

"I think the president has been clear that what he wants is repeal and replace," he said, adding that the president believes that if that doesn't work, "we should at least deliver on the promise to repeal."

Short said that during the lunch, "there was a general enthusiasm for recognizing that this is not something we can walk away from."

But senators acknowledged that they still face a heavy lift.

"It is ... sort of revived," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said of the repeal-and-replace bill.

"I think we don't have any delusions about the fact that this is going to be very hard and we still have members who are not there yet."Three top Trump administration officials - Vice President Pence, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma - were scheduled to meet Wednesday evening on Capitol Hill with fence-sitting GOP senators to discuss a path forward.

McConnell repeatedly refused to say if he would cancel recess to continue work on healthcare.

VOTER FRAUD (2016) COMMISSION vs STATES & NETWORKS WHO PARTICIPATED IN VOTER FRAUD EFFORTS

VOTER FRAUD (2016) COMMISSION vs STATES & NETWORKS WHO PARTICIPATED IN VOTER FRAUD EFFORTS:

YES SEVERAL STATES DID TRY TO HELP HILLARY DEFEAT TRUMP (UNFAIR ADVANTAGE).

YES SEVERAL MEDIA NETWORKS SUCH AS CNN PRACTICED BIASED REPORTING DURING THE 2016 ELECTION SEASON.

VOTERS LEGALLY CHOSE TRUMP FAIR & SQUARE SO WHY ARE DEMOCRATS STILL ANGRY?

TRUMP WILL WIN THIS BATTLE TOO.


Sources: Fox News, Newsbusters, Washington Post, Youtube


****** ABC, NBC Skip First Meeting of Voter Fraud Commission, CBS Misleads


On Wednesday, President Trump’s bipartisan Commission on Election Integrity, led by Vice President Mike Pence, assembled for the first time. The commission’s responsibility was to investigate possible election fraud and other election related criminal behavior. Despite the importance of this commission, ABC and NBC failed to give the commission any time at all during their evening broadcasts.

CBS was the only network in the Big Three to mention it, but they were skeptical and mislead on its intentions.

“While Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russian election hacking, President Trump has set up a panel to investigate election fraud with little evidence there is any,” announced Anchor Anthony Mason during CBS Evening News.

Reporter Chip Reid wasted no time in trying to tear down the commission by equating it to a ploy designed to beef up the President’s ego. “Critics say the President created this commission in a desperate effort to prove that he did win the popular vote,” he chided. “Today Vice President Mike Pence, who is heading the commission, tried to quash that idea.”

“Numerous studies have found that voter fraud in U.S. elections is extremely rare, and today some of the five Democrats on the 12-member panel agreed,” Reid argued, before playing a clip of one Democratic judge from one Alabama county. “In my 16.5 years in the Jefferson County probate judge position, that I have not seen evidence of voter fraud in Jefferson County,” Judge Alan King explained to his colleagues.

But that’s not entirely accurate, according to Hans von Spakosky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, a member of the conservative Heritage Foundation. “We are up to almost 1,100 proven cases of voter fraud,” he told the rest of the commission during the first session.

“Democratic critics of the commission say it's all but ignoring two crucial issues, first, suppression of the minority vote,” Reid said, to wrap up his report. But he was clearly just repeating back Democratic talking points because what he didn’t mention was that Trump requested that they go after voter suppression as well.

In a speech to the commission, Trump told them: “Any form of illegal or fraudulent voting whether by noncitizens or the deceased, and any form of voter suppression or intimidation must be stopped.”

Fox News Channel’s Special Report also dedicated a segment to the bipartisan Commission on Election Integrity. Correspondent Doug McKelway noted both the opposition to the commission and the findings of Spakosky.

The cable news channel also released the results of a new poll they conducted showing bipartisan support for greater voting fraud protections:

A Fox poll released tonight suggests that all this partisan rhetoric is not reflected in public opinion. It finds that most Americans would like to see stricter voting requirements. Six and ten Democrats virtually all Republicans and almost 9-in10 independents would like to see a photo I.D. as a voting requirement.

ABC and NBC may not agree with the necessity of the commission, but it was clearly important since CBS thought it was worth the solid two minutes they gave it. CBS’s omission of Trump’s statement against voter suppression and the findings of apparent voter fraud does little to lend them credibility.

~ Transcript below:

CBS Evening News
July 19, 2017
6:36:45 PM Eastern

ANTHONY MASON: While Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russian election hacking, President Trump has set up a panel to investigate election fraud with little evidence there is any. Here's Chip Reid.
CBS Evening News
July 19, 2017
6:36:45 PM Eastern

ANTHONY MASON: While Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russian election hacking, President Trump has set up a panel to investigate election fraud with little evidence there is any. Here's Chip Reid.
[Cuts to video]

DONALD TRUMP: This issue is very important to me.

CHIP REID: Trump kicked off the first meeting of his election integrity commission today, but its origin goes back to November when he won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost three million votes. Mr. Trump has refused to believe it, insisting that millions of people illegally voted for Clinton, but he has cited no evidence. Critics say the President created this commission in a desperate effort to prove that he did win the popular vote. Today Vice President Mike Pence, who is heading the commission, tried to quash that idea.

MIKE PENCE: Let me be clear: This commission has no preconceived notions or preordained results. We're fact finders.
REID: Numerous studies have found that voter fraud in U.S. elections is extremely rare, and today some of the five Democrats on the 12-member panel agreed. Judge Alan King of Alabama.

ALAN KING: In my 16.5 years in the Jefferson County probate judge position, that I have not seen evidence of voter fraud in Jefferson County.

REID: The commission got off to a rough start last month when it asked the states for detailed information on voters, including address, political party, even voter history. More than 20 states refused, citing privacy concerns. Mississippi's Republican secretary of state wrote that the commission “can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.” Today President Trump raised vague suspicions about the states that have not complied.

TRUMP: If any state does not want the share this information, one has to wonder what they're worried about.
[Cuts back to live]

REID: Democratic critics of the commission say it's all but ignoring two crucial issues, first, suppression of the minority vote, and second, Russian meddling in the presidential election. Anthony?

MASON: Chip Reid. Thank you, Chip.

TRUMP TRUMPS APRIL RYAN; MEETS W/ CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

TRUMP ANSWERS APRIL RYAN'S QUESTION; MEETS WITH CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS LEADERS:

TRUMP HAS DONE MORE FOR BLACK VOTERS IN 88 DAYS THEN OBAMA DID IN 8 YEARS.


Sources: Washington Post, CNN, The Hill, YouTube


Kudos to Pres Trump!

The substance of his meeting today with Black Congressional Caucus members is yet another reason why so many Black voters took a leap of faith and chose to cast their ballots for Trump on Nov 8, 2016.

MSM tried to falsely report that Hillary & DEMS secured a majority of the Black vote.

Not true!

If Hillary and DEMS had a lock on the Black vote why isn't she sitting in the Oval Office as Madam President?

I'm just saying.


***** Congressional Black Caucus leaders meet with Trump, push for policy proposals not photo ops


President Trump met with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, pulling reporters into the room to hear him praise African Americans.

“They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the march toward civil rights, enriched the soul of America in their faith and courage, and they’ve advanced our country in the fields of science, arts and medicine,” the president said.

As he spoke, the CBC’s six-member executive board was sitting on the other side of a table — out of the TV cameras’ shot. That was no accident. The CBC, many members of which boycotted Trump’s inauguration, agreed to meet with the president only if the meeting was substantive.

“The Congressional Black Caucus is not going to be a potted plant or a photo opportunity,” said Rep. Donald A. McEachin (D-Va.), a CBC member who did not attend the meeting. “He did a photo op with the presidents of historically black colleges, and they got nothing.”

After eight years of working hand in glove with the first black president, the CBC is facing off against a president who portrayed that presidency as a disaster for black Americans — and spent years demanding Barack Obama’s birth certificate and college records. On the trail, speaking before largely white audiences, Trump would ask black voters “what the hell do you have to lose” by voting Republican.

The CBC’s leaders arrived at Wednesday’s meeting with a policy memo titled “A Lot to Lose.” Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.), the CBC’s chairman, was joined by Reps. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.), André Carson (D-Ind.) and Anthony G. Brown (D-Md.).

“We never thought we’d agree on everything in this meeting, but the one thing we did ask is for both sides to be candid,” Richmond said afterward. “He listened, and we talked, and we proposed a lot of solutions, many of which I think he had not heard before, and we’re going to keep advocating.”

Wednesday’s meeting grew out of an awkward incident last month, when during a 77-minute news conference Trump asked April Ryan, a black reporter with the American Urban Radio Networks, if she could set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus.

friends of yours?” Trump asked.

Ryan noted that she was a journalist, and not part of the CBC. “I’m sure they’re watching right now,” she said.

That gaffe started negotiations about a possible meeting, one that CBC members wanted to avoid turning into presidential PR. Since winning the presidency, Trump has had several awkward moments involving African Americans. At a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump thanked black voters who decided to sit out the election: “That was big.”

At an event he held to mark the outset of Black History Month, Trump rambled about his 80-point defeat among black voters, hypothesized about what could get him to a majority of the black vote in 2020, and mentioned the abolitionist Frederick Douglass as “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.” Douglass died in 1895.

“He has not surrounded himself with people who can keep him informed,” said Lawrence, whose state broke for Trump in part because of weakened black turnout. “He painted us as one homogenous group — broke, being shot at, uneducated. He needs to be given the opportunity to learn.”

The CBC’s proposals for Trump did sync with what he’d occasionally promised on the trail. During the press scrum, Trump said that “every American child has a right to grow up in a safe community, to attend great schools, to graduate with access to high-paying jobs,” implying that African Americans had been denied this. But CBC members are waiting for actual policy proposals.

“There could be something, perhaps, in the area of infrastructure, or in better employment opportunities,” said Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.). “I can’t point to anything he’s done so far.”

Instead, in the White House’s “skinny budget,” spending for domestic programs was cut to make the math work on increased defense funding. In a Wednesday article for the political journal Democracy, Matthew Colangelo, deputy assistant to the president for economic policy in the Obama administration, listed other Trump decisions that disproportionately hurt black voters, such as an executive order that weakened the Federal Housing Administration and a Justice Department decision to abandon a legal challenge — which had been winning in court — against alleged racial gerrymandering in Texas.

“In just two months, the Trump Administration has already made it harder for African Americans to buy a house, to vote, to enjoy clean air and water, and to retire with dignity,” wrote Colangelo. “The President’s campaign pledge was correct: The results of his policies for African Americans have in fact been ‘amazing’ — it is amazing how much harm can be done so quickly.”

And CBC members did not quite dodge the photo op. Late Wednesday evening, White House press secretary Sean Spicer tweeted a photo of CBC members sitting around Trump in the Oval Office. The people in the photo shrugged it off.

“Our objective is to walk away having given the president an opportunity to hear, to be enlightened, and to start a dialogue for the next four years — if he stays in office,” said Lawrence.