Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats' call for a special prosecutor may come back to haunt them New York Post Now, though, Democrats are lined up demanding a special prosecutor into Russia's interference with our election. They may have visions of Cox and Jaworski dancing in their heads, but they should be careful what they wish for. Democrats assume only ... and more »

Here is the original post:
Democrats' call for a special prosecutor may come back to haunt them - New York Post

THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMPS opening weeks have been chaotic and dispiriting, the nations new chief executive has still managed to make a few good choices. One of his best was nominating Rod J. Rosenstein to be the No.2 at the Justice Department. The sooner the Senate confirms him, the sooner the administration will have another adult in its top ranks. So its unfortunate that Mr. Rosenstein faced demands from Democrats at his Tuesday confirmation hearing that no one in his position should accede to.

As deputy attorney general, Mr. Rosenstein would oversee the daily operations of a vast, 115,000-person bureaucracy responsible for enforcing laws on everything from hate crimes to antitrust. After nearly three decades in the Justice Department, serving under presidents of both parties, Rod Rosenstein has demonstrated throughout his long career the highest standards of professionalism, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The senator praised Mr.Rosensteins nonpartisan approach and noted his wide support among Democratic officials in Maryland, where Mr.Rosenstein serves as U.S. attorney and has had notable success prosecuting gang crime and political corruption.

Instead of that record, Mr. Rosensteins hearing was dominated by the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week from issues involving Russia and the 2016 presidential election. With Mr. Sessions sidelined, Justice Department decisions regarding any investigation into Russias meddling and contacts between Mr. Trumps circle and Russian officials would fall to Mr. Rosenstein. He assured senators that political affiliation is irrelevant to my work and promised to support any properly predicated investigation related to interference by the Russians or by anybody else in American elections.

But that was not enough for Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who told Mr. Rosenstein that I will oppose your nomination if you are unwilling to commit to appoint a special prosecutor. Mr. Rosenstein offered a model reply: I view it as an issue of principle that as a nominee for deputy attorney general I should not be promising to take action on a particular case, he said. And I believe that if I were to do that in this case, some future deputy attorney general nominee would be here. And hed be asked to make a similar commitment. And theyd say, Well, Rosenstein did it, why wont you?

If, as was the case with Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein had been a top official in the Trump campaign, it would have been appropriate for him to prospectively recuse himself, as Mr. Sessions did on all matters relating to Hillary Clinton. But as it is, Mr.Rosenstein would not enter the Justice Departments top ranks with such a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. It is entirely appropriate for Mr.Rosenstein to do what any good prosecutor would refuse to prejudge a law enforcement question before reviewing the full record, including information that is not publicly available.

We believe that Russian interference in the election is a matter of such grave public importance that appointing a special counsel would add to the Justice Departments appearance of independence and integrity. But we respect Mr. Rosenstein for refusing to pre-commit. So should the Senate.

Read this article:
Democrats are holding up one of Trump's best appointees - Washington Post

|

Posted: Mar 09, 2017 12:01 AM

What happened to detente? What happened to perestroika and glasnost? And how about their longtime fear of a nuclear winter, and their longing for a nuclear freeze? The Democrats have always been big on mixing rhetoric with climate, though, admittedly, Putin and his fat-cat cronies have changed over the years from the Soviets of old.

The old Soviet economy was something with which Saunders and Pelosi and even the Schumer of recent edition could identify. Bernie, the socialist, in particular had more in common with the Soviet system than with American capitalism. The Soviet economy certainly made more sense to him than the wild swings of the American economy that we have today. Think of it! The stock market is up 10 to 12 percent since Donald Trump was elected. The giant corporations and Wall Street are doubtless making a killing. Those animal spirits that make him uneasy are even returning to the middle class. Bernie tried to warn us but to no avail. Now, Schumer and Pelosi have let out a yell.

I well remember the glowing praise of yesterday's progressives for the Soviet economy. There were, for instance, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard University and Lester Thurow of MIT in the 1980s enthusing over Soviet prosperity just as Mikhail Gorbachev was about to come to power. Of course, the alarums sounded by the Democrats today about the Republicans' approaches to the Kremlin were not heard in the 1970s and 1980s, at least not from the Democrat leadership. They talked of peaceful coexistence then. What about peaceful coexistence with Putin?

Do you recall Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, writing Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov in a secret correspondence aimed at undermining Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Most probably you do not. Such communications by Kennedy and former Sen. John Tunney to the KGB were not widely reported in the American media at the time. Yet, Sovietologists such as Herbert Romerstein and Paul Kengor have been reporting these contacts for years. Go ahead and Google Kennedy and the KGB. The Times of London reported on them. Now, the Democrat leadership is suspicious about ambiguous allegations of contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The mainstream media even report on such alleged contacts as "ties."

Sessions neglected to answer to the Democrats' satisfaction the poorly constructed questions about two meetings he had with the current Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions is in hot water. After tweeting that she has never met Kislyak, Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill's own Twitter account revealed two interactions. Just like Sessions, she overlooked them. More recently, Pelosi had to clarify her claim that she had never met Kislyak. A picture turned up showing her with him. In her clarification, an aide to Pelosi said, "She has never had a private one-on-one with him." Well, if it were a private meeting, I assume there would be no pictures.

On that occasion, Pelosi was actually meeting with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. So Democrat bigwigs do occasionally meet with Putin's people. That reminds me of President Barack Obama's embarrassment with Medvedev. Without knowing his microphone was on, Obama told Medvedev to assure incoming President Putin that after the 2012 election, he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with the Russians. Medvedev agreed, though Obama did not apparently find Putin so lovey-dovey.

The modern Russians are not as clubbable as the Democrats found the Russians of the Soviet era. They are not even as agreeable as President Obama found them in 2012. Perhaps ordinary Americans, having read their history, can agree with me. These Democrats are mercurial. No wonder more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the country is in better hands with a real estate developer.

Read the original:
What Has Gotten Into the Democrats? - Townhall

Miami Herald

Step up, Sen. Rubio, and be a leader on immigration reform Miami Herald Sen. Marco Rubio is talking the talk except at town hall meetings, shamefully, shunning any encounters with, yes, angry constituents and now it's time for him to walk the walk. After President Trump's address to Congress last week, in which ... Rubio is asked to leave Tampa office over disruption from weekly protestsTampabay.com Rubio being booted from Jacksonville office due to protestsTampabay.com all 30 news articles »

Read more from the original source:
Step up, Sen. Rubio, and be a leader on immigration reform - Miami Herald

Demonstrators protest Alabama's immigration law at the Capitol in Montgomery, Ala., on Feb. 7, 2012. Much of the law was later struck down. Dave Martin/AP hide caption

Demonstrators protest Alabama's immigration law at the Capitol in Montgomery, Ala., on Feb. 7, 2012. Much of the law was later struck down.

Back in 2011, Alabama passed what was then considered the nation's strictest immigration law. Much of it was later struck down by the courts.

Now, the law offers a snapshot of potential challenges ahead for the Trump administration.

For Fernanda Herrera, a senior at Samford University outside Birmingham, Ala., the current climate surrounding immigration has her scared, just as the Alabama law did in 2011.

"I don't know if I'm going to see my parents tomorrow," Herrera says.

Her father crossed the Mexican border illegally when she was two.

She and her mom flew in months later with visas now expired. Herrera is covered under DACA deferred action for childhood arrivals so for now, she likely won't be deported, but she's afraid.

"It's supposed to be a happy time. I'm about to graduate from college, the first in my family to do so, and my parents have worked so hard to get me through these four years," she says. "And knowing how detention centers are, and thinking about my parents having to go through that, knowing that my family could be separated, it's just really difficult."

Fernanda Herrera, a Samford University senior, says she hopes the U.S. will learn from what Alabama did in 2011 when had the nation's strictest immigration law. People in Alabama, she says, "fought back and had a lot of that repealed." Dan Carsen/WBHM hide caption

Fernanda Herrera, a Samford University senior, says she hopes the U.S. will learn from what Alabama did in 2011 when had the nation's strictest immigration law. People in Alabama, she says, "fought back and had a lot of that repealed."

Her family also feared that in 2011. Alabama had enacted a law that, among other things, nullified contracts leases, water service, anything and even made it a crime to give a ride to someone in the country illegally. The law's author said the goal was to attack every aspect of life. Herrera sees something similar happening nationally now, but she hopes the U.S. will learn from Alabama.

"They'll see in time that attacking a community is just not the way to have immigration reform happen. Because I mean here in Alabama we fought back and had a lot of that repealed," she says.

Suits by advocacy groups and the Justice Department blocked much of the law, including a requirement that schools check students' immigration status. But that was after farmers' crops rotted and other industries lost labor and business as families fled the state.

'A lot of fear'

Jeremy Love, an immigration lawyer, says he's feeling deja vu.

"There's a lot of fear going on right now. I've had people say they want to do a phone consultation rather than come to my office because they were afraid of going out of their house," he says.

Love predicts mass deportations will hurt the U.S. economy and trigger legal backlash similar to what happened in Alabama. He has more immediate concerns for his clients though.

"People are leaving a very dangerous situation in their home country," he says.

State Rep. Jack Williams agrees but isn't swayed. The co-sponsor of the 2011 Alabama law thinks values, not necessarily physical danger, should determine who gets to stay.

"Today many people are coming to America from very unstable situations," he says. "A hundred years ago, people came to America because they wanted to be Americans."

He says his stance against illegal immigration is principle, not personal.

"I think there's a richness that we enjoy from the diversity that comes from people coming from around the world, and I'm not opposed or afraid of immigrants," he says. "I just would like to see us follow the law. I think that gives everybody a clear road map on how we should operate as a civil society."

If Alabama's any indication, that road map could include hard-to-gauge economic disruption and detours for costly court battles over how immigration laws are enforced.

Read more here:
What Happens When US Immigration Rules Tighten? Let's Look To Alabama - NPR