The Loon in Juan Williams

Juan Williams: Trump’s risk of impeachment rises

(Williams must be on Donkey Pot;  Plays Democrat at Fox.  Writes Below at the Hill.)

Liberal Democrats could yet see their dreams come true.

Last week, a new poll from the liberal outfit Public Policy Polling (PPP) asked Americans if President Trump should resign if evidence emerges that his campaign worked with Russia to help defeat Hillary Clinton. A majority, 53 percent, said he should resign.

That is important because PPP also found that 44 percent of Americans already believe that Trump’s campaign did just that.

It is no fantasy to say the drip-drip-drip of the Trump-Russia investigations is draining this presidency of political capital. The president’s historically high disapproval rating — 51 percent in the latest McClatchy poll — tells the same story.That’s why astute Republicans are starting to look out for themselves.

The first Republican to begin to run for cover was Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who decided to recuse himself from any role in the investigation. Last week Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, sought immunity in exchange for his testimony to congressional investigators.

A majority of Americans want a special prosecutor — including 39 percent of Republicans, according to one poll. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called for Congress to form a bipartisan select committee to probe ties between Russia and the Trump camp.

The struggle for Republicans in Congress is two-fold.

First, they have to avoid being blamed for undermining the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. But, secondly, they are worried about the damage Trump will do to their party’s fortunes in the 2018 midterms.

The Democrats have a different political challenge.

They have to figure out how to respond to White House efforts to distract the public by denigrating the intelligence agencies and derailing the Congressional investigations.

(And claims below that Adam Schiff of California is a model for avoiding political statements.   He’s avoiding political statements because he was caught in a major lie.)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence panel, has become a model on that score by avoiding political statements.

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/326930-juan-williams-trumps-risk-of-impeachment-rises

Report: Susan Rice, Top Obama Adviser, Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

…

 by Martin Walsh, at Red State….    article sent by Lisa Rich in California:

 …

“On March 4, President Trump sent out a tweet accusing former President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in New York.

A bombshell report from Bloomberg politics on Monday states that White House lawyers became aware last month that Susan Rice, the former national security adviser to Obama, was the individual that requested the identities of U.S. persons pertaining to the Trump campaign.

As reported by Bloomberg:

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”

Bloomberg reports that two U.S. officials spoke to them on the condition on anonymity, where they admitted that the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, oversaw the review of Trump associates involved with the Trump campaign and transition.

In February, Cohen-Watnick first became aware that Rice attempted to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports on multiple occasions that related to Trump’s team.

After he became aware of what was going on, Cohen-Watnick then spoke with the White House General Counsel’s office on what was happening. Bloomberg reports that the General Counsel’s Office told him to “end his own research into the unmasking policy.”

The Bloomberg report continues:

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

Rice has been very vocal against the Trump administration, but she has not been asked directly about the issue of unmasking.

Last month on “PBS NewsHour,” Rice was asked about the reports from the Trump administration about the wire tapping accusations and incidental collections.

Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”

If the reports are accurate and Rice did request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials, that doesn’t mean Trump’s allegations are 100 percent proven, either.

The report could also explain what Nunes saw at the White House two weeks ago that prompted him to reveal the reports he viewed “very concerning information.”

While many questions are still unanswered, the latest report does add more confirmation to the fact the Trump’s assertion could be true.”

---

Why Not Kill the Babies? They don’t know what’s going on!

AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY … PROVIDED YOU READ THE RIGHT FONT FIRST

by Steve Deace   at Conservative Review:

“Down through the annals of time, there have been some memorable quotes to inspire humanity to do away with grave injustices.

Recall this recognizable abolitionist battle cry: “You can’t own another human being unless his papers are properly notarized!”

Riveting.

Or maybe you’ll remember how the women’s suffrage movement was spurred to action by Susan B. Anthony’s “if you like it, then you should’ve put a ring on it.”

Spine tingling.

I could go on citing others, but they would all pale in comparison to this ultimate mic drop courtesy of the Kansas state legislature: “you can’t kill that baby until you read our 12-point, Times New Roman font first!”

That’s right. The latest “pro-life” bill from one of the reddest states in the Union says it’s okay to kill a kid, provided you read some disclaimer information first. Which the state demands be written in 12-point, Times New Roman font. Apparently we’re now more concerned about layout uniformity than we are when life begins, or the One we’re responsible to for not protecting it.

Move over Braveheart, Knute Rockne, and Winston Churchill — for you now have company in the fiery quote department. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R Tolkien, or Maya Angelou, couldn’t have coined a phrase any better. In fact, it might just be time to go ahead and retire the English language altogether after this. For I can’t imagine anyone commanding our native tongue with more panache.

I kid, though, because I care…..”   Please read on:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/and-then-you-can-kill-the-baby-provided-you-read-the-right-font-first