• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower
  • Advertisements

Why Is The Labor Department Still in Obama’s Socialist Hands?


by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

I’ve written a series of posts about how the Department of Labor under Alex Acosta has barely lifted a finger to overturn the radical policies and practices of the Obama DOL. Acosta has left former president Obama’s Administrative Review Board, the DOL’s appellate court, in place. He has refused to disturb the pro-illegal immigrant polices of Obama and former DOL Secretary Tom Perez.

Acosta changed the Obama administration’s interpretation of independent contractors under the FLSA with respect to home health registries. However, to the consternation of Sen. Marco Rubio, he permits career employees to continuing using the Obama administration’s interpretation.

No wonder those who deal with the Acosta Department of Labor refer to 2017 as Year Nine of the Obama DOL.

Today, I want to discuss what may well be the most egregious respect in which the Obama DOL persists. It involves the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

The OFCCP monitors federal contractors to ensure that employers doing business with the federal government comply with laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination. Whether the OFCCP finds federal contractors in compliance with anti-discrimination laws depends, of course, on how it views discrimination.

In our system, Congress, not the federal bureaucracy, is charged with determining what constitutes unlawful discrimination. In practice, we rely on courts, not federal bureaucrats, to flesh this out.

However, because of the OFCCP’s power over federal contractors, federal bureaucrats can apply their own views of anti-discrimination law to a vast swath of the nation’s employers, imposing penalties (and potentially even the loss of the right to do business with the feds) on those deemed out of compliance.

Contractors can litigate against the OFCCP, but they do so, in the first instance, before the DOL. Their right to appeal lies, in the first instance, with the Administrative Review Board where the decision will be made by the committed leftist Alex Acosta has kept in place.

There is a right, eventually, to litigate in federal court. But considering the cost of that much litigation, and its uncertainty, many contractors take the path of least resistance and bow to the OFCCP. Those that don’t pay a big price even if they ultimately prevail.

Fortunately, the OFCCP’s interpretation of the law has not, traditionally, been wildly out of step with mainstream notions. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that changed quickly and dramatically during the Obama administration. Surprisingly, it has not changed back in the Trump administration.

The clearest manifestation of this problem is in the area of compensation. Again, this is not surprising given the left’s obsessions with the ( mostly mythical) pay gap — the debunked claim that women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and all that.

The Obama administration decided that OFCCP would be the vehicle through to address the “pay gap.” From its perspective, this was a smart decision. Using the OFCCP would eliminate the need for complaints by actual females (too benighted or oppressed to know they are being discriminated against) and remove federal courts from the equation, at least in the first instance. With federal courts sidelined, Team Obama could push radical theories of compensation discrimination with the reasonable hope of making them stick.

Obama’s new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis a congresswoman from California, appointed Patricia Shiu to head the OFCCP. Shiu was an plaintiffs’ employment lawyer from the San Francisco Bay area. She staffed up for her crusade by placing two plaintiffs’ class action lawyers in key positions (and giving them civil service jobs).

After informing the contractor community that “there’s a new sheriff in town,” Shiu and her posse immediately set out to find pay discrimination as defined by their radical conception of it. Their weapon was statistics.

Statistical evidence can be a helpful tool in spotting possible discrimination, but only if statistics are not misused. Shiu’s OFCCP willfully misused them in ways I’ll describe in a moment.

Before doing so, I want to emphasize that, with Shiu gone and Acosta in charge of the the DOL, OFCCP continues its indefensible use of statistics to find pay discrimination where it doesn’t exist. Just before exiting at the end of the Obama administration, Shiu brought a series of actions predicated on the radical misuse of statistics. Normally a new administration run by a different political party will hit the pause button on its predecessors action, especially on its “midnight” moves. For example, the National Labor Relations Board did this after Trump took office.

But there has been no pause at Alex Acosta’s DOL. The OFFCP is still running with Shiu’s midnight actions and the key people Shiu brought in, and gave civil service jobs to, are still running the show.

Back to statistics. The main abusive practice of the Solis-Perez (and now the Acosta) Labor Department is the aggregation of dissimilar jobs for comparison of pay via statistics.

When comparing male and female pay rates, it’s vital to compare the pay of people who are performing the same kinds of work. For example, in the tech industry, a prime target of the Solis-Perez-Acosta DOL, it makes sense to see whether male and female engineers performing highly complex work (e.g., on the cloud or on artificial intelligence) are paid about the same. If they aren’t, the contractor should have to explain why.

But it makes no sense to lump all people holding the title “engineer” together. One would expect engineers performing sophisticated work to be paid significantly more than those performing relatively unsophisticated work, such as tweaking Outlook. Thus, no inference of pay discrimination arises from pay differences within such a broad classification.

Moreover, it is preposterous to aggregate all “exempt” employees and compare their pay. Of course, the CEO of a tech company will be paid more than engineers, and engineers will be paid more than, say, human resource specialists. Inferring discrimination, or even the hint of it, from gender pay disparities within a group this broad is absurd.

The Solis-Perez-Acosta DOL has aggressively aggregated people holding the same job title in its statistical analyses of pay. OFCCP’s case against Oracle, one of those “midnight” actions, provides a good example. The Chamber of Commerce, in a Fall 2017 report on OFCCP states:

OFCCP bases its allegations of discrimination solely on statistical analyses and offers no other evidence of discrimination. In doing so, OFCCP relies on Oracle job titles to attempt to demonstrate that certain female, African-American, and Hispanic employees were “comparable” to males and Whites employed in similar roles.

But job titles cannot serve as proxies for establishing that certain employees are proper comparators under federal antidiscrimination law. To OFCCP, it appears to be all about the numbers that it can spin from aggregated employer-provided data. Individual employee differences relating to productivity, required skills, and experience are ignored. This issue remains pending as of this writing.

It also remains as of this writing, months later and more than a year into the Trump administration.

Under the Trump administration, the OFCCP is taking its abusive aggregation practice one step further. I’m told that it wants to use an approach that would aggregate employees based on the qualifications, skills, and experience — the “human capital factors” — they possessed when they first applied for work with the contractor. Everything else that might explain pay differences — e.g., what jobs the employees pursued; what additional skills, qualifications, and experience they went on to obtain; whether at some point they chose to work part time — is deemed irrelevant for purposes of finding pay discrimination.

The notion is that once two comparable individuals apply for work at a company, everything should be the same thereafter. If it isn’t, the theory seems to imply, the company is to blame.

The OFCCP also wants to discount the market. A federal contractor needs to pay the market rate to engineers working on artificial intelligence; otherwise they will work elsewhere. The going rate will be significantly higher than for an engineer performing mundane work or for an HR coordinator. To the OFCCP, such market variables, and the gender pay differences they produce, are evidence of societal discrimination. Thus, increasingly, it looks askance at reliance on market data to explain gender pay disparities.

As my first boss at the EEOC, a pioneer female government lawyer, told me, there’s a name for these of approaches to compensation issues: “socialism.”

The passage from the Chamber of Commerce I quoted earlier regarding Oracle points to another problem with the OFCCP’s approach to statistics — OFCCP now finds discrimination based solely on statistics. As the Chamber stated:

The Palantir and Oracle matters—like the Google matter— are a few examples of the many cases in which OFCCP is pursuing claims of discrimination based on statistical evidence alone. Indeed, the Agency’s practice has become so common it has not gone unnoticed by Congress. House Report 114-99 accompanying the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, issued in July 2016, expressed deep concern over OFCCP’s overreliance on statistical “evidence” of discrimination.

This concern is as great as ever under the Acosta DOL.

In cases of extreme statistical disparities courts will infer discrimination from numbers alone. Normally, though, anecdotal evidence is needed to buttress a statistical case.

But the OFCCP will find discrimination based on a showing that a contractor’s numbers are two standard deviations from the expected one — a showing that, assuming the comparisons are apt (and we have seen that they typically are not), means only that there’s a five percent or less probability that the disparities are the result of chance. The OFCCP does not require anecdotal evidence. Its investigators have acknowledged, informally, that such evidence often cannot be found.

OFCCP’s view of the use of statistics to prove discrimination is out-of-line with most of the case law. Tellingly, the Agency has refused even to participate in an EEOC-led task force that is considering this subject.

The other big problem with the OFCCP’s use of statistics is lack of transparency. Not only does the OFCCP refuse to show its statistical findings to contractors it accuses of discriminating, it often refuses even to disclose its methodology.

As the Chamber of Commerce report explained, in compensation cases the OFCCP “for decades. . .identified the incumbents or job titles at issue and provided the contractor with an opportunity to explain differing pay among employees OFCCP viewed as similarly situated.” But now:

OFCCP—as a matter of course and enforcement posture— issues a NOV [notice of violation] out of the blue and demands a response by the contractor within a few weeks. The NOV often lacks details as to the statistical methodologies used and the assumptions made by the Agency.

Contractor requests to discuss the NOV in detail are often denied, with the Agency insisting upon a written response before any explanatory meeting is held. When OFCCP finally agrees to meet regarding the NOV, the information shared remains scant.

All some contractors get from OFCCP is an assertion of pay “inequalities” and a demand for millions and millions of dollars to redress them. When contractors try to conciliate with the OFCCP, they often are told to just pay up. This unwillingness to engage continued throughout 2017, the ninth year of the Obama DOL, and it continues still.

There are other serious problems with the Acosta OFCCP. They include absurdly sweeping demands for data and unlawful collaboration between OFCCP officials and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

The Google case is a perfect example of OFCCP’s ridiculous data demands. The Chamber of Commerce report describes this matter beginning at page 26.

OFCCP made its oppressive demands of Google just a few weeks before Trump took office. The DOL continued to pursue them during the Trump administration.

An administrative law judge rejected the government’s position and criticized the OFCCP for taking it. But the Acosta DOL has appealed the decision.

The appeal will be decided by the Administrative Review Board which consists exclusively of leftist appointees whom Acosta has refused to replace, despite having full power to do so.

Such is the state of play as we move through the early months of Year Ten of the Obama Department of Labor. There is no new sheriff in town — at least not one who is yet willing to rein in the old left-wing hangin’ posse at the OFCCP.



Peggy Noonan Crippled. Can’t Help Hen Pecking and Lying about President Trump

Is Peggy Noonan of the Hate Trump Wall Street Journal fame hen pecking our President because she is ordered to do so by the Hate Trump faction of the Journal’s management, because she is a woman born ditsy and can’t rise above its confusion during certain decades, years, months, days, or hours, or has she joined the foul leftist fascists to remove Our Donald from office at all costs?

Back in 2016 during the campaign to save America from crooked Hillary and her fascist armies, Ms. Noonan was remarkably thoughtful and accepting  in her writings regarding the many talents of the non-crooked politician, Donald Trump.

I had quit subscribing to the Journal at mid 2016.  I owned no stocks.  Whatever little I ever had was wiped out in 2007, the last year of Dubya’s  presidency.   I was tired of reading the Journal’s editorial page dictating big business conservative this and that, nearly all foreign to  us American small business guys who never retire because they love what they do and cannot  retire for financial reasons.

I   subscribed because I live in the Twin Cities area  where there are no conservative journals or writings to be found….The area’s  only slightly viable newspaper is the Strib of Minneapolis,  editorially more a fascist  club whose membership was and still is 99% to the left of where ever the left exists.   The Strib for decades seems to enjoy   accumulating all of its leading bigotry  from the fascist dictators of the Social Science departments at the University of Minnesota or the forever living Soviets operating at St. Paul’s Macalaster College.

Noonan’s opinion half page   advances the power of  her opinions by displaying her feeling for the day in a huge   HEADLINE BLASTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE PAGE.

This past Friday’s edition boldly and dishonestly read:  I LOVE A PARADE, BUT NOT THIS ONE!   (referring to Soviet nuclear weapons show-off parades)

Adding poison to  anything Trump,  the Journal positioned just below   the headline   a large full-colored picture of huge Soviet missile weaponry with the cutline:   Soviet tactical nuclear missiles in a 1980s military parade.

President Trump had recently returned from Paris where he had witnessed a winsome pridefully arranged colorful military parade sans tanks and nuclear weapons,  in honor of the mostly men and, if any the women, serving  in the French military…..the living and the dead.

Noonan sneered and smeared President Trump throughout the five column wordy but unworthy truthless brain power akin to the fascist left’s, New York Times,  to feel superior to all things associated with our incredibly bright, thus far incredibly effective and successful 45th President of these United States!

TO WIT:  Noonan writes:  “The stock market wobbled in a way that seemed dramatic.  The president has perhaps learned he should not constantly brag about the Dow Jones Industrial Average as poof of his good economic stewardship.”  Bull!

He had a right to advertise his administration’s market successes.   Down side was caused by the trillion

And again elsewhere in the article she blames Trump for ruining the aura of the presidency  “you are making him  (Trump) normal, which means you are guaranteeing a future of President Trumps.   This means you have lowered the presidency forever, changed it forever, just when the world’s problems are more dangerous, and thoughtfulness and wisdom more needed…..”   More bull!





A Brief History of the Fake News Media

by David Solway at American Thinker:
“For far too long, I was convinced that the media were, on the whole, reliable purveyors of the news. For nearly three years I freelanced happily at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Music and Public Affairs, never suspecting that the Mothercorp was a hive of Liberal propaganda and an artesian fount of scandalously disingenuous broadcasting. It took 9/11 and the generally extenuating media reports over time, faulting the U.S. and exempting Islam, to shake up my thinking and turn me into a sceptical fact-finder.The media are especially adept at creating villains out of whole cloth for public consumption to advance a particular and often dubious purpose. How else explain the transformation of significant political figures into synonyms for perfidy and opprobrium. I’m thinking in particular of Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Enoch Powell, all of whom considered themselves patriots and enunciated unpopular or anti-establishment truths, costing them their reputations both in their lifetimes and for posterity.

As Diana West writes of McCarthy, “after more than 60 years of ‘McCarthyism’—the perpetual slander of Joseph McCarthy as a ‘witch-hunter,’ as opposed to an honest accounting of this fearless investigator of deep and widespread infiltration of the US government by Stalin’s secret agents…Americans have been conditioned to…hate, loathe and revile McCarthy…The slander of ‘McCarthyism,’…has had the dire effect of bludgeoning our abilities to detect or even acknowledge the existence of any constitutional enemies, especially ‘domestic.’ ”

Favorable commentators will admit that McCarthy may have been guilty of exaggerations and errors, but as the Venona transcripts have verified, he was right overall. He may have manifested as vindictive, yet he was remorseless in his campaign to isolate Communist sympathizers in government circles who worked to subvert the country. This, of course, made him anathema to a treasonous press and a political establishment that had much to hide, whether their complicity or their negligence.

Barry Goldwater has fared no better. When asked in a July 9, 1964 interview in Der Spiegel about his advocating the use of nuclear weapons to defoliate the jungles in Vietnam, Goldwater replied “About a month‐and‐a­ half ago on a television show I was asked a technical ques­tion, how could you get at the trails through the rain forests of North Vietnam. Well, I served in the rain forests of Burma and I know that the only practical way to get at them is defoliation so an answer to a technical question like this—one pos­sible way of doing it even though I made clear this would never be done, would be the use of low‐yield nu­clear devices” (emphasis mine). As the Daily Mail History section pointed out, “Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.” And, of course, with few exceptions like the Daily Mail, the MSM was all over it, painting Goldwater as a nuclear warhawk, a kind of Dr. Strangelove. (The film appeared on January 29, 1964, 10 months before the Johnson-Goldwater election. The writing was already on the wall.)

I was young and shallow at the time and a knee-jerk leftist, so I took it as media gospel that Goldwater was about to launch a nuclear firestorm. Shortly afterward, I was all for LBJ’s Great Society—a socialist term coined by Fabian Society stalwart Graham Wallas—since the press assured me it was a good thing. How could a “War on Poverty” go wrong?

It was only much later, when I developed some common sense, shook off the political amblyopia which afflicted me, and actually studied the issue, that I realized the Great Society was at best and only in part a qualified success, but ultimately and in many respects a dismal failure: grossly unaffordable, unleashing a pro-Third World immigration nightmare from which we are suffering today, and furnishing an incentive to welfare parasitism. As Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “In the 60s we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” But Johnson was elected by a landslide and Goldwater, who in my estimation would have made a much better president, relegated to the halls of infamy.

Then there was the infamous newspaper-generated case of Enoch Powell. As I wrote in a previous article, Powell warned in his 1968, so-called “rivers of blood” speech of the imminent and future perils of unchecked immigration. Powell was worried mainly about immigration from the West Indies, which was transforming traditional neighborhoods into violent ghettoes, whose first and second generation inhabitants were not interested in cultural integration.

Powell’s “river of blood” was an allusion to a passage from Book VI of Virgil’s Aeneid in which the Sibyl prophesizes that the “Tiber would flow with blood” as a metaphor for civil discord. As we observe the relentless Islamization of the U.K., can we say he was wrong? Naturally, Powell would today have received the same or worse misuse from the media, which would have tattooed him as a white supremacist, a bigot and an Islamophobe.

Indeed, similar, if somewhat less virulent, treatment has been meted out to London barrister Gavin Boby of “mosque buster” fame. Boby has been the target of media calumny for assisting British homeowners in preparing and filing legal actions to preserve their neighborhoods from the erection of mosques, which collapse property values and render local life increasingly distressing and in many case untenable. Boby has told me stories about severed cables and wires, broken windows, commandeered driveways, residential streets clogged with traffic, harassment of dog owners, pedestrian bullying, forced sales of depressed properties and more, which have driven longtime residents to despair. Boby works pro bono and is strikingly successful, a fact which makes him non grata to the media and the power elites.

Thus, when I think back, I’m appalled at my own naiveté. McCarthy was the devil’s spawn. Goldwater would initiate a nuclear firestorm. Powell  was an irremediable racist. And Islam, of course, is a noble and magnanimous faith. 9/11 changed everything for me and compelled me to embark on a scrupulous five-year program of what I call the indispensable three Rs, Reading, Research and Reflection, which cured me of my media fantasy and culminated in the publication of The Big Lie in 2007/8 and The Boxthorn Tree in 2012.

The media lie has now acquired epic dimensions. Gary Demar puts it succinctly in an article for Godfather Politics: Obviously, much if not most of what we read in articles and screeds written by liberals “is designed to distort the truth. Some are willing to lie for what they perceive to be their idea of the greater good. Others just put the worst spin on out-of-context statements to elevate the blood pressure of their targeted ultra-liberal audience.”

The Fake News Syndrome, as I’ve stressed, is nothing new. It’s been approximately the case for as long as we can remember. The only discrimination between the MSM and the FNM is that the latter has become effectively coterminous with the former. Previously there were a few, if not many, reasonably impartial news venues; today these are practically non-existent.

Eventually, I realized that the Western media were even more insidious than the Soviet controlled news outfits. Many Russians knew that Pravda and Izvestia were propaganda arms of the Politburo and discounted their stories as rubbish; many Westerners, on the other hand, are readily deceived, believing the press is free from bias and generally principled and reliable. I know now, however belatedly, that our media constitute one of the gravest threats to our democratic traditions and wonder how I could ever have been so gullible…….”




Sure Feels Good Being An American Again! Thank You President Trump!


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

“Tonight’s State of the Union speech was a triumph for President Trump. The speech was excellent, and Trump knew it cold and delivered it effectively.

The president began with a recitation of his administration’s achievements that was truly impressive. Trump emphasized, appropriately, the remarkable gains our economy has made in just one year.

The president’s reception by most in the House chamber was rapturous, which must have been an eye-opener for some who watched. For the Democrats, the optics were very bad. They ostentatiously refused to stand or even applaud, even in response to the least controversial passages in Trump’s speech. One of the most striking visuals was of the Democrats’ Black Caucus refusing to stand for, or even applaud, the lowest African-American unemployment rate in history.

If I were an African-American viewing the proceedings, I would wonder: whose side are they on?

Equally dismal was when almost all the Democrats refused to stand in response to Trump’s statement that we should all rise for the National Anthem. Here, and repeatedly through the evening, the Democrats were playing to a very small audience. Their audience probably got even smaller when they were seen fiddling with their cell phones.

Immigration was naturally a significant topic. Trump began, shrewdly, by emphasizing security and the vicious MS-13 gang, which largely hushed the illegal immigrants who had been invited into the chamber by Democrats. Perhaps the speech’s most controversial moment was when Trump said that his compromise immigration proposal includes eventual citizenship–not just legalization–for nearly two million illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors.

Troubling as that may be for many conservatives, the sight of Cory Booker and other Democrats sitting stone-faced when the president said we need a merit-based immigration system was a forceful reminder of how bad the alternative to the Trump administration is.

On foreign policy, President Trump was appropriately strong. Throughout the speech, he talked about guests who were heroic in various ways. This has become a tradition, but I don’t think I have seen it done more effectively than Trump did it tonight. The final guest was a North Korean escapee who waved his crutches to the cheering crowd. I think even the Democrats may have been on their feet for that one.

All in all, it was a terrific night for the good guys. Trump’s performance tonight was a reminder that his predecessor was not a very good public speaker. He never succeeded in stirring an audience as Trump did tonight. The Democrats can only hope that not a lot of swing voters were watching.”



Crooked Cobra Mueller Craving to Poison Trump?


by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller has told President Trump’s legal team that his office will likely seek an interview with the president. I doubt that Trump’s legal team is surprised. It always seemed inevitable that Mueller would want to interview Trump.

What should the president’s response be? I agree with Alan Dershowitz. He says: “I would never let the prosecution interview my client.”

There are two reasons why, in this context, allowing such an interview is a particularly bad idea. First, the client is Donald Trump. He is notorious for imprecision with words and for shooting from the hip. He is probably uncoachable as a witness. Representing him at a deposition or similar proceeding strikes me as a lawyer’s worst nightmare.

Second, the prosecution is Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating partisans. Their purpose in interviewing Trump won’t just be to gather the facts needed to wrap up their investigation. In my view, it will also be to induce Trump to make statements the prosecution can use to build a case that the president has lied to the prosecution.

Accordingly, Trump’s legal team should resist being questioned by Mueller’s team. There is precedent for such resistance. As the Post reminds us, Bill Clinton resisted being questioned by Ken Starr’s team, though eventually he was compelled to testify.

In the likely event of a dispute over whether Trump must testify, one issue will be whether the information prosecutors seek can be obtained through another means. In this case, Mueller likely will be cross-checking Trump’s version of events with the versions of others, such as James Comey. In a sense the information will have already been obtained via, say, Comey, Michael Flynn, or Jared Kushner. But in a practical sense, only Trump can provide Trump’s version of what happened.

As noted, though, I believe the purpose of the interview will be more to catch Trump in something Mueller’s team can characterize as a lie than to obtain Trump’s version of the facts. Hence the need to be especially wary.


Bill Kristol….A Champion Judas of Today’s Democratic America

Follow the American  Brat our conservative  Judas Bill Kristol, as he bullies his noise entertaining the nations neofascists :



Our Donald Interviewed by NY Times Agent, Michael Schmidt


by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

“President Trump sat down with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt for an interview in West Palm Beach yesterday. Schmidt was low-key and even respectful, while Trump was ebullient. You can read excerpts here. (As always, there is no point in reading any newspaper’s account of the conversation.)

Trump was his usual unscripted self–rambling, not very articulate, sometimes humorously self-promoting, generally correct if often imprecise. He talked at length, and with great confidence, about Mueller’s investigation. Here, he knows things are going his way:

Let’s just say — I think that Bob Mueller will be fair, and everybody knows that there was no collusion. I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion. She’s the head of the committee. The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion. So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion.

SCHMIDT: Dossier?

TRUMP: Starting with the dossier. But going into so many other elements. And Podesta’s firm.

He’s right about that. The liberal press has done its best to avert its eyes from the real collusion scandal involving the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Steele. the Russians who fed lies about candidate Trump to the Clinton campaign through Steele, and the FBI. But the more Trump talks about the real scandal, the harder it will be for liberals, including but not limited to those at the Times, to ignore it.

The Times’s own account of the interview led with the fact that Trump said the Mueller investigation was bad for the country. Well, it is. What Trump actually said is, I think, indisputable:

TRUMP: [Inaudible.] There was tremendous collusion on behalf of the Russians and the Democrats. There was no collusion with respect to my campaign. I think I’ll be treated fairly. Timingwise, I can’t tell you. I just don’t know. But I think we’ll be treated fairly.

SCHMIDT: But you’re not worked up about the timing?

TRUMP: Well, I think it’s bad for the country. The only thing that bothers me about timing, I think it’s a very bad thing for the country. Because it makes the country look bad, it makes the country look very bad, and it puts the country in a very bad position. So the sooner it’s worked out, the better it is for the country.

Trump also is clued into the Awan scandal, although he doesn’t describe it with any precision:

But there is tremendous collusion with the Russians and with the Democratic Party. Including all of the stuff with the — and then whatever happened to the Pakistani guy, that had the two, you know, whatever happened to this Pakistani guy who worked with the D.N.C.?

Whatever happened to them? With the two servers that they broke up into a million pieces? Whatever happened to him? That was a big story. Now all of sudden [inaudible].

Here, too, it would be smart for Trump to keep talking about the Awan scandal. It is a classic example of Iowahawk’s dictum that journalism is all about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

Mostly, the interview is fun to read because you can tell the expansive Trump knows he is increasingly ascendant. Massive deregulation; economic growth picking up; standing up to Russia, Iran, China and North Korea; destroying ISIS; remaking the federal courts; recognizing Jerusalem; and now, the greatest tax reform in a generation–all while the Mueller investigation crumbles, and his opponents are tied up in knots over his tweets. The winning is under way….”


Shortly after 1 p.m. on Thursday, President Trump came off the 18th hole of his golf course here and walked into the club house’s Grill Room. Waiters scurried to bring menus and drinks to a large round table reserved for him as he stopped to shake hands and make small talk with members eating lunch.

The president, in black pants and a white golf shirt, sat down with his golf partners for the day, including his son Eric and the pro-golfer Jim Herman. He took off his white hat, “45” emblazoned in black on the side, ordered a salad and began talking politics to his golf partners.

Usually I cover national security in the Washington bureau, but I spent the past week in Florida covering the president’s Christmas vacation to give my colleagues on the White House beat the chance to take some time off. It’s a familiar assignment for me; I also covered Barack Obama’s vacations in Hawaii in 2014 and 2016.

Times Insider delivers behind-the-scenes insights from The New York Times. Visit us at Times Insiderand follow us on Twitter. Questions or feedback? Email us.

Until Thursday, my time in Florida had been quiet. But that afternoon, I went to Mr. Trump’s golf club with his longtime confidant Christopher Ruddy, who had invited me for lunch. We were seated at a table next to the president and a few minutes into our meal, Mr. Ruddy, who runs the conservative website and television channel Newsmax, went over to say hello to Mr. Trump. The president appeared excited to see Mr. Ruddy, who often goes on cable television to defend him.

I stood behind Mr. Ruddy, who told the president that Mike Schmidt from The New York Times was with him. As I made eye contact with the president, he appeared confused about who I was and why I was there. I walked up, shook his hand and reminded him that I had interviewed him in July in the Oval Office along with two of my colleagues, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker. He said he remembered me and, despite the fact that we’re “the failing New York Times,” he thought we had treated him fairly.

Continue reading the main story