Sen. Collins Will Not Be Swayed by Abhorrent, Potentially Illegal Intimidation from Liberals on Kavanaugh

Radical liberal organizations are trying to intimidate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine into voting against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even resorting to potentially illegal bribery and threatening her staff members.  The Wall Street Journal described the abhorrent campaign of intimidation against Senator Collins:  

A crowdfunding website is trying to strong-arm Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, by giving more than $1 million to her 2020 opponent—unless she opposes Judge Kavanaugh. . . . It isn’t clear this is even legal. We’re all for citizens exercising their free-speech rights, including campaign donations, for or against political candidates. But federal law defines the crime of bribery as “corruptly” offering “anything of value” to a public official, including a Member of Congress, with the intent to “influence any official act.” The crowdfunders in this case are offering something of value—withholding funds from her opponent—in return for a Supreme Court confirmation vote. . . . 

Another pressure tactic, one Ms. Collins says she finds “incredibly offensive,” is “the out-of-state voicemails being left on the answering machines of my state offices.” Many of the messages are profane. “In one case—and we are going to turn this over to the police, but unfortunately, of course, the person didn’t leave a name or number—but they actually threatened to rape one of my young female staffers.” 

The Senator’s office also has been receiving coat hangers in the mail, a grisly attempt to insinuate that a Justice Kavanaugh would restrict abortion rights. About 3,000 have arrived so far. “I am pleased to say,” Ms. Collins says with a small chuckle, “we had a group that has a thrift shop that helps low-income women ask us for 300 of the hangers. So at least 300 of them have gone to a very good cause.”

But Senator Collins will not be intimidated.  Instead, she will do her job under the Constitution's advice and consent requirement and evaluate Judge Kavanaugh based on his qualifications and his record:

Even diehard opponents of Judge Kavanaugh must recognize the unseemly nature of this bid to intimidate a U.S. Senator. Not that it will work. “I’m going to do what I think is right,” Ms. Collins says. “I am going to cast my vote—as I have done on all of the other Supreme Court nominees that I’ve been called upon to consider—based on his qualifications, his character and integrity, judicial temperament, his record, and his respect for the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution.”

The lengths to which liberals and Democrats are willing to go to oppose Judge Kavanaugh show that they have no genuine basis for their opposition in either his qualifications or record and the depths to which they will descend to resist President Trump.  They are even willing to make unsubstantiated allegations of perjury against Judge Kavanaugh and mischaracterize his testimony during the hearings last week to such an extent that even The Washington Post's Fact Checker awarded the description four Pinocchios and said that "Democrats should drop this talking point." 

But Senator Collins deserves credit for not giving into the intimidation and remembering that her duty as a senator is to do what is right and represent the people of Maine, not bow to the radical liberal interests controlling the Democratic Party.

Weintraub's Enforcement Votes Exhibit Bias Against Trump and Republicans

(This is the third in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  The first installment is here, the second installment is here, and the last installments will be posted in the next few days.)

Commissioner Weintraub's Enforcement Votes Exhibit Bias Against President Trump

Commissioner Weintraub's votes in recent enforcement matters also have raised eyebrows because she has rejected FEC General Counsel recommendations to dismiss matters and treated President Trump differently than she treated President Obama.

In a case, Matter Under Review 7244, where a complaint alleged that President Trump's Inaugural Committee incorrectly reported the addresses of a handful of donors out of many thousands of donors, errors had been corrected in amended reports.  In 2009 and 2013, the Obama Inaugural Committee filed amended reports to clear up errors, and the Commission took no enforcement action.  The Obama campaign also had taken in upwards of millions of dollars from foreign addresses, but claimed that it refunded those contributions.  In Obama cases, Weintraub voted to dismiss complaints and not even investigate.  Accordingly, the FEC General Counsel recommended dismissal of the Trump Inaugural Committee.  But Weintraub voted against dismissal.  She rejected her own General Counsel's recommendation, apparently because President Trump will face more severe enforcement than President Obama received. 

In another case, Matter Under Review 7100, a complaint alleged that Donald Trump made personal use of his campaign's funds by promoting Trump Organization products and properties by using them for campaign events.  The law allows candidates to use corporate resources so long as they pay a fair market price for use of the resources.  Accordingly, Trump paid for all uses of corporate resources. And most of the money in Trump's campaign fund was contributed by Donald Trump himself -- so improper personal use was hardly a risk.  Accordingly, the FEC General Counsel recommended dismissal of the complaint.  Weintraub voted against the FEC General Counsel's recommendation to dismiss.  Weintraub then issued a gratuitous statement chastising President Trump:  "Trump hotels, Trump steaks, Trump water, Trump golf courses, Trump wine," she complained, calling the campaign's use of Trump properties one big "infomercial" for Trump's corporate properties and products, which amounted to personal use of campaign funds.  Never mind that Trump funded his own campaign and never mind that the FEC General Counsel recommended dismissal.  The FEC needed to investigate and punish.

And in yet another case, Matter Under Review 6961, a complaint alleged that the Trump campaign failed to pay an event-service company for services in setting up Trump's presidential candidacy announcement event, but it turned out that the Trump campaign indeed had paid a contractor event-service company who in turn paid the subcontractor event-service company in question, and the payment showed up on a subsequent public report filed with the FEC.  The FEC General Counsel recommended dismissal of the complaint.  Here, even though she voted to dismiss the complaint, Weintraub voted to send a "caution letter" to the Trump campaign, apparently to stigmatize Trump in a case that even Weintraub conceded had little merit. 

These are three different cases with a common denominator: Commissioner Weintraub went against the FEC General Counsel's recommendation of dismissal because the complaints were all against Trump.  As we are detailing in this series, this is part of a pattern of a troubling appearance of bias by Commissioner Weintraub against Republicans in general and President Trump in particular.

Weintraub's Personal Staff Exhibits Bias Against Trump and Republicans

(This is the second in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  The first installment is here, the third is here, and the next installments will be posted in the next few days.)

Commissioner Weintraub's Personal Staff Routinely Trolls President Trump and Criticizes All Things Republican

Since President Trump took office, Weintraub's personal staff has been tweeting almost daily invective about President Trump and Republicans on the Twitter account altFEC, self-described as "The unofficial Resistance team of the U.S. Federal Election Commission." "Resistance" means resistance to the Trump Administration.  Consider a few examples of the kind of deep enmity and prejudice expressed toward President Trump:

• Gleefully: "Mr. Art Of The Deal got his ass kicked by the D.C. City Government"

• Directed at a Donald Trump tweet on legal issues likely to be addressed by the FEC:  "Once this is over, however it ends, we’re going to wonder, 'Why did we put up with this nuttiness for so long?'"

• Retweeting James Comey's criticism of President Trump on issues likely to come before the FEC:  "Thought experiment: Make a list of all the public figures in this country and around the world the current president has criticized. Ask yourself: 'Why is Putin missing from the list?' No responsible American should ever stop asking, 'Why?'" 

• Mocking Trump:  "Where are Hillary Clinton's emails? Mr. Trump said.  Oh, here's one.  [faux email from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump]  Resign, you treasonous clown." 

• Criticizing Trump:  "Oddly, as his behavior gets more erratic & overtly pro-Russian, it may actually be a sign that Trump is *not* a Russian agent. Because at a certain point – one already passed – you would think his handlers would say, 'Yo, dude, tone it down a little. You’re being too oobvious [sic].'” 

• Prejudging alleged payments by Trump to Cohen as undisclosed campaign expenditures, a matter likely to come before the FEC:  "So, the payments Trump made to Cohen to cover the #Stormy payoff included money for “a few other situations that might have been considered campaign expenses,” Giuliani tells @costareports. Why weren’t *these* expenses disclosed? https://t.co/lKJFLA1fbA" 

• Promising Trump detractors to conduct private investigations of their secret complaints.

• Exhorting cable carriers to drop Fox News -- a news channel Commissioner Weintraub concluded broke the law by hosting a Republican debate in 2016:  "Here's a question. The more people watch #FoxNews, the less well-informed they are about basic facts. Arguably, FOX is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. They have a 1st Amendment right to exist, but not to be carried by cable companies. So: Why do cable companies carry it? https://t.co/0Ttqvrl5EQ"   

The person responsible for this anti-Republican venom is none other than Weintraub's confidential counsel, Tom Moore, who was publicly identified as AltFEC by Rudy Takala of The Hill on his Twitter feed on February 26, 2017.  People close to the Commission confirm that Weintraub is aware of Moore's anti-Trump crusade and approves of his activities.  According to one source, Weintraub has been known to defend Moore's right to express his anti-Trump hostilities (anonymously!) toward the very people who are the subject of FEC enforcement authority by invoking the First Amendment -- a constitutional provision she rarely acknowledges when supporting enforcement against other citizens.

How can Commissioner Weintraub's office be viewed as fair, neutral, impartial when such nasty ad hominem attacks at President Trump are being published by her personal staff?  It simply cannot. 

Like Strozk, FEC Commissioner Weintraub Should Be Recused from Trump Cases

(This is the first in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  The second is here, the third is here, and the last installments will be posted in the next few days.)

From the Department of Justice to FBI leadership to the halls of Congress to American public opinion, nobody can credibly defend the conduct of FBI investigator Peter Strozk.  His blatant and deeply personal bias against Donald Trump, the subject of his investigation, and his politicization of FBI investigations cannot be condoned.  Strozk and his girlfriend Lisa Page were properly removed from the Mueller investigation team.  Even after their removal, however, their involvement in the Clinton email investigation and the Russian meddling investigation has left both investigations tainted.

Which brings us to other law enforcement agencies and officials whose prejudice and enmity for President Trump is as deep and even more vocal than Peter Strozk's.  Strozk was a small player, one of several line investigators, and his personal emails and opinions about Trump -- as explicit and biased as they were -- pale by comparison to mounting evidence of anti-Trump prejudice in the office of Democratic Federal Election Commission Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub -- a Commission decision maker and powerful leader of the agency who is scheduled to become agency Chair in four months. 

Commissioner Weintraub has joined the political opposition to President Trump.  Weintraub started lobbing gratuitous political volleys at President Trump soon after he was took office.  She publicly jousted with President Trump over claims of voter fraud, an issue outside the jurisdiction of the FEC.  That drew a complaint to the FEC Inspector General.  Weintraub quickly -- and lamely -- attempted to link her foray into the President's voter fraud politics to her official duties as a Commissioner, while at the same time rallying her own political support on Twitter and elsewhere, declaring that she would not be "silenced." 

But Weintraub's post hoc effort at legitimization was transparent. A single Commissioner has no authority to launch an investigation by letter to the President (or any other witness).  Her missives to the President could not possibly constitute the conduct of official FEC business because it was unauthorized and out of order.  This was confirmed when Project Veritas confronted Weintraub with actual evidence of voter fraud in New Hampshire and asked her pointedly what she intended to do about it, but Weintraub suddenly claimed she could not comment publicly on the issue.  She has done nothing since that time to prioritize the issue.  Letters loudly jousting with the President took priority, but serious, official action can wait and must remain hush-hush.      

Weintraub also published a mean-spirited diatribe against the President's legal counselin a Washington Post op-ed at the beginning of the administration.  That's far afield from the business of the FEC, and its terms were so personal and nasty that Weintraub's hatred for the Trump campaign and its lawyer were on full display. 

All this political jousting indicates one thing: that Commissioner Weintraub started off with a clear bias against Donald Trump, his lawyer, and his administration.  

Liberal Hypocrisy: White House & Don McGahn Attacked for Being Too Transparent

On Saturday, the New York Times published an expose on how White House Counsel and former Trump campaign counsel Don McGahn has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation and has given thirty hours of interviews.  Yet, instead of being praised for his cooperation and transparency, Mr. McGahn's character is being attacked by the "Gray Lady" in its ongoing efforts to undermine President Trump.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board responded, pointing out that Mr. McGahn could have only cooperated with President Trump's permission:

The thesis of the New York Times story is that Mr. McGahn cooperated in a way that could hurt Donald Trump in order to protect himself and because he doesn’t trust the President. This fits the media narrative that Mr. Trump is covering up his collusion with Russia and his obstruction of justice, and thus Mr. McGahn must be scrambling to save himself. 

Yet lost in the resulting tempest is a crucial fact that appears to contradict this spin: Mr. Trump had to waive executive privilege for Mr. McGahn to cooperate with Mr. Mueller. . . . But as White House counsel Mr. McGahn represents the Presidency. He is a careful enough lawyer to advise Mr. Trump that agreeing to answer Mr. Mueller’s questions would waive executive privilege. And the Times reports that Mr. McGahn’s attorney, William Burck, said on the record that Mr. McGahn cooperated only after Mr. Trump waived any privilege claim.

Executive privilege is held by the chief executive - the President - and as with other legal privileges, only the holder of the privilege can waive it.  Unlike President Clinton when investigated by Ken Starr or President Obama's administration when investigated by Congress, President Trump has nothing to hide and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation, despite its problems and failure to return any evidence of wrongdoing by the President or his campaign after over a year of investigation:

This isn’t what you’d expect if Mr. Trump is leading a coverup. . . . Yet when Mr. Trump doesn’t invoke privilege for his White House counsel, he gets no credit. . . . Keep in mind that Mr. Trump’s lawyers cooperated extensively with Mr. Mueller for months, turning over tens of thousands of documents—also without claiming executive privilege.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board pointed to the heart of the problem in the Times' misleading report - the effort to portray the Trump White House as fractured.  Mr. McGahn has been loyal to the President throughout his cooperation with the Mueller investigation:

Mr. McGahn has been one of the President’s most effective advisers—notably on judicial nominations. But some in and outside the White House resent his influence and might want to portray him as undermining Mr. Trump. The bottom line is that readers should remain skeptical about what is reported about Mr. Mueller’s probe, waiting to see the evidence he actually produces.

To see the double standard here, one must only imagine what the news stories would be were the political parties reversed.  The mainstream media would lament the waste of taxpayer dollars spent on a lengthy, unnecessary investigation by the Republicans and either applaud a Democratic administration for cooperating with it for the good of the country or defend the administration for not cooperating.

Ruth Marcus' Partisan Analysis of the Steele Dossier

Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post needs either a law degree or a course in logic if she intends to comment intelligently on the legal issues presented in the Mueller probe.  In this video commentary, Ms. Marcus, sounding like Edith Bunker, strains the law and principles of logic to argue that Donald Trump, Jr. committed a crime by engaging in a conversation with a Russian lawyer but Hillary Clinton did nothing illegal by concealing campaign expenditures to pay Christopher Steele to reach out to Kremlin sources for dirt on Donald Trump, compiling that foreign-derived information to paper, and then shopping that information throughout the media corps to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

Here's Marcus’ argument:  

In one case, Trump’s, an emissary of a foreign government – have I said that enough? – foreign government – came to you to offer you dirt on your opponent because the foreign government, it was said in the emails, wanted to see you elected.  In the other case [Clinton’s] a campaign was doing actually, as the President has said, what campaign’s generally do.  They investigate their opponents. There is no rule that says if you investigate your opponent you can’t make overseas phone calls, you can’t talk to overseas sources.  You are allowed to collect information.  You are allowed to pay somebody to do that collection.  But asking for it is really very different from being the ‘if it’s what you say I love it, bring it on attitude’ that the Trump campaign had towards information that as far as it knew and was told was being peddled by the Russian government.  Big difference!  

Where’s the logic in that distinction?  If you take a meeting to listen to information being peddled by a foreign government representative you are a criminal, but if you conceal an expenditure to a foreign citizen (Steele) to “make overseas phone calls” to Kremlin-linked sources and then distribute that information to American press outlets like The Washington Post to influence the election, that’s different?  Marcus’ argument makes no sense.

Mr. Mueller should listen closely to the logical errors one must commit in order to contrive a crime here.  Mere conversations become “things of value.”  But one conversation is a crime, because your name is Trump.  Other conversations, “overseas phone calls,” are not crimes, because your name is Clinton. 

Meanwhile, Ms. Marcus, and presumably Mr. Mueller, will turn a blind eye to Clinton’s knowing and willful concealment of her campaign expenditure to Christopher Steele and Clinton’s knowing and willful peddling of the Steele opposition research report, containing information from Kremlin-linked sources, from American media to the FBI and federal courts.

Senate Democrat Obstruction: Canceled August Recess & Low Overall Confirmation Rate

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced this afternoon the Senate's August recess has been cancelled due to the historic obstruction efforts from Senate Democrats. Leader McConnell's statement: 

Due to the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats of the president’s nominees, and the goal of passing appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, the August recess has been canceled. Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.

Background: It is expected that Senators will have a state work period during the first full week in August before returning for the rest of the month. 

Earlier this week, on Saturday, June 2nd, President Trump said in his weekly address to the public that the Democratic resistance movement is “resisting the will of the American voter.” According the White House, when compared with recent presidents, President Trump has had the fewest nominees confirmed to date.

PolitiFact found that President Trump has also had the smallest percentage of nominees confirmed as of March 16th with only 57 percent of Trump’s nominees having been confirmed, below that of Presidents Barack Obama (67 percent), George W. Bush (78 percent), Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (each with 81 percent).

President Trump explained:

From day one, Senate Democrats have shamelessly obstructed, stalled, and filibustered the confirmations of hundreds of talented men and women who are eager to come to Washington, D.C. to make a difference. They want to serve our country.

My nominees face a longer average confirmation wait than any in the history of our country. Today, more than 300 of our nominees are still awaiting a vote.

Last June, I nominated Isabel Patelunas to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis. Now, almost a year later, this tremendously qualified professional with nearly three decades of intelligence experience is still awaiting confirmation. She’s given up so much. She’s left areas. She’s moved from homes and she’s still not confirmed. It’s a disgrace.

Senate Republicans are fighting back against this Democrat obstructionism, too. Chairman Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated on Friday the Senate should work into the August recess to help confirm judicial nominations. Chairman Grassley is also calling for ‘filibuster Fridays’ to speed up the confirmation process. Additional work days on Capitol Hill could help fill the vacant positions, but the true shame here is that the Democrat leadership is intent on playing partisan politics even if it harms the function of government and ultimately the American people.

President Trump has nominated many excellent nominees to lead our government and to become federal judges. The RNLA thanks Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley for their leadership and initiative to confirm President Trump’s backlog of nominees pending before the Senate.

SDNY Judge Holds Trump May Not Block Users from Personal Twitter Account

Today, a judge in the Southern District of New York held that President Trump may not block users from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump:

This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no. . . .

We then proceed to the substance of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the “interactive space” where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. In so holding, we reject the defendants’ contentions that the First Amendment does not apply in this case and that the President’s personal First Amendment interests supersede those of plaintiffs.

In the hours since its release, this decision has already ignited a storm of debate, some uninformed (see generally, the media) and some informed (see Eugene Volokh's initial analysis here).  Prof. Volokh notes that the Eastern District of Kentucky recently reached the opposite conclusion.

While many issues are unsettled when applying the First Amendment to social media and other technologies, Ed Whelan highlights some concerns with the decision:

My first take: I'm very skeptical of holding that "interactive space" of @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is a "designated public forum." I'm not persuaded that any part of Twitter is a public forum. 1/ https://t.co/z0SuwYRPPi

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Judge's assertion that "extent" of Trump/Scavino control over Twitter space is "sufficient to establish the government-control element" seems like naked assertion, is underdeveloped at best. Judge cites precedent of "privately owned theater under long-term lease to city." 2/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

But does anyone think that relationship between Twitter and user is anything like a long-term lease from one entity to another? "Designated public forum" precedents are far from clear, but this application strikes me as strained beyond the breaking point. 3/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Doesn't judge's reasoning apply equally to public-university professors who use their Twitter account for work-related purposes? Or is that a ground of distinction that, in my haste, I've overlooked? 4/

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) May 23, 2018

Ilya Shapiro points out that the identity of the parties may have improperly affected the holding:

The judicial #Resistance strikes again. Sure, you have a constitutional right to troll the president, but that doesn’t mean he can’t block/mute you. https://t.co/0VqI1Hpcf5

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) May 23, 2018

It is also worth noting that this case is concerning Donald Trump's personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, which has been his for years and will remain his after leaving office, and not the official presidential Twitter account, @POTUS, which is operated by the current holder of the White House.  While the #resist movement may be cheering this decision as a victory against President Trump, few are pausing to consider its vast implications, as Mr. Whelan points out, if applied to public officials' Twitter accounts, from members of Congress down to the clerks at City Hall. 

Circuit Judge Week: Bounds Hearing Complete, Engelhardt Confirmed & Cloture Filed in Brennan Nomination

As we highlighted earlier this week, this is an important week for many of President Trump's judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees. Several noteworthy events happened today.


Ryan Bounds
Today, Ryan Bounds, nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals back in September 2017, finally had his Senate confirmation hearing (which can be viewed here). Bounds did very well and answered all the questions posed to him. Nonetheless, the obstructionist Senate Democrats brought up two attack narratives which have been repeatedly debunked: some notion that Bounds was less than transparent in providing documents during his initial vetting and arguing that the blue slip tradition is being abandoned.

First, some Senate Democrats tried to claim that Bounds was less than transparent during the vetting process, citing articles he wrote in college that poked fun at political correctness and attempted to offer a commentary on problems he saw in his college community. Ironically, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted to lead this attack, as could be seen on his Senate Floor speech yesterday (at about the 2:00:00 mark). However, as Ed Whelan points out, it was Wyden's own office that advised Bound to only go back through law school for pre-nomination vetting. So, not only is Wyden misleading in this attack, but Bounds followed the advice he sought from Wyden's Office. Further, once there was some question about these writings, Bounds provided these articles for review and further vetting.

Second, many Senate Democrats chose to argue the blue slips talking points again. Throughout the Bounds' hearing, a variety of Senate Democrats repeatedly attempted to bring up that the blue slip tradition has been abandoned or somehow modified. But it has not.

Following Bounds' hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley delivered a speech on the Senate Floor highlighting the blue slip process under his chairmanship. He specifically noted (around the 3:41:00 mark):

[I]t is my prerogative to have the same blue slip policy as Chairman Biden and Kennedy and the vast majority of predecessors. Accordingly, I have said this, that negative or unreturned blue slips will not necessarily preclude the hearing for circuit court nominees unless the White House failed to consult with home state senators. And I get all sorts of information–I demand all sorts of information from the White House on this sort of consultation that's gone on. That is why I held hearings for David Stras, Kyle Duncan, Michael Brennan and Ryan Bounds despite the lack of two positive blue slips from home state senators. This policy is completely bipartisan. I've applied it to blue slips of Democratic and Republican senators. . . .

This speech is consistent with Chairman Grassley's explanation since the blue slip process became "controversial." Repeatedly, Chairman Grassley has explained how he will handle blue slips in his Judiciary Committee.


Kurt Engelhardt & Michael Brennan
On Senate Floor today, the Senate confirmed District Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a vote of 62-34. 

The Senate also voted to invoke cloture regarding the nomination of Michael Brennan to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As you may remember, Brennan is another nominee that the obstructionist Senate Democrats attempted to cry foul over the blue slip process. This will be another major vote to watch later this week.


We applaud and thank Leader Mitch McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley for their leadership in filling these important judicial vacancies and working to solve our judicial crisis. By filling these posts, the federal courts will run more efficiently and with less of a backlog caused by understaffed courts and overloaded dockets.

A True Journalist Laments the Death of Reporting the News

Although Howard Kurtz probably would not put it this way, he is a dying breed of journalist. He believes in journalists reporting the news and not journalists writing their preferred narrative. His new book Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth details how many of his fellow reporters have declared war on journalism itself. As he writes in the afterword:

No less a figure than Jimmy Carter, who endured more than his share of bad press, told columnist Maureen Dowd that “the media have been harder on Trump than any other President” he had seen and “feel free to claim Trump is mentally deranged.”

I’ve been pretty tough on my profession in this book, and I know that will bring a ton of personal criticism my way.  Fair enough. But I believe I’m standing up for the fundamental values of journalism, which have gotten sadly twisted in the Trump era.

Kurtz’s book gives many examples of journalism malpractice and an inside look at the White House's communications shop.  But that is not the point of his book.  The point of his book is that many journalists and editors have given up any pretense of reporting the news and instead have become partisans and members of the Never Trump or “resist” movements. 

This is not just when as CNN famously did in a libelous story devoid of truth on Anthony Scarrumucci.  A less obvious example was a Washington Post effort to take a factually true bit of information about a 2014 real estate deal of Jared Kushner's company and make some enormous leaps that strained all credulity that it was somehow tied to Russian money laundering.  Both were big scoops when released and both were bogus. 

But Kurtz is definitely not trying to curry favor with the Trump Administration, Fox News, or even those who believe the “mainstream media” is fake news.  He is for reporting the news.  Unfortunately others in his profession are opposed to this when it comes to Trump.  In one chapter, "Trump Trauma", Kurtz details how his colleagues consider Trump as a foe who must be defeated, not worthy of any sort of factual or news reporting.  (Kurtz points out how Huffington Post put Trump in the entertainment section of their blog up until Election Day.)

In my opinion, the New York Times is one of the worst offenders.  Kurtz describes how his counterpart there, New York Times Media Columnist Jim Rutenberg, justifies an end to factual news-based reporting:

. . . you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.  If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.  You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.  That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known and by normal standards, untenable. 

Throughout his book Kurtz is lamenting his profession much as a judge if he were told there were no laws or precedents to base his rulings on, or a police officer if told he was free to arrest anyone he didn’t like.  This is not the way journalism is supposed to work. 

As Kurtz concludes:

Donald Trump will not be president forever, but the media’s reputation, badly scarred during these polarizing years, might never recover.

Howard Kurtz will be speaking to the RNLA in DC on Thursday.  Please sign up here.  

Senator Hatch: Unprecedented Judicial Vacancy Crisis

On March 20, Senator Orrin Hatch, the president pro tempore of the Senate, delivered an impassioned speech about the current state of federal judicial vacancies under President Trump.

Due to Senate Democrats' continued obstruction and efforts to "resist" President Trump and his agenda (as we have highlighted regularly), there are currently 138 federal district and appellate court vacancies. Senator Hatch clearly and concisely explains this crisis and how things compare today to days' past under other, recent Presidents.

First, Senator Hatch looked to recent, past "standards" exalted by Senate Democrats before President Trump took office, to point out the hypocrisy and outright obstructionism [1:20-minute mark]:

One standard is that the Democrats have specifically identified how many vacancies are unacceptable. In February 2000, with a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats said that 79 vacancies were ‘‘too high.’’ In September 2012, with the Democrats both in the White House and controlling the Senate, they declared a ‘‘judicial vacancy crisis’’ when there were 78 vacancies. If 78 vacancies is a crisis, what is the label for 138 vacancies? . . .

A second Democratic vacancy standard is that, as they did in April 2014, we can compare judicial vacancies today with vacancies at the same point under previous Presidents. If that Democratic standard is valid, vacancies today are 35 percent higher than at this point under President Obama and 46 percent higher than at this point under President George W. Bush.

There is a third Democratic vacancy standard. In June 2013 and at least as far back as April 1999, the Democrats have complained that the Senate was not confirming enough judicial nominees to keep up with normal attrition. Well, judicial vacancies today are 30 percent higher than when President Trump took office, and, as I said, at least 33 more have already been announced.

Finally, the Democrats have frequently said that the 107th Congress—the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration—should be our judicial confirmation benchmark. During that time, the Senate confirmed an average of just over 4 judicial nominees per month. The Senate has so far confirmed 28 of President Trump’s district and appeals court nominees or fewer than 2 per month.

Take your pick. By any or all of these Democratic standards, we face a much more serious judicial vacancy crisis than in years past. . . .

Next, Senator Hatch explained the reality of this situation and how Republicans have tried to get President Trump's judicial nominees to the Senate Floor for a vote and how Democrats have pulled all stops in an attempt to slow the process down to a crawl [5:34-minute mark]:

Under Chairman Chuck Grassley's leadership, the committee has held a hearing for 62 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—more than under any of the previous five Presidents at this point. So that is clearly not the problem. The first sign of Democratic obstruction is the unwarranted and partisan opposition to reporting judicial nominations from the Judiciary Committee.

In February 2012, 3 years into the Obama administration, the Democrats complained that five nominees to the U.S. district court had been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. This, they said, departed dramatically from Senate tradition. Today, just 14 months into the Trump administration, eight nominees to the U.S. district court have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The present rate of such party-line votes in the Judiciary Committee is more than four times what the Democrats criticized just a few years ago.

The below-the-radar obstruction tactics continue when the Judiciary Committee sends judicial nominees to the full Senate. The Democrats, for example, refuse to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes. They can’t prevent confirmation votes altogether because they abolished nomination filibusters in 2013, but if they can’t make judicial confirmations impossible, they are determined to make them very difficult. Here is how they do it.

Since President Trump took office, the Democrats have forced the Senate to take 28 cloture votes on judicial nominations, compared to just 2 cloture votes at this point under the previous five Presidents combined. Even when cloture is invoked, Senate rules provide for up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur. Nearly half the time under President Obama, a judicial nomination cloture vote was followed by a confirmation vote on the same day. Under President Trump, that has plummeted to 17 percent. The average time between cloture and confirmation votes for President Trump’s judicial nominations is more than 55 percent longer than it was under President Obama. . . .

Senator Hatch concludes [13:00-minute mark]:

We face an unprecedented judicial vacancy crisis. Since President Trump is making nominations and the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Grassley's leadership, is steadily processing them, there remains only one explanation for the vacancy crisis we face today—plain, old-fashioned, partisan obstruction. The Democrats are manipulating this process at every stage, using the very tactics that they have loudly condemned in the past to make confirmations as difficult and time-consuming as possible.

Even in politics, actions speak louder than words. In July 2012, when there were 76 judicial vacancies, Chairman Leahy said that ‘‘we should be doing better.’’ Today, with nearly twice as many vacancies, I challenge my Democratic colleagues to put actions to those words.

You can view Senator Hatch's entire Senate Floor speech on YouTube and a transcript of his remarks have been published in March 20's Congressional Record (on the first two pages).

The RNLA will continue to highlight this ongoing, unprecedented crisis faced by President Trump's judicial and political nominees.

Conservatives Respond to End of Election Integrity Commission

On Wednesday, President Trump ended the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), which had been plagued by lawsuits from liberal organizations and even one of the Commission's own Democratic members.  Liberals are touting their victory in "resisting" an initiative started by President Trump, but conservatives have also responded.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Hill:

Why is this hatred so strong? Besides that it is the liberal election administration community’s way of participating in the Trump “resist” movement, they feared the PACEI because the last two presidential election commissions have recommended corrective measures that go against the liberal agenda. . . . Contrary to the liberal’s narrative, the PACEI disbanding does not prove there is no vote fraud; rather, it proves liberals fear looking into this issue because things such as illegal non-citizen votes favor the Democratic Party in elections. . . . 

In the end, liberals won this battle to prevent any inquiry into fraudulent votes and messy elections, but may lose the war. When the President disbanded the PACEI, he also “asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues.” . . . If DHS reviews the issues that the PACEI was tasked with studying, it could use the SAVE database to help states fix their voter registration lists and find non-citizens registered and voting much more efficiently than an advisory commission ever could, as election officials have been clamoring for for years. . . .

So Democrats have “resisted” the bipartisan efforts, in the fine tradition of the last two presidential election commissions, to study and propose solutions to fix our elections. Sadly, the American people are those who lose the most whenever the liberal election world is “successful.” Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of an American citizen, who has lost the right of self-government due to the political agenda of liberal activists. But the left may lose the war, as their victory may hurt their real goals and make it easier to stop non-citizens from registering and voting. 

Former PACEI member Hans von Spakovsky issued the following statement:

While I am disappointed about the dissolution of the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I understand President Trump’s action.  The ability of the Commission to research, review, and examine the integrity and security of the American election process was made almost impossible by the unprecedented and unjustified obstruction by many state election officials who defiantly refused to cooperate with the Commission.

The Commission was also hampered by the almost dozen meritless lawsuits that were filed against the Commission by progressive advocacy groups that were solely intended to prevent its work and take up the time of the Commission’s staff with frivolous litigation. 

The American people understand how important it is that we have a secure system in which everyone who is eligible is able to vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election officials.

The obstacles and impediments used to hinder the work of the Commission is evidence that there are many politicians and activists who want to prevent the American people from finding out the truth.

Fellow former PACEI member Christian Adams also issued a statement:

Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table.  Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system. Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the Commission’s work.  They may delight today in the dissolution of the Commission, but before long they’ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support and perseverance than they realize.

We thank the members of the PACEI for their work and look forward to future efforts to improve the integrity of elections and voters' confidence in election systems and their outcomes. 

Part 2: Top Blog Posts of 2017 - Democrats' Unprecedented Obstructionism

Last Friday, we had the top posts of the year, numbers 10-6.  Today, it is the top 5 posts that unfortunately have a common theme:  Democrats' hyper-partisan obstruction of the Trump Administration.  This is so over the top it would be funny if it was not hurting the governing of our country.   The number one post shows the complete hypocrisy of the Democrats opposition to the Trump Administration.  They are hurting good people for the sake of appeasing their far-left base. 

5.  April 6: “Today, McConnell Ended What Schumer Began with Estrada Filibuster”  Excerpt:

There was much hand wringing over Senator McConnell being forced to invoke the constitutional option today to end the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, but partisan filibusters of judicial nominees are not a longstanding Senate tradition.  It began with now-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's filibuster of Miguel Estrada (who was opposed in large part because he was a conservative Latino).

4.  August 18: “ATL Publishes Vulgar Attack on Former Gorsuch Clerk”  Excerpt:

Perhaps the most telling point in the whole piece is that constitutionalist, textualist, and originalist are just buzzwords used by dumb people, not fully formed, mainstream theories of constitutional and statutory interpretation even adopted by Justice Elena Kagan.  While the crude personal attacks on Mr. Davis are reprehensible, this point shows that what he is really being attacked for is being a conservative who respects the Constitution.  We thank Mr. Davis for his service to our country, even in the face of such vulgar, inappropriate criticism.

3.  November 8: “Sen. Sasse Dismantles ABA as Neutral Arbiter of Judicial Qualifications”  Excerpt:

I'm referring specifically to the smear campaign of the ABA against Steve Grasz, a qualified public servant who has been nominated by the President to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . First, we should discuss the two people who interviewed Mr. Grasz and recognize that, unfortunately, they are blatant partisans with a sad track record of hackery. Second, the ABA Is trying to paint Mr. Grasz as an extremist simply because he did his job as the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska and defended Nebraskans and Nebraska laws that wanted to outlaw the most barbaric of abortion practices — partial-birth abortion. Third, we should talk about the obvious bigotry of cultural liberals evident in their interview process of Mr. Grasz when they asked him repeated questions about nonlegal matters that had nothing to do with the claims of competence of the ABA. 

2.  April 25: “Democrats Continue to Oppose, Delay and Obstruct Non-Controversial, Qualified Nominees”  Excerpt:

He has the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and was an Obama appointee.  He is the longest serving U.S. Attorney in the nation.  Yet, Rod J. Rosenstein has waited almost three months to finally get a chance to be confirmed as Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the number 2 position in the Department of Justice.  Cloture had to be invoked as six Democrats opposed him even getting an up or down vote!

1.    1. February 9: “Senator Nelson Shows His True Feelings after Bowing to Extremist Pressure” (regarding Senator Nelson’s applause following Attorney General Sessions’ confirmation vote) Excerpt:

The Democrats have become totally beholden to extremist elements in their own party. Never has that been more clear than on their recent vote on the confirmation of their colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.  All Democrats--except Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--voted against him.  Yet, many Democrat Senators can be seen applauding Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General. 

The Democrats have taken obstruction and partisanship to a new level in their efforts to undermine the American government. 

Democrat Obstruction Is So Bad, They Even Obstruct Former Obama Nominees Re-Nominated by President Trump

People often ask how bad is the Senate confirmation process? It is not that different from the past they say.  Yesterday, a prime example happened of how wrong and how ridiculous the Senate Democrat obstruction has become.  As Senator James Lankford (R-OK) stated on the Senate Floor (emphasis ours):

For the next few hours we should vote on. We just finish a cloture vote to actually start 30 hours of debate, which in the past, we wouldn't have had 30 hours of debate for a district court nominee, especially a district court nominee like this. This would have been something that would have been done by consent.  We would have a vote on this individual rather than burning up 30 hours of time on debate on a single individual that just passed a cloture vote 79 to 18. . . . This is not a controversial nominee. 

Let me introduce you a little bit to Scott Palk.  He's been pending since June the 15th to get a vote on this floor because of the ongoing delays for each nominee as we go through the process. Why do I say Scott Palk is not a controversial nominee?  It is not just the fact that he just passed this cloture vote 79 to 18. Scott Palk, if you remember his name in this body, was also a nominee of President Obama for the Western [District] Court of Oklahoma. He's now a nominee from President Trump as a nominee for the Western District Court of Oklahoma. There may be five things total that President Obama and President Trump agree on. Scott Palk is one of those five. . . . 

No one understands why someone that President Obama nominated and President Trump nominated has to take up 30 hours of time on the floor on debate. -- When no one will really even debate him. And it's certain what the outcome will be.

This is not an election year where the Leahy “Rule” to obstruct nominees is potentially relevant.  This is the FIRST year of President Trump’s administration. 

Leader Mitch McConnell is putting his foot down against Senate Democrat Obstruction:

Despite Democrats making the #Senate waste time on procedural cloture votes for @POTUS' judicial nominees, we will confirm them.

— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) October 26, 2017

The nominees that McConnell has called for a vote next week include Allison Eid for the 10th Circuit, Stephanos Bibas for the 3rd Circuit, Joan Larsen for the 6th Circuit, and Amy Coney Barrett for the 7th Circuit. 

Leader McConnell’s complete remarks are here.  Thank you Senator Lankford, Leader McConnell, and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley for standing up to Democrat obstruction.  

Various Factors Affect Schedule for Judicial Nominees in Senate

President Trump's White House continues sending excellent judicial nominees to the Senate for consideration.  While everyone wants his or her favorite nominee to be the first considered, Roll Call laid out the practical factors that will affect the schedule in the Senate.  

First, the sheer number of vacancies and pending nominations.  Second, the Republican response to Democrats' abuse of the blue slip process:

“My view is that a blue slip on a circuit judge is simply a notification of how you’re going to vote. To conclude otherwise would’ve left us in the following position at the beginning of this Senate: 48 Democratic senators would’ve been able to blackball 62 percent of the circuit judge nominees. That’s simply not a tenable place to land in a Senate that now deals with judges on the — with a simple majority,” [Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell] said. . . . In May, [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck] Grassley indicated he could give more deference to Democrats on district court judges than circuit court nominees. 

Third, Democrats' efforts to delay President Trump's nominees whenever possible:

Despite the nuclear changes, Republicans fume that their Democratic colleagues are obstructing Trump’s agenda by slow-walking confirmations. . . . Earlier this month, frustrated with requirements to file cloture motions to cut off debate on many Trump nominations, McConnell said he shouldn’t have to do so on picks that seem to have wide support. . . . 

The procedural change hasn’t allowed the party in charge to move as fast as its conference would like. It can still take multiple days to confirm each nominee under the cloture procedure to limit debate, even with the lower threshold — typically 51 when all 100 senators participate. 

And Democrats continue to use those rules to consider most nominees one at a time. They have not allowed any of Trump’s judicial picks to bypass procedural hurdles in committee or on the floor.

The Democrats' strategy since day one of the Trump Administration has been to attack, delay, and obstruct.  We are grateful for the leadership of Don McGahn in the White House Counsel's office, Leader McConnell in the Senate, and Chairman Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee in ensuring that excellent attorneys are nominated for and confirmed to the federal bench.

Senate Democrats' Obstruction Is Damaging the Senate

As Senate Democrats oppose President Trump’s judicial nominees for bad reasons and no reasons, they are damaging the Senate as institution long-term.  A quick example of each.  

The Democrats are using procedural motions to delay the confirmation of NON-CONTROVERSIAL nominees:

The Senate has confirmed just seven judges this year, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. There are 149 judicial vacancies right now, compared to the 108 Trump started the year with. Trump has so far sent nominees for 50 of the current vacancies. . . .

The majority leader has primarily blamed Democrats for dragging out the pace on confirming Trump's nominees.

“Up until now, our friends across the aisle have thrown up one unnecessary procedural hurdle after the next on even the most uncontroversial of nominees,” McConnell said as the Senate confirmed Ralph Erickson to the Eighth Circuit late last month. “In many cases, our Democratic colleagues actually do support the nominees. Just as they do now. This has got to stop. It’s time to end these games.”

Democrats cannot outright block nominees, given the GOP’s 52-senator majority. But they can require procedural votes and drag out the time after each procedural vote for 30 hours.

While it is damaging to the institution of the Senate to delay a worthy nominee just because that nomination was made by a President of an opposing party, what is worse is bigoted attacks on nominees.  A prime example of this is the attacks on the religious beliefs of 7th Circuit nominee Professor Amy Barrett.  As Chairman Grassley said when discussing the obstructions tactics before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week:

Professor Amy Barrett is nominated to serve on the 7th Circuit. She is an eminently qualified and exceptionally bright nominee who has received praise and support across the legal profession. But I was surprised and disheartened by the line of questioning that took place during her hearing.

During her hearing, my friends in the minority raised concerns over and asked questions about her personal religious beliefs. Specifically, her Catholic beliefs. And their questions strongly implied that she’s too Catholic for their taste, whatever it means to be “too Catholic.”

I mention this because I fear the Committee is heading down a dangerous road if we continue to ask nominees questions like this. The Constitution specifically provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office under the United States.” It’s one of the most important founding principles. . . .

We received many letters on this topic including one from Princeton University’s President who is a former law clerk to Justice Stevens and a constitutional scholar. He writes that the questions posed to Professor Barrett about her faith were “not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s ‘no religious test’ clause” and that the views expressed in her law review article on Catholic judges are “fully consistent with a judge’s obligation to uphold the law and the Constitution.”

Senate Democrats may feel they are just doing their part in a political game to resist President Trump.  Reality is they are permanently damaging the Senate by their obstructionist and possibly bigoted tactics that have no place in the Senate.