Welcome to the World of Pulitzer Prize Winning Political Cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez
Sweeping it under the rug 03-03-17
Former Federal Prosecutor Calls for Every Senator to Reveal Ambassadors They Met With
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / March 03, 2017
In light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russian investigation, a government watchdog group is asking every senator to provide a list of ambassadors they met with over the past three years.
A spokeswoman for Sessions said that as a senator he had 25 conversations with ambassadors in 2016, including those representing Britain, South Korea, Japan, Poland, India, China, Canada, Australia, and Russia.
Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, a watchdog group, said he has asked other senators to be transparent about their meetings.
“I think, in a sense, [meetings with foreign ambassadors to the United States] is fairly routine in the House and Senate, particularly in the Senate,” Whitaker told The Daily Signal. “It would be revealing to see how many meetings other senators have had.”
After federal investigators examined contacts between Sessions and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak from last year, Sessions announced Thursday he would recuse himself from any investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Several news accounts say that Kislyak wasn’t shy about interaction with other senators. The Washington Post noted that Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., met at least twice with him—in 2013 and 2015, highlighting her tweets about the meeting.
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / March 03, 2017
In light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russian investigation, a government watchdog group is asking every senator to provide a list of ambassadors they met with over the past three years.
A spokeswoman for Sessions said that as a senator he had 25 conversations with ambassadors in 2016, including those representing Britain, South Korea, Japan, Poland, India, China, Canada, Australia, and Russia.
Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, a watchdog group, said he has asked other senators to be transparent about their meetings.
“I think, in a sense, [meetings with foreign ambassadors to the United States] is fairly routine in the House and Senate, particularly in the Senate,” Whitaker told The Daily Signal. “It would be revealing to see how many meetings other senators have had.”
After federal investigators examined contacts between Sessions and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak from last year, Sessions announced Thursday he would recuse himself from any investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Several news accounts say that Kislyak wasn’t shy about interaction with other senators. The Washington Post noted that Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., met at least twice with him—in 2013 and 2015, highlighting her tweets about the meeting.
For speaking requests, comments and questions, please email melissa@michaelpramirez.com
Although he travels frequently, Michael P. Ramirez works and lives near Los Angeles, California. |
Washington word games over Russian recusal
By Chris Stirewalt
Published March 02, 2017 FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON WORD GAMES OVER RUSSIAN RECUSAL
The silly sematic game being played in Washington right now centers on the word “recusal.”
Here’s the setup: Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose a meeting he had with the same Russian ambassador who was at the center of the controversy that led to the firing of Michael Flynn as national security adviser.
Democrats are in an enormous huff, obviously. They say Sessions lied under oath in his confirmation hearings when asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., whether Sessions, as part of then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign, had any contacts with Russian officials.
WaPo broke the story that Sessions had in fact met with Ambassador SergeyKislyak during the heat of last year’s presidential race and the controversy surrounding Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails. Top Democrats initially called for Sessions to recuse himself, but then, sensing even greater opportunity, jumped right ahead to saying Sessions should resign.
Of course they did…
By Chris Stirewalt
Published March 02, 2017 FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON WORD GAMES OVER RUSSIAN RECUSAL
The silly sematic game being played in Washington right now centers on the word “recusal.”
Here’s the setup: Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose a meeting he had with the same Russian ambassador who was at the center of the controversy that led to the firing of Michael Flynn as national security adviser.
Democrats are in an enormous huff, obviously. They say Sessions lied under oath in his confirmation hearings when asked by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., whether Sessions, as part of then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign, had any contacts with Russian officials.
WaPo broke the story that Sessions had in fact met with Ambassador SergeyKislyak during the heat of last year’s presidential race and the controversy surrounding Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails. Top Democrats initially called for Sessions to recuse himself, but then, sensing even greater opportunity, jumped right ahead to saying Sessions should resign.
Of course they did…
But in the realm of reasonable men and women, the focus is on the “r” word: recusal. Sessions, for his part, said, “whenever it’s appropriate, I will recuse myself.” That’s despite White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer telling Fox News that Sessions is perfectly suitable to oversee an investigation into potential contacts between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. That’s a sentiment reportedly shared by the president.
So, let’s clear things up. There’s nothing wrong with a senator meeting with an ambassador, even from a shady government like Putin’s, especially if that senator serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.
As was the case with Flynn, the problem here isn’t the contact, it’s the failure to disclose it when asked. And that’s why congressional Republicans are today privately expressing frustration that Session’s never corrected the record about his contact with Vladimir Putin’s ambassador.
Some Hill GOPers are enormously frustrated that neither Sessions nor someone on his staff sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify Sessions’ testimony when Kislyak and Flynn were splashed across the front pages for a week.
Carrying water for the administration on the Russia stuff got a lot more arduous with this revelation. This may just be a pure case of “gotcha,” in which Sessions’ memory lapse gives Democrats the excuse they needed to ramp back up their Russian fixation. But that’s probably enough to push Sessions aside on the Trump-Russia probe.
Obviously, the president and his team know that we are far from the end of this saga. White House Counsel Don McGahn has instructed Trump’s aides to preserve everything related to Russia, a sure sign that we are just getting warmed up.
Also just warming up, likely, are leaks about Trump’s Russia ties. The NYT reports that outgoing Obama administration officials stockpiled and secured information about Trump and Russia in a bid to make sure that Team Trump didn’t sweep it under the rug. That article is something of a promissory note of leaks to come.
As was the case with Flynn, the problem here isn’t the contact, it’s the failure to disclose it when asked. And that’s why congressional Republicans are today privately expressing frustration that Session’s never corrected the record about his contact with Vladimir Putin’s ambassador.
Some Hill GOPers are enormously frustrated that neither Sessions nor someone on his staff sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify Sessions’ testimony when Kislyak and Flynn were splashed across the front pages for a week.
Carrying water for the administration on the Russia stuff got a lot more arduous with this revelation. This may just be a pure case of “gotcha,” in which Sessions’ memory lapse gives Democrats the excuse they needed to ramp back up their Russian fixation. But that’s probably enough to push Sessions aside on the Trump-Russia probe.
Obviously, the president and his team know that we are far from the end of this saga. White House Counsel Don McGahn has instructed Trump’s aides to preserve everything related to Russia, a sure sign that we are just getting warmed up.
Also just warming up, likely, are leaks about Trump’s Russia ties. The NYT reports that outgoing Obama administration officials stockpiled and secured information about Trump and Russia in a bid to make sure that Team Trump didn’t sweep it under the rug. That article is something of a promissory note of leaks to come.
As for Sessions’ recusal though, it’s really a question of timing. Everyone knows that there is an investigation already underway by the FBI into Trump campaign ties and, presumably, the leaks of those ties.
Let’s remember, though, that there has been no evidence presented anywhere that Team Trump colluded with anyone in Russia about obtaining or leaking information damaging to Clinton’s campaign. And it’s old news that Trump’s campaign had Russian ties, starting with the former campaign Chairman, PaulManafort.
But that doesn’t mean that all the questions have been answered.
Congressional inquiries, maybe even in the form of a select committee on the subject, will be a part of life in Washington for the foreseeable future. Whether you think Kremlin mischief was the key element in Clinton’s defeat or not, hostile foreign actions toward the American political system always merits investigation.
But it is what the administration does on the subject that matters most now. Sessions says he would step aside if the issue comes before him, but in a real sense, the issue is already before him since the FBI, though semi-autonomous, is part of the Justice Department.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to take special precautions on dealing with the investigation of IRS officials targeting conservative groups smelled funkier than sweat socks. Failing to treat this investigation differently would stink even worse, and make Sessions and the entire administration look guilty.
What’s needed here is a special counsel, but not a special prosecutor.
This is an important distinction. A special prosecutor is someone picked by a judge to investigate potential criminal activity when the court decides that the administration cannot fairly conduct the investigation. A special counsel is a person picked by the president to do an independent investigation. Big difference. read the whole essay at FOX NEWS
Let’s remember, though, that there has been no evidence presented anywhere that Team Trump colluded with anyone in Russia about obtaining or leaking information damaging to Clinton’s campaign. And it’s old news that Trump’s campaign had Russian ties, starting with the former campaign Chairman, PaulManafort.
But that doesn’t mean that all the questions have been answered.
Congressional inquiries, maybe even in the form of a select committee on the subject, will be a part of life in Washington for the foreseeable future. Whether you think Kremlin mischief was the key element in Clinton’s defeat or not, hostile foreign actions toward the American political system always merits investigation.
But it is what the administration does on the subject that matters most now. Sessions says he would step aside if the issue comes before him, but in a real sense, the issue is already before him since the FBI, though semi-autonomous, is part of the Justice Department.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to take special precautions on dealing with the investigation of IRS officials targeting conservative groups smelled funkier than sweat socks. Failing to treat this investigation differently would stink even worse, and make Sessions and the entire administration look guilty.
What’s needed here is a special counsel, but not a special prosecutor.
This is an important distinction. A special prosecutor is someone picked by a judge to investigate potential criminal activity when the court decides that the administration cannot fairly conduct the investigation. A special counsel is a person picked by the president to do an independent investigation. Big difference. read the whole essay at FOX NEWS