Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

Charles Krauthammer: All these implausibilities – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

WASHINGTON It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending againstprosecution.

It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comeys guts that had brought back his reputation.

It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and whod been on the job all of two weeks.

It was implausible that Trump found Rosensteins arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.

These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comeys firing and the administrations immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?

Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if youve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong.

Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences.

Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as theJuly 5non-indictment indictment of Clinton.

A series of these and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.

And theres the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor.

True, this became more difficult afterMarch 20when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just this monthComey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.

Instead we got this a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.

Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comeys very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, hes made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It wont stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.

So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.

Charles Krauthammer writes a column for the Washington Post. His email address isletters@charleskrauthammer.com.

View post:

Charles Krauthammer: All these implausibilities – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: ‘It’s dangerous’ to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump – Washington Post


Washington Post
Krauthammer: 'It's dangerous' to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump
Washington Post
May 17, 2017 1:58 PM EDT – Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer voices his opinion on the argument to remove President Trump with the 25th Amendment. (Whitney Leaming / The Washington Post). May 17, 2017 1:58 PM EDT – Washington …

View original post here:

Krauthammer: ‘It’s dangerous’ to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump – Washington Post

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Stunning that Republicans have given up on defending Trump – TheBlaze.com

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer responded to the New York Times bombshell report alleging what appeared to be obstruction of justice by President Trump.

He said it was stunning that so few Republicans were coming to his defense, but it was understandable after a string of controversies and scandals. He made the comments Tuesday on Special Report on Fox News.

I think whats really stunning is that nobody, not even from the White House, Krauthammer said, has come out under their own name in defense of the president here. You got an anonymous statement, we dont see any Republicans on camera.

And that is totally understandable, he explained, they just watched over the last ten days, people who went out on a limb over the Comey firing, and said it was a result of the memo of the deputy attorney general, had the limb sawed off by Donald Trump himself without a flinch and were left humiliated and contradicted.

And then when you look at what happened with the Russian ambassador, he continued, last night people were saying, the people high up that were in the room, by name said that this never happened. And then in the morning it looks as if the tweets that Trump issued acknowledged it happened and he had every right to do it.

So who is going to step out now and defend the president in these denials which could very well be true, Krauthammer concluded, when youve seen what happened to Republicans who stepped out on denials in two other cases, and were left like on an ice flow off of Norway?

Krauthammer referred to the shifting of the administrations narrativeabout why FBI Director James Comey was fired. White House spokespersons said that Trump had followed the recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on the matter, but later in an interview Trump said he would have fired him even without the recommendation.

His second example referred to administration officials denying a Washington Post report that Trump had told Russians confidential information. The next morning Trump appeared to confirm the report but claiming he was within his right to do so.

Democrats are already jumping on the opportunity to call for impeachment of the president, while Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has sent a letter to the FBI demanding they produce documents in order that the accusations be investigated fully.

More:

Krauthammer: Stunning that Republicans have given up on defending Trump – TheBlaze.com

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Dems Ignored Hillary’s Security Issues | The Daily … – The Daily Caller

Charles Krauthammer blasted the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Mark Warner Monday for statements denouncing Trumps alleged sharing of highly classified information with Russia, calling them irresponsible.

The Washington Post reported Monday that President Trump incidentally leaked highly classified information to senior Russian officials.

The DNC and Sen. Warner slammed Trump for the alleged leaks,with Warner calling it a slap in the face to the intelligence community.

Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer, however, had no patience for what he viewed as hypocrisy from the Democrats.

This is just pure opportunism and a reflex action, Krauthammer said on Fox News Monday evening, especially considering their candidate for the presidency leaked classified information, some of the highest level, for a year and a half, and all the Democrats all pretended it wasnt a problem or should be ignored.

Krauthammer also called the Democrats statements completely irresponsible, because they have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMasterdenied the Washington Post reports Monday,saying that they are false and that at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed during Trumps meeting with Russian officials.

WATCH:

Follow Amber on Twitter

Go here to read the rest:

Krauthammer: Dems Ignored Hillary’s Security Issues | The Daily … – The Daily Caller

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Trump’s ax murder of Comey

WASHINGTON — It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 — the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution.

It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that, at the time, Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.”

It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks.

It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately — so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.

These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?

Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong.

Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices.

Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action — disclosure or silence, commission or omission — carried unavoidable electoral consequences.

Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton.

A series of these — and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.

And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor.

True, this became more difficult after March 20 when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week, Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.

Instead we got this — a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards. Where was the vein-opening knife and the warm bath?)

No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.

Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade.

Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.

So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest — and got so impatient he did it himself.

See the article here:

Charles Krauthammer: Trump’s ax murder of Comey

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: A political ax murder – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution.

It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.”

It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks.

It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.

These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?

Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong.

Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences.

Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton.

A series of these and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.

And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor.

True, this became more difficult after March 20 when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.

Instead we got this a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards. Where was the vein-opening knife and the warm bath?) No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.

Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.

So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.

Go here to see the original:

Charles Krauthammer: A political ax murder – Kankakee Daily Journal

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer on DNC Slamming Trump Intel Reveal: Hillary Did Much Worse – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer reacted to a Washington Post report that President Trump revealed classified information during a meeting with Russian envoys in the Oval Office.

The Democratic National Committee said in a statement that Russia “no longer has to spy on us to get information” because Trump will tell them whenever they ask.

Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-Va.) called it a “slap in the face” to the intelligence community.

The intelligence information was reportedly not United States intel, but instead from an anonymous global partner in the war against ISIS.

‘Partisan Pouting’: GOPAC Chair Blasts Dems For Threatening FBI Nominee Obstruction

Centrist Rep Recalls Raucous Town Hall: ‘People Have To Realize This Is a Democracy’

WATCH: NBA’s Popovich Says ‘Embarrassing’ Trump Casts ‘Surreal Cloud’ Over US

Krauthammer called the DNC’s response “completely irresponsible” because they “have no idea what was revealed.”

He remarked that the committee ignored the fact their 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information to a much larger extent that what Trump revealed.

In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson assured the public that Trump did not discuss “sources, methods or military operations.”

On “Special Report,” Krauthammer said Trump likely did nothing illegal, but instead committed a blunder.

He added that whatever information was revealed is not as important to the Russians as the source, if it were talked about.

Because the Russians are aligned with Iran and the Hamas terror group in Palestine, that information would be more important to the Kremlin, Krauthammer said.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a frequent Trump critic, expressed skepticism Trump committed a drastic blunder, James Rosen reported.

Watch more from Krauthammer on the Post report below:

Spicer on Russia Probe: No Need for a Special Prosecutor

Ann Coulter Is Worried the ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’

Henry: Be Skeptical About Reports of ‘Huge Reboot’ of Trump’s WH Staff

Here is the original post:

Krauthammer on DNC Slamming Trump Intel Reveal: Hillary Did Much Worse – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer calls out liberal hypocrisy for crying over alleged classified leaks – TheBlaze.com

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer slammed the Democratic National Committee for their statement Monday criticizing President Trump over explosive accusations made in a Washington Post story about alleged leaks to the Russians. He made the statements on Fox News.

I think these statements are completely irresponsible from the DNC, he said. They have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it.

It can be, perhaps its not, but this is just pure opportunism, Krauthammer continued. And a reflex reaction.

Particularly since their candidate for the presidency had been spilling classified information, he explained, some of the highest level, for a year and a half and the Democrats pretended that either it wasnt a problem or that it should be ignored. Its rather unseemly.

Having said that, the issue is we dont know what the information was, he continued. Probably the content of it is not the problem. What it sounds as if, is that we have an ally whos infiltrated into ISIS and this might have helped the Russians see that and perhaps, knowing the Russians, that information would be spilled elsewhere. Because after all the Russians are allied with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, others. So that information could spread.

Its something like what happened some years ago when there was a leak from the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, he explained, I think they had advanced operations in terms of blowing up airliners by hiding electronics. And by leaking that, we revealed that we had somebody inside the operation was blown, and that was the end of that source of information.

So its not as if it hasnt happened before, he concluded, its possible were not sure how much of a breach it is, but if it did hinder our relations with an ally whose already infiltrated inside, it could be a problem.

The Washington Post reportclaimedthe more revealing details they received were being withheld on request from their sources who did not want classified information released.

The story has been denied by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in a statement outside the White House, but some reporters referred to it a non-denial because it was so carefully parsed and he took no questions from the press.

The story has been confirmed by sources to Buzzfeed, the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters. Supporters of the president decrying the report as fake news conjured up through anonymous sources.

Read the original:

Krauthammer calls out liberal hypocrisy for crying over alleged classified leaks – TheBlaze.com

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer Defends Trump After WaPo Report: ‘Only Implication Here Is That He is Unschooled’ – Mediaite

If the stunning Washington Post report that President Donald Trump leaked classified information to the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister is accurate, the question becomes: Was it a mistake, or was it deliberate?

Charles Krauthammer says its the former.

Appearing on Special Report, the conservative commentator does not believe the disclosure was done with malice. But he does believe that the President may have acted in an unschooled manner.

Of all the probabilities, the idea he was acting as a Manchurian candidate feeding information to his Russian operatives and controllers is ridiculous. The only implication here is that hes unschooled. This is his first go around with sensitive information and he mightve slipped up. If he did, its not good. On the other hand, if its not deliberate, its not exactly a high crime and misdemeanor.

Fellow panelist Juan Williams took umbrage with Krauthhammers assessment, given the questions surrounding Trumps relationship with Russia.

In the context of the moment, given his questions about his relationship with Russia, that he would invite not only the foreign minister but the ambassador into the Oval Office, Williams said. Andalso invite the Russian press at a time when he wasnt inviting the American press. People were concerned about leaving all kinds of devices in the Oval Office. This is what is creating so much attention to this report from the Washington Post.

This context is irrelevant, Krauthammer said.

Not at all, Williams said.

Watch above, via Fox News.

[featured image via screengrab]

Follow Joe DePaolo (@joe_depaolo) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Original post:

Krauthammer Defends Trump After WaPo Report: ‘Only Implication Here Is That He is Unschooled’ – Mediaite

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: All these implausibilities – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

WASHINGTON It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending againstprosecution. It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comeys guts that had brought back his reputation. It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and whod been on the job all of two weeks. It was implausible that Trump found Rosensteins arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him. These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comeys firing and the administrations immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey? Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if youve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong. Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences. Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as theJuly 5non-indictment indictment of Clinton. A series of these and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey. And theres the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor. True, this became more difficult afterMarch 20when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just this monthComey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable. Instead we got this a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington. Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comeys very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, hes made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It wont stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime. So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself. Charles Krauthammer writes a column for the Washington Post. His email address isletters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: ‘It’s dangerous’ to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump – Washington Post

Washington Post Krauthammer : 'It's dangerous' to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump Washington Post May 17, 2017 1:58 PM EDT – Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer voices his opinion on the argument to remove President Trump with the 25th Amendment. (Whitney Leaming / The Washington Post). May 17, 2017 1:58 PM EDT – Washington …

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Stunning that Republicans have given up on defending Trump – TheBlaze.com

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer responded to the New York Times bombshell report alleging what appeared to be obstruction of justice by President Trump. He said it was stunning that so few Republicans were coming to his defense, but it was understandable after a string of controversies and scandals. He made the comments Tuesday on Special Report on Fox News. I think whats really stunning is that nobody, not even from the White House, Krauthammer said, has come out under their own name in defense of the president here. You got an anonymous statement, we dont see any Republicans on camera. And that is totally understandable, he explained, they just watched over the last ten days, people who went out on a limb over the Comey firing, and said it was a result of the memo of the deputy attorney general, had the limb sawed off by Donald Trump himself without a flinch and were left humiliated and contradicted. And then when you look at what happened with the Russian ambassador, he continued, last night people were saying, the people high up that were in the room, by name said that this never happened. And then in the morning it looks as if the tweets that Trump issued acknowledged it happened and he had every right to do it. So who is going to step out now and defend the president in these denials which could very well be true, Krauthammer concluded, when youve seen what happened to Republicans who stepped out on denials in two other cases, and were left like on an ice flow off of Norway? Krauthammer referred to the shifting of the administrations narrativeabout why FBI Director James Comey was fired. White House spokespersons said that Trump had followed the recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on the matter, but later in an interview Trump said he would have fired him even without the recommendation. His second example referred to administration officials denying a Washington Post report that Trump had told Russians confidential information. The next morning Trump appeared to confirm the report but claiming he was within his right to do so. Democrats are already jumping on the opportunity to call for impeachment of the president, while Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has sent a letter to the FBI demanding they produce documents in order that the accusations be investigated fully.

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Dems Ignored Hillary’s Security Issues | The Daily … – The Daily Caller

Charles Krauthammer blasted the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Mark Warner Monday for statements denouncing Trumps alleged sharing of highly classified information with Russia, calling them irresponsible. The Washington Post reported Monday that President Trump incidentally leaked highly classified information to senior Russian officials. The DNC and Sen. Warner slammed Trump for the alleged leaks,with Warner calling it a slap in the face to the intelligence community. Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer, however, had no patience for what he viewed as hypocrisy from the Democrats. This is just pure opportunism and a reflex action, Krauthammer said on Fox News Monday evening, especially considering their candidate for the presidency leaked classified information, some of the highest level, for a year and a half, and all the Democrats all pretended it wasnt a problem or should be ignored. Krauthammer also called the Democrats statements completely irresponsible, because they have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it. National Security Advisor H.R. McMasterdenied the Washington Post reports Monday,saying that they are false and that at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed during Trumps meeting with Russian officials. WATCH: Follow Amber on Twitter

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Trump’s ax murder of Comey

WASHINGTON — It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 — the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution. It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that, at the time, Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.” It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks. It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately — so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him. These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey? Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong. Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action — disclosure or silence, commission or omission — carried unavoidable electoral consequences. Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton. A series of these — and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey. And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor. True, this became more difficult after March 20 when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week, Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable. Instead we got this — a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards. Where was the vein-opening knife and the warm bath?) No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington. Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime. So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest — and got so impatient he did it himself.

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: A political ax murder – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution. It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comey’s “guts” that had “brought back his reputation.” It was implausible that Trump, a man notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-Cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and who’d been on the job all of two weeks. It was implausible that Trump found Rosenstein’s arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him. These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comey’s firing and the administration’s immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey? Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if you’ve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong. Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences. Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton. A series of these and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey. And there’s the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from Election Day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick the new director. No fanfare, no rancor. True, this became more difficult after March 20 when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time. Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable. Instead we got this a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards. Where was the vein-opening knife and the warm bath?) No final meeting, no letter of resignation, no presidential thanks, no cordial parting. Instead, a blindsided Comey ends up in a live-streamed O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington. Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comey’s very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, he’s made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It won’t stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime. So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer on DNC Slamming Trump Intel Reveal: Hillary Did Much Worse – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer reacted to a Washington Post report that President Trump revealed classified information during a meeting with Russian envoys in the Oval Office. The Democratic National Committee said in a statement that Russia “no longer has to spy on us to get information” because Trump will tell them whenever they ask. Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-Va.) called it a “slap in the face” to the intelligence community. The intelligence information was reportedly not United States intel, but instead from an anonymous global partner in the war against ISIS. ‘Partisan Pouting’: GOPAC Chair Blasts Dems For Threatening FBI Nominee Obstruction Centrist Rep Recalls Raucous Town Hall: ‘People Have To Realize This Is a Democracy’ WATCH: NBA’s Popovich Says ‘Embarrassing’ Trump Casts ‘Surreal Cloud’ Over US Krauthammer called the DNC’s response “completely irresponsible” because they “have no idea what was revealed.” He remarked that the committee ignored the fact their 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information to a much larger extent that what Trump revealed. In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson assured the public that Trump did not discuss “sources, methods or military operations.” On “Special Report,” Krauthammer said Trump likely did nothing illegal, but instead committed a blunder. He added that whatever information was revealed is not as important to the Russians as the source, if it were talked about. Because the Russians are aligned with Iran and the Hamas terror group in Palestine, that information would be more important to the Kremlin, Krauthammer said. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a frequent Trump critic, expressed skepticism Trump committed a drastic blunder, James Rosen reported. Watch more from Krauthammer on the Post report below: Spicer on Russia Probe: No Need for a Special Prosecutor Ann Coulter Is Worried the ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’ Henry: Be Skeptical About Reports of ‘Huge Reboot’ of Trump’s WH Staff

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer calls out liberal hypocrisy for crying over alleged classified leaks – TheBlaze.com

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer slammed the Democratic National Committee for their statement Monday criticizing President Trump over explosive accusations made in a Washington Post story about alleged leaks to the Russians. He made the statements on Fox News. I think these statements are completely irresponsible from the DNC, he said. They have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it. It can be, perhaps its not, but this is just pure opportunism, Krauthammer continued. And a reflex reaction. Particularly since their candidate for the presidency had been spilling classified information, he explained, some of the highest level, for a year and a half and the Democrats pretended that either it wasnt a problem or that it should be ignored. Its rather unseemly. Having said that, the issue is we dont know what the information was, he continued. Probably the content of it is not the problem. What it sounds as if, is that we have an ally whos infiltrated into ISIS and this might have helped the Russians see that and perhaps, knowing the Russians, that information would be spilled elsewhere. Because after all the Russians are allied with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, others. So that information could spread. Its something like what happened some years ago when there was a leak from the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, he explained, I think they had advanced operations in terms of blowing up airliners by hiding electronics. And by leaking that, we revealed that we had somebody inside the operation was blown, and that was the end of that source of information. So its not as if it hasnt happened before, he concluded, its possible were not sure how much of a breach it is, but if it did hinder our relations with an ally whose already infiltrated inside, it could be a problem. The Washington Post reportclaimedthe more revealing details they received were being withheld on request from their sources who did not want classified information released. The story has been denied by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in a statement outside the White House, but some reporters referred to it a non-denial because it was so carefully parsed and he took no questions from the press. The story has been confirmed by sources to Buzzfeed, the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters. Supporters of the president decrying the report as fake news conjured up through anonymous sources.

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer Defends Trump After WaPo Report: ‘Only Implication Here Is That He is Unschooled’ – Mediaite

If the stunning Washington Post report that President Donald Trump leaked classified information to the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister is accurate, the question becomes: Was it a mistake, or was it deliberate? Charles Krauthammer says its the former. Appearing on Special Report, the conservative commentator does not believe the disclosure was done with malice. But he does believe that the President may have acted in an unschooled manner. Of all the probabilities, the idea he was acting as a Manchurian candidate feeding information to his Russian operatives and controllers is ridiculous. The only implication here is that hes unschooled. This is his first go around with sensitive information and he mightve slipped up. If he did, its not good. On the other hand, if its not deliberate, its not exactly a high crime and misdemeanor. Fellow panelist Juan Williams took umbrage with Krauthhammers assessment, given the questions surrounding Trumps relationship with Russia. In the context of the moment, given his questions about his relationship with Russia, that he would invite not only the foreign minister but the ambassador into the Oval Office, Williams said. Andalso invite the Russian press at a time when he wasnt inviting the American press. People were concerned about leaving all kinds of devices in the Oval Office. This is what is creating so much attention to this report from the Washington Post. This context is irrelevant, Krauthammer said. Not at all, Williams said. Watch above, via Fox News. [featured image via screengrab] Follow Joe DePaolo (@joe_depaolo) on Twitter Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."