Mediaboss Marketing

THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMPS opening weeks have been chaotic and dispiriting, the nations new chief executive has still managed to make a few good choices. One of his best was nominating Rod J. Rosenstein to be the No.2 at the Justice Department. The sooner the Senate confirms him, the sooner the administration will have another adult in its top ranks. So its unfortunate that Mr. Rosenstein faced demands from Democrats at his Tuesday confirmation hearing that no one in his position should accede to.

As deputy attorney general, Mr. Rosenstein would oversee the daily operations of a vast, 115,000-person bureaucracy responsible for enforcing laws on everything from hate crimes to antitrust. After nearly three decades in the Justice Department, serving under presidents of both parties, Rod Rosenstein has demonstrated throughout his long career the highest standards of professionalism, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The senator praised Mr.Rosensteins nonpartisan approach and noted his wide support among Democratic officials in Maryland, where Mr.Rosenstein serves as U.S. attorney and has had notable success prosecuting gang crime and political corruption.

Instead of that record, Mr. Rosensteins hearing was dominated by the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week from issues involving Russia and the 2016 presidential election. With Mr. Sessions sidelined, Justice Department decisions regarding any investigation into Russias meddling and contacts between Mr. Trumps circle and Russian officials would fall to Mr. Rosenstein. He assured senators that political affiliation is irrelevant to my work and promised to support any properly predicated investigation related to interference by the Russians or by anybody else in American elections.

But that was not enough for Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who told Mr. Rosenstein that I will oppose your nomination if you are unwilling to commit to appoint a special prosecutor. Mr. Rosenstein offered a model reply: I view it as an issue of principle that as a nominee for deputy attorney general I should not be promising to take action on a particular case, he said. And I believe that if I were to do that in this case, some future deputy attorney general nominee would be here. And hed be asked to make a similar commitment. And theyd say, Well, Rosenstein did it, why wont you?

If, as was the case with Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein had been a top official in the Trump campaign, it would have been appropriate for him to prospectively recuse himself, as Mr. Sessions did on all matters relating to Hillary Clinton. But as it is, Mr.Rosenstein would not enter the Justice Departments top ranks with such a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. It is entirely appropriate for Mr.Rosenstein to do what any good prosecutor would refuse to prejudge a law enforcement question before reviewing the full record, including information that is not publicly available.

We believe that Russian interference in the election is a matter of such grave public importance that appointing a special counsel would add to the Justice Departments appearance of independence and integrity. But we respect Mr. Rosenstein for refusing to pre-commit. So should the Senate.

Read this article:
Democrats are holding up one of Trump's best appointees - Washington Post

Democrats' call for a special prosecutor may come back to haunt them New York Post Now, though, Democrats are lined up demanding a special prosecutor into Russia's interference with our election. They may have visions of Cox and Jaworski dancing in their heads, but they should be careful what they wish for. Democrats assume only ... and more »

Here is the original post:
Democrats' call for a special prosecutor may come back to haunt them - New York Post

|

Posted: Mar 09, 2017 12:01 AM

What happened to detente? What happened to perestroika and glasnost? And how about their longtime fear of a nuclear winter, and their longing for a nuclear freeze? The Democrats have always been big on mixing rhetoric with climate, though, admittedly, Putin and his fat-cat cronies have changed over the years from the Soviets of old.

The old Soviet economy was something with which Saunders and Pelosi and even the Schumer of recent edition could identify. Bernie, the socialist, in particular had more in common with the Soviet system than with American capitalism. The Soviet economy certainly made more sense to him than the wild swings of the American economy that we have today. Think of it! The stock market is up 10 to 12 percent since Donald Trump was elected. The giant corporations and Wall Street are doubtless making a killing. Those animal spirits that make him uneasy are even returning to the middle class. Bernie tried to warn us but to no avail. Now, Schumer and Pelosi have let out a yell.

I well remember the glowing praise of yesterday's progressives for the Soviet economy. There were, for instance, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard University and Lester Thurow of MIT in the 1980s enthusing over Soviet prosperity just as Mikhail Gorbachev was about to come to power. Of course, the alarums sounded by the Democrats today about the Republicans' approaches to the Kremlin were not heard in the 1970s and 1980s, at least not from the Democrat leadership. They talked of peaceful coexistence then. What about peaceful coexistence with Putin?

Do you recall Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, writing Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov in a secret correspondence aimed at undermining Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Most probably you do not. Such communications by Kennedy and former Sen. John Tunney to the KGB were not widely reported in the American media at the time. Yet, Sovietologists such as Herbert Romerstein and Paul Kengor have been reporting these contacts for years. Go ahead and Google Kennedy and the KGB. The Times of London reported on them. Now, the Democrat leadership is suspicious about ambiguous allegations of contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The mainstream media even report on such alleged contacts as "ties."

Sessions neglected to answer to the Democrats' satisfaction the poorly constructed questions about two meetings he had with the current Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions is in hot water. After tweeting that she has never met Kislyak, Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill's own Twitter account revealed two interactions. Just like Sessions, she overlooked them. More recently, Pelosi had to clarify her claim that she had never met Kislyak. A picture turned up showing her with him. In her clarification, an aide to Pelosi said, "She has never had a private one-on-one with him." Well, if it were a private meeting, I assume there would be no pictures.

On that occasion, Pelosi was actually meeting with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. So Democrat bigwigs do occasionally meet with Putin's people. That reminds me of President Barack Obama's embarrassment with Medvedev. Without knowing his microphone was on, Obama told Medvedev to assure incoming President Putin that after the 2012 election, he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with the Russians. Medvedev agreed, though Obama did not apparently find Putin so lovey-dovey.

The modern Russians are not as clubbable as the Democrats found the Russians of the Soviet era. They are not even as agreeable as President Obama found them in 2012. Perhaps ordinary Americans, having read their history, can agree with me. These Democrats are mercurial. No wonder more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the country is in better hands with a real estate developer.

Read the original:
What Has Gotten Into the Democrats? - Townhall

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The average American is understandably perplexed as to why Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and, of course, runner-up in last years Democratic primaries, Bernie Saunders, are so lathered up over the Republicans recent overtures to the Russians. They are calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They want a special prosecutor to look into President Donald Trumps relations with President Vladimir Putin. What has gotten into the Democrats? Why are they so bellicose toward Moscow?

What happened to detente? What happened to perestroika and glasnost? And how about their longtime fear of a nuclear winter and their longing for a nuclear freeze? The Democrats have always been big on mixing rhetoric with climate. Though admittedly, Mr. Putin and his fat cat cronies have changed over the years from the Soviets of old.

The old Soviet economy was something that Bernie Saunders and Mrs. Pelosi and even the Mr. Schumer of recent edition could identify with. In particular Bernie, the socialist, had more in common with the Soviet system than with American capitalism. The Soviet economy certainly made more sense to him than the wild swings of the American economy that we have today. Think of it: The stock market is up 10 to 12 percent since Donald Trump was elected. The giant corporations and Wall Street are doubtless making a killing. Those animal spirits that make him uneasy are even returning to the middle class. Bernie tried to warn us, but to no avail. Now Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Pelosi have let out a yell.

I well remember the glowing praise of yesterdays progressives for the Soviet economy. There were, for instance, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard and Lester Thurow of MIT in the 1980s enthusing over Soviet prosperity just as Mikhail Gorbachev was about to come to power. Of course, todays alarums, sounded by the Democrats, about the Republicans approaches to the Kremlin were not heard in the 1970s and 1980s, at least not from the Democratic leadership. Then they talked of peaceful coexistence. What about peaceful coexistence with Mr. Putin?

Do you recall Sen. Edward Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, writing Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov in secret correspondence aimed at undermining Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Most probably you do not. Such communications by Kennedy and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney to the KGB were not widely reported in the American media at the time. Yet, Sovietologists such as Herbert Romerstein and Paul Kengor have been reporting these contacts for years. Go ahead, google Kennedy and the KGB. The Times of London reported on them. Now the Democratic leadership is suspicious about ambiguous allegations of contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The Mainstream Media even reports on such alleged contacts as ties.

Jeff Sessions neglected to answer to the Democrats satisfaction poorly constructed questions about two chance meetings he had with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Sessions is in hot water. Though Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, after tweeting that she has never met Mr. Kislyak, had to revise her tweets. Her own Twitter account revealed two meetings. Just like Mr. Sessions, she overlooked them. More recently, Mrs. Pelosi had to clarify her claim that she had never met Mr. Kislyak. A picture turned up showing her with him. In her clarification an aide to Mrs. Pelosi said, She has never had a private one-on-one with him. Well, if it were a private meeting I assume there would be no pictures.

On that occasion, Mrs. Pelosi was actually meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. So Democratic bigwigs do occasionally meet with Mr. Putins people. Which reminds me of President Obamas embarrassment with outgoing President Medvedev. Without knowing his microphone was on, the Democratic president told Mr. Medvedev to assure incoming President Putin that after the 2012 election he would have more flexibility in dealing with the Russians. Mr. Medvedev agreed, though Mr. Obama did not apparently find Mr. Putin so lovey-dovey.

So now the modern Russians are not as clubbable as the Democrats found the Russians of the Soviet era. They are not even as agreeable as Mr. Obama found them in 2012. Perhaps ordinary Americans, having read their history, can agree with me. These Democrats are mercurial. No wonder more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the country is in better hands with a real estate developer.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

Link:
Those mercurial Democrats - Washington Times

New York Times

Democrats Seek Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Election Interference New York Times Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the appointment of a special counsel was necessary to shield the inquiry from the appearance of political interference by the Trump administration. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times. Senate Democrats Blow Best Chance to Demand Special Russia ProsecutorThe Intercept Democrats grill Rod Rosenstein on RussiaBaltimore Sun Democrats call for special counsel during hearing for Sessions' would-be deputyCNN Chicago Tribune -STLtoday.com all 311 news articles »

More:
Democrats Seek Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Election Interference - New York Times