Category: Elad Hakim

209154.png

Dianne Feinstein's Mind-Boggling Decision


During a recent television interview on MSNBC, Elie Mystal opined that “if Kavanaugh succeeds, it is a moral failing of the process.”  Mystal is right in one respect: there was a moral failure.  However, it has nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh or the Republicans.  Rather, the “moral” failure is solely attributable to Dianne Feinstein.

During Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, some Senate Democrats complained that they were not given numerous documents regarding Judge Kavanaugh (i.e., the entire record).  They asked to delay the hearing until such time as the records were produced.  However, at the same time that they were crying foul, Dianne Feinstein secretly withheld a document she allegedly received in July and did not disclose until after the hearing was over.

This “gotcha” eleventh-hour disclosure is yet another chapter in the interminable and embarrassing confirmation process.  The fact that it was first disclosed after the hearing and before the vote (although Feinstein knew about it in July) renders the timing and the motivation behind the disclosure suspicious.  Further fueling this feeling of skepticism is the Democrats’ stated desire to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the fact that some Democrats have refused to objectively consider any of President Trump’s nominees.  (“Some Democrats said they don’t have to wait for President Trump to pick a Supreme Court nominee – they’re voting ‘no’ regardless of who [sic] he names.”)

While Mystal asserts that Kavanaugh’s success would signify a moral failing, his objectivity is a bit elusive, given some of his recent comments.  In a recent article, Mystal stated: “Process is missing because Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump: one of the laziest men in the entire country, and almost certainly the laziest man to ever inhabit the office of the President of the United States.  Kavanaugh was not carefully ‘vetted’ by an executive operation that cares about the integrity of the third branch of government.  Trump and his dysfunctional White House are incapable of such tasks.”

Mystal further stated that “Kavanaugh was vetted by the Republicans in the United States Senate.  That body is also not concerned about the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court … one might argue that the Senate should be.  But this is the same group of people who refused to meet with a qualified nominee based on allegations that he was nominated by Barack Obama.  The Senate wouldn’t recognize integrity if it set itself on fire on the Senate floor.”

While Mystal is entitled to his opinions about the president and Republicans, this is not a question about vetting.  Dianne Feinstein had this information for months and did not disclose it.  Kavanaugh went through days of intense questioning by Republican and Democratic senators.  During that time period, not one senator asked about this alleged incident.  While some senators might claim they did not know about it, Feinstein did, and she did not think it was important enough to raise or to share with her colleagues.  According to an article in The New Yorker:

For several days, Feinstein declined requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s letter and other relevant communications.  A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.”

There is no conceivable reason why Feinstein did not ask Kavanaugh about this alleged incident before, or during, the confirmation hearing.  If she was concerned about Kavanaugh’s character, she had an obligation to ask him about this alleged incident.  If she was worried about the individual’s privacy, she could have simply redacted the person’s name.  Members of the Judiciary Committee should be furious with her decision to withhold the information.

Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation.  “We couldn’t understand what their rationale is for not briefing members on this.  This is all very weird,” one of the congressional sources said.  Another added, “She’s had the letter since late July.  And we all just found out about it.”

Dianne Feinstein’s decision to withhold this information from the committee was significant.  The senators should have had the opportunity to thoroughly question Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearing.  His possible life appointment to the bench and the cases he will be deciding call for a judge of the highest ethical and moral standards.  By failing to disclose this information early on, Feinstein did a disservice to herself, her colleagues, and the American public.

Mr. Hakim is a writer and a lawyer.  His articles have been published in The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, World Net Daily, and other online publications.

https://thoughtfullyconservative.wordpress.com

Twitter: @Elad3599

During a recent television interview on MSNBC, Elie Mystal opined that “if Kavanaugh succeeds, it is a moral failing of the process.”  Mystal is right in one respect: there was a moral failure.  However, it has nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh or the Republicans.  Rather, the “moral” failure is solely attributable to Dianne Feinstein.

During Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, some Senate Democrats complained that they were not given numerous documents regarding Judge Kavanaugh (i.e., the entire record).  They asked to delay the hearing until such time as the records were produced.  However, at the same time that they were crying foul, Dianne Feinstein secretly withheld a document she allegedly received in July and did not disclose until after the hearing was over.

This “gotcha” eleventh-hour disclosure is yet another chapter in the interminable and embarrassing confirmation process.  The fact that it was first disclosed after the hearing and before the vote (although Feinstein knew about it in July) renders the timing and the motivation behind the disclosure suspicious.  Further fueling this feeling of skepticism is the Democrats’ stated desire to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the fact that some Democrats have refused to objectively consider any of President Trump’s nominees.  (“Some Democrats said they don’t have to wait for President Trump to pick a Supreme Court nominee – they’re voting ‘no’ regardless of who [sic] he names.”)

While Mystal asserts that Kavanaugh’s success would signify a moral failing, his objectivity is a bit elusive, given some of his recent comments.  In a recent article, Mystal stated: “Process is missing because Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump: one of the laziest men in the entire country, and almost certainly the laziest man to ever inhabit the office of the President of the United States.  Kavanaugh was not carefully ‘vetted’ by an executive operation that cares about the integrity of the third branch of government.  Trump and his dysfunctional White House are incapable of such tasks.”

Mystal further stated that “Kavanaugh was vetted by the Republicans in the United States Senate.  That body is also not concerned about the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court … one might argue that the Senate should be.  But this is the same group of people who refused to meet with a qualified nominee based on allegations that he was nominated by Barack Obama.  The Senate wouldn’t recognize integrity if it set itself on fire on the Senate floor.”

While Mystal is entitled to his opinions about the president and Republicans, this is not a question about vetting.  Dianne Feinstein had this information for months and did not disclose it.  Kavanaugh went through days of intense questioning by Republican and Democratic senators.  During that time period, not one senator asked about this alleged incident.  While some senators might claim they did not know about it, Feinstein did, and she did not think it was important enough to raise or to share with her colleagues.  According to an article in The New Yorker:

For several days, Feinstein declined requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman’s letter and other relevant communications.  A source familiar with the committee’s activities said that Feinstein’s staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members’ offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had “taken care of it.”

There is no conceivable reason why Feinstein did not ask Kavanaugh about this alleged incident before, or during, the confirmation hearing.  If she was concerned about Kavanaugh’s character, she had an obligation to ask him about this alleged incident.  If she was worried about the individual’s privacy, she could have simply redacted the person’s name.  Members of the Judiciary Committee should be furious with her decision to withhold the information.

Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman’s privacy, but that they didn’t understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation.  “We couldn’t understand what their rationale is for not briefing members on this.  This is all very weird,” one of the congressional sources said.  Another added, “She’s had the letter since late July.  And we all just found out about it.”

Dianne Feinstein’s decision to withhold this information from the committee was significant.  The senators should have had the opportunity to thoroughly question Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearing.  His possible life appointment to the bench and the cases he will be deciding call for a judge of the highest ethical and moral standards.  By failing to disclose this information early on, Feinstein did a disservice to herself, her colleagues, and the American public.

Mr. Hakim is a writer and a lawyer.  His articles have been published in The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, World Net Daily, and other online publications.

https://thoughtfullyconservative.wordpress.com

Twitter: @Elad3599



Source link

208145.png

Is CNN proving President Trump's point?


Recently, “[m]ore than 300 newspapers published editorials on the dangers of President Trump and his administration’s verbal assault on the press.” Many of these media outlets took exception to the fact that the president referred to them as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” and accused the president of engaging in a propaganda war against legitimate news sites. “This dirty war on the free press must end,” Marjorie Pritchard, the Boston Globe‘s editorial page deputy managing editor said in a statement obtained by ABC News. “It calls for urgent action by those committed to free speech and the free press to stand against a White House and its allies who are bent on eroding a pillar of an informed democracy.”  

In a sense, the various media outlets that participated in the “editorial blitz” against President Trump were well within their right to do so as long as they did not violate any laws. After all, the media serves a vital purpose in our free society and the work that journalists do should be respected on most occasions. However, when a media outlet makes a mistake, publishes a story that is based on questionable sources, or discovers that a story in not true, it should redact or correct the story so as to remain credible.

Several weeks ago, CNN published an anonymously sourced report stating that President Trump allegedly knew about the “Trump Tower meeting” ahead of time. Subsequently, Michael Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, admitted that he was the source of this information and indicated that he was wrong to imply that he could prove such a thing. According to Davis: “I regret not being much clearer in saying I’m not sure about this story… It’s a major mistake for which I am 100 percent sorry. Period. I never should have done it unless I was certain and could prove it.”  

Despite this obvious bombshell, CNN continues to stand by its reporting, leading some to question the network’s credibility. For example, Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Glenn Greenwald, founder of The Intercept. According to Greenwald: “They can’t retract the story and they can’t admit they lied… So they are continuing to stick to what everybody knows is a lie, but not many people care because people think — a lot of people, anyway — that it was done for the right political agenda.” 

Carlson also asked Greenwald whether CNN had an obligation to its viewers to explain what is going on relative to this story. “Journalists rightly demand transparency from powerful institutions, that’s our job,” Greenwald replied. “But how can CNN have any credibility to do that when you call them and ask them what happened here, as I did, and everyone else did, and they say, ‘Talk to our PR spokesperson,’ who then refuses to answer any questions. They have zero credibility if they don’t provide transparency themselves.”

Despite Mr. Davis’ retractions, CNN continues to stand by its story and to assert that “CNN does not lie.” While the network published a new report acknowledging Mr. Davis’ change of heart,” the new report did not explain why the original report asserted that Mr. Davis declined comment when he was actually used as a source. Donald Trump, Jr. took issue with this and issued a blistering statement: “CNN you just lied again by saying you don’t lie. You said Lanny Davis declined to comment when he was in fact a source.” “Are you kidding me with this BS. Do you have any journalistic credibility at all? I mean seriously??? You’re a joke!!!” 

Credibility is a very interesting, yet delicate, phenomenon. It is very difficult to earn/establish, yet very easy to lose. In this case, CNN brought this firestorm on itself and cannot blame the president, Republicans, or forces of nature. Moreover, given this recent controversy, the network cannot question why President Trump uses terms like “fake news” when describing some in the media.

What is even more unfortunate for CNN is that, once your credibility is questioned, much of what you say is also looked at with skepticism. For example, CNN recently suspended political analyst Paris Dennard after Mr. Dennard voiced his support of the president’s decision to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance. CNN attributed the suspension to allegations in a Washington Post article stating that Dennard was fired from a job at Arizona State University “for making sexually explicit comments and gestures towards women.” However, the timing of the suspension raised some eyebrows given that it occurred shortly after Mr. Dennard made his comments supporting the president’s decision. Said Denard, “”This is sadly another politically motivated attempt to besmirch my character, and shame me into silence for my support of President Trump and the GOP.” Is it possible that Dennard was suspended because of his political stance?

The media serves a vital role. With this role comes responsibility. CNN printed a story allegedly based on a source who subsequently recanted his statements. At that time, the network should have simply recanted the story. By failing to do so, it put its credibility in serious jeopardy, and substantiated some of President Trump’s comments and concerns

Mr. Hakim’s articles have been published in The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, World Net Daily, and other online publications.  

Twitter: @Elad3599

https://thoughtfullyconservative.wordpress.com

Recently, “[m]ore than 300 newspapers published editorials on the dangers of President Trump and his administration’s verbal assault on the press.” Many of these media outlets took exception to the fact that the president referred to them as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” and accused the president of engaging in a propaganda war against legitimate news sites. “This dirty war on the free press must end,” Marjorie Pritchard, the Boston Globe‘s editorial page deputy managing editor said in a statement obtained by ABC News. “It calls for urgent action by those committed to free speech and the free press to stand against a White House and its allies who are bent on eroding a pillar of an informed democracy.”  

In a sense, the various media outlets that participated in the “editorial blitz” against President Trump were well within their right to do so as long as they did not violate any laws. After all, the media serves a vital purpose in our free society and the work that journalists do should be respected on most occasions. However, when a media outlet makes a mistake, publishes a story that is based on questionable sources, or discovers that a story in not true, it should redact or correct the story so as to remain credible.

Several weeks ago, CNN published an anonymously sourced report stating that President Trump allegedly knew about the “Trump Tower meeting” ahead of time. Subsequently, Michael Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, admitted that he was the source of this information and indicated that he was wrong to imply that he could prove such a thing. According to Davis: “I regret not being much clearer in saying I’m not sure about this story… It’s a major mistake for which I am 100 percent sorry. Period. I never should have done it unless I was certain and could prove it.”  

Despite this obvious bombshell, CNN continues to stand by its reporting, leading some to question the network’s credibility. For example, Tucker Carlson recently interviewed Glenn Greenwald, founder of The Intercept. According to Greenwald: “They can’t retract the story and they can’t admit they lied… So they are continuing to stick to what everybody knows is a lie, but not many people care because people think — a lot of people, anyway — that it was done for the right political agenda.” 

Carlson also asked Greenwald whether CNN had an obligation to its viewers to explain what is going on relative to this story. “Journalists rightly demand transparency from powerful institutions, that’s our job,” Greenwald replied. “But how can CNN have any credibility to do that when you call them and ask them what happened here, as I did, and everyone else did, and they say, ‘Talk to our PR spokesperson,’ who then refuses to answer any questions. They have zero credibility if they don’t provide transparency themselves.”

Despite Mr. Davis’ retractions, CNN continues to stand by its story and to assert that “CNN does not lie.” While the network published a new report acknowledging Mr. Davis’ change of heart,” the new report did not explain why the original report asserted that Mr. Davis declined comment when he was actually used as a source. Donald Trump, Jr. took issue with this and issued a blistering statement: “CNN you just lied again by saying you don’t lie. You said Lanny Davis declined to comment when he was in fact a source.” “Are you kidding me with this BS. Do you have any journalistic credibility at all? I mean seriously??? You’re a joke!!!” 

Credibility is a very interesting, yet delicate, phenomenon. It is very difficult to earn/establish, yet very easy to lose. In this case, CNN brought this firestorm on itself and cannot blame the president, Republicans, or forces of nature. Moreover, given this recent controversy, the network cannot question why President Trump uses terms like “fake news” when describing some in the media.

What is even more unfortunate for CNN is that, once your credibility is questioned, much of what you say is also looked at with skepticism. For example, CNN recently suspended political analyst Paris Dennard after Mr. Dennard voiced his support of the president’s decision to revoke John Brennan’s security clearance. CNN attributed the suspension to allegations in a Washington Post article stating that Dennard was fired from a job at Arizona State University “for making sexually explicit comments and gestures towards women.” However, the timing of the suspension raised some eyebrows given that it occurred shortly after Mr. Dennard made his comments supporting the president’s decision. Said Denard, “”This is sadly another politically motivated attempt to besmirch my character, and shame me into silence for my support of President Trump and the GOP.” Is it possible that Dennard was suspended because of his political stance?

The media serves a vital role. With this role comes responsibility. CNN printed a story allegedly based on a source who subsequently recanted his statements. At that time, the network should have simply recanted the story. By failing to do so, it put its credibility in serious jeopardy, and substantiated some of President Trump’s comments and concerns

Mr. Hakim’s articles have been published in The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Western Journal, American Thinker, World Net Daily, and other online publications.  

Twitter: @Elad3599

https://thoughtfullyconservative.wordpress.com



Source link