Lindsey Graham Is In Trouble

 There have long been rumors of a tightening in the race for Lindsey Graham’s South Carolina Senate seat. Those rumors were confirmed in a poll earlier this month that showed the race in a tie. Now the Cook Political Report is downgrading the race from Likely Republican to Lean Republican.

There are only two recent public polls in the race. A Gravis poll from mid-July had Graham leading Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison by seven points. Mere weeks later, Quinnipiac had the race in a 44-44 tie.

The rapid swing and scarcity of polling leave questions about the true state of the race, but Cook Political‘s Jessica Taylor notes that a favorable electoral climate and strong Democratic fundraising mean that Harrison’s attempt to unseat Graham is “no longer a long-shot, though the race fundamentals still give Graham an advantage.”

Fundraising is one of the few objective measures of determining the depth and commitment of a candidate’s base before Election Day and the figures from South Carolina underscore Graham’s peril. Harrison has outraised Graham for two consecutive quarters and the total raised by the two candidates is almost equal.

Taylor also notes that the current political climate is a good one for Democrats. The Coronavirus pandemic has stoked the electorate with anger and uncertainty and the Black Lives Matter protests have invigorated black voters, who make up more than a quarter of South Carolina’s population and who are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Jaime Harrison, a graduate of Yale and Georgetown Law who grew up in Orangeburg, is also black, a fact that may also help to rally support. If Harrison wins, South Carolina, the state that fired the first shots of the Civil War, would become the first state in history to be represented by two black senators at the same time.

Taylor also points out that there is more polling support for a close race than public polling would indicate. Two internal Democratic polls since early July found a two-point and a four-point lead for Graham.

These polls indicate that Graham is weak in the areas that cost Republicans the House in 2018. The data indicated that Harrison led Graham by 19 points among college-educated women and 7 points among suburban voters. Both demographics figured heavily in the blue wave from the midterms two years ago.

One factor in Harrison’s strong polling may be the fact that he began introducing himself to the state’s voters with positive, biographical television ads in early April. Graham did not respond until late May, allowing Harrison to define himself. Now, when Graham tries to paint Harrison as a radical leftist, the attacks are failing to stick.

Another factor is that Harrison does not seem to be a radical leftist. A Republican source told Cook’s that Harrison is running “a centrist Democratic campaign focused on dinner table issues that has captured a lot of disaffected moderates.” Centrist Democrats were another strong element of the 2018 “shellacking” of the GOP.

Graham also seems to be negatively affected by his strong association with Donald Trump, who often polls worse in the Palmetto State than Graham himself. Graham was long considered a RINO and reviled by Republican pundits as “Grahamesty,” but his independent streak disappeared as he rarely challenged or criticized President Trump. The Gravis poll that showed Graham up by seven showed that a plurality of voters thought he was too close to Trump.

Graham’s words from April have also come back to haunt him as the pandemic spread. The senator vowed last spring that the $600 enhanced unemployment payment would only be extended “over our dead bodies.” With more than 170,000 Americans dead from COVID-19, that sound bite doesn’t sound the way it once did and has become the basis for Harrison’s attack ads.

It is premature to say that Lindsey Graham will be evicted from his Senate seat this November, but conditions are ripe for an upset victory by Jaime Harrison. The race is one to watch closely, especially with the control of the Senate hanging in the balance of a handful of races.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Prank Phone Call Exposes Lindsey Graham’s Two Opposing Opinions Of Kurds

What are the odds that Russian pranksters would deceive Sen. Lindsey Graham into having a faux phone conversation with an ersatz Turkish defense minister only weeks before Turkey became an international pariah for its offensive against the formerly US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria? Believe it or not, in this case, the odds are 100 percent because, in another case of truth being stranger than satire, it happened.

Politico reports that Alexey Stolyarov and Vladimir Kuznetsov, two Russian hoaxers with suspected ties to Russian intelligence succeeded in getting Sen. Graham on the phone back in August, not once but twice. The pair, who go by the names “Lexus and Vovan,” convinced Graham that he was speaking to Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar. The duo’s call might have gone unnoticed except for the inconsistencies in their conversations with Graham and his public statements since the White House agreed to pave the way for the Turkish offensive by removing US troops.

Where Graham has been very critical of President Trump’s treatment of our Kurdish allies and calling for congressional action to sanction Turkey, the senator’s private comments to the fake Turkish minister conveyed a different message.

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1181941868206133248?s=20

In the call, Graham called to the Kurds as a “threat” and expressed sympathy for Turkey’s “Kurdish problem.” Graham referred to Kurdish military units that had been allied with the US in the fight against ISIS, saying, “Your YPG Kurdish problem is a big problem.” Turkey has labeled the Kurdish fighters terrorists because they want a separate Kurdish state.

“I told President Trump that Obama made a huge mistake in relying on the YPG Kurds,” Graham continued. “Everything I worried about has come true, and now we have to make sure Turkey is protected from this threat in Syria. I’m sympathetic to the YPG problem, and so is the president, quite frankly.”

President Trump expressed similar sentiments this week, telling reporters, “If you read today — a couple of reports saying that when President Obama started this whole thing. As you know, it was started by President Obama; he created a natural war with Turkey and their longtime enemy, PKK. And they’re still there.”

The PKK, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, is a separate marxist Kurdish group that has been fighting a separatist war against the Turkish government since 1984. Both Turkey and the US consider the PKK a terrorist group.  

In the second call, Graham also referred to the “Turkish bank” case of Reza Zarrab, a Turkish-Iranian businessman arrested in 2016 for helping Iran to violate sanctions. Zarrab’s release has been a high priority for Turkish president Erdogan. It was reported this week that President Trump pressured then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to interfere with the DOJ case on Zarrab’s behalf in 2017. Zarrab was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to 32 months in prison. Zarrab was also a client of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney.

“And this case involving the Turkish bank, he’s very sensitive to that,” Graham said of Trump during the prank call. “The president wants to be helpful, within the limits of his power.”

“We want a better relationship with Turkey. That’s exactly what he [Trump] wants,” Graham said, also asking that Turkey rethink the NATO ally’s purchase of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system from Russia. Graham also discussed getting Turkey added back as a customer of the US F-35 fighter aircraft program. Turkey was dropped as an F-35 customer in July after it accepted the Russian missile system.

A spokesman for Graham confirmed that the recording of the call was genuine, saying that it “slipped through the cracks” and “they got him.”

“It’s no secret Senator Graham has often traveled to Turkey and continued to speak with many members of Turkish government, including President Erdogan, about the relationship between our two countries," Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop added. "He has been clear he wants a stronger relationship and often talked about the importance of maintaining peace in northern Syria to prevent the reemergence of ISIS.”

"With Turkey’s invasion into northern Syria the drive for better relations between our two countries has suffered a body blow,” Bishop said. “Turkey should immediately withdraw their military forces and America should reinstitute the safe zone concept to keep the peace in the region. Until this is done, Senator Graham will continue to push for severe, biting sanctions against Turkey."

While I applaud Sen. Graham’s tough words to Turkey following Trump’s ill-considered retreat, I am concerned that Graham may have encouraged both Trump’s withdrawal and Turkey’s offensive by acknowledging that the Kurds represented a threat to Turkey. As to the discussion of Reza Zarrab, that seems very swampy.

Originally published on The Resurgent

After The Confirmation, Lindsey Graham Carries The Fight To Chuck Schumer

One of the most unexpected aspects of the Kavanaugh confirmation fight was Sen. Lindsey Graham’s emergence as a champion of the conservative right. Graham, a Republican senator representing South Carolina since 2003, has long been attacked as a “RINO” by Republicans, but now many Republicans are celebrating “Lindsey Graham 2.0.”

In the wake of the confirmation, Graham seems to be ready to continue in his newly aggressive persona. The next target of Senator Graham’s ire is none other than Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who Graham attacked on Fox News Sunday yesterday for politicizing the confirmation process.

Graham held up a list of judges to Chris Wallace and said, “This is a list that was compiled in November, but [Trump] actually put it out during the campaign.” The senator then rhetorically asked Schumer, who was not present, “There are twenty-something people on this list; I'm asking Chuck Schumer, name five, name three, name one that would be okay with you.”

“Brett Kavanaugh was a mainstream judge I would've chosen if I had been president. [Former President George W.] Bush supported him. Everybody running for president on our side believes that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were outstanding conservative jurists. The other side wants to cancel the election,” Graham said. “So, Chuck, you want someone new? Look at this list and see anybody you agree to, but what you want to do, Senator Schumer, is to overturn the election. We are not going to let you pick the judges. If you want to pick judges, then you need to win the White House. When Obama won that, I voted for two judges that he picked. So, Chuck Schumer, name one person on this list you think is acceptable.”

In fact, Brett Kavanaugh was first mentioned as a possible appointment to the Supreme Court by 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Kavanaugh’s name was circulated on an unofficial list of Supreme Court nominees circulated in October 2012 by the Romney campaign. President Trump’s first appointment to the Court, Neil Gorsuch, also made Romney’s short list.

Lindsey Graham first emerged as a hero to the Republicans who formerly reviled him on Sept. 27 when he delivered a fiery attack on Democrats after the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, who he called a “nice lady, who has come forward to tell a story that's uncorroborated.” Graham added, “I'm not going to reward people for playing a political game” by hiding the accusation until the end of the hearings to delay the confirmation vote.

A week later, Graham was back, telling a protester, “You've humiliated this guy enough and there seems to be no bottom for some of you.”

“Why don't we dunk him in water and see if he floats?” Graham added, alluding to an old method of testing women accused of being witches.

In the midst of the battle, Graham also became a popular meme. A picture posted to Twitter by Benny Johnson of the Daily Caller shows the smooth South Carolinian straightening his tie with a smile as an anti-Kavanaugh protester screams in the background.

Despite Graham’s newfound support for President Trump, his popularity among Republicans probably won’t last. Graham’s support for immigration reform once earned him the moniker “Grahamnesty” among the immigration hardliners who form Trump’s base. Like John McCain, Graham also has a history of crossing the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like climate change. So far, there is no indication that he has changed his mind on these issues.

“I’ve been applauded, and I’ve been a-booed,” Graham told reporters last week. “I know my day will come. I’ll do something that this moment in time will pass. I’ll talk about climate change and overturning Citizens United. These things come and go.”

For now, though, Graham is riding high in conservative circles and will help Republican candidates rally the base ahead of the midterm elections. “I've never campaigned against a colleague in my life,” Graham said, “but that's about to change. I'm going to go throughout this country to let people in these purple states, red states were Trump won, know what I thought, know what I think about this process.”

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Lindsey Graham: War With North Korea 'Becoming More Likely'

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) became the latest Republican to publicly acknowledge that war between the US and North Korea is becoming more and more likely. On “Face the Nation,” Graham said that the “policy of the Trump administration is to deny North Korea the capability to hit America with a nuclear-tipped missile.” Stopping the North Korean nuclear and missile programs would almost certainly require military action.

“We’re getting close to a military conflict because North Korea’s marching toward marrying up the technology of an ICBM with a nuclear weapon on top that cannot only get to America, but deliver the weapon,” said Graham, who serves on the Senate Armed Services committee. “We’re running out of time. McMaster said that yesterday. I’m going to urge the Pentagon not to send any more dependents to South Korea.”

“South Korea should be an unaccompanied tour,” Graham added. “It’s crazy to send spouses and children to South Korea, given the provocation of North Korea. So, I want them to stop sending dependents. And I think it’s now time to start moving American dependents out of South Korea.”

When asked how close the US was to war, Graham answered, “The intelligence community can tell you that better than I can, but I had an extensive discussion with the administration about this topic. The policy of the Trump administration is to deny North Korea the capability to hit America with a nuclear-tipped missile.”

“Not to contain it. Denial means preemptive war as a last resort,” Graham stressed. “That preemption is becoming more likely as their technology matures. Every missile test, every underground test of a nuclear weapon, means the marriage is more likely. I think we’re really running out of time.”

Graham warned, “If there’s an underground nuclear test, then you need to get ready for a very serious response by the United States.”

Graham said that he thinks that Congress should be talking about the possibility of pre-emptively striking North Korea. “I think the president, as inherent authority as commander-in-chief, has the ability to strike North Korea to protect the American homeland, but this discussion needs to happen among ourselves [in Congress].”

Graham’s comments come shortly after talk show host Joe Scarborough said that White House insiders have believed “that we are going to have a ground war in Korea… for a very long time.” In the past week, other members of the Trump Administration, including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, have similarly warned that war may be close.  

If the Trump Administration is determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear-armed missile that can target the United States, war might be the only option. North Korea “will not negotiate away its [nuclear] arsenal,” says Todd Rosenblum, a delegate to the Four Party talks with North Korea and China in the 1990s. “Few believe there is anything we, China or anyone else can offer the North to give up its strategic deterrent… on terms remotely viable to us.”

There is also no surgical option in North Korea. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned in July that war with North Korea would be “horrific” and “would be a loss of life unlike any we have experienced in our lifetimes, and I mean anyone who's been alive since World War II has never seen the loss of life that could occur if there's a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.”

Nevertheless, Dunford argued in September, “I think we should assume today that North Korea has that capability [to strike the continental US] and has a will to use that capability.”

China has warned that it will intervene to aid North Korea if the US launches a pre-emptive attack. In 1950, Chinese intervention in the first Korean conflict led to a stalemate with three years of heavy fighting.

“China prefers a damaged buffer state over one that collapses and ends as a part of a pro-West, unified border state with strong ties to Washington,” says Rosenblum.

The US and South Korea are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, a North Korea equipped with nuclear ICBMs is a direct threat to the United States. On the other, a pre-emptive strike would set off a long and bloody war that might also directly threaten the continental United States.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republican Senators Try a 'Hail Mary' On Obamacare

After their embarrassing failure to repeal and replace Obamacare over the summer, Republicans in the Senate are gearing up for a “Hail Mary” attempt to at least make a modicum of reforms to the health care law. The Senate, where the previous attempt to rein in Obamacare died, may vote on the last-gasp effort by the end of September.

As explained previously in The Resurgent, Republicans cannot fully repeal Obamacare without 60 votes. The previous attempt at reforming Obamacare fell apart over details of how the law’s subsidies should be treated and how to handle medical care for the uninsured. Moderate Republican support for the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid also caused serious problems in crafting a replacement bill.

The new bill, written by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), is much more modest than the failed American Healthcare Act. The proposal doesn’t completely repeal Obamacare, but does replace Obamacare’s tax subsidies with state block grants, repeals the individual mandate and scales back the Medicaid expansion.

“It's basically federalism where you just block grant the whole thing,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) told the Washington Examiner. “You block grant Obamacare back to the states. Just the whole thing.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated that he will bring the bill to the floor for a vote if at least 50 of the 52 Republican senators support it. At the moment, the bill is short of that mark, but Politico reports that it is gaining steam after Graham publicly lobbied President Trump and others. Estimates put Republican support for the bill at 48 or 49 senators.

The bill appears to be on a fast-track. The Washington Post reports that Republicans have already submitted it to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis. If the bill is not passed before the end of September, the Post notes that the authority to pass the legislation with a simple majority under budget reconciliation rules would expire. This would effectively kill any attempts to reform Obamacare until next year.

If the bill does pass the Senate, it faces an uncertain future in the House of Representatives. The previous bill, which originated in the House, had to be finely tuned to pass by a slim majority. Under budget reconciliation rules, the House would have to pass the Graham-Cassidy bill with no changes.

No Democrats are expected to support the bill. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted, “The Graham-Cassidy @SenateGOP ‘health care’ bill IS Trumpcare, & it will rip health care away from millions of Americans.”

As with the previous Obamacare reform bill, opposition to the bill is expected to come from the right as well as the left. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has announced that he will oppose the bill, calling it “Obamacare lite.” If Paul stands firm, the defection of any other Republican will doom the bill.

Paul’s stance against “Obamacare lite” begs the question of whether he and the Freedom Caucus would prefer the full version of Obamacare to an imperfect Republican reform bill. For the foreseeable future, those are the only two options. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

When You've Lost Republicans On Fox News, You've Lost Middle America

President Trump’s comments about the Charlottesville riot have drawn condemnation from all quarters of the country. The true extent of the political damage to the president is not fully known at this point, but Fox News host Shepard Smith offered a clue. According to Smith, Fox News, a channel normally friendly to Trump and Republicans, could not find a single Republican to defend Trump’s statements on the air.

“Our booking team — and they're good — reached out to Republicans of all stripes across the country today,” Smith said on his show Wednesday. “Let's be honest, Republicans don't often really mind coming on Fox News Channel. We couldn't get anyone to come and defend him here because we thought, in balance, someone should do that.”

“We worked very hard at it throughout the day, and we were unsuccessful,” Smith continued.

Throughout his short political career, the president has never had trouble finding Republicans to defend him. On issues from his connections to Russia to the Access Hollywood tape, there were always people willing to go on record to back Donald Trump and excuse his behavior.

While few, if any, Republicans are defending Trump, several are now condemning him by name. On Wednesday, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement, “Through his statements yesterday, President Trump took a step backward by again suggesting there is moral equivalency between the white supremacist neo-Nazis and KKK members who attended the Charlottesville rally and people like Ms. Heyer. I, along with many others, do not endorse this moral equivalency.”

“Many Republicans do not agree with and will fight back against the idea that the Party of Lincoln has a welcome mat out for the David Dukes of the world,” Graham continued.

In a tweet, John McCain (R-Ariz.) said, “There's no moral equivalency between racists & Americans standing up to defy hate& bigotry. The President of the United States should say so.”

Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) launched a series of tweets in which he said that the white supremacist organizers of the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville are “100% to blame for a number of reasons.”

“Mr. President,” Rubio tweeted, “you can't allow White Supremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain.”

The list of other Republicans breaking with Trump on the issue is growing. CNN reports that it now includes Corey Gardner (R-Col.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and John Kasich (R-Ohio).

While Republicans have largely stood by the president since his nomination, Trump’s behavior is increasingly becoming a liability to Republicans who must face voters themselves. This is especially true when Trump veers into the emotionally charged world of race.

One of the few things that unites almost all Americans is a hatred for racism and Nazis. With his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides,” Trump has put his administration and the Republican Party firmly on the wrong side of the issue.

The proof is the lack of Republicans willing to back the president on Charlottesville. When Republicans won’t go on Fox News to defend President Trump, he is in serious trouble.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Lindsey Graham Says He Was Surveilled By Obama Administration

Government surveillance of American citizens has been a controversial issue for years. It became more so this year when President Trump tweeted that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.” Trump never provided evidence of his claim, but now another Republican is coming forward to claim that he too may have been the subject of surveillance by the Obama Administration.

In an interview with Fox News, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he had “reason to believe” that he may have been surveilled and unmasked by Obama Administration officials. Graham believes that the surveillance was incidental and possibly resulted from his meetings with foreign leaders in his role as a senator.

“I have reason to believe that a conversation that I had was picked up with some foreign leader or some foreign person and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked,” Graham said. “I’ve been told that by people in the intelligence community. All I can say is that there are 1,950 collections on American citizens talking to people that were foreign agents being surveilled either by the CIA, the FBI or the NSA.”

“Here’s the concern,” Graham continued. “Did the people in the Obama Administration listen in to these conversations? Was there a politicizing of the intelligence gathering process? So, what I want to know: Of the 1,950 incidental collections on American citizens, how many of them involved presidential candidates, members of Congress from either party and if these conversations were unmasked, who made the request? Because I want to know everything there is about unmasking, how it works and who requested unmasking of conversations between foreign people and American members of Congress.”

If the Obama Administration was conducting purposeful surveillance on members of Congress, there is a possible violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution. Surveillance of political opponents could be used gather inside information on political strategies or even for blackmail.

“Now if you’ve got a reason to believe that a member of Congress is committing a crime, then you go get a warrant to follow us around like you would any other citizen,” Graham said. “But I meet with foreign leaders all the time. And I would be upset if any executive branch agency listened in on my conversations, because I’m in another branch of government.”

Graham said that he was not sure if his conversations were unmasked by Obama Administration officials. The senator sent letters to the FBI, CIA and NSA requesting the details of any surveillance that involved him.  

Graham is not the only Republican other than Trump who believes that he may have been under surveillance. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote in a letter to President Trump in April, “An anonymous source recently alleged to me that my name, as well as the names of other members of Congress, were unmasked, queried or both in intelligence reports or intercepts during the previous administration.”

The common thread among Trump, Paul and Graham is that all three were Republican presidential candidates in 2016. In May, Paul told the Washington Times, “There are rumors about other people who ran for president as well. I’m concerned not only for myself but for Americans in general.”

So far, there is no firm evidence that the Obama Administration acted improperly in conducting surveillance, but the claims by Trump, Paul and Graham do raise serious questions about surveillance technology and the oversight needed to prevent its abuse. The subject of surveillance of presidential candidates and members of Congress may come when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans say Sessions should recuse himself from Russia probe, call for special prosecutor

Russia ties may be about to claim another member of the Trump Administration. New reports by the FBI indicate that Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose meetings with the Russian Ambassador when directly questioned on the subject during his Senate confirmation hearings.

Sessions was asked by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

“Senator Franken I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it,” Sessions replied unequivocally.

Subsequent revelations from the FBI revealed Sessions’ answer to be untrue. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on at least two occasions. The first meeting was in Cleveland, Ohio during the Republican National Convention where then-Senator Sessions spoke at a Heritage Foundation event attended by several ambassadors. Kislyak and several other ambassadors approached Sessions after the speech for what a Sessions spokesperson called a “short and informal” conversation.

The second meeting occurred when Kislyak visited Sessions’ Senate office for an in-person meeting. A specific date for the meeting was not given, but it occurred sometime in 2016.

Sergei Kislyak was the same Russian official who had been in contact with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn was forced to resign in February after it was revealed that he had lied about his communications with the Russian ambassador.

After reports of the meeting broke, Sessions released a short statement on Twitter saying, “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.” The most recent statement is a subtle change from his earlier categorical denial of any meetings at all with the Russians.

As the revelations mount, Republicans are becoming more critical of the Trump Administration’s handling of the Russia investigation. Over the weekend, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a Trump supporter during the campaign, called for a special prosecutor, telling CNN, “You are right that you cannot have somebody, a friend of mine -- Jeff Sessions -- who was on the campaign and who was an appointee. You're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statute and office ... not just to recuse. You can't just give it to your deputy. That's a political appointee.”

Now Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is echoing that call. “There may be nothing there, but if there is something there, that the FBI believes is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor,” Graham told The Hill.

Graham added, “If there were contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, they may be legitimate; they may be OK. I want to know what happened between the Trump campaign, the Clinton campaign and the Russians.”

Earlier this morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted, “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.” Chaffetz is chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

As a senator on the Armed Services Committee, Sessions had legitimate contacts with numerous foreign officials. Nevertheless, it is troubling that he would deny meeting with Kislyak at a time when there is heightened sensitivity about contacts with the Russian government. Simply disclosing the meetings would have led to fewer questions than failing to do so has done.

There are now two big questions to be answered. First, why did Sessions meet with Kislyak in the first place? Second, why did he lie about it?

As with Flynn, Sessions’ obviously false statement cuts to the core of his credibility and leaves his integrity in question. Can America trust an attorney general who lied about meeting with the representative of hostile foreign power?

 It is possible that Sessions misspoke in his answer to Franken or forgot about the meeting, but these explanations have their own problems. Given Flynn’s problems with Russia, Sessions had a duty to make himself clear on his own meetings with Russia, whether or not they involved the campaign. Knowing that the subject was sure to come up, he should have researched his own contacts to refresh his memory. Instead, Sessions volunteered the information, beyond the scope of Franken’s question, that he had never met with the Russians. Even if it was an innocent mistake, his integrity and honesty are now seriously questioned.

The scandal of contacts between the members of the Trump campaign and the Russians is growing larger rather than going away. Loss of trust can be especially damaging for an administration that has promised to fight corruption and “drain the swamp.” Members of the Trump Administration should learn a lesson that Hillary Clinton never seemed to understand: The cover-up is often more damaging that the act itself. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

The truth about Republicans and amnesty

Whenever the subject of immigration reform comes up, a charge that is certain to be bandied about is that Republicans are trying to foist amnesty on the country. Almost every Republican of note has been accused of supporting amnesty at some point in recent years. Are these charges true? What is the truth about the Republicans and amnesty?

First, what is amnesty? Merriam Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Similarly, Merriam Webster defines “pardon” as the “act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished.” Is this what prominent Republicans are advocating?

Perhaps no name is more synonymous with amnesty charges than John McCain. The Arizona senator has long been a proponent of immigration reform. During the George W. Bush Administration, McCain fought for the Bush-backed reform efforts of 2005 and 2007. Opponents accuse McCain of saying that “not granting amnesty” is a “stain on America’s honor” and that it will require “open borders” for Republicans to defeat Hillary in 2016 among other examples.

Both examples cited above from Breitbart include sources for their claims. In the first example, McCain was responding to a question. His unedited answer is as follows (starting at 43:30 on this video):

“I think that the Republican Party will never win another nationwide election unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform. That’s not the reason why I support this reform. I support it because there’s 11 million people living in the shadows in this country without the rights and privileges of citizenry and they’re being abused every day and they can contribute an enormous amount to our society just as the Irish and the Poles and the Jews and the Italians and every other wave that came to this country contributed to it.

“The point is that if you’ve got 11 million people living in this country illegally, there’s not enough buses to deport them, then it’s de facto amnesty…. You know, they’re not going home, okay? They’re not going home. And so why don’t we give them a path to citizenship, and my friends, if you look at that legislation, it is tough. It’s 10 years before they get a green card, thousands of dollars in fees. This is no amnesty. It’s really tough. But if you keep these people in the shadows in this nation, it is a stain on America’s honor. By the way, I am insistent on one thing and that is, when we pass it, and I still think we will one of these days, it will be named the Edward M. Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill.”

In his own words, McCain points out that the illegal aliens are not being pardoned, that they will instead pay thousands of dollars in fines and endure a 10 year waiting period. In the other example from Breitbart, it doesn’t even take a trip to the source link to determine that McCain never uttered the words “open borders,” but had again merely advocated immigration reform. The authors of the two pieces took it upon themselves to put words into McCain’s mouth, substituting the phrases “amnesty” and “open borders” for the more accurate phrase that McCain had actually used: “immigration reform.”

What is John McCain’s position on immigration reform? According to On the Issues, McCain has advocated securing the border first and then implementing a guest worker program. He supported Arizona’s immigration law in 2010. As noted earlier, he supports a path to citizenship, but not amnesty. McCain has voted to make English the official language of the U.S., to build a border fence, and against a bill requiring health care for illegal aliens.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is another frequent target of immigration reform opponents. He is often derided by his critics as “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” When it comes to backing up the charges that Graham is an amnesty supporter, again the evidence seems to fall short.

For example, a 2013 Breitbart article says that Graham said that “amnesty” was the only way to prevent a “demographic death spiral.” A closer look at the article, however, reveals that Graham ‘s words addressed immigration reform, not amnesty. Graham’s opinion has merit. While Republicans do very well among white voters, the share of white voters in the electorate has declined markedly. In the Obama era, Republicans have had a notoriously poor performance among minority voters and this has cost them elections. Examiner’s analysis of 2012 exit polls found that immigration was one of the most damaging issues for Republicans and may have cost Mitt Romney the election.

Marco Rubio, Florida senator and former darling of the Tea Party movement, is now often derided as a RINO and amnesty supporter. The break seems to have occurred in January 2013 when Rubio proposed an immigration reform plan that fell short of deportation for all illegal immigrants. Examiner noted at the time that Rubio’s plan called for securing the border as well as increasing legal immigration.

Rubio would have dealt with illegal aliens by encouraging them to come forward and undergo background checks. Illegals with serious criminal histories would be deported. Those with clean background checks would pay fines, back taxes, do community service work and be subjected to a long waiting period before they would be eligible for citizenship.

Another frequent target of the anti-amnesty crowd is Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee. Any linkage of Ryan to amnesty seems very tenuous. A January 2014 article on Twitchy claimed that Ryan “wants amnesty first, border security second. “ This claim is sourced to a Washington Post article that details a Ryan interview on MSNBC.

In the interview, Ryan says that under a House Republican plan for immigration, current illegals would be granted “probationary status to make sure that a person is not rewarded for having broken our laws and not preferenced over people who did follow the laws, meaning legal immigrants.” When asked if citizenship is on the table, Ryan replies, “What I’m saying is that you’ve got to make sure this isn’t amnesty.” Ryan goes on to say that “we feel very strongly about securing the border” and how Republican distrust of Obama means that “we need to write a law that he can’t avoid.” Ryan specifically rejects an amnesty.

More generally, a 2013 article by Rich Lowry in National Review asks, “Does the Republican establishment support amnesty?” Lowry promptly answers “you bet” and cites this article in Time. What Lowry neglects to mention is that the Republican National Committee resolution discussed in the article specifically rejects a pathway to citizenship while calling for increased border security and law enforcement patrols. The resolution called for work permits for current illegal aliens, but no citizenship and no amnesty.

Once again, it is apparent that the anti-immigration reform activists are taking words out of context and twisting the meaning to tar Republican representatives with the amnesty brush. Anti-reform crusaders might not believe that bills under consideration are harsh enough on illegal immigrants, but, by definition, they are not amnesty because they would force illegal aliens to pay fines and undergo background checks and waiting periods. As Ryan noted, Republican proposals also include a probationary period for illegal aliens who choose to come forward.

Republicans and Tea Party supports would do well to note the facts about Republicans accused of amnesty and question why those who fraudulently throw out the charge of amnesty feel the need to twist the facts and lie about their fellow conservatives. Politicians, talk show hosts and news outlets that sow such division should be remembered and avoided.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

If you disagree and would like to provide specific evidence about Republican support for amnesty, contact me on Facebook or Twitter

In search of Senate RINOs

Of late the Republican Party has become distracted from the battle against Obamacare by an intraparty witch hunt for RINOs, shorthand for “Republicans in name only.” It is believed by many that the RINOs are destroying the party and undermining the efforts of “true conservatives” to stymie Barack Obama and his Democratic minions. Join us then as we go on safari to the Senate to hunt the fabled Republican RINO.

When RINOs are discussed, the name of John McCain (R-Ariz.) is usually at the top of the list. The list of grievances against McCain is long and includes belief in global warming, putting his name on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that was struck down in the Citizens United ruling, and even voting to consider new gun control measures this year. McCain has long been a moderate Republican who was willing to reach across the aisle. In 2005, he was a member of the Gang of 14 and in 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry offered McCain the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket. McCain told the New York Times in 2008 that Kerry was “a liberal Democrat” and “I am a conservative Republican. So… that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

But is McCain a conservative? Several conservative organizations provide scorecards on how members of Congress rate based on actual votes. The most famous of these is the American Conservative Union. On that scorecard, McCain has a lifetime average of 82.84 out of a possible 100. In 2012, he scored 92. (The Republican average was 77.83 percent. The overall Senate average was 39.28 percent.) The Club for Growth ranked McCain at 85 percent overall and 90 percent in 2012. On the Freedomworks scorecard, McCain scored 44. (Of the 45 Republican senators, only seven scored 90 or better on the Freedomworks scale. The Republican average was 68 and most Democrats scored zero.)

President Reagan famously said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” Using the Reagan standard, John McCain is a friend and ally of conservatives. As confirmation, McCain is listed as an ACU Conservative, a title bestowed on senators with scores higher than 80.

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is Senate minority leader and also often considered a RINO. In the deal that ended the recent government shutdown, McConnell was accused of securing a $3 billion earmark to build a dam on the Ohio River near Paducah, Ky. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) have since said that they, not McConnell, requested the appropriation in order to avoid canceling contracts that would cost taxpayers $160 million.

When it comes to the scorecards, McConnell gets a 90.09 lifetime average from the ACU with a score of 100 for 2012. The Club for Growth gives him a 74 for 2012 and lifetime 84. He gets a 71 from Freedomworks. McConnell, who faces reelection in 2014, would meet Reagan’s 80 percent rule. Sen. McConnell is listed as a Defender of Liberty by the American Conservative Union, confirming his 100 for 2012.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has also been frequently tagged as a RINO. Graham called for an end to the government shutdown in mid-October and has been accused of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens because he favors immigration reform.

Graham earned an 89.12 lifetime average from the ACU with a 92 in 2012. According to the Club for Growth scale, he has a lifetime score of 77 and an 86 for 2012. He scores a 41 on the Freedomworks scale. Graham, who is also running for reelection in 2014, is also listed as an ACU Conservative.

Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from the blue state of New Hampshire, earned a lifetime 85.5 from the ACU with a 76 in 2012. The Club for Growth gives her a lifetime 92 and an 86 in 2012. She gets a 59 from Freedomworks. Ayotte’s 76 score is not good enough to be labeled as a conservative by the ACU, but it is still markedly better than the Democratic senator from New Hampshire, Jeane Shaheen, who scored zero in 2012 and has a lifetime average of 4.5.

Georgia’s two Republican senators are also alleged RINOs. The retiring Saxby Chambliss has a 92.03 lifetime ACU score while Johnny Isakson is at 87.57. Their Club for Growth scores are 83 and 78 percent respectively. Chambliss received a 47 from Freedomworks, while Isakson scored 47.

As a comparison, the lowest Republican on the ACU survey was Susan Collins (R-Maine) with 20 percent. Her score was less James Webb (D-Va.), the highest Democrat at 32 percent. Olympia Snowe, also a Maine Republican, also had 32 percent.

Even though Collins can be fairly described as a RINO, she does have saving graces for Republicans. Writing on Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy points out that she is pro-gun and is rated B-plus by the NRA. She also voted against Obamacare, for the Bush tax cuts and their extension, for the Iraq War resolution, and is generally pro-military. She is also a fiscal conservative who supports a balanced budget amendment and spending caps.

Tea Partiers should be leery of ousting moderate Republicans like Collins. When fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe retired in 2012, she was replaced by independent Angus King. The Maine Sun Journal reported last May that King voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time. A dozen Democrats have broken with the party more often than King.

A review of 2005 list of RINOs in Human Events yields similar results in other states. The top ten list includes four senators (including Collins and Snowe), four representatives, and two governors (including then-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney). Of the ten, only Susan Collins is still serving. Of the remaining nine, only one, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who later switched parties, was replaced by another Republican. In the other eight cases, the RINOs were replaced by authentic Democrats. One, Mike Castle, a popular Delaware Republican, was defeated in the Republican primary for Joe Biden’s senate seat in 2010. He lost to Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party favorite, who subsequently lost to Democrat Chris Coons amid revelations of her experiments with Wicca.

Republicans would do well to look at the voting records of elected officials before writing them off as RINOs. Many of the senators often derided as “liberal” Republicans are actually among the most conservative members of Congress. Others represent blue or purple states where a staunch conservative could not win.

There are worse things than having liberal Republicans in Congress. They could be Democrats.

 

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner