The re-weaponization of the IRS

Figure 1: 45th President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump.

Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. And from November 9th on the Demorat, Leftist and American Media Maggot side, insanity reigned supreme. To this day. To this second.

We saw the IRS weaponized against Conservatives and, specifically, the TEA Party (so few remember what TEA stood for: “Taxed Enough Already.”) beginning in 2010 when the Obama/Lois Lerner Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status.

This wasn’t just specious bong water. (Hey, doesn’t that sound like the name of some new garage band?) Court documents showed it. In a 27 month span, over 300 Conservative groups were targeted and not one of them — in the Obama Administration, under Lois Lerner as Director of the Exempt Organizations — not one of them was able to acquire tax exempt status. Why? Power and political bias. But wait; there’s more. Another specific person was involved.

Remember when the IRS’s Lois Lerner took the fifth with regard to the issue?

But what does that mean? And why would you not want any of your testimony revealed for any reason whatsoever? How is it that your testimony is any more valuable or worthy of redaction or elimination than that of anyone else? Does that not demand the questions “What are you hiding and why are you hiding it?”

So what happened to various TEA Party groups?

There’s a massive clue. The ACLJ — American Center for Law and Justice, under Jay Sekulow, sued the IRS. Then there was this in 2017 from Reuters.com:

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

(Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

In a pair of lawsuits filed in federal court in 2013, the conservative groups accused the IRS of targeting organizations with such words as “Tea Party” or “patriots” when they applied to the agency for tax-exempt status starting in 2010.

The sides asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday to issue a declarative judgment in one of the cases involving 41 plaintiffs that would say the IRS was wrong to apply the United States tax laws based on an entity’s name, position or association with a particular political movement.

“We hope that today’s settlement makes clear that this abuse of power will not be tolerated,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Thursday.

More importantly:

The IRS admitted it was wrong when it based screenings of the groups’ applications on their names or policy positions, subjected the groups to heightened scrutiny and delays and demanded unnecessary information from the groups, the agreement in the Washington case said.

The IRS “expresses its sincere apology,” it said.

Senior management within the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division “was delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations,” the settlement document said.

A request to halt the other case, a class action suit involving 428 members, was filed in a federal court in Ohio.

Republicans claimed the targeting of conservative groups showed political bias in the IRS under former Democratic President Barack Obama. House Republican investigators found no connection to the Obama administration, according to a 2014 report.

More pointedly:

But the report did blame IRS officials for mistreating conservative organizations who sought tax-exempt status and that IRS officials covered up the misconduct and misled Congress.

The officials included former Commissioner Douglas Shulman, former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, and Lois Lerner, the former head of the unit overseeing applications for tax-exempt status.

Bottom line?

No criminal charges were ever filed against IRS officials.

Why would there? No bias here. Nothing to see. Move along. This isn’t the corruption you’re looking for under the first actual black president of the United States.

The situation led to this, where Commissioner John Koskinen was rightly accused of running the “most corrupt and deceitful IRS in history.”

It took years, but finally:

Jay Sekulow: Victory! IRS admits Tea Party, other conservative groups were targets during Obama era

by Jay Sekulow

It took many years to resolve. But I am delighted to report that we have just obtained a resounding victory in our legal challenge to the IRS’s political targeting of conservative organizations.

In an unprecedented victorious conclusion to our four year-long legal battle against the IRS, the bureaucratic agency has just admitted in federal court that it wrongfully targeted Tea Party and conservative groups during the Obama administration because of their political viewpoints and issued an apology to our clients for doing so. In addition, the IRS is consenting to a court order that would prohibit it from ever engaging in this form of unconstitutional discrimination in the future.

In a proposed Consent Order filed with the Court yesterday, the IRS has apologized for its treatment of our clients — 36 Tea Party and other conservative organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS between 2009 and 2012 — during the tax-exempt determinations process. Crucially, following years of denial by the IRS and blame-shifting by IRS officials, the agency now expressly admits that its treatment of our clients was wrong.

Reuters reported:

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

(Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

In a pair of lawsuits filed in federal court in 2013, the conservative groups accused the IRS of targeting organizations with such words as “Tea Party” or “patriots” when they applied to the agency for tax-exempt status starting in 2010.

The sides asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday to issue a declarative judgment in one of the cases involving 41 plaintiffs that would say the IRS was wrong to apply the United States tax laws based on an entity’s name, position or association with a particular political movement.

Along with digging and suits administered by the ACLJ, there was another element to the weaponization of the IRS, and that was John McCain. It’s no secret that I am not an admirer of McCain, a “Republican” who was one of the most dishonest men in politics. I would have respected McCain had he been candid and clear by changing his (R) to a (D), which he truly was. He actually threatened to do so in 2010 because he wasn’t getting his way. Tantrums.

I’m sure his family at least tolerated him at home, he didn’t set stray kittens on fire (although it’s admittedly difficult to prove a negative), and he was never caught acting like an actual Conservative. That much is true.

But in addition, it was John McCain who in fact helped to weaponize the IRS against TEA Party operations.

Judicial Watch reveals the following via the WashingtonTimes.com:

McCain’s office urged IRS to use audits as weapons to destroy political advocacy groups – UPDATED

A new report from Judicial Watch reveals a concerted effort from Sen. John McCain’s office to urge the IRS under Lois Lerner to strike out against political advocacy groups, including tea party organizations.

Thanks to the results of an extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that has been delayed for many years, Judicial Watch has obtained several key emails from 2013 that chronicle McCain’s and Democrat Sen. Carl Levin’s efforts to reign in the advocacy groups that sprouted immediately following the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court.

Let’s be clear. McCain didn’t get his way with the Supreme Court in re McCain-Feingold.

The point of this post isn’t about the McCain-Feingold bill. It was about McCain’s reaction to the SCOTUS decision. And McCain’s willingness to light the ass of the IRS on fire and set it on TEA Party. Weaponizing the IRS.

Watch McCain’s reaction regarding what he perceives to be his personal loss at SCOTUS. Because, as you know, it’s all about McCain.

McCain-Feingold was invalidated by the Supreme Court. Say what you will about his bill, McCain took it — like everything else in his political life — personally. McCain then somehow concluded it was time to tender a steaming dump on TEA Party groups because he was foiled.

The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include notes from a high-level meeting on April 30, 2013 between powerful members of McCain’s and Levin’s staffs and Lerner, then-director of tax exempt organizations at the IRS under Barack Obama. The notes reveal the suggestions from McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner who urges Lerner to use IRS audits on the advocacy groups to financially ruin them.

Because if McCain couldn’t have his, you couldn’t have yours. With McCain, it was all about McCain.

Less than two weeks after the April 30 meeting, Lerner revealed that her staff had purposely discriminated against conservative tea party groups seeking 501(c)4 tax exempt status because they represented and advocated for conservative political positions. 

McCain doing the work of the Demorats as per normal.

“The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama IRS scandal is not over – as Judicial Watch continues to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans.”

Absolutely correct. But perhaps you thought that solved everything. The IRS would never be weaponized again. Think again. Now that Trump surveillance has been proven, now that there is a crisis at our border, now that the Mueller report failed to result in Trump clapped in handcuffs and his comb-over shaved off, what’s left?

Oh yeah. Taxes taxes taxes Trump taxes taxes taxes. But first, a critical question: what is the federal statute requiring presidents to turn over their tax returns? Answer: there is no such thing.

Trump ran on and won the presidency based upon refusing to disclose his tax returns. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now. Nixon began the “tradition” if you will and Trump may be the one to end it.

Obama failed to release his college transcripts or his passport. Obama’s years at Columbia are an absolute mystery. No one remembers him. Why? Moreover, do I really care? No, I don’t.

Fast forward to today. Trump is still made of Teflon, a material Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots wish never existed. Nothing sticks to Trump. Not even the rhetorical or written napalm meant to incinerate him and everyone around him, including his family.

Two years down the drain and Bob “The Savior” Mueller turns out to be, well, everything but. As I said for the past year-plus, all Mueller had were crimes of process that would never have come to light save the investigation itself. Translation: he created those crimes with an investigation that would otherwise have not occurred. Now all the LDAMM have sworn to stop sending Bobbie any Christmas cards at all. #Lonely.

Michael Avenatti, Trump’s most vocal nemesis, the darling of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC, turns out to be the poster child for — as Tucker Carlson says — a Creepy Porn Lawyer. If anyone got napalmed, it was Mikey. He was the Bernie Madoff of unconscionable lawyers. Yeah. “Avenatti 2020.”

I just couldn’t help but place the video. It’s too good to pass up. Back to taxes.

Bernie Sanders said he would release his taxes and, this past weekend, he did. What we discovered is that Bernie Sanders is precisely what he excoriates: part of the 1%. Translated: he’s a millionaire. Wait. That doesn’t compute. How can Socialist Bernie Sanders be a member of the very group he — I guess, now — pretends to hate?

Further, Sanders said he made money on his book; a very good book you see. You should read it. He crowed about writing it during the Town Hall meeting hosted by Bret Baier and Martha McCallum. He says he won’t apologize for writing a book. He’s promoting entrepreneurship, it seems.

Reminded by the Times reporter that he is now someone of considerable means, Sanders retorted: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

If that isn’t an advocacy for entrepreneurship — what is?

“If anyone thinks I should apologize for writing a bestselling book, I’m sorry, I’m not going to do it,” Sanders said in a fiery Fox News town hall Monday night. He defended his earnings and insisted he does not attack the wealthy.  

Of course Bernie Sanders doesn’t attack the wealthy. Which is 1) bullshit, he has (see below), and 2) more recently because it has been exposed that he himself is a millionaire.

Wait. Doesn’t he despise millionaires and billionaires?

Bernie Sanders said his wealth isn’t even the American Dream.

Then Bret Baier, one of the Fox moderators, asked Mr. Sanders, “When you wrote the book and you made the money, isn’t that the definition of capitalism and the American dream?”

“No,” Mr. Sanders replied.

The bottom line is this: there is no law requiring those running for president to release their taxes. There is no law requiring presidents to release their taxes.

If President Trump declines to release his taxes, absent a law, that is his right.

Because it’s involving Trump, and because Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots have abjectly failed to blow Donald Trump out of the Oval Office on so many levels and via so many ways — it will be proven most of them illegal — it’s now time to focus on taxes. The very item that those who elected him in 2016 couldn’t give one oozing, pustulant crap about.

And don’t now either.

Weaponizing the IRS.

But only against Conservatives or anyone who dares, like Trump, to push against the DC Norm.

Trump is a threat, he has caused fear, he is pushing envelopes, and to this point the LDAMM have been entirely unsuccessful in dismantling his success.

The LDAMM cannot even concede one success Trump has acquired for America because, to do that, they would have to recognize that, on a larger more overarching level, he really is making America greater.

Worse yet: greater than Barack Hussein Obama.

The LDAMM will do everything they possibly can to acknowledge even one Trump success. And if the United States or its citizens have to suffer because of their refusal, well, you can go straight to hell.

Atonement, expiations, the minimization of American power. Self-loathing.

“There’s nothing exceptional about America.”

A loathing of the United States of America.

That’s the goal of Demorats.

Started by Obama.

Desired in 2020.

BZ

 

Who urged the IRS under Lerner to pummel Conservative groups? John McCain’s office.

Yes, certainly, I knew John McCain was pretty much an unmitigated asshole who customarily made any issue about him and should have simply been honest and changed his (R) to a (D) and been done with it. It’s no secret that McCain threatened to step across the aisle to the Demorat side.

Hell, John McCain has essentially been a functional Demorat for years.

So this should truly come as not much of a surprise, from the WashingtonTimes.com:

McCain’s office urged IRS to use audits as weapons to destroy political advocacy groups

by Larry O’Connor

A new report from Judicial Watch reveals a concerted effort from Sen. John McCain’s office to urge the IRS under Lois Lerner to strike out against political advocacy groups, including tea party organizations. 

Thanks to the results of an extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that has been delayed for many years, Judicial Watch has obtained several key emails from 2013 that chronicle McCain’s and Democrat Sen. Carl Levin’s efforts to reign in the advocacy groups that sprouted immediately following the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court. 

Wondrous. John McCain keeping his end of the bargain to ensure his application to the Demorat Party isn’t round filed.

The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include notes from a high-level meeting on April 30, 2013 between powerful members of McCain’s and Levin’s staffs and Lerner, then-director of tax exempt organizations at the IRS under Barack Obama. The notes reveal the suggestions from McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner who urges Lerner to use IRS audits on the advocacy groups to financially ruin them.

From JudicialWatch.com:

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.  Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

Except, well, it was the law.

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

Are you finally, after all these years, beginning to understand that no matter how many lesions John McCain has on his face and whatever sympathy he’s managed to draw for his current tumor status, he was operating in not only his own interests but actively against Conservatives and the Republican Party for years and years?

Yes, I’m sure you’ve all heard the various reasons to let John McCain be: “He served his country. He was taken prisoner. He flew jets. He was in the US Navy.” All true and all verifiable. Yet I judge him in the same fashion that everyone judges BZ: “what have you done for me lately?”

Lately — hell, in at least the past decade (I’ll play nice for a while) — John McCain has been working overtly and covertly against Conservatism and against the Republicans. If John McCain isn’t the center of attention and it isn’t about him, he’s not going for it.

When anyone even mentions the word RINO, my brainulus immediately conjures an image of John McCain.

Figure 1: FLOTUS Michelle Obama walking John McCain during the Obama Administration, outside the White House.

Back to Judicial Watch and the politically-motivated bias under the Obama Despotism Administration.

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting.  Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.”   The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

Lois Lerner admitted screwing over the TEA Party and various Conservative groups.

So here’s the bottom line for this story:

“The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama IRS scandal is not over – as Judicial Watch continues to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment rights of Americans.”

So BZ, just cut John McCain some slack.

Yeah. Like all the slack people will cut me when I’m about to kak.

Screw John McCain. Get out. Move on.

You’ve done enough damage.

BZ

 

American LEOs: do you remember your oaths?

A general oath that most American law enforcement officers take is this:

” I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of _________ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ________; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Generally, upon completion of this oath, a law enforcement officer is handed her or his badge which is pinned on by a husband, wife or other important family member or friend.

That is the oath you took in America, fellow law enforcement officers.

I say “fellow law enforcement officers” because I served as a LEO for 41 years before I retired recently. I worked in the federal system and for two California agencies. I am a Sheepdog, a Silverback and an Oathkeeper. Just because I retired, my Sheepdog mindset, status and obligation has not entirely. I know who I am, what I’ve done and what I may have to do in the future.

I took the oath as delineated above and I never forgot it.

I support law enforcement. I love cops. I respect the terrifically-difficult job they must do on an hourly and daily basis. Because I was there. For, generally, twice the amount of time that most police officers put in. I did so because I believed in my role in society.

But, to me, it would appear that some LEOs have forgotten or, worse, purposely dismissed their law enforcement oaths. I love cops when I can and excoriate them when I must.

I see a disturbing trend. I see cops taking orders at face value from their supervisors or managers and then carrying them out. Or equally reprehensible, when confronted with egregious conditions, don’t act. I have taken SFPD, San Jose PD, Berkeley PD and UC Berkeley PD officers to task. OWS vs the TEA Party.

I am sorely and seriously concerned for the future of law enforcement.

In that vein, Judge Jeanine Pirro wanted to know under what conditions current peace officers operated? What laws did they uphold? Are they truly conducting themselves according to their sworn oaths?

I submit: possibly not. And that is perhaps the most disturbing trend of all.

“I hate to say this; every one of you in law enforcement who bought into this liberal nonsense also has blood on your hands,” Pirro said.

I completely concur.

“If this is a tough one for you and you are going to start listening to the ACLU or some liberal mayor who doesn’t give a damn about you, your contract or your oath, directing that you release the wanted criminal alien out the side door, then maybe you should rethink this and go into social work,” she said.

“You are too damn dumb to be in law enforcement.”

There will come a time — quite shortly, I submit — where each and every one of you in US law enforcement will have to pick a side. I say this to our military members as well.

Halfway won’t do. Non-committal won’t do. Prevaricating won’t do. You will have to, soon, decide which orders you will obey and which orders you will not.

This may create confusion in your mind and potentially place your career in jeopardy.

You will have to ask: will I obey my superiors, or will I obey the law? Will I make a stand or will I stand back because it is convenient?

People excoriate the Oathkeepers, of which I am a member. Let us not forget that their oaths are no more complicated than these:

10 Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey

  1. We will not obey any order to disarm the American people.
  2. We will not obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects—such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.
  3. We will not obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunals.
  4. We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
  5. We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  7. We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  8. We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will not obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext.
  10. We will not obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Translated: you will hold dear the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. As you agreed.

You will soon have to ask yourself: who am I? In what do I believe? What does my oath mean? What does my job mean?

And more importantly, do I have the testosterone or the estrogen to carry out the oath I took?

Words having meaning.

Honor your oath.

BZ

 

Breitbart focuses on Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt Looks Right Smiling - DSalem Radio Network radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump on Thursday, September 3rd, for the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.

Trump believed he’d been ambushed with a series of “gotcha” questions regarding the situation in the Middle East, and called Hewitt a “third rate radio host” the following day, despite the fact that he’d sent a note to the show thanking them for the opportunity to Donald Trump On Hugh Hewittspeak — a fact made evident by co-producer Marlon Bateman, himself a US military veteran, something that Mr Trump is not.

Donald Trump On Hugh Hewitt, Redux RetortIn my opinion, the questions asked by Hugh of Mr Trump were not “gotcha” insofar as they were asked of pretty much every other GOP candidate appearing on Hewitt’s show.  These same questions were posed on the same show of Carly Fiorina, for example, who managed to field them and appeared familiar with most of the territory, also including some personal experiences.

For background, Hugh Hewitt will work alongside Jake Tapper on the next GOP debate, September 16th, at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley (to now include Carly Fiorina), hosted by CNN.  Tapper will moderate and Hewitt will pitch the questions.

Once this became known, many GOP brokers who formerly disdained any appearance with Hewitt somewhat soiled their shorts in order to line up a segment on his radio show.  As a result Hugh has interviewed Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and any number of GOP presidential contenders.

That’s why Trump appeared on Hewitt’s show last week.

That information, therefore, was the requisite set-up for the newest article on Breitbart today, taking a swipe at Mr Hewitt.

From Breitbart.com:

Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters

by Julia Hahn

Hugh Hewitt, the moderator picked by GOP leaders for the upcoming candidates’ debate, is firmly on the establishment’s side in its struggle against outsider Donald Trump.

Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

“No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

The thrust of the article is that Hugh Hewitt hates Trump, and that Trump was correct in his labeling of Hugh as a “third rate radio host.”

Mr Hewitt certainly doesn’t need me to fight his wars for him; he’s more than capable of defending himself in any venue.  However, some have said — and I am tending to agree — that Breitbart is becoming a bit of Trump Central, where persons or entities that don’t pull the Trump line are run through the Breitbart Ringer.

Frankly, I find that rather disappointing on any number of levels since I utilize Breitbart not only as a valid news source but a form of reference for the blog.

Yes, Hugh pulls a good deal of water for the Republican Party but not all the water imaginable.  There are times when I disagree with Hugh (one of those areas being some areas of immigration).  But I find that Hugh isn’t selective in terms of how he treats his on-air guests.  He particularly attempts to treat those involved in politics in an egalitarian fashion.  He did so with Trump, Fiorina, Bush and with Ben Carson — whose interview likewise did not go what could be quantified as “swimmingly.”

I don’t expect Trump or other interviewed pols appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show to be perfect; far from it.  What I do expect is that presidential candidates have staffs.

And with those staffs, I would expect candidates to have paid for consultation services, and to have researched those places and points where the candidate will interview.

I would expect those staffs to have researched every place I would speak and to have at least a semblance of understanding of that potential interviewer.

Paying a consultant for these considerations should be the last thing Trump is thinking about.  That advice to each candidate should already have been made and been in place prior to each interview.  Shame on the candidates and their staffs if that hasn’t happened.

It isn’t Hugh’s job to do their job.

Further, you have to be smart enough to realize that the questions Hugh asks, when you appear, may be remarkably similar to the questions he’ll pose on CNN’s September 16th GOP debate.

Hello?  (taps on mike)  Any of you candidates getting a clue here?

This isn’t “gotcha,” folks.  This is called “show prep.”  For Hugh and you.

BZ

 

“Gotcha” third-rate shock jock Hugh Hewitt and Trump

DSC02653-ASometimes you just have to laugh.  For me, this is one of those times.

First things first: say what you will — and what I’m about to say — about Donald J. Trump, there’s no doubt that he is leading the Republicans in terms of presidential contestants.  He’s been doing it for almost three solid months now despite his “open mouth/insert Stefano Bemer” syndrome.  Which hasn’t seemed to matter a whit.

And yes, I know precisely how Donald J. Trump got to where he is: disgust with the current iteration of the GOP, what I shall commence labeling the GOPEE.  As in GOP Establishment Elite.  I think that sums up the Old Staid Country-Club Invertebrate GOP quite concisely.  These are the members of the Republican Party who greet those on the other side of the aisle at the end of the day in various DC watering holes, slap backs, order expensive non-well drinks all around and comment about how utterly and abjectly they took the American Taxpayer to the woodshed that day.

The GOPEE truly created Donald J. Trump, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.  A major problem continues to be that the GOPEE is incapable of Grokking that concept.  It refuses to understand that the more it pushes against Trump and those horrid TEA Party people, the more they push back.  And here’s why:

The GOP literally owned the White House, the House and the Senate under Bush, then both Houses back in 1994, and did absolutely nothing with their power.  They wielded it not.  The GOP owns the House and Senate right now.  What has happened but capitulation, caving, “we can’t bring that back” and the tears of Boehner — plus Boehner calling a fellow Republican (Ted Cruz) a jackass.  That’s not what I want from the Republican Party.

Were the Demorats to own the Triumvirate, you know what they’d do because they did it.  They passed ObakaKare in the dead of night (despite, thankfully, not one Republican voting for it — that’s how reprehensible it was), disallowed or obstructed any number of serious investigations from getting off the ground or acquiring traction, and turned their

heads when Mr Obama, who said he wasn’t a dictator, became a dictator via the stroke of an EO pen because he realized Congress would do what it does: question him.  Obama does not brook questioning his authority very well at all.

Back to that horrendous “gotcha” Shock Jock Hugh Hewitt.

You may not know that Hewitt is going to work alongside Jake Tapper on the next GOP debate, September 16th, at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley (to now include Carly Fiorina), hosted by CNN.  Tapper will moderate and Hewitt will pitch the questions.

Once this became known, many GOP brokers who formerly disdained any appearance with Hewitt somewhat soiled their shorts in order to line up a segment on his radio show.  As a result Hugh has interviewed Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and any number of GOP presidential contenders.

Let me state the obvious: Hugh Hewitt is everything but stupid.  He is Harvard educated, took his JD in 1983, clerked for judges in the DC circuit, worked for Nixon and Reagan, continues his law practice in Southern Fornicalia and is a Constitutional Law professor at Chapman University.

And unlike many interviewers, he doesn’t just throw softballs.  His two favorite questions asked of many guests are 1) Have you read Wright’s The Looming Tower, and 2) Was Alger Hiss a Communist spy?

It is Hewitt who revealed a fundamentally flawed worldview when he interviewed Dr Ben Carson on August 7th.

That said, Donald J. Trump appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show yesterday, September 3rd, and Hugh asked some fairly pointed questions of Mr Trump.  Which, frankly, Mr Trump booted.

The full transcript follows so that you may decide for yourself if Trump’s accusation of Hugh Hewitt being nothing more than a craven “gotcha” third-rate radio announcer is valid.

Donald Trump joined me today:

Audio:

09-03hhs-trump

Transcript:

HH: Joined now by Donald Trump. Donald Trump, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, it’s always a pleasure to talk to you.

DT: Thank you, Hugh.

HH: I would thought that today, this is our sixth interview, I’d turn to some of the commander-in-chief questions. Are you ready for that?

DT: Okay, fine.

HH: Are you familiar with General Soleimani?

DT: Yes, but go ahead, give me a little, go ahead, tell me.

HH: He runs the Quds Forces.

DT: Yes, okay, right.

HH: Do you expect his behavior…

DT: The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by …

HH: No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces.

DT: Yes, yes.

HH: …is the bad guys.

DT: Right.

HH: Do you expect his behavior to change as a result…

DT: Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds.

HH: No, Quds.

DT: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said Kurds, because I think the Kurds have been poorly treated by us, Hugh. Go ahead.

HH: Agreed. So Soleimani runs the Quds Forces. Do you expect his behavior is going to change as a result of this deal with Iran?

DT: I think that Iran right now is in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want to do. I think what’s happening with Iran is, I think it’s one of the, and I covered it very well. I assume you saw the news conference. I think Iran is, it’s one of the great deals ever made for them. I think it’s one of the most incompetent contracts I’ve even seen. I’m not just talking about defense. I’m not talking about a contract with another country. I’ve never seen more of a one-sided deal, I think, in my life, absolutely.

HH: Well, Soleimani is to terrorism sort of what Trump is to real estate.

DT: Okay.

HH: Many people would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world, and he runs the Quds Forces, which is their Navy SEALs.

DT: Is he the gentleman that was going back and forth with Russia and meeting with Putin? I read something, and that seems to be also where he’s at.

HH: That’s the guy.

DT: He’s going back and forth meeting with other countries, etc., etc.

HH: That’s the guy.

DT: Not good.

HH: And so do you think…

DT: Not good for us. And what it shows is a total lack of respect, I mean, that the other countries would even be entertaining him, and they’re entertaining him big league, big league.

HH: So when you went before the Senate, and I always tell people my favorite testimony of all time is when Donald Trump just schooled the Senate on the construction of the U.N. remodel.

DT: Right.

HH: You know that stuff. You know every developer in Manhattan. You know everything about building buildings. You could build the wall. I have no doubt about that.

DT: Right. By the way, and nobody knows how easy that would be. And I mean, it would be, it would be tall, it would be powerful, we would make it very good looking. It would be as good as a wall’s got to be, and people will not be climbing over that wall, believe me. Go ahead.

HH: You know, I’d buy that, because you’re a builder. But on the front of Islamist terrorism, I’m looking for the next commander-in-chief, to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?

DT: No, you know, I’ll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all gone. I knew you were going to ask me things like this, and there’s no reason, because number one, I’ll find, I will hopefully find General Douglas MacArthur in the pack. I will find whoever it is that I’ll find, and we’ll, but they’re all changing, Hugh. You know, those are like history questions. Do you know this one, do you know that one. I will tell you, I thought you used the word Kurd before. I will tell you that I think the Kurds are the most under-utilized and are being totally mistreated by us. And nobody understands why. But as far as the individual players, of course I don’t know them. I’ve never met them. I haven’t been, you know, in a position to meet them. If, if they’re still there, which is unlikely in many cases, but if they’re still there, I will know them better than I know you.

HH: That’s what I’m getting at, because the Islamist extremism is metastasizing. Nasrallah’s been there a long time, and al-Baghdadi’s running ISIS. And so I wonder if you’re going to throw yourself into the details of this during the campaign the way you did into the U.N. deal, because you knew that stuff cold.

DT: Well, you know, and unfortunately, I said I’d build it for $500 million. They were at $3 billion. And it ended up costing $6 billion, and I told them that would happen. And it was a disgrace. Frankly, that whole U.N. situation was a disgrace. They ended up spending $5-6 billion dollars to renovate a building that I would have done for $500 million, and I told them I would have done it, and it would have been better. Now as far as what you’re talking about now, I will know every detail, and I will have the right plan, not a plan like this where we’re probably going backwards based on everything that I’m hearing, but we’re probably going backwards, zero respect. We have, we are not a respected country, and certainly as it relates to ISIS and what’s going on, and Iran.

HH: Now I don’t believe in gotcha questions. And I’m not trying to quiz you on who the worst guy in the world is.

DT: Well, that is a gotcha question, though. I mean, you know, when you’re asking me about who’s running this, this this, that’s not, that is not, I will be so good at the military, your head will spin. But obviously, I’m not meeting these people. I’m not seeing these people. Now it probably will be a lot of changes, Hugh, as you go along. They’ll be, by the time we get there, which is still a pretty long period of time, you know, you start, let’s say you figure out nominations, and who is going to represent the Republicans in, let’s say, February, March, April, you’ll start to get pretty good ideas, maybe sooner than that, actually. But that will be a whole new group of people. I think what is really important is to pick out, and this is something I’m so good at, to pick out who is going to be the best person to represent us militarily, because we have some great people, militarily. I don’t know that we’re using them.

HH: All right, well, let me expand it, because you know, it’s not gotcha. I’m trying not to do that. But I wanted to see if you…

DT: Well, it sounded like gotcha. You’re asking me names that, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous, but that’s okay. Go ahead, let’s go.

HH: All right, good. Now have you ever been to Israel? And how often?

DT: Yes, I’ve been to Israel once.

HH: And if Israel acts unilaterally against Iran because they view this deal as so bad, will you unequivocally stand by the action of the Netanyahu government?

DT: Of course, I will. In fact, he’s a friend of mine. I did commercials for his reelection. And according to what he said, I’m the only celebrity, he’s used the word celebrity, this was a while ago, that did commercials, that he asked to do commercials. But he’s a good man, and I would absolutely stand with him. But you know, we have a problem, because according to the deal, and this is hard to believe, but we’re supposed to be protecting Iran against any invader. And if Israel invades, nobody knows exactly what’s going to happen, because if Israel invades Iran, I don’t know if you know, but we have a clause in that agreement that the way I read it, it’s almost like we have to go, and by the way, I can guarantee you that clause, first of all, should have never been there, maybe they had it taken out, but we didn’t win anything. But do you know there’s a clause in there that in theory, we’re supposed to help them fight Israel?

HH: Yup. Yeah, it’s in Annex Three. We agree to cooperate in the security of their nuclear installations. It’s remarkable, and I’m glad you know about it. And I’m glad you’ll stand with Israel. Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I don’t know if you’ve been able to get to those countries, yet, have you?

DT: I have, yes.

HH: And so do you…

DT: Well, I think the biggest, you know, I think it’s terrible, first of all, with Egypt, and with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia in particular, was making a billion dollars a day, one billion dollars a day. Now let’s say they make half of that number because oil prices have been so depressed. But Saudi Arabia was making a half a billion dollars. It was a billion dollars a day. Why aren’t they helping us out? When they asked, and you may not like this, but I like it, because when we owe now $19, we’re up to $19 trillion dollars, I certainly like it, and I like protecting…why aren’t they helping us with the costs? We get virtually nothing from Saudi Arabia. Every time somebody raises a rifle in the air and points it in the direction of Saudi Arabia, or, by the way, South Korea and other places, every single time that happens, and I mean without exception, we start loading up and getting ready and sending ships and sending all sorts of things. We get nothing. And you know, maybe you’ll explain why, but we get nothing. And I don’t like that.

HH: I’m curious, though, if we need them, in your opinion, as strategic allies – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Do we need them even if they’re not paying us money for their defense?

DT: Well, you need, I think Egypt and Israel get along, and they’re starting to get along pretty well. Mubarak should have been frankly, probably, taken care of better than he was. That sent a bad signal around. But I think in terms of Israel, Egypt starts getting very important. Maybe we don’t need the oil to the same extent as we did, and pretty soon, if we allowed, if we allowed what we have, technologically, to go forward, we wouldn’t need them at all. You know, we have potentially the greatest oil reserves in the world right here, and we wouldn’t need them at all. You know, we used to need Saudi Arabia for oil, and that part of the world. It all started with the oil, and it sort of ends with the oil. But now, we’re at a point where we’re going to be doing ten million barrels. It’s very interesting. We’re probably, very soon, if we allow our people to get going, we’re probably not going to need them for the oil. So we don’t need Saudi Arabia nearly to the extent that we needed them in the past.

HH: Okay, looking to Asia, if China were to either accidentally or intentionally sink a Filipino or Japanese ship, what would Commander-In-Chief Donald Trump do in response?

DT: I wouldn’t want to tell you, because frankly, they have to, you know, somebody wrote a very good story about me recently, and they said there’s a certain unpredictable, and it was actually another businessman, said there’s a certain unpredictability about Trump that’s great, and it’s what made him a lot of money and a lot of success. You don’t want to put, and you don’t want to let people know what you’re going to do with respect to certain things that happen. You don’t want the other side to know. I don’t want to give you an answer to that. If I win, and I’m leading in every single poll, if I win, I don’t want people to know exactly what I’m going to be doing.

HH: Fair response. Good response.

DT: Part of the problem with Obama, he says we’re going to do this, we’re going to do that, we’re going to attack here, we’re going to do this. Every time they capture somebody, they make a big deal out of it, and all of the other people, like for instance, they hit somebody with a drone, and they start making a big deal over the fact that they took out a mid-level accounting person, and now everybody else goes and runs, and it makes it harder. I don’t want to explain, and I think it’s a very bad thing. I think we do too much talking, and not enough, do you understand what I’m saying in this, Hugh?

HH: Oh, it’s a great point. It’s a very good answer.

DT: We do too much talking. General Douglas MacArthur, I was watching as President Obama was talking about, I won’t go into great detail, was talking about attacking at a certain time in a certain place, and I’m saying can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur, General Patton, they must be spinning in their graves when they hear it. So when you tell me a ship is attacked, I don’t want to tell you exactly what I’m going to do. I don’t want people to know my thinking on that, and I do have very spoken…thinking on it.

HH: Fair play.

DT: But I don’t want people to know my thinking.

HH: All right, next question. Presidents respond to disasters. Governors respond to disasters. What disasters have you, Donald Trump, responded to?

DT: Well, I’ve responded very much to disasters. I’ve had, you know, fires in buildings, big buildings. I’ve had economic changes where the world crashed in the early 90s, and I came out stronger than I was before. And I didn’t go bankrupt like many people they were forced into bankruptcy, and they were forced into, like, you know disasters never to be heard from again. I came out stronger than I was before. There was an old expression in the early 90s – survive ‘til ’95 that I made up, and I gave. And I actually became much stronger. But I’ve gone through, I’ve watched economic problems happen. Eight years ago, nine years ago when I was buying and everybody else was selling because they had no money and I did have a lot of money and I bought a lot of great assets. And you know, I’ve gone through a lot of different things, and I’ve come out on top always.

HH: Very good. Now some political questions. Do you own a gun?

DT: I do.

HH: What kind?

DT: I’d rather not say.

HH: Okay.

DT: I have a license to carry. I have a license, you know, I have a concealed license, I have a license to carry concealed.

HH: Didn’t know that. How do you define assault weapon? This is important to our 2nd Amendment friends out there.

DT: Well, yeah, I think that you know, the word assault weapon, and a lot of people, there’s been a lot of controversy, but I wouldn’t give you exact, I am in favor, I have two sons that are members in very high standing at the NRA.

HH: Right.

DT: And I would ask them for a definition, but I am in favor of allowing, I’m very, very pro-2nd Amendment. And if you want to ask that, I would go to the experts. All I can tell you is that I am totally a 2nd Amendment person, and totally in favor of not doing anything. You know, an interesting thing happened. When the two prisoners escaped in upstate New York, Hugh, people that really were very much against guns all of a sudden, they have these two prisoners, and they are someplace up there and nobody knew where, and a woman who said she used to fight with her husband all the time, she didn’t want guns, all of a sudden, they felt so safe because they were sitting with guns, and they were able to protect themselves. Now nothing ever happened, and ultimately, they caught the one and they killed the other. You know the case I’m talking about three months ago.

HH: You bet.

DT: But it was very interesting to watch this woman who was totally, and I mean absolutely totally against guns, and all of a sudden, she felt safe because they were able to have guns in the house. So it’s interesting. No, I’m totally pro-2nd Amendment.

HH: All right, now the age question. Hillary’s had to face it. You should as well. You’re 69. How’s your health? And is it legitimate for people to worry about you being president at 69?

DT: Well, my health is very good, and my father was 94. My mother was 89 when she passed away, and my father was in great shape until he was really like almost 90. My mother was in great shape almost until the end, and mentally, her capacity was 100%, so from a genetic standpoint, very good. I’m in the process of getting some documentation from doctors that have taken care of me over the years. I’ve never had a major problem. I’ve had almost no minor problem as I knock on wood. But my health has been very good and very strong. And maybe you get to see that, because people say boy, you have a lot of energy. You’re able to do so many things. Don’t forget, in addition to running a campaign where it’s number one in every poll, I’m also running a business, which I’m rapidly giving over to my executives. I have a very big business, and I’m rapidly giving that over to my executives and my children.

HH: All right, now every GOP candidate for high office gets this question, Meg Whitman most recently. It’s the illegal alien employment question. Usually, about six weeks before an election, so Donald Trump, have you or any of close member of your family hired an illegal alien in close proximity to your family?

DT: Not that I know of, no.

HH: Okay, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia blasted you yesterday without naming you. He’s a very well-respected Catholic cleric for belligerent bombast about illegal aliens. He’s a man of the cloth. What do you say in response?

DT: Well, I think that’s fine. I mean, he can feel that way, and I understand that. And he’s not the only one, but I feel we need borders. I feel that we have to, the word illegal means we’re a country of laws. You saw that at my press conference today, and illegal means illegal. They’re not supposed to be in the country. And we’re either going to have a country or we’re not. And if we’re not going to have strong borders with a wall, which will make it very strong, by the way, and walls do work if they’re properly built, not the little 11 foot walls that we have up right now, and they’re not walls, they’re fences. There is a difference. But you know, I can understand him saying that. And other people have said it, too. But I believe we either have a country or we don’t. We either have laws in the country or we don’t.

HH: All right, now some personal stuff in our last few minutes, because people are curious about Donald Trump. What’s your, what was your worst health crisis to date?

DT: None. I mean, none. I really haven’t had…

HH: Wow, are you blessed. What’s your worst business decision that you’ve made?

DT: Worst business decision? Well, I’ve made some business decisions where markets changed, but in virtually every case, I was able to take those decisions and make them good, and take those jobs and make them good, which I think is a great test. I mean, I’ve had buildings going up and the market crashes, which is not my fault, and I go back and I negotiate with the banks, and I negotiate tough and I negotiate hard, and I’ve taken some jobs that were, that could have been disastrous and made them better than if the market had stayed the same. So I don’t know, I view business, I view that question as something you have to learn from it, and you can never make a decision that’s going to take you down. In other words, you’re not going to do something that if it doesn’t work out, because the best businessmen in the world, I know all of them, the best businessmen in the world have had difficult times, and they’ve had bad deals. And you can never allow a deal, Hugh, to take you down. You just can’t do it. So you have to know what you’re doing. But one of the things, and I get a lot of credit in the world of business, I’ve taken deals that should have been bad, and I’ve made them great, better than if the markets stayed good.

HH: Made them work.

DT: And I’ll tell you one thing, I bought deals for very low prices, like recently Doonbeg in Ireland, this incredible piece of land on the Atlantic Ocean, and other things, I’ve taken deals and bought deals that, and I bought them for very low prices, and turned them around and made them fantastic. So you know, I think you have to learn from business, and ideally, you want to learn from other people, not from yourself.

HH: All right, now President Obama is President Obama today, because when he ran for the United States Senate, his principal opponent, Jack Ryan, had divorce and custody records that had been sealed unsealed. Is there any smoking gun sealed away in records that could come out about Donald Trump down the road to destroy the Republican nominee after you’re the nominee, if you’re the nominee?

DT: No, I don’t think so, and I think one of the things you know about me, I’ve been a very public person. While I’m private, I’ve also been a very public person over many years. I mean, people know me. I’m very well known, and whether it’s the great success on The Apprentice, where it was one of the top shows on television for a long time, and by the way, NBC renewed it, and is not in love with the fact that I didn’t do it, but they renewed me for The Apprentice for many, many shows on The Apprentice, and you see the kind of money I made on The Apprentice, and I turned it down. I said I’m going to run for president, I’m going to make America great again. They were not happy that I did that, so they’re stuck in limbo. But they renewed The Apprentice. I didn’t do it. No, I think nothing. I’m a very public person, even though I’m private. I think you have seen me, and long before we met and spoke, you’ve seen me, and you know exactly what I’m talking about. So I would say nothing.

HH: all right, last question, I want to go back to the beginning, because I really do disagree with you on the gotcha question thing, Donald Trump. At the debate, I may bring up Nasrallah being with Hezbollah, and al-Julani being with al-Nusra, and al-Masri being with Hamas. Do you think if I ask people to talk about those three things, and the differences, that that’s a gotcha question?

DT: Yes, I do. I totally do. I think it’s ridiculous.

HH: That’s interesting. I just disagree with that. I kind of figured that…

DT: All right, I think it’s ridiculous. I’ll have, I’m a delegator. I find great people. I find absolutely great people, and I’ll find them in our armed services, and I find absolutely great people. And now on the bigger picture, like the fact that our Kurds are being treated so poorly, and would really is the one group that really would be out there fighting for us, I think, and fighting for themselves, maybe more importantly to them, I understand that. But when you start throwing around names of people and where they live and give me their address, I think it’s ridiculous, and I think it’s totally worthless.

HH: Well, I wouldn’t do that. That’s crazy. I agree.

DT: Well, and by the way, the names you just mentioned, they probably won’t even be there in six months or a year.

HH: I don’t know. Nasrallah’s got such staying power.

DT: Well, let’s see what happens.

HH: And so I think the difference…

DT: And you know what? In that case, first day in office, or before then, right at the day after the election, I’ll know more about it than you will ever know. That I can tell you.

HH: Oh, I hope so. Last question, so the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas does not matter to you yet, but it will?

DT: It will when it’s appropriate. I will know more about it than you know, and believe me, it won’t take me long.

HH: All right, that, I believe.

DT: But right now, right now, I think it’s just something that, and you know what, if you ask these candidates, nobody’s going to be able to give you an answer. I mean, there may be one that studied it because they’re expecting a fresh question from you. But believe me, it won’t matter. I will know far more than you know within 24 hours after I get the job.

HH: Donald Trump, congratulations on taking the pledge today. Your numbers are going to go up as a result of that.

DT: Well, let’s see what happens. I mean, I’m not sure that that’s true. I think my numbers are very high now. But I’m not really sure that that’s true, but I know you feel that. I hope you’re right. I mean, let’s see what happens.

HH: Donald Trump, thank you, always a pleasure.

DT: Thank you very much.

End of interview.

In my opinion Trump booted it.  On the same show, Carly Fiorina — not doing as well as Trump — managed to answer all those same questions posed by Hewitt, the same day.

Trump isn’t a detail guy.  My guess is that he’ll be mostly done by January of 2016.

I know why he’s ranking as he does.  He served a purpose.

But being a generalist won’t do.

And no, that wasn’t a “gotcha” by Hewitt.

I want my presidential nominee to be able to answer those salient questions and then some.

BZ