asmPolitics-229 [Nine Line Apparel]

Nike - the goddess of victory in Greek mythology and the failure of American patriotism.

The latest controversy involving ex-NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has us all shaking our heads again at Nike in complete disgust. Kaepernick, a Nike endorser, reached out to the footwear and apparel giant to let them know his dissatisfaction with their newly slated planned release of the Nike Air Max 1 Quick Strike 'Fourth of July' USA-themed sneakers. He argued and complained that the Betsy Ross flag, which is featured on the heel of the new sneaker, was offensive and carried slavery connotations. Without hesitation, Nike chose to take Kaepernick's side and cancel the patriotic sneaker release, just in time for the 4th of July.

Nine Line Apparel, along with relentlessly patriotic Americans everywhere, cannot believe the total ignorance and lack of understanding displayed by both Colin Kaepernick and Nike in relation to our country's Betsy Ross flag, it's symbolism and meaning. This early design of the flag of the United States depicts the original 13 colonies and represents the unity of these original American colonies in their fight against the British for our nation's freedom during the Revolutionary War. It in no way, shape or form alludes to slavery yet is a direct representation of freedom fought and earned by early Americans.

We are only able to enjoy our liberties, rights and lives as Americans today, because of what this flag has always symbolized and stood for. For Colin Kaepernick and Nike to say no to the release of what would have probably been a popular shoe for their summer footwear line is like saying no to our 4th of July holiday. The one day of the year where we all unite as one patriotic American family to rejoice and celebrate our freedom, hard fought and won by our country's forefathers. The Betsy Ross flag has a direct correlation with this national patriotic holiday but Kaepernick and Nike don't care. They are a disgrace to all freedom-loving Americans, choosing ignorance over patriotism.

For these reasons and so many more, we proudly stand for freedom and the Betsy Ross flag to say without recall or hesitation, just DON'T do it.

- Very Respectfully, Patriotic American

asmPolitics-228 [Joe Scarborough & Mitch McConnell]

The hashtag #MoscowMitchMcTreason began trending on Twitter Tuesday morning after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fired back against the nickname "Moscow Mitch" in a fiery speech from the Senate floor.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former GOP lawmaker, dubbed McConnell "Moscow Mitch" after McConnell on Friday blocked two election security measures.

The hashtag #MoscowMitch quickly began trendingon Twitter following Scarborough's comments.

McConnell responded on Monday, decrying the attacks against him as "modern-day McCarthyism."

"I was called unpatriotic, un-American and essentially treasonous by a couple of left-wing pundits on the basis of bold-faced lies. I was accused of aiding and abetting the very man I've singled out as an adversary and opposed for nearly 20 years, Vladimir Putin," McConnell said.

"These pundits are lying, lying when they dismiss the work that has been done. They're lying when they insist I have personally blocked actions which, in fact, I have championed and the Senate has passed," he added. "They are lying when they suggest that either party is against defending our democracy."

Social media users, however, doubled down on their tweets criticizing the senator. Both the hashtags #MoscowMitchMcTreason and #MoscowMitchUnAmericanTraitor began to trend across the United States.

"The Breakfast Club" radio host Charlamagne tha God wrote that it "feels good" to wake up and see the phrase trending nationally.

"These guys are blatantly openly working with the Russians to keep power and until I saw that trending I thought nobody cared. AMERICA your illegitimate president is a Russian agent. #FightTheFascists," he wrote on Twitter.

Grant Stern, an author and podcast host for Occupy Democrats, wrote that it was obvious that Scarborough "struck a nerve" when he coined the nickname.

"When the Senate 'leader' responded, he proved Joe's 100 right by  spouting the Kremlin line that investigating Putin's help to Trump is McCarthyism."

Hundreds of other used the hashtags to mock or criticize McConnell, some even picturing him dressed in Soviet-era uniforms.

asmPolitics-227 [Debbie Lesko & Robert Mueller]

asmPolitics-226 [President Barack Hussein Obama & Russian Meddling]

During her hour-long interview last week of Attorney General William Barr, “CBS This Morning” journalist Jan Crawford focused mainly on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Trump. She also, however, questioned Barr on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) efforts to ensure that Russian attempts to interfere in our elections are not repeated in 2020.

This revealed the attorney general is probing a second scandal of the Obama administration related to the 2016 presidential election. Or it would be regarded as a second scandal if it garnered more attention: Why the Obama administration failed to forcefully respond to intelligence of Russian interference in our elections.

The DOJ has “an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process, with the FBI obviously taking the lead,” Barr told Crawford. But not enough was done in 2016, Barr acknowledged.

“Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different,” he said. Crawford replied, “It’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.” Barr agreed, saying he had no idea why it wasn’t. “That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at as part of my review of the Russia collusion investigation,” Barr stressed.

With people warned as early as April 2016, “I’m wondering what, exactly, was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump campaign,” the attorney general told Crawford before she moved to another topic.

Pay Attention to Barr’s Remarks There

On further analysis, it becomes clear that Barr’s remarks hold more significance than the brief mention Crawford’s interview. First, Friday’s interview is not the only time the attorney general raised the issue of the Obama administration’s failure to launch a robust response to Russian attempts to interfere in our election. Barr also raised the issue last month when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During those hearings, Sen. John Cornyn (D–Texas) noted that Mueller’s report “accumulated evidence indicating that the Russian government—through intelligence agencies and internet research organizations, such as the IRA—began as early as 2014 to undermine and sow dissension in the 2016 presidential elections.”

In response to questions concerning his efforts to protect the country from a repeat in 2020, Barr commended Mueller’s efforts—“impressive work,” he called it—”in moving quickly to identify and address the Russian elements involved in the election interference.” The attorney general then added: “I was thinking to myself if that had been done in the beginning of 2016, we would have been a lot further along.”

Barr’s comments also should not be considered in isolation. When considered in tandem with several aspects of the Spygate investigation, it suggests the Obama administration habitually ignored Russia’s efforts to affect the election, opting instead to target Trump and the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration.

Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee highlights one such example: The attorney general confirmed his understanding that the Obama administration had failed to provide Trump a defensive briefing before January 2017, to inform him of “what the Russians were trying to do and [to] advise him to tell people affiliated with his campaign to be on their guard and vigilant about Russians efforts to undermine public confidence in the election.”

“I can’t fathom why it did not happen, if you’re concerned about interference in the election,” Barr told the senators. With three former U.S. attorneys involved in the campaign, “I don’t understand why the bureau would not have given a defensive briefing,” the attorney general testified.

More Interesting Threads Appear

Last week, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R–Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, added more texture to the attorney general’s testimony, telling Fox News that during an August 17, 2016 defensive briefing of candidate Trump, “He wasn’t warned about a Russia investigation that Peter Strzok had opened 18 days earlier.”

In a follow-up report, Catherine Herridge revealed the campaign was not specifically warned about Russian outreach to the Trump team during the August 2016 briefing, “nor did the FBI warn him that two campaign aides, Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos, were already under FBI investigation.” The since-fired Strzok also served in dual roles at this time, Herridge reported—both as “a central coordinator for the FBI on the defensive briefing” about Russian activities and as the lead investigator of “Russian outreach to Trump campaign aides.”

The Obama administration’s failure to brief Trump on the investigation into individuals connected to his campaign for suspected collusion with Russia is but a part of the problem. The FBI also failed to promptly interview George Papadopoulos and Papadopoulos’ supposed Russian connection, Joseph Mifsud, even though the FBI claims it launched the investigation into the Trump campaign in late July based on Papadopoulos’s purported foreknowledge of the WikiLeaks hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.

Specifically, the FBI first interviewed Papadopoulos in January 2017, and Mifsud the following month—sixth months after the start of Crossfire Hurricane. To paraphrase Barr: I don’t understand why the bureau would not have expeditiously questioned, at a minimum, Papadopoulos if they were so alarmed by his contact with a supposed Russian agent.

Why Such a Lax Response?

Testimony by former National Security Council Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel provides further evidence of the Obama administration’s lax response to Russian interference. During questioning by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Daniel admitted to telling his team during a morning staff meeting that they had been told “to stand down,” from their planned response to the Russian hacking and that his directive drew a terse response: “Why the h-ll are we standing down?”

While Daniel admitted he received a stand-down order, he told the committee that there was a “larger context” that could be discussed in the classified session. He added that not all activities concerning Russian interference ceased at that point. Instead, the cybersecurity unit shifted in the September and October timeframe to assist states in protecting the electoral infrastructure. But the cyber response was “put on the backburner.”

The release of notes a State Department official took during her October 2016 meeting with dossier-author Christopher Steele also shows the Obama administration’s flatfooted response to Russian interference. “The Russians have succeeded in placing an agent inside the DNC,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec wrote based on Steele’s supposed intel.

In his dossier, Steele also highlighted concerns that the Russians had “a dossier of compromising material on Hillary Clinton,” including “bugged conversations” and “intercepted phone calls.” Yet, to date, there has been no mention of the Obama administration investigating either claim—something one would expect in a robust investigation of Russian interference.

While most of these examples connect to Spygate and suggest the Obama administration and career DOJ and FBI employees inappropriately targeted the Trump campaign, that is but half the scandal. The corollary consists of the Obama administration’s reckless handling of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and its decision to prioritize a sting of the Trump campaign over fighting foreign influence on the electorate. Even those who reject Spygate as a conspiracy theory should see the Obama administration’s ineffective response to Russia’s meddling in our elections as a scandal.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

asmPolitics-225 [Mueller Testimony]

The Current

New Yorker writers respond to the news.

Kamala Harris Pays a Visit to Al Sharpton

By Eric Lach

February 21st, 4:05 P.M.

Photograph by Drew Angerer / Getty

Since announcing her Presidential campaign, last month, Kamala Harris, the California senator, has held a rally in California, a CNN town-hall event in Iowa, and a non-CNN town-hall event in New Hampshire. On Thursday, she had lunch in Harlem. Harris, who hopes to become the first black female President, was there to meet with the Reverend Al Sharpton, the civil-rights activist and cable-news host, at Sylvia’s, the soul-food institution on Malcolm X Boulevard. Harris and Sharpton shared a table near a window. Outside, a few dozen members of the press peered in for a look. Harris left about half an hour after arriving, walking to an S.U.V. waiting outside. “Let her breathe!” someone on the sidewalk shouted, as reporters and photographers crushed around her. She got into the car without comment.

That left Sharpton, who, having seen his guest off, spoke into microphones for a few minutes. Straight-backed, his face lined and angular—Sharpton’s once prominent jowls are long-ago memories, as are his most famous battles with New York City politicians. He’s an elder statesman, with a regular slot on national television. “Senator Kamala Harris told me that, next time she was in New York, she wanted me to take her to Sylvia’s,” Sharpton said. He reminded everyone how Barack Obama ate with him there, in 2007, and how Bernie Sanders did the same, in 2016. “So this has become a tradition,” he said. (“A man who likes fried chicken and corn bread can’t be all that bad,” Sharpton said of Obama, after their Sylvia’s meal.) Sharpton said that he and Harris had discussed “criminal-justice reform” and “economic policies.” Reporters shouted out questions. Did he have a comment on the Jussie Smollett controversy? (“If Smollett is wrong, he ought to face accountability to the maximum.”) Was he going to endorse Harris? (“We’ll see.”) Was he planning to take other 2020 candidates to Sylvia’s? Many were coming to his National Action Network’s upcoming convention, he said, “but nobody’s mentioned Sylvia’s except Kamala Harris.”

Mueller Testimony: “The President Was Not Exculpated”

By David Rohde

10:14 A.M.

In the first minutes of Mueller’s testimony, Democrats achieved a basic aim: contradicting Trump’s claims of innocence.

Photograph by Chip Somodevilla / Getty

Within minutes of beginning his testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, directly contradicted one of President Donald Trump’s primary claims regarding the Mueller investigation. Speaking in lawyerly terms, Mueller said that his report had not exonerated the President on allegations of obstruction of justice.

“The President was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller said.

In a series of exchanges with the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerry Nadler, and other Democrats, Mueller also confirmed the basic outlines of his report. He said that the Russians engaged in sweeping interference in the 2016 election. And he noted that Trump’s campaign manager shared campaign strategy with a suspected Russian operative. Nadler repeatedly pressed Mueller, however, about his findings on obstruction.

“The President has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction, and that it completely and totally exonerated him,” Nadler said. “But that is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct, that is not what the report said,” Mueller replied.

After several other questions, Nadler again asked Mueller the same question. “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice,” Nadler said. “Is that correct?”

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

Nadler then asked, “And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the President?”

“No,” Mueller replied.

The hearing then quickly devolved into partisan lines of questioning. Republicans accused Mueller of unfairly smearing the President. Democrats tried to elicit more confirmations from Mueller of the most damaging elements of the report.

Mueller, who is seventy-four, struggled to answer some rapid-fire questions from members of Congress. He asked members to repeat their questions or to give him the citations for the section of the report they were citing. He stammered at times. Under attack from Republicans, he largely declined to defend himself.

More dramatic moments could unfold on Wednesday, but congressional hearings are often summarized by single moments. (Think of President Nixon’s White House counsel, John Dean, describing a “cancer” growing on the Presidency.)

In the first minutes of Mueller’s testimony, Democrats achieved a basic aim: contradicting Trump’s claims of innocence.