Friday, March 31, 2017

BOMBSHELL REPORT! Trump Surveillance Began Before He Was Even GOP Nominee

By Cortney O'Brien

Fox News anchor Adam Housley has obtained some new information in regards to who unmasked the names of U.S. officials like former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in the ongoing Russia investigation.
For starters, Housley's sources have revealed that the surveillance of Trump started before he was even the GOP nominee, he said during the broadcast of "Outnumbered" on Friday.

Adam Housley

Our sources: This surveillance that led to the unmasking of private names of American citizens started before Trump was the GOP nominee.

These sources, who Housley says are "not Trump people," also claim to know the name of at least one person who was leaking the names.

The person who did the unmasking is a “very senior” and “very well known” person in the intelligence community, Housley said, adding that he or she is not in the FBI.
It seems the spreading of names was done for “political purposes that have nothing to do with national security,” or foreign intelligence, but hurting Trump’s team, Housley noted.
"It had everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team," according to his sources.
Flynn, who was forced to resign as national security advisor after reports revealed he misled the White House in terms of his conversations with Russia, has asked the Senate Intelligence Committee for immunity in the investigation.

Did Former DOD Deputy Assistant Evelyn Farkas Let the Cat Out of the Bag? Obama Spied On Trump!

Meet Evelyn Farkas, an advisor to the Clinton campaign and the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama.
On MSNBC she confessed the following:

1.   She helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left the White House.

2.   Trump, not Russians, were the targets of surveillance.

3.   She was concerned about hiding their methods from Trump.

4.   She encouraged leaks because she was “worried” about Russians.

5.   “People on the Hill” (Congress) knew about Obama’s spy plot.

In an interview that has received zero mainstream media attention, former Department of Defense Deputy Assistant and MSNBC commentator Evelyn Farkas may have spilled the beans about the Obama administration’s widespread surveillance and intelligence gathering on President Trump while he was a candidate and during the transition.
Former DOD Deputy Assistant Farkas appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and you have never seen co-host Mika Brzezinski so quiet in all your life.
Farkas spoke openly about the type of intelligence that had been gathered before Obama left office and about urging her former colleagues to gather all the intelligence they could before the Trump administration took over.
Here is a transcript of Farkas’ interview with Mika Brzezinski who sat stunned barely speaking a word throughout Farkas’ story:
FARKAS:  “I was urging my former colleagues and frankly speaking the people on the [Capitol] Hill…it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.
FARKAS: “I feared if they [Trump team] found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump’s staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”
FARKAS:  “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the [Capitol] Hill.”
MIKA:  A lot going on today…
FARKAS:  “That’s why you have the leaking.” 

Courtesy of Liberty Writers, see the revealing interview by clicking below.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

In Sleazy DC, Mike Pence's Respect For His Wife and Professional Women Should Be Applauded

By Katie Pavlich

Yesterday the Washington Post published a story about Vice President Mike Pence and his relationship with his wife, Karen Pence. The big headline? He won't eat alone with women who aren't his wife and will not attend parties serving alcohol without her.

"In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either," the Post reported.
Cue the meltdown.
This, somehow, has been twisted as "extreme," with some on the left comparing his actions to Sharia Law.
In actuality Pence is smart and does a service not only to his wife, but to professional women working inside the Beltway.
His decision to err on the side of respect has certainly paid off.
Before becoming the governor Indiana in 2013, Mike Pence served as a U.S. Congressman for over a decade. With his wife by his side and a clean personal record, his career has taken him all the way to the White House.
Washington D.C. is often a sleazy, filthy town.
The stories you hear about smoky backrooms are true.
Go to any D.C. restaurant at happy hour and you'll see scores of married men surrounded by and engaged inappropriately with younger women who are not their wives.
This city is a place where a small, but vicious and significant population of men and women crave power.
They will stop at almost nothing to get it, which includes breaking up marriages.
There are 50,000 Ashley Madison accounts with a D.C. address, making the nation's capitol number four in the country for infidelity.
Right across the river and bordering D.C. is Arlington, Virginia, which comes in at number five.
In 2001 Vanity Fair published a piece called Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, detailing this behavior from women and their male enablers on Capitol Hill. 
In the wake of the Clinton and Condit intern scandals, you’d think Washington men would be wary of chasing young women, even ones as charming and alluring as Diana. You’d be wrong.
The Capitol buildings ooze sexual tension. The excitement begins once you pass the security guards. The windowless white marble corridors are a labyrinth in which you are isolated from the outside world. A “bubble” is how Diana puts it.
In the corridors you can hear little pump heels tap-tapping for miles, so predators know when the prey is coming; suddenly a congressman swings out from his office, dressed and groomed like a James Bond villain, usually flanked by an assortment of aides, all clutching files with the congressional logos firmly facing out, to remind you you’re in the presence of power. The congressman stops and stares up, down. He takes his time.
“Hey,” he says in a soft drawl.
This happens again and again, even on the second floor of the Rayburn building, where Gary Condit’s office is located, a chair and a handful of media outside. But the office sits sepulchral and empty, its occupant has long since been moved to a secret location.
Diana gets checked out all the time. “It’s just blatant. They don’t make any effort about hiding it,” she says. “They’ll start out conversations in elevators in the morning: ‘How are you? Who do you work for? Oh, you’re new around here. What are you doing for lunch?’ It’s just very bizarre and very forward.”

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Educational Sabotage

By Walter E. Williams

Nationally, black junior high and high school students are suspended at a rate more than three times as often as their white peers, twice as often as their Latino peers and more than 10 times as often as their Asian peers.
According to former Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the "huge disparity is not caused by differences in children; it's caused by differences in training, professional development, and discipline policies. It is adult behavior that needs to change."
In other words, the Education Department sees no difference between the behavior of black students and white, Latino and Asian students. It's just that black students are singled out for discriminatory discipline.
Driven by Obama administration pressures, school districts revised their discipline procedures by cutting the number of black student suspensions.
Max Eden, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written a report, "School Discipline Reform and Disorder: Evidence from New York City Public Schools, 2012-16."
The new discipline imposed on public schools is called restorative justice.
Rather than punish a student through exclusion (suspension), restorative justice encourages the student who has misbehaved to reflect on his behavior, take responsibility and resolve to behave better in the future.
The results of this new policy are: increased violence, drug use and gang activity.
Max Eden examines the NYC School Survey of teachers and students and finds that violence increased in 50 percent of schools and decreased in 14 percent. Gang activity increased in 39 percent of schools and decreased in 11 percent.
For drug and alcohol use, there was a 37 percent increase while only 7 percent of schools improved.
It's not just New York City where discipline is worse under the Obama administration's policy.
Max Eden reports: "One Chicago teacher told the Chicago Tribune that her district's new discipline policy led to 'a totally lawless few months' at her school.
One Denver teacher told Chalkbeat that, under the new discipline policy, students had threatened to harm or kill teachers, 'with no meaningful consequences.' ...
After Oklahoma City Public Schools revised its discipline policies in response to federal pressure, one teacher told the Oklahoman that '[w]e were told that referrals would not require suspension unless there was blood.'"
Max Eden reports that in Oklahoma City a teacher said that: "Students are yelling, cursing, hitting and screaming at teachers and nothing is being done but teachers are being told to teach and ignore the behaviors. These students know there is nothing a teacher can do. Good students are now suffering because of the abuse and issues plaguing these classrooms."  
In Buffalo, a teacher who was kicked in the head by a student said: "We have fights here almost every day. The kids walk around and say, 'We can't get suspended -- we don't care what you say.'"
Ramsey County attorney John Choi of St. Paul, Minnesota, described how the number of assaults against teachers doubled from 2014 to 2015 and called the situation a "public health crisis."
Testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a former Philadelphia teacher said that a student told him, "I'm going to torture you. I'm doing this because I can't be removed."
Eden's report cites similar school horror stories in other cities.
Since most of the school violence and discipline problems rest with black students, there are a few questions that black parents, politicians, academics and civil rights advocates should ponder.
Is academic achievement among blacks so high that black people can afford to allow miscreants and thugs to sabotage the education process?
For those pushing the Obama administration's harebrained restorative justice policy, can blacks afford for anything to interfere with the acquisition of academic excellence?
Finally, how does the Obama restorative justice policy differ from a Ku Klux Klan policy that would seek to sabotage black education by making it impossible for schools to rid themselves of students who make education impossible for everyone else? 

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Resist: Post-Trump Victory, Dems Finally Flip a State Legislature Republicans

By Guy Benson

If you're unfamiliar with the partisan landscape of state legislatures across the country in recent years, here's a quick primer: With precious few, deep blue exceptions, Republicans have dominated.

During the Obama era, the GOP gained hundreds upon hundreds of seats in state-level governing bodies; they currently control 68 of 99 chambers nationwide.

The popular backlash to Obamaism was swift, deep, and now complete: The Republican Party now rules DC, too -- even if they seem incapable of taking advantage of this rare opportunity at unified governance.

But now that Trump is president, the roles could well reverse.  

Much like the GOP in 2009, Democrats find themselves staggering about in the wilderness; leaderless, and with a base fanatically committed to maximum "resistance" against the new administration.

They've aired their intense opposition through the (largely sympathetic, if not outright allied) mainstream media, staged mass demonstrations, and leveraged every social media platform under the sun to fight Trump and the Republicans.

The political momentum, and the gravitational pull toward an ideological pendulum swing, appears to be on the Left's side.

And yet, here's what we relayed a few weeks ago regarding some early electoral outcomes that have occurred since Trump's November victory:

The Democrat resistance may be generating a lot of noise in Washington, D.C., but so far in 2017, it has shown little impact on elections in the states. Even with hefty financial investments and high profile Democrats lending star power to state-level candidates, Republicans won control of every district they previously held across multiple states that Democrats have won in the last three or more presidential elections, including as recently as yesterday in Connecticut.
Democrats sought to flip partisan control of four Republican-held seats in a quartet of blue state legislatures -- with liberal advocates showering national attention and money upon several of the races.

The result?  

Zero pick-ups. In spite of major intensity and financial gaps fueled by The Resistance, the GOP held serve in all four contests.

But now there's an update to this story.

A seat in Louisiana has finally flipped. From blue to red.

Via the Republican State Leadership Committee:

For months, Democrats have bragged about state-level, special election strength and victories, while conveniently glossing over one very important detail: they weren’t actually winning any new seats. But on Saturday, the seat count finally changed… and not in their direction. Republican John Stefanski this weekend flipped Louisiana House District 42 – a seat held by Democrats since at least 1972 – after Democrats failed to even file a candidate in the race. Additionally, Republicans retained House District 92 on Saturday with a win by Joe Stagni. So for those of you keeping score, Democrats in state legislatures – despite massive interest and spending – have still flipped zero seats and hold even less than they did at the beginning of 2017. So much for refocused and rebuilding. ICYMI earlier this month, RSLC Political Director Justin Richards released a 2017 special elections update memo noting that despite major investments and major party surrogates’ engagement, Democrats hadn’t actually netted any new seats in state legislative chambers.
The RSLC surveys the state of play since Trump's resistance-sparking win last fall:

- Republicans in January retained a seat in the Virginia House and Virginia Senate by very comfortable margins, despite big investments by Democrats led by Governor Terry McAuliffe.

- Republicans in February retained a Minnesota House seat which gave them their largest House majority ever post-presidential election, despite major Democrat Party surrogates campaigning for their candidate.

- Also in February, Republicans by 12 points retained a critical Senate seat in Connecticut to maintain a chamber tie first secured on Election Day 2016, despite Democrats investing heavily to flip the seat and win back an outright majority.
Now add a red state GOP gain to the roster, following a race in which Democrats couldn't even get a candidate on the ballot to replace their outgoing member.  

As I emphasized in my previous post, this is not cause for conservatives to adopt a posture of smugness or complacency.  

Yes, regaining the US Senate is going to be a very tough task for Democrats due to the nature of the 2018 map, but they will have a great many opportunities to make other significant gains at the state legislative, gubernatorial and federal level next year.  

Keep an eye on this upcoming special Congressional election in Georgia in a Trump-wary district, too. 

Overall, Republicans have won so much lately that it will be a target-rich environment for the 'out' party.  

And if President Trump's job approval rating is still suffering by next fall (absent mitigating factors), GOP losses could be substantial.  

But these very early campaign results prove is that the Democratic/media narrative about a resurgent Left is at least premature, given the choices voters have made in five states.

Monday, March 27, 2017

6 Questions Democrats Should Be Asking Themselves Right Now

By John Hawkins

It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in.

When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures.

Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history.
Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all.
So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:
1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
Hillary had a potential FBI indictment hanging over her head even as Democrats nominated her.
She’s unlikable, not particularly accomplished for a presidential candidate, campaigned on a radically liberal agenda, has corruption issues, and her campaign pitch could be boiled down to “Vote For Me Because I’m A Woman.”
On top of that, she was already so widely despised that she turned out Republicans.
You could make a decent argument that she’s the single worst presidential candidate of all time, yet she won anyway.
Of course, you could make the argument that a radical socialist like Bernie Sanders would have been worse, but even if so, why do the Democrats have so few quality candidates?
Where are the blue chip candidates?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
We’re in an age where people have almost infinite choice when it comes to TV, music, clothing, groceries, websites and just about everything else.
Yet, the standard Democratic position is that the federal government needs to be in charge of everything so San Francisco values can be forced on everyone.
Don’t like gay marriage in your state? Too bad.
Don’t want Obamacare? Too bad. You are going to get it – and LIKE IT.
Democrats are so proud that they believe in “choice” when it comes to abortion - even though the father and the baby have no choice.
So why not allow other people to live like they choose?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
Over the last few years, Democrats have turned into sour, anger puritans shaking their fingers at everyone who steps outside their extremely narrowly approved set of liberal values.
We’ve actually gotten to the point where Democrats can’t even tolerate OTHER PEOPLE listening to non-liberal viewpoints on campus.
Whatever happened to being open-minded?
Whatever happened to tolerating other viewpoints?
Don’t Democrats need to learn how to do that again?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
If you’re a man, Democrats accuse you of perpetuating rape culture.
If you’re white, they accuse you of being privileged.
If you’re a Christian, they accuse you of being as bad as radical Islamists.
If you’re a non-liberal woman, you’re constantly told that women who hold you in contempt and don’t represent your views speak for you.
If you’re moderate, for all intents and purposes, they tell you to shut your mouth and do as you’re told.
Democrats would rather offend a million Americans in flyover country than hack off a liberal college professor.
At some point, if you want to represent people, you have to at least make an attempt to address issues they care about in a way that they appreciate.
Democrats have abandoned this idea and have started explaining to Americans that they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them.
That’s not how you make friends and influence people.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
Democrats from the Clinton years would think today’s Democrats are nuts and Democrats from, say, 40 years ago would vote Republican before they’d vote for the radicalism that has been embraced by today’s Democrat Party.
Gay marriage, men in the women’s restrooms, detaching gender from genitalia, trigger warnings, safe spaces, cultural appropriation, white privilege, open borders – these are radical shifts for the Democrat Party that have happened in a relatively short period of time.
At what point do you start to wonder if your party has moved too far, too fast?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?
Democrats seem to start every discussion with the assumption that there’s an infinite amount of money for them to divvy out to liberal interest groups and for votes.
Meanwhile, we’re almost 20 trillion dollars in debt and adding more to that amount every year - and we are now reliant on nations like China and Saudi Arabia to keep loaning us money so we can pay Social Security and Medicare.
This is an unsustainable situation and, whether by choice or necessity, the amount of money the federal government spends must drop substantially in the next decade or two.
Can the Democrat Party continue to function without being able to give away taxpayer dollars?
One way or another, we’re going to find out.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

The Trump Agenda: Moving Forward For America

A Message From The Tump-Pence Team

On November 8th, the American People voted for historic change and serious action.

By delivering the House, the Senate, and the White House, the American people gave Washington clear instructions: It’s time to get busy, get to work, and to get the job done.

President Trump is keeping his promises and continues to Make America Great Again!

Read about the President’s week below.

The Movement Continues In Kentucky

President Trump held a rally in Louisville, KY on Monday. He made it clear that standing together as Americans, we are going to deliver amazing things for the citizens of Kentucky and the United States. We are going to take power back from the political class in Washington, and return that power to the American people. It’s happening, and it all started on November 8th.  

No One Knows America Like Truckers

No one knows America like truckers know America. All across America every day, they see every hill, valley, and pothole in our roads that have to be redone in every town and forest from border to border and ocean to ocean.

America depends on truck drivers. They work very hard for every citizen of our country. That’s why President Trump held a meeting with truckers this week to address the many issues facing their industry.  

Bipartisan Support For Supreme Court Nominee Judge Grosuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch began confirmation hearings at the United States Senate this week. President Trump has nominated the most qualified, principled, and strongest defender of the Constitution possible as his choice for Supreme Court Justice. It comes as no surprise that Judge Gorsuch is being lauded as a brilliant judge who rules based on the Constitution rather than his own opinions. 
You can support Judge Gorsuch by clicking here and signing the petition.  

Paying Back Our Veterans

President Trump held a listening session with Veteran Affairs Secretary David Shulkin and veterans. As Commander-in-Chief, President Trump will not accept sub-standard service for our great Veterans. Every member of our government must do their utmost to ensure our Veterans have the care that they earned. That's the way they’re going to be treated.  

Imagining A Better Future In Space

For almost six decades, NASA’s work has inspired millions of Americans to imagine distant worlds and a better future right here on Earth. President Trump signed Senate Bill 442 to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to NASA's core mission: human space exploration, space science, and technology. With this legislation, we support NASA’s scientists, engineers, astronauts and their pursuit of discovery.

We are one people. Whether we are black, brown or white, we all salute the same great American flag.

As long we remember these truths, we will not fail. No one can beat us. We are Americans, and the future belongs to us.

This is your moment. This is your time. And this, the United States of America, is your country again.

We're in this together and we can't thank you enough for your continued support.

Team Trump-Pence

P.S. ACT NOW: Pre-order our new Limited Edition Make America Great Hats by clicking here.

In Gorsuch Hearings, Democrats Blow It on Originalism

As the hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch wrapped up on Thursday, one theme stood out strongest: Gorsuch is not even the main actor.  Rather, the starring role was shared by those in the Democratic Party, who, put simply, do not understand originalism – nor, quite possibly, even the Constitution.
It is not likely that the Democrats were looking to showcase their woeful ignorance of a judicial philosophy.  Then again, this is a party in deep trouble, though you wouldn't know that by asking its members.  There is perhaps no one who better illustrates this than Edward-Isaac Dovere in "Democrats in the Wilderness," written for Politico.
With all their failings, the Democrats are looking to play the political game – that is, they want to make Gorsuch, who was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a unanimous voice vote, look bad at all costs.  This involved reminding him that he's not Judge Merrick Garland, as if Gorsuch didn't already know that and could do anything about it.  To his credit, Gorsuch thinks "the world of Merrick Garland" and he is "an outstanding judge."
Almost just as petty, Democrats jumped at the opportunity to ask Gorsuch about his views, as if being an originalist meant he would be against the LGBT community.  The clear winner with this technique was Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) – and fittingly so, considering his role as an entertainer.
Not only did Gorsuch not take the bait, including and especially from Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), but he showed off the fitting nominee he is: one who has a healthy grasp on how it is not so much his personal beliefs that matter, but his judicial philosophy that guides his decisions.  What Democrats did do well is demonstrate that they can't fathom having to separate the two.
On the first day, ranking member Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lambasted the originalist view, admitting that her beef was "personal."  She finds such a "judicial philosophy" "really troubling."  She described how "it means in essence that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789."  To prove her point, Feinstein referenced enslaved African-Americans and women.
She claimed that this view would "ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build," and that "it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds."
Feinstein's examples would prove the flaws of originalism if only she had not left out a glaring omission: the constitutional amendment process.  One could find perhaps no better originalist than the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, as President Donald Trump likes to call him.
Scalia was a promoter of the constitutional amendment process, which has acknowledged and enshrined the rights of women and black Americans.
What is Feinstein's alternative?  "I firmly believe that the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves," she said.  One can only surmise that it is up to judges to decide not merely what the law says, but, if they don't like it, what the law ought to say.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) could also not help showing off her gross misunderstanding.
Gorsuch not only sailed through such questioning, but cleared up for Klobuchar that he is "not looking to take us back to quill pens and horse and buggies."  She had asked:
So when the Constitution refers 30-some times to 'his' or 'he' when describing the president of the United States, you would see that as, 'Well back then they actually thought a woman could be president even through women couldn't vote?'
A Supreme Court nominee should not have to defend how he believes that women can be president.  In the end, it worked to Gorsuch's advantage, as it showcased his likability.  "Of course women can be president of the United States," he said.  That wasn't even the best part. "I'm a father of two daughters, and I hope one of them turns out to be president of the United States."
Being an originalist does not require an insistence that the Constitution is not open to change, but rather an insistence that changes be done through the proper process.
What it does mean is that judges do just that: they judge.  What they don't do is use their own political beliefs to change the law to fit their view of what the law should be.
It is not exaggeration to warn that doing so threatens the very framework of the separation of powers, as unelected judges insert themselves into roles designed exclusively for the legislative branch.
It is telling for Democrats to have exposed themselves in such a way.  It could spell doom for the Democratic Party and its future, at least with their influence on the judiciary.  There is another worse option, however, for generations to come, if decisions are made by activist judges who will interpret and evolve the Constitution for their own political and personal gains.  In other words, a Democrat's dream.
Rebecca Downs has had her writing published at several outlets, mostly pro-life. You can find her on Facebook.


Praise For Judge Gorsuch’s Performance At His Confirmation Hearing
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Senate Democrats Have Scores Of Legitimate Political Fights In Front Of Them. Judge Gorsuch Is Not One. He Should Be Confirmed.” (Joe Scarborough, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)

The Washington Post: “Gorsuch Presented Himself As The Picture Of A Cool, Calm, Self-Assured Justice.” “Gorsuch presented himself as the picture of a cool, calm, self-assured justice.” (Amber Phillips, “4 Takeaways From Neil Gorsuch’s Highly Politicized Confirmation Hearing,” The Washington Post, 3/21/17)

The Washington Examiner Headline: “Gorsuch Crushes Durbin’s Weak Line Of Questioning On Student Letter.” (Emily Jashinsky, “Gorsuch Crushes Durbin's Weak Line Of Questioning On Student Letter,” The Washington Examiner, 3/21/17)
CNBC’s John Harwood: “There Is No Chance Under The Sun That Democrats Defeat Gorsuch Nomination. He Makes Extremely Strong Case For Himself.”(John Harwood, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)
CNN’s Gloria Berger: “Judge Gorsuch Is Qualified And Everybody Knows It.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 3/21/17)
Fox Business’ Janie Nitze:Gorsuch’s “Personality, His Kindness, His Wittiness, His Humor” Are All “Shining Through.” “And one thing I’ve been actually pleased about in watching the hearing is that the warrant of his personality, his kindness, his wittiness, his humor, all of it is shining through, and I think he has built a great persona on all sides of the aisle here.” (Fox Business Network’s “Closing Bell,” 3/21/17)
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “I Think He Comes Across As A Man Who's Very Poised, Very Learned.”(Fox News’ “Special Report With Bret Baier,” 3/21/17)
MSNBC's Chris Jansing: Gorsuch Delivered An “Impressively Disciplined Performance.” (MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” 3/21/17)
Law Professor Randy Barnett: “Gorsuch Made Effective Response To Dem Cherry-Picking His Record With Lots Of Other Cases That Went Other Way.”(Randy Barnett, Twitter Feed, 3/21/17)