Daily Beast says Clinton must go

Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.

No one benefits from her latest venture back onto the political scene.

Liz Mair

10.18.18 5:20 AM ET

OPINION

Hannah Peters/GettyWe’re three weeks out from the 2018 midterm election, and Hillary Clinton is popping up again like a Halloween ghoul who keeps rising from the grave to terrorize the American public; only this time accompanied by the increasingly #MeToo burdened uber-villain, Bubba.

The Clintons, it seems, can’t seem to call it quits, even if it means leaving members of their own party cringing and many more voters ready to “headdesk” themselves into a coma.

This time, it’s happening courtesy of a pay-through-the-nose-to-see-them rehab tour. Because if there’s one thing America hasn’t had enough of over recent decades, it’s efforts by the Clintons to recast themselves as normal, likeable people, as they cash checks and play the victim.

Previous editions of this show have included Hillary’s two Senate runs and two presidential runs, which, depending on one’s perspective, were either an attempt to show independence from her husband or to be compensated for his myriad screw ups.

But despite the last run ending with a loss to Donald Freaking Trump, the most flawed candidate Republicans could conceivably have run in 2016, it appears that nothing will get Hillary out of our political debate once and for all.

Hillary remains caught up in the delusion that the only reason she lost in 2016 was because of Russian interference. She does not seem to have fully processed the fact that she lost the electoral college, the only vote that counts.  She touts the fact that she got nearly three million more votes than Trump while conveniently leaving out that her tally of the vote still fell well below 50 percent.

Both of the major party nominees in 2016 were so unlikable, flawed and—let’s be candid—unethical that lots of us just couldn’t pull the lever for her even if we couldn’t stand Trump. According to a studyfrom American National Election Studies, the words most associated by voters with Hillary in 2016 were “experienced liar.” Is it logical that she’d want to rehab her image, given all this? Perhaps. Is it possible? No. Do we need to watch her try? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.

Hillary’s continual pursuit of limelight and headlines ensures that the image of the Democratic Party remains an outdated, outmoded, and frankly despicable for far too many voters. This comes at a time when leading Democrats are attempting to focus voters’ attention on the future—2020, and beating Trump—and jostling for the role as the new party leader.

It also undercuts Democrats’ positioning as the only party that really cares about #MeToo and that will fight for survivors, a contrast Dems are only too keen to spotlight in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and ongoing allegations about President Trump’s treatment of women.  Only sheer partisan convenience could allow someone to insist that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is credible while downplaying the numerous allegations of mistreatment (and worse) made by women against Bill Clinton.

For the Democratic Party, about the best that can come of this latest Clinton revival is that no matter how unpalatable any of its leading lights—Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Cory Booker, or others—are individually, they’ll look like downright appealing the longer Hillary hangs about.

But her doing so does not signal that the Democratic Party is actually living in the present, and focused on beating Trump. Rather, it suggests the party wants to turn American politics into the new edition of Groundhog Day—only with no Bill Murray or actual groundhog. Isn’t it time to let the Democratic Party move on from its Clintonite past, and to give someone else a go?

One of the reasons Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so refreshing isn’t just because the more Democratic Socialist-driven, modern Democratic Party—which is populated to a greater degree by younger voters—wants a younger, more progressive avatar to embrace. It’s also because even Republicans are starting to get weary of bashing the Clintons now; though some of us will undertake it still as a public service.

Clinton is like the target you’ve already shot dead-on so many times the paper has gone to shreds. There are few more column inches to be written, but even Fox News personalities have begun to act a little bored when they dive into Hillary-focused narratives these days.

All of which suggests that for Republicans, too, it’s time to move on—to fresh fights, with fresh adversaries. We want the newest bad guy, not the evildoer from the biggest show in the freaking 1990s. Maybe in 2020 that will be Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, or Booker, or any one of the other 20-some people that might potentially run for president on the Democratic side. But it’s a dead certainty that it isn’t the lady we’ve seen inveighing against the right wing for stealing things she seems to think she or her husband are inherently entitled to for decades now.

It’s time for Hillary and Bill to get off the stage and quit seeking the public adoration they’re clearly never going to get to the massive degree they crave it. Be content, like so many other party elders who turned out not to be winners, in working behind the scenes to help to deliver wins for other, better, up-and-coming, appealing voices.

Yes, others have stuck around past their primes. Mitt Romney, a candidate with a similar resume of high profile presidential losses, is now running for Senate. But his circumstances are different. He was asked to run for the seat that he will soon occupy by its current occupant and he’s maintained strong ties to Utah. Even then, his continuing presence on the political stage irks a ton of Americans who wish he too would go away quietly.

So, Hillary, ditch the rehab tour. Dispense with TV appearances. Recognize that whether it’s lauded or not, you did make some kind of a difference (yes, even Hillary did a couple of things right in her various terms in public office), and be content to leave it there.

Zombie movies for Halloween are fun. But whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or neither, there’s only so much zombie politics you can take. That’s what the Clintons essentially offer now—a brain-devouring, egocentric version of Democrat-ism lurching and festering onward, seemingly endlessly.

Obama’s Anti-Discipline Policies Set Our Students Up for Failure

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams

President Barack Obama’s first education secretary, Arne Duncan, gave a speech on the 45th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where, in 1965, state troopers beat and tear-gassed hundreds of peaceful civil rights marchers who were demanding voting rights.

Later that year, as a result of widespread support across the nation, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. Duncan titled his speech “Crossing the Next Bridge.” Duncan told the crowd that black students “are more than three times as likely to be expelled as their white peers,” adding that Martin Luther King would be “dismayed.”

Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and her special assistant and counselor, Alison Somin, have written an important article in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, titled “The Department of Education’s Obama-Era Initiative on Racial Disparities in School Discipline” (Spring 2018).

The article is about the departments of Education and Justice’s “disparate impact” vision, wherein they see racial discrimination as the factor that explains why black male students face suspension and expulsion more often than other students.

Faced with threats from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, schools have instituted new disciplinary policies. For example, after the public school district in Oklahoma City was investigated by the office, there was a 42.5 percent decrease in the number of suspensions.

According to an article in The Oklahoman, one teacher said, “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.” According to Chalkbeat, new high school teachers left one school because they didn’t feel safe. There have been cases in which students have assaulted teachers and returned to school the next day.

Many of the complaints about black student behavior are coming from black teachers. I doubt whether they could be accused of racial discrimination against black students.

The first vice president of the St. Paul, Minnesota, chapter of the NAACP said it’s “very disturbing” that the school district would retaliate against a black teacher “for simply voicing the concern” that when black students are not held accountable for misbehaving, they are set up for failure in life.

An article in Education Week earlier this year, titled “When Students Assault Teachers, Effects Can Be Lasting,” discusses the widespread assaults of teachers across the country: “In the 2015-16 school year, 5.8 percent of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10 percent were threatened with injury, according to federal education data.”

Measures that propose harsh punishment for students who assault teachers have not been successful. In North Carolina, a bill was introduced that proposed that students 16 or older could be charged with a felony if they assaulted a teacher. It was opposed by children’s advocacy and disability rights groups.

In Minnesota, a 2016 bill would have required school boards to automatically expel a student who threatened or inflicted bodily harm on a teacher for up to a year. It, too, was opposed, even in light of the fact that teachers have suffered serious bodily harm, such as the case in which a high school student slammed a teacher into a concrete wall and then squeezed his throat. That teacher ended up with a traumatic brain injury.

There are plenty of visuals of assaults on teachers. Here’s a tiny sample: Florida’s Seminole Middle School, Pennsylvania’s Cheltenham High School , Illinois’ Rich Central High School.

Byongook Moon, a professor in the criminal justice department at the University of Texas at San Antonio, says that according to his study of 1,600 teachers, about 44 percent of teachers who had been victims of physical assault said that being attacked had a negative impact on their job performance. Nearly 30 percent said they could no longer trust the student who had attacked them, and 27 percent said they thought of quitting their teaching career afterward.

My question is: Is there any reason whatsoever for adults to tolerate this kind of behavior from our young people?

American fascism

By Bob  Livingston

American fascism 

There is a silent marriage between big government and big business. It's called fascism, or was in Italy. We have much the same thing in America.

Big business has and will promote every ideology and philosophy known to man to disguise its madness for profits and government favors. All governments are fronts for monopoly capitalism (fascism).America is not a capitalist system by any stretch. This is obvious to any sober person.

Government benefits big business. Big business benefits government. There's a revolving door between top brass in the multinational corporations and the halls of power in the District of Criminals. They run and populate the president's cabinet offices and the alphabet soup regulatory agencies. (For evidence, go to the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations and see how many names you recognize from government, and study the bios of those you don't.) In return, government policy is crafted and designed to enrich and favor big business.

The Big Tech companies are no exception and, in fact, prove the rule. Big Tech got/gets massive infusions from the national treasury — and are also government contractors — and in return they scarf up copious amounts of data and other information on their users and supply it to big government; their promises of data security notwithstanding.

With the corporate propaganda media losing its control over the flow of information, Big Tech is stepping in. And it's partnering with the MSM and the power brokers who operate behind the scenes in an attempt to stifle any thought that falls outside the mainstream.

It's doing this not just with government's blessing, but with the threat of regulation or something more, as Communist Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut showed with his implied threat via Twitter.

When a major U.S. politician states that something "must" happen, then there is the implied threat that if "something" doesn't happen then government will respond with "something" more.

Senate democrats are already circulating plans to take over the internet and impose all manner of privacy-invading and speech-stifling laws.

Remember, we told you that everything that is public policy is politically correct, and everything that is politically correct is public policy. It's how governments ensure conformity and control.

CNN, the Communist News Network that is a purveyor of much of today's fake news, overtly advocated for the removal of Alex Jones' websites and podcasts from technology platforms in an attempt to drive him out of business. Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Pinterest, Spotify, Stitcher, YouPorn, LinkedIn and MailChimp all obliged and banned Infowars last week. This week, the comment platform Disqus (which we use on Personal Liberty^®, for now) and the video platform Vimeo joined in the purge.

CNN — known for cutting off guests being interviewed live when they venture into subjects contrary to the official narrative — claims to support free speech. But when Newseum, the museum of news media established "to increase public understanding of the importance of a free press and the First Amendment" began selling President Donald Trump's MAGA hats and t-shirts with the words "Fake News" in the CNN-style font on them, CNN sparked a social justice mob response that forced the museum to pull the items from its gift shop and issue an apology.

Other media outlets have joined in on the pile-on against Infowars and other deliverers of alternative news, claiming that "hate speech" (a nebulous, meaningless term) and "racism" (a term that was so overused in the Obama years that it, too, has lost its meaning) are "unacceptable" and have no place in a civilized society. In response, the media and tech giants have assumed the role of the government's thought and speech police, with government sanction.

But it's not just Infowars and so-called "alt-right" (another meaningless, fabricated term) media organs being removed from Big Tech; libertarians andso-called "alt-left" and far left sites are beginning to be purged.

No less than the U.S. Supreme Court, in Matal v. Tam, affirmed there is no such thing as "hate speech":

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."

And:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an "egregious form of content discrimination," which is "presumptively unconstitutional." … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

The media and leftist elites love to call Trump a fascist, but in doing so they are engaging in Orwellian-style newspeak. Nationalism, crudeness or racism (not that we believe Trump is a racist) do not make one fascist. However, banning contrarian thought (21st century book burning) and beating people into submission — physically and verbally — are fascist tactics. The fascists of the left-wing terror group Antifa are far more fascist in their behavior and philosophy than Trump.

As historian Michael Leeden writes for Forbes:

This (calling Trump a fascist) is not a productive discussion. It has very little to do with fascism itself. For the most part, we hear about style, not ideas or ideology. We hear a lot about vulgarity, about the enthusiasm of crowds, and about threats to basic freedoms. All serious subjects, to be sure, but by making them reiterations of fascism (all the while saying they aren't really fascism), we yank them from their proper context and make proper understanding of both fascism and our current crisis impossible. Italian fascism, which came to power in 1922, was a war ideology. They argued that the country should be governed by the heroes of the First World War. The fascists fought violent socialist bands in the streets of Italy's major cities (not so much a doctrinal conflict as a reaction to the Socialists' opposition to the war). The street violence was not a monopoly of either fascists or Socialists, but characterized the whole society. Indeed, it characterized the whole continent. Remember that the Bolsheviks had seized power in Moscow, and were calling for global revolution. The Italian left was inspired by this revolutionary event, and fascism was in part a response to this threat.

This newspeak is dangerous to liberty.

Mind control through government propaganda has overshadowed any physical threat to our physical security. We are already in a psychological jail at the mercy of the propaganda ministry.

This is what is meant by benevolent totalitarianism. America has German-style fascism, just without the jackboots.

You don't have to know that you are a slave to be one. Military occupation is no longer necessary (visibly). Total war goes on against the people all the time. Remember that corporations are also engaged in a corporate repeal of the 2^ndAmendment, again with government blessing if not government sanction (see, Obama's Operation Chokepoint).

Few people ever come to the realism that big government in cooperation with big business (fascism) work together to perpetually extract labor, wealth and liberty from the people.

The key to this conspiracy is to keep the people dependent on the government under what is euphemistically called "public policy." 

American consumers feel better than ever thanks to the tax cuts

BY ALFREDO ORTIZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 08/20/18 12:00 PM EDT

© Getty Images

This month brings more evidence that American consumers are doing better than ever. The Commerce Department announced last week that retail sales, a widespread proxy of consumer health, rose by 6.4 percentyear over year in July, shattering Wall Street analyst expectations. The growth was driven by increased spending on Main Street, including at shops, restaurants, and grocery stores. This strong consumer demand led to increased manufacturing output as well. The Federal Reserve revealed last week that factory output in the United States was up by 2.8 percent.

Second quarter earnings reports at many major American retailers also crushed expectations. Walmart announced last week that same store sales grew by 4.5 percent, double analyst forecasts, and the fastest pace in more than 10 years. Such sales growth is especially impressive given the enormous size of these retailers. “Customers tell us that they feel better about the current health of the U.S. economy as well as their personal finances,” said Walmart chief executive officer Doug McMillon.

This data comes on the heels of second quarter economic growth announced earlier this month that came in at an impressive 4.1 percent. Unemployment sits at a low rate of 3.9 percent. The tax cuts, which in practice took effect halfway through the first quarter this year, are the punchbowl at this consumer party. They are raising paychecks and making Americans wealthier and more confident to spend. Provisions such as the doubling of the standard deduction and the elimination of the 15 percent tax rate in favor of an expanded 12 percent tax rate are putting thousands of dollars back into the pockets of ordinary Americans.

The biggest tax cut for millions of families is the doubled child tax credit. Middle class families now get a $2,000 tax credit for each child to help offset their tax liability. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that the old $1,000 tax credit lifted 2.7 million Americans out of poverty. That number should roughly double as the credit does. No wonder consumer sentiment is at a historic high. Moreover, the first $1,400 of this credit is now refundable, meaning that many hardworking Americans will actually get money back from the government, in addition to their standard refund. This will buoy consumer confidence even further.

One of the beneficiaries of this strong consumer environment is the Main Street business community. Small businesses are more exposed to swings of consumer sentiment than their corporate competitors, often relying on disposable income for their success. CNBC reported that small business sentiment is currently at a record high. In addition to the top line boost small businesses are getting from consumer spending thanks to the individual tax cuts, small businesses received tax cuts of their own to bolster their bottom lines. These include a new 20 percent small business tax deduction and immediate expensing on their capital spending.

The tax cuts mean that more money stays in communities and on Main Street, with less dollars shipped off to Washington. The latest indicators are just more proof of their resulting economic success. The American consumers who are benefiting should vote accordingly on Election Day.

Alfredo Ortiz is president and CEO of the Job Creators Network.

TAGS GOVERNMENT CONSUMERS BUSINESS ELECTION AMERICA FINANCE MONEY

The Democratic Senate Immigration Disaster

Originally published at Fox News  By Newt Gingrich

Republicans have the chance to secure a significant victory in the U.S. Senate this fall – largely because the Democrats’ radical immigration positions could lead to their catastrophic downfall.

As more and more Democrats throw their support behind so-called sanctuary cities, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and promoting open borders, more and more Americans are expressing their vehement opposition to these positions.

Most recently, in their fervor over the child detention issue, every Senate Democrat scrambled to co-sponsor Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Keep Families Together Act (partly to rebuke the president and partly to appease the growing radical wing of the Democratic party) despite the bill proposing half-baked, open-border policies that very few Americans support.

Gabriel Malor wrote an eye-opening piece for The Federalist describing how devasting the Feinstein bill would truly be for our country it were passed. Malor notes that, “Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.”

The bill would negatively impact virtually the entire United States because it sloppily defines its geographic scope as “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border.” As Malor pointed out, “That’s roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population. Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma (more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly 600 miles from the nearest border crossing). All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near a port of entry or both.”

A recent Harvard-Harris Poll conducted by Mark Penn (who is not Republican) clearly shows that most Americans overwhelmingly disagree with the radical Democratic immigration agenda. To illustrate just how wide this gulf is, I’ve included the below chart that describes the percentage results of Penn’s poll by issue (click the image for a larger view).

The results are clear. Sixty-four percent of registered voters said people who cross the border illegally should be sent back to their home countries. Only 36 percent said they should be allowed to stay. This result doesn’t significantly change when children are involved (61 percent to 39 percent).

Additionally, 61 percent of voters said current border security was inadequate – and 70 percent support more strict enforcement of immigration law. An astounding 84 percent of voters said sanctuary city policies should end, and 69 percent oppose the idea of abolishing ICE. These numbers show how radical and out of sync the central planks of Democratic immigration platform truly are.

Byron York with the Washington Examiner has done an excellent job of describing the disconnect between the views of radical Democrats (including the media) and those of the American people – particularly with regards to the wide American support of President Trump’s immigration policies.

I have written a strategy paper citing the work of York and Malor[will add link] that describes how Republicans must use the facts about what Americans think about immigration policy and clearly communicate how and why the Republicans are right and the Democrats are wildly wrong.

The elite media is so biased that it is (and will no doubt continue) artificially propping up an increasingly radical Democratic Party while artificially suppressing the issue popularity of the Trump team.

So, the key purpose of the fall 2018 Republican Senate campaign is to communicate how totally unacceptable the radical Democratic views are and how radically they would change America if they succeed.

For example, radical Democrats support for sanctuary cities (and any Democrat who supports sanctuary cities is a radical) is deeply unpopular. Ending sanctuary cities is an 84-16 issue. Furthermore, Americans believe sanctuary cities increase crime by 64 percent to 36 percent. This is something that the House and Senate should vote on as often as possible.

The abolition ICE movement is also a completely looney Democratic idea that is completely rejected by the American public 69 percent to 31 percent. Republicans should point out that ICE has been an important part of combatting the opioid crisis and fighting drug cartels – which is destroying American families and communities across the country. In 2017 alone, the agency seized roughly 2,400 pounds of deadly fentanyl. Democrats should be made to answer why they think dangerous drugs that are tearing American families apart should be allowed to come in the country.

Every Republican challenger should get a copy of Feinstein’s open-borders bill and carry it to every event, press conference, and debate. Democratic incumbents should be forced to explain why they agreed to cosponsor a bill that will gut our ability to enforce immigration laws when 70 percent of Americans support more stringent border enforcement.

Across the board, Republicans range from a high of 84 percent to low of 60 percent for our immigration positions. These are winning positions. The Democrats cannot win on these issues if Republicans have the courage to ignore the elite media and focus on the American people.

Rep. Davis calls Sen. Durbin hypocrite over Trump-Russia

Rep. Davis calls Sen. Durbin hypocrite over Trump-Russia     By Gregg Bishop | Illinois News Network

Bottom of Form

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, at a hearing in Washington, DC.

Photo courtesy of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Members of Illinois’ congressional delegation are pointing fingers back and forth on the issue of who is obstructing what in the effort to get to the bottom of whether Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

While Democrats herald allegations of possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia, Republicans are holding hearings about the anti-Trump bias of some high-ranking FBI agents involved in investigations.

The day after President Donald Trump’s widely criticized summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Springfield, blasted Republicans on the Senate floor.

+1  

U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville

Photo courtesy of Rep. Rodney Davis' office

“Sadly the vast majority of congressional Republicans are actively working to undermine the investigation,” Durbin said Tuesday.

Durbin complained about Republicans confirming Brian Benczkowski the week before to lead the U.S. Department of Justice criminal division. Durbin said Benczkowski has ties to Alfa Bank, a financial institution with ties to Russia. He said if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were removed, as some Republicans have called for, Benczkowski would take the oversight role of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election. Mueller’s investigation is also reportedly looking into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey.

“Enough is enough,” Durbin said. “Today is the day. I hope my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, will come forward and speak up.”

Some of Durbin’s Democratic colleagues have said Republicans holding hearings about anti-Trump text messages that senior FBI agent Peter Strzok sent FBI attorney Lisa Page, whom Strzok was having an affair with, is an attempt to undermine Mueller’s investigation.

Strzok was part of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s improper use of an email server to process classified materials. Strzok is also the one who allegedly changed the term “grossly negligent,” which has legal liability in the Espionage Act, to “extremely careless” in Comey’s announcement of no charges against Clinton.

Congressional investigators and the FBI’s inspector general found Strzok also withheld revelations of additional classified emails from Clinton on Anthony Weiner's laptop for weeks.

Strzok later went on to be part of Mueller’s Russia probe, but was removed from the team when his profanity laden anti-Trump texts with Page were revealed. In one of those texts, Strzok said, “We’ll stop him,” referring to Trump before the election. Another one talked about an “insurance policy,” something Republicans say refers to the fabrication of the Russia collusion story.

U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, said Durbin knows Congress needs to play its constitutional oversight role.

“When you have a senior member of the FBI texting another member of the FBI 50,000 times over a certain amount of time, that’s a work product question that needs to be asked,” Davis said.

Davis said he supports law enforcement, but oversight must take place.

While Davis said Trump should have been more forceful against Putin this week in Helsinki, he said Durbin’s criticism of Trump is typical partisan hypocrisy.

“We didn’t see many comments out of him when the President of the United States Barack Obama (in 2012) leaned over to (then Russian President) Dmitri Medvedev and said ‘tell Vladimir that if we win this election I’ll have more flexibility,’” Davis said. “That’s the hypocrisy of so many people out here in Washington.”

Trump further backtracked Wednesday, saying he holds Putin responsible for the 2016 election interference and he believe Russia remains a cyber threat.