Required Reading – May 13

By | 2019-05-12T17:26:02-07:00 May 13th, 2019|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Required reading from around the web of the best, most interesting, or most though provoking things we’ve read:

Parry: John Dowd’s Indispensable Work for President Trump

“So how did it come about that the president did not assert executive privilege, made his staff — including White House Counsel Don McGahn — available for interrogation by Mueller’s Clintonistas, and produced over one million documents? The answers to those questions came shortly after the release of the Mueller report when Dowd was interviewed on Fox News. In that interview he laid out the presidents’ strategy and marching orders to his lawyers in their dealings with Team Mueller and discussed the claim that Trump had ordered Mueller’s firing. On Fox and Friends, host Steve Doocy asked Dowd, ‘When did President Trump say go out there and fire Mueller?’ Dowd responded as follows. ‘He never did. I was there at the same time that the report says that McGahn mentioned this, and I was assigned to deal with Mueller, and I briefed the president every day. And every week I saw Mueller or [Assistant Special Counsel James] Quarles for eight months. ‘At no time did the president ever say, you know, John I’m going to get rid of him [Mueller], Don [McGahn] is not going to do it. ‘It was just the opposite. Here’s the message the president had for Bob Mueller for me to carry: . . .'”

Read more at Spectator.

 

 

Olowski: We need more immigration enforcement, not more lawyers

“Immigration reform is like quicksand: an issue so dense, so enveloping, that many proposed solutions actually deepen the problem. A prime example is the proposal to make brand new courts for immigration cases: so-called “Article I” courts created by Congress. Both the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association—two special-interest groups for lawyers—embrace this idea. The court’s proponents suggest taxpayers pay for lawyers to represent illegal aliens free of charge. They also claim taxpayers should hire more immigration judges, while expecting each judge to work fewer cases.

Even apart from their potential cost, independent Article I immigration courts are a terrible idea. Such courts would strip law enforcement authority away from the U.S. Department of Justice, which presently handles immigration cases. The goal is to “level the playing field” for illegal aliens, undermining law enforcement officials’ ability to police the border. Naturally, the proposal enjoys support among those opposed to the deportation and removal of illegal aliens. Article I courts might also kill . . .”

Read more at American Thinker.

 

 

Pullmann: Paper: Professor Bias May Deflate Conservative College Students’ Grades

“Conservative students enter college with higher SAT scores and GPAs than liberal students, but by the fourth year of college have lower GPAs than liberal peers, which may be a consequence of institutional bias, finds a new working paper from the University of Arkansas. Self-identified conservative students saw the biggest grade dip when studying in the humanities and social sciences, none when studying in professional fields, and an extra grade advantage when studying in hard-science fields. The bias was more pronounced at higher-ranked colleges and universities.”

Read more at The Federalist.

About the Author:

The Editors