Porky in PJs with the really, really bad haircut once again tries to test-fire a missile but it subsequently (30 miles?) falls onto his own country. Talk about a despot’s failure to launch, Kimmy is the posture boy.
Porky in PJs with the really, really bad haircut once again tries to test-fire a missile but it subsequently (30 miles?) falls onto his own country. Talk about a despot’s failure to launch, Kimmy is the posture boy.
|Chuck Baldwin makes some good points. Ignore at your/our own peril.
The title says it, other than Al Gore, TURD.
From constitution.com dated 4/25/2017 by Andrew West entitled, “Al Gore Puts A Price Tag on Global Warming Hoax “Fix”, And It Is ENORMOUS”
For some strange reason, liberal climate change hoaxers are continuing to put a microphone or a camera in front of former Vice President Al Gore.
As the most recognizable face in the litany of lunatic leftists who foolishly subscribe to the phony narrative behind the global warming hoax, Gore has been an integral part of developing the culture of ignorance that permeates the entire movement.
Gore’s interest in the subject began as a business venture; a fact that many democrats would like us all to forget. The former Vice President first established a “carbon credits” company in which he would prey on the guilt of entitled Americans who believed that the way in which they lived their lives was further enhancing their carbon footprint – a term that had barely been used previous to Gore’s involvement in the hoax. Then, after Al Gore’s company was ready to receive customers, and their money, the former politician released his now-infamous propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”. The film was a box office success, riding the leftist wave that was permeating the nation at the time, and it propelled Gore’s carbon credits company into a massive windfall of Americans’ guilt-money.
Now, after releasing a second film to a much more skeptical audience, Gore is looking to put a price tag on the end of “global warming” the way a snake oil salesman puts a price on the wares that he is peddling.
“A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
“The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims ‘additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,’ which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
“ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.
“ETC’s goal is to ‘accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development’ and limit global warming. ETC’s report comes out as the Trump administration considers whether or not to stay party to the Paris agreement, which went into effect in 2016.”
The global warming charade may be on its death bed, but Gore seems hellbent on milking the cultural phenomenon for all its worth before its inevitable end. With republican Donald Trump in the White House, and with conservatives making up a majority of both houses of Congress, it could prove rather difficult for the profiteering “activist” to accomplish any project that requires such a leftist leap of faith.
As with all trendy pseudoscience, the global warming hoax will likely go the way of spiritualism and Uri Geller’s bending-spoon tricks.
Note that his presidential salary was $400,000 a year with a $50,000 expense account! What a clown. What an ignorant firm to hire the clown. Obozo is getting the $400,000 from Cantor Fitzgerald’s healthcare conference this September, even though they are investment bankers and Obozo, while in office, continually chided that segment of the economy. Go figure!!
From breitbart.com dated 4/24/2017 by John Carney entitled, “Obama Cashes In: Set to Take $400,000 for Speech to Wall Street Firm”:
The huge fee puts Obama at the top of the list of speaking fees for former government officials. Former Fed chair Ben Bernanke charges between $200,000 and $400,000, former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner charges $200,000, and former President George Bush charges around $150,000, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Hillary Clinton received over $200,000 apiece for each of her speaking engagements at Goldman Sachs. Those payments later were used against her by political rivals, who argued they were evidence that the former Secretary of State was too close to Wall Street.
Gasparino points out that Obama has been out of office for less than 100 days.
And not surprisingly, Snow was recommended by Arizona U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon ‘TURD’ Kyl. Grant Murray Snow was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President George W. Bush on December 11, 2007. Snow was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 26, 2008 and received commission on July 23, 2008.
From breitbart.com dated 4/16/2017 by Ken Klukowski entitled, “Deep-State DOJ and Disqualified Judge Seek Jail Time for Sheriff Joe Arpaio“:
Deep-state prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seek to throw 85-year-old Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio behind bars in a federal prosecution plagued by egregious violations of due process and federal law unless the new leadership at DOJ reconsiders the matter.
In 2007, the ACLU and the DOJ Civil Rights Division brought a racial profiling lawsuit against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Arizona county where Phoenix is located. It continued all the way through the Obama presidency, under Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
Snow held a civil contempt trial which some claim was timed to impose maximum political damage upon Arpaio. It is undisputed that the trial was entirely unnecessary because Arpaio had agreed to stipulate to the contempt charges to avoid the politically damaging trial, but Snow demanded a public proceeding. After the trial, Snow held Arpaio in civil contempt, then referred Arpaio to the DOJ for prosecution for criminal contempt.
Arpaio’s supporters cry foul that DOJ likewise timed its actions to harm Arpaio politically, announcing on the eve of Election Day 2016 that it would prosecute Arpaio for criminal contempt. Moreover, the DOJ is now insisting on jail time for Arpaio despite his very advanced age, threatening to take the 85-year-old sheriff away from his wife, who is battling cancer.
Perhaps the most suspicious aspect is that the DOJ is limiting the potential jail time to six months. That cap is important because the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require a jury trial for matters where the maximum imprisonment does not exceed six months. By keeping to this limit, the DOJ is guaranteeing that Arpaio’s fate will be decided by a federal judge, not by a jury of his peers in Arizona.
Arpaio’s case is riddled with problems.
The first problem is that the federal judge in this case, Snow, was required to recuse himself under federal law. Federal law at 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(ii) commands a judge to remove himself from a case if an immediate family member “is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.” Snow’s brother-in-law is a partner at Covington & Burling, which was representing the other side of the lawsuit. Yet not only did Snow refuse to recuse himself, but he also did not even disclose his family’s involvement in the case to the other parties in the lawsuit.
In flagrant violation of federal law, once the conflict of interest became public, Snow requested and received a waiver from Arpaio’s attorneys, allowing him to stay on the case. Snow admitted that he was aware of the illegal conflict, adding that “it would have been the better course to notify the parties.” But the waiver itself is illegal, as 28 U.S.C. § 455(e) explicitly mandates that a judge’s disqualification can never be waived when a family member is involved.
Federal law also specifies that a judge must recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” There is ample cause for that here.
According to court documents, Snow’s wife told a friend that the judge “hates” Arpaio and “will do anything to get [Arpaio] out of office.” This statement was overheard both by the friend’s husband and also by their son. When the allegation was raised in open court, Snow did not deny that it was true, yet nonetheless continued to preside over the case rather than recuse himself.
Snow has also now admitted that he has had unauthorized ex parte conversations about the case. (“Ex parte” refers to the judge speaking with only one party to the case, sometimes without the other party’s knowledge. Due process generally requires that a judge never speak to lawyers for one side of the case without lawyers for the other side being present.)
When the judge appointed a monitor to supervise the sheriff’s office, he authorized that monitor to speak ex parte with only one party at a time. But it became clear late in the case that Snow was then having private conversations with the monitor, opening a conduit by which the plaintiffs were able to communicate directly with the judge without Arpaio’s team being present or knowing what was said. It’s now been revealed that these ex parte communications included the grounds for contempt, for which Arpaio now faces jail time.
Snow began discussing contempt when allegations surfaced that the sheriff’s office might have violated the court’s orders. Because this was happening as Arpaio’s reelection was underway, he decided to consent to a finding of civil contempt and agree to corrective measures in his department to resolve the matter quickly.
But Snow refused to take yes for an answer and insisted on a trial, which he dragged out for 21 days. The judge went so far as publicly saying he was “interested in sending a message” to Arpaio and wanted the career lawman to have “skin in the game” by ordering him to pay civil penalties out of his personal pockets.
The judge then took things a step further by referring the matter to Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ, recommending criminal prosecution. Snow ordered this criminal referral 11 days before Arpaio’s primary to be renominated for sheriff.
Arpaio survived the primary election but, with timing that looks too good to be a coincidence, the DOJ publicly announced on October 11, 2016 — the day before early voting began in Arizona — that the Obama administration would prosecute Arpaio on criminal charges.
Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Bill Clinton — is presiding over the criminal trial that was brought by the Obama-Lynch DOJ. Although Bolton had the option of allowing a jury trial even for less than six months in jail, she refused to do so. She also refuses to allow any exploration of the DOJ’s motivations, including the previous administration’s outspoken opposition to Arpaio’s law-and-order policies regarding illegal aliens.
Arpaio is arguing through his lawyers that the judge should allow a jury trial because “the people’s voice should be heard one last time in determining whether the criminal contempt” sanction should be imposed. DOJ prosecutors oppose this position, even though that is the entire purpose of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial process.
Unless something changes, Arpaio is expected to stand trial next month where one Clinton-appointed judge will decide whether to send this elderly and outspoken Republican law enforcement officer to jail for up to six months, a jail where many of the inmates were put behind bars by him.
Aside of my bashing Trump for some of the things he has been doing militarily and regarding Obozocare, he has been a friend of the Second Amendment. Thank you for that! Now how about supporting the GOA (Gun Owners of America), a much more politically astute organization than the NRA who have become too entrenched.
From breitbart.com dated 4/15/2017 by AWR Hawkins entitled, “Donald Trump to Be First President Since Reagan to Speak at NRA Annual Meetings“:
President Donald Trump will be the first President to speak at the NRA Annual Meetings since Ronald Reagan did it in 1983.
He will speak to the NRA’s 2017 Leadership Forum in Atlanta on April 28.
Breitbart News reported that the NRA endorsed Trump on May 20, 2016, during the 2016 Annual Meetings in Louisville, Kentucky. Thereafter, the NRA campaigned for Trump, and Trump reminded voters again and again that he would work with the NRA to save the Second Amendment if elected.
Trump will now return to speak to the gun rights group that cheered him to victory last year. Bloomberg reports that this will make him “the first U.S. president to address the gun-rights group since Ronald Reagan in 1983.”
Trump’s speech to the NRA will occur two months to the day after he signed a repeal of Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban which would have allowed the Social Security Administration to strip beneficiaries of the Second Amendment rights without due process. The speech also comes nearly two months after his Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, ended an Obama-era ban against using lead ammunition on federal lands.
On April 13, 2017, Breitbart News reported that the Trump administration has been quietly rolling back other Obama-era gun controls behind the scenes. McClatchy reported that federal agencies have “narrowed the definition of ‘fugitive,’” thereby limiting the number of people prohibited from gun possession because they are included in a fugitive database. Trump “officials have also signaled that they may no longer defend the Army Corps of Engineers’ ban on carrying loaded firearms and ammunition on federal lands.”
Trump’s greatest pro-Second Amendment accomplishment was nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and securing his confirmation. Trump had promised to use SCOTUS to save the Second Amendment from “people like Hillary Clinton,” and Gorsuch is widely viewed as a fulfillment of that promise.
We the People have the First Amendment, end of discussion TURD Ravel. Go unRavel your brain.
That aside, who is the main stream media? Progressives, Leftists, et. al. So yeah, good Idea TURD Ravel, lets shut down the social media people. Lets do away with ‘unauthorized’ comments re: articles (which seems to be in the works.) And finally shut down breitbart.com, et. al. DOH obvious agenda TURD Ravel. And you were a former Chair of the FEC? My gawd! Drain the swamp!
From breitbart.com dated 4/13/2017 by Lucas Nolan entitled, “Former FEC Chairwoman Suggests Regulating Political Speech on Social Media“: <video with original article>
Former chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission Ann Ravel recently spoke at an event at UC Berkeley titled “Future of Democracy” where she discussed the possible need for regulating political speech and ads on social media.
Ravel, who has previously called for regulation of political websites such as The Drudge Report, stated that without regulation of the internet and digital platforms, the role of the FEC will essentially become obsolete as the FEC focuses mainly on TV and radio content.
“We know that there’s a lot of campaigning that’s moved to the internet, whether it’s through fake news or just outright advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little. And so that the disclosure that we expect as to who is behind campaigns is not going to exist soon,” said Ravel at the Berkeley law school. “Some people are even predicting that by 2020 most of the advertising is going to move from television to the internet, and and I think this is a serious issue that requires a lot of discussion.”
Ravel claimed that the use of Facebook and other social media platforms by political campaigns is a problem. “I’ve talked to a lot of campaign consultants and they buy some groups in Holland or in Russia who figure out who the target audience might be and then they go through circuitous mechanisms to put ads or fake news or whatever it is on Facebook.”
“Facebook doesn’t have any real knowledge about who it is that’s behind those ads, so I think this is a really serious issue that we need to address,” claimed Ravel.
By Trump’s own words he stated he was NOT the president of the world, which would mean he was a Nationalist and one reason he was elected. Now, who can tell? I agree it is time to clean up the Mid-East mess and come home but is that what is happening? Also Little Fat Man needs to learn his place in the world’s pecking order and quit endeavoring to and claiming he wants to nuke us. Simply asinine. But is he worth WW III? Of course it is unlikely we will know what goes on behind closed doors with China and Russia but Trump’s bellicose manner went over big against competing R candidates and the Ds but much less so when lives and treasure are involved. Who is theTrump we elected?
I used to be a fan of Ann Coulter but over the past few years she disappeared off my political radar. Good to hear that maybe she’s back. At least she has a soap box. From breitbart.com by Ann Coulter dated 4/12/2017 entitled, “Ann Coulter: Lassie, Come Home“:
On the other hand, Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency.
Left to his own devices, uncontaminated by Washington group-think, Trump gets it right.
Back in 2013, when President Obama was being egged on to attack Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack far more sweeping than this latest one, Trump tweeted:
— Aug. 29, 2013:
“What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”
— Aug. 31, 2013:
“Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”
— Sept. 1, 2013:
“If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.”
On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly stated that he had no interest in starting “World War III over Syria,” saying, “We have bigger problems than Assad.” His policy position was: “Let Syria and ISIS fight. I look at Assad — and Assad looks better than the other side.”
Trump was right on every point.
Assad is one of the least bad leaders in the entire Middle East. He’s not a murderous thug like Saddam, has no rape rooms, isn’t into jihad, protects Christians, and is fighting ISIS. He provided us with intelligence on al-Qaida after 9/11. He does not have crazy Islamic police slapping women around or throwing gays off buildings. (That would be our beloved ally, Saudi Arabia.)
Trump was also correct about Assad’s opponents being far worse, containing large helpings of both ISIS and al-Qaida.
As awful as it was to see those dead children, Trump knew that America’s first duty is to our own children.
We have never succeeded at turning a Third World dictatorship into a paradise. The history of these things is that removing a Middle Eastern strongman always makes things worse — for example, in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.
We leap in, thinking we’re helping the poor devils under the thumb of a dictator — and then the new tribe takes over and oppresses everyone else, usually much more brutally, while hating us even more than the old tribe did.
If voters wanted more Middle Eastern wars, there were plenty of other candidates offering that: Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina, and Hillary Clinton, for example. And we must never forget Jeb! though it proved surprisingly easy to do so in 2016.
But we picked Trump.
While most of the left wailed about the return of Nazi Germany under Trump, savvier liberals saw his vulnerability: flattery. All we have to do is praise him! You’ll be shocked at how easy it is.
And, boy, did they lay it on thick with the Syrian misadventure. No sucker’s bait was left on the floor. Cable news hosts gushed, “Trump became president of the United States tonight!” On MSNBC, Brian Williams called the bombing “beautiful” three times in less than a minute. Sen. Lindsey Graham (one of the “women of the Senate,” according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) compared Trump to Reagan. The New York Times headlined an article, “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”
My nightmare scenario: Trump and Jared watching TV together and high-fiving: DID YOU SEE THE NEWS! THEY LOVE YOU! All Trump had to do was pointlessly bomb another country, and it was as if a genie had granted his every wish.
Looking for some upside to this fiasco, desperate Trump supporters bleated that bombing Assad had sent a message to North Korea. Yes, the message is: The Washington establishment is determined to manipulate the president into launching counterproductive military strikes. Our enemies — both foreign and domestic — would be delighted to see our broken country further weaken itself with pointless wars.
Was America strengthened by the Iraq War? The apparently never-ending Afghanistan War? Vietnam? This is how great powers die, which is exactly what the left wants.
Administration policy was heading in the wrong direction at 90 mph, but thank God, Trump seems to have grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes. Notwithstanding the hopes and dreams of Clausewitzian military strategist Nikki Haley, we will not be engaging in regime change in Syria or starting World War III with Russia today.
We want the “president of America” back — not “the president of the world.”
Genuflect to the Swamp. Why do we bother with expensive elections if all the candidates will end up doing the same things? Trump, TURD.
From seekingalpha.com dated 4/10/2017 entitled, “Wall Street Breakfast: Investors Gauge Trump Reset”:
In a single day, President Trump appeared to reverse his positions on no fewer than four key pledges that arguably led to his election victory. Trump told WSJ yesterday that China is no longer a currency manipulator, he respects Janet Yellen and perhaps could nominate her to another term leading the Fed, he would support the Ex-Im bank after previously saying he would shut it down (good news for the likes of GE and Boeing), and NATO was no longer obsolete since it is fighting terrorism. In the same interview, Trump said he believed the dollar was “getting too strong,” sending the dollar lower and gold higher.
Further, from washingtonpost.com by James Holmann entitled, “Trump’s lurch toward corporatism, globalism shows why Bannon’s marginalization matters“:
1. The president pledged his full support for NATO. “It was once obsolete; it is no longer obsolete,” he said during an afternoon press conference, after meeting with the organization’s secretary general. “I complained about that a long time ago, and they made a change — and now they do fight terrorism.” Fact Checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee notes that, as recently as March 22, Trump called the trans-Atlantic alliance “obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism.” He was incorrect: NATO has been involved in counterterrorism since 1980, and especially since 9/11. Nothing has changed, except his position.
2. He told the Wall Street Journal he will not label China a “currency manipulator.” As a candidate, he pledged to do so on his first day in office. Just last week, Trump called China “the world champion” of currency manipulation in an interview with the Financial Times. Yesterday, he changed his tune. “They’re not currency manipulators,” he told three Journal reporters in the Oval Office. Besides, he explained, talking about how they manipulate their currency could jeopardize his talks with Beijing about confronting the nuclear threat of North Korea.
3. He expressed openness to reappointing Barack Obama’s Federal Reserve Board chair. Last year, he said Janet Yellen should be “ashamed” of what she was doing to ruin the country. Yesterday, a Journal reporter asked if that means she is toast when her term ends next year. “No,” the president replied. “I like her. I respect her. It’s very early.”
4. He disavowed his position on interest rates. Trump told The Post in an interview when he was a candidate that the low rates might be creating “a bubble where you go into a very massive recession.” During a debate in the fall, he attacked Yellen for keeping interest rates low to help Hillary Clinton win. Yesterday, he told the WSJ: “I do like a low-interest-rate policy, I must be honest with you.”
5. He recanted his call for closing the Export-Import Bank. “I don’t like it because I don’t think it’s necessary,” Trump told Bloomberg News during the campaign. “It’s sort of a featherbedding for politicians and others, and a few companies. … And when you think about free enterprise, it’s really not free enterprise.” Now that the president is in control, he promises to fight for it: “Instinctively, you would say, ‘Isn’t that a ridiculous thing?’ … But actually, it’s a very good thing,” he told the Journal. “It turns out that … lots of small companies are really helped!”
6. OMB director Mick Mulvaney said Trump’s promise to get rid of the national debt was never meant to be taken literally. “It’s fairly safe to assume that was hyperbole,” he said during a CNBC sit-down that aired yesterday. “I’m not going to be able to pay off $20 trillion worth of debt in four years. I’d be being dishonest with you if I said that I could.”
Host John Harwood noted that Trump promised to take care of displaced workers in places like Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. “He didn’t say, ‘I’m going to get rid of the Appalachian Regional Commission,’” the interview said. “Yeah, and my guess is he probably didn’t know what the Appalachian Regional Commission did,” Mulvaney replied.
7. The administration is already watering down its lobbyist ban. High on the list of Trump’s promises in his “Contract with the American Voter,” released last October, was an ironclad “five-year ban” on White House officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the government. Bloomberg reported yesterday that the administration has “granted a waiver” so that senior White House budget adviser Marcus Peacock can leave to take a job as a top lobbyist for the Business Roundtable, even though he signed an ethics pledge that included the five-year ban. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon chairs the Business Roundtable. He’d been a favorite of the Obama White House, and he’s looking for ways to increase his juice with Trump.
8. Trump no longer believes the military is a disaster. During an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo that aired yesterday morning, Trump waxed poetic about U.S. military might. “It’s so incredible. It’s brilliant. It’s genius. Our technology, our equipment, is better than anybody by a factor of five,” he said. “In terms of technology, nobody can even come close to competing.” The AP notes that, just a few months ago, the president bemoaned the state of the military and its equipment in his stump speech. “We’re going to rebuild out military,” he said at a rally last April. “Our military is in shambles!”
This is coming from the Trump mouth piece? This shows how far Trump has gone over to the dark side. The U.S. is in trouble IMHO. This crap is NOT what Trump was elected to do, i.e., be the world’s policeman. Now Assad created worse atrocities than Hitler? Oh, maybe because Hitler just killed Jews. BTW, chemical weapons were surely used in WWI. Additionally, “During World War II, the European theater did not see any use of these weapons. However, there was extensive usage by Japanese forces in China and by Italian forces in Assyria. Furthermore, all major powers, including the US, UK, Germany, and the Soviet Union developed biological and chemical weapons programs leading up to and during the war as a deterrent.” Oh, and a few ‘Allah Akbars’ are worth less than the millions of jews of WW II? Sarin Sean, TURD!
From wsj.com on 4/11/2017 by Carol E. Lee entitled, “Sean Spicer Argues Assad’s Chemical Weapons Atrocities Were Worse Than Hitler’s: White House spokesman says Hitler ‘didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons’“:
The White House’s top spokesman on Tuesday argued that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has committed atrocities worse than Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, saying even the man whose genocidal regime instigated a world war and killed millions of people didn’t use chemical weapons.
“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II,” press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters. “You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”
Mr. Spicer was referring to the suspected chemical attack in Syria on April 4 that killed at least 85 people. The U.S. has concluded the Syrian military used banned sarin gas in the assault, and the U.S. military launched nearly 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles against a Syrian air base Friday.
Asked later if he wanted to clarify his statement, given that Hitler and the German Nazi state killed millions of European Jews in gas chambers, Mr. Spicer said, “he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”
“He brought them into the Holocaust center,” Mr. Spicer said, in an apparent reference to the death camps where millions, including most of Germany’s Jewish population, were killed.
Mr. Assad, Mr. Spicer said, used chemical weapons “in towns, dropped them down—into the middle of towns.”
Soon after the end of Tuesday’s news briefing, Mr. Spicer released another statement further clarifying his earlier remarks.
“In no way was I trying to lessen the horrendous nature of the Holocaust,” he wrote. “I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centers. Any attack on innocent people is reprehensible and inexcusable.”
Later Tuesday, a second Trump administration official cited World War II to emphasize the singular horror of the Syrian chemical weapons attack and justify the U.S. military response.
“Even in World War II, chemical weapons were not used on battlefields, even in the Korean War they were not used on battlefields,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called on Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Spicer and “immediately disavow” his statements.
“While Jewish families across America celebrate Passover, the chief spokesman of this White House is downplaying the horror of the Holocaust,” she said in a statement.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, called on President Donald Trump to fire Mr. Spicer over his comments.
Mr. Goldstein said in a statement that Mr. Spicer’s remarks amounted to denying the Holocaust. “Spicer’s statement is the most evil slur upon a group of people we have ever heard from a White House press secretary,” Mr. Goldstein said.
Mr. Goldstein has in the past criticized the Trump White House for distributing a Holocaust remembrance statement that didn’t mention Jews and has argued Mr. Trump didn’t move quickly enough to condemn anti-Semitic threats and vandalism in cities across the country.