Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

Pence confident no one on his staff wrote NY Times column

Published

6 minute read

WASHINGTON — Vice-President Mike Pence says he’s “100 per cent confident” that no one on his staff was involved with the anonymous New York Times column criticizing President Donald Trump’s leadership.

“I know them. I know their character,” Pence said in a taped interview aired Sunday by CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Some pundits had speculated that Pence could be the “senior administration official” who wrote the opinion piece because it included language Pence has been known to use, like the unusual word “lodestar.” The op-ed writer claimed to be part of a “resistance” movement within the Trump administration that was working quietly behind the scenes to thwart the president’s most dangerous impulses.

More than two dozen high-ranking administration officials have denied writing the column. Pence said his staff had nothing to do with it,

“Let me be very clear. I’m 100 per cent confident that no one on the vice-president’s staff was involved in this anonymous editorial. I know my people,” Pence said on “Face the Nation.” ”They get up every day and are dedicated, just as much as I am, to advancing the president’s agenda and supporting everything … President Trump is doing for the people of this country.”

Asked whether he had asked his staff about the op-ed, Pence said, “I don’t have to ask them because I know them. I know their character. I know their dedication and I am absolutely confident that no one on the vice-president’s staff had anything to do with this.”

He restated that he thinks the essay writer should do the “honourable thing and resign.”

Publication of the op-ed followed the release of stunning details from an upcoming book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward in which current and former aides referred to Trump as an “idiot” and “liar” and depicted him as prone to rash policy decisions that some aides either work to stall or derail entirely.

Both releases are said to have infuriated Trump, who unleashed a string of attacks on Woodward’s credibility and dismissed the celebrated author’s book as a “work of fiction.” Some of the officials featured in the book’s anecdotes about the president, including Defence Secretary Jim Mattis and White House chief of staff John Kelly, issued statements denying the comments attributed to them by Woodward.

Woodward has said he stands by his reporting. The book, “Fear: Trump in the White House,” is scheduled to be formally released Tuesday, all but ensuring that the debate over Trump’s leadership ability and style will extend into a second straight week.

Trump, meanwhile, has denounced the Times opinion piece as “gutless” and its publication as a “disgrace” bordering on treason.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Trump ally, has said the president would be justified in using lie detectors to ferret out the anonymous writer. The president has yet to say whether he’d go that far, but Pence says he’d be willing to submit to such an examination.

“I would agree to take it in a heartbeat and would submit to any review the administration wanted to do,” he said in a taped “Fox News Sunday” interview.

Both Pence and Kellyanne Conway, a counsellor to Trump, pushed back during separate television appearances Sunday on the portrayals of Trump as anything but a thoughtful leader. Both also said they had no idea who wrote the piece; Trump has said he can name up to five people who could have written it.

“What I see is a tough leader, a demanding leader, someone who gets all the options on the table,” Pence said on Fox News. “But he makes the decisions, and that’s why we’ve made the progress we’ve made.”

Trump has said the Justice Department should investigate and unmask the anonymous author. He cited national security concerns as grounds for what would amount to an extraordinary criminal probe should Attorney General Jeff Sessions decide to pursue one.

Neither Pence nor Conway answered directly when asked if Sessions should treat Trump’s comments as an order. The Justice Department is supposed to make investigative decisions free of political pressure from the White House and the president.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed that the opinion piece amounted to a national security threat and attributed Trump’s musing about a Justice Department investigation “to a president who’s lashing out.”

On an unrelated matter, Pence said on CBS that he has not been called for an interview by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible co-ordination between Russia and Trump’s Republican presidential campaign as well as Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Pence said he’s willing to sit down with Mueller if he is asked and added that he so far has co-operated with all requests for information from the special counsel and will continue to do so.

___

Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsupervilleap

Darlene Superville, The Associated Press


Before Post

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Uncategorized

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Yes. He must be disqualified. I find it incredible that Mark Carney would allow someone to run for his party that called for a Canadian citizen to be handed over to a foreign government on a bounty, a foreign government that would almost certainly execute that Canadian citizen.

 

“Think about that for a second. We have a Liberal MP saying that a Canadian citizen should be handed over to a foreign dictatorship to get a bounty so that that citizen could be murdered. And Mark Carney says he should stay on as a candidate. What does that say about whether Mark Carney would protect Canadians?

“Mark Carney is deeply conflicted. Just in November, he went to Beijing and secured a quarter-billion-dollar loan for his company from a state-owned Chinese bank. He’s deeply compromised, and he will never stand up for Canada against any foreign regime. It is another reason why Mr. Carney must show us all his assets, all the money he owes, all the money that his companies owe to foreign hostile regimes. And this story might not be entirely the story of the bounty, and a Liberal MP calling for a Canadian to be handed over for execution to a foreign government might not be something that the everyday Canadian can relate to because it’s so outrageous. But I ask you this, if Mark Carney would allow his Liberal MP to make a comment like this, when would he ever protect Canada or Canadians against foreign hostility?

“He has never put Canada first, and that’s why we cannot have a fourth Liberal term. After the Lost Liberal Decade, our country is a playground for foreign interference. Our economy is weaker than ever before. Our people more divided. We need a change to put Canada first with a new government that will stand up for the security and economy of our citizens and take back control of our destiny. Let’s bring it home.”

 

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Canada Needs A Real Plan To Compete Globally

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie 

Ottawa’s ideological policies have left Canada vulnerable. Strategic action is needed now

As Canada navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the next federal government must move beyond reflexive anti—Americanism regardless of its political leanings. Instead, Canada should prioritize national interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict and subservience.

The notion that Canada can stand alone is as misguided as the idea that it is only an economic appendage of the United States. Both perspectives have influenced policy in Ottawa at different times, leading to mistakes.

Rather than engaging in futile name-calling or trade disputes, Canada must take strategic steps to reinforce its autonomy. This approach requires a pragmatic view rooted in Realpolitik—recognizing global realities, mitigating risks, governing for the whole country, and seizing opportunities while abandoning failed ideologies.

However, if Washington continues to pursue protectionist measures, Canada must find effective ways to counteract the weakened position Ottawa has placed the country in over the past decade.

One key strategy is diversifying trade relationships, notably by expanding economic ties with emerging markets such as India and Southeast Asia. This will require repairing Canada’s strained relationship with India and regaining political respect in China.

Unlike past Liberal trade missions, which often prioritized ideological talking points over substance, Canada must negotiate deals that protect domestic industries rather than turning summits into platforms for moral posturing.

A more effective approach would be strengthening partnerships with countries that value Canadian resources instead of vilifying them under misguided environmental policies. Expand LNG exports to Europe and Asia and leverage Canada’s critical minerals sector to establish reciprocal supply chains with non-Western economies, reducing economic reliance on the U.S.

Decades of complacency have left Canada vulnerable to American influence over its resource sector. Foreign-funded environmental groups have weakened domestic energy production, handing U.S. industries a strategic advantage. Ottawa must counter this by ensuring Canadian energy is developed at home rather than allowing suppressed domestic production to benefit foreign competitors.

Likewise, a robust industrial policy—prioritizing mining, manufacturing, and agricultural resilience—could reduce dependence on U.S. and Chinese imports. This does not mean adopting European-style subsidies but rather eliminating excessive regulations that make Canadian businesses uncompetitive, including costly domestic carbon tariffs.

Another key vulnerability is Canada’s growing military dependence on the U.S. through NORAD and NATO. While alliances are essential, decades of underfunding and neglect have turned the Canadian Armed Forces into little more than a symbolic force. Canada must learn self-reliance and commit to serious investment in defence.

Increasing defence spending—not to meet NATO targets but to build deterrence—is essential. Ottawa must reform its outdated procurement processes and develop a domestic defence manufacturing base, reducing reliance on foreign arms deals.

Canada’s vast Arctic is also at risk. Without continued investment in northern sovereignty, Ottawa may find itself locked out of its own backyard by more assertive global powers.

For too long, Canada has relied on an economic model that prioritizes federal redistribution over wealth creation and productivity. A competitive tax regime—one that attracts investment instead of punishing success—is essential.

A capital gains tax hike might satisfy activists in Toronto, but it does little to attract investments and encourage economic growth. Likewise, Ottawa must abandon ideological green policies that threaten agri-food production, whether by overregulating farmers or ranchers. At the same time, it must address inefficiencies in supply management once and for all. Canada must be able to feed a growing world without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

Ottawa must also create an environment where businesses can innovate and grow without excessive regulatory burdens. This includes eliminating interprovincial trade barriers that stifle commerce.

Similarly, Canada’s tech sector, long hindered by predatory regulations, should be freed from excessive government interference. Instead of suffocating innovation with compliance mandates, Ottawa should focus on deregulation while implementing stronger security measures for foreign tech firms operating in Canada.

Perhaps Ottawa’s greatest mistake is its knee-jerk reactions to American policies, made without a coherent long-term strategy. Performative trade disputes with Washington and symbolic grandstanding in multilateral organizations do little to advance Canada’s interests.

Instead of reacting emotionally, Canada must take proactive steps to secure its economic, resource, and defence future. That is the role of a responsible government.

History’s best strategists understood that one should never fight an opponent’s war but instead dictate the terms of engagement. Canada’s future does not depend on reacting to Washington’s policies—these are calculated strategies, not whims. Instead, Canada’s success will be determined by its ability to act in the interests of citizens in all regions of the country, and seeing the world as it is rather than how ideological narratives wish it to be.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is co-author of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X