Latest news with #NewtGingrich
Fox News
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Newt Gingrich believes Biden's use of autopen could become 'biggest scandal in American history'
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted that the Biden cognitive cover-up could become the "biggest scandal in American history," telling "My View" host Lara Trump that having unknown forces exercising presidential powers behind the scenes would dwarf even the Watergate scandal that doomed Richard Nixon. "The reason is, sometime, I'd think it's probably in 2023… Joe Biden was no longer there, and that means that other people were exercising the power of the presidency without any constitutional limitations, and I really think the key is not to look at Biden, but to look the various Obama people who had infiltrated that system…" Gingrich said. "The one I find the most interesting is that on one day after the election, he commuted 2,400 people. Now you know he didn't have a clue. Somebody was running the autopen. Somebody was giving them instructions and somebody was making deals somewhere. That's just a tiny example of how bad it was." Gingrich said the key is to discover the identities of the various people who may have abused power. At the backdrop of the ordeal, he said, was the decay of the president and the use of his identity as a front for the decisions that may have happened at the hands of some members of his administration behind the scenes, which he proceeded to call "elder abuse." President Donald Trump has cast doubt on the viability of Biden's pardons, insisting that they are void since the former president may not have known what he was signing with the automated device. He called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead an investigation into whether certain individuals working for the former president conspired to deceive the public about his mental state while also exercising his presidential responsibilities by using an autopen. Biden released a statement following the probe's announcement, blasting the investigation as a "distraction." "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false," Biden said. "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations." Members of the mainstream media have also scrutinized the former administration for failing to be transparent about Biden's decline, though many were reluctant to report on the topic throughout his administration. CNN's Jake Tapper, who once rebuked Lara Trump for raising concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities in 2020, has since admitted to insufficiently reporting on the ordeal and went on to co-author a damning book about the decline called "Original Sin." The CNN anchor went on to apologize to Trump.
Fox News
6 days ago
- General
- Fox News
Gingrich warns 'very profound cultural civil war' underway, says Democrats doubling down on 'weird values'
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned Tuesday of a "very profound underlying cultural civil war underway," touching on the great divide between the right and left, as the two sides of the political aisle seem to separate even further. "The American people are increasingly on the side of Donald Trump because they believe he stands up against the very values that are at the heart of the Obama-Biden system," he said on Fox News' "Hannity." "That system was racist," he continued. "It spent money like crazy. It believed in weird values, and I think the American people said no." Gingrich lambasted the rhetoric of former Vice President Kamala Harris and her 2024 running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, for being "shallow" and not having "a clue" about America while similarly broadening his scope to call out Democrats' reluctance to go back to the drawing board for course correction after last year's loss. Since that defeat, he says, the party has doubled down on extremism. "You have people who are out of touch with reality, so you're not really having a debate between two realistic systems. You're having a debate between people who believe in America, people who believe in the work ethic, people who believe in fundamental honesty [and] people who are nuts, and I think we don't have the right language yet to place these two debates the way they should be," he continued. "As a result, we actually allowed the other side to pretend," Gingrich added. Elaborating, he used the example of Democrats frequently claiming the "Big Beautiful Bill" will cut Medicaid for many deserving of help. Gingrich pushed back on that rhetoric, asserting that only illegal immigrants, those who refuse to work, and "crooks" will be affected by any changes. "The truth is they can't win any honest debate about any major topic," he said. "And Trump, like Reagan, understands how to pitch the issue in a way that people look up and go, 'Yeah, that's obvious. I'm with him.'"
Calgary Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- Calgary Herald
Full text: U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra talks about future of U.S.-Canada relations
On June 3, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra spoke at an event organized by the Empire Club of Canada. Below is his full speech, followed by an interview with Lisa Raitt, vice chair of Global Investment Banking at CIBC Capital Markets. Article content Thank you. It's great for Diane and I to join you today. Thank you to many of you who expressed a warm welcome. Diana and I have felt nothing but a warm welcome since we arrived in Canada five, I think, five weeks ago. Not that anybody is counting, but we have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. We thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity that you provided with me being the ambassador to go to Mackinac Island for three — for three days — last week. Those of you who have been to Mackinac Island, I think you can appreciate how beautiful that is, especially when the weather is nice. For those of you that haven't been: Please go. It is an awesome place. But the great thing today is, for me, as an immigrant to America, is to make America's case to you, to talk about what's going on and why it is so important, not only for us as American citizens, but for you as Canadian citizens, and the deep relationship and the friendship that we have shared for so long. Article content Article content Article content People call Donald Trump a transformational president, especially in this second term. You know, I couldn't agree more. I got my start in politics in 1993, and I learned a little bit about transformational politics —about the — with the last transformational figure in American politics. Some of you may remember. Some of you weren't even born in 1993, but Newt Gingrich, who became the Speaker of the House. I ran against a Republican incumbent as a Republican in a primary in 1992 I was working in the private sector. I was having a great career, and one night, I woke up and I rolled over to Diana, I said, you know, I think I'm going to run for Congress. And she said, 'Go back to sleep and you'll feel better in the morning.' Well, you know, I didn't feel any better in the morning. And I started talking to some friends and some people that I really trusted, and I'd say, 'I think I'm running for Congress.' And they'd start laughing, and they said, 'You've never talked about politics.' And then I told them why I thought I might be qualified, and that I've never done anything political, and they said, 'Maybe that's what we need right now.' Article content Article content So in 1992, I ran against a 26-year Republican incumbent. If you know anything about politics in America, winning and unseating an incumbent is almost impossible. I spent about $50,000, he spent three quarters of a million. On election night, I had 48 per cent. You think that's bad? No, it's good. We had a third candidate in the race. He had 42, so I went on in a solid Republican district, to become the next congressman. Got to Washington, and one day, Newt Gingrich called me in my office. They were thrilled. Freshman Republican, you're in the minority, you don't count. But Newt Gingrich is calling, and I go and I see Newt, and Newt says, 'Pete, what do you do every day?' That's kind of like, 'Well, excuse me, Newt, I'm a congressman. I vote. I go to committee hearings. I meet with constituents.' And he says, 'I want you to stop all of that. Don't do any of that.' He says, 'You're a marketing guy. I need you to work with me on a project so that, in 1995, when you come back, Republicans will hold the gavel. We will be in the majority.' So I became involved working with Newt on the Contract with America. The rest is history. Transformational.
Vancouver Sun
7 days ago
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Full text: U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra talks about future of U.S.-Canada relations
On June 3, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra spoke at an event organized by the Empire Club of Canada. Below is his full speech, followed by an interview with Lisa Raitt, vice chair of Global Investment Banking at CIBC Capital Markets. Thank you. It's great for Diane and I to join you today. Thank you to many of you who expressed a warm welcome. Diana and I have felt nothing but a warm welcome since we arrived in Canada five, I think, five weeks ago. Not that anybody is counting, but we have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. We thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity that you provided with me being the ambassador to go to Mackinac Island for three — for three days — last week. Those of you who have been to Mackinac Island, I think you can appreciate how beautiful that is, especially when the weather is nice. For those of you that haven't been: Please go. It is an awesome place. But the great thing today is, for me, as an immigrant to America, is to make America's case to you, to talk about what's going on and why it is so important, not only for us as American citizens, but for you as Canadian citizens, and the deep relationship and the friendship that we have shared for so long. People call Donald Trump a transformational president, especially in this second term. You know, I couldn't agree more. I got my start in politics in 1993, and I learned a little bit about transformational politics —about the — with the last transformational figure in American politics. Some of you may remember. Some of you weren't even born in 1993, but Newt Gingrich, who became the Speaker of the House. I ran against a Republican incumbent as a Republican in a primary in 1992 I was working in the private sector. I was having a great career, and one night, I woke up and I rolled over to Diana, I said, you know, I think I'm going to run for Congress. And she said, 'Go back to sleep and you'll feel better in the morning.' Well, you know, I didn't feel any better in the morning. And I started talking to some friends and some people that I really trusted, and I'd say, 'I think I'm running for Congress.' And they'd start laughing, and they said, 'You've never talked about politics.' And then I told them why I thought I might be qualified, and that I've never done anything political, and they said, 'Maybe that's what we need right now.' So in 1992, I ran against a 26-year Republican incumbent. If you know anything about politics in America, winning and unseating an incumbent is almost impossible. I spent about $50,000, he spent three quarters of a million. On election night, I had 48 per cent. You think that's bad? No, it's good. We had a third candidate in the race. He had 42, so I went on in a solid Republican district, to become the next congressman. Got to Washington, and one day, Newt Gingrich called me in my office. They were thrilled. Freshman Republican, you're in the minority, you don't count. But Newt Gingrich is calling, and I go and I see Newt, and Newt says, 'Pete, what do you do every day?' That's kind of like, 'Well, excuse me, Newt, I'm a congressman. I vote. I go to committee hearings. I meet with constituents.' And he says, 'I want you to stop all of that. Don't do any of that.' He says, 'You're a marketing guy. I need you to work with me on a project so that, in 1995, when you come back, Republicans will hold the gavel. We will be in the majority.' So I became involved working with Newt on the Contract with America. The rest is history. Transformational. For the first time in 40 years, Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. We did the Contract with America with certain urgency: a hundred days. Cut taxes, we grew the economy, and we did something that people laughed when we said we were going to do it, but we balanced the budget for four years straight, we transformed the American political landscape, at least for a period of time. Donald Trump is coming in and trying to do exactly the same thing, and is having phenomenal success as we go through this process. You know, if you don't remember anything else I talk about today, remember three words. What is Donald Trump? What did he promise the American people? I'm going to do everything that I can to bring more prosperity to all Americans. I'm going to bring more security to us as a nation, and I'm going to make you safer. That is the agenda — the transformative agenda — that Donald Trump is pushing: prosperity, security and safety that is good for America and that is good for our neighbours to the north. The more prosperous we are, the more safe we are, and the more secure we are, you will also feel the same. What has he done? We secured our border in less than a hundred days. Doge saved us $175 billion. We're working on a tax bill that we think will reduce the deficit but stimulate economic growth. Those are things that — we become a stronger economy, you will feel the benefits, and the benefits for North America will be even greater as your government — and I've listened to Prime Minister Carney talk about this — seems like your government. The government that you elected recently, is focused on the same things: more security, more safety and more prosperity. Transformative politics. Yeah, they create tension because you're changing the status quo. But the same way that we transformed the United States in 1995-96 and the years after — America became — we didn't balance the budget by cutting spending. How did we balance the budget? Working with Bill Clinton. We brought more prosperity to the United States. And as amazing as it sounds in America, we as politicians, couldn't spend the increased revenues coming into the federal government fast enough. There was more money coming in than we could we could spend. We ended up balancing the budget Donald Trump has put together, I think, a remarkable team of people who know how to make agreements. They know they've all been transformative in their personal lives and in the businesses that they have run. I have no doubt that they will bring prosperity to America. They will negotiate agreements, and they work on these things. And you can read this from what Donald Trump has said: a win win. They will negotiate, recognizing the best agreements are where we win, and we make America great again, but we're also working with folks that will benefit by signing and negotiating with us and moving forward. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. We have so many things that we can work together on. Can we work together on security? Absolutely. Can we work on more safety? Absolutely. Prosperity? Absolutely. It's dealing with things like critical minerals. It's about dealing with defence spending — Golden Dome. You go through the whole list of things, the list of things that we can work on is much bigger and much longer and much more important than the things that we're debating right now. I think you can leave here today, and hopefully you will leave here with a perspective that a relationship with — and our relationship with America — will not only make America more prosperous, more secure and safe, but as we transform — or as you transform your Canadian government and partner With the United States of America — you will feel exactly those same kinds of benefits. Had a great meeting with your premier this morning, Premier Ford, and we talked about this: things that we can do together and that we will benefit from together. With that, I think I'm going to have a discussion with Lisa, maybe take some of your questions, but again, thank you for allowing me to be here today. I am optimistic about where this relationship is. I'm more optimistic about where I believe this relationship is going. So thank you very much for inviting me. Lisa Raitt: Thank you very much ambassador. Appreciate that they even have little name tags, telling us which of us is where. That was very impressive, Ambassador, not a single note, no. That's how you speak. Pete Hoekstra: I speak, and I covered about 70 or 80 per cent of what I wanted to, but I like to think that it's sometimes more effective if people sense that it's coming — you know — from how I strongly feel and that I'm passionate about these things. Rather than, 'Oh, someone could write him a great speech, and he can read it.' Raitt: Yeah, that makes sense. Now there's a lot of politicians in the room who would never attempt what you just tried to do. Hoekstra: Great. Thank you for the compliment. Lisa Raitt: I want to start with first of all by saying, Welcome to Canada. Of course, you've been here for five weeks, which isn't a lot of time. We're big country. You've got a lot of places, — but I understand that you brought your skates with you, and you like tulips. You're in the right place in Ottawa. Hoekstra: We're in the right place. I bought the long skates, the racing skates, not that I anticipate I'm going to go very fast, but I bought them when Diane and I were in the Netherlands. I was anticipating skating through my parents' province on the frozen canals, you know, looking at the windmills and all of those types of things. They never froze. They didn't freeze. They didn't freeze, but they have a big ice skating rink that's partially enclosed, and so I had the opportunity to practice. So I am thrilled. I was thrilled when I read that the canals — or the canal — in Ottawa froze for 10 days. Yeah, I wasn't quite as thrilled when I read that it was frozen for 10 weeks. Okay, it's kind of like, 'Hey, I want to skate, but I'm not sure I want to skate for 10 weeks.' Raitt: So you get tough winters in Michigan. Hoekstra: Yes, we do. So we get a lot of snow, but not as much ice. Raitt: This is not a big surprise The — so one of the quirks about Canada and probably in other countries too, is our title. So as ambassador, you can be your excellency as well. I get to be honourable for life, although there's probably a number of people in here who question that. But there's a really cool one for mayors that I understand, that you heard about as well. Do you know what mayors are called, in terms of, in terms of their — Hoekstra: Yeah, your Worship. Raitt: What do you think about that? You think it's — Hoekstra: I want to be one, yeah, OK? I kind of like that, yeah. We have a few things to learn, yeah. Raitt: I agree. That's a good one to be. And when I was speaking with your wife, Diane, welcome as well. You have family — Diane has family in Smithers, B.C. —And she indicated, she said, 'Do you know where Smithers is, Lisa? And I said, Actually, I do. But she said, You know, it's 700 miles away from Vancouver.' And immediately in my Canadian brain, I'm going '700 miles is 1100 kilometers, 12 hour drive.' That's how we know. So when we say how far you are, ambassador, we don't measure in terms of miles or kilometers. You have to tell the person how far away it is in terms of where you want to drive to. Hoekstra: Smithers is a long way, been there. Raitt: It is indeed. It is indeed. Any plans to try other parts of the country. Hoekstra: Yeah, during COVID, we had another ambassador to the U.S., who was in the Netherlands, to OPCW, and Diane was gone, and Ken and I, we talked. I said, 'Hey, let's bike around the Netherlands.' And so on a Saturday, we got on the bikes. We hit every single province without cheating, like putting the bikes on the back of a truck or anything like that. And after seven days, we had biked around the Netherlands and we had touched and gone into every single province. So I'm going to try that in Ottawa. Okay, I think maybe I can start from Ottawa. Seven days later, I'll still be in Ontario. Maybe seven days after that, I'll still be in Ontario. But no — we hope to, we hope to see a lot of the country. It's a beautiful country, a lot of important business centres. But obviously, you know, when you're in Quebec and Ontario, you're at — I'll just stop there. I'll just get in trouble with all the other provincial leaders and those things. But no, we, we look forward to visiting a lot of these provinces again. Raitt: Yeah, it's, it's a beautiful country, and we hope that you take advantage of the ability to see it all. When you — when you — got here five weeks ago, you came as an ambassador in a different time than other ambassadors, and there's a lot of ambassadors in the room here tonight, actually. Can you give me an idea of what you encountered when you came to Canada? Was it what you expected in terms of the state of the relationship? Hoekstra: Well, I mean, obviously, for the last number of months, we've been watching the state of the relationship and those types of things and, yeah, I'm, I'm disappointed that some of the rhetoric has gone to where it has, OK? But that's why I come and I, you know, I give an optimistic message, OK? I talked to the President, I talked to Howard Lutnick, and they're — they're — going to be the people that put together the tariff. And the good news for Canada is, you know, this is not, this is being settled at the highest levels of the U.S. government, with the involvement of the highest-elected officials, principally with Donald Trump. So when you get to an agreement, you know, again, if it's Donald Trump being actively involved with his team on setting the parameters for an agreement, it can happen relatively quickly, much better than, you know, having 100 technocrats negotiating a — I don't know how long USMCA was, but I know how much I know how long NAFTA was — that takes a long time to put that together, but the broad parameters — your Prime Minister, my president — they can do this quickly if they have the will and the direction to do it, and as long as they're focused on what I talked about, prosperity, security and safety. As a leader, who wouldn't want those three things and recognize that if they worked on these things together, we will all benefit? Raitt: In your — in your — time as ambassador in the Netherlands, and your time as — sitting as a congressman. Did you ever encounter time at the G7? Is this gonna be your first time being the ambassador when a G7 is happening in the country that you're affiliated with? Hoekstra: Yeah. Raitt: It's a lot. There's a lot going on. I remember when we hosted the G8 last time. There's a lot of people that come up here from the United States. Hoekstra: There's a huge contingent coming with the President. I'm not sure exactly how many Cabinet members he will be taking with you, but there will be a number. Yeah, so I will see the president. I'll have an opportunity to talk with him, but you know, the transformative policies that the President is working on, he is keeping his finger on that. You know, our Secretary of Commerce is keeping his personal finger on that. And you know, they're not delegating that out to a lot. It's kind of like, 'No, this is transformative. The relationship with Canada is so important, as President, and as Commerce Secretary, I personally want to set that direction.' That is the message that you know we're getting from Secretary Lutnick, and most importantly, that is the direction that we are getting from the President. Raitt: Yeah, you mentioned at the beginning about rhetoric. Rhetoric goes both ways. You hear us talking about stuff up here and and, you know, bills are being put in place or proposed that may be in irritant. I think you call it a pebble in the shoe that have to be worked through. But I'm — you know, there is — you've answered this question many times, Ambassador, but I'm gonna, I'm going to ask you to wade into it one more time, if you don't mind, just because — it would have been OK but for the fact that it came up in the media again last week — and the notion of Canada and its sovereignty. Hoekstra: I mean, the President and your Prime Minister had a great discussion. You saw, what, two or three minutes of the 34 minutes that they had the press scrum in the Oval Office. But you know, in the substantive portion of the meeting, the lunch where, you know, 12 of us — 12 of us — could leave and say, 'Wow, I had lunch at the White House today.' There were two people that could leave and say, 'We had a serious, substantive discussion about the future of our countries, and we are very positive about where the future of America, Canada, individually, where we can go, but also what we can achieve together,' and so and you know, I think the first time I was asked about that, after that meeting, I said, 'Well, you know, as far as I'm concerned, you know that discussion, if it continues, it will be between the Prime Minister and the President.' I misspoke, OK? I should have said it's going to — it's going to — be between the President and the Prime Minister and the media — OK? Raitt: Yeah, that's true. Hoekstra: The media — media can bring up things whenever they want, whether the — I've met with a lot, a lot of you — and thanks to many of you for the time that you and your companies have shared with me to learn more about Canada. We've done the same thing on the other side of the border. On Monday, had three meetings with Michigan business — or three meetings that included a number of Michigan businesses — the week before we did it on Mackinac Island, select U.S.A. And what I consistently hear from the business community, from people, everyday people on the streets, but also from, you know, from the politicians, the people that are setting the framework — I wish they'd say it a little louder sometimes, but it's, you know, they're talking about — 'We want this to really be a really, really positive relationship, and many in the business community believe they will come out of this — that this relationship will come out stronger, rather than damaged. And I feel the same way. Again, when you talk about the areas: confronting China, national security, Arctic, you know, critical minerals, energy, and you go right down the list, a number of those things, they're just starting now, OK? And how we deal with them is our huge business opportunities and national security opportunities moving in the future, and with — I know, on our side — with a president that is focused on economic growth and prosperity. He's going to be looking to make those agreements that generate benefits to the American people. And you know, the President expects that those he negotiates with are going to be doing the same thing for their countries. That's fine. That's good. That's — you know, when I was in the private sector, we always liked smart competition, alright? Because if you had dumb competition, they sell below cost, they compete, and they would drive the whole industry down. If you were competing with really smart competitors, you'd sharpen your pencil to win the contract, and sometimes you'd win and sometimes you'd lose, but you wouldn't drive the rest of the industry down the tubes. Raitt: In prosperity, safety and security, what politician doesn't love that? What person doesn't love that? That makes a whole bunch of sense. But in advancing prosperity in the United States, one of the tools that the President is using is tariffs, and that has an impact on us here in Canada, and a negative impact in a lot of ways. How should we be thinking about what you just showed — talked to us — about, which is, eventually we're going to get somewhere where we're better? But the pain right now can be kind of acute. Hoekstra: The pain right now is being felt, you know, in the tariffs that the President has put in place on 232, some of those — anti-dumping — because the President believes it is absolutely essential that there are certain core industries in America that America can rely on domestically. You know, the opportunity for Canada may be that some of those industries and some of those products, actually — if you get them from Canada, they can be done in such a way that there will be — U.S. can view that as a positive to us. Yeah, they're working through, they're working through the framework. And again, it's a talented group. I've met a number of your folks who have done this in the past. They are a talented group. And I think when smart people get in a room and negotiate, they will come out with a good income — or, excuse me — a good outcome, that all of us are going to look at and say, 'Hm, things in here that I really like. I might be uncomfortable with a couple, but there's some stuff in here that is — I've never thought about. These folks worked it out in out in a really positive way.' Raitt: As a former congressman representing Michigan, knowing the Ontario, Michigan relationship in the auto sectors is unheard of. I mean, it's an incredible relationship. How should we be thinking about our auto sector here? Should we be worried? Hoekstra: No, I think the, you know, hopefully, as they go through these negotiations — that our chief competitor here is China. How do we use the strengths of the U.S. auto industry? How do we use the strengths of the capabilities of Canada, and how do we bring those together in such a way that we're beating China and not each other. And again, I really believe, I mean, you have a secretary of commerce — that is his job. OK? How do — how do we win in these types of situations? And I've got a tremendous amount of confidence in our Secretary of Commerce that that's exactly what those are, the types of things that he's thinking about. Raitt: Yeah. Ambassador, we only have a few minutes left. We could spend a lot of time — I appreciate the time you've given us — but there are some questions from the audience, and one of them that has made it to the iPad in front of me is something that's actually quite current, and be very nice if you could give us an insight into it, and it has to do with foreign students from post-secondary institutions in the — in the United States. Any — any — thoughts or any words for Canadians who may be trying to go to Harvard right now, like maybe the Prime Minister's daughter? Hoekstra: Well, I mean, you know the what the U.S. is doing? OK, we cleaned up the border. We're now tracking down people who are murderers, thieves and rapists, who are in the country illegally, and doing everything to get them out of the country and make America safe. When I was on the intel committee, I would get briefed regularly by the FBI about students from China in our universities who are — and our research institutions — who are stealing our technology or our research, sending it back to China. They would patent it before it ever came out of our research institutions. So what the President is doing is he's cleaning up that mess. Alright, he's cleaning up that mess. We recognize that American universities, and probably Canadian universities, are phenomenal bastions of knowledge — OK? — that our enemies want to have access to. This is why we have so many foreign students now. They want the knowledge, and in some cases, they want to steal our research. And so the President is saying, 'No, we're going to — we're going to clean this up.' We recognize the value of the commodity that we have, which are research institutions. So we still want people coming in, but we want to manage that process, OK. With so many of the things that we're looking at, America has been negligent. We have not managed our resources well, and we're being exploited by those who want to destroy the United States and who want to destroy the prosperity and the security of Canada at the same time. They're not picking and choosing. If they don't like the U.S., I think there's a high probability they don't like you either. Raitt: How should we think about U.S. foreign policy — given what's happening geopolitically right now — just having heard what you said, and where does Canada play in that for you? Hoekstra: Well, Canada plays wherever it wants. OK, we're looking for partners in this process. But I think the, you know, the President has clearly indicated he wants to bring stability, OK? And I know he feels passionate about this. He feels passionate that if we had, you know, if he had — if we had — pushed harder on confronting Russia during his first term. They hadn't built Nord Stream, OK, had funded NATO. And, you know, some of the Europeans laughed at the President's agenda when I was in the Netherlands. 'Oh, you think the tanks are going to come across the border, stupid Americans, that'll never happen. You think the Russians are going to cut off the gas? They need the revenue. Stupid Americans.' Well, they did both things, and the President now wants to bring peace and stability into the Middle East, and he wants to bring an end to a war, you know. And there are critics of — obviously, of the president on all kinds of things — OK, but critics as to well, you know, Ukraine. Give us — give us — an alternative, other than an endless war, where way too many Ukrainians and way too many Russians have died, and where we, the Canadians, the U.S. and others, have invested way too many precious dollars that could have been used to create long term prosperity, rather than in missiles and bombs. This is a president who wants to stop the killing, and wants to stop it — not only in these two — but put in place a structure of security and stability that minimizes the possibility of these things happening in the future. That is why we are also focused on Iran, the threats that are out there, why we're also focused on and appreciate Canadian cooperation on China. Stopping the — identifying the middle and long term threats, and putting in place the walls, the obstacles to them, becoming the kinds of problems that we see in Ukraine, in the Middle East today. Raitt: Yeah, and that's the safety pillar of prosperity, safety and security? Yes. Well, I — what I — take from our conversation today, ambassador, is that you're optimistic that we are going to get through the rough waters that we're in right now. Hoekstra: I am. Yeah, I am. And you know, the good thing is, I think one of your ministers is meeting with our commerce secretary today. Yeah, the dialogue is open. The Prime Minister is talking with the President on a regular basis. We should take, you know, yeah, I take great confidence in putting smart people in a room and coming to the right answer. And it's about all of us helping to inform the people in the room about what this means to them and their companies and their organizations and the, you know, I've been with the president now for the last eight-and-a-half, nine years, and, you know, a lot of times, and people don't like to give him credit for this, a lot of times, most of the time, the President gets to the right answer. He gets to the right answer that will bring us to each one of those things: prosperity, security and stability. Raitt: Thank you, very much, ambassador, thank you. Hoekstra: Great opportunity to be here. Raitt: Ms. Hoekstra for being here as well. We've asked Jenna to come on up, and while you're coming, please a round of applause. Ambassador Hoesktra, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Controversial former Pierce County assessor-treasurer Dale Washam dies at 87
Dale Washam, a one-term former Pierce County assessor-treasurer and contentious local figure who repeatedly clashed with county leaders during his brief four-year tenure, died of natural causes on May 15. He was 87. A family member confirmed Washam's death, but declined further comment. Until his unexpected election in 2008, Washam was known as a gadfly: a perennial candidate who ran unsuccessfully for public office in Washington more than 10 times and filed numerous complaints, lawsuits, and recalls against political and personal opponents. Targets ranged from local private citizens to former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Washam claimed Gingrich had stolen his idea for the 1994 'Contract with America.' The complaint went nowhere. Typically running as an independent until late in his career, Washam would campaign by hand with limited money and public support. His surprising success in 2008 was a reminder of the need to vet candidates carefully, said current Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Marty Campbell. 'The Assessor-Treasurer's office extends their condolences to his family and those who knew him,' Campbell said. He added though his knowledge of Washam was secondhand, the man's rise to office offers an example of why voters should do their research and vote the whole ballot. 'I never personally met Mr. Washam — although everyone's experience with Washam was unique, we recognize the impact he had on our office,' he told The News Tribune on Saturday. The following account is based on Washam's Law, a 2009 series of special reports on Washam by staff writer Sean Robinson. Born on June 30, 1938, Richard Dale Washam originally grew up in Missouri, the oldest of eight siblings; he moved to Western Washington as an adolescent and married his high-school sweetheart Dorothy Michaels in 1956. They had four children: daughter Elizabeth and sons Mark, Matthew and Christopher. In 1956, he also joined the Air Force, where he served four years at George Air Force Base in Victorville, Calif., and was honorably discharged with the rank of airman first class. In 1970, he received an associate's degree in arts and sciences from Fort Steilacoom Community College, a branch campus of Pierce College. In the early 1970's he had a failed dry-cleaning business and spent time selling trailers, tires and recreational vehicles for different businesses; he also tried a run for a state House seat but lost. By 1975, he had secured a job with Diamond Laboratories Inc., where he spent six years as a high-performing sales representative. Around this time, he set his sights on politics once more, running for the state Legislature but losing in the primary. Between 1989 and 2008 — the year he was finally elected assessor-treasurer— Washam appeared in 42 court actions, largely as a plaintiff, totaling an average of about two lawsuits annually, during which he would represent himself despite lacking a law degree or license. In 1980, he was fired from Diamond Laboratories and sued for wrongful termination, representing himself — his case was later dismissed after years of litigation. In 1990, he sued Pierce County Democrats after he lost an election to a seat on a small precinct committee. Washam ran unsuccessfully for Pierce County executive in 1992 and 1996, and lost elections for Pierce County auditor in 1993, 1994 and 1998 to Cathy Pearsall-Stipek. In 1997, he also lost an election for Puyallup School Board and sued to nullify the results. He went on to file three unsuccessful recall petitions against Pearsall-Stipek over four years — in 1999, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled Washam could proceed with a fourth petition that charged Pearsall-Stipek with perjury for lying about her education, but he dropped the effort, claiming the process was made too difficult by the courts. In 2000 and 2004, Washam lost elections for Pierce County assessor-treasurer to Ken Madsen, after which he filed a failed recall petition against Madsen in 2005. In 2002, he was also unsuccessful in a Pierce County auditor election against Pat McCarthy. In 2008, under a newly implemented ranked-choice voting system, Washam won the election for Pierce County assessor-treasurer with 51.9% of the final tally. In office, Washam was accused by employees of retaliation and mismanagement; three independent investigations confirmed the claims, finding he retaliated against employees, abused power and wasted government resources, while also hindering the investigations. Following the investigations' findings, five damage claims against Washam's office cost the county around $1.5 million in settlements and legal expenses, The News Tribune reported in 2012. Former Pierce County Councilmember Tim Farrell, who served on the council while Washam was assessor-treasurer, told The News Tribune recently that people were skeptical when Washam won the office, but tried to hope for the best — unfortunately, he noted, he proved them wrong. 'There was a question of if he was going to be really good or really bad, and Pierce County found out the hard way that he was really, really bad,' Farrell said. 'He was arrogant, he had a difficult approach for managing his office.... he had a great group of people going in, but chased most of them out.' In 2011, Washam faced his own favorite weapon: a recall campaign. The effort, headed by Puyallup resident Robin Farris, collected more than 64,000 verified signatures - just short of the 65,000 needed to qualify for the ballot. In 2012, Washam ran for re-election as assessor-treasurer. Four other candidates joined the race. In the primary, Washam finished fourth. 'We were trying to figure out who the 10% were that voted for him,' Farrell said about the primary. 'It was a relief, but the damage was done.' It took a long time for Mike Lonergan, Washam's successor as assessor-treasurer, to get things back on track, Farrell added. According to Farrell, the 2008 election helped push the Pierce County Council to end ranked-choice voting. Voters viewed it with skepticism after Washam's win. Billie O'Brien, a former administrative manager in the tax division of the assessor-treasurer's office who worked under Washam, expressed her condolences to his family but said the four years of his term were very difficult. Washam was single-minded and convinced that his predecessors at the assessor-treasurer's office had committed unlawful acts, she said, and he focused on targeting and punishing employees of his office he felt were still responsible. She said he was combative with his staff — at one point, he had a window in the office through which he would watch what the property appraisers were doing. O'Brien said Washam's poor conduct helped galvanize her to run against him in the 2012 Pierce County assessor-treasurer election. When Washam found out, he was not happy, and tried to prevent her from taking time off to attend speaking engagements, despite Pierce County code allowing employees to take time off to run for office. When Washam fell short in the 2012 primary election, staffers were relieved, O'Brien said. 'It was a time in that office when a lot of very good, dedicated employees were frightened about what would be the next thing he would do, what would be the next upheaval,' O'Brien told The News Tribune recently. 'Even the people who stayed until the next assessor-treasurer had nervousness and fear, there were a lot of changes that were unwarranted and made it difficult to do their jobs.'
