Debt Cartoon

Fox News Poll: Romney, Clinton lead potential 2016 presidential pack

Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney leads the growing pack for the GOP presidential nomination, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains far ahead among Democrats.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Tuesday.
Click here for the poll results.
Romney dominates the field for the 2016 Republican nomination. He comes in at 19 percent among self-identified Republicans, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10 percent. No other candidates garner double-digit backing. 
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul each receive eight percent. Next, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker captures seven percent, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan each at six percent and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at five percent. 
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (four percent), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (two percent), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (two percent), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (one percent) and former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum (one percent) each receive the backing of less than five percent of Republicans. 
This is the first time that Fox News has included Romney, Huckabee and Carson in its 2016 national GOP primary ballot test.
"Rumors about Romney running again are likely to get a further boost with these numbers," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.
Shaw adds, "With Romney and Bush running one and two among GOPers, you wonder if John McCain or Bob Dole want to get in on the action."
Voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement are most likely to back Paul (13 percent), Cruz (12 percent), Romney (11 percent) and Carson (10 percent).
The top choices among white evangelical Christians include Romney (14 percent), Paul (10 percent), Bush (9 percent) and Carson (9 percent).
On the Democratic side, Clinton is still 50 points ahead of her nearest rival -- even though support for her is down somewhat from previous polls. Clinton receives the backing of 62 percent of self-identified Democrats. That’s down from 64 percent in July and a high of 69 percent in April. 
The support Clinton has lost since April appears to be going to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who captures 12 percent. That’s up from 9 percent in July -- and double the 6 percent she received in April. Vice President Joe Biden comes in close behind at 10 percent. All other possible Democratic candidates tested garner three percent or less. 
"With the field of candidates still growing, the GOP primary holds potential for an extended freewheeling contest,” says Anderson, “while the Democrats continue to track toward an efficient yet boring primary season."
“At the same time,” Anderson adds, “I remember Clinton looking somewhat inevitable eight years ago too.”
Clinton led the Democratic primary pack with 33 percent to Barack Obama’s 12 percent and Al Gore’s 11 percent in a December 2006 Fox News poll. 
Reminder to readers: the Iowa precinct caucuses are (some say “still,” while others say “only”) about a year away. 
The new poll finds that if the 2016 general election “were held today,” Clinton would top Paul by 11 points, Christie by 12 and Kasich by 16. 
Bush is the only GOP candidate tested in the hypothetical matchups to keep Clinton under 50 percent -- and to keep her advantage under double digits. She leads him by just 7 points in a head-to-head matchup (49-42 percent), which makes this the best Bush has performed against Clinton so far. Clinton was up by 13 points in March (51-38 percent).
Independents split their support, 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for Bush. 
"One thing about Clinton that stands out is that despite a book, a world tour, numerous controversies and several distinctly different possible opponents, her support hasn't changed much over the past two years -- and doesn't depend much on who the Republican is,” adds Shaw. “Right now, Clinton is the defining feature of the 2016 race." 
People think -- if they were to run -- that Clinton and Bush are more likely to be helped (41 percent) than hurt (30 percent) by being related to previous presidents. Another 16 percent say it’s a mixed bag and 2 percent volunteer that it depends on if they run against each other. 
Bush announced Tuesday that he “will actively explore the possibility of running” for president.
While there’s no gender gap, Democrats (50 percent) are more likely than Republicans (37 percent) and independents (32 percent) to say the Clinton-Bush candidacies would be helped by their family connections. 
What about Clinton’s role in Benghazi? Most people -- 63 percent -- say if she runs it won’t make a difference to their vote that Clinton was the head of the State Department when the U.S. consulate there was attacked and four Americans died. Among those saying it matters, by a 29-6 percent margin they say Benghazi would make them less likely to vote for her. 
Almost all Democrats, fully 86 percent, say the Benghazi attacks won’t matter to their vote if Clinton runs. For independents, 55 percent say it won’t make a difference, while 36 percent say it would make them less likely to support her. 
Among veterans and those currently serving in the military, 56 percent say Benghazi won’t matter, while for 40 percent it would hurt Clinton’s chances of getting their vote. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The results among Democrats and Republicans have an error of plus or minus five points.

TSA head: Threat from terrorism worse now but US better able to combat it

The outgoing and longest serving head of the Transportation Security Administration says the threat from terrorism is worse now than when he took the job four years ago, but the U.S. is better positioned to combat foreign plots.
"The threat today is unfortunately more expansive than what it was four and a half years ago," John Pistole told Fox News during an interview before he leaves at the end of the month, concluding 31 years of government service, including 27 at the FBI, where he rose to the rank of deputy director.
"...With that being said, we also have better insights into who the potential bombers are," he added.
From Pistole’s unique position at the TSA and FBI, he watched Al Qaeda's strategy evolve from the 9/11 attacks that murdered nearly 3,000 Americans, to the failed underwear bomb plot to bring down a jet on Christmas Day 2009 and the non-metallic explosive devices buried in cargo a year later.
Although Al Qaeda experimented in 2012 with surgically implanted bombs before apparently abandoning the idea as impractical, Pistole suggested they are now focused on devices held close or strapped to the body.
"That is one of things that concerns us, how well do they design, construct and then conceal," he said.
Pistole will become president of his alma mater, Anderson University in Anderson, Indiana, this spring.
Fox News asked Pistole whether the threat to American aviation had diminished since August, when the U.S. launched a bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the Al Qaeda-led "Khorasan" group.    
Khorasan contains long-time associates of Usama bin Laden, including Sanafi al-Nasr and Muhsin al-Fadhli, as well as a handful of operatives trained by the Yemeni bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri, who specializes in non-metallic bombs that traditional airport screening can miss.
"Without going into details about what that may look like from a classified intelligence perspective, we do remain concerned that there is active plotting going on," Pistole said.
And with new information that the French bomb maker David Drugeon likely survived a U.S. air strike last month, Pistole added, "...there is concern that there are still individuals out there who have not only the ability to do that, but also the intent to use that on a flight to Europe or the US."
The TSA administrator also described classified procedures that track foreign fighters, based on their travel history, before they check in at overseas airports for U.S.-bound flights.
"There are individuals we are concerned about and we are again looking at if they make travel reservations, then they of course receive proper scrutiny," Pistole said.
The continued threat from groups like Khorasan explains why procedures, implemented in July, requiring passengers to turn on their phone and computers at some airports, remain in place. As the holiday travel season begins, TSA officials say they are not expecting big changes at the checkpoints, but if there are changes, they will be driven by new and specific intelligence.
Pistole said the transition from a one-size-fits-all approach after 9/11 to a risk-based strategy -- driven by intelligence -- is one of the TSA workforce's accomplishments.
"I think that's been one of the biggest changes...We're more efficient. Complaints are down. Wait times are down," he said.
Data provided by the TSA showed that over Thanksgiving, more than 12.5 million passengers were screened, a 1.3 percent increase from 2013, with nearly 50 percent of these passengers getting expedited screening.
Nationwide, TSA said 99.6 percent of passengers waited in a line for less than 20 minutes.
Pistole was in Australia days before the hostage situation unfolded in Sydney last weekend, telling Fox it fit the profile of a classic lone wolf attack.  "I am not aware of any intelligence about it as of last week, there was no talk about something like that," he said.
But it’s not that kind of attack that keeps Pistole up at night.
"My greater concern, rather than just a lone wolf, is simultaneous attacks such as you saw on 9/11...with that being said, we also have better insights into who the potential bombers are," he said.

Man who waterboarded 9/11 mastermind slams CIA report on torture

The man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, told Megyn Kelly on Tuesday that the CIA's program of using enhanced interrogation techniques did not amount to torture, despite recent accusations in a Senate-issued report.
"If it was torture, I would be in jail," James Mitchell said on "The Kelly File." "This thing was investigated over and over. I was told by the highest law enforcement agency in the land that we were going to walk right up to the edge of the law, and that all of the things we had included in that list were legal."
Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist, said in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, the country was gripped with fear that new attacks were forthcoming and both the public and the U.S. government were desperate to prevent them.
"(The CIA) had ongoing information to suggest that (terrorists) were trying to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S.," Mitchell said. "There was all this anthrax stuff going on, there was credible evidence to suggest that there was another wave of attacks coming and we couldn't have it happen."
Mitchell added: "They tried to decapitate us last time, they tried to destroy our civilization. And people were clamoring to do everything and anything they could that was legal, to take it right up to the line and save American lives. Because that's what our government is supposed to do: save American lives."
Mitchell, who said he found waterboarding "repulsive at times" but said he did it out of a duty to protect the U.S., criticized the Senate report, saying it's "easy" in hindsight to second-guess the tactics used after 9/11, more than 13 years after the attacks.
"In my view, the CIA analysts and the CIA targeters are incredible," he said. "To do this, to besmirch them, I think, is beyond the pale."

Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'

A federal judge has declared parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.
In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.  
"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits.
Rather, Schwab issued his opinion in response to a criminal case against Honduran illegal immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was previously deported in 2005 -- and was caught in the U.S. again earlier this year.
He already has pleaded guilty to "re-entry of a removed alien," but the court subsequently examined the impact of Obama's immigration actions on the case.
For that review, Schwab left open whether the actions might apply to Juarez-Escobar but determined the executive actions themselves were unconstitutional.
He wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants.
Obama's policy changes would give a reprieve to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, including those whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other criteria.  
Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."
Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."
He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive." 
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion. 
"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time." 
Critics of the administration's policy, though, hailed the opinion. 
"The President's unilateral executive action suspending the nation's immigration laws for roughly five million illegal aliens has received its first judicial test, and it has failed," John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, said in a statement.
Other direct legal challenges to Obama's immigration actions, including one by two-dozen states, remain pending before the federal courts.