Sanctuary City Cartoons

Juan Williams: Democrats and the politics of impeaching Trump

Here is the big, year-end question for Democrats:

Is the anger at President Trump that carried them to big wins in the 2017 off-year elections strong enough to make them even bigger winners in the 2018 midterms?

The party’s leaders don’t buy it.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spent last week throwing cold water on excited calls from fellow Democrats to impeach the president.
And Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed that line, telling a reporter that talk of impeachment is “premature… you might blow your shot when it has a better chance of happening.”
That makes sense.
But the grassroots energy inside the party — from moderates to left-wingers — is all about taking the fight to Trump to the point of impeachment.
A late October poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, found a “record level of support for impeaching Donald Trump,” with 49 percent calling for impeachment and 41 percent opposed.
That near-majority call reveals the deep split between the Democrats’ youthful, activist base and the party’s cautious, old guard, led by senior congressional leaders.

Both sides want to win in 2018. But in the run-up to next year’s election, it is the party’s establishment leaders who are losing the intraparty fight to restrain growing excitement at the prospect of impeaching Trump.

Both sides want to win in 2018. But in the run-up to next year’s election, it is the party’s establishment leaders who are losing the intraparty fight to restrain growing excitement at the prospect of impeaching Trump.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., recently ended a speech at Glamour’s Women of the Year Awards with a robust chant: “Impeach Him!”
Billionaire Tom Steyer, the party’s biggest donor in recent years, is running a multi-million dollar ad blitz that has led 1.5 million people to sign a petition calling for the president’s impeachment.
The advertisement says, “People in Congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons.”
Pelosi, when pressed on the Steyer advertisement, said impeachment “is not someplace I think we should go.” Similarly, Schumer reacted to Steyer by saying, “I’m not against him doing it but I think it is premature.”
Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), has joined the congressional leadership in withholding support for impeachment. He told ABC’s Martha Raddatz flatly, “I am not talking about impeachment.”
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the DNC’s deputy chairman, told the Atlantic that the Republicans present a major hurdle to successful impeachment, given their majorities in both the House and the Senate.
“I think that he totally deserves to be impeached, but given the present composition of Congress, it’s not about to happen soon,” Ellison said, “so why not focus on things that are right in front of us.”
These establishment strategists also point out that the last time Democrats aimed their fire at Trump’s often erratic behavior, they were not successful.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made the case that Trump’s words and actions should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. Obviously, it did not work.
Now political insiders argue it will be more fruitful for the Democrats to wait on the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump camp and Russia before jumping on the impeachment bandwagon.
Without clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, the start of impeachment hearings could create a backlash, as some voters rally to his side.
Another point to consider is fundraising.
At the moment, Federal Election Commission filings show the Republican National Committee having raised $93 million through August, with $47 million in cash available.
Democrats are nowhere near that sum. For all the big wins for Democrats this year and the talk of grassroots energy growing on the Democratic side, the party has raised far less than the GOP — $46 million through August with $6.8 million in cash on hand.
Top Democrats favor focusing on positive messaging — more jobs and better health care — aimed at increasing donor confidence.
But pragmatic strategies from the Democrats’ congressional leadership have not stopped calls for impeachment from growing inside the party.
In a revealing split with party leaders, six House Democrats announced proposed articles of impeachment against President Trump.
“We have taken this action because of great concern for our country and our Constitution, our national security and our democracy,” Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen said last week.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in July. He has told The New York Times his action was “speaking for and galvanizing those people who are appalled at the [president’s] recklessness and the incompetency.”
Two leading grassroots groups, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, are pushing for immediate impeachment. They can push all they like. At the moment, the Republican majority in Congress is sure to block them.
The Democrats are heady with momentum on their side as the 2018 midterms begin. But political momentum can fade. That is a big danger heading into midterms where the Democrats often fail to turn out.
That’s why Pelosi, Schumer and Perez are wrong not to at least wink at the activists calling for impeachment. It comes at no cost and it energizes the base.
Juan Williams currently serves as a co-host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET) and also appears as a political analyst on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace and Special Report with Bret Baier. Williams joined the network as a contributor in 1997.

Hillary is toast: Scandals finally catch up with Clintons

Imagine: even the New York Times’ Ross Douthat now thinks that Bill Clinton should have stepped down over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Douthat’s mea culpa op-ed in this past weekend’s paper, in which he confesses that he and others may have been wrong to dismiss Bill Clinton’s indefensible behavior, will serve as the official political obituary for Clinton, Inc.

Hillary Clinton is done, finished, kaput. Dogged by scandals old and new, out of step politically, her excess baggage has morphed into an entire baggage train, dragging her towards political oblivion. While it is refreshing to consider the landscape unadorned by Clintons, Republicans will miss her. Only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have contributed as generously to GOP fund-raising efforts in recent years, or so energized voters.

Mrs. Clinton is finally being held to account, at least in the court of public opinion, where it may matter most. As charges of sexual aggression swirl around prominent figures on the left and right, Bill Clinton’s gross and possibly criminal behavior is getting a second look. New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand took the revisionism to a whole new level when she told the New York Times that President Clinton should have stepped down when his sexual relationship with 22-year old staffer Monica Lewinsky came to light.
Though Gillibrand later tried to soften the blow by putting her statement in a modern context, the damage was done. Bill Clinton’s affairs and sexual aggression are now fair game, at a time when the country is outraged over such activities. Many have long considered Hillary’s defense of her husband hypocritical in the extreme. Even as she postured as a champion of women’s rights, she tossed Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick (who accused Clinton of rape), Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones under the bus.  These women accused Hillary of trying to intimidate them into silence. As recently as last year, Broaddrick broke down in tears as she recounted her 1978 ordeal. It would be hard to muster that emotion if the story were bogus.

Bill Clinton’s affairs and sexual aggression are now fair game, at a time when the country is outraged over such activities.

It is high time Bill Clinton’s misdeeds and Hillary’s defense of them received bipartisan condemnation. Gillibrand broke that sound barrier. Others have piled on, including Clinton-friendly pundits and apparatchiks like David Rothkopf, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, and Michelle Goldberg. Liberal screed and former staffer at the Center for American Progress Matthew Iglesias wrote on Vox recently, “I think we got it wrong”, saying that defending Mr. Clinton was a mistake. 
Meanwhile, there are increasing calls for a special counsel to investigate accusations that Hillary sold out the country by green-lighting the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-linked entity, in return for cash donated to the Clinton Foundation and to Bill directly. Mrs. Clinton is in a precarious position here; as she becomes more assertive in blaming her election loss on Moscow’s intervention, she has called for ever-widening scrutiny of all things Russian. This is a risky gambit for Mrs. Clinton; comparisons between actual payments made to Clinton, Inc. and smoky speculation about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia do not favor the former First Lady.
The Russia probe has also unearthed revelations that Hillary’s campaign shelled out millions of dollars to finance the infamous “Trump dossier,” which fed speculation about the president’s ties to Russia and how Moscow might have influenced the election. In other words, the Clinton team paid for a hit job on Trump that has been widely discredited but that ultimately led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the ever-expanding investigation that Democrats hope will bring down a duly elected president. It is a shocking chain of events, and one that has been extraordinarily damaging to the country.
Nonetheless, Hillary continues to tour the country, claiming with ever-greater vehemence that Russia undermined her campaign and put Donald Trump in the White House. That’s when she’s not blaming misogyny, the media, the DNC, Bernie Sanders, President Obama, James Comey and a host of others whom she considers responsible. Her tour is an embarrassment, not only for its content, but because it is yet another example of the never-ending Clinton lust for cash. She has been selling “VIP” tickets for nearly $1,200; you would think she might treat her loyal supporters to a freebie, after they doled out billions only to see her lose. The good news: plenty of websites are advertising tickets at 50 percent off.
Those steadfast supporters need some good news. Donna Brazile’s revelations that Hillary effected a clandestine takeover of the Democratic National Committee almost a year before the election, and made sure that the supposedly neutral organization pushed the nomination in her direction was salt in the wound.  Aside from the shocking disclosures, Brazile’s break with Clinton, Inc. is a sure sign that Hillary and Bill’s dominance of Democratic politics, nurtured by an incomparable fundraising behemoth, is coming to an end.
Not that they have yet ceded the floor. Last May Hillary and former DNC Chair Howard Dean launched Onward Together, a PAC established to fund groups dedicated to “encouraging people to organize, get involved and run for office.” Presumably Hillary tapped Dean for credibility in sponsoring the “progressive values” the PAC’s website claims. The Daily Caller has reported that six months in, Onward Together seems mainly intent on fundraising, with scant evidence that its revenues are being distributed to other organizations. 
With the Clintons, it has always been about the money. Onward Together will be a test. If the millions roll in, the Clintons will remain a force to be reckoned with. If not, they will fade into political obscurity. Already, monies flowing into the now-tainted Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have tumbled – down 42 percent in 2016 on top of a 37 percent drop the year before.
It’s also about the politics. Democrats have moved far to the left of Bill and Hillary. Worse for the Clintons, they are moving on.
Liz Peek is a writer who contributes frequently to FoxNews.com. She is a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter@LizPeek.

Border Patrol agent appeared to be ambushed by illegal immigrants, bashed with rocks before death

Illegal immigrants appeared to have “ambushed” two U.S. Border Patrol agents near the Texas border with Mexico and bashed their heads with blunt objects -- possibly rocks -- killing one agent and sending another to a hospital in serious condition Sunday, a National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) official told Fox News.

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was killed and another agent, who has not been identified, was injured while they were patrolling the Big Bend Sector, leading authorities to scour West Texas for the attackers, officials said. Although few details about the incident have been released, Brandon Judd, the president of the NBPC, told Fox News on Monday it appeared Martinez and the second agent were “ambushed” by a group of illegal immigrants.

“We don’t know exactly what happened because we weren’t there. However, just from agents that were working in the area, reports are saying it was an attack and it would appear to be an ambush,” Judd said.
He added: “There’s a high likelihood this was an assault on the agents.”

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was killed while patrolling the Big Bend Sector in Texas.  (Facebook)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has offered a reward of up to $20,000 "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible" for the attack.
Judd said Martinez died of blunt force trauma to the head, indicating the attackers most likely used a rock or rocks during the assault. The second agent also suffered blunt force trauma to the head. The area surrounding where the attack occurred also indicated rocks were likely used as weapons. An FBI official also said that, counter to initial reports, neither agent was shot.
“There were no indications the agents fired their weapons,” Judd said, citing accounts he received from agents who responded to the incident. He also said there were no signs of a stabbing.

“There’s a high likelihood this was an assault on the agents.”

Martinez was notified there was illegal immigrant traffic in the area while the agents were patrolling near Interstate 10, in the Van Horn Station area, according to Judd. He began following “footprints” on a trail when the attack occurred. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a news release that Martinez's partner made the initial call for help and reported they were injured and needed assistance.
Judd said details remained foggy on what led to the ambush and the FBI was investigating the incident.
Judd did not further comment on the second agent’s condition.
Martinez was from El Paso and had worked as a border agent since August 2013, assigned to the Big Bend Sector. He was also a father and brother, KFOX14 reported.
Border Patrol records showed the agency's Big Bend sector, which includes the area where Sunday's attack took place, accounted for about 1 percent of the more than 61,000 apprehensions its agents made along the Southwest border between October 2016 and May 2017. The region's mountains make it a difficult area for people to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico.
The Border Patrol website lists 38 agents, not including Martinez, who have died since late 2003 — some attacked while working along the border and others killed in traffic accidents. Martinez is the second agent to have died this year.
President Trump tweeted Sunday night: "Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!"

Trump crackdown on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick

A federal judge in California on Monday permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick ruled that the White House does not have the authority to impose new conditions on spending already approved by Congress.

“The Counties have demonstrated that the Executive Order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights,” the judge wrote in his order.
The latest decision is in line with the argument Orrick made in April that temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to crack down on sanctuary cities, prompting an appeal.
Trump has campaigned on ending sanctuary cities. He issued an executive order that called on cutting federal funds from cities as a penalty for shielding illegal immigrants.
"The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law," a  Department of Justice spokesman said in a statement. "The Justice Department will vindicate the President's lawful authority to direct the executive branch."
The judge’s ruling on Monday came after two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration.
"President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can't grant himself new authority because he feels like it," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement, adding that the ruling was “a victory for the American people and the rule of law.”
A DOJ lawyer argued in April that the initiative would only apply to a few federal grants, barely affecting the funding in the two counties that filed the lawsuits.
But the judge disagreed, saying the order was written vaguely and could “reach all federal grants” – potentially leading to cutbacks of millions of dollars to Santa Clara and San Francisco.