Cartoons Townhall

Anita Hill slams Biden in op-ed, claims Dem might have slowed #MeToo by decades

Anita Hill took aim at Joe Biden once again Thursday, arguing that the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct might have begun sooner if the Democratic Party's 2020 front-runner would have done a better job of handling her claims of sexual harassment against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas more than 30 years ago.
Writing in the New York Times, Hill slammed the former vice president and U.S. senator from Delaware, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 when Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation process.
“If the Senate Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job and held a hearing that showed that its members understood the seriousness of sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence, the cultural shift we saw in 2017 after #MeToo might have began [sic] in 1991 — with the support of the government,” Hill, who is now a professor at Brandeis University, wrote.

"If the Senate Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job ... the cultural shift we saw in 2017 after #MeToo might have began [sic] in 1991."
— Anita Hill, writing Thursday in the New York Times

“If the government had shown that it would treat survivors with dignity and listen to women, it could have had a ripple effect,” Hill continued in the Times piece, which was titled, "Let's Talk About How to End Sexual Violence." “Instead, far too many survivors kept their stories hidden for years.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden,left, served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 when Anita Hill, right, testified allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Clarence Thomas.(Associated Press)

Biden officially announced his bid for the 2020 presidency in April. During a private phone call with Hill beforehand, he reportedly expressed regret over how she was treated during the Thomas confirmation hearings but fell short of apologizing for his own actions.
“Sexual violence is a national crisis that requires a national solution. We miss that point if we end the discussion at whether I should forgive Mr. Biden,” Hill continued in her piece. “This crisis calls for all leaders to step up and say: 'The healing from sexual violence must begin now. I will take up that challenge.'”
In an interview with "The View" after announcing his 2020 candidacy, Biden denied ever treating Hill badly during the 1991 hearings and praised the professor for her contributions toward #MeToo.
"She's one of the reasons why we have the #MeToo movement, she's one of the reasons why I was able to finish writing the Violence Against Women Act, she's one of the reasons why I committed ... there'd never be a Judiciary Committee I was on that didn't have women on it," he said.
Biden himself has not been accused of sexual harassment but since announcing his candidacy he has received backlash for being overly touchy with women and girls over the years.
Fox News' Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report. 

Matt Gaetz says Dems targeting AG Barr because he's 'turning the tables' on Obama legacy, deep state

U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., spoke out against the Democrats' claim that America is facing a "constitutional crisis," saying Thursday that the Dems are worried that Attorney General William Barr is "turning the tables" on the Obama administration's legacy.
"The very reason Jerry Nadler is going after Bill Barr has nothing to do with the 8 percent of the Mueller report that hasn't been seen, and it has everything to do with the fact that Bill Barr is now turning the tables on the people in the Obama White House, the people in the deep state, the intelligence community who politicized a FISA court, and the investigators, I think, who departed from normalized practice," Gaetz said on Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum."

"The very reason Jerry Nadler is going after Bill Barr ... has everything to do with the fact that Bill Barr is now turning the tables on the people in the Obama White House, the people in the deep state, the intelligence community."
— U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

Nadler, a New York Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, declared a "constitutional crisis" this week following his committee’s vote to hold the Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted Russia report and underlying documents.
Gaetz also took aim at former FBI Director James Comey, who appeared on a CNN town hall telecast Thursday night, predicting that Barr would be coming for Comey as well.
"Of course it is not a coincidence that James Comey is on, like, the Redemption Tour 2.0 right now, trying to articulate his message," Gaetz said, "because he knows that Barr is coming after Comey and his band of merry men, who largely paved the way for Hillary Clinton to not face consequence, and then turned around and really did the Russians' bidding for them by delegitimizing the election process, and then after the election [of] the president, trying to delegitimize Donald Trump."

"It is not a coincidence that James Comey is on, like, the Redemption Tour 2.0 right now ... because he knows that Barr is coming after Comey and his band of merry men, who largely paved the way for Hillary Clinton to not face consequence."
— U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

Gaetz also touted the U.S. economy's performance under President Trump before criticizing Democrats for their use of the word "crisis" --- and chastising them for not addressing the immigration emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"I don't know that Democrats know what the word 'crisis' means," Gaetz said. "Obviously they can't claim we have an economic crisis. We've got growth at twice the rate that was expected under the Obama economy and everyone is doing a lot better.
"But we have a real crisis on the border where 3,000 people a day are turning themselves in, into a system that we cannot accommodate additional influx for. And now we have a tortured interpretation of a constitutional crisis. I can assure you that is not the case. The game you're watching is not the game that is being played."
Fox News' Talia Kaplan contributed to this report.

'Crisis' mode: Can Trump bait the Democrats into impeaching him?

It is a "constitutional crisis," says Jerry Nadler.
President Trump is "self-impeaching," says Nancy Pelosi.
"We should be putting people in jail," says another Democrat, Gerry Connolly.
In the wake of the House Judiciary Committee citing William Barr for contempt, the Democrats are using increasingly fiery language against a president who seems determined to defy their subpoenas.
And even the leadership is moving, rhetorically at least, from its previous insistence that impeachment proceedings are a bad idea because they will obliterate the party's agenda and lack bipartisan support. Maybe that's because they're angry, or maybe it's just an attempt to placate their most liberal voters.
Perhaps the motivation is irrelevant. The New York Times says the Democrats, "infuriated by President Trump's stonewalling," are weighing a move "to bundle contempt citations for multiple Trump administration officials into one overarching package that could be referred to the Federal District Court here, in much the way Congress looked to the courts to compel President Richard M. Nixon to turn over tape recordings of his Oval Office conversations."
And yet the stakes in the latest subpoena fight, unlike Nixon shielding tapes of the Watergate cover-up, are slight. The House Democrats want the unredacted Mueller report, despite 98 percent of the obstruction of justice section not being redacted. And they want their staff lawyers to be able to question the attorney general, as opposed to just committee members.
The media are in full crisis mode as well. And that's a sharp contrast to the way they covered the Republican House holding Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt for refusing to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious probe. That was portrayed mainly as a partisan brawl, without such headlines as "Clash Between Trump, House Democrats Poses Threat to Constitutional Order," in the Times. And nothing ultimately happened to Holder, just as nothing is likely to happen to Barr.
I happen to think Congress has a legitimate right to demand documents and testimony in overseeing the executive branch, regardless of which party is in charge. But there's also such a thing as political overreach. If the DOJ were withholding the Mueller report, that would be one thing. To escalate over the 2 percent of the obstruction section that is redacted is quite another.
President Trump is baiting the Democrats, and they know it. He'd love for them to go down the impeachment path, which would fire up his base and lead to his ultimate acquittal. He'd be happy to spend 2020 running against overzealous Democrats, Nancy and Jerry, Mueller and the media.
Rich Lowry made a trenchant observation in his Politico column that applies both to the subpoena battle and the Times story about Trump's massive business losses.
"There really are no Trump mysteries," he writes. "His flaws aren't hidden away. He often attests to them himself, or demonstrates them publicly ...
"No blockbuster report has more than a passing effect because each dispatch is, ultimately, another dot in a pointillist portrait of the president that was largely completed long ago.
"This is also why the hope that we are one investigation, tax return, or subpoena away from the revelation that will finally bell the cat and bring Trump down — or even make a difference — is almost certainly forlorn. What would be devastating material against anyone else loses all shock value."
The Mueller report didn't topple Trump. Neither will the redacted portions, his tax returns or any other secret document. If the Democrats want to oust the president, they’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way next year.

James Comey blasts Rod Rosenstein, mocks departing deputy AG for thinking 'the country needs me'

Former FBI Director James Comey described deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as not having “strong character” Thursday while appearing on a CNN town hall telecast.
“I think people like that, like Rod Rosenstein, who are people of accomplishment but not real sterling character, strong character, find themselves trapped. And then they start telling themselves a story to justify their being trapped which is, 'Yeah, he's awful but the country needs me,’” Comey told host Anderson Cooper.
Cooper brought up Rosenstein as Comey was responding to a question about a recent op-ed he penned, in which he wrote that the president “eats your soul in small bites.”
“Republicans are doing this in Congress. ‘Yeah, it's awful, but if I speak I'll get defeated and this nation needs me here right now.’ So they start to make little compromises to stay on the team. Talk about collusion, saying that's what I need to do to survive and in the process, he has eaten their soul, they’re lost. So that's what happens to so many of people,” Comey said.
Rosenstein was honored with a Department of Justice send-off on Thursday, after submitting his resignation to President Trump last month. His departure will reportedly take effect Saturday.
Thursday was also the second anniversary of Trump firing Comey from the FBI.
Attorney General Bill Barr, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and FBI Director Christopher Wray were on hand at the Rosenstein farewell, touting his record and character throughout his career, but specifically over the last two years.
Rosenstein fell into the political crosshairs throughout his tenure and was on the receiving end of the president’s ire over the Russia investigation. Rosenstein had taken over oversight of the investigation after Sessions recused himself from the probe -- a decision that infuriated Trump.
It was early on in Rosenstein's oversight of the probe, in May 2017, that Trump fired Comey. Just a week later, Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller -- Comey's former boss at the FBI. Rosenstein watched over the probe until November 2018, when former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker took over. Whitaker was ultimately replaced by Barr.
On CNN's Thursday telecast, Comey also told Cooper that he tried to avoid becoming like Rosenstein and other "co-opted" members of the administration by openly disagreeing with President Trump in the Oval Office.
According to Comey, Trump was equating the U.S. to "killers" like Russian President Vladamir Putin.
"And among the words were his saying we are the same kind of killers that Vladimir Putin is. He was defending his moral equivalency between us and Putin and I interrupted and said, 'Mr. President, no, we're not the kind of killers that Putin is,'" Comey said.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Some People Did Something Cartoons

Trump calls US the 'piggy bank that everybody wants to rob'

President Trump said Wednesday that America is the "the piggy bank that everybody wants to rob," and that his administration is helping the country's economy excel.
Speaking at a rally in the Florida Panhandle, Trump said that the United States lost many manufacturing jobs during the Obama administration.
"They let other countries raid our factories, steal our jobs and rob us blind," Trump said. "Other than that, they were very nice."
Trump said that previous administrations "allowed China to freely loot our economy" and steal intellectual property.
He said that although he considers President Xi Jinping a "friend," he knows that Xi is in favor of China winning any economic rivalry.
Trump said that under his leadership, America's market is "the thing that everybody wants."
Appearing to refer to 2016 campaign rival Hillary Clinton, Trump added that if "another person" were in the White House, that would not be the case -- and the night's rally attendance would total "like 10 people."
In a Tuesday interview on Fox News' "America's Newsroom," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said that Trump "indicated that ... the Chinese were starting to get cold feet and move away a little bit from some of the things they agreed upon" in regard to purported "trade abuses."
"He felt was necessary to take a stronger position relative to what we have so far," said Thune, the Senate majority whip.
Fox News' Anna Hopkins contributed to this report.

Is it huge news that Trump once lost money and took tax writeoffs?

The dense and lengthy New York Times report says a great many things about Donald Trump's finances, but it does not say one potentially damaging thing: that he broke the law.
Instead, it is a portrait of a high-flying developer who lost a whole lot of money at times — mostly other people's money — while at times also making money.
It is a portrait of a businessman who often avoided paying taxes — legally — just like most entrepreneurs in the loophole-ridden real estate business.
I'm not defending his conduct. I think he should have released his tax returns as a presidential candidate, just like every other nominee of the past 40 years. Trump's refusal to do so has opened the door to endless speculation and leaked material as journalists and others ask what he's got to hide.
But I don't think the Times opus is going to cost him political support. For one thing, his backers will continue to view him as a successful mogul, and his detractors will continue to see him as a scam artist.
What's more, we generally knew that Trump used a mountain of debt and lots of tax writeoffs in building his empire and that he lost zillions on such ventures as the bankrupt casinos and an airline shuttle. Even the Times says the disclosures do not "offer a fundamentally new narrative of his picaresque career."
And while anchors and pundits keep pronouncing Trump "the biggest loser," he's still got a plane, Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago and, oh right, the presidency.
The Times obtained printouts from Trump's IRS transcripts for the tax years 1985 to 1994, when he surged to national prominence. These are not the most recent returns that the Democratic House is demanding from the Treasury.
The red-ink revelation: "The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade. In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer."
And something no politician wants to advertise: "Overall, Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years."
Trump bragged about using depreciation to cut his taxes in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal." And the Times acknowledges that "the tax code also lets business owners like Mr. Trump use losses to avoid paying tax on future income — a lucrative deduction intended to help troubled businesses get back on their feet." (Ordinary taxpayers can also write off property depreciation and losses, but this is a pittance compared to what big-time developers do.)
The Times quoted Trump lawyer Charles Harder as calling the story "demonstrably false," and saying the paper’s assertions "about the president's tax returns and business from 30 years ago are highly inaccurate."
Then came the inevitable Trump tweets:
"Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s…were entitled to massive write offs [sic] and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. [sic] Sometimes considered 'tax shelter,' you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!"
So he acknowledges and justifies the practices — all true — and then calls it "fake news."
By the way, candidate Trump bragged about his big writeoffs in a 2016 fall debate, declaring, "I love depreciation!"
One side note is Trump's brief moonlighting as a corporate raider. From 1986 through 1988, Trump "made millions of dollars in the stock market by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously."
So what's the bottom line, to use a green-eyeshade term?
It may well be that Donald Trump lost far more money than he wanted us to know, paid far less in taxes than he wanted us to know, and was far more aggressive in exploiting the tax system than he wanted us to know.
But there's no requirement that a businessman not take every available deduction to avoid paying taxes. And we've known that Trump went through boom-and-bust cycles, including the Atlantic City casinos that went belly-up, in the past. A report that he was doing these things 30 years ago, without any evidence of improper conduct, isn't going to change many minds.