Short Circuit Cartoon

The 5 Kinds of Republicans Who Are Defecting From the Party of Trump

The political news this week is being dominated by reports of elephants breaking away from the herd: Republicans who are not supporting Donald Trump for president. They are most often being differentiated by exactly what they are saying or not saying: Some are simply refraining from opportunities to endorse their nominee; some are publicly refusing to endorse their nominee; a few are going to vote for the Libertarian or a last-minute conservative independent or write-in candidate; and a steadily increasing number are going over the brink to support Hillary Clinton, as one might expect with Election Day fast approaching. There’s no telling when the exodus will end; the latest Trump outrage, about “Second Amendment people” having some plans for HRC, is creating a fresh bout of heartburn for exasperated Republicans, and could send a new batch toward the exit ramp.

But in understanding this phenomenon and weighing its importance (or the lack thereof), it’s helpful to look at the non-endorsees and their backgrounds and motives. To that end, here’s a classification system of the five different kinds of Republicans who have broken ranks over Trump:

1. Nominal Republicans who are out of synch with their party: While they are not as plentiful as they were in the days when liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats walked the Earth, there are always some nominal partisans available, often long in the tooth, who object to the general direction of “their” party and can be rounded up to show their displeasure with a statement of dissent or a cross-endorsement. This used to be a particular cross to bear for Democrats, from the days of John Connally’s Democrats for Nixon in 1972 to Joe Lieberman’s active support for John McCain in 2008 — but Republicans are catching up.

Former South Dakota senator Larry Pressler is a good example of this breed of errant pachyderm. He endorsed Barack Obama twice, attempted a Senate comeback as an independent in 2014, and has now endorsed Hillary.

But my favorite defector of the cycle has got to be former Michigan governor William Milliken, who endorsed Clinton as a protest against Trump’s candidacy. Like Pressler, he’s a serial defector; he endorsed John Kerry in 2004, and de-endorsed John McCain late in the 2008 cycle. But to grasp how out of touch the 94-year-old Milliken is with the contemporary GOP, consider that he became governor of Michigan when George Romney resigned to join Richard Nixon’s cabinet. Enough said.

2. Lame ducks. As James Hohmann notes in the Washington Post, the willingness of current Republican elected officials to stray from party discipline is more or less in inverse relationship to their vulnerability to punishment by Republican leaders and/or angry “base” voters. So, unsurprisingly, the two most prominent defectors in the House Republican Conference — Richard Hanna, a New Yorker who has endorsed Clinton, and Scott Rigell, a Virginian who will vote Libertarian — had already announced their retirements. A Democratic precedent was Senator Zell Miller in 2004, who endorsed and spoke for George W. Bush a few months before he left Washington for good. Two years later Miller headed up something called Democrats for Santorum on behalf of the soon-to-be-defeated Pennsylvania senator; it seemed to be composed of Miller himself and his image in the mirror. But I digress …

3. Political realists. There are also Republican defectors who seem to be motivated by cold political calculation. Most obviously, Illinois senator Mark Kirk’s slim odds of reelection almost certainly depend on winning a lot of votes from people who loathe Trump. But even his Senate colleague Susan Collins, who is being treated today as a brave woman of principle for refusing to get on the Trump Train, could be thinking about her political future in Maine, where according to Hohmann she could be contemplating a gubernatorial run as an independent.

More famously, Ted Cruz is clearly calculating his “vote your conscience” statement at the Republican convention will look infinitely better if and when Trump goes down to a catastrophic defeat, leaving his own self as the front-runner for 2020. John Kasich and Ben Sasse could be making similar calculations about their political futures.

4. Redundants. In many respects the most sympathetic group of Republican defectors are former environmental, immigration, and trade-policy officials who obviously have no place in a party led by Donald Trump. I mean, really: Let’s say you are Robert Zoellick, once George W. Bush’s United States Trade Representative. Trump is accusing you and people just like you of deliberately selling American workers down the river and destroying the country in close concert with the godless Clinton administration globalists in the other party (on top of that, Zoellick ran the World Bank and worked for Goldman Sachs!). Are you going to blandly endorse him or fight to win “your” party back? It’s a pretty easy call. The same is true of Republicans closely identified with comprehensive immigration reform and strong environmental regulation (e.g., former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman, who has indicated she will vote for Clinton).

5. Assorted elites. For most of the rest of the elite defectors, the emphasis should be on the word “elite.” They are mostly former appointed officials in Republican administrations who have since moved on to life in that floating stratosphere of policy mavens, think tankers, lobbyists, and Cabinets-in-waiting. They are heavily found on that list of 50 Republican foreign-policy experts calling for Trump’s defeat.

Some are actually “redundants” associated with past Republican policies Trump has denounced (you can add the Iraq War to the list above). Others know there is no way they will have a place in, or even access to, a Trump administration. Still others simply have a reciprocal assessment of Trump as a loser. They are mostly sincerely angry about what is happening to their party, and plan to have a future role in the GOP when the “fever” has broken. What they all have in common is that they will never, ever have to deal with Republican primary voters, other than at a safe distance.

The key question to ask with all five groups of Republican defectors is whether they represent a significant group of rank-and-file Republican voters, who have for the most part been more likely to stick with Trump than elected officials and other elites have been. That’s not the only measurement of the value of defectors; sometimes independent voters can be swayed by these kind of negative testimonials for a major-party candidate, and there are financial considerations as well, since wealthy donors prefer some cover before abandoning a party nominee. But it will be interesting to find out whether the party has truly left the defectors behind, or if instead they are simply a party-in-exile that will hold the reins long after Donald Trump has left politics like a bad circus leaving town.

Donald Trump’s Other Campaign Foe: The ‘Lowest Form of Life’ News Media

Donald J. Trump was on the defensive all week, battered from all sides for his heated statements hailing the Second Amendment and linking political opponents to the Islamic State.

But on Friday morning, Mr. Trump rose early to strike back at his favorite adversary.

“Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) ‘the founder’ of ISIS,” Mr. Trump fumed on Twitter shortly after dawn. “THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?”

He soon fired off another gibe. “I love watching these poor, pathetic people (pundits) on television working so hard and so seriously to try and figure me out,” Mr. Trump taunted. “They can’t!”

Hacker posts contact information for almost 200 congressional Democrats

A hacker or group of hackers using the name "Guccifer 2.0" posted the private email addresses and cell phone numbers of almost 200 current and former Democratic members of Congress Friday.
The disclosure is the latest dump of information stolen in recent cyberattacks on a number of Democratic Party organizations, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).
Guccifer 2.0 posted a spreadsheet containing the contact information of 193 current and former Democratic House members as part of a larger document dump on his personal blog. In an accompanying blog post, Guccifer said accessing the DCCC server "was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach."
Included in the spreadsheet were the cell phone numbers of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
The Wall Street Journal reported that it was able to reach Hoyer at the cell phone number listed on the spreadsheet. Hoyer said he was not aware that the information had been stolen or posted online.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

"I imagine a lot of people are going to change their cellphone numbers pretty soon," Hoyer said.
The spreadsheet also included contact information for members of various House national security committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee.
"This is sensitive information and it could be used in a very detrimental way by a foreign government," Hoyer told the Journal.
The DCCC said in a statement that it was aware that the documents had been released and were "investigating their authenticity."
There was no immediate comment from Pelosi's office or the White House.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said late Friday that he had "every confidence that law enforcement will get to the bottom of this, and identify the responsible parties. And when they do, I hope the Administration will disclose who is attempting to interfere with the American political process, and levy strong consequences against those responsible."

Intelligence officials believe that the cyberattacks on the DNC and DCCC were likely carried out by hackers affiliated with the Russian government. The Journal reported that at least one cybersecurity company has said there appear to be links between the Kremlin and the entity identifying itself as Guccifer 2.0, though the hacker or hackers have denied this claim.

Sue Obama administration to block Internet grab, group urges

A coalition of technology groups and conservatives wants Congress to sue to stop the Obama administration from handing over control of Internet domain names to an international board, charging it could give authoritarian regimes power over the web.
Since 1998, an arm of the U.S. Commerce Department called the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) has handled domain names. However, in September, the Obama administration plans to allow the U.S. government’s contract to lapse so the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will be run by a global board of directors with the domain-naming responsibility. Many fear this will allow governments such as Russia, China and Iran to have a stake in Internet governance and the “de facto” power to tax domain names and stifle free speech.
Congress twice included riders in appropriations bills to expressly prohibit tax dollars from being used for the transition, which President Obama signed into law. So, if the Obama administration allows the contract to lapse in September it could mark yet another questionable executive action by the administration.
That’s part of the reason the tech groups and conservatives are asking House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and other congressional leaders to support litigation, similar to that which the House took against the Obama administration regarding unauthorized spending on Obamacare in a 2014 lawsuit.
“Suing to enforce the appropriations rider and extending it through FY2017 are amply justified by the extraordinary importance of the constitutional principle at stake,” the coalition letter says.
The letter also says that the Obama administration has not ensured the United States will maintain ownership of domain names .mil or .gov for military and government websites.
“Without robust safeguards, Internet governance could fall under the sway of governments hostile to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment,” the letter says. “Ominously, governments will gain a formal voting role in ICANN for the first time when the new bylaws are implemented.”
Speaker Ryan’s office referred questions on the matter to the House Judiciary Committee, which did not immediately respond to FoxNews.com for this story.
TechFreedom spearheaded the letter signed by 26 organizations, including Protect Internet Freedom, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights and Americans for Tax Reform; and 11 individuals such as TechFreedom President Berin Szóka; National Bloggers Club President Ali Akbar and Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“Congress twice told the White House to pause the transition, yet the Commerce Department is blatantly ignoring the law,” Szóka said in a statement. “Congress cannot just let this slide. It must defend the Constitution’s separation of powers, which gives the ‘power of the purse’ to the House. That means making clear to the administration that the House will sue if NTIA does not extend the contract.”
However, the Obama administration contends it isn’t bound by the appropriation bills.
“The law prohibits NTIA from using appropriated funds to ‘relinquish the responsibility during fiscal year 2016, with respect to Internet domain name system functions,’” NTIA spokeswoman Juliana Grunewald told FoxNews.com. “However, the law does not prohibit NTIA from evaluating a transition proposal or engaging in other preparatory activities related to the transition. In fact, Congress directed NTIA to conduct a thorough review of any proposed transition plan we receive and to provide Congress with quarterly updates on the transition, which we have done.”
Gruenwald noted that a number of organizations have supported the transition, such as Freedom House, the Internet Society, the Internet Association, Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Internet Infrastructure Association.
The Obama administration announced in 2014 it planned to let the contract between the Commerce Department and ICANN expire at the end of fiscal year 2016, allowing the operating of the Internet absent the U.S. government.
The coalition letter continues by warning that the ICANN structure will have a tough time holding board members and staff accountable.
“ICANN has already morphed from the technical coordinating body set up in 1998 into something much more like a government: It has the de facto power to tax domain names,” the letter says. It adds, “There are good reasons to worry about what it may do with this power absent the incentive for self-restraint created by its contract with the U.S.”
Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and James Lankford of Oklahoma have sponsored the Protecting Internet Freedom Act to prevent the transition.
In June, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of their respective chambers, wrote to Assistant Commerce Secretary Larry Strickling, stating the transfer would be illegal.
“As we are sure you are aware, it is a violation of federal law for an officer or employee of the United States government ‘to make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation,’” the letter says. “It is troubling that NTIA appears to have taken these actions in violation of this prohibition.”
In a letter of response on Aug. 10, Strickling told the lawmakers they had a “misunderstanding” of the transition.
“Free expression exists and flourishes online not because of perceived U.S. government oversight over the [domain name system], or because of any asserted special relationship that the United States has with ICANN,” Strickling said in the letter. “It exists and is protected when stakeholders work together to make decisions.”

Video: Clinton Foundation was used as a slush fund.

Video of Judge Jeanine 

 Clinton Foundation was used as a slush fund.

Bernie Cartoons

Sen. Bernie Sanders buys lakefront home for nearly $600,000

Sanders brands himself a Democratic socialist

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the tribune of working people, has bought his third house for nearly $600,000.
Fresh off the presidential campaign trail, the self-described Democratic socialist bought a seasonal waterfront home on Lake Champlain in North Hero, Vermont, for $575,000.
A Sanders spokesman says the senator and his wife Jane also own a row house in Washington, D.C., and a home in Burlington, Vermont.
Jane O'Meara Sanders says her family recently let go of a home they had owned in Maine, enabling her and her husband to buy the place in the Lake Champlain islands. She says her family had owned a home in Maine since 1900 but rarely had time to go there, particularly in recent years since her parents died.

Hayes on new questions about State Dept .and Clinton Foundation overlap

The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes said Thursday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that newly revealed e-mails continue to raise questions about impropriety between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.
“This was a pay-for play-operation, basically people who solicited the Clinton Foundation, they gave money to the Clinton Foundation -- they got the State Department to weigh in on various disputes and matters, as a really routine course of action,” Hayes said.
One especially egregious example, Hayes said, was the role Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills played at the time.
“To have her travel to New York City for the purposes of basically interviewing two would-be leaders for the Clinton Foundation, and then to have [Clinton campaign spokesman] Brian Fallon say it was clear this had nothing to do with her official responsibilities is totally and completely preposterous on its face,” he said. “Of course it had everything to do with her official responsibilities. That's precisely why they sent her.”

Trump, Clinton spar over economic plans in dueling speeches

Looks Like a President :-)

The 2016 presidential rivals set aside their latest campaign controversies Thursday to trade jabs on jobs, taxes and the economy -- with Donald Trump casting Hillary Clinton as bad for the housing industry and the Democratic nominee accusing her opponent of offering "no credible plans" for working Americans.
Clinton also tried to out-tough Trump on trade, vowing to beef up enforcement on trade rules and punish countries that violate them.
"Mr. Trump may talk a big game on trade, but his approach is based on fear, not strength," Clinton said in Michigan. "If Team USA was as fearful as Trump, Michael Phelps and Simone Biles would be cowering in the locker room, afraid to come out to compete."
Trump delivered an economic speech of his own earlier this week in Michigan. On Thursday, he also spoke to the National Association of Home Builders in Miami Beach, Fla., and decried the Obama administration’s increase in regulations on building properties.
“In the last five years, regulations on building … have increased by 29 percent,” he said.
Trump cited his family’s history in the industry and regaled the crowd with anecdotes of his father Fred’s homebuilding exploits. He told the association, though, that the regulation situation would only get worse if Clinton is elected in November.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

“And I will say this, and I say this to you very strongly, if short-circuit Hillary Clinton ever gets elected, it's only going to be worse. It is going to get worse. It's going to be four more years of Obama but it will be worse because she's mandated to go to the left, because 45 percent of Bernie's people -- they want her to head in that direction,” he said.
Clinton, meanwhile, detailed her economic package in a speech in Detroit, calling for the largest investment package since World War II, a "patriotic tax code" that would punish those companies sending jobs abroad, broadband in every home by 2020 and making America a “green energy super power.”
She also reached out to disenfranchised Republicans by saying “a big part of our plan will be unleashing the power of private sector to create more jobs at higher pay.”
She cited analysis that found Trump’s positions would lose over 3 million jobs, while hers would create over 10 million.
“When it comes to creating jobs, I would argue, it’s not even close,” she said, when comparing their two plans. “He hasn't offered any credible solutions for the very real economic challenges we face.”
She also said she would oppose any trade deals that would send American jobs abroad, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton has opposed the deal in its current form after once calling it a "gold standard" agreement when she was secretary of state. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe hinted last month that she may change her position when elected, although this was denied by the Clinton campaign.
“I’ll oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president,” she said, also promising to stand up to China if they try and take advantage of American workers.
Clinton also took a shot at Trump for making certain items, such as suits and ties, in China and Mexico.
“One thing he could do to make America great is to make great things in America,” she joked.
Trump outlined his economic package in a speech Monday, pledging to cut taxes for businesses and workers, while proposing a three-bracket income tax system more in line with proposals by House Republicans than his previous plan. He also called for greater child care deductions for families.
Economic issues have frequently been pushed to the side amid controversies over remarks made by Trump -- as well as recurring controversies involving Clinton's email scandals and dealing between her State Department and family foundation.
At a Tuesday rally, Trump said there was no way to stop a future-President Hillary Clinton from packing the Supreme Court with anti-Second Amendment justices, “although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is…I don’t know.” Some saw the remarks as a joke about Clinton being assassinated, a claim that the Trump campaign has denied.
Trump has also faced more controversy after claiming that President Obama is “the founder” of ISIS, and Clinton its co-founder.