Trump, Pence 'don't want gun control,' NRA's chief lobbyist says after meeting

Just one day after putting the NRA on the defensive with stunning televised comments, President Trump has signaled in an Oval Office meeting that he doesn't want gun control, according to the NRA's top lobbyist. 

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, tweeted late Thursday that "POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control."

About an hour later, Trump appeared to endorse Cox's version of events with a tweet of his own: "Good (Great) meeting in the Oval Office tonight with the NRA!"
On Wednesday, Trump shocked observers during a televised discussion with bipartisan lawmakers by appearing to endorse extreme gun control measures.
“Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” Trump said. “I like taking the guns early.”
JUDGE NAP: TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON DUE PROCESS ARE WHAT GUN OWNERS, NRA FEAR THE MOST
Trump, who has publicly changed his mind on other key issues, also urged Republican lawmakers not to be "afraid" of the powerful gun lobby and openly entertained more gun restrictions.
The NRA had reacted quickly to Trump's comments, even before Thursday's meeting.
NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said Wednesdsay that Trump’s meeting with lawmakers “made for good TV” but “bad policy.”
She said the organization is “in lock step” with the president on protecting children, but wants to “respect due process.”

Calfornia Cartoons

Trump's tweet on 'disgraceful' DOJ puts Jeff Sessions in a bind

If the president of the United States wants his attorney general to investigate how the Obama administration handled a surveillance warrant involving a former campaign aide, he should ask him.

But if President Trump did that, he would draw thundering criticism for essentially ordering a Justice Department investigation of his predecessor.

Instead, Trump is turning to his tried-and-true Twitter technique of taunting Jeff Sessions.
The president’s tweet followed Sessions' decision to have the department's internal watchdog examine the controversy over the FISA warrant for Carter Page—the subject of all that Republican-vs.-Democratic memo sniping.
Trump asked: "Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn't the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!"
That last word is just remarkable.
As an old Justice reporter, let me pose this question:
How credible would it be if Sessions, a big Senate supporter and surrogate of the Trump campaign, who's recused himself from the Russia probe, was overseeing an investigation of how the Obama DOJ handled a surveillance request against a Trump adviser who had contacts with Russia?
That's why you have an independent inspector general. And that job is generally occupied by career prosecutors, like Michael Horowitz, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Sessions was firm but restrained in a statement, saying, "As long as I am attorney general, I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and the Constitution."
Trump has privately bashed and tweet-trashed Sessions before, most notably when he was angry that Sessions had recused himself from the investigation now run by Robert Mueller. Things reached the point that Sessions handed in his resignation letter, which the president refused to accept.
Just last week came this presidential tweet:
"Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren't they the subject of the investigation?" Trump tweeted. "Why didn't Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren't Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Sessions!"
Fox's Brit Hume said of the latest tweet that "this is Trump at his worst. He is asking that the DOJ investigate itself. The inspector general, who has his own staff of lawyers and investigators, at least enjoys a measure of independence from the department. Trump still wants the AG to act his political goalie."
On the other side, Jerry Falwell Jr. tweeted that Sessions "must be part of the Bush/Romney/McCain Republican Establishment. He probably supported @realDonaldTrump early in campaign to hide who he really is. Or he could just be a coward."
Is Trump trying to embarrass Sessions into quitting? He's not a big fan of Rod Rosenstein, who would become acting AG, and the No. 3, Rachel Brand, recently quit. The battle for the Senate to confirm a new DOJ chief would be a drawn-out spectacle.
For the moment, the president has left his attorney general little choice but to defend his department.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Removal of some pro-gun content was 'mistake,' YouTube says

YouTube's new moderating team has mistakenly pulled some videos espousing right-wing positions, according to a report.  (YouTube)

YouTube's new team of content moderators removed pro-gun videos in the days following the Feb. 14 mass shooting at a Florida high school, according to multiple reports.
Just weeks earlier, YouTube announced it would hire thousands of additonal human moderators to ensure that inappropriate videos are removed from the website, while continuing to develop automated moderating solutions.
But amid this week's national conversation on gun rights, some users said YouTube's moderators were nixing their legitimate uploads, Bloomberg reported.
For example, the owner of the popular Military Arms Channel on YouTube, which has more than 650,000 subscribers, said in a Facebook post that moderators removed three of his videos: "Sure Shot Exploding Targets," "MAC Opens a Gun Shop - Copper Custom," and "New Kel-Tec RDB Bullpup."
The videos are not conspiratorial or overtly political in nature. The Kel-Tec video, for example, is a mostly techincal rundown of the features of an upcoming rifle from the company, and features footage of a man firing the weapon.
Those videos are currently back online, but Tim Harmsen, founder of the Military Arms Channel, said Monday that YouTube had temporarily prevented the channel from posting new videos.
PROFESSOR ACCUSES GOOGLE OF CENSORSHIP
"As of this moment I cannot post new videos to YouTube for two weeks," the channel's owner, Tim Harmsen, wrote. "Apparently if YouTube agrees with your political motivation, they side with the political trolls and disregard their own rules against reporting community standard compliant videos."

"Apparently if YouTube agrees with your political motivation, they side with the political trolls and disregard their own rules ..."

Bloomberg, citing the website Outline, also reported that several other accounts with fringe political messages -- including one run by Titus Frost, who tweeted that Parkland survivor David Hogg is a crisis actor -- were also banned.
New York Times bestselling author and Infowars D.C. bureau chief Jerome Corsi also tweeted Tuesday that YouTube had removed some of his content and temporarily banned him.
An outright ban of fringe commentators would signal an escalation in YouTube's content-policing tactics, Bloomberg reported.
The video-sharing website's policies prohibit "harmful" or "dangerous" content, as well as hateful and harassing uploads.
YouTube did not comment on specific deletions, but said that its moderators may have made mistakes.
"As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals," a YouTube spokeswoman told Bloomberg. "We’re continuing to enforce our existing policies regarding harmful and dangerous content, they have not changed. We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error."

'In God We Trust' sign gets loud support amid outsiders' opposition

The display of "In God We Trust" motto on the Wentzville council podium sparked protests from anti-religion groups.  (Twitter)

A controversy in a St. louis suburb over the display of “In God We Trust” as a motto in the City Council chambers prompted hundreds of residents to rally in support of the sign on Wednesday after some residents and anti-religion groups complained.

The debate began last month after a woman – who was not from the area – was escorted out of a Wentzville council meeting after she protesting the display and exceeding her speaking-time limit.

“It’s offensive to a lot of people, I’m outspoken about it but there are a lot of people like me that are afraid to speak out publicly,” said Sally Hunt, of neighboring Maryland Heights, according to KMOV-TV. “It says ‘In God We Trust’ when it should say ‘in God some of us trust,” she added.
The motto has been on display on the council dais since the building’s opening in November last year. It was reportedly paid for with private funds.
The city was reportedly contacted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, which argued the sign should be removed.
“Your heavy-handed, dismissive treatment of Ms. Hunt — calling her a liar and then having her embarrassingly removed from the meeting by force — vividly demonstrates Ms. Hunt’s point that your constituents have good reason to be afraid to challenge the Board’s foisting of religion onto the rest of the community,” read the letter sent to the city, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported
But the controversy reached its peak Wednesday as hundreds of residents carrying signs reading “In God We Trust” gathered to inside Wentzville’s city hall to rally in favor of the display.
“When I heard our national motto was under question or under attack, I wanted to come here. I’m only one person, but I can pray,” local resident Mary Lou Rogers told the KMOV-TV.

"When I heard our national motto was under question or under attack, I wanted to come here. I’m only one person, but I can pray.”

“If you read the history of our country, it was founded on Christian moral values,” Ginger Yoak, a longtime resident of the city, told the Post-Dispatch. “And this motto doesn’t specify one particular religion, it can apply to different religions. This is our motto that represents our country’s values and I want to keep it.”
Most people at the gathering supported the display of the motto, but a dozen dissenting voices were heard, although met with loud boos.
“Religion is something personal. It should be at home, the people who are representing the people of Wentzville need to represent all of them, not everybody is a Christian,” Angie Molleck said at the gathering.
Mayor Nick Guccione said during the meeting that the sign became an issue only after he disclosed that the local Rotary Club and the local Kiwanis Club paid for the sign. He added that he consulted with legal experts about the sign and the board held a vote about the display, which was approved.
“The overwhelming majority is in support of what we’ve done,” he said. “I don’t understand why it is offensive, but you can’t please everybody,” he said Wednesday. “I will not take it down. I will stand strong on it. I do believe it’s our national motto and it promotes patriotism.”
Some people also criticized those opposing the display but not actually living in the area. “I’m just not interested in some outsider coming in and telling us we can’t have this motto,” said Wayne Stoehner.
Hunt, who began the controversy after being escorted out of the hall last month at the mayor’s request, also attended Wednesday's meeting to voice her opposition, saying some residents of the city do not support the sign and “value a separation of church and state.”
“They understand government is not a church,” she said. “Government should not advance religion.”
The audience booed Hunt’s remarks and counted down the final seconds of her allocated time limit.
The mayor stands behind the sign -- and there are no plans to scrap it.

California has worst 'quality of life' in US, study says

California has the worst quality of life in the U.S., according to a new study.

Awards season is in full swing in California, and the Golden State just took home a booby prize of its own.

California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News, ranking behind New Jersey (49th) and Indiana (48th).

The ignominious honor reflects California's low marks in the sub-categories of environmental quality and social engagement. The latter category measures voting participation and community bonds.
Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable, U.S. News suggested.
"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," the magazine wrote in a blurb accompanying the results.
POST-BANKRUPTCY CALIFORNIA CITY TESTS 'UNIVERSAL' INCOME FOR RESIDENTS
U.S. News ranked each state in seven other areas, which were weighted based on a survey that determined their importance to the public: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, and fiscal stability.
In those categories, California finished No. 43 in fiscal stability, No. 46 in opportunity, and No. 38 in infrastructure. It posted relatively high marks in health care (11th), economy (4th), and crime and corrections (28th).
California ranked No. 32 among all U.S. states overall, behind New York (25th), New Jersey (19th), and Florida (15th).
Which state has the best quality of life?
Iowa, which scored highly in infrastructure and health care, took the top spot overall.

Dems Fixation on Trump Cartoons

Hillary Clinton to speak at Yale graduation event ( So funny )

Hillary Clinton, pictured here speaking at a campaign rally on Nov. 8, 2016, was announced as Yale's 2018 Class Day Speaker.

Yale University on Monday announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak at its prestigious “Class Day” ceremony.

The school’s Class Day co-chairs told the senior class Monday night that Clinton, a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School, would speak at the event in New Haven, Connecticut, on May 20, the Yale Daily News reported.

Class Day is scheduled the day before the Ivy League school’s commencement ceremony.
“When Secretary Clinton spoke at her Wellesley graduation in 1969, she told her class that their challenge was ‘to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible,’” event co-chair Josh Hochman told the student newspaper.
“The ‘impossible’ world Secretary Clinton imagined in 1969 is not yet won — yet it will be if our generation dares to emulate her life of resilient and courageous service," Hochman added.
Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have said they met at Yale’s law school in the spring of 1971.

The Clintons have said they met at Yale Law School in the spring of 1970.  (Clinton Digital Library)

The 2016 Democratic nominee for president joins a slew of former Obama administration officials who have spoken at the school’s event.
Former Vice President Joe Biden gave Yale’s Class Day address in 2015, and former Secretary of State John Kerry, of the 1966 Yale class, spoke at the school’s 2014 traditional event. Class of 1992’s Samantha Power, the former United Nations Ambassador, addressed the school’s Class Day in 2016.
Clinton's most recent commencement address was at the 2017 graduation ceremony of Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1969.

Scary stuff: How fabricators attacked Miami paper after school shooting

I am not in favor of censorship.

And it's amazing that I have to say that, but there it is.

What I'm opposed to are the dissemination of fabrications, bogus conspiracy theories and fake propaganda accounts that cause damage to individuals, to groups and to our country.
When I spoke about this on the air, I quickly heard from folks who embrace some of these conspiracy theories and who flung the charge of censorship. I fully acknowledge, and have said before, that a crackdown on fakery and propaganda risks stomping on people's free speech rights. But I believe it's possible without undermining those rights, as long as one set of political views isn't unfairly targeted.
The temperature level has of course shot way up in the wake of the Florida school shooting. And now comes a dramatic case study from Miami.
McClatchy has a chilling report on one of its papers, the Miami Herald—chilling, that is, if you care about the future of journalism.
Some hacker managed to create "two fake tweets that looked like they came from the account of Alex Harris, a Herald reporter preparing tributes to the slain students. One fake tweet asked for photos of dead bodies at the school and another asked if the shooter was white."
Such tweets are designed to discredit the reporter and the newspaper through old-fashioned lies.
That wasn't all. The perpetrator also managed "to create a phony Miami Herald story — in the high tension following the Parkland shooting — saying that a Miami-Dade middle school faced threats of 'potentially catastrophic events' on upcoming dates, indicating that a new mass shooting was in the offing."
After screenshots of the fictitious story were shared on Twitter and Snapchat, Monique Madan, the Herald reporter whose byline was slapped on the story, said: "It looks super real. They use the same font that we use. It has our masthead. It has my byline. If I were't a journalist, I wouldn’t think twice about it."
And talk about real-world consequences. Of course parents, students and teachers at the middle school would be scared by such a story and blame the Herald for fomenting fear.
As technology makes it easier to create fake tweets, fake stories, even fake videos, the potential for undermining those who try to cover real news.
We've also seen stark evidence of this as the Russians, during and since the 2016 campaign, have used bots and bogus accounts to try to disrupt American politics, first to push Donald Trump’s candidacy and most recently to exploit divisions over the Florida shooting.
On Sunday’s "Media Buzz," I questioned why Facebook, Google, YouTube and other social media sites can't do a better job of cracking down on fakery and propaganda. They've all admitted shortcomings and promised to do better, but one reason is that they don't want to invest the substantial sums that it would take.
YouTube has apologized for inadvertently promoting a video calling Florida shooting survivor David Hogg an "actor." A 51-year-old Idaho man with under 1,000 followers posted footage of Hogg being interviewed by local TV last year for having witnessed a confrontation at a California beach—the clear implication being that he’s an actor who wasn’t really at the Parkland high school.
That video drew more than 200,000 views and hit No. 1 on YouTube before apologizing and deleting it for violating policies against bullying and harassment.
Conspiratorial stuff will always find an audience. But in an age when bad actors can use technology to literally fabricate the news, journalism outlets—including social media companies that profit from journalism—have to be constantly on guard.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Dems taking heat from allies for fixation on slamming tax cuts, Trump

Washington Democrats are taking heat from some of their biggest financial supporters over a midterm-election strategy still focused on bashing President Trump and the Republican tax cut plan – as recent polls suggest the party's candidates could be losing their edge. 

Congressional Democrats, just a couple months ago, thought they had a winning plan for taking control of the chamber by arguing the tax cuts were a gift to corporate supporters at the expense of the American worker. Within hours of the bill's passage, Democrats returned to their districts for the holidays, ready to trumpet the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s message of “House Republicans Sign Away Their Seats.”

However, the extra money in employee paychecks since early January, and bonuses related to the cuts, apparently are winning over voters.
Those outside the Capitol Hill bubble are taking note, and urging Democrats to reconsider their message.
“If we spend all of our cycle running against the tax bill, it’s probably going to be a mistake,” Julie Greene, a former Democratic National Committee aide who now leads midterm campaign efforts for the AFL-CIO, recently said.
The most recent RealClearPolitics average of “generic” ballot polls -- asking voters which party they prefer in congressional races -- shows Democrats with a roughly 7-percentage-point lead over Republicans, compared with 13 points the day after Congress approved the tax law.
And a new Morning Consult/Politico poll showed Republicans leading by 1 percentage point, after trailing for three months.
Trump also has taken note of the polls, as Democrats try to win a total two-dozen seats to retake the House majority they lost in 2010.
“Republicans are now leading the Generic Poll, perhaps because of the popular Tax Cuts which the Dems want to take away. Actually, they want to raise you taxes, substantially,” the president tweeted Tuesday.
Gallup, meanwhile, announced that Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country was its highest since before Trump became president in November 2016, saying the impact of the cuts -- as seen on employees’ “first pay stubs” -- was a potential factor.
“This is a terrible idea for Democrats to run on,” Rory McShane, a Republican political media consultant, said Tuesday. “The tax plan is benefitting most Americans. Everybody knew it was going to be like an extra 50 bucks in each paycheck. But that pays a cellphone bill. That just shows you the world in which Democratic leadership doesn’t live.”
Republicans already are trying to tie 2018 Democratic candidates to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent comment that employee bonuses as a result of the tax cuts amount to “crumbs.”
McShane speculated that by Election Day, the cuts likely won’t impact the well-paid, well-educated “suburban” swing voters that pollsters frequently say decide elections. “But they will likely make Trump’s base happy that they put him in office and make them want to vote the same way in 2018,” he said.
Meanwhile, Priorities USA, the major Democratic super PAC that backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, issued a memo last week raising concerns about whether the party has become too focused -- or perhaps too refocused -- on reacting to Trump, according to Politico.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan told Politico the memo was "spot on."
"There are some real issues that we need to pound -- and I mean pound relentlessly -- if we are going to win the districts we need to win in," said Ryan, who has been critiical of House leadership.

The offices for House Democratic leaders and the DCCC, whose mission is to get the chamber's Democratic candidates elected and reelected, have not responded to requests for comment for this report.
Washington Democrats acknowledge that their failures in 2016 to keep the White House or retake the House were in large part the result of a campaign platform relying too much on opposing Trump and failing to connect with Middle America voters.
The party last year announced its “Better Deal” platform, an effort to create more better-paying, full-time jobs for Americans. This past fall, House Democratic leaders announced their related “Jobs for America Task Force,” though the idea of attacking Trump still appeared to be on their minds.
“We all know our agenda just can’t be against Donald Trump, as alluring as that may be,”’ said New York Rep. Joe Crowley, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “We will create a jobs package that our members can advocate for in this Congress and beyond.”