Seven highlights from bombshell IG report on the DOJ, FBI Clinton email probe

Three takeaways from IG report

After an 18-month investigation into the FBI and DOJ's Hillary Clinton probe, the highly anticipated report from the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz is out. Here's a look at the three biggest takeaways.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's bombshell report on DOJ and FBI actions during the Hillary Clinton email probe takes particular aim at key figures who, until now, have mostly escaped official censure for their conduct while in office.
The DOJ watchdog reviewed a variety of critical decisions over the course of the investigation -- including how authorities conducted the summer 2016 interview with Clinton, and why top FBI and DOJ officials with political connections didn't immediately recuse themselves from the probe.
Horowtiz's report also outlines new information concerning apparent bias at the FBI and DOJ that he says undermines the public trust in each agency.
Some of the key takeaways from the report include:

1. New texts between FBI lovers Strzok and Page were 'disappointing' and cast a shadow over the integrity of the entire Clinton email probe
A slew of anti-Trump text messages between special counsel Lisa Page and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok damaged the integrity of the entire Clinton email probe, Horowitz writes.

The report unearths striking new messages between the pair that were sent and received on government devices, including one in which Strzok vows to "stop" Trump from being elected just months before the presidential election.
On Aug. 8, 2016, the IG found, Page asked Strzok “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” and Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it."
While Horowitz noted that there is no available evidence that political considerations directly impacted investigative decisions in the Clinton probe, and that Strzok was not the "sole" decision maker on any key investigative actions, he concluded the officials' behavior was still highly inappropriate.

FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page communicated at length about their disdain for President Trump during the probe.  (Official photo / File)

FBI LOVEBIRDS USED WORK PHONES TO HIDE THEIR AFFAIR, IG FINDS
"We recognize that these text and instant messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility," the IG report said.
MYE, or "Midyear Exam," was the code used in the FBI to refer to the investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
Horowitz also published additional texts between the lovers that he called "notable," including one in which Page admits the two used their FBI phones to conceal their extramarital affair from their spouses.
2. Five unnamed FBI employees -- including one lawyer who later worked on the Mueller probe -- are under scrutiny for anti-Trump bias
Strzok and Page are not the only FBI officials who evidenced anti-Trump bias during the Clinton email probe, Horowitz noted in the report.

The watchdog identified five other unnamed individuals, including two agents and one FBI attorney who worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe until earlier this year, who made "statements of hostility toward then-candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton," and improperly mixed "political opinions" with case-related discussions.

"The damage caused by their actions ... goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence."

"Instant messages exchanged between Agent 1, who was one of the four Midyear case agents, and Agent 5, who was a member of the filter team," as well as "instant messages sent by FBI Attorney 2, who was assigned to the Midyear investigation," are specifically flagged in the IG report.
UNNAMED AGENTS CALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS 'RETARDED,' MOCK 'DRUMPF' VOTERS
The filter team was assigned to review documents for potential privilege issues, such as attorney-client matters.

"We found that the conduct of these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI," the IG said.
According to the IG report, one FBI attorney who was later assigned to Mueller's Russia probe until earlier this year messaged another colleague “Viva le resistance” after Trump's election. The attorney acknowleged the message could create the "perception" of bias.
Another unnamed agent called Trump supporters "retarded," according to the IG report.
Again, the IG report noted that it was unable to connect the officials' apparent political bias to specific investigative decisions. Nevertheless, the IG referred the five FBI officials for further investigation.
3. President Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Hillary Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account

President Obama corresponded with Clinton on her private email server, analysts told the IG.  (Reuters)

In a footnote, the IG notes that "FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account."
The information would suggest that Obama may have known about Clinton's private server, despite his claim in 2015 that he learned about it "the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports."
Obama's press secretary at the time quickly clarified that the president was unaware of Clinton's use of a private server for official business, even as he acknowledged that the two did exchange emails and that Obama was aware of Clinton's email address.
But the IG report revealed that intelligence analysts questioned whether Obama's correspondence with Clinton on her private server contained classified information, before a formal classification review determined that the emails did not. Obama used a fake name for the communications.
Separately, the IG asked investigators why they made no effort to obtain the personal devices that Clinton’s senior aides were using at the State Department, since those devices were "potential sources of Clinton's ... classified emails" or places where unauthorized classified emails were being stored.

Investigators did not seek devices from Hillary Clinton's State Department coworkers, the IG found.  (AP)

In response, officials on the probe claimed that "the culture of mishandling classified information at the State Department" was so pervasive that it "made the quantity of potential sources of evidence particularly vast" -- a rationale that the IG implied was unconvincing, because investigators could simply have obtained personal devices for a handful of key Clinton aides.
Investigators also claimed the State Department would be the better agency to handle that kind of deep dive into Clinton's emails.
In the end, Horowitz concluded that the issue was a "judgment call" and that there was no evidence improper political considerations influenced investigators' decisions.

4.  Despite Clinton connections, former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe didn't fully recuse themselves

The IG report focused on two top investigative officials' connections to Clinton: ex-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's wife had connections to top Democrats during the Clinton probe, and a better system might have brought his conflicts to light earlier, the IG found.  (AP)

Kadzik exercised "poor judgment" by failing to immediately recuse himself as the Clinton probe unfolded, even after he sought employment for his son at her campaign, the watchdog wrote.
Additionally, Kadzik's decision to provide Clinton campaign chair John Podesta the schedule for a court-ordered release of some of Clinton's emails "raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties" -- even though it later became clear the information was public.
FBI AGENTS RECEIVED 'IMPROPER' GIFTS FROM REPORTERS, LEAKED FROM PHONES IN FBI HQ, IG FINDS
Horowitz also noted that Kadzik didn't fully honor his supposed recusal in November 2016.
"Though Kadzik said he told his deputies ... that he was recused, emails show that Kadzik subsequently sent and received emails about Clinton-related matters," Horowitz wrote.

Meanwhile, McCabe, whose wife Jill has ties to then-Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe and unsuccessfully sought a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015 as a Democrat, was not obligated to recuse himself during the probe, the IG report found.
5. 'Insubordinate' Ex-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly violated policy and inaccurately described the legal situation surrounding Clinton's emails
Former FBI Director James Comey had an apparently strong desire to avoid confronting authority figures with his concerns about their behavior, even as he nurtured a habit of going around the chain of command and violating long-standing departmental policies, the IG report found.

In testimony before Congress and elsewhere, for example, Comey claimed that he had been pressured by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch to call the Clinton investigation a "matter" in 2015, rather than an investigation.

But Horowitz noted that others present who heard Lynch's instruction did not interpret her as trying to downplay the investigation, but instead to standardize language for personnel purposes. Perhaps more significantly, the IG report found that Comey seemed to have kept his concerns entirely to himself.
COMEY USED PERSONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT TO CONDUCT OFFICIAL BUSINESS, IG FINDS

Comey, whom President Trump has called a "slimeball," also failed to act appropriately on his concerns about the infamous airport tarmac meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in the waning days of the email probe, according to Horowitz.
But the IG's most substantial criticisms of Comey centered around his decision to stage a dramatic news conference in the summer of 2016, in which he announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, even as he acknowledged she had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information."
"Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy, usurped the authority of Attorney General, and did not accurately describe the legal position of the Department prosecutors," the IG report said.

The ex-FBI director made a similarly "serious error in judgment" by sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Clinton probe just days before the 2016 presidential election, according to the report.

"We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same."
The rebuke was a particularly scathing one for Comey, who has cultivated his image as a responsible and strong leader since leaving office.
6. Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch made errors in judgment during the Clinton probe
Horowitz also charged that Lynch similarly made multiple errors in judgment during the probe.

The DOJ watchdog was especially critical not just of Lynch's decision to hold court with the president on the Phoenix tarmac, but also her decision to retain involvement in the probe despite the appearance of bias.
"Although we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the Midyear investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting on June 27, 2016, we also found that Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment," the IG wrote.
7. FBI agents' actions surrounding the DOJ/FBI interview of Hillary Clinton were 'inappropriate' and created appearance of bias
Lisa Page, the special counsel to the deputy director of the FBI, sent messages to Strzok, McCabe, and another FBI employee suggesting that the agency limit the number of people attending the critical in-person interview with Clinton as the investigation wrapped up, the IG report said.
Page's chief consideration was that Clinton would be angry at the FBI upon becoming president, which the IG flags as an "inappropriate" consideration.

“[S]he might be our next president," Page wrote, in urging that the number of people at the interview be limited to four or six. "The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”
LAWMAKERS FROM BOTH PARTIES SLAM FBI AFTER IG REPORT RELEASED
While the IG report found that Page's text did not appear to influence the number of attendees at the Clinton interview, since eight officials attended from the FBI and DOJ, the report nonetheless said her considerations were improperly political.
"Suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was inappropriate and created an appearance of bias," the IG wrote.
Additionally, the IG notes that it was "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" for the FBI to allow former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson to sit in on the Clinton interview.
"We questioned why the Department and FBI allowed Mills and Samuelson, two percipient witnesses (one of whom, Mills, herself had classified information transit through her unclassified personal email account) attend Clinton’s interview, even if they had also both served as lawyers for Clinton after they left the State Department," the IG wrote.
While the report does not definitively find that political bias motivated the decision to allow Mills and Samuelson in the interview, "it recommends improvements to the DOJ and FBI's handling of similar situations in the future.
"[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness’s interview," the IG notes.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.

Bill Clinton 'offended' over criticism of his tarmac meeting with ex-AG Lynch

Former President Bill Clinton (right) was “offended” by the widespread criticism of his June 2016 tarmac meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch (left)  (Getty/AP)

Former President Bill Clinton was “offended” by the widespread criticism of his June 2016 tarmac meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against his wife, he told the Justice Department’s inspector general.
“I thought you know, I don’t know whether I’m more offended that they think I’m crooked or that they think I’m stupid,” Clinton told investigators, according to the report released Thursday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
The long-awaited report was released Thursday afternoon, spanning nearly 600 pages and scrutinizing the actions of numerous figures who played a key role in the Justice Department and FBI's investigation. It is the product of an 18-month review, incorporating dozens of witness interviews and hundreds of thousands of documents.
IG REPORT ON CLINTON EMAIL PROBE CALLS COMEY ‘INSUBORDINATE’
In the report, Horowitz criticized Lynch’s infamous meeting with Clinton on the Arizona tarmac, calling it “an error in judgment" as the Justice Department was investigating then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her email practices while serving as secretary of state.
“Although we found no evidence that Lynch and former President Clinton discussed the [Clinton email] investigation or engaged in other inappropriate discussion during their tarmac meeting, we also found that Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment,” the report states.
Lynch has claimed she and Clinton spoke of only “innocuous things” during their tarmac meeting, calling it a “chance encounter.”
But it fueled Republican complaints that Lynch had met with the husband of an investigation subject improperly, just days before the probe into her personal email server was completed with no charges filed.
Ex-FBI director James Comey has publicly taken issue with the meeting, saying it was a “deciding factor” in his decision to act alone to update the public on the status of the Clinton probe.

Berkeley's Liberal Idiot Cartoons

Democratic House candidate pepper sprays himself to promote gun control

A Democratic congressional candidate in Colorado released a campaign ad featuring him being pepper sprayed in the eyes in a bid to encourage non-lethal self-defense tools in schools to deter gun violence.
Levi Tillemann, who’s trying to woo the voters in the upcoming party’s primary in less than two weeks, criticized President Trump’s suggestion to arm school officials and teachers with guns, claiming pepper spray is a better alternative to stop potential school shooters.
“I’m calling on Congress to stop talking past each other and try something new,” Tilleman says in the video. “Empower schools and teachers with non-lethal self-defense tools, like this can of pepper spray.”

“Empower schools and teachers with non-lethal self-defense tools, like this can of pepper spray.”

“Pepper spray doesn’t cost much and it can be safely stored in a break glass in case of emergency cabinet. But it’s powerful and won’t accidentally kill a kid,” he continued. “Trust me, this will stop anybody in their tracks.”
The Democrat then proceeded to close his eyes and began spraying the pepper spray in his face. He’s later seen trying to wash off his face by dunking his head into water and spraying himself with a hose. “It’s incredibly painful, now I can’t see anything,” he said. “Wow, that’s intense.”
Tillemann, a former Department of Energy official during the presidency of Barack Obama, made gun control the key issue of his campaign, doubling-down on his website that pepper spray should be “be made widely available as quickly as possible” for teachers and school officials to combat potential school shooters.
“The time has come to move beyond apologies and half measures and fight for real solutions to gun violence in our community. Help us win this fight,” he said.
PELOSI DEFENDS HOYER AFTER AUDIOTAPE SUGGESTS INTERFERENCE IN HOUSE RACE
This isn’t the first time Tillemann caught the attention. He secretly recorded Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer back in December, who urged him to drop out of the primary race to give way to Jason Crow, who was backed by the party’s establishment.
“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer was reportedly recorded saying at the December meeting in a Denver hotel. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t participate in the decision.”
He added: “But it was clear that it was our policy and our hope that, early on, try to come to an agreement on a candidate that we thought could win the general, and to give that candidate all the help we could give them.”
Tillemann’s stunt is unlikely to earn him the party’s nomination as Crow remains the leading candidate in the primary race.

Berkeley declares 'climate emergency' worse than World War II, demands 'humane' population control

The Berkeley City Council on Tuesday night declared what it called a "climate emergency" with more global significance than World War II, and demanded an immediate effort to "humanely stabilize population" and "reverse ecological overshoot."
The resolution, which invokes the global conflict between the Axis and Allies, charges that Americans bear an "extraordinary responsibility to solve the crises" facing the environment.
"[D]uring World War II, the Bay Area came together across race, age, class, gender and other differences in an extraordinary regional mobilization, building and repairing Liberty ships, converting car assembly plants into tank manufacturing facilities," the resolution reads.
A similar effort is necessary today to confront an even greater threat, according to the document.
"[W]e can rise to the challenge of the greatest crisis in history by organizing politically to catalyze a national and global climate emergency effort, employing local workers in a mobilization effort building and installing renewable energy infrastructure," the resolution says.
More than 60 million people died during World War II, according to most estimates -- a huge portion of the global population.
But according to the Berkeley City Council, another thinning of the herd might be needed.
The resolution notes that "reversing ecological overshoot and halting the sixth mass extinction requires an effort to preserve and restore half Earth’s biodiversity in interconnected wildlife corridors and to humanely stabilize population."
UC BERKELEY CONVERTS HOMELESS, DRUG-USER HAVEN INTO STUDENT HOUSING
The resolution, introduced in the ultra-progressive city by councilwoman Cheryl Davila, then invokes Pope Francis' comment that humanity is on the verge of global "suicide" and that "God's creation" is at stake.
Davila's resolution also calls for a global climate summit in San Francisco in September and a push to "educat[e] our citizens about the climate emergency."
The document's most substantial promise is for Berkeley to become a "carbon sink" by 2030 -- a term that means the city's greenhouse gas emissions will be in the negative.
In addition to population control and a national mobilization effort, according to the Berkeley City Council, residents should avoid "consumerism" and "narcissism."

Democratic House hopeful puts out ad saying he 'won't vote for Nancy Pelosi' amid GOP attacks

Clarke Tucker, a Democrat running for a congressional seat held by Republicans in Arkansas released a new television ad saying he won’t support House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.  (Facebook/Clarke Tucker for Congress)

A Democrat running for a congressional seat held by Republicans in Arkansas released a new television ad saying he won’t support House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi in a bid to defuse Republican attacks amid the midterm election.
Clarke Tucker, a state representative who won the party’s primary last month, is set to air the anti-Pelosi ad on all four broadcast stations in the 2nd Congressional District.
The ad follows the attacks by Republican U.S. House Rep. French Hill, who accused him of being supported by Pelosi’s allies in Washington. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) reportedly propped up Tucker as he was perceived as having the best chance to win against the incumbent Congressman.
In the ad, Tucker slams Hill and assures voters that he won’t be supporting Pelosi if he gets elected.
"Congressman Hill opened his campaign by attacking me, knowing full well that I've said from day one that I won't vote for Nancy Pelosi. We're better than that," he said.
But the Hill campaign pushed back against his opponent’s efforts to distance himself from the top party leader.

Republican U.S. House Rep. French Hill criticized his opponent for being linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's allies.  (Facebook)

"Clarke Tucker is the hand-picked candidate of Nancy Pelosi's liberal Washington allies because they know Clarke Tucker supports higher taxes and bigger government and that French Hill will continue to champion lower taxes and a stronger economy," said Mike Siegel, a spokesman for Hill's campaign.
Tucker previously told the New York Times in March that the victory of Democrat Conor Lamb, who also opposes Pelosi, in a special election in Pennsylvania’s deep-red district validated his approach to position himself against the leadership in Washington, D.C.
He claims to have told his party in Washington that he was “very frustrated with the leadership of the House in both parties,” noting that Lamb’s seat is “a lot like the one I’m running in.” He added: “I think voters are interested in changing the leadership in Washington."
The race between Tucker and Hill will benefit from an infusion of money from Republican groups. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton's political action committee, the Republican Majority Fund, announced Wednesday that it will spend six figures on a campaign backing the Republican candidate. The money will include mailers, online ads linking Pelosi to Tucker and TV ads at later stages of the campaign.
Tucker’s anti-Pelosi ad was first of the kind to him as his previous ads focused on health care and veterans’ issues. Democrats are targeting Hill’s seat because they believe he’s vulnerable due to his opposition to the federal health overhaul.

Giuliani denies report that Michael Cohen may cooperate with investigation

Rudy Giuliani, an attorney for President Trump, on Wednesday  tried to put to rest claims that the president's personal attorney Michael Cohen might cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
“It’s not so. He’s not cooperating nor do we care because the president did nothing wrong,” Giuliani told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Wednesday night. “I am absolutely certain of that.”
Reports indicated that Cohen might have been looking for new lawyers.
When asked if the Trump team was worried that Cohen may have tape recordings that exist without their knowledge, Giuliani was firm that the president was and is “clean as a whistle.”
“Michael Cohen I think would tell you he’s got nothing incriminating with the president,” he said. Giuliani said he would be “comfortable” if Cohen chose to cooperate with authorities.
Giuliani said a greater concern is the length and the costly investigation headed by Mueller.
Giuliani maintained that there is no evidence of collusion and that the claim of obstruction of justice is completely “negated” by the fact that “the president can fire anybody he wants for any reason he wants.”
Giuliani added that despite urging the president against it, Trump “wants to testify” because he believes he “did nothing wrong” and can stand up to any line of questioning.
Giuliani estimated that the ultimate decision on whether Trump will give his testimony to Mueller will come in the next week or two.
He further clarified that “the decision” could mean “battling over a subpoena” or preparing for a “small, tailored, limited interview” with the special counsel.
“What they are talking about is they were bitter over losing the election and some of the people right in Mueller's office were the ones crying -- crying like babies the night that Hillary lost,” Giuliani said. “They are trying to delegitimize him.”

Keep your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer Cartoons

Trump's Singapore summit, a first step, being trashed by many pundits

On this, perhaps, we can all agree: It is better that President Trump is talking to Kim Jong Un than exchanging threats over nuclear war.
And so the Singapore sitdown, the first ever between the leaders of America and North Korea, was a step in the right direction.
There are all kinds of legitimate criticisms to be leveled at the process. But I've really been struck by the relentless negativity of many liberal commentators. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews went off on Trump moments after the first handshake, because he dared put his hand on Kim's back. Jeremy Bash, an Obama aide turned NBC commentator, pronounced the display of U.S. and North Korean flags "disgusting."
This much is undoubtedly true: If Barack Obama had held a groundbreaking summit with the leader of North Korea, the liberal precincts of the media would be nominating him for another Nobel Prize.
We don't have to guess about that, since they largely supported Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, from which Trump recently withdrew. (That admittedly had a whole regimen of inspections and verification, but Trump and Kim are just starting out).
And they cheered Obama's meeting with Fidel Castro and resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba, despite the repressive nature of that regime.
Trump may have been a bit too fulsome in his praise, but there's really no dispute that Kim is an awful human being who kills and jails his opponents.
When ABC's George Stephanopoulos, scoring the first broadcast-network interview with Trump in a year, asked about Kim's "police state," with "forced starvation, labor camps, he's assassinated members of his own family," the president replied: "George, I'm given what I'm given. Okay?"
The fact is, American presidents negotiated with the old Soviet leaders, who crushed human rights, and continue to meet with China, which is also a repressive dictatorship. The world is full of bad guys. That doesn't mean the United States should refuse to engage.
The online and print coverage has followed a similar pattern. "It sure looks as if President Trump was hoodwinked in Singapore," wrote New York Times columnist Nick Kristof. "Trump made a huge concession — the suspension of military exercises with South Korea ... In exchange for these concessions, Trump seems to have won astonishingly little."
The criticism didn't all come from the left. While Salon called Singapore "Trump and Kim's Big Nothing Summit," The Weekly Standard's headline was "A Summit About Nothing": "In reality, the meeting in Singapore was no negotiation. Nor was it ever going to be one: You don't hash out the end of a 60-year conflict and the elimination of a complex nuclear weapons program over the course of 45 minutes."
That's true. It's also true that you don't eliminate a complex nuclear program without the negotiations starting somewhere.
It's easy to feel uneasy about Kim's intentions, the horrifying nature of his regime, and whether he'll ever give up his nukes. But the approaches of the last 30 years haven't worked either.
Nate Silver, the left-leaning data analyst, had a striking observation on Twitter: "90% of the punditocracy's commentary on the Singapore summit seems to be constructed with the goal of convincing people that Trump shouldn't get any credit for it—rather than rationally analyzing the merits and demerits of the 'deal.'"
Perhaps, along with a skeptical, wait-and-see attitude, the press might give the president the benefit of the doubt before pronouncing the effort a failure.
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.

California 'three states' plan OK'd for November ballot

An initiative to divide California into three states has received enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot, the California secretary of state's office confirmed Tuesday.
The three-states campaign, dubbed “Cal-3,” submitted more than 600,000 signatures.
Tim Draper, a billionaire Silicon Valley venture capital investor, sponsored the ballot measure to divide America’s most populous state into three jurisdictions, the Mercury News of San Jose, Calif., reported.
-- California would be made up of six mainly coastal counties, including Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.
-- Northern California would include 40 counties from Santa Cruz to the Oregon border, including San Francisco and Sacramento, the state’s current capital.
-- Southern California would comprise 12 counties, including Fresno, Kern, Orange and San Diego counties.
“California government has rotted,” Draper told the Mercury News last month. “We need to empower our population to improve their government.”

“California government has rotted. We need to empower our population to improve their government.”

However, the ballot measure faces long odds.
A SurveyUSA poll found that 72 percent of registered California voters opposed the proposal, while only 17 percent support it, the report said.
Even if voters approved the plan, it would still require approval from the California Assembly and Senate, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Then the plan would have to overcome likely court challenges -- and still win approval from Congress, the Hill reported.
Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political consultant who opposes breaking up the Golden State, told the Mercury News that Draper’s initiative was taking the wrong track.
“Splitting California into three new states will triple the amount of special interests, lobbyists, politicians and bureaucracy,” Maviglio said in an email. “California government can do a better job addressing the real issues facing the state, but this measure is a massive distraction that will cause political chaos and greater inequality.”
If passed, it would be the first division of a U.S. state since 1863 when West Virginia was created, the Times reported. California, admitted to the Union on Sept. 9, 1850, has faced more than 200 attempts at boundary reconfiguration, divisions and even secession over the course of its history, the report said.
Draper previously proposed splitting the state into six separate states in 2012 and 2014, but election officials invalidated many of the signatures his campaign collected, the Hill reported.

Tim Draper previously proposed splitting California into six states.

Last summer, Draper formally submitted the three-states proposal.
“Three states will get us better infrastructure, better education and lower taxes,” Draper told the Times in an email. “States will be more accountable to us and can cooperate and compete for citizens.”
Analysts from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics predict that the new California and Northern California would be Democratic-leaning, while Southern California would be a swing state.
"This measure would cost taxpayers billions of dollars to pay for the massive transactional costs of breaking up the state, whether it be universities, parks, or retirement systems,” Maviglio told the Times.
Meanwhile, Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at the University of California at Riverside, told the Mercury News that “this isn’t as easy or straightforward as its supporters want to make out.”
But Draper remains optimistic.
“These three states,” Draper told the Mercury News last month, “create hope and opportunity for Californians.”