Former Clinton aide shares contact information of bookstore Steve Bannon was accosted in

March 10, 2018: Former White House strategist Steve Bannon addresses members of the National Front party at the party congress in the northern French city of Lille.  (AP)

Former longtime Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines on Saturday posted the contact information of a Virginia bookstore whose owner called the police on a customer who harassed former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
The owner of Black Swan Books in Richmond, Nick Cooke, alerted 911 after a woman confronted Bannon and reportedly called him a “piece of trash.”
The store owner said the woman began accosting the former White House strategist out of nowhere and stopped only after he called the police. No officers arrived to the scene as the call was shortly cancelled.

Philippe Reines posted the contact information of the bookstore where Steve Bannon was confronted.  (Twitter)

“Steve Bannon was simply standing, looking at books, minding his own business. I asked her to leave, and she wouldn’t. And I said, ‘I’m going to call the police if you don’t,’ and I went to call the police and she left. And that’s the end of the story,” Cooke told the Richmond Dispatch.
Some criticized Cooke for not letting people confront Bannon, with former Clinton aide posting contact information of the bookstore, potentially encouraging and exposing the business to harassment.
Social media users slammed Reines for sharing the information, calling it “irresponsible” and “one step too far”.
“If there's a confrontation in your store, you call the police so that it either stops the confrontation from escalating or it gets something with authority to make sure it ends,” wrote one Twitter user. “That you are calling for a public beatdown of this place by posting all of their info is disgraceful.”

Former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.  (AP)

Reines defended his tweet that gathered over seven thousand interactions, insisting he’s not “encouraging any behavior” by sharing the information.
“I’m providing a service to the public by providing the contact information the bookstore posted on their website - presumably with the hope of being contacted. I presented facts without encouraging any behavior,” he tweeted. “I’d point out through it’s possible this woman stopped a book burning.”
The confrontation with Bannon comes weeks a number of Trump administration officials were snubbed in public, including White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders who was declined service at a Lexington restaurant and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen who was accosted by socialist protesters at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C.

How Michael Cohen decided to send Trump a carefully calibrated message

Michael Cohen has distanced himself from President Trump in recent weeks.  (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)

It's quite obvious that Michael Cohen was sending a sharp message when he sat down with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
What is less apparent is how deliberate and carefully crafted his words were, especially on subjects that don't directly involve him, and his strategy toward the intended recipient: President Trump.
Based on my reporting, the president's former personal lawyer was not only issuing a declaration of independence from his longtime boss, he was telling the world that he doesn't agree with some of Trump’s core positions.
And the phrases were carefully rehearsed as a finger-in-the-eye shot at Trump, not just to calmly convey that he will not be a "punching bag" or cast as a "villain" as "part of anyone's defense strategy."
Cohen has dual goals. Having become a key figure in a federal investigation, he is trying to better position himself to make a deal if in fact he winds up facing criminal charges. And he is taking the first step toward restoring his battered reputation in the court of public opinion.
On a personal level, I'm told, Cohen at times has been angry and depressed over being drawn into the Robert Mueller probe because of his past service to Trump. But he has felt relieved since the ABC sitdown made headlines, believing that he can redeem himself only if he is not viewed as a blind Trump supporter.
Cohen is not proud of some of what he's done for Trump in the past, I'm told, but made his judgments at the time and believes some of the current criticism is based on 20/20 hindsight.
The New York lawyer, often dubbed Trump's "fixer," recently parted company with his attorneys and hired former prosecutor Guy Petrillo and former Clinton White House lawyer Lanny Davis.
One major clue to the interview, based on my reporting, is in Cohen's answers involving the president's ongoing battles with law-enforcement officials and the intelligence community, and even his foreign policy.
These are far afield from the subjects that Cohen has generally discussed in the past.
Cohen took a firm stance on Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, a conclusion that the president has never fully embraced.
"I repudiate Russia's or any other foreign government's attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process," he said. Breaking with Trump, Cohen said that "I respect our nation's intelligence agencies" and their "unanimous conclusions" about Moscow's role. In perhaps the most direct challenge to Trump, who will meet with the Russian leader this month, he declared: "Simply accepting the denial of Mr. Putin is unsustainable."
As part of his distancing strategy, Cohen even took on the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner and a Russian lawyer said to be offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. Cohen called that a "mistake" and "poor judgment" by those members of the Trump camp.
In declining to criticize Mueller's Russia probe, Cohen explicitly rejected Trump's favorite phrase for discrediting the special counsel and his operation: "I don't like the term witch hunt."
Cohen has said before that the FBI agents who raided his home and hotel room – in what the president termed "an attack on our country" — acted professionally. With Stephanopoulos, he added: "I don't agree with those who demonize or vilify the FBI. I respect the FBI as an institution, as well as their agents."
Once a registered Democrat, Cohen views the president as having made inaccurate statements about the FBI and intelligence officials, and this has contributed to his sense of alienation and the belief that his onetime patron has changed. Those sentiments are inextricably tied to Cohen's more personal sense of disappointment that he feels abandoned by Trump.
Cohen declined in the interview to answer questions, on his lawyers' advice, about the $130,000 payment he made in the campaign's final weeks to porn actress Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about what she alleges was a 2006 affair with Trump. Cohen may have some legal exposure stemming from the hush money, for which he was reimbursed by Trump.
Such questions, which would obviously be part of any interview, were the reason that Cohen decided to speak to the "Good Morning America" co-anchor on the record but off camera. Cohen and his team did not want viral video clips of him repeatedly refusing to answer questions.
Journalists constantly speculate about whether Cohen will flip, by deciding to testify against Trump in exchange for immunity. That question cannot be answered at the moment because his lawyers have no way of knowing what charges, if any, he may face. And while Cohen could undoubtedly offer embarrassing details about the celebrity businessman he served, it is far from clear that he is sitting on any legally damaging information.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, took a noticeably supportive tone toward Cohen yesterday, saying he should cooperate with prosecutors. "I'm hoping that Michael is able to clear himself because I think what was done to him was really unfair ... I have no concerns that Michael Cohen is going to do anything but tell the truth," the former New York mayor told Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
Some media chatter suggests that Cohen made his move in hopes of obtaining an eventual pardon from the president. But I'm told that he would be following a make-nice approach, rather than a confrontational one, if that was his goal.
Michael Cohen once famously said he would take a bullet for Donald Trump. If he was trying to alert the president and his legal team that the offer no longer stands, he succeeded.
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.

Trump teases Supreme Court pick, vows 'exceptional person will be chosen'

President Trump said Sunday that he was "close to making a decision" about who he would nominate to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy a little more than 24 hours before he was scheduled to announce his choice in a primetime address Monday.
"I'm very close to making a final decision. And I believe this person will do a great job," Trump told reports as he left for Washington from a weekend at his New Jersey golf club.
When asked how many people were being considered, the president said: "Let's say it's the four people ... they're excellent, every one. You can't go wrong." Trump added that he would make his final decision "tonight or tomorrow sometime by 12 o'clock and we're all gonna be meeting at nine o'clock."
Later Sunday, Trump tweeted that he was "[l]ooking forward to announcing my final decision on the United States Supreme Court Justice at 9:00pmE tomorrow night at the @WhiteHouse. An exceptional person will be chosen!"
The Trump administration has been preparing information materials on four potential nominees: appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and Thomas Hardiman.
Sources who talked to Trump Sunday morning tell Fox News that the president's top two choices are Kavanaugh and Hardiman, though a GOP source said late Sunday that Barrett still has a good chance of being the pick.
Hardiman was the runner-up when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia last year. He also has a personal connection to the president, having served with Trump's sister on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
Each possible choice must be balanced against political realities -- with Republicans holding a razor-thin majority in the Senate and Democratic leaders imploring their colleagues to stand firm against any Trump nomination.
Some conservatives have expressed concerns about Kavanaugh — a longtime judge and former clerk for Kennedy — questioning his commitment to social issues like abortion and noting his time serving under President George W. Bush as evidence he is a more establishment choice. But his supporters cite his experience and wide range of legal opinions. Barrett has excited social conservatives since she was questioned about her Roman Catholic faith in her nomination hearings last year, but her brief time on the bench has raised questions.
Sources tell Fox News that Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has expressed concerns about Barrett to the White House. The Trump administration believes she would ultimately vote to confirm Barrett, but she does not want to be boxed in. Trump also has to decide if he wants a nominee that will propel abortion to the forefront of the confirmation battle. Collins has previously said a nominee who opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide, would be "unacceptable."
Top Republican senators said Sunday that they were confident that any of the four finalists could get confirmed by their colleagues.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday" that Democrats from states won by Trump in 2016 "are going to have a very hard decision."
"There's nobody that President Trump could nominate from a conservative bent that will get many Democratic votes," Graham said, "but this is a nightmare for red states Democrats to oppose a highly qualified nominee, and all four of these people are highly qualified, been on the court, know what they’re doing, mainstream judges ... and I hope every Republican will rally behind these picks because they’re outstanding."
Three such Democrats -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, voted to confirm Gorsuch along with 51 Republicans last year.
"They're good judges," Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told NBC's "Meet The Press. "I think they'd be fine justices of the Supreme Court. I do think the president has to think about who is the easiest to get confirmed here. And I expect we will do that on sort of a normal timetable, a couple of months."
Trump's outside judicial adviser Leonard Leo, currently on leave from the Federalist Society, said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that this kind of jockeying is standard, noting that "every potential nominee before announcement gets concerns expressed about them by people who might ultimately support them."
Leo said: "Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett have a lot of name recognition among supporters of the president, and I think that ultimately when people like them are nominated, you'll see a lot of folks line up."
Of the other two, he added: "Ray Kethledge and Tom Hardiman, they're a little bit less known by conservatives. And their records are a little bit lighter. So, it might take some time."

Democrats' IT scandal: Ex-staffer expected to receive probation

Are you  Kidding?

Imran Awan

Imran Awan, a former email server administrator to ex-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to loan application fraud, one day after the release of a secret memo detailing how more than 40 House offices experienced an "IT security violation."

"Imran cooperated with the investigation for 19 months, he answered every single question law enforcement had, and turned over every document requested," Chris Gowen, Awan's attorney, said in a statement Tuesday. "With the exception of calling both his family’s house and rental property primary residences on a bank loan application, Imran has been completely exonerated today."

"My client regrets that error and looks forward to serving his country again in the future," Gowen added.

Imran Awan and Hina Alvi, his wife, were indicted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August for "conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, making false statements on a loan or credit application, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions."

Awan was arrested last July amid the scandal after being intercepted at Dulles International Airport by members of the FBI, U.S. Capitol Police, and Customs and Border Protection over his alleged involvement in "double charging" for House IT equipment and possibly exposing private House information online. Alvi voluntarily returned to the U.S. after flying to Pakistan.

Awan and Alvi were investigated by the law enforcement agencies over discrepancies regarding computer equipment bought when the two were employed as tech staffers for numerous House Democrats. A probe found tens of thousands of dollars or more in IT equipment had been stolen.

The pair also attracted interest from right-of-center media outlets, which speculated that the Pakistani-born Awan and Alvi, as well as other people related to the investigations, could have played a role in significant data breaches during their respective tenures.

Wasserman Schultz was heavily criticized by political opponents for her decision not to fire Awan, a part-time employee who had worked for as many as 25 Democratic lawmakers over the past decade, until his arrest was made public.

Awan's plea deal follows the release of a memo on Monday written in part by House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving describing the disappearance of a House Democratic Caucus server.

Awan is due to be sentenced on August 22 and will no longer be required to wear a GPS ankle monitor as he waits for the hearing, according to Fox News. His legal team is expected to ask for probation, per the news outlet.

New York Times, Washington Post Fake News Cartoons

As Twitter purges fake accounts, Trump asks whether NY Times, Washington Post made list

President Donald Trump speaks during a "Salute to Service" dinner, Tuesday, July 3, 2018, in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)  (Associated Press)

President Donald Trump on Saturday asked whether Twitter will remove the “Failing” New York Times and “propaganda machine” Washington Post as the social media platform escalates efforts to remove fake and suspicious accounts.
Trump’s tweet appeared to be a response to a Washington Post report Friday in which Twitter confirmed it has more than doubled the rate of account suspensions since October, suspending more than 70 million in May and June.
"Twitter is getting rid of fake accounts at a record pace,” Trump tweeted. “Will that include the Failing New York Times and propaganda machine for Amazon, the Washington Post, who constantly quote anonymous sources that, in my opinion, don’t exist.
"They will both be out of business in 7 years!"
Twitter intensified its battle against bots after it said more than 1.4 million of its users interacted with Russian propaganda during the 2016 presidential election. But that number may be just a fraction of users impacted during that time, the San Francisco company said.
“I’m glad that – after months of focus on this issue – Twitter appears to be cracking down on the use of bots and other fake accounts, though there is still much work to do,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told the Post.
The Times and Post have been frequent targets of Trump, who named the papers in his 2017 Fake News Awards in January.
Trump has also slammed the Post’s owner, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, accusing Amazon of paying little to no taxes and forcing taxpaying retailers across the country to go out of business.
Trump’s tweet was refuted by the Times’ Deputy Managing Editor Clifford Levy, who said the number of the paper's digital subscribers had increased throughout the election cycle.
Despite his beef with some media, Trump has come out in support of journalists following the shooting at a Maryland newspaper in June.
“Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job," Trump said.

Russians deny election meddling, mum on Trump, US lawmaker says in Berlin

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., led a group of 13 U.S. lawmakers during a bilateral meeting with members of the Russian Duma to discuss human rights issues.  (Smith congressional website)

Russian delegates at a bilateral meeting in Berlin denied that their country meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and gave no opinion on President Donald Trump, the lawmaker who led the 13-member U.S. delegation said Saturday.
U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he brought up the meddling issue during the meeting, but the members of Russia's Duma who attended dismissed the claims as the work of “just a few Russian hackers” that wasn’t sanctioned by Moscow.
Smith said that when he maintained that U.S. intelligence agencies implied otherwise, one Russian delegate told him the number of hackers involved in the election meddling could be counted “on both hands and one foot.” 
Nevertheless, Smith said, the remainder of the two-hour meeting was “transparent” and “candid.”
The gathering between members of Congress and their counterparts in Russia's Duma occurred on the sidelines of a four-day meeting of lawmakers from 57 countries regarding “highly contested human rights issues.”
The two sides discussed human trafficking in Russia and the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, but “not one word” about Trump, who is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16 in Helsinki, the Asbury Park Press reported.
Smith said the Russian delegates would “try to help” him obtain a visa so he can visit Russia to investigate human trafficking and push for international adoption.
According to a statement from Smith’s office, the congressman has authored initiatives to combat human trafficking in both Russia and the U.S.
In a telephone interview with the Press, Smith cautioned that expectations ahead of the Helsinki summit must be managed “big-time because Putin is very aggressive.”

Mitch McConnell confronted by 'Abolish ICE' protesters, video shows

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., addresses reporters at the Capitol in Washington, May 15, 2018.  (Associated Press)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was verbally harassed by protesters calling for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as he left a Louisville restaurant Saturday morning, an online video showed.   
McConnell, R-Ky., was with outgoing Kentucky House Majority Leader Jonathan Shell as the protesters shouted in unison, “Vote you out!” and “Abolish ICE!” video obtained by the Courier-Journal showed.
“Where are the babies, Mitch?” shouted another protester, presumably in reference to the Trump administration’s controversial “zero tolerance” policy of separating families caught illegally crossing the border. The policy was later rescinded.
McConnell appeared expressionless as he got into a vehicle and someone shouted, “We know where you live, Mitch. We know where you live.”
Shell later dismissed the protesters as “a small group of extremists,” and likened their “distasteful” remarks to something “out of the Maxine Waters playbook.”
Waters, a Democratic congresswoman from Los Angeles, has made headlines for encouraging protesters to harass White House officials over the administration’s immigration policies.
Toward the end of the video footage one protester says, “We did good, fellow citizens.”
McConnell declined the Courier-Journal’s request for comment.
The Senate leader previously received public flak for his support of the Trump administration’s tough immigration policies.
Last month McConnell and his wife -- Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao -- were confronted by protesters as they were leaving an event at Georgetown University.
“How do you sleep at night?” one protester shouted.
“You leave my husband alone!,” Chao responded.
Bradford Betz is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @bradford_betz.

Is Hillary Clinton secretly planning to run in 2020?

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

The messages convey a sense of urgency, and are coming with increasing frequency. They are short, focused reactions to the latest “outrage” committed by President Trump.
Some end by asking for money, some urge participation in protests. All read as if they are sent from the official headquarters of the resistance.
Hillary Clinton is up to something.
Five times in the last month alone, she sent e-mails touting her super PAC’s role in combating President Trump. Most seized on headline events, such as the family-separation issue at the southern border.
Under the message line, “horrific,” she wrote June 18: “This is a moral and humanitarian crisis. Everyone of us who has ever held a child in their arms, and every human being with a sense of compassion and decency should be outraged.” She said she warned about Trump’s immigration policies during the 2016 campaign.
Three days later, she was back again, saying that her group, Onward Together, raised $1 million and would split it among organizations working to change border policy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and a gaggle of immigrant, refugee, Latino and women’s groups.
And the day after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, Clinton introduced a newly minted resistance partner. Called Demand Justice, it promises to protect “reproductive rights, voting rights and access to health care” by keeping Senate Democrats united in opposing any conservative Trump nominee.
The instant, in-house nature of Demand Justice was reflected by the name of its executive director: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign press secretary.
In truth, Fallon’s role doesn’t tell us something we didn’t know. Onward Together, formed in May of 2017, is a Clinton 2020 campaign vehicle in waiting.
Its homepage says the group “is dedicated to advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”
Advancing the vision? More like advancing the candidate who collected those votes despite not having a vision.
With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump.

With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump.

If they were active in 2016, most probably supported Bernie Sanders in his primary challenge to Clinton. But by helping to fund them now, she is putting them in her debt for later.
Ah, but will she need their support later? Is she really going to make a third run for the White House?
Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run.
It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically.
Their reasons are no surprise: Her moment has passed, she was a terrible candidate and her endless claims of victimhood are tiring rather than inspiring. It’s time to find new blood.
Those assessments are unassailable, and certainly are shared by the 20 or so Dems lining up to take their shot at the nomination.
Moreover, there isn’t any clamoring for another Clinton run in Hollywood or other leftist hotbeds. They want a new blockbuster, not a sequel to failure.
So she’s toast, right? Maybe.
On the other hand, the odds are zero that she is playing community organizer just to be a kingmaker. When it comes to money and power, the Clintons assume charity begins at home.

The odds are zero that she is playing community organizer just to be a kingmaker. When it comes to money and power, the Clintons assume charity begins at home.

Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored.
First, because there’s no clear front-runner for the nomination 18 months into Trump’s presidency, Clinton remains the closest thing to an incumbent. She’s also got numerous advantages, from name recognition to campaign experience to an off-the-shelf Cabinet, that could give her a head start.
Second, a crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrunk. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.

Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrunk. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.

Third, looking ahead to the 2020 primaries, she sees no reason to fear the favorite daughters and sons in key blue states. She would almost certainly beat Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York.
And please — forget Sanders and Joe Biden. Sanders is already 76 and Biden, at 75, has never been a viable candidate for president and still isn’t.
Fourth, money is not an issue. Some donors will resist Clinton at first, but any Dem nominee can count on all the money in the world to run against Trump.
To be clear, there are scenarios where Clinton doesn’t run. Health reasons, for example, or a younger rival could rocket to the top of the pack and become the party’s next Barack Obama. Either way, recurring nightmares of two previous defeats would send her back to wandering through the Chappaqua woods.
For now, I am convinced Clinton wants to go for it. Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.
Besides, the third time could be the charm.

Obamacare Cartoons