Kansas councilwoman allegedly bites corrections officer's thumb hard enough to break it during fight

Huron City Councilwoman Carol Fowler allegedly bit down on a corrections officer’s thumb during her booking process.  (Atchison County Sheriff's Office)

A local Kansas lawmaker is facing felony charges after she allegedly bit a corrections officer’s thumb so hard, she broke a bone.
Huron City Councilwoman Carol Fowler, 48, was taken into custody June 29 after failing to appear for a warrant, KSHB reported. Police allegedly had to use stun guns because she was fighting back, kicking and scratching, the Kansas City Star added.
On July 2, while in custody, Fowler refused to follow booking process instructions and when Atchison County Jail staff tried to remove her jewelry and personal items, she bit down on one of the officer’s thumb, breaking the bone, Sheriff Jack Laurie told the Atchison Globe.
Requests for comment from Fowler and a person listed as her attorney were not immediately answered. 
According to the county’s website, Fowler was still listed as a council member at the time of this report.
Fowler is facing three felony charges for the June 29 and July 2 incidents, including battery on a law enforcement officer.

Lisa Page will not appear for Capitol Hill interview despite subpoena, attorney says

Lisa Page, pictured in January, was due to be interviewed by two House committees Wednesday.  (Ron Sachs / CNP)

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page will not appear for a private interview with two House committees despite being subpoenaed, her attorney told Fox News Tuesday.
In a statement, Amy Jeffress said her client did not have enough time to prepare and had asked the the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees to schedule another date.
"The Committees have not honored this request," Jeffress said. "As a result, Lisa is not going to appear for an interview at this time."
In a statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said: "It appears that Lisa Page has something to hide ... She has known for months that the House Judiciary Committee has sought her testimony as part of our joint investigation with the Oversight Committee into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016, and she has no excuse for her failure to appear.
"Lisa Page is a key witness, and it is critical that she come before our committees to answer questions as part of our investigation," Goodlatte added.
Other GOP members of the Judiciary Committee slammed Page's refusal to appear, with Ron DeSantis of Florida calling it "pathetic" and Jim Jordan of Ohio said she was "once again showing the double standard."
"One set of rules for regular Americans, a different set for the Swamp!" Jordan added.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a member of the Oversight Committee, said Page's action was "indefensible."
Jeffress added that the FBI had not given her and Page the necessary materials to prepare for her hearing, saying the two had gone to the FBI to review the materials, "but after waiting for more than three hours, we were not provided with any documents."
Page originally was scheduled to appear before both committees Wednesday as part of their investigation into alleged bias at the Justice Department. She and FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is set to testify publicly before the committees Thursday, exchanged disparaging text messages about then-candidate Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign.
Page and Strzok both worked on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and, later, special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Both were removed from the Mueller probe last year after the Justice Department's internal watchdog made the special counsel aware of the anti-Trump messages.
The Judiciary and Oversight panels have already spent much of the summer holding hearings and interviews critical of the FBI and Justice Department. Democrats have strongly objected to the GOP-led investigation, saying it is an attempt to undermine Mueller's probe and sway public opinion against investigators.
A report by the Justice Department's internal watchdog released last month detailed the inflammatory texts between the two, including an exchange in which Strzok wrote "we'll stop it" in reference to a potential Trump election win.
Strzok was already interviewed privately by lawmakers on the two committees for 11 hours June 27.
The Judiciary Committee also held a contentious hearing June 28 with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. In the hearing, Republicans angrily accused the officials of withholding documents from them and demanded details about surveillance tactics in the Russia investigation.

Trump, NATO head Stoltenberg have testy exchange at summit

President Donald Trump on Wednesday had a testy exchange with the head of NATO when he asked about energy agreements between Russia and several European countries.
Trump repeatedly pressed Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary general, on why the U.S. continued to pay money to the military alliance while countries continue to purchase energy from Moscow.
“We are stronger together,” Stoltenberg insisted, but acknowledged that there can be differences among allies.
Still, Trump persisted.
“But how can you be together when you’re getting energy from the group you want protection from?” the president asked.
Trump used Germany as an example. He asked Stoltenberg to explain why Berlin was getting energy from Moscow, and asserted that Germany was "totally controlled" by and "captive to Russia" over a pipeline project.
The president appeared to be referring to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would double the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany, skirting transit countries such as Ukraine. The project is opposed by the U.S. and some European Union members.
Trump said of Germany: "We're supposed to protect you against Russia" and yet you make this deal with Russia.
“Explain that,” Trump said. “It can’t be explained."
The U.S. role in NATO has been a focal point for Trump since before he was elected president. He tweeted Monday that the situation was “not fair, nor is it acceptable.” He said NATO benefits Europe “far more than it does the U.S.”
Trump has called upon NATO allies to meet commitments to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
He tweeted en route from Washington that European countries "want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it. Just doesn't work!"
Brussels is the first stop of Trump's week-long European tour that will include a visit to Britain and a meeting in Finland with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Democratic Supreme Court Judge Cartoons

Judge tosses out Trump administration's lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law

A federal judge on Monday threw out the Trump administration’s legal effort to overturn California’s immigration laws, marking a major defeat to the administration’s war on sanctuary states.
Judge John Mendez approved California’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit related to Senate Bill 54.
The state’s sanctuary law also known as the California Values Act, and Assembly Bill 103 – allows the state attorney general to inspect detention centers, the Sacramento Bee reported.
The sanctuary law, SB 54, which prohibits state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention, sparked rebellion by multiple counties across California seeking to opt out of the measure out fears for safety and argued that the state law is unconstitutional.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOWN STANDS UP TO STATE, VOTES TO REJECT SANCTUARY LAW       
Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued the state of California earlier this year over the sanctuary state policies, arguing that state lawmakers overreached their authority.
The administration’s lawsuit against a portion of Assembly Bill 450, which mandates companies to inform its staff within 72 hours of any federal requests to inspect employment records, was also rejected by the judge, the Bee reported.
But Mendez ruled that the suit against other parts of the same law – such as fines to employers who don’t reject requests by the federal officials to enter their workplaces without a warrant – is allowed to move forward.

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people."
- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. "Though the Trump administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law."
State Sen. Kevin de León, who introduced the sanctuary state law, said the judge’s decision was “a stunning defeat in the president's racist war on immigrants.”
“The federal judge's decision not only affirms the constitutionality of the California Values Act, but our firm belief that our state resources should not be used to torment immigrant communities and tear families apart,” he added in a statement to the Bee.

California's 'foreclosure capital' to give away $500 a month to residents in experimental welfare program

Stockton, California is set to become the first city in the nation to embark on an experiment of Universal Basic Income, paying 100 residents $500 a month without any conditions.
The program’s purpose is to eventually ensure that no one in the city of 300,000 people lives in poverty. The receivers of the cash will be able to spend the money on anything they want without any strings attached.
It will launch by 2019 and the 100 fortunate residents will receive the cash for a full 18-months as part of its testing phase before deciding whether to roll it across whole Stockton.
The city, which was once known as America's foreclosure capital, has recently fallen on hard times, with one-in-four residents living below the poverty line and the median household income nearly $8,000 lesser than the national median.
The city also racked up millions in debt from expensive development projects that led to the city’s bankruptcy in 2012.
“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.
Luckily, the experimental program won’t deplete the city’s coffers as it benefits from financial backing by wealthy Silicon Valley moguls. One of those backers is Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, whose the Economic Security Project contributed $1 million to the project.
“It is such a fundamental idea behind America that if you work hard, you can get ahead, and you certainly don't live in poverty. But that isn't true today, and it hasn't been true in the country for decades,” Hughes told CNN.
“I believe that unless we make significant changes today, the income inequality in our country will continue to grow and call into question the very nature of our social contract.”
Other Silicon Valley elites have also endorsed the idea, though mostly in rhetoric. “Universal income will be necessary over time if AI takes over most human jobs,” Business magnate Elon Musk wrote in a tweet last month.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said in May 2017 Harvard commencement speech.
The idea of Universal Basic Income isn’t new, with some European countries adopting some form of it. In Finland, 2,000 unemployed working-age people were given 560 Euros per month. The program, however, came to an abrupt end in April after the Finnish government decided not to extend the funding to the program, The Guardian reported.
In the U.S., the idea remains fairly new but it’s gaining traction in politically liberal areas in the nation such as Hawaii and the San Francisco Bay area.
In Oakland, California, Y Combinator, a startup incubator, is giving out $1,500 a month to randomly selected residents. It’s expected the money will soon be distributed to 100 recipients with a prospect of expanding the program to 1,000 people who will receive $1,000 monthly.

Kavanaugh's nomination leaves red state Democrats with dilemma of a lifetime – betray their party or voters?

On Monday evening, President Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, leaving red state Democratic Senators with the dilemma of a lifetime as they approach Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing: betray Chuck Schumer or betray the voters that put them there.
Any legal expert will tell you that Kavanaugh is deserving of resounding confirmation. In fact, Liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, called President Trump’s entire 25-person Supreme Court nominee list “distinguished” and “impressive.” Monday night,  in a piece entitled “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Amar wrote: “I strongly supported Hillary Clinton… [but] it is hard to name anyone with judicial credential as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.” thus giving red state Democrats no valid reason to oppose him.
The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to more than a dozen of Kavanaugh’s decisions, and more than 210 judges nationwide have cited his most popular opinions.  Perhaps most qualifying of all, though, is this singular sentence written by Kavanaugh: “[R]ead the words of the statute as written.  Read the text of the Constitution as written… Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution.”
This incontrovertible statement is precisely the role of a judge and precisely the reason not a single Democrat should oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, a Constitution-abiding judge with a proven track record.

As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.

If not out of principle, red state Democrats ought to vote for Kavanaugh based on political fate.
Ten Democratic senators up for reelection this November hail from states that President Trump won, and in many of them commandingly so.
President Trump won Claire McCaskill’s state of Missouri by 19 points; Joe Donnelly’s Indiana by 19 points; Jon Tester’s Montana by 21 points; Heidi Heitkamp’s North Dakota by 36 points; and Joe Manchin’s West Virginia by an eye-opening 42 points.
In each of these states, voters sent an unmistakable message to their elected officials: We support President Trump and his agenda.  And yet, in each of these states, their senators talk like Donald Trump – but vote like Chuck Schumer.
As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.
With a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planning a Senate confirmation vote this fall, these faux Trump-supporting Democratic senators now have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and vote for President Trump’s highly qualified nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Opposing Kavanaugh is fraught with political risks. Voting against Kavanaugh will undoubtedly open Democrats up to attacks from Republican opponents – attacks like those we’ve already seen in Missouri, where Republican opponent Josh Hawley calls out Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in a new ad over the upcoming Supreme Court vote.
As a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh approaches, every red state Democrat will be forced to answer the following question: are you Trump allies in word or in action?
Senator Jon Tester recently took out a full page ad in 14 Montana newspapers thanking President Trump and touting “Jon’s 16 bills signed into law by President Trump” (this despite his vote against tax cuts and against Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).
Will Jon Tester’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia renounced his support for Hillary Clinton and said he would be “open” to voting for Trump in 2020.
Will Joe Manchin’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Donnelly brags that he voted with Trump more than every other Democratic senator with just two exceptions (keep in mind they all voted against tax cuts and permitted the government to shut down).
Will Joe Donnelly’s words be followed by action?
Time will tell.
If these vulnerable Democrats do vote for Kavanaugh, they are sure to provoke the ire of the Democratic leadership. Asked about red state Democrats losing elections because of their votes against the nominee, Minority Whip Dick Durbin flatly stated: “They understand it’s an historic decision.  It’s about more than the next election.”
In essence, Durbin is perversely suggesting that these red state Democrats put party before people – the very people that made them United States Senators.
Ten Senate Democrats – Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Tammy Baldwin, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly – will have to make the choice to stand with Chuck Schumer or to stand with the people of their great states.
People over party should be the easy answer.
Kayleigh McEnany is the National Spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and BSFS from Georgetown School of Foreign Service. She also studied at Oxford University, St. Edmund Hall. Kayleigh is the author of the book "The New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement."

Kavanaugh nod touches off Supreme Court confirmation battle; Dems warn of 'deaths of countless women'

President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has set the stage for a bruising confirmation battle, as Senate Democrats and liberal groups vowed to resist what could be a dramatic and long-lasting rightward shift on the Supreme Court.
Within seconds of Trump's announcement in the White House Monday night, the far-left political action committee Democracy for America called Kavanaugh, 53, a "reactionary ideologue" whose confirmation would "directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights."
And in a statement, the Women's March said ominously: "Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States."
"Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence," the group continued. "We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets."
In an embarrassing blunder, though, the Women's March statement began: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court" -- indicating that the group didn't expect to have to change its pre-written press release much on Monday night.

“Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States."
- Women's March statement

WATCH: HEAVY LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE AT SUPREME COURT AS PROTESTERS SPAR
The mood outside the Supreme Court soured quickly throughout the evening, as protesters screamed and jostled in a markedly hostile atmosphere after Trump announced his selection.
Kavanaugh, who is Catholic and formerly served as a law clerk for Kennedy, has long said he would broadly respect legal precedent, including Roe v. Wade. In his time in the Bush White House and his twelve-year stint on the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh has variously alarmed both pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
PELOSI VOWS TO 'AVENGE OBAMA' IN SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN
Top Senate Democrats, who have long said they would not seriously consider any of the candidates Trump was considering, also vowed to fight Kavanaugh, citing what they called an anti-abortion record.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for killing the nomination.
"If we can successfully block this nomination, it could lead to a more independent, moderate selection that both parties could support," Schumer said.
He continued: "In selecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, President Trump has put reproductive rights and freedoms and health care protections for millions of Americans on the judicial chopping block."
All eyes Monday night were on moderate Republicans including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, as well as several red-state Democrats, including West Virginia's Joe Manchin, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana's Joe Donnelly.
WATCH: WHO IS BRETT KAVANAUGH, TRUMP'S PICK TO REPLACE JUSTICE KENNEDY?
Their votes could prove decisive in the upcoming nomination decision, because Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate. One prominent Republican, John McCain, is expected to be unable to vote because of his ongoing battle with brain cancer. Vice President Mike Pence could break a 50-50 tie in the Senate.
That means Republicans can't afford to lose any Republican votes unless they also pick off at least one Democratic senator.
In a statement, Collins -- who has vowed not to vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade -- said only that she would scrutinize Kavanaugh carefully.
"Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," Collins said. "I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court."
Donnelly, a Democrat holding a vulnerable seat in red Indiana, echoed that assessment.
"I will take the same approach as I have previously for a Supreme Court vacancy," Donnelly said. "Following the president’s announcement, I will carefully review and consider the record and qualifications of Judge Brett Kavanaugh."
Kavanaugh's lengthy insider D.C. record -- from his tenure on the bench, as well as his work in the Bush White House and on the Kenneth Starr report that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment -- threatened to delay the confirmation process amid lawmakers' promises to vet the new nominee.
Pro-choice advocates will likely focus on Kavanaugh's decisions in cases like Priests for Life v. HHS, in which Kavanaugh wrote a dissent arguing that ObamaCare's contraceptive coverage requirements put undue burdens on some religious beliefs.
They are also expected to emphasize Garza v. Hargan, a recent case in which Kavanaugh dissented from a ruling that the Trump administration should permit an illegal immigrant in federal custody to have an abortion. Kavanaugh's dissent angered both sides of the abortion debate, because while Kavanaugh did not endorse the immigrant's right to an abortion, his dissent also did not specifically deny her that right in all cases.
Meanwhile, pro-gun rights advocates might find comfort in Kavanaugh's dissent in the landmark Heller case, when it was before the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh argued that a D.C. ordinance unconstitutionally infringed on residents' right to own semi-automatic weapons by requiring them to keep them unloaded and unassembled, or bound by a trigger lock.
The Supreme Court eventually took the case and struck down the ordinance, and held that the Second Amendment protects the possession of semi-automatic weapons for purposes unrelated to militia use.
Despite Kavanaugh's paper trail, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday that she expected Kavanaugh to be confirmed by Oct. 1.
But despite that optimistic claim, top Republicans predicted an epic tussle in the days ahead.
Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was bracing for "rough, tough, down in the dirt, ear-pulling, nose-biting fight."
For now, the next steps in the whirlwind process will be pleasantries. On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence and White House counsel Don McGahn will escort Kavanaugh to Capitol Hill.
They will then put him in the care of the so-called "sherpa," former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who will guide Kavanaugh through the nomination process, including his meetings with senators.

Border Wall Cartoons

Feds ask US-Mexico border property owners to survey their land, but many remain skeptical

November 13, 2016: A U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent passes along a section of border wall in Hidalgo, Texas.  (AP)

Some property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas said they have received letters from the federal government asking to review their land for the border wall construction.
Residents in the town of Escobares received notices a few weeks ago from the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), asking for the permission to survey their land, KENS-TV reported.
Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar, a representative in the area, said there have been over 200 of such requests made in Starr and Hidalgo counties, according to federal officials.
The town Mayor Noel Escobar was among those who received the letter, but he wasn’t eager to use the opportunity. “I walk out the back door and what I’m going to see is a 30-foot fence,” Escobar said.

“I walk out the back door and what I’m going to see is a 30-foot fence."
- Mayor Noel Escobar of the City of Escobares

Rio Grande City School District board president Daniel Garcia said the district received such request as well back in May, which claimed district property is being considered for “tactical infrastructure, such as a border wall.”
The school board last month approved a request from the CBP to come to the property for survey and site assessment.
The land that the federal government took interest in isn’t being used by the district, but Garcia said he would have voted against the move to allow the site assessment if he had known it could be used for the border wall.
“When we voted for it, it was not for any specific reason. They just wanted to come in and survey the property,” Garcia told KENS-TV.

“There’s no use for me to sell the land if I’m not going to get much from it."
- Roma resident Felix Rodriguez

Earlier this year, Felix Rodriguez, a resident in Roma, Texas, said he was visited a federal government employee who offered him $300 for a portion of his 500-square-foot property that would be used for the border wall – an offer that was too low in his view.
“There’s no use for me to sell the land if I’m not going to get much from it,” Rodriguez said, adding that he wants at least $1,500 for the land.