Rush to judgment: Pols, pundits picking sides on Kavanaugh accusation

One of the depressing aspects of the cultural debate sparked by the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is that so many politicians, pundits and ordinary people have already made up their minds based on very limited information.
I suppose it was too much to ask that people actually wait for the Supreme Court nominee and for Christine Blasey Ford to testify and see what additional information emerges. That’s no longer the way our hyperpolarized society works.
Still, it is striking to see the absolute certainty with which people on the public stage, and many folks on Twitter, are declaring that either he or she is lying.
It's hardly a coincidence that these conclusions are largely driven by ideology. Democratic pols and liberal commentators, who would love to keep Kavanaugh off the high court, are quickly out of the gate saying they believe Ford, or at least that she is credible enough to potentially sink the nomination. Republican pols and conservative commentators, who would love to see the judge elevated, are backing him and doubting Ford (and, in fairness, the eleventh-hour nature of the allegations).
Most would immediately switch sides if a Democrat was facing such accusations. See Clinton, Bill.
The vagueness of Ford's account is only exacerbating the debate. Ford says she can't remember what year the alleged sexual assault took place — she thinks maybe 1982 — or whose house it was. That makes it very difficult to prove, or disprove, and leaves the possibility of a he said/she said that can’t be resolved.
The political maneuvering is under way. Chuck Schumer demanding that additional witnesses be called, such as Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge, who was accused of joining in the assault. Lindsey Graham is questioning who paid for Ford's lawyer and her polygraph exam. Republican senators are also carping that Ford hasn't accepted the invitation to testify at Monday's hearing; Mitch McConnell yesterday offered her the option of a closed hearing.
President Trump, for his part, ripped the Democrats for "obstruction" and "resistance," that he feels "terrible" for Kavanagh, and that the FBI does not want to investigate. But he was careful again yesterday not to criticize Ford. “We want to give everybody a chance to say what they want to say,” the president told reporters.
There's already about a million times more interest in the Kavanaugh nomination. Before Ford came forward, there was an intense debate over the degree to which he would move the court to the right, especially on the issues of abortion and presidential power.
But I think much of the public wasn't really engaged, in part because his confirmation seemed to be a foregone conclusion.
Now it's the subject of hot arguments not just on Twitter but in cubicles and kitchen tables. It's reminiscent of the uproar over Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, but also reminds me of other national melodramas, such as the O.J. trial, where everyone had an opinion even on the minor characters.
I raised the question yesterday about how to balance the damage done to Ford's life, if her story is true, with the fact that this alleged attack occurred when Kavanaugh was at Georgetown Prep. And on MSNBC yesterday, New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss put it this way:
"Let's say he did this exactly as she said. Should the fact that a 17-year-old, presumably very drunk kid, did this, should that be disqualifying? That’s the question at the end of the day, isn't it?"
A different, and very moving, take comes from the Atlantic’s Caitlin Flanagan, who describes a sexual assault when she was 15, the impact on her life and how she eventually came to a place of forgiveness.
Without giving away too much, Flanagan says she would view the long-ago allegation differently if Kavanaugh had made some attempt at apology, as other men facing #MeToo accusations have. But of course, this isn't a case of a date gone bad.
Kavanaugh flatly denies that anything like this ever happened. So Republican senators would have to be convinced that he is lying to turn against him.
That is a matter for the messy legislative process. The court of public opinion no longer waits for the evidence.
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.

Polygraph exam taken by Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford comes under scrutiny

One day after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised concerns about the polygraph test taken by Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford, her attorney is refusing to comment on who paid for the examination or provide additional details on how it was conducted.
And experts contacted by Fox News confirmed that while polygraph examinations can be useful, they are ultimately fallible tools that "can be beaten." Without mentioning any particular instances, one former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a "conscience."
Even well-intentioned individuals who have come to believe that their false stories are, in fact, true -- whether because of therapist-induced memories or other causes -- can sometimes pass polygraph tests, former FBI officials and psychology experts told Fox News.
Ford provided The Washington Post the results of a polygraph examination conducted by a former FBI agent in August, which reportedly showed that she had been truthful in her allegations. According to the Post, Ford took the polygraph on the advice of her attorney, Debra Katz.
Katz did not respond to numerous requests for comment by Fox News on Tuesday concerning the polygraph.
ATTORNEY FOR KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DOWNPLAYED SEX ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLINTON, FRANKEN
Speaking to Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday, Graham questioned who had paid for the polygraph, which experts told Fox News could cost anywhere from $500 to $1,000.
"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.
Democratic politicians and operatives have repeatedly cited the claim that Ford had passed a polygraph exam to bolster her claims.
"The woman who says Kavanaugh attacked her has reportedly passed a polygraph test," Paul Begala, a onetime aide to former President Bill Clinton while he was besieged by numerous accusations of sexual misconduct while in office. "Will Kavanaugh take one?"
KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DEMANDS FBI PROBE BEFORE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH
But several experts told Fox News that viewing polygraphs as reliable lie-detector machines is a dangerous oversimplification.

"If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience ... you can beat it."
- Former FBI agent James Gagliano

"It's not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable," said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.
"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question.  A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."
WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE'S NOT SURE IF ACCUSER IS BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL' 
James Gagliano, a former FBI agent who led a SWAT team in New York for several years and now teaches at St. John's University, told Fox News that while polygraphs are valuable, they "can be beaten."
"In this case, if they want to put this out as irrefutable evidence that this woman is telling the truth because she passed a polygraph -- that's not the way polygraphs work," Gagliano added. "If that were the case, I would've taken every drug dealer, gangbanger, and pedophile I investigated, and I would've thrown them on the polygraph."
Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they've convinced themselves they are telling the truth: "It's not a lie if you believe it," he said.
"Everyone knows polygraph exams can be beaten," Gagliano added. "If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience, if you don't know right from wrong -- you can beat it."

Ford announced on Tuesday she would refuse to testify about her allegations, despite numerous invitations from Senate Republicans, until the FBI conducts a full investigation into the events she claims occurred at a house in Maryland more than 35 years ago. Ford has been unable to identify who owned the house in question, or why she was there.
"It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened," a federal law enforcement official told Fox News.
Gagliano explained that polygraphs are typically conducted by highly trained professionals who first establish a "baseline" physiological response by asking simplistic questions. Then, Gagliano said, polygraphists often attempt to "scare" examinees by asking a question to make them think they're in trouble, which provides an additional data point.
Speaking separately on "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night, Mauriello explained that numerous factors -- including how questioners pose those complicated interrogatories -- can affect polygraph results.
Asked what it meant that Ford had passed a polygraph, Mauriello said flatly, "absolutely nothing."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to admit as much Tuesday night, even as she insisted Ford was credible.
"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein told Fox News. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford demands 'full investigation' by FBI before testifying, in letter from her lawyers

Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor claiming Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, late Tuesday demanded a "full investigation" by the FBI before she attends any congressional hearing or "interrogation" into her accusations.
In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who said Ford is still invited to speak to the committee, countered that "nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”
Lisa Banks, one of Ford's lawyers, told CNN that her client "will talk to the committee," but she is not prepared for the hearing on Monday.
She said her client has been faced with threats and she has been figuring out how to protect her family.
"There should be no rush to a hearing," Banks said.
Other top Republicans, including Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who had said they wanted to hear from Ford before voting on Kavanaugh's confirmation, have indicated they would move forward with a vote if Ford chose not to testify.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., tweeted late Tuesday that Republican leadership "took immediate action" to ensure Ford and Kavanaugh could be heard.
"If we don’t hear from both sides on Monday, let’s vote," he tweeted.
Republicans had repeatedly invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify next week after delaying a planned Judiciary Committee vote that had been scheduled for Thursday. Kavanaugh accepted the committee's invitation, but Ford stayed mum until Tuesday night.
Ford's insistence on an FBI investigation, which a federal law enforcement official told Fox News was "totally inappropriate," throws the entire hearing into doubt: Grassley, R-Iowa, had threatened to nix the proceeding if Ford refused to participate.
It was also sure to add fuel to Republican claims that the allegations -- which were known to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein in July, but revealed to federal authorities just last Thursday -- are part of a concerted effort to stall Kavanaugh's nomination at the last minute.
"While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident," Ford's attorneys wrote to Grassley.
But Republicans on the Judiciary Committee directly disputed that claim Tuesday night, writing in a statement that Ford had been offered a chance to testify privately, and had never been told she would need to sit near Kavanaugh.
WATCH: FEINSTEIN ADMITS SHE CAN'T BE SURE ACCUSER IS BEING ENTIRELY 'TRUTHFUL'
In the letter, Ford's lawyers went on to assert that Ford's family "was forced to relocate out of their home" and that "her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online."
"The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is 'mistaken' and 'mixed up.' While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials."

The lawyers, Debra Katz and Banks, said historical precedent supported the delay, echoing comments by Feinstein, who on Tuesday wrote on Twitter that the FBI had also "investigated Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas," the Supreme Court justice.
However, Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Hill while both worked at federal agencies, in potential violation of federal law; Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual harassment that would fall well outside of any applicable federal or state statute of limitations because the alleged episode occured decades ago.
LAWYER DEBRA KATZ HAD DOWNPLAYED ALLEGATIONS OF SEX ASSAULT AGAINST CLINTON, FRANKEN

"Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations," the letter continued. "A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."
But a federal law enforcement official told Fox News, "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."
Because Ford's allegations do not involve any federal crime within the applicable statute of limitations, Fox News has learned that the bureau would require explicit instructions from the White House to conduct any additional probe.

The document concluded: "We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security."
The Judiciary Committee statement Tuesday night condemned any threats against Ford, but maintained that her request for an FBI probe was unfounded.
"The FBI has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed," Grassley and other top Republicans wrote. "The FBI does not make credibility determinations. The FBI provides information on a confidential basis in order for decision makers to determine an individual’s suitability. The Senate has the information it needs to follow up with witnesses and gather and assess the relevant evidence."
The Republicans also disputed the suggestion in Ford's letter that the committee had not been accommodating: "Contrary to suggestions by Dr. Ford’s attorneys, the committee had no plans to place Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh on a panel together, and never indicated plans to do so. Grassley’s staff offered Dr. Ford multiple dates as well as a choice of providing information in a public or private setting."
Meanwhile, Feinstein and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released statements backing Ford.
"I agree with her 100 percent that the rushed process to hold a hearing on Monday has been unfair and is reminiscent of the treatment of Anita Hill," Feinstein said. "I also agree that we need the facts before senators—not staff or lawyers—speak to witnesses.
"We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing," Feinstein continued. "A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date."
FEINSTEIN FACES GOP HEAT FOR SITTING ON KAVANAUGH ALLEGATIONS FOR WEEKS
Feinstein had told Fox News earlier Tuesday that she could not be sure Ford was being entirely truthful.
"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein said. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."
Eric Holder, the former attorney general, tweeted late Tuesday that the FBI should do a "routine, normal inquiry concerning new Kavanaugh allegations. This is basic background investigation procedure."
In a separate statement, Schumer said an FBI probe would be consistent with "precedent," adding, "Dr. Ford’s call for the FBI to investigate... demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed."
Earlier Tuesday, Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., rejected a comparison to the Clarence Thomas episode.
"You’re talking about history," Graham said. "We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward.”
The attorneys' letter was yet another curveball in Kavanaugh's ongoing nomination drama, which began last week after a leak to The Intercept revealed that Feinstein was in possession of a supposedly damning letter relevant to his confirmation. Republicans have charged that Senate Democrats orchestrated that leak, which then prompted Feinstein to discuss the letter and its then-anonymous accusations publicly and with the FBI.
Ford went public on Sunday, alleging that Kavanaugh forced himself onto her and covered her mouth in the 1980s, when Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 15. Ford did not mention the incident to others by her own admission until 2012, according to The Washington Post, when her therapist recorded her claim that four individuals had committed the assault.
Ford has since claimed that the therapist incorrectly transcribed that detail, and that she had said there were only two people in the room. Her husband has maintained that Ford mentioned Kavanaugh in the therapy sessions.
Ford also told The Post she could not remember in whose house the alleged incident occurred, the exact month of the episode, or why there was a gathering there.
Republicans on Tuesday also reiterated Grassley's criticism of Feinstein for not telling Republicans, even privately, about the claims against Kavanaugh during days of private and public hearings on the nominee.
"Ranking Member Feinstein first received a letter with allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh from Dr. Ford in July," the Republicans' statement read. "However, Feinstein neglected to notify Committee Republicans of the letter until the day of the first Committee markup, six weeks after receiving the letter and well after the vetting and hearing process had concluded."
The statement concluded by charging that Feinstein had not taken the matter "seriously."
"Feinstein referred the letter to the FBI, which added it to Kavanaugh’s background investigation file," it continued. "She should have treated these allegations seriously, as Grassley has done, in immediately acting upon hearing of them."
Earlier Tuesday, a key potential swing vote senator, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, said he would move to push Kavanaugh's nomination forward if Ford refused to show up to the hearing planned for Monday. Graham, R-S.C., has also said that if Ford refused to testify, the committee would move forward with a vote within the week.

John Kerry Cartoons

Cal Thomas: Democrats’ Kavanaugh smears yet another effort to reverse 2016 election results

In statement released by the White House, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he is 'willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.'
The woman who alleged in a confidential letter that as a high school student in Maryland in the ’80s Brett Kavanaugh “pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it” has now revealed her identity to (surprise!) the Washington Post.
Christine Blasey Ford, who the Post says is now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California, originally said she did not want to tell her story or reveal her identity. Then the story went public without her consent. The letter eventually found its way to the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Feinstein, citing Ford’s wish to remain anonymous, refused to share it with her Democratic colleagues. “I have, however,” Feinstein wrote in a statement, “referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
“An FBI spokesperson confirmed that the bureau had received the referral … and included it as part of Kavanaugh’s background file,” writes the Los Angeles Times, “as per the standard process.”
Ford claims she didn’t tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012 when she was in couples therapy with her husband, but even then she didn’t mention Kavanaugh’s name. If this sounds like a replay of Anita Hill’s last-minute allegations against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, it should. In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

In football a late hit can bring a penalty. In politics it’s all part of the game.

Kavanaugh denies any inappropriate behavior took place, and as of this writing, both he and Ford have agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a la Anita Hill. Already two Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, both of whom are leaving at the end of their terms, have called for a delay in Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, which plays into the hands of Democrats trying to block him from the court.
Some Democrats and liberal activists apparently determined to preserve the Supreme Court’s leftward shift have chosen to get down in the mud, throwing it at a highly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned how these confirmation hearings have become “a highly partisan show.”
The smear is nothing new in politics, but while it once might come back to stain the one throwing the mud, it is now regarded as a legitimate tool for achieving one’s political goals. The end not only justifies the means, but to the left, it mandates the means.
Republicans should fight back, labeling the smear tactics and those who employ them as demeaning and sullying their office. If one can’t win a civil debate over issues and law, then an elected official should not receive the public’s trust.

Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?

“Have you no shame?” was a line made famous during the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., claimed to have a list of communists who had infiltrated the federal government. The left rode the “McCarthyism” horse for decades, accusing any Republican or conservative of emulating McCarthy when they opposed the liberal agenda or criticized producers of movies and TV programs they believed contributed to the moral decline of the nation.
This letter should be seen for what it is — a last-minute, desperate attempt to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation and part of a broader plan to reverse the results of the 2016 election. This smear campaign includes not only Ford’s perfectly timed letter, but also the New York Times op-ed from an unnamed “official” in the Trump administration and many of Bob Woodward’s “sources” in his new book “Fear.”
These tactics should be denounced immediately, or they will be repeated. Is it any wonder why good people don’t want to serve in government? Who wants to face an avalanche of mud?

Keith Ellison domestic violence accuser says Democratic party doesn't believe her story

The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.
Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.
Ellison has denied the accusations, saying he “never behaved this way.” He did acknowledge he was in a relationship with the woman.
The allegations didn’t lead to any immediate action against the congressman, except for the announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would review the accusations. He went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general.
DNC CO-CHAIR, MINNESOTA REP. KEITH ELLISON DENIES ABUSE ALLEGATIONS FROM EX-GIRLFRIEND
Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.
“No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”
She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.”
Her comment came after another user pointed to comments made by Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who wrote in a tweet that the Kavanaugh accuser will be “attacked, smeared, and demonized” and that people must “believe women.”
Many other Democrats and progressives – who stayed silent when the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.
Monahan went to reiterate that her story has nothing to do with politics. “I have nothing to prove to anyone, I simply shared my story. People can believe it or not. I don’t need anyone to affirm my humanity, I affirmed it,” she wrote in another tweet.
“The fact that both parties only care if it scores political points is hypocritical,” she added. “Do you think a person who has dealt with any form of abuse by politicians is thinking about politics? No, we & are families are trying to heal.”

Trump to declassify the 'insurance policy' in the Strzok-Page text, Nunes says

Rep. Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, told Fox News exclusively on Monday that he believes President Trump’s order to declassify several documents related to the FBI Russia investigation will expose the “insurance policy” that was referred to in text messages between FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
In a text from Strzok to Page dated Aug. 15, 2016, the pair discussed “an insurance policy” in the event that Donald Trump went on to win the presidential election.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” the text read.
The text messages between Strzok and Page have been used by Trump to bolster his claim that the Russia collusion investigation is a “rigged witch hunt.” Democrats, by and large, don’t look at these texts as helpful in their case, but claim that the agents were never influenced by their comments.
Nunes said he believes the declassification will provide exculpatory evidence for the president. He said the new information will shed new light on the dozen or so 302s from Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, which could show the interactions between ex-British spy Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS and “many other rotten apples” within the FBI.
“A lot of people think that the insurance policy was getting the FISA warrant on [former Trump campaign aide] Carter Page,” he told Laura Ingraham, host of “The Ingraham Angle.” “We actually believe it was more explicit than that.”
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department "[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency."
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called Trump's decision "a clear abuse of power."
"[Trump] has decided to intervene in a pending law enforcement investigation by ordering the selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative," Schiff said. "With respect to some of these materials, I have been previously informed by the FBI and Justice Department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods.
"This is evidently of no consequence to a President who cares about nothing about the country and everything about his narrow self-interest," Schiff added.
Trump also ordered the Justice Department to release text messages from a number of the key players in the Russia investigation "without redaction" -- including Ohr, Strzok, Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
A Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News that the DOJ and FBI "are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President's order."
ODNI spokesperson Kellie Wade told Fox News: "As requested by the White House, the ODNI is working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification."
Nunes said the president’s orders are clear and anticipates the copies being sent out to the press in days.
“This is really full transparency for the American people,” Nunes said.

Rubio asks DOJ to determine if Kerry violated federal laws meeting with Iranian officials

Florida Senator Marco Rubio asked the Department of Justice on Tuesday to determine whether former Secretary of State John Kerry violated federal laws by holding meetings with the Iranian foreign minister.  (AP)

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., requested that the Justice Department look into whether former Secretary of State John Kerry violated federal laws by meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, a move already blasted by top Trump administration officials.
In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday obtained exclusively by Fox News, Rubio said that Americans “deserve to know that U.S. laws are enforced regardless of any individual’s past position.” He encouraged the department to determine whether Kerry violated the Logan Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The Logan Act prohibits unauthorized personnel to negotiate with a foreign government in relation to any disputes with the U.S., whereas the Foreign Agents Registration Act is a statute that requires persons or companies acting on behalf of foreign governments, political parties or individuals to disclose details of their interactions.
Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted his predecessor for "actively undermining" U.S. policy by holding meetings with Mohammad Javad Zarif since leaving office. Pompeo called it "unseemly and unprecedented" and "beyond inappropriate."
"You can't find precedent for this in U.S. history, and Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior," Pompeo said.
Pompeo, who said he would leave the "legal determinations to others," lambasted Kerry for engaging with "the world's largest state-sponsor of terror" and telling Iran to "wait out this administration."
Reports of Kerry’s meetings with Zarif first surfaced in May. Kerry confirmed the two had met several times during a radio interview.
Kerry said he had met three or four times with Zarif since he left office, but had not since Pompeo took the job in April. One of the meetings was held in Norway, another in Germany and a third is reportedly said to have happened at the United Nations headquarters, which is not technically on American soil.
While meetings between private U.S. citizens and foreign officials are not illegal or in violation of federal regulations, Josh Rosenstein, a partner with the Washington law firm Sandler Reiff and specialist in lobbying compliance, told The Associated Press there are too many unanswered questions – specifically in regards to where the meetings took place and what was specifically discussed.
"The devil's always in the details," Rosenstein told the AP. "Simply offering advice to a foreign government doesn't make you a foreign agent."
Kerry told the radio show he was not coaching the Iranians on how to handle the Trump administration, but “rather tried to elicit from him (Zarif) what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better."
President Trump, who withdrew from the agreement in May, also chimed in on social media late Thursday in regards to Kerry’s meetings with Zarif and the “very hostile Iranian regime.”
"John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people," Trump tweeted. "He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!"
Kerry’s spokesman Matt Summers said in a statement "There's nothing unusual, let alone unseemly or inappropriate, about former diplomats meeting with foreign counterparts,” while shifting the focus on “political theatrics.”
“What is unseemly and unprecedented is for the podium of the State Department to be hijacked for political theatrics," he said.

Tom Arnold Cartoons

Trump could still get the Nobel Peace Prize for North Korean denuclearization – Here’s how

The leaders of North and South Korea will hold a three-day summit beginning Tuesday in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, accompanied by several hundred officials from their two governments – indicating significant progress may be made in efforts to gradually move toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
This is a move we should all welcome – and it could lead to a second summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. An agreement coming out of that meeting between the U.S. and North Korean leaders could change history and lead to a Nobel Peace Prize for President Trump, an idea I suggested in an op-ed for Fox News last spring. Maybe Trump and Kim could even share the prestigious prize.
Importantly, President Trump will need to be careful to not let his enthusiasm for progress toward North Korean denuclearization get ahead of reality. Kim – and his father and grandfather who ruled before him – all have broken promises to move toward a peaceful path.
Consequently, any promises Kim makes must be verified, tested and checked over and over to ensure he is honest and that his intentions are clear. If he meets with Kim again, President Trump would be wise to be accompanied by U.S. experts on North Korea who can carefully scrutinize everything Kim says.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in recently sent a negotiating team to craft the agenda for his summit with Kim. South Korean officials described the meetings as positive and said they were told that Kim would like to denuclearize by the end of President Trump’s current term in office in January 2021.
Kim no doubt has a long list of big concessions he will want from the U.S. and South Korea in exchange for giving up his prized possessions – North Korea’s approximately 65 nuclear bombs. The North Korean leader won’t get rid of all his nukes at once – he wants concessions for every step he takes along the way. Expecting him to do otherwise is not realistic.
Kim could be in a mood for compromise because of President Trump’s show of strength in recently cancelling a proposed visit to the North by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Realizing that the détente he has set up is now at risk of falling apart, Kim may be trying to inject new energy into negotiations.
While the Singapore Summit on June 12 between Presidents Trump and Kim was successful in creating a pathway to diplomacy, there has been little progress since then on denuclearization that is truly concrete and irreversible.
National Security Adviser John Bolton said recently that “President Trump can't make the North Koreans walk through the door he's holding open” when it comes to abandoning their nuclear weapons.
But just a quick look at the evidence suggests that this month could be a historic time for not only inter-Korean relations, but the eventual signing of a peace declaration ending the Korean War once and for all. Fighting in that war was halted by an armistice in 1953, but a peace treaty has never been signed.
One indication of major progress from the Kim-Moon summit would be for Kim to agree to provide Seoul and Washington with a full accounting of the size of his nuclear warhead stockpile and missile arsenal in exchange for a peace treaty ending the Korea War. It seems clear President Trump would embrace such a proposal.
With talk just recently that Moon and Kim could jointly attend the U.N. General Assembly meeting later this month in New York City, the occasion would provide the perfect setting for them to be joined by President Trump to sign a peace treaty formally ending the war on their divided peninsula.
In just the past few weeks, Kim has toned down his anti-American rhetoric and sounded more willing to take serious steps toward denuclearization and a de-escalation of tensions with America and South Korea.
As first noted in an article in 38 North, scholar Robert Carlin points out that recent media reports out of the North say that Kim hopes “to completely remove the danger of armed conflict and horror of war from the Korean peninsula and turn it into the cradle of peace without nuclear weapons and free from nuclear threat.”
That’s a far cry from Kim’s past declarations that he would never give up his nuclear weapons – what the North has referred to as its “treasured sword” – and threating to fire missiles near Guam or perhaps even detonating a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere.
In another positive move, Kim cancelled his annual display of North Korea’s latest and greatest missiles at a military parade earlier this month. While many skeptics have said the move to keep intercontinental ballistic missiles out of the parade was no big deal, President Trump clearly appreciated it.
Kim was under pressure to display his weapons at a time when the North Korean economy is feeling the pinch of economic sanctions. With a gross domestic product the size of Vermont and a population that can’t even feed itself, Kim’s long-range missiles and nuclear weapons are the only things the so-called “hermit kingdom” can claim as national achievements.
Kim likely faced stiff resistance from his top military brass and inner circle to show off the missiles, but he decided to make a gesture of goodwill. Considering the occasion in question was the 70^th anniversary of the founding of the North Korean state, such a gesture shouldn’t be casually dismissed.
On the U.S. side, President Trump may want to compromise with Kim to get something he could claim as a foreign policy triumph before the Nov. 6 midterm elections and at a time when Trump has faced criticism growing out of Bob Woodward’s new book, an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times by a senior official in his administration, and the continued Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Also, with the President Trump getting ready to take on China – perhaps slapping Beijing with $200 billion in tariffs – Beijing will surely back off any assistance in the “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions that Washington has waged against North Korea. Since China accounts for almost all of North Korea’s foreign trade, U.S. and international economic sanctions against the North are meaningless without Chinese cooperation.
And as Washington shifts its Asia policy more and more to take on a rising China – an infinitely bigger threat than North Korea – a deal on with Kim will look increasingly attractive to the Trump administration.
While we await the results of the Kim-Moon summit, the good news is that for once there are reasons to be optimistic about the possibility of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Even Republican foreign policy hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News recently that he is optimistic that a compromise with North Korea can be found.
I also find myself – despite my concerns about the speed at which North Korea is becoming a dangerous nuclear power – having more reasons to be hopeful that a peaceful solution is possible.
Who knows, maybe we will see President Trump getting the Nobel Peace Prize. And if he succeeds in getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons he will surely deserve it.