Ben Carson defends Kavanaugh, says opponents 'desperate' to control courts

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson speaks to the 2018 Values Voter Summit in Washington, Sept. 21, 2018.  (Associated Press)

The controversy surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was created by opponents who have become “desperate” to regain control of the courts, a member of President Trump's Cabinet said Friday.
Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a conservative audience at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington that opponents of Kavanaugh want to “fundamentally change this country.” But as their likelihood of controlling the courts looks bleak, Carson said, they’re resorting to “chaos and destruction.”
"And now they don't see themselves as being able to control the courts for another generation," Carson said. "So what is left? Chaos and destruction."
Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in the 1980s, when both were in high school. The judge has “categorically” denied the allegations and has said he would testify to clear his name.
Carson, who called sexual predators “abominable,” went on to liken the allegations against Kavanaugh to those Carson said he himself has faced during his career.
He described an incident in which he was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock. He said he wasn't intimidated because "I knew that the only woman I had ever slept with in my entire life was my wife."
"Having said that, we must also recognize that there are two sides to every story," Carson said.
Late Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley granted another extension to Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, to decide on whether she will testify before the panel.

Overconfident? Dem optimism surges as midterms approach

The fight for the House majority is over.
At least that's the sense from a growing number of Democrats who are increasingly confident in their quest to seize control of at least one chamber of Congress six weeks before Election Day.
The surging optimism among Democrats, usually shared in private, has begun to spill into the open as President Donald Trump's approval ratings sink and the Republican Party struggles under the weight of the president's self-imposed political crises and erratic behavior.
"I do believe Democrats will win back the House of Representatives," said New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Our candidates are in a strong position."
Democratic confidence is particularly strong among campaign operatives who work closely with women, a critical voting bloc that has turned away from Trump's GOP in the suburban and exurban districts where the House majority will be won or lost this fall. Polls suggest women are turbocharged and eager to punish Trump's party as the voting season begins.
"I have all intentions of this institution delivering the U.S. House back for the Democrats," said Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY'S List, an organization that supports female Democrats. "We have the candidates in place to do that and then some."
But with the shock of Trump's 2016 victory still fresh, some Democrats are painfully aware that significant factors could emerge in the 45 days before the election that could derail their presumptive success. They're contending with massive spending by GOP super PACs, competing in gerrymandered congressional districts and are increasingly worried about some key candidates.
That's leaving some top Democrats warning their party of the dangers of overconfidence.
"This is no time for confidence. This is no time for braggadociousness or bluster," New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
Booker, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender, reminded his party of Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in the last presidential contest: "If there's any complacency, if there's any resting on their laurels, we need to go back to how people felt in the early days of November 2016."
That's a tough message to push at a time when even Republican campaign professionals publicly and privately acknowledge that conventional metrics for predicting election outcomes favor Democrats.
At this point in President Barack Obama's first term, Gallup reported the Democrat's approval rating at least five points higher than Trump's current 38 percent approval. Obama's party would go on to lose 63 House seats in 2010.
On top of Trump's low approval, Republicans this year have also been saddled by more than 40 House retirements, ceding the power of incumbency in several competitive races. And there are continued signs that the Democratic base is far more energized in the early years of the Trump era than the GOP.
"I would never tell a politician to be confident because of how the world changes," said Republican strategist Rick Tyler. "But by applying those metrics, Democrats should pick up 80 seats."
Former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile turned heads in a recent interview with ABC when she predicted a Democratic takeover in the Senate. Democrats need to pick up just two seats to claim the Senate majority, but most of the competitive Senate contests this year takes place in a Republican-leaning state.
"We're confident," Brazile said. "Not overconfident, but confident that we can run the tables in the Senate."
Money could complicate Democrats' plans.
While Democratic House candidates are outraising their GOP competitors in many cases, Republicans are expected to win the larger spending battle largely because of their reliance on Super PACs that can raise unlimited sums of money.
Schriock said EMILY'S List expects to spend $37 million to influence the election, outpacing its investment in the last presidential contest. On the other side, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC allied with House Speaker Paul Ryan, expects to spend roughly $100 million.
Already, the Republican powerhouse has committed more than $70 million to shape the House landscape, primarily by running attack ads to put Democratic candidates on defense as the midterm season moves into its final weeks.
In Minnesota, which began early voting on Friday , Ryan's super PAC is dumping $8 million into an advertising campaign targeting two congressional districts. They include the 8th district, where 32-year-old former Democratic state Rep. Joe Radinovich faced charges that "he's spent his life running from the law" in a recent ad that cites multiple traffic violations.
Radinovich's campaign called the claims "egregious" and "disgraceful," saying it falsely portrayed unpaid parking tickets as crimes and misrepresents a marijuana-related citation that the Democrat received as a teen.
Fair or not, the Republican attacks are jeopardizing an open seat in a Democratic-leaning state.
It's not the only one.
Democrats are struggling for traction in a series of contests that should be prime pickup opportunities — on paper, at least. Polling suggests several vulnerable Republicans in swing districts are performing better than expected, a list that includes Reps. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Will Hurd of Texas, and John Katko of New York.
And in Florida's 27th district, a heavily Hispanic open seat in Miami, former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala is locked in a surprisingly close contest with Republican Maria Elvira Salazar, a well-known Hispanic television reporter.
But don't relay those concerns to the people who lined up for hours outside Philadelphia's Dell Music Center on Friday to see Obama rally Democratic voters in a pivotal swing state.
Della Jamison, a 65-year-old Democrat from North Philadelphia, was exuberant about her party's chances when asked. In Pennsylvania alone, Democrats envision flipping a half dozen House seats.
"We are on the battlefield, baby," Jamison said. "It's already done."

Beto O'Rourke denies fleeing scene of 1998 DUI crash, contradicting police report

U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, the Texas Democrat vying to replace U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, contradicted police reports Friday by denying he tried to flee the scene of a 1998 drunken car crash.
O'Rourke was asked about the incident during a debate against Cruz at Southern Methodist University.
“I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense,” O’Rourke said. “I can only tell you that I was able to have a second chance in my life.”

"I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense."
- U.S. candidate Beto O'Rourke

TED CRUZ, BETO O'ROURKE CLASH IN FIRST DEBATE OVER TRUMP, IMMIGRATION AND THE SUPREME COURT
But O’Rourke’s comments appear to contradict the police reports published by the Houston Chronicle last month that claimed O’Rourke “attempted to leave the scene” after he lost control of his car and hit another vehicle in 1998.
“The driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the [witness],” a police officer wrote, according to the police report.

"The driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the [witness]."
- The police report detailing Beto O'Rourkes DWI accident

The witness, who also called 911, reportedly “turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and to try to get [O’Rourke] to stop,” the report continued.
This was the first time O’Rourke has challenged reports of the incident. Last month, he acknowledged that he “drove drunk and was arrested for DWI in 1998.” He didn’t deny he tried to flee the scene.
BETO O'ROURKE REPORTEDLY TRIED TO FLEE SCENE BEFORE 1998 DRUNKEN-DRIVING ARREST, WITNESS SAID
The officer went on to state that O’Rourke was visibly intoxicated and “unable to be understood due to slurred speech.”
O’Rourke recorded 0.136 and 0.134 blood alcohol levels on Breathalyzer tests, the records said. The state legal limit at the time was 0.10. The charges of DWI were later dismissed after he completed a court-approved diversion program, the Chronicle reported.

Schumer rallies behind Rosenstein, warns Trump not to fire him

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Friday the bombshell report of Rod Rosenstein suggesting wearing a wiretap to record President Trump shouldn’t be used to fire the deputy attorney general.
“This New York Times report must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in order to install an official who will allow the president to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” Schumer wrote in a tweet.
He added that other Trump administration officials have reportedly said negative things about the president, yet they weren’t fired.
“Generals Kelly, Mattis and numerous other White House and cabinet officials have been reported to say critical things of the president without being fired,” the top Senate Demcorat added in a tweet.
Schumer’s comments came amid a New York Times report that claimed Rosenstein suggested secretly recording Trump’s conversations with Justice Department and FBI officials. The discussion of such measures, though it remains unclear how serious they were, came in the wake of the president’s decision to fire then-FBI Director James Comey.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  (AP)

The explosive report also noted that Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment with Cabinet members to remove Trump on the basis of being unfit for duty.
Rosenstein denied the accuracy of the report, calling it “inaccurate and factually incorrect” and went on to slam the sources of the Times story that, in his view, are biased against his department.
“I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda,” he said in a statement to Fox News. “But let me clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”
“I never pursued or authorized recording the president, and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false,” he said in another statement.

Made In Japan Cartoons

Trump, Japan's Abe to hold summit in New York City next week

President Trump welcomes Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the White House in Washington, June 7, 2018.  (Associated Press)

A summit between President Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will take place next week in New York City, a spokesman for Japan’s government said Friday.

The meeting next Wednesday will be on the sidelines of the 73^rd United Nations General Assembly, Reuters reported.

The two leaders will dine together ahead of the summit, a Japanese government official said. The summit will mark the eight meeting between Trump and Abe.
The two leaders are likely to discuss North Korea’s denuclearization as well as trade issues. Japan has long sought to normalize diplomatic relations with North Korea, which have been strained since the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s.
On Thursday, Abe was reelected to a third term as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, paving the way for him to serve as prime minister for up to three more years.

America, don't be like California – misery loves company

Once again, California has the highest poverty rate in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent report, the Golden State’s Supplemental Poverty Measure averaged 19 percent between 2015 and 2017.

Nationwide, poverty dropped in 2017 from 14.7 percent to 14.1 percent, but California’s rate was proportionately 35 percent higher than the national average.

In spite of (or perhaps to divert attention from) its high poverty rate, California’s left-wing political class continues its unrelenting sermonizing to the rest of us.
Big drivers of California’s poverty are: costly rents (second-highest in the nation after Hawaii); expensive electricity (highest in the lower 48 states outside of New England); heavily taxed and high-priced gasoline (second-highest after Hawaii); and high state taxes, combined with heavy housing and environmental regulations.
Some California politicians justify high taxes by pointing to the state’s generous welfare benefits, including a vigorous expansion of Medicaid.
However, the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, in use since 2009, considers a wider array of government assistance than does the old Official Poverty Measure, which doesn’t even look at cost-of-living differences between the states.
For a path out of poverty, a job beats welfare every time. But in high-cost California, having a job and receiving government assistance isn’t enough to lift millions of residents out of poverty.
California wasn’t always a high-cost state. But over time its dominant Malthusian, anti-people philosophy made housing hard to build, while government officials refused to invest adequately in new roads or water infrastructure.
Meanwhile, California’s wealthy elites, who largely live close to the temperate Pacific coast, are pushing energy policies that threaten even higher costs for electricity and commuting.
The California Legislature passed a bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown that lays the groundwork for the state getting 100 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2045.
In the same legislative session, a Democratic lawmaker proposed a law that would ban the sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2040. It didn’t get a hearing.
In late August, news out of San Diego highlighted a 28.5 percent jump in electricity rates – with one homeowner complaining about a $900 electric bill to cool his 1,379-square-foot house only a mile from the ocean.
Misery loves company and California wants to share its misery nationwide.
Gov. Brown calls the Trump administration’s pro-energy policies “insane” and bordering “on criminality.” Brown has urged other states to follow California’s example.
Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, the billionaire California environmentalist who made his money the old-fashioned way – on coal, oil and natural gas – now reportedly harbors ambitions of replacing President Trump in the White House as he spends millions of dollars to gather meaningless signatures on impeachment petitions.
Steyer’s latest project: resisting Trump’s energy policies in the states through ballot initiatives or by convincing unelected regulators to copy California ruinous renewable energy gambit.
If California is America’s Yin, Texas is its Yang.
Where California has high taxes, including the nation’s highest marginal income tax rate, Texas has low taxes, with no income tax at all.
Where California has heavily-regulated electricity markets with draconian mandates for solar and wind energy, Texas has free markets with electricity selling at a little more than half of California’s prices (while producing five times as much wind power to boot).
And where California’s endless environmental delays halt the building of homes, roads, and new reservoirs, Texas welcomes construction.
The divergent policies in America’s two most populous states have consequences.
In 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau calculated that, of America’s four major demographic groups – non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Asian-Americans and Hispanics – the lowest poverty is among the white and Asian-American categories.
The Census Bureau estimated that 52.4 percent of California’s population last year was non-Hispanic white or Asian-American. In Texas, those two groups comprised 47 percent of the state’s residents. Yet California’s three-year poverty rate of 19 percent was almost a third higher than Texas’ 14.7 percent.
The Lone Star State has its own challenges. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican running for a second term this year, has frequently warned of the danger of Texas “being California-ized” through city level “bag bans, fracking bans, (and) tree cutting bans (that form) a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations that is eroding the Texas model.”
Further, property taxes – the domain of ostensibly non-partisan local government – are soaring in Texas, even as the heavily Republican state Legislature has modestly cut statewide taxes.
More ominously, the state’s continued rapid growth is prompting increased pressure from both liberal and conservative homeowners on their city and county elected officials to put the brakes on new housing, slowing construction and contributing to a quickening rise in rents.
For Texas, and America, the lesson should be obvious: for human thriving, freedom beats government control – don’t be like California.

Is the president really seething over Sessions and other setbacks?

The media are back in the business of reporting on Donald Trump’s mood.
This has become a staple of White House coverage. The president is regularly reported to be livid, fuming, frustrated, upset, unhinged or paranoid, depending on the latest developments and how they're playing in the press.
Now sometimes this is legitimate, given Trump's tendency of lashing out at those around him. But I don't recall regular updates on whether Barack Obama was mad or George W. Bush was ticked off and so on. (Yes, I know, Trump is a very different president.)
He has, by any measure, had a rough few weeks.
Paul Manafort, his onetime campaign chairman, pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, after Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, did the same.
Omarosa, his erstwhile friend, wrote a book trashing him.
The Bob Woodward book portrayed senior officials as actively working to undermine a president they viewed as uninformed and erratic. That message was driven home by the unnamed official who vented about Trump in the New York Times. (I guess Anonymous got away with it, since the piece has faded and no manhunt is under way.)
And Trump was feeling satisfied as Brett Kavanaugh was on the verge of Senate confirmation — only to have the nomination thrown into turmoil by Christine Blasey Ford's last-minute accusations.
Now the media could argue that the president has been unusually disciplined this week (and a few journalists have noted this). Rather than going off script, rather than attacking Ford, Trump has repeatedly said she should be heard and he hopes that she testifies. He has defended Kavanaugh, said he has a hard time believing the allegations and ripped the Democrats for their handling of the matter, but hasn't posted any incendiary tweets.
But that has been overshadowed by his latest swipes at Jeff Sessions. In an interview with Hill TV, Trump said Sessions had been "mixed up and confused" during his confirmation hearings, adding: "I don't have an attorney general. It's very sad."
Trump later told reporters that he has an AG (of course he does, literally) but is disappointed in Sessions — as he has been since the former senator recused himself from the Russia investigation. What Trump really meant with his earlier comment is that he doesn't have an attorney general who will watch his back, which is not the job of the nation's top law-enforcement official.
The Washington Post describes this as "a raw expression of vulnerability and anger from a president who associates say increasingly believes he is unprotected" — including "the Russia investigation steamrolling ahead, anonymous administration officials seeking to undermine him and the specter of impeachment proceedings, should the Democrats retake the House."
I'm not so sure about the last point, but it's certainly a concern within the White House.
More from the Post: "The president, as well as family members and longtime loyalists, fret about whom in the administration they can trust, people close to them said." On that score, can you really blame them?
I've got to throw in a great quote from Steve Bannon, who says Trump is right to feel vulnerable.
"The Woodward book is the typed-up meeting notes from 'The Committee to Save America.' The anonymous op-ed is the declaration of an administrative coup by the Republican establishment."
Perhaps Trump is seething over these betrayals and setbacks. We can argue over how much responsibility he bears for some of the messes. But it's hardly shocking if he's angry about being secretly taped, leaked upon, and faced with defecting loyalists and a last-minute roadblock for his Supreme Court nominee.
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.

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's team lays out terms it wants for potential Senate interview, sources say

Christine Blasey Ford's legal team has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to agree to certain terms before she sits down for a potential interview over her accusation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago, two sources told Fox News on Thursday night.
Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear Ford's testimony.
The requests, some of which appeared to be negotiable, capped a whirlwind day of back-and-forth statements. Ford's lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was open to testifying next week, apparently backing off her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry into her allegations.
But the attorneys said it was "not possible" for Ford to testify at a hearing scheduled for Monday by Senate Republicans, without explaining why, and they reiterated that she had a "strong preference" for an FBI probe beforehand.
According to an email sent by her attorney Debra Katz to the committee, Ford would appear as long as senators provide "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."
It was not immediately clear whether Senate Republicans would agree to Ford's latest requests, but they reportedly have indicated they were considering them. Judiciary Committee Republicans have offered Ford the opportunity to testify privately, and have indicated they're willing to fly out to California "or anywhere else" to question her there if she would find that more convenient.
Speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night before a rally in Nevada, Trump called Kavanaugh "an outstanding person" and said, "I don't think you can delay it any longer."
PURPORTED WITNESS BACKTRACKS, DELETES ONLINE ACCOUNT BACKING FORD AFTER INCONSISTENCIES EMERGE
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate considered a potential key swing vote in Kavanaugh's confirmation, previously had suggested that lawyers from both sides initially question Kavanaugh and Ford. That arrangement, Collins suggested, would avoid an overtly political atmosphere in which Ford was questioned by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee -- an entirely male contingent.
For his part, Kavanaugh, in a letter to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, indicated he would be ready and willing to testify on Monday. "I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote.
"Since the moment I first heard this allegation, I have categorically and unequivocally denied it. I remain committed to defending my integrity."
Kavanaugh's letter did not contain any preconditions for his testimony. Fox News has learned that Kavanaugh, under oath, answered questions from the Judiciary Committee earlier this week, and denied the allegations.
DEMS DEMAND FBI PROBE OF THREATS AGAINST FORD -- BUT DON'T MENTION DEATH THREATS AGAINST KAVANAUGH'S FAMILY
In a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of felony, from two other people at the house party where the alleged assault occurred, including Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge and another individual.
Committee members also wrote that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.
That was an apparent reference to a widely circulated online account by Cristina Miranda King, who claimed that she heard about the alleged assault at the time. King deleted her online post after questions emerged about apparent inconsistencies in her claims.
"[Ford's] attorneys say there needs to be an investigation, which is exactly what the committee has been doing all week," the GOP members wrote. "And we would love to hear from Dr. Ford. Democratic staff is invited to participate fully every step of the way."
On Thursday, Ford's lawyers reportedly requested that the Judiciary Committee subpoena Judge to testify. Earlier this week, Judge told committee Republicans that he had "no memory" of the alleged incident, and said he did not want to testify.
GRASSLEY UNLOADS ON FEINSTEIN: 'I CANNOT OVERSTATE HOW DISAPPOINTED I AM'
Asked whether Republicans had planned to call Judge to testify, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, “No reason to. ... He’s already said what he’s going to say."
It would be highly unusual for a witness before a Senate committee to dictate who receives a subpoena as a precondition to testifying.
Meanwhile, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had no "recollection" of any incident at the house party Ford described, saying he was one of the people Ford had claimed to be there.

"I remain committed to defending my integrity."
- Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Senate Republicans have been harshly critical of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for receiving a letter from Ford outlining her allegations in July, but failing to disclose them, even anonymously, to federal officials or other committee members until last week.
Ford alleged in the letter that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, although she has since indicated that she cannot be sure in which house the assault occurred, or why there was a gathering there.
"I cannot overstate how disappointed I am," Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote Wednesday, charging that Feinstein "chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment."
Grassley again requested Feinstein turn over an unredacted version of the letter Ford sent to Feinstein in July, and expressed exasperation that he still had not received it. The only copy Grassley had was included in the supplemental materials provided by the FBI after Kavanaugh's background check, he wrote to Feinstein.
He said the document was necessary as he worked to "prepare for Monday's hearings" -- proceedings that appeared very much in doubt Thursday evening.

Democratic Socialist Cartoons