Ocasio-Cortez takes time off for 'self-help,' laments loss of yoga sessions due to politics

Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t yet started her new job, but she’s already taking a break.
The Democratic Socialist said Monday that she’s taking time a week off for “self-care” after feeling burned out and lamented that her political activity changed her lifestyle.
“I am starting a week of self-care where I am taking the week off and taking care of me. I don't know how to do that though, so I would appreciate any and all self-care tips,” she said in an Instagram video.
“For working people, immigrants, & the poor, self-care is political — not because we want it to be, but bc of the inevitable shaming of someone doing a face mask while financially stressed. So I’ve decided to take others along with me on IG as I learn what self-care even means and why it’s important,” she added on Twitter.
Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated powerful New York Democrat Joe Crowley earlier this year during the primary election and easily cruised to victory in general election as she had no real opposition, went on to say that since her entry into politics and activism, she had to give up her more comfortable lifestyle.
“Before the campaign, I used to practice yoga 3-4x/week, eat nutritiously, read and write for leisure,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Instagram. “As soon as everything kicked up, that all went out the window. I went from doing yoga and making wild rice and salmon dinners to eating fast food for dinner and falling asleep in my jeans and makeup.”

"Before the campaign, I used to practice yoga 3-4x/week, eat nutritiously, read and write for leisure. As soon as everything kicked up, that all went out the window. I went from doing yoga and making wild rice and salmon dinners to eating fast food for dinner and falling asleep in my jeans and makeup."
— Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“I keep things raw and honest on here since I believe public servants do a disservice to our communities by pretending to be perfect,” she added. “It makes things harder for others who aspire to run someday if they think they have to be superhuman before they even try.”
The New York Democrat revealed that she decided to spend “a few days in the middle of nowhere” in upstate New York.
Ocasio-Cortez, together with other newly-elected lawmakers, will start her term on Jan. 3.

Reporter who broke news of Steele dossier used to surveil ex-Trump aide calls its claims largely 'false'

The salacious and unverified opposition research dossier cited by the FBI as its main justification to surveil a top Trump aide contains many claims that are "likely false," according to the Yahoo News reporter who was among the first to break the news of the dossier's existence.
Michael Isikoff's statements on John Ziegler's Free Speech Broadcasting podcast came a day before Michael Cohen adviser Lanny Davis reiterated that Cohen has never been to Prague -- where, according to the dossier, he traveled to arrange a payment to Russian hackers during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The dossier was created by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the firm Fusion GPS -- which was retained by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
"In broad strokes, Christopher Steele was clearly onto something, that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there was multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in Trump's campaign,” Isikoff said.
But he added: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
On four occasions, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court that it "did not believe" Steele was the direct source for Isikoff's Sept. 23, 2016 Yahoo News article implicating former Trump aide Carter Page in Russian collusion.

Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.
But London court records show that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier. The revelations were contained heavily-redacted documents released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.
"The FBI does not believe that Source #1 [Steele] directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article," the FBI stated in one of the released FISA documents. "Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI."
The documents describe Source #1 as someone "hired by a business associate to conduct research" into Trump's Russia ties -- but do not mention that Fusion GPS was funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign.
Instead, the documents say only: "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump's] campaign." Fox News believes that the U.S. person is Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS.

Senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, left, continued to communicate with former British spy Christopher Steele, right, even after the FBI cut ties with him. (AP)

Page announced in October he is filing a defamation lawsuit against the DNC over the dossier's claims. He is also suing Perkins Coie and its partners, the law firm that represented Clinton’s campaign and hired Fusion GPS.
Page told Fox News’ “Hannity” at the time that his lawsuit goes “beyond any damages or any financial aspects."
“There have been so many lies as you’re alluding to and you look at the damage it did to our Democratic systems and our institutions of government back in 2016. And I’m just trying to get some justice,” he said.
Meanwhile, ex-Cohen attorney Lanny Davis laughed off a suggestion during an MSNBC interview on Sunday that his former client had ever made a trip to Prague to pay Russian hackers.
“No, no Prague, ever, never,” Davis said.
While Cohen's team has long denied he made the trip, the latest denial comes after Cohen pleaded guilty in two separate prosecutions linked to his work for President Trump. Cohen has pledged to cooperate with federal authorities, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has said he has largely done so.
ANTI-TRUMP EX-FBI AGENT STRZOK'S PHONE WIPED AFTER HE WAS FIRED FROM MUELLER'S TEAM
Fox News reported in August that embattled Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had contact in 2016 with then-colleague Andrew Weissmann, who is now a top Mueller deputy, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it.
The sources said Ohr's outreach about the dossier – as well as Steele; the opposition research firm behind it, Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS; and his wife Nellie Ohr's work for Fusion – occurred before and after the FBI fired Steele as a source over his media contacts. Ohr's network of contacts on the dossier included: anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former deputy director Andrew McCabe; Weissmann and at least one other DOJ official; and a current FBI agent who worked with Strzok on the Russia case.
Weissmann was kept "in the loop" on the dossier, a source said, while he was chief of the criminal fraud division. He is now assigned to Mueller’s team.
Ohr's broad circle of contacts indicates members of FBI leadership knew about his backchannel activities regarding the dossier and Steele.
Congressional Republicans are still trying to get to the bottom of Ohr's role in circulating the unverified dossier, which became a critical piece of evidence in obtaining a surveillance warrant for Page in October 2016.

2013 Obama Gov Shutdown Cartoons

Canada is looking for a way out of big Saudi arms deal, says PM

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addresses the premiers of the ten provinces and Indigenous Leaders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, December 7, 2018. REUTERS/Christinne Muschi

December 16, 2018
OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking in an interview that aired on Sunday, said for the first time that his Liberal government was looking for a way out of a multibillion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
The comments represented a notable hardening in tone from Trudeau, who previously said there would be huge penalties for scrapping the $13 billion agreement for armored vehicles made by the Canadian unit of General Dynamics Corp.
Last month, Trudeau said Canada could freeze the relevant export permits if it concluded the weapons had been misused.
“We are engaged with the export permits to try and see if there is a way of no longer exporting these vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” Trudeau told CTV. He did not give further details.
Political opponents, citing the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Yemen war, insist Trudeau should end the General Dynamics deal, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative government.
Relations between Ottawa and Riyadh have been tense since a diplomatic dispute over human rights earlier this year. Ottawa says it has been consulting allies on what steps to take after Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
“The murder of a journalist is absolutely unacceptable and that’s why Canada from the very beginning had been demanding answers and solutions on that,” said Trudeau.

Reporter’s Notebook: DC quietly preparing for shutdown, lest they disturb the Yellies

It was quiet late Friday afternoon on Capitol Hill.
Too quiet.
Precisely zero TV network cameras jutted out into the narrow “Will Rogers” corridor near the House chamber. Not a single reporter was squeezed between the columns in Statuary Hall, ready to do a live shot. A lone TV crew was set up in the Rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building. When one correspondent went on the air, the anchor in New York even remarked about how pronounced the echo sounded in the near-abandoned arcade, reverberating off the arches above.
One wonders if it will be as quiet next Friday night on Capitol Hill, as nine of 15 cabinet departments face a government shutdown at 11:59:59 p.m. ET.
What’s surprising about this potential government shutdown crisis is the silence. The dearth of information. The lack of panic and anxiety.
It’s peculiar to have everyone tiptoeing around Capitol Hill with Washington about to lurch into a holiday calamity.
Perhaps there is only one logical explanation: everyone is concerned about disturbing the Yellies.
The Yellies are a new toy taking Christmas by storm — and driving parents to their liquor cabinets. The Yellies are tiny, fuzzy arachnids. If people talk quietly, the Yellies move about slowly. But the louder people are, the faster they go.
And as you can imagine, kids love yelling and screaming, sending grown-ups into convulsions as the Yellies dart about the house, hitting Mach 2.
This is kind of what’s happening on Capitol Hill. Everyone saw the conclave with President Trump, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York in the Oval Office on Tuesday. They understand the volatility of a government shutdown at Christmastime. So everyone is trying to keep quiet, lest they disturb the Yellies.
There are muted conversations. Not even major exchanges of offers between Capitol Hill and the administration. So everyone is trying to keep quiet, lest they disturb the Yellies.
There has been some chatter that the Trump Administration and Congress may consider a short-term, interim spending bill (known as a Continuing Resolution, or CR), to simply renew all funding through early January and send everyone home for Christmas.
That would fund everything through the new Congress.
A senior Democratic congressional aide tells Fox News that “the only thing a two-week CR would accomplish is that President Trump will lose twice.”
In other words, no wall on December 21. And certainly no wall in January when Democrats control the House.
DEMS, TRUMP REFUSE TO BUDGE OVER BORDER WALL AS FRIDAY SHUTDOWN LOOMS
But a CR would avoid shut down and ensure that federal workers are paid over Christmas. Democrats could be hard-pressed to oppose such an alternative. There aren’t a lot of options available. This is like going into a diner late at night and finding a sign which says “limited menu available.” There is only a limited menu of fare which they can cook up on the Congressional griddle:
1)     Congress approves a CR for the entire fiscal year covering all seven of the outstanding spending bills. That means there is no wall money.
2)     Congress passes brand-new bills for six of the spending areas and does a CR for only the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This scenario also lacks wall money.
3)     Congress okays all seven bills and includes wall money in the Homeland Security measure.
4)     Congress approves a stopgap measure which runs until January or so.
5)     Congress and the president agree on nothing and the government shuts down on December 22.
Something has to give. Either Democrats cave and agree to a package with wall money or Trump caves and accepts measures lacking wall money. It may all be about semantics, too. Can the sides draft a proposal where it appears Democrats didn’t give in on the wall, yet Trump can tout the fact that he in fact did get funding for the wall?
Such a political duckbilled platypus isn’t rare in Washington — especially if everyone can leave the compromise open to interpretation and tell the public they got what they wanted and stood their ground.
Trump has a lot to lose here.
There was much introspection two weeks ago when President George H.W. Bush died and lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda. Historians noted how Bush reneged on his storied campaign promise of “no new taxes.” The government shut down for a few days in early October 1990. To reopen the government and stimulate the struggling economy, Bush backtracked on his “no new taxes” pledge. The tax increase bolstered the economy. But giving in on the campaign promise forever damaged the president and hurt his chances in the 1992 presidential election.
No other campaign promise endears Trump to his loyalists more than the pledge to build the wall. On one hand, failing to go to the mat and not secure the wall could damage Trump. But as one senior Republican observed to Fox News, it doesn’t matter to Trump. His approval rating will always lag in the 30-40 percent range. Anything Trump does won’t move the meter much one way or the other.
“He simply doesn’t care,” observed the lawmaker.
LIBERAL RADIO HOST: DEMS SHOULDN'T TRY TO IMPEACH TRUMP
By the same token, Republicans have tried to say that Pelosi needs to go toe-to-toe with Trump to secure the support of her base. That’s an old argument now. Not long after the election, Trump declared that he’d be willing to help Pelosi secure the necessary votes to become speaker. Well, Trump in fact did help Pelosi in that quest — perhaps unwittingly — during that extraordinary council in the Oval Office Tuesday. Pelosi appeared strong and in control. The exchange certainly bolstered Pelosi standing among House Democrats who were skeptical of her returning to the speaker’s suite. Meantime, the president said he’d take credit for a shutdown.
On Friday night, the President tapped Budget Director and House Freedom Caucus founder Mick Mulvaney to serve as “acting” Chief of Staff. Mulvaney came to Congress in 2010 amid the tea party wave of 2010. Mulvaney backed the push for the two-and-a-half week government shutdown over funding ObamaCare in 2013. He opposed a budget compromise later that year authored by current House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., On Capitol Hill, Mulvaney long advocated slashing federal spending and opposed lifting the debt ceiling. Mulvaney detractors bequeathed him the chairman of the “shutdown caucus” on Capitol Hill.
Bipartisan Congressional sources signaled that the appointment of Mulvaney could increase the chances of a government shutdown because of his hardline stances on spending. In Mulvaney, the president has a loyal warrior to wage his battles on Capitol Hill. The president also scored the best of both worlds: Mulvaney at his side at the White House and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who was considered for the Chief of Staff position, remaining on Capitol Hill, influencing the Freedom Caucus.
How a potential shutdown goes could be an audition for Mulvaney. “Acting” could be stripped from Mulvaney’s title if Trump likes what he sees.
Meantime, things are quiet on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives doesn’t even meet again for legislative business until late in the day Wednesday. No Yellies there. Congressional leaders sometimes squeeze rank-and-file members close to the holidays, threatening to keep them in Washington over Christmas unless they vote for whatever is the subject du jour. However, the tactic of reducing the time available to solve a deal may not be directed at lawmakers this year. The president may be the target of that gambit — an effort to force Trump to take-it-or-leave it, whatever the “it” may ultimately be.
And that’s partly why things are so quiet now on Capitol Hill. No one wants to disturb the Yellies. And expect things to remain quiet until mid-week when the government shutdown is just a few days away.

Top Republican predicts Flynn guilty plea will be thrown out, citing FBI 'misconduct'

A day before fired FBI Director James Comey is set to again testify behind closed doors with House Republicans, a party leader is predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's case against ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will soon be thrown out of court.
California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that the FBI had "tricked" Flynn into not having a lawyer and had improperly "post-dated" documents to "morph" them into critical evidence against him. He promised Comey would face tough questioning about the episode.
"Tomorrow is going to be a very different day for Comey, particularly in light of what we've learned -- the misconduct during the Flynn investigation was all about, thanks to a judge that demanded to understand what had happened," Issa told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's order last week that led Mueller to turn over key documents in the case.
He continued: "I would not be surprised a bit if the conviction of Flynn is overturned, because of the Justice Department and FBI's misconduct -- and that in fact, we go potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, with new protections -- when the FBI and the Department of Justice lies to someone and tricks them into making statements, and then charges them with a lie they entrapped them in. ... This kind of conduct we haven't seen in a long time."
In explosive court documents filed last week by Flynn's legal team, it was revealed that FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
A memo written by then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe stated that he called Flynn and “explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only. ... I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice."
The court documents also showed that the FBI's interview report documenting Flynn's statements -- known as an "FD-302" -- was dated August 22, 2017, nearly seven months after the actual Flynn interview took place in the White House. Additionally, the 302 that Mueller filed apparently describes an interview conducted by federal authorities on July 19, 2017 not with Flynn, but with Peter Strzok, the agent who led the Flynn interview and said he did not feel Flynn was lying at the time.
Strzok was fired from the Russia probe in late July 2017 -- just days after he apparently gave the interview that formed the basis for the 302 -- for his apparent anti-Trump bias. No audio recording or other transcription of Flynn's comments to the FBI has been produced, and none appears to exist.
It was not clear from Mueller's heavily redacted Friday filing whether a written 302 report of Flynn's interview, which FBI policy dictates should have been written soon after the interview was conducted, ever existed. Mueller was required to turn over all Flynn-related memoranda and documents to the court.
ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT'S PHONE WIPED AFTER MUELLER FIRES HIM FOR BIAS -- RECORDS OFFICER CAN'T RECALL IF PHONE HAD TEXTS
Additional documents released by the Mueller team on Friday in response to Judge Sullivan's order reveal that the decision to interview Flynn about his contacts with the Russian ambassador was controversial within the Justice Department. One FBI document said then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates “was not happy” when Comey informed her that the FBI planned to talk to Flynn.
The report also said several unnamed people back at FBI headquarters “later argued about the FBI’s decision to interview Flynn.” On Jan. 23, 2017 -- just one day before the Flynn interview -- The Washington Post, citing FBI sources, reported that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn's conversations with Russian officials and cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Former FBI Director James Comey, with his attorney, David Kelley, right, speaking to reporters after a day of testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 7. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Comey admitted last week that he personally directed two FBI agents to break normal protocol by interviewing Flynn at the White House because he felt the FBI could get "away with" it, early on in the Trump administration, which he characterized as disorganized.
Judge Sullivan technically has the authority to void Flynn's guilty plea and dismiss the case against him if he unearths government misconduct, or finds that the plea would constitute a miscarriage of justice that the court should not accept.
Sullivan -- who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light -- could take that drastic step if he finds that the FBI withheld exculpatory witness reports from the Flynn team, lacks evidentiary basis for its charge, or improperly coerced Flynn into not bringing a lawyer to his fateful January 2017 interview.
GREGG JARRETT: MICHAEL FLYNN IS INNOCENT
Speaking to "Fox News Sunday" earlier in the day, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said Flynn had been "railroaded" and "framed" -- and even though Giuliani acknowledged Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence about his communications with Russia, he said the FBI's conduct was still reprehensible.
"What they did to General Flynn should result in discipline," Giuliani charged. "They’re the ones who are violating the law."
HOW FLYNN WAS PUSHED NOT TO HAVE A LAWYER
In a tweet Sunday, Comey showed no signs of backing down, forcefully condemning President Trump as a "liar" for criticizing federal authorities' raid on his former attorney Michael Cohen.
"Remember, Michael Cohen only became a 'Rat' after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started," Trump wrote on Twitter early Sunday. "They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?"
In April, federal agents raided Cohen's home, office and hotel room as part of their investigation into bank fraud and campaign finance charges he later admitted he had committed. At the time, Trump characterized the move as an "attack on our country" and remarked that "attorney-client privilege is dead."
But later Sunday, Comey emphasized that agents had acted pursuant to a lawful search warrant, and that attorneys are not immune from searches -- especially when they are suspected of engaging in wrongdoing on behalf of clients.
FBI COMPLETELY MISSES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEADLINE TO EXPLAIN MYSTERIOUS RAID ON CLINTON WHISTLEBLOWER
"This is from the President of our country, lying about the lawful execution of a search warrant issued by a federal judge," Comey wrote on Twitter. "Shame on Republicans who don’t speak up at this moment — for the FBI, the rule of law, and the truth."
Any communications with attorneys in furtherance of a new crime are not usually protected by any privilege. A special master was appointed in the case by a federal court judge to ensure that Trump's privileged communications were separated from non-privileged ones.
Cohen, who as Trump's attorney also had the ability to compromise Trump's attorney-client privilege by disclosing their communications himself, was sentenced this week to 36 months in prison.
The former Trump loyalist had earlier claimed in court that he had committed a campaign finance violation "at the direction" of Trump -- although top legal experts and a former Federal Election Commission chairman have said that obtaining a criminal conviction for such alleged violations is often extremely difficult.
Comey testified earlier this month behind closed doors with House Republicans probing his oversight of the Hillary Clinton email probes and the early days of the Russia investigation. He is expected back on Monday for more testimony.
After he was questioned by House Republicans the first time on Dec. 7, Comey derided the GOP -- which will lose the majority in the House in January, and with it their subpoena power -- as hopeless partisans.
"Today wasn’t a search for truth, but a desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating this president," Comey said. "They came up empty today, but will try again. In the long run, it'll make no difference because facts are stubborn things."
COMEY ADMITS FBI AGENTS BROKE PROTOCOL, GOT 'AWAY WITH' FLYNN INTERVIEW WITHOUT INVOLVING LAWYERS
A key focus of questioning from lawmakers was Comey's decision to draft the 2016 statement recommending against filing criminal charges in the Clinton email probe before the former secretary of state was even interviewed, as well as the alleged political bias demonstrated in a slew of text messages and leaks by top FBI officials.

"What they did to General Flynn should result in discipline."
— Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani

But a Justice Department lawyer prevented Comey -- who had briefly sued to avoid testifying behind closed doors, before dropping that effort -- from answering all of the Republicans' questions, according to lawmakers at the hearing.
A 235-page transcript of Comey's remarks and the questions posed to him was later released, pursuant to an agreement between Comey and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
It showed that Comey claimed “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” in response to dozens of questions concerning key details about his time as FBI chief.
Asked if he recalled who drafted the FBI’s “initiation document” for the July 2016 Russia investigation, Comey said, “I do not.” He again claimed not to know when asked about the involvement in that initiation of Strzok, whose anti-Trump texts later got him removed from the special counsel’s probe.
When asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey gave a lengthy answer referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as to why he couldn’t answer.
“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server?” Comey asked rhetorically. “I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”
When pressed further by Gowdy about what “factual predicate” the bureau had to launch a counterintelligence investigation, Comey again claimed that answering that question would be a “slope” that would ask him to reveal what the FBI “did or didn’t know about Russia activity” as it related to the 2016 election.
“You can't tell us, or you won't tell us?” Gowdy asks.
“Probably a combination of both ... To the extent I recall facts developed during our investigation of Russian interference and the potential connection of Americans, I think that's a question that the FBI doesn't want me answering. So it's both a can't and a won't,” Comey replied.
MORE DETAILS: COMEY ROUND-ONE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED
The former FBI director went on to say that anything related to Mueller’s investigation, to his understanding, would be “off limits" as it is an ongoing investigation.
Comey was also fuzzy on the eventual Democratic funding of the research that went into the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.
Asked when he learned that the firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, was hired by law firm Perkins Coie – and when he learned that law firm was hired by the Democratic National Committee – Comey said, “I never learned that” while director.
Comey also claimed not to know key details surrounding the involvement of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the dossier.
Asked when Steele was “terminated” as an FBI source, Comey said he didn’t know.
Asked about Steele’s subsequent contact with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, Comey said, “I don’t know anything about that.”

Dems, White House refuse to budge over border wall as Friday shutdown looms

The Trump administration Sunday reaffirmed the president's insistence that he would allow a partial shutdown of the federal government if Congress does not provide $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, with senior adviser Stephen Miller calling it a "fundamental issue."
"At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country," Miller told CBS News' "Face The Nation." "The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump, talks to reporters at the White House, Aug. 2, 2017. (Getty Images)

"At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country. The Democrat Party has a simple choice. They can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration. You can't do both."
— Stephen Miller, senior adviser to President Trump

When asked if the administration was willing to allow parts of the government to cease operation at midnight Friday if the wall is not funded, Miller answered: "If it comes to it, absolutely."
On NBC News' "Meet The Press," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insisted that President Trump "is not going to get the wall in any form."
"President Trump should understand, there are not the votes for the wall in the House or the Senate," Schumer said. "Even the House, which is a majority Republican, they don't have the votes for his $5 billion wall plan ... And we should not let a temper tantrum, threats, push us in the direction of doing something that everybody, even our Republican colleagues, know is wrong."
Trump said last week he would be "proud" to have a shutdown to get Congress to approve a $5 billion down payment to fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Still, the president doesn't have the votes from the Republican-controlled Congress to support funding for the wall at that level.
Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have proposed no more than $1.6 billion for border fencing upgrades and other security measures -- but not a wall -- as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill. Democrats also offered to keep funding at its current level, $1.3 billion.
"[Republicans] should join us in one of these two proposals, which would get more than enough votes passed and avoid a shutdown," Schumer said. "Then, if the president wants to debate the wall next year, he can. I don't think he'll get it. But he shouldn't use innocent workers as hostage for his temper tantrum to sort of throw a bone to his base."
Both parties in Congress have suggested that Trump would need to make the next move to resolve the impasse. The House is taking an extended weekend break, returning Wednesday night. The Senate returns Monday after a three-day absence.
Trump neither accepted nor rejected the Democrats' proposal as of Friday, according to the Democrats, telling them he would take a look. Trump would need Democratic votes either now or in the new year, for passage.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told "Face The Nation" that Republicans remained hopeful they could come up with a proposal that would be acceptable to Trump and pass both chambers. He suggested that could take the form of a stopgap bill extending funding until January or a longer-term bill including money for border security.
"There are a lot of things you need to do with border security," he said. "One is a physical barrier but also the technology, the manpower, the enforcement, all of those things, and our current laws are in some ways an incentive for people to come to this country illegally, and they go through great risk and possibly great harm."
Appearing on ABC News' "This Week," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, urged senators to revisit a bill she helped push earlier this year that would provide $2.5 billion for border security, including physical barriers as well as technology and border patrol agents.
"There's absolutely no excuse to shut down government on this issue or any other issue," said Collins, who added of her proposal: "I hope it would be good enough for the president ... There's a compromise and people will come to the table in good faith on both sides. We have to prevent a government shutdown."

Voter ID Cartoons

North Carolina GOP vows to override Dem governor’s veto of voter ID bill

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed voter ID legislation that more than 55 percent of the state’s voters had approved in a referendum. (Chris Seward/The News & Observer via AP)

Republican leaders in North Carolina’s GOP-dominated General Assembly vowed late Friday to override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a state voter identification bill.
Earlier Friday, Cooper said no to the legislation, which more than 55 percent of the state’s voters had approved in a recent referendum.
The referendum called for the state’s constitution to add an amendment requiring in-person voter photo ID.
“Requiring photo IDs for in-person voting is a solution in search of a problem,” Cooper said in a statement.
But state Republicans saw the governor’s action as a rejection of the will of state residents.
“We are disappointed that Gov. Cooper chose to ignore the will of the people and reject a commonsense election integrity measure that is common in most states, but the North Carolina House will override his veto as soon as possible,” state House Speaker Tim Moore said in a statement.

"We are disappointed that Gov. Cooper chose to ignore the will of the people and reject a commonsense election integrity measure that is common in most states."
— North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore

“Despite the governor's personal feelings on voter ID, the fact remains that the constitutional amendment passed with a broad mandate from North Carolinians," GOP Senate leader Phil Berger added, calling Cooper's arguments a “tired rehash of unconvincing talking points rejected by the voters.”
Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate in North Carolina, so an override would succeed if GOP lawmakers remain united on the issue. Votes could occur next week. GOP lawmakers are acting now because, come January, they will no longer have supermajorities because of Democratic gains made on Election Day.
The bill would expand the number of qualifying forms of ID and exceptions compared to legislation blocked earlier this decade. Republicans say the changes will ensure that everyone lawfully registered to vote can cast a ballot.
Permitted IDs would include traditional driver's licenses and military identification, student IDs from colleges and universities, and employee ID cards for state and local governments. Those IDs must meet certain security thresholds.
There also would be a new, free, photo voter identification card produced by county election boards. People having trouble obtaining an ID could fill out forms at the polling site, and their ballots likely would be counted too.
Democratic legislators acknowledge that voter ID rules are necessary because of the referendum, but they say the details are being rushed, are complex and will prevent some minorities and poor people from voting.
Cooper’s veto came at the urging of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause NC, Equality NC and the Washington-based Campus Vote Project of the Fair Elections Center, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.
The governor suggested that the integrity of absentee ballots was a greater concern for the state.
"Instead, the real election problem is votes harvested illegally through absentee ballots, which this proposal fails to fix," he said, referencing an investigation of alleged absentee ballot fraud in the state's 9th Congressional District in November's election.
He added that the bill's fundamental flaw was a "sinister and cynical" attempt to suppress the voting rights of minorities, the poor, and the elderly.
Federal judges struck down a 2013 state law that included photo ID and other voting restrictions, ruling they were approved with intentional racial discrimination in mind. Republicans strongly disagreed and put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to give them more legal and popular standing to require voter ID.

Hillary Clinton writes letter consoling girl, 8, who ran for class president against boy -- and lost

Please just shut up and go away.

Hillary Clinton surprised an 8-year-old girl with a letter earlier this month after the elementary school student lost an election for class president to a boy by a single vote.
Martha Kennedy Morales, a third-grader at a private Quaker school in College Park, Md., decided to run for the top office as part of a lesson on government in which elections for class president and Congress were held, the Washington Post reported. Morales told the paper she lost to a “popular” fourth-grade boy and was affirmed as vice president.
“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys,” Clinton wrote in a consoling letter obtained by the Post.

“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys.”
— Hillary Clinton

Clinton went on to praise the student by relating her own experience losing to now-President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic nominee won the popular vote by a few million but lost in the Electoral College.
TOP HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS IN NH DON'T BUY THE IDEA OF ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE RUN
“The most important thing is that you fought for what you believed in, and that is always worth it,” Clinton wrote.
Morales is now working on writing the former secretary of state a thank-you note, according to the Post.