Gillibrand tells Colbert she's forming presidential exploratory committee

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced during a taping of Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" on Tuesday night that she has formed an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential run, reversing her previous reassurances that she would continue to serve in the Senate instead.
Gillibrand, 52, will be entering an increasingly crowded field of Democrats seeking to unseat President Trump. She spoke largely in generalities on Tuesday, as she vowed to take on powerful "special interests" and work on behalf of children.
"I'm filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States, tonight," Gillibrand said, holding Colbert's hands as she spoke, in a video posted by CBS Tuesday afternoon. "I'm going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom, I'm going to fight for other people's kids as hard as I would fight for my own -- which is why I believe health care should be a right, not a privilege."
Fox News has learned that Gillibrand is heading to Iowa, which hosts the pivotal first-in-the-nation caucuses, on Friday for a meeting and fundraiser with local Democrats.
Less than three months ago, Gillibrand promised when asked directly about her possible White House ambitions that "I will serve my six-year term" in the Senate, rather than run for the presidency. Gillibrand won re-election in 2018, after being appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's seat in 2009.
New York GOP spokeswoman Jessica Proud had much the same criticism.
In a statement on Tuesday, she said: “It was only three months ago during the campaign that Kirsten Gillibrand point-blank lied to New Yorkers that she would fulfill her term if re-elected. In her lackluster career as an elected official, she has demonstrated a disturbing disregard for the truth and principled positions in the name of self-serving personal advancement. If she treats her current constituents with such disrespect, we shudder to think what she’d do to the nation.”
Added Republican National Committee (RNC) spokesman Michael Ahrens: “If you looked up ‘political opportunism’ in the dictionary, Kirsten Gillibrand’s photo would be next to it. From jumping on the ‘abolish ICE’ bandwagon to turning on the Clintons, Gillibrand always goes where the political wind blows. Democrats know it, which is why she’s barely registering in the polls.”
In her interview with Colbert, Gillibrand focused on providing equality of opportunity, which she said is currently "impossible."
"It's why I believe we should have better public schools for our kids, because it shouldn't matter what block you grow up on," she said. "And I believe that anybody who wants to work hard enough should be able to get whatever job training they need to be able to earn their way into the middle class.
"But you are never going to accomplish any of this things if you don't take on the systems of power that make all of that impossible, which is taking on institutional racism, it's taking on the corruption and greed in Washington, taking on the special interests that write legislation in the dead of night," Gillibrand concluded, haltingly and frequently interrupted by applause. "And I know that I have the compassion, the courage, and the fearless determination to get that done."
GILIBRAND MOCKED AS A PANDERER FOR SAYING THE FUTURE IS 'FEMALE,' 'INTERSECTIONAL'
Colbert's full interview with Gillibrand will air later Tuesday night.
Republicans, and some on the left, have recently criticized Gillibrand for apparently attempting to shed her moderate and establishment roots by pivoting deliberately and dramatically towards the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Analyst Nate Silver noted that Gillibrand has "the most anti-Trump voting record of any Democratic senator" -- but, he added, "that comes after she had a pretty moderate record when she was a House member from Upstate New York. Maybe it's not a bad thing in a system of representative government to change positions when you change constituencies, but she often gets accused of being opportunistic."
In December, Gillibrand was roundly mocked as a sexist panderer after saying the future is “female” and “intersectional."
“Our future is: Female, Intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started,” Gillibrand wrote in a tweet.
Critics immediately claimed Gillibrand was trying to virtue signal to progressives ahead of run for president in 2020, looking to portray herself as a feminist firebrand.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for one, fired back at Gillibrand, saying “our future is: AMERICAN.”
“An identity based not on gender, race, ethnicity or religion. But on the powerful truth that all people are created equal with a God given right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness,” he added.
Gillibrand would become the fifth Democrat — and second senator — to jump into a presidential primary that could ultimately feature dozens of candidates. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts along with former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii are among those who have taken steps toward a 2020 run. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California could also enter the race soon.
While Gillibrand's prominence as a face of her party has grown, she faces a tough battle to capture the attention of Democratic voters in a crowded field that's expected to include multiple women. Several of her potential rivals have spent more time in critical primary states while Gillibrand has visited one — New Hampshire — in October to stump for the Democratic candidate for governor.
She's expected to move quickly this week to make connections in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa. She's scheduled to headline a meeting with Democratic activists in Sioux City on Friday evening. The event is to be held at a private home with top donors to the Woodbury County Democratic Party.
Gillibrand has been in touch with some Iowa Democrats and enlisted the help of Lara Henderson, who was finance director for Fred Hubbell, the 2018 Democratic candidate for governor. But she hasn't built up a network in the state to the degree of prospective rivals, including Booker and Harris.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., with actress and comedian Amy Schumer, right, speaks at a rally against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 4, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

She was appointed to the Senate in 2009 to succeed Clinton, who became secretary of state, and she easily won re-election, most recently in November. She has $10.6 million in her campaign fund, which can be used to jump-start a presidential bid.
During her time in the Senate, Gillibrand has been a central figure in Washington's reckoning with the #MeToo era.
In 2017, she was the first Senate Democrat to call on Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, a fellow Democrat, to resign amid multiple sexual misconduct allegations. That landed her in hot water with some of her colleagues and progressive supporters, who felt Franken was unfairly maligned.
Gillibrand has also said President Bill Clinton should have stepped down after his relationship with a White House intern was revealed and has also called on President Donald Trump to resign over sexual assault allegations.
And before #MeToo, Gillibrand spent several years pushing for legislation addressing sexual assault in the military and on college campuses.
In recent weeks, Gillibrand has worked to expand her fundraising network and improve her standing among key voting blocs, including African-American voters.

Despite polls blaming Trump, Dems ‘run the risk’ of owning shutdown if they won't negotiate: Tom Bevan

As the partial shutdown continues, Democrats risk losing the upper hand if they continue refusing to negotiate a compromise with Republicans to reopen the government, Real Clear Politics founder Tom Bevan warned Tuesday.
Recent polls show Americans overwhelmingly blame President Trump and the GOP for the partial shutdown, which began Dec. 22 and is the longest in U.S. history. Meanwhile, House Democrats boycotted a meeting at the White House that was meant to sort out their differences over border security.
On the "Special Report" All-Star panel Tuesday night, Bevan weighed in on the current status of the political showdown, along with former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson.
Bevan began by saying that despite poll data showing Americans blame Trump for the shutdown, Democrats are ‘starting to run the risk’ of taking ownership as well.
“Not even showing up to bargain at all, and even arrogance -- being on junkets in Puerto Rico while the government is shut down -- that’s not a good look for Democrats and that may end up hurting them in the long run if this continues to go on,” Bevan told the panel.
The Real Clear Politics founder added that Trump still has the "national emergency" option “in his back pocket” in order to build the border wall he campaigned on in 2016.
Fleischer argued that the word “compromise” used to be honorable and that it needs to become honorable again.
“You cannot have an answer to a governmental problem when the Senate wants to pass some $6 billion for the wall, the House wants to pass some $0 billion for a wall and the answer not be around three,” Fleischer said. “When one party says the answer is ‘zero, zero, zero’ and their only answer is ‘zero,’ we have a breakdown. I’m certain the Senate will go below six, I’m not certain the House will ever go above zero That’s the problem with compromise. If you’re not gonna meet the other body halfway, the problem is you -- and the problem is the House because they will not compromise.”
Liasson said the ongoing shutdown battle has “mind-boggled” her since “nobody is looking for the win-win solution.”
“Both sides do want border security. They define it differently. That’s how compromises are made,” Liasson said.

Ocasio-Cortez set to join Maxine Waters on key financial services committee

Self-described socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on Twitter late Tuesday that she will join California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters on the influential House Financial Services Committee, which oversees Wall Street and the housing industry.
California Rep. Katie Porter, Michigan's Rashida Tlaib, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, and Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley have also reportedly been tapped for the committee by Democratic House leaders, and a vote finalizing their appointments is expected within days.
"I am very grateful for the opportunity to sit on this committee as a freshman, and look forward to working under the leadership of @RepMaxineWaters!" Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter late Tuesday. "Financial Services is one of just four exclusive committees in the House. It oversees big banks, lending, & the financial sector."
She added: "Personally, I’m looking forward to digging into the student loan crisis, examining for-profit prisons/ICE detention, and exploring the development of public & postal banking. To start."
The roles would afford the rising far-left Democrats a powerful platform to pursue the sweeping reforms they campaigned on, even as some moderate liberals voiced concerns that intra-party clashes would be inevitable. Ocasio-Cortez, 29, has suggested that the nation's largest banks should be broken up, and she shunned corporate donations during her House run last year.
Waters, the chair of the financial services committee, has vowed to counteract the Trump administration's 2018 rollback of the Dodd-Frank legislation, which the White House called "disastrous" and overbroad.
"Make no mistake, come January, in this committee, the days of this committee weakening regulations and putting our economy once again at risk of another financial crisis will come to an end," Waters said last year.
But other Democrats have sounded notes of caution about Ocasio-Cortez in particular, given her willingness to spar with Democratic leaders and her relatively radical agenda.

House Committee on Financial Services Ranking Member Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., left, listens during a hearing, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

“I don’t know enough about her to be able to determine if she’s going to be a good member or what,” Missouri Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay, who sits on the financial services committee and who was challenged in 2018 by a Democratic candidate backed by Ocasio-Cortez, told Politico. “Time will tell, and this one term will tell us a lot about her abilities as a legislator.”
Another financial services committee member, New York Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks, backed Ocasio-Cortez's appointment to the committee but told the paper that he had some reservations.
HARRY REID SWIPES AT OCASIO-CORTEZ TAX PROPOSAL
"I don't want a scenario like they had on the Republican side — I don't think we're going to get there — where you had a Freedom Caucus that ends up just trying to break and stop everything and any kind of progress," Meeks said. The conservative House Freedom Caucus frequently sparred with more moderate House Republicans, particularly on immigration, last year.
Ocasio-Cortez, 29, has made no secret of her progressive approach to the financial industry. She has called for "taxing Wall Street to support tuition-free public universities and trade schools," and has argued that the banks she will soon oversee have long held undue influence in American politics.
But she has struggled to explain how she would fund her proposals to provide Medicare for all and guarantee housing and education, and has falsely claimed that wasteful military spending could be reappropriated to pay for her laundry list of policy goals.
The news of the progressives' appointment to the financial services committee was a win for progressive groups, who just last week voiced their disapproval when House Democratic leaders passed over Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib for membership on other powerful committees. The Steering and Policy Committee, chaired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, formally assigns members to committees.
Tlaib, 42, apologized earlier in the month for causing a "distraction" by calling President Trump a "motherf---er" and promising to impeach him. Just days later, she attracted negative press attention again by suggesting that some Republicans have a "dual loyalty" to the U.S. and Israel.
Tlaib was photographed this month wearing Palestinian robes with Sarsour, a proponent of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Farrakhan has compared Jews to termites and praised Hitler.
"They forgot what country they represent," Tlaib, a Palestinian-American who made history by becoming one of the first two Muslim women to ever serve in Congress, wrote on Twitter, referring to Senate Republicans pushing a pro-Israel bill during the ongoing partial federal government shutdown.
In the wake of those comments, Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, announced last week that Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez had not been selected to join that panel. The Ways and Means Committee has vast authority over taxation, as well as Social Security and Medicare. New York Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi was named to the panel instead of Ocasio-Cortez.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., left, talks with Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., center, and Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., right, as they head to a group photo with the women of the 116th Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 4, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The far-left advocacy group Justice Democrats had called for Ocasio-Cortez, as well as California Rep. Ro Khanna, to be seated on Ways and Means. Responding to the snub by the committee, Ocasio-Cortez spokesman Corbin Trent said that "she hoped to be on it, but we're excited to see what committees she does get."
GROWING NUMBER OF 2020 DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING RADICAL 'GREEN NEW DEAL'
Khanna had also personally sought membership on that panel, and advocated for more freshmen representatives to be seated on powerful committees in general.
"Progressive representation on key House committees will decide whether or not we get Medicare For All, free college, a Green New Deal, and end to mass deportation and mass incarceration," Jusice Democrats said in a statement on their website.
The statement continued: "Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders of the most powerful Congressional Committees are going to decide whether progressives or corporate-backed centrists will represent us in the fight for economic, racial, social and environmental justice."
Earlier this month, over the last-minute objections of Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna, House Democrats overwhelmingly approved most of a sweeping new rules package that effectively placed restrictions on some new spending. Progressive groups said the limitation would hinder them from realizing some of their more aggressive goals.
Ocasio-Cortez had voted with Khanna to oppose the so-called "pay-go" rule included in the rules package, supported by Pelosi. That rule requires that any new mandatory spending for entitlements or tax cuts be offset by other separate revenue increases (such as tax hikes) or budget-cutting measures so that the new spending does not expand the federal deficit.
The pay-go principle, Ocasio-Cortez charged in a tweet Wednesday, was a "dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare" and other legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., administers the House oath of office to Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., during ceremonial swearing-in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019, during the opening session of the 116th Congress. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Also shot down was Justice Democrats' bid to have Tlaib placed on the Appropriations Committee, which announced a list of new members on Thursday that did not include Tlaib. The critical committee handles government expenditures.
“In my 12 years here, I don’t think there’s ever been a freshman on Approps, Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce," Kentucky Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, who chairs the Budget committee, told Politico.  Democratic Reps. Ed Case and Ann Kirkpatrick are expected to join Appropriations instead.
But Justice Democrats has also campaigned for progressive California Rep. Katie Porter to join the financial services committee, a goal that was achieved on Tuesday.
Porter, a law professor, has repeatedly said she does not take money from corporate political action committees, which she characterizes as a corrupting influence.

Beto O'Rourke Cartoons

Beto O'Rourke mocked after offering few answers in wide-ranging policy interview

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues.
O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.
Speaking to Johnson in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria.
At one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution.
The article even included an apparent shot by at O'Rourke from former Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who told The Post he was “very pleasantly surprised” that O'Rourke -- who represented a mostly Hispanic district during his three terms in the House of Representatives -- was "suddenly interested" in immigration reform efforts last year.
Asked what could be done about illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas,  O'Rourke told Johnson simply, “I don’t know."
MSNBC'S BRIAN WILLIAMS MOCKS O'ROURKE FOR INSTAGRAMMING TRIP TO THE DENTIST
Asked about the planned Syria pullout, he responded that there should be "a debate, a discussion, a national conversation about why we’re there, why we fight, why we sacrifice the lives of American service members, why we’re willing to take the lives of others. ... There may be a very good reason to do it. I don’t necessarily understand — and I’ve been a member of Congress for six years. ... We haven’t had a meaningful discussion about these wars since 2003.”
Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?  Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
Johnson, who said she spent two hours in all with O'Rourke on a tour of the border, said her interview revealed that the potential 2020 contender has an apparent preference for questioning rather than answering.
"When it comes to immigration policy and changing the way things are, he has few solutions — and would rather debate and discuss the topic," Johnson wrote on Twitter.
Other commentators were less forgiving,
"This last bit – where he suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution? – is wild," wrote senior Huffington Post political reporter Kevin Robillard.
"In WaPo interview, Beto O'Rourke displays striking lack of knowledge about immigration. Just knows one thing: He's against a wall," Washington Examiner chief political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York wrote on Twitter.
"Beto might have to figure out what he thinks about Syria before the first debate," commented CNN political reporter Rebecca Buck.
O'Rourke will have another opportunity for a major interview on the national stage in just a matter of weeks -- with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, as part of "Oprah's SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square" on Feb. 5.
He'll speak to Winfrey one-on-one as part of an event featuring others, including actors Bradley Cooper and Michael B. Jordan.
In the meantime, O'Rourke has been visible --- and some critics say, perhaps too visible -- on Instagram Live.
"So, I'm here at the dentist," the former Democrat congressman said with a giggle during a teeth-cleaning seen live on the service last week, before quizzing the dental hygienist about life along the U.S.-Mexico border. ( "Thank God this wasn’t Beto’s day to see the proctologist," MSNBC anchor Brian Williams joked, quoting online reactions to O'Rourke's stream.)
Influential activists in Iowa and elsewhere are clamoring for Beto to get in the presidential race, and The Post's article noted that numerous onlookers interrupted their interview with him to urge him to run.

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2018, file photo, Beto O'Rourke, the 2018 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, gives the thumbs up as he takes the stage to speak at the Pan American Neighborhood Park in Austin, Texas. O'Rourke didn't turn Texas blue, but for the first time in decades, it's looking much less red. Texas has long been a laboratory of conservatism. But cracks in the GOP's supremacy are emerging. The results could reverberate nationally. (Nick Wagner/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

"They're not going to wait forever," Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, said of Democratic campaign operatives, donors, activists and fellow politicians looking to pick sides or offer endorsements. "The more candidates who start to formally launch their candidacies, the greater the pressure will rise on Beto."
Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren announced on New Year's Eve that she'd formed a presidential exploratory committee, hoping to get an early jump on people such as O'Rourke, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Corey Booker of New Jersey, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Kamala Harris of California.
Although O'Rourke has not yet entered the 2020 fray, his influence on the race so far has been apparent. In a move that channeled O'Rourke and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Warren broadcast herself in her kitchen on New Year's Eve using Instagram Live, drinking a beer and thanking her husband for his presence.
But O'Rourke's appeal proved difficult to properly emulate. On Sunday, following a range of negative reactions to Warren's broadcast on social media, President Trump dubbed the stilted encounter "Elizabeth Warren's beer catastrophe."

Judge orders Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes to answer written Benghazi questions in Clinton email lawsuit

Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes (Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department's response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied a request by the conservative group Judicial Watch to make Rice and Rhodes sit for depositions, but agreed to have them answer written questions. He also agreed to Judicial Watch's request to depose the State Department about the preparation of talking points for Rice, then President Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of appearances on political talk shows the Sunday following the attack. That deposition is part of Judicial Watch's inquiry into whether the State Department acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned.
CLINTON'S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER AMONG 'GRAVEST' OFFENSES TO TRANSPARENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Rice initially claimed on several talk shows that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam video. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
"Rice's talking points and State's understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case," Lamberth wrote in a 16-page order.
Lamberth added that "State's role in the [talking] points' content and development could shed light on Clinton's motives for shielding her emails from [Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State's reluctance to search her emails."
Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch to seek written answers from Bill Priestap, the former assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Priestap, who supervised the bureau's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, retired from government service at the end of last year.
“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”
The judge's order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton's use of a private email account was "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and said the response of the State and Justice Departments "smacks of outrageous misconduct."
As part of the discovery, Judicial Watch can depose Jacob Sullivan, Clinton's former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and Justin Cooper, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped arrange the setup of Hillary Clinton's private email address and server.
Judicial Watch said the discovery period will conclude within 120 days. A post-discovery hearing will then be held to determine whether additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, may be deposed.

AG nominee Barr backs Trump on border wall, but parts with president on Russia probe questions

President Trump’s nominee for attorney general William Barr told senators during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday that he supports the president’s call for new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, while departing from the president’s public stances on the Russia probe.
The hearing ended Tuesday evening with few fireworks, and Barr appeared likely to sail to confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate. Even so, some Democrats sounded the alarm, with Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal charging that Barr had indicated he would exploit legal "loopholes" to hide Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report from the public and to resist subpoenas against the White House.
"I will commit to providing as much information as I can, consistent with the regulations," Barr had told Blumenthal, when asked if he would ensure that Mueller's full report was publicly released.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said afterwards that he was satisfied that Barr was the "right man for the job." He added that Democrats had asked appropriate questions -- in stark contrast to what he called the "sham" that occured during the confirmation hearings of now-Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I voted for Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch — not because I agreed with their political philosophy or policy positions — but because I thought they were qualified," Graham said in a statement Tuesday evening, referring to the two Obama-appointed attorneys general. "I’m asking no more of Democrats than I asked of myself.  I am hopeful Democrats will support this fine man."
Barr faced an array of questions on topics ranging from criminal justice to immigration. Asked about the ongoing partial federal government shutdown, Barr said, "I would like to see a deal reached whereby Congress recognizes that it's imperative to have border security, and part of border security, as a common sense matter, involves barriers.”
Barr said a “barrier system across the border” is needed for stopping illegal immigration and the “influx of drugs."

Attorney General nominee William Barr thanks his grandson Liam Daly, right, for a mint as he returns from a break in testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. As he did almost 30 years ago, Barr is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to make the case he's qualified to serve as attorney general. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

But Barr – who pledged during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing to not interfere with Mueller's Russia investigation – also asserted his independence from Trump on statements related to the probe.
Under questioning, Barr said he doesn’t believe “Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt” – something the president has repeatedly argued. Barr said he has known Mueller “personally and professionally for 30 years,” having worked together at the Justice Department.
“That’s why I said… I don’t subscribe to this ‘lock her up’ stuff,” Barr said at one point, referring to a common chant at Trump's campaign rallies that refers usually to Hillary Clinton.
He also said former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was right to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign, something that infuriated the president and helped lead to Sessions' removal last year.
Barr also unequivocally said he believes Russia attempted to interfere with the election and said he supports an investigation "to get to bottom of it."
“I will follow the Special Counsel regulations scrupulously and in good faith, and on my watch, Bob will be allowed to complete his work,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Attorney General nominee William Barr testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. As he did almost 30 years ago, Barr is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to make the case he's qualified to serve as attorney general. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

But Barr also staked out positions that will be welcomed by Trump, including his commitment to look into anti-Trump bias at the FBI during the 2016 campaign. The nominee said he was “shocked” by the anti-Trump texts that were famously sent between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
The White House expressed its support for Barr in a statement Tuesday, with press secretary Sarah Sanders telling Fox News, "He is a very honorable man, doing what he believes – and the president respects that. The president thinks he will be a great Attorney General.”
Graham kicked off Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Barr by saying the Justice Department needs a new leader to “right the ship over there.”
“We’ve got a lot of problems at the Department of Justice,” Graham said. “Morale is low and we need to change that. I look forward to this hearing. You will be challenged. You should be challenged.”
Barr, 68, was nominated by the president to lead the Justice Department in December, after Sessions resigned at Trump’s request in November.
Barr previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993, and his confirmation hearings nearly 30 years ago went off largely without incident.
During the hearing, Barr's past comments about the Mueller investigation attracted scrutiny, including an unsolicited memo he sent the Justice Department last year criticizing the special counsel's inquiry into whether Trump had sought to obstruct justice. Barr, as head of the Justice Department, would take over from acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker and oversee Mueller's work.
“The memo, there will be a lot of talk about it, as there should be,” Graham said.
Ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the memo raises questions about Barr's approach to the Russia probe.
“Importantly, the attorney general must be willing to resist political pressure and be committed to protecting this investigation,” Feinstein said.
Barr sought to explain the memo, telling lawmakers he distributed it so “other lawyers would have the benefit of my views.”
“The memo did not address – or in any way question – the special counsel’s core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election,” Barr said. “Nor did it address other potential obstruction-of-justice theories or argue, as some have erroneously suggested, that a president can never obstruct justice.”

Attorney General nominee William Barr, right, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. Barr will face questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday about his relationship with Trump, his views on executive powers and whether he can fairly oversee the special counsel's Russia investigation. Barr served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Democrats on the committee asked questions about his past relationship with the president. Barr acknowledged meeting Trump once in 2017, saying he made clear his disinterest at the time in joining Trump’s legal private legal team because “I didn’t want to stick my head into that meat grinder."
Asked by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin about the hypothetical of being pressured into doing something he disagreed with, Barr replied, “I will not be bullied into doing anything that is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards, Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.”
Barr was introduced Tuesday by former Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a former longtime member of the committee who retired and was replaced by Sen. Mitt Romney this year.
It’s the first major Judiciary Committee hearing since the dramatic testimony last year during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Several Democratic senators thought to be potential presidential contenders in 2020 -- including Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar -- are among those questioning Barr.
To be confirmed, Barr will need to garner a simple majority of votes in the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 of the Senate's 100 seats.

As new U.S.-bound caravan grows to more than 2,000, Mexicans lash out

As a new caravan that began in Honduras and quickly swelled to an estimated 2,000 people made its way toward Mexico on Tuesday, Mexicans who live along the border towns that will likely be most affected took to the Internet to lash out against another wave of migrants.
“Work? Yes, there might be work for people who actually want to work, not for the lazy bums looking for entitlements,” said one commenter, with the screen name Azucena Santos, in Spanish on a YouTube page belonging to Shialeweb, who was recording the caravan. “Poor Mexicans, what’s in store for you!”
Juan Palomina remarked: “Now look, let’s see if whacko [Mexican President} Lopez Obrador mobilizes the Marines and keeps these idiots from coming to Mexico. Give them enough to eat, at least.”
Some urged the migrants not to be blindly optimistic.
“People of Honduras, all of you who are spinning these grand illusions and getting ready to come on this caravan and in any future others, before you leave your country, please inform yourself about how people who’ve already come on previous caravans are faring in Tijuana,” said Belem Gonzales.
“Mexico is just like your country,” Gonzales added. “There are many problems and needs, and you’re not going to be much better off than you were in Honduras. Please don’t trust these manipulative agitators who are encouraging you to risk everything for nothing.”
Luis Mendez was far more unwelcoming. “We do not want caravans of (emojis of rats). Fight conditions in your own country. You are not welcome here.”
By Tuesday afternoon, a caravan that started with about 500 people grew to about 2,000, according to a representative from the Honduras National Commission of Human Rights, which travels with the caravan.
Word of the caravan’s departure was out at least as far back as last week. The newspaper La Prensa, of Honduras, reported on Jan. 9 that a caravan was scheduled to leave from San Pedro Sula on Tuesday - though the first group left the evening before.

Migrants hoping to reach the U.S. wait in line to board a bus toward Honduras' border with Guatemala, as hundreds of migrants set off by bus or on foot from a main bus station in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, late Monday, Jan. 14, 2019. Yet another caravan of Central American migrants set out Monday from Honduras, seeking to reach the U.S. border following the same route followed by thousands on at least three caravans last year. (AP Photo/Delmer Martinez)

The newspaper attributed the information to the immigration advocacy group “Pueblos Sin Fronteras,” or “Communities Without Borders,” as well as to “Dignificacion Humana,” or “Dignifying Humans.” Both groups said that some 4,000 migrants in all would end up being part of the caravan.
The hostile social media comments on Tuesday are the latest reflection of tensions that have simmered since the caravans began last year. The tension is particularly prevalent in Mexican cities like Tijuana, where many of the migrants are being held in overcrowded shelters.
Some say the concerns by people in receiving communities are, even if pointed, understandable. But others say the migrants deserve compassion for trying to flee conditions – often life-threatening – they did not create, and cannot control.
The mix of exasperated migrants in overtaxed shelters and Mexican residents growing increasingly concerned about strains on communities has led to a number of clashes. In November, for instance, about 300 Tijuana residents held an anti-caravan demonstration at the same time Central American migrants were holding a protest. The dueling demonstrations ended in a huge fight, with police stepping in and escorting the migrants to various shelters.
On its website, the immigrant advocacy group “Consejo Noruego para los Refugiados,” which is based in Colombia and has various offices in Latin America, decried the backlash against the caravan on “growing xenophobia in the U.S., as well as in Mexico.”
“The journey north will be extremely dangerous and taxing for thousands of families from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala that will be part of the trips in 2019," the group said. "Probably the obstacles will increase along the journey, given that there’s fatigue and frustration in the communities that have until now supported the caravans.”
Several migrants told U.S. and Latin American news outlets they were determined to flee the poverty and violence in their homeland - no matter how tough U.S. immigration policy had become. Some said they were deported after having taken part in the first caravan last year, and were trying their luck again.

Hondurans take part in a new caravan of migrants, set to head to the United States, as they leave San Pedro Sula, Honduras January 14, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Cabrera - RC1E08C0C6A0

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Honduran authorities arrested and detained Juan Carlos Molina, identified by La Prensa, the Honduran newspaper, as a coordinator of the latest caravan.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports tighter enforcement, said the departure of another caravan was not surprising, considering indications there are individuals or organizations coordinating them. “Probably there are multiple parties involved, who have an interest in challenging the sovereign right of the United States to determine who can enter the country and under what circumstances,” he said.
“You have opportunists and you have people who, understandably, want to come to the United States,” he said, “It’s a situation that’s getting out of hand, and no one is doing anything about it other than an administration that trying to solve things through executive action.”
Mehlman said the backlash the caravans were getting from Mexicans who live in Tijuana and other areas affected by the large crowds of migrants was a logical reaction to the feeling of being overrun. “It does have an impact on people who live in the affected towns, just as it has impact on people in our country,” he said, adding that at the same time that understanding is extended to people who seek a better life, there needs to be understanding for “the motivations of people who want to set limits and enforce laws.”

Leftist New York Times Cartoons

Pundit says media should expose Trump in 2020 campaign

Frank Bruni is tortured.
The liberal New York Times columnist says it in print: "Trump tortures us."
And he's got an elaborate plan for journalists to prevent Donald Trump from being reelected — to "redeem ourselves," he says — because obviously "we" never should have allowed him to win the White House in the first place.
Bruni is a good writer, but he seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the press and the president's use of the press. He’s an opinion guy but comes from the camp that Trump is such a monumental threat that the news business must drop its usual standards and expose him.
His piece comes at a time when the president is under fire on several fronts, including the longest government shutdown in history. The Times just dropped a piece that the FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Trump after the Jim Comey firing, and CNN now has transcripts of the internal debate. The Washington Post just reported that Trump shielded details of his conversations with Vladimir Putin from top aides, in one case grabbing an interpreter's notes.
Trump, for his part, tweeted yesterday that "the Fake News gets crazier and more dishonest every single day," that "certain people" have "truly gone MAD" and should take two weeks off and "chill!"
In his lengthy piece, Bruni rails against the president's "talent for using us as vessels for propaganda," making us "Trump's accomplice," as if no other president or politician has done that.
He says Trump was a "perverse gift" to the media, which would just "present him as the high-wire act and car crash that he is; the audience gorges on it."
Let me stop right there. While the media lavished endless attention on candidate Trump, much of it was negative attention, which helped him anyway. He also generated coverage by doing hundreds of interviews, even when he was on the defensive, in stark contrast to his GOP opponents and to Hillary Clinton.
Bruni contends that Trump's tweets and theatrics get so much attention that voters are "starved of information about the fraudulence of his supposed populism and the toll of his incompetence."
Really? The papers, the TV, and the web are filled with that stuff every day. While covering style over substance has been a media  shortcoming for decades, especially on the tube, no sentient human being can be unaware of all the arguments against Trump on the shutdown, the wall, the Mueller probe, Syria, White House chaos, and on and on.
In another 2016 lament, Bruni says "we interpreted fairness as a similarly apportioned mix of complimentary and derogatory stories about each contender, no matter how different one contender's qualifications." In short, why did the press spend so much time on Hillary's private e-mail server (which by the way was under FBI investigation) when Trump was clearly the morally deficient one?
He quotes ex-Times editor Jill Abramson as saying the email scandal (broken by the Times) now seems like a "small thing" and that she didn't turn the full investigative machinery against Trump because she assumed Clinton would win.
Bruni somehow didn't have room for Abramson's conclusion in her forthcoming book, "Merchants of Truth" (as I reported), that she finds the Times' news coverage to be "unmistakably anti-Trump." Guess that was an inconvenient fact.
Still, Bruni does give a nod to the central flaw in his argument: "I'm not certain that more firepower would have made a difference. For one thing, there were many exposes of Trump's shady history. For another, he appealed to voters who largely disregard the mainstream media and who thrilled to his exhortations that they disregard it further."
And he retreats to this: "The real story of Trump isn't his amorality and outrageousness. It’s Americans' receptiveness to that." In other words, the Trump phenomenon is the fault of those gullible voters who just aren't as smart as members of the media elite.
Finally, Bruni says the media must give a full introduction to Trump's Democratic challengers, which makes sense, as long as he doesn't mean an uncritical one. But he disputes the notion that these candidates must be vivid enough "to steal some of his spotlight," because we — the mighty media — "can direct that spotlight where we want."
And that's troubling. It's actually the job of the Democratic candidates to make the case against Trump, and find ways to drive media coverage, and our job to cover both sides fairly and aggressively. Unless, of course, you believe that the incumbent is so terrible that it’s the media's mission to ensure he doesn't win again.