OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:10 PM PT — Wednesday, March 6, 2019
California is refusing to repay the federal grants it took for its
failed high speed rail project, and is demanding more federal dollars to
complete what critics are now calling “a train to nowhere.”
The head of California’s high speed rail authority — Brian Kelly —
sent two letters to the Federal Railroad Administration this week. In
the letters he denied the state violated its federal contract, which
gave California $3.5 billion to build high-speed rail from San Francisco
to Los Angeles.
Under the terms of the contract, California is required to repay the
money if it does not complete the project by a certain deadline.
Earlier this year, Governor Gavin Newsom slammed the brakes on the
project due to cost overruns. He also cut the route by more than half.
“The current project as planned would cost too much and respectfully
take too long, and there’s been too little oversight and not enough
transparency,” stated the California lawmaker.
Kelly said since the governor is not totally abandoning the project,
the state is not in violation of its agreement. He blasted the Trump
administration for halting an additional $930 million pledged for the
project, calling the move illegal and wasteful.
However, President Trump disagrees and has demanded the state to repay $2.5 billion dollars.
President Donald Trump talks to Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook during
the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board's first meeting in the
State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, March 6,
2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
President Trump suffered a slip of the tongue Wednesday when he called Apple CEO Tim Cook “Tim Apple” during a meeting at the White House.
Cook
sat next to Trump during the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board
meeting in the State Dining Room, where officials discussed the
importance of technology in education. Trump praised the CEO for his
“big investment” in the U.S., but when it came time to thank Cook by
name, not even a conspicuously placed name tag could help.
“People
like Tim, you’re expanding all over and doing things that I really
wanted you to do right from the beginning. I used to say, ‘Tim, you
gotta start doing it here,’ and you really have you’ve really put a big
investment in our country. We really appreciate it very much, Tim
Apple,” Trump said.
It didn’t take long for Trump’s flub to go viral on social media.
The
president’s previous public name mix-ups included mistakenly calling
Lockheed Martin's CEO Marillyn Hewson "Marillyn Lockheed," according to USA Today.
Now that Hillary’s not
getting in the race—she was never running, despite hints from her
keep-hope-alive surrogates—the spotlight has fallen squarely on the House Democrats.
And at the moment they’re defining themselves as the party of investigation.
They
have other problems, to be sure, from allowing their most left-wing
members to give them a socialist image to struggling with a resolution
condemning anti-Semitism after slurs by one of their freshmen.
But
what will dominate the headlines in the coming weeks and months is
their wide-ranging demands for information from 81 Trump World targets.
These include current and former administration officials, family
members, and people in his private businesses and foundations.
This kitchen-sink approach, in my view, is a tactical error by the Democrats that plays into President Trump’s hands.
Had
Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary chairman who ordered the requests,
spaced them out over a period of time, it wouldn’t have looked like he
wanted to spend the next two years tying the president in legal knots—at
least not for awhile.
Instead, he’s given the president a fat
target to charge that he and other committee heads “have gone stone cold
CRAZY. 81 letter[s] sent to innocent people to harass them.”
Trump
said the blizzard of requests were “a disgrace to our country,” and his
son Eric Trump said “we’re going to fight the hell out of it” in an
interview with Fox News radio. “And we’ll fight where we need and we’ll
cooperate where we need, but the desperation shows.”
I’ve been
covering these battles since the Reagan administration. Congress demands
documents or testimony, usually from an administration controlled by
the other party, and the White House delays, refuses or invokes
executive privilege.
Then the Hill has to decide whether to pass a contempt-of-Congress citation and ask a court to enforce it.
Congressional
Republicans demanded tens of thousands of pages from the Obama
administration, got cooperation on some of the requests and resistance
on others. And how many hearings did the GOP Congress hold on Benghazi?
But
the road map is clear. Trump will resist many of the requests, claim
presidential harassment, and force House Democrats to take the next
step—especially on his tax returns. The battles will stretch on
endlessly and most people will tune out, writing the whole thing off as
politics as usual.
Putting
the hypocrisy aside, Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight
of the executive branch. But if the House Democrats overreach, and
don’t pass any bipartisan legislation (assuming the Republicans would
play ball), it becomes easier for Trump to paint them as overzealous
partisans.
Here’s a look at how two of the major papers handled the initial announcement.
The New York Times
said the “flurry of demands…detailed the breadth and ambition of a new
investigation into possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse
of power by President Trump and his administration.”
The
paper said Nadler had “opened perhaps the most perilous front to date
for Mr. Trump — an inquiry that takes aim at the heart of his
norm-bending presidency and could conceivably form the basis of a future
impeachment proceeding.”
It was not until the 15th paragraph that
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was quoted as calling the probe a “disgraceful
and abusive…fishing expedition.”
The Washington Post
said the “far-reaching” request “cast a spotlight on the ambitious
strategy of the committee with the authority to impeach a president.”
The
request was “broad” rather than “targeted,” and “the extensive scope
could bolster claims by Trump and Republicans that congressional
Democrats are seeking to undermine the president and cripple his 2020
reelection effort rather than conduct a disciplined, fact-finding
inquiry.”
As part of the more balanced piece, Sanders was quoted in the sixth paragraph.
With
Bob Mueller’s probe all but finished, the Democrats want to keep the
investigative machinery humming. But are they likely to find more than
Mueller, who has far greater resources?
It’s a long-range battle that may play out in all three branches, but ultimately will be decided in the court of public opinion.
This is what the Democrats have elected to the American Government.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "taken aback" by the growing dissent and anger among rank-and-file Democrats over a possible resolution to formally condemn anti-Semitism,
a Democratic source told Fox News on Wednesday -- highlighting Pelosi's
tenuous grip on control over the House and underscoring the growing
power of the party's nascent far-left progressive wing.
Pelosi even reportedly
walked out of a meeting Wednesday with Democrat House members, setting
down her microphone and telling attendees, “Well if you're not going to
listen to me, I’m done talking."
The stalled resolution originated
after freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, for at least
the second time in recent months, ignited an uproar for echoing tropes critics have deemed anti-Semitic. In February, she suggested on Twitter that supporters of Israel have been bought. The congresswoman then accused American supporters of Israel of pushing people to have “allegiance to a foreign country.”
Omar
-- who also tweeted in 2012 that "Israel has hypnotized the world, may
Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel" -- refused to address questions on Wednesday about accusations that she’s anti-Semitic.
Meanwhile, debate over how to address her latest remarks has overtaken House Democrats in recent days.
A
frustrated senior House Democratic aide told Fox News on Tuesday: "Here
we are again, fighting with ourselves. I've spent another week dealing
with this and not on policy." ON THE STREETS IN OMAR'S DISTRICT: SOMALI GANGS, LITTLE COMMUNICATING WITH COPS
A
vote on the resolution, which was originally planned for earlier this
week, did not appear on the House's official docket for Thursday.
President
Trump, turning to Twitter on Wednesday, highlighted Democrats' troubles
getting the resolution passed. He wrote that their failure to "take a
stronger stand" against anti-Semitism was "shameful."
Fox News has
been told that the Democratic caucus is trying to get the language of
the proposed anti-Semitism language “right," and that there is concern
about mentioning Omar by name -- a non-starter for many members of the
Congressional Black Caucus.
Two knowledgable sources said such a scenario could increase security threats against Omar, who is a Muslim.
Republicans did not specifically name Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa,
in a bipartisan disapproval measure that followed comments that
seemingly defended white nationalism earlier this year. But GOP leaders stripped King of his committee assignments as punishment -- while Omar remains on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Democrats say they have no plans to oust her.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., departs after talking with
reporters during her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill on Feb. 7.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
By the same token, Fox is told Democrats are also
concerned about making “a martyr” out of Omar if they don’t address some
of her controversial comments.
"I've spent another week dealing with this and not on policy." — Frustrated House Democratic aide
Pelosi,
for her part, was stunned by criticism among some Democratic members
who complained they weren’t informed in detail about the resolution;
freshman Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., for example, asserted the
Democratic leadership team failed in its duty to inform members about
the resolution's details.
But senior leadership sources scofffed
at that assertion, saying Pelosi spoke with multiple lawmakers all
weekend long about the measure.
Fox
News was also told one senior House Democratic lawmaker expressed
concern about the influence pro-Israel interest groups have over the
Democratic caucus, prompting debate about a resolution to condemn
anti-Semitism in the first place. Their complaints came in contrast to
the push by a trio of Jewish lawmakers who have pushed hardest for the
resolution: House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., House
Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., and House
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
One senior
House Democrat even suggested the rift in the caucus was emblematic of
age-old tensions between Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
D-Md.
“He’s more AIPAC,” said the Democrat. “She’s more J Street.
The caucus is more J Street these days.” That’s a reference to two
major, pro-Israel lobbying organizations in Washington.
The apparent tension comes as freshman Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib -- who herself has been accused of recent anti-Semitic comments
-- also clashed with party leadership on Wednesday, after joining
protesters to say she'd introduce a resolution this month urging the
Judiciary Committee to move forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Pelosi has consistently resisted calls to impeach Trump, saying such an effort would be premature.
A senior House Democratic leadership aide, however, disputed the divide between Pelosi and Hoyer.
Lawmakers are also buzzing about if they should even address the comments by Omar at all. There’s a concern about precedent.
“Should
the House condemn [House Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., for
what he said about George Soros?” asked one lawmaker who requested to
not be identified. In 2018, McCarthy tweeted: “We cannot allow Soros,
Steyer and Bloomberg to BUY this election! Get out and vote Republican
November 6th. #MAGA." (Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg all are of Jewish
heritage.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib joined protesters with CREDO Action and By the
People, a new advocacy group pushing for the impeachment of President
Trump. Together they urged members of Congress to begin impeachment
proceedings. (Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib)
McCarthy has since deleted the tweet.
One
source questioned if House Democrats ever attempted to rebuke former
Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., who was known for questioning if President
George W. Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks ahead of time. She also
questioned U.S. support for Israel and demanded a more balanced approach
when dealing with the Palestinians.
The prolonged delay in
passing an anti-Semitism resolution -- which threatens to become a
public-relations headache for Democrats with each passing day -- spilled
over into the 2020 presidential race as well on Wednesday, as White
House contender Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, defended Omar in a
statement.
“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology
which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the
world," Sanders wrote. "We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with
legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel.
Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings
Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is
going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a
way of stifling that debate. That's wrong.”
Added Elizabeth
Warren: "Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has
had a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to
achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians." Fox News' Chad Pergram and Alex Pappas contributed to this report.
As
House Democrats expand their investigations into President Trump, there
may be an opposite effect among undecided voters, Townhall.com politics
editor Guy Benson suggested Tuesday.
This week, the House Judiciary Committee
sent letters to 81 Trump associates and entities in search of documents
for various investigations. Trump has repeatedly slammed the “stone
cold crazy” Democrats and deemed their recent expansion as “presidential harassment.”
During
Tuesday's "Special Report" All-Star panel, Benson -- along with
Federalist senior editor Mollie Hemingway and Reuters White House
correspondent Jeff Mason -- weighed in on the potential political
consequences Democrats might face if their wave of investigations into
the president backfires. CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SHOW
Benson
noted the Democrats’ sudden ”moving on” from the Mueller probe amid
shifting expectations that the report will be a “dud.” He then credited
former Obama adviser David Axelrod, who tweeted that Democrats “run the
risk” of irritating the public with their various investigations.
“Some
unaffiliated people and undecided voters might come around to the
‘harassment, witch hunt’ mentality,” Benson told the panel.
Hemingway
expressed a similar sentiment, insisting that Trump's “presidential
harassment’ claim will work in his favor because the investigations into
Trump’s business “fits that narrative” of congressional overreach
rather than “legitimate oversight.”
Meanwhile, Mason recalled
Trump’s rhetoric after the midterms, when he proposed that he and
Democrats work together -- or else very little legislation will get
done.
In this undated selfie provided by Bridgette Hoskie, her
brother Jay Barrett and herself pose for the photo. Barrett, a
terminally ill Connecticut man who's a big supporter of President Donald
Trump, is getting a bucket list wish fulfilled, with help from his
Democratic sister. (Bridgette Hoskie via AP)
President Trump and Eric Trump fulfilled
a terminally ill Connecticut man's dying wish with a phone call on
Tuesday evening -- and all it took was a little help from the man's
sister, an elected Democrat.
44-year-old Jay Barrett, of West
Haven, who has cystic fibrosis, left a hospital to begin palliative care
at his sister's home last weekend and asked for some sort of contact
with the president before he dies.
His sister, West Haven City
Councilwoman Bridgette Hoskie, who describes herself as "100 percent
Democrat," went on social media to help make it happen. Friends and
other supporters sent emails to the White House and its online petition
system.
The efforts paid off Tuesday night when Barrett received a
surprise call from Trump. According to Barrett, Hoskie handed him a
phone and he heard an understated greeting: “I’m the secretary for the
president of the United States. Do you have time to talk to him?”
Barrett was ecstatic.
"Alright Jay, you look handsome to me. I just saw a picture of you.” Trump began, in a video of the call posted to YouTube.
Barrett
responded: "Oh, you're giving me kind honors. I look like sh--."
That prompted Trump to laugh and ask, "How are you doing? How is it
going Jay? ... You’re a champ. You’re fighting it right?”
"That’s what the Irish do -- right?” Barrett answered.
"Yeah that’s what the Irish do -- you better believe it," Trump said.
"Mr.
President, through thick and thin, you know there's been a lot of
thicks, and there's been a lot of thins, I support you," Barrett
told the president.
“I
wish you could come to a rally. I wish you could come," Trump said. "I
know you like that stuff and I wish you could. ... It sounds like you
have a great sister, Jay.”
Trump promised Jay that when he has a
rally nearby, he'll "be sitting front, row center.” Trump added, "I know
where you live" and that he was very familiar with the area.
"You're my kind of man, Jay. ... I'm very proud of you." — President Trump
Barrett told Trump he's planned on coming down to Washington, D.C. “between now and my expiration date.”
"You're
my kind of man, Jay. ... I'm very proud of you," Trump said. "I'll talk
to you again, Jay, OK? You keep that fight going. We both fight."
Barrett told the New Haven Register that
he also received calls from Eric Trump and U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development regional chief Lynne Patton on Monday.
Eric Trump "told me they're pulling for me and praying," Barrett said.
Patton,
who is from New Haven, said she's coming to Connecticut on Saturday to
give Barrett a signed gift from the president. She also reached out to
the Trump family after a Register story about Barrett's wish was posted
online.
Barrett, who for most of his life considered himself an
independent, said he'd voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 but
didn't like many of his policies, including the Affordable Care Act,
also known as ObamaCare.
Barrett said he came to realize he was a
Republican and fell in love with Trump's style at the launch of his
campaign, and later, because of his policies.
His
original goal was to get to Washington to meet the president in person
and shake his hand, but he said he's grateful for anything.
Even though he's supposed to have only six months to live, Barrett said he intends to be around to vote in 2020. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a weekend interview that she did not attend the kickoff rally for Bernie Sanders' second presidential campaign.
The
freshman lawmaker sat down with NY1’s Errol Louis, host of “Inside City
Hall,” for a Sunday interview that aired Tuesday night.
When
asked whether she attended Sanders’ rally in Brooklyn on Saturday, she
said: “I did not. Yesterday was my day to take care of myself.”
“I assume he asked you to be there,” Louis responded.
“Um,
he, he didn’t, actually,” Ocasio-Cortez responded. “I think that, we’ve
been, uh, so we’ve been in active conversation, I’ve been speaking with
him and several other of the 2020 (presidential) candidates.”
She
went on to say that endorsing a candidate “very early in this race”
prevents the Democratic Party from having conversations on issues like
income inequality, criminal justice, immigration, and the environment.
She later conceded that she will eventually endorse a candidate before the New York Democratic primary.
The interview comes amid a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission this week that Ocasio-Cortez violated campaign finance law by being part of an "off-the-books operation" to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on candidates last year. She denied the allegations on Tuesday. Fox News' Alex Pappas contributed to this report.
What a difference a day makes.
Hillary Clinton made headlines Monday when she told a local New York news channel that she would not run for president in 2020.
"I'm
not running, but I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing
up for what I believe," the former presidential nominee told News 12
Westchester. She insisted that she would remain relevant and has no
plans of "going anywhere."
But
late Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a political reporter for the New York
Times, tweeted that she spoke with a person close to the former
secretary of state. The unnamed source said Clinton was not trying to
"be emphatic and close the door on running" with the comment and was
apparently "surprised" at the reaction.
"The person also says
[Clinton] is extremely unlikely to run, but that she remains bothered
that she's expected to close the door on it when, say, John Kerry isn't.
She has told her team she is waiting at least to see the Mueller
report," Haberman tweeted.
There is little buzz about a potential Kerry announcement, but there is clear interest in a potential Joe Biden bid. Recent polls have him leading the field of Democrats who have already announced. With Michael Bloomberg out of the way, there seems to be a clear path for a more centrist Democrat.
Those
interested in Biden's decision include New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and
former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who are reportedly in
"wait-and-see" mode on their own potential candidacies until Biden ends
his "Hamlet act," according to Politico.
Clinton told News 12 Westchester on Monday that there is a lot at stake for the country.
"We've
just gotten so polarized,” she said. “We've gotten into really
opposing camps unlike anything I've ever seen in my adult life."
President
Trump said earlier that Clinton would “be sorely missed” in 2020.
Clinton appeared to respond to Trump's comment with a gif from "Mean
Girls," asking, "Why are you so obsessed with me?"