Mike Huckabee says Dems have 'got nothing' on Barr, were 'rude and disrespectful'

Democrats have "got nothing” in trying to discredit Attorney General William Barr on the Mueller report, former Republican presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Wednesday.
“They are like people who show up at the barbecue restaurant at closing time and all the meat is gone," Huckabee said on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."
"So, what they are left to do is just lick the bones, gnaw on them a little bit and suck the barbecue sauce out of the bottle. They have nothing else to do,” Huckabee told host Laura Ingraham.
Barr testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he addressed his decision not to pursue an obstruction case against President Trump and the delay in the release of the redacted version of Mueller's report on his Russia investigation.
During the hearing, several Democrats called on Barr to resign, including Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. Harris is seeking her party's 2020 presidential nomination.
Huckabee described the Democrats' treatment of Barr as “rude and disrespectful.”
“And I think in a way, I almost felt sorry watching them. But then I didn't because [they were] so rude and disrespectful of the attorney general. And how he maintained his composure and didn't crawl across the table and go after a few of them as a testament to diplomacy, grace and being a gentleman,” Huckabee said.
Huckabee also reacted to a New York Times op-ed by former FBI Director James Comey.
In a piece titled “How Trump Co-Opts Leaders Like Bill Barr,” Comey wrote, “Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites."
Huckabee disagreed with Comey and warned that the former FBI director may soon face troubles of his own.
“First of all, he’s dead wrong about Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not eat people's soul in small bites," Huckabee said. "He takes it in one great big chomp and it’s over and he’s done with it. It is one of the reasons he's president because he does know how to take on an adversary. Jim Comey has a lot of explaining to do."

Leaked Mueller letter leads to Barr grilling in hyperpartisan hearing

It was a leak clearly designed to make William Barr's day on Capitol Hill far more unpleasant.
The source or sources who showed The Washington Post a letter of complaint that Bob Mueller had written Barr created a media explosion that reverberated all day yesterday, when the attorney general had been slated to testify before a Senate committee. Even before he took the hot seat, some Democrats were calling on Barr to resign — which has virtually no chance of happening.
Once the Judiciary Committee hearing got underway, it was so utterly partisan that it seemed Republicans and Democrats were operating in parallel universes — and that tended to muffle the uproar over the once-secret Mueller letter.
Still, the letter hurts Barr's reputation, no question about it. The missive provides ammunition to the AG's critics, who say he acted like a Trump partisan in spinning and perhaps minimizing the Mueller report's findings.
But let's face it: the special counsel's letter would have been far more damaging had it emerged before the report was made public, when the debate over Barr's conduct was at its peak. Now that we've all had the 448-page report for a couple of weeks, this has the feel of relitigating a process question that's been overtaken by events.
"The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president," the Post says.
The paper quotes the Mueller note as dissing Barr's famous four-page summary before the report was out:
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
Mueller asked that his own executive summaries be quickly released, but Barr declined.
One reason the leaked letter landed with considerable force is that we never hear Mueller express opinions in his own voice, rather than in legal filings or the rare statements from his office. He is the offstage presence, the opposite of a grandstander, even with the report having been made published. The public will finally hear Mueller speak in House testimony this month, according to an agreement announced yesterday.
But clearly one of his allies — whether it was with Mueller's acquiescence or not, we don't know — wanted to turn up the heat before Barr's testimony.
The GOP side, led by Lindsey Graham, mainly wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton's emails and Trump-sliming emails from the FBI's Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (complete with an F-word that the senator read on live television). The Democratic side, led by Dianne Feinstein, read damaging passages from the report and pressed Barr about his disagreements with Mueller and why he didn't see many of the findings as obstruction of justice.
What was most noteworthy was Barr admitting he was surprised when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction allegations and saying he could not get a clear explanation while meeting with him. The implication was that Mueller, given his independence, should have made the call, and instead made the report what Barr called "my baby."
The attorney general insisted that Mueller "was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report." In a shot at the media, Barr said Mueller told him that "the press reporting had been inaccurate and that the press was reading too much into it."
Oddly enough, Barr also said Mueller declined his offer to review the four-page summary in advance.
Feinstein pressed the AG about the finding that Trump told his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Mueller fired, and that McGahn refused and threatened to resign.
This was not an attempt to obstruct the probe, Barr said, because "there is a distinction between saying to someone, 'Go fire him, go fire Mueller,' and saying, 'Have him removed based on conflict.'" But there was no obstruction, Barr said, because "presumably" someone else would have been named to replace Mueller. (McGahn regarded the conflict questions as "silly.")
Things turned absurdly partisan when Sen. Mazie Hirono demanded that Barr resign, saying he had sacrificed his "once-decent reputation for the grifter and liar who sits in the Oval Office." Graham shot back, "Listen, you slandered this man!" And the three presidential candidates on the panel — Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker — all got their licks in. Harris and Booker also demanded the AG's resignation.
In the end, the spat between Barr and Mueller will be a historical footnote. But it provides more fodder for the Democrats and Trump's media critics to try to keep the investigation alive.

Clinton 'imagines' scenario where 2020 Dem hopeful asks China to get Trump's tax returns

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday criticized the Mueller Report and imagined a scenario where a Democratic presidential hopeful called on China to "get" President Trump's tax returns.
The eyebrow-raising theory came during an interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show." The conversation was largely dedicated to Maddow and Clinton comparing problems they found with Attorney General Bill Barr's hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the day.
Clinton ripped Senate Republicans for not passing bipartisan legislation that was meant to take action against foreign interference in elections in the future "under orders from the White House." The two-time presidential candidate-- in an apparent effort to show the preposterousness of it all-- then offered a hypothetical situation where a Democrat running in 2020 blatantly makes an appeal to a foreign country to help with the election.
"Imagine, Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show and that person said, 'You know, the only other adversary of ours who's anywhere near as good as the Russians is China. So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?... And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns. I'm sure our media would richly reward you," she theorized.
Clinton said-- according to the Mueller report-- that it would not be a conspiracy because it is done openly. She theorized that the IRS offices would be bombarded with cyber attacks and a new Wikileaks would emerge that could release the information.
"Nothing wrong with that," Clinton sarcastically said.

Nicolas Maduro Cartoons

Portland anarchists flood lawyer's office with water as 'warning' for representing ICE union

During the protesters' month-long occupation of ICE facilities, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced his support for them and refused to have police intervene. Now, the National ICE council has sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that their right to police protection be preserved. #Tucker

Anarchists in Portland, Oreg., flooded the office of a local lawyer representing officers of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency in an effort to intimidate him.
The city has long been the epicenter of the so-called “Occupy ICE” movement and other anarchist activities, culminating last year in a clash between ICE officers and the protesters who then managed to shut down an ICE facility.
ICE UNION WANTS PORTLAND MAYOR TO FACE CRIMINAL PROBE OVER ACTIONS DURING OCCUPY ICE PROTESTS
A mob of anarchists continued their reign in the city last weekend, pushing a garden hose through the mail slot at the law office of Sean Riddell and flooding the building’s floor and basement, Willamette Week reported.
The water was not discovered until days later, resulting in damage to the property, including its wooden floors, carpet and the ceiling in the basement. The lawyer said the act of vandalism will cost him thousands of dollars to repair, though the cost is likely to be covered by insurance.
Riddell has been representing the National ICE Council, the union for federal immigration officers. Last year the union grabbed headlines after sending letters to officials, asking them to conduct a criminal investigation of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler over his handling of the 38-day Occupy ICE protests in the city last summer.
The group also filed claims that the city’s police declined to intervene and disperse the protesters who were besieging an ICE facility.
PORTLAND ICE FACILITY PROTEST CAMP BROKEN UP BY FEDS AS CROWDS SHOUT 'NO RACIST POLICE!'
The anonymous anarchists claimed responsibility for the water damage in an email to Willamette Week on Monday, admitting that they did it because of Riddell's work with the federal immigration agency.
“We decided to congratulate him on his new building by unraveling his garden hose, pushing it through his mail slot, and turning on the water,” the anonymous email read.
It added that Riddell’s office was the target as he bought it with the money he received from representing the ICE union and claimed that this is a warning to other lawyers who are working or are planning to work with the agency.
“Our goal was to cause maximum economic damage, that should serve as a warning to all individuals and businesses that profit off the human misery perpetrated by ICE,” the email added.

“Our goal was to cause maximum economic damage, that should serve as a warning to all individuals and businesses that profit off the human misery perpetrated by ICE.”
— Anonymous email from supposed anarchists

Riddell slammed the vandals, telling the Willamette Week that at least he doesn’t hide behind the cloak of anonymity. “When I make a political statement, or when I make a political statement on behalf of a client. I sign my name,” he said.
“I'm not a victim,” he said. “I'm just doing my job.”

Gingrich: Latest Washington Post report on Mueller meant to 'maximize the embarrassment' for Barr

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the report by the Washington Post that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reached out to Attorney General William Barr and let him know that his summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Russia investigation was leaked by someone seeking to “maximize the embarrassment” ahead of Wednesday’s hearings.
"The 'Deep State' and Washington has played these games for the whole history of the country, this is not something new,” Gingrich said on the “Ingraham Angle.”
In a late-breaking article, the Post reported that Mueller contacted Barr-- in a letter and phone call-- to express concerns after Barr released his own public summary of the report in March. Mueller reportedly pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by his office.
However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
Barr is expected to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
The Post's headline was entitled, "Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe"
Gingrich brushed off the report.
“After all the noise you just shrug your shoulders and say, ‘so what?’ Mueller had every opportunity to come out the day that Barr released his letter. Mueller could have at any point decided to refute it and as I understand the actual key sentences, the distortion is by the news media. The distortion is not by Barr,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich added, "Think about this. The media that Mueller is complaining about are the people who are now using Mueller’s complaint to further distort what is going on. You couldn't make this up.”
Fox News' Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Buttigieg raises eyebrows on vaccination stance, faces media criticism

South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg drew some backlash for his stance on mandatory vaccinations.
Buzzfeed reported that Buttigieg supports states' rights to mandate vaccinations, but also supports "some exceptions."
"The law of the land for more than a century has been that states may enforce mandatory vaccination for public safety to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease. Pete does support some exceptions, except during a public health emergency to prevent an outbreak," a spokesman for the South Bend mayor told Buzzfeed.
The 37-year-old progressive listed personal/religious exemptions, but reiterated that there must be "no public health crisis" for the exemptions to be honored.
"These exemptions include medical exemptions in all cases (as in cases where it is unsafe for the individual to get vaccinated), and personal/religious exemptions if states can maintain local herd immunity and there is no public health crisis," the spokesman added.
Buttigieg's stance on vaccination exemptions caught some attention on social media.
The 2020 candidiate was starting to generate negative press on Tuesday night. Mediaite's headline read "Buttigieg fumbles badly on vaccinations."
Buttigieg has since modified his stance, offering a "clarifying statement" to Buzzfeed late Tuesday night.
"Pete believes vaccines are safe and effective and are necessary to maintaining public health. There is no evidence that vaccines are unsafe, and he believes children should be immunized to protect their health. He is aware that in most states the law provides for some kinds of exemptions. He believes only medical exemptions should be allowed," the spokesman said.
Buzzfeed has been gathering the vaccination stances of all 2020 presidential candidates. Several candidates did not respond to Buzzfeed including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, former Obama HUD Secretary Julián Castro, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI.

Head of Venezuela's secret police breaks with Maduro

The head of Venezuela's feared secret police has turned his back on disputed President Nicolas Maduro in an open letter made public Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, Maduro took to Venezuela's airwaves to proclaim that the uprising sparked by opposition leader Juan Guaidó had been defeated. In a rambling address, Maduro said his regime had responded to the rebellion with "nerves of steel, maximum serenity and effective action" and claimed that the leaders of the uprising were under arrest and being questioned.
"This cannot go unpunished," said Maduro, who added that "all of those involved must surrender."
Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, the head of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), is the highest-ranking member of the country's security forces to break with Maduro since Guaidó called for a military uprising Tuesday morning.
In the letter, the authenticity of which was confirmed to The Associated Press by a U.S. official, Figuera wrote that while he always had been loyal to Maduro, "the time has come to seek new ways of doing politics" to try and "rebuild the country." The letter did not mention Guaidó by name but did say that Venezuela has experienced a damaging decline.
Earlier Tuesday, National Security Adviser John Bolton said the Trump administration was waiting for three key officials -- Maduro's defense minister, the chief judge of the supreme court and the commander of Maduro's presidential guard -- to act on what he said were private pledges to remove the beleaguered Venezuelan leader.
"All agreed that Maduro had to go. They need to be able to act this afternoon, or this evening, to help bring other military forces to the side of the interim president," Bolton said. "If this effort fails, [Venezuela] will sink into a dictatorship from which there are very few possible alternatives."
The defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López, publicly condemned Guaidó's move Tuesday as a "terrorist" act and "coup attempt" that was bound to fail.
"Those who try to take Miraflores with violence will be met with violence," he said on national television, referring to the presidential palace where hundreds of government supporters, some of them brandishing firearms, had gathered in response to a call to defend Maduro.

Opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, center, is greeted by a supporter in Caracas Tuesday. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

Guaidó has said that in the coming hours he would release a list of top commanders supporting the uprising.
"The armed forces have taken the right decision," said Guaidó. "With the support of the Venezuelan people and the backing of our constitution they are on the right side of history."
Anti-government demonstrators gathered in several other cities, although there were no reports that Guaidó's supporters had taken control of any military installations.
The SIBE was responsible for holding Leopoldo Lopez, Venezuela's most prominent anti-Maduro activist, in custody since his arrest in 2014. Lopez appeared alongside Guaidó, his political protege, Tuesday and claimed that he had been released from house arrest by security forces adhering to an order from Guaidó.
It was not immediately clear what role, if any, Figuera had played in Lopez's release.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

CNN's Don Lemon Cartoons

Democrats struggling for pocketbook message as roaring economy helps Trump

The economy is on fire right now, and that, more than anything, could be a major boost to President Trump's reelection chances.
And the Democrats are having a hard time figuring out how to run against this steamroller at a time of 4 percent unemployment and soaring stocks.
Of course, things could cool off before the election, as many economists predict a sharp slowdown in growth over the next two years.
But for now, the S&P and the Nasdaq just hit all-time highs, and the newly announced rebound in first-quarter growth, to 3.2 percent, trounced the market's all-important expectations.
I've always felt that a president presiding over strong growth is far more likely to win a second term, even if other hot-button issues are dominating the news. The flip side is that strong economic anxieties can derail a reelection campaign, even if the economy is recovering from a recession, as happened when George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. And the Wall Street meltdown in the fall of 2008 helped put Barack Obama in the White House.
The nettlesome challenge for the Democratic candidates is to avoid appearing that they're talking down a good economy or getting traction when most people are satisfied with their personal situation. During the 1982 midterms, Democrats privately hoped the jobless rate under Ronald Reagan would top 10 percent, which it did, but couldn't say so publicly on their way to picking up 27 House seats.
Joe Biden is touted for his ability to connect with white, working-class voters in such industrial states as Michigan and Pennsylvania. But if those workers, except in certain fields, are generally doing well, that clearly undercuts the pitch.
But don't take my word for it — ask Celinda Lake.
She's a veteran Democratic pollster who told Politico that "we really don't have a robust national message right now" on the economy. "We will tend to talk about things like paid leave and equal pay," which are popular but "don't add up to an economic message that is robust enough to win the presidency."
Lake also said that people may not agree with Trump, but they know what his message is. "And Democrats, you don't know what it is. And that's a recipe for disaster in 2020."
Look, many things will be at play in this election: Immigration. Health care. The Mueller report. Terrorism. Race relations. And Trump is underwater with key groups and has a 54 percent disapproval rating in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll.
And even on the economic front, not everything is Rosy Scenario. By the administration's own projections, we're looking at federal deficits over $1 trillion for the next four years. That's what you get when you combine only modest spending restraint with tax cuts, which many Americans feel didn't help them.
As the Politico piece notes, some Democratic candidates are taking broad swipes at the Trump economy, particularly on the subject of inequality.
Kamala Harris: "We have an economy in this country that is not working for working people."
Elizabeth Warren: "Let's make the zillionaires pay a fair share."
Beto O'Rourke would undo the "worst excesses" of the GOP tax cuts.
One of the reasons that no economic message is breaking through is that there are 20 Democratic candidates, each vying for a share of the spotlight. That would matter less in hard times, but the Democrats don't have that luxury.
If "it's the economy, stupid" is as true today as when James Carville coined it a quarter-century ago, beating Trump will be harder than many Democrats think.