Anita Hill took aim at Joe Biden once again Thursday, arguing that the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct might have begun sooner if the Democratic Party's 2020 front-runner would have done a better job of handling her claims of sexual harassment against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas more than 30 years ago. Writing
in the New York Times, Hill slammed the former vice president and U.S.
senator from Delaware, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 1991 when Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment during
his Supreme Court confirmation process. “If
the Senate Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job
and held a hearing that showed that its members understood the
seriousness of sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence, the
cultural shift we saw in 2017 after #MeToo might have began [sic] in
1991 — with the support of the government,” Hill, who is now a professor
at Brandeis University, wrote.
"If the Senate
Judiciary Committee, led then by Mr. Biden, had done its job ... the
cultural shift we saw in 2017 after #MeToo might have began [sic] in
1991." — Anita Hill, writing Thursday in the New York Times
“If
the government had shown that it would treat survivors with dignity and
listen to women, it could have had a ripple effect,” Hill continued in the Times piece,
which was titled, "Let's Talk About How to End Sexual Violence."
“Instead, far too many survivors kept their stories hidden for years.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden,left, served as chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 when Anita Hill, right, testified
allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Supreme Court nominee Judge
Clarence Thomas.(Associated Press)
Biden officially announced his bid for the 2020
presidency in April. During a private phone call with Hill beforehand,
he reportedly expressed regret over how she was treated during the
Thomas confirmation hearings but fell short of apologizing for his own
actions. “Sexual violence is a national crisis that requires a
national solution. We miss that point if we end the discussion at
whether I should forgive Mr. Biden,” Hill continued in her piece. “This
crisis calls for all leaders to step up and say: 'The healing from
sexual violence must begin now. I will take up that challenge.'” In
an interview with "The View" after announcing his 2020 candidacy, Biden
denied ever treating Hill badly during the 1991 hearings and praised
the professor for her contributions toward #MeToo. "She's one of
the reasons why we have the #MeToo movement, she's one of the reasons
why I was able to finish writing the Violence Against Women Act, she's
one of the reasons why I committed ... there'd never be a Judiciary
Committee I was on that didn't have women on it," he said. Biden
himself has not been accused of sexual harassment but since announcing
his candidacy he has received backlash for being overly touchy with
women and girls over the years. Fox News' Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report.
U.S.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., spoke out against the Democrats' claim that
America is facing a "constitutional crisis," saying Thursday that the
Dems are worried that Attorney General William Barr is "turning the tables" on the Obama administration's legacy. "The very reason Jerry Nadler is going after Bill Barr has nothing to do with the 8 percent of the Mueller report that hasn't been seen, and it has everything to do with the fact that Bill Barr is now turning the tables on the people in the Obama White House,
the people in the deep state, the intelligence community who
politicized a FISA court, and the investigators, I think, who departed
from normalized practice," Gaetz said on Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum."
"The
very reason Jerry Nadler is going after Bill Barr ... has everything to
do with the fact that Bill Barr is now turning the tables on the people
in the Obama White House, the people in the deep state, the
intelligence community." — U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.
Nadler, a New York Democrat who
chairs the House Judiciary Committee, declared a "constitutional
crisis" this week following his committee’s vote to hold the Barr in
contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for Special Counsel Robert
Mueller’s unredacted Russia report and underlying documents. Gaetz
also took aim at former FBI Director James Comey, who appeared on a CNN
town hall telecast Thursday night, predicting that Barr would be coming
for Comey as well. "Of course it is not a coincidence that James
Comey is on, like, the Redemption Tour 2.0 right now, trying to
articulate his message," Gaetz said, "because he knows that Barr is
coming after Comey and his band of merry men, who largely paved the way
for Hillary Clinton to not face consequence, and then turned around and
really did the Russians' bidding for them by delegitimizing the election
process, and then after the election [of] the president, trying to
delegitimize Donald Trump."
"It is not a coincidence
that James Comey is on, like, the Redemption Tour 2.0 right now
... because he knows that Barr is coming after Comey and his band of
merry men, who largely paved the way for Hillary Clinton to not face
consequence." — U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.
Gaetz
also touted the U.S. economy's performance under President Trump before
criticizing Democrats for their use of the word "crisis" --- and
chastising them for not addressing the immigration emergency along the
U.S.-Mexico border. "I
don't know that Democrats know what the word 'crisis' means," Gaetz
said. "Obviously they can't claim we have an economic crisis. We've got
growth at twice the rate that was expected under the Obama economy and
everyone is doing a lot better. "But we have a real crisis on the
border where 3,000 people a day are turning themselves in, into a system
that we cannot accommodate additional influx for. And now we have a
tortured interpretation of a constitutional crisis. I can assure you
that is not the case. The game you're watching is not the game that is
being played." Fox News' Talia Kaplan contributed to this report.
It is a "constitutional crisis," says Jerry Nadler. President Trump is "self-impeaching," says Nancy Pelosi. "We should be putting people in jail," says another Democrat, Gerry Connolly. In the wake of the House Judiciary Committee citing William Barr for contempt, the Democrats are using increasingly fiery language against a president who seems determined to defy their subpoenas. And
even the leadership is moving, rhetorically at least, from its previous
insistence that impeachment proceedings are a bad idea because they
will obliterate the party's agenda and lack bipartisan support. Maybe
that's because they're angry, or maybe it's just an attempt to placate
their most liberal voters. Perhaps the motivation is irrelevant. The New York Times says
the Democrats, "infuriated by President Trump's stonewalling," are
weighing a move "to bundle contempt citations for multiple Trump
administration officials into one overarching package that could be
referred to the Federal District Court here, in much the way Congress
looked to the courts to compel President Richard M. Nixon to turn over
tape recordings of his Oval Office conversations." And yet the
stakes in the latest subpoena fight, unlike Nixon shielding tapes of the
Watergate cover-up, are slight. The House Democrats want the unredacted
Mueller report, despite 98 percent of the obstruction of justice
section not being redacted. And they want their staff lawyers to be able
to question the attorney general, as opposed to just committee members. The
media are in full crisis mode as well. And that's a sharp contrast to
the way they covered the Republican House holding Barack Obama's
attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt for refusing to turn over
documents in the Fast and Furious probe. That was portrayed mainly as a
partisan brawl, without such headlines as "Clash Between Trump, House
Democrats Poses Threat to Constitutional Order," in the Times. And
nothing ultimately happened to Holder, just as nothing is likely to
happen to Barr. I happen to think Congress has a legitimate right
to demand documents and testimony in overseeing the executive branch,
regardless of which party is in charge. But there's also such a thing as
political overreach. If the DOJ were withholding the Mueller report,
that would be one thing. To escalate over the 2 percent of the
obstruction section that is redacted is quite another. President
Trump is baiting the Democrats, and they know it. He'd love for them to
go down the impeachment path, which would fire up his base and lead to
his ultimate acquittal. He'd be happy to spend 2020 running against
overzealous Democrats, Nancy and Jerry, Mueller and the media. Rich Lowry made a trenchant observation in his Politico column that applies both to the subpoena battle and the Times story about Trump's massive business losses. "There
really are no Trump mysteries," he writes. "His flaws aren't hidden
away. He often attests to them himself, or demonstrates them publicly
... "No blockbuster report has more than a passing effect because
each dispatch is, ultimately, another dot in a pointillist portrait of
the president that was largely completed long ago. "This
is also why the hope that we are one investigation, tax return, or
subpoena away from the revelation that will finally bell the cat and
bring Trump down — or even make a difference — is almost certainly
forlorn. What would be devastating material against anyone else loses
all shock value." The Mueller report didn't topple Trump. Neither
will the redacted portions, his tax returns or any other secret
document. If the Democrats want to oust the president, they’re going to
have to do it the old-fashioned way next year.
Former FBI Director James Comey described deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as not having “strong character” Thursday while appearing on a CNN town hall telecast. “I
think people like that, like Rod Rosenstein, who are people of
accomplishment but not real sterling character, strong character, find
themselves trapped. And then they start telling themselves a story to
justify their being trapped which is, 'Yeah, he's awful but the country
needs me,’” Comey told host Anderson Cooper. Cooper brought up Rosenstein as Comey was responding to a question about a recent op-ed he penned, in which he wrote that the president “eats your soul in small bites.” “Republicans
are doing this in Congress. ‘Yeah, it's awful, but if I speak I'll get
defeated and this nation needs me here right now.’ So they start to make
little compromises to stay on the team. Talk about collusion,
saying that's what I need to do to survive and in the process, he has
eaten their soul, they’re lost. So that's what happens to so many of
people,” Comey said. Rosenstein was honored with a Department of
Justice send-off on Thursday, after submitting his resignation to
President Trump last month. His departure will reportedly take effect
Saturday. Thursday was also the second anniversary of Trump firing Comey from the FBI. Attorney
General Bill Barr, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and FBI
Director Christopher Wray were on hand at the Rosenstein farewell,
touting his record and character throughout his career, but specifically
over the last two years. Rosenstein fell into the political
crosshairs throughout his tenure and was on the receiving end of the
president’s ire over the Russia investigation. Rosenstein had taken over
oversight of the investigation after Sessions recused himself from the
probe -- a decision that infuriated Trump. It
was early on in Rosenstein's oversight of the probe, in May 2017, that
Trump fired Comey. Just a week later, Rosenstein appointed Special
Counsel Robert Mueller -- Comey's former boss at the FBI. Rosenstein
watched over the probe until November 2018, when former acting Attorney
General Matthew Whitaker took over. Whitaker was ultimately replaced by
Barr. On CNN's Thursday telecast, Comey also told Cooper that he
tried to avoid becoming like Rosenstein and other "co-opted" members of
the administration by openly disagreeing with President Trump in the
Oval Office. According to Comey, Trump was equating the U.S. to "killers" like Russian President Vladamir Putin. "And
among the words were his saying we are the same kind of killers that
Vladimir Putin is. He was defending his moral equivalency between us and
Putin and I interrupted and said, 'Mr. President, no, we're not
the kind of killers that Putin is,'" Comey said. Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
President
Trump said Wednesday that America is the "the piggy bank that everybody
wants to rob," and that his administration is helping the country's
economy excel. Speaking at a rally in the Florida Panhandle, Trump
said that the United States lost many manufacturing jobs during the
Obama administration. "They let other countries raid our
factories, steal our jobs and rob us blind," Trump said. "Other than
that, they were very nice." Trump said that previous administrations "allowed China to freely loot our economy" and steal intellectual property. He
said that although he considers President Xi Jinping a "friend," he
knows that Xi is in favor of China winning any economic rivalry. Trump said that under his leadership, America's market is "the thing that everybody wants." Appearing
to refer to 2016 campaign rival Hillary Clinton, Trump added that if
"another person" were in the White House, that would not be the case --
and the night's rally attendance would total "like 10 people." In a
Tuesday interview on Fox News' "America's Newsroom," Sen. John Thune,
R-S.D., said that Trump "indicated that ... the Chinese were starting to
get cold feet and move away a little bit from some of the things they
agreed upon" in regard to purported "trade abuses." "He felt was necessary to take a stronger position relative to what we have so far," said Thune, the Senate majority whip. Fox News' Anna Hopkins contributed to this report.
The dense and lengthy New York Times report says a great many things about Donald Trump's finances, but it does not say one potentially damaging thing: that he broke the law. Instead,
it is a portrait of a high-flying developer who lost a whole lot of
money at times — mostly other people's money — while at times also
making money. It is a portrait of a businessman who often avoided
paying taxes — legally — just like most entrepreneurs in the
loophole-ridden real estate business. I'm
not defending his conduct. I think he should have released his tax
returns as a presidential candidate, just like every other nominee of
the past 40 years. Trump's refusal to do so has opened the door to
endless speculation and leaked material as journalists and others ask
what he's got to hide. But I don't think the Times opus is going
to cost him political support. For one thing, his backers will continue
to view him as a successful mogul, and his detractors will continue to
see him as a scam artist. What's more, we generally knew that
Trump used a mountain of debt and lots of tax writeoffs in building his
empire and that he lost zillions on such ventures as the bankrupt
casinos and an airline shuttle. Even the Times says the disclosures do
not "offer a fundamentally new narrative of his picaresque career." And while anchors and pundits keep pronouncing Trump "the biggest loser," he's still got a plane, Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago and, oh right, the presidency. The Times obtained printouts
from Trump's IRS transcripts for the tax years 1985 to 1994, when he
surged to national prominence. These are not the most recent returns
that the Democratic House is demanding from the Treasury. The
red-ink revelation: "The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported
losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos,
hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose
money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade. In
fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than
nearly any other individual American taxpayer." And something no
politician wants to advertise: "Overall, Mr. Trump lost so much money
that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10
years." Trump bragged about using depreciation to cut his taxes in
his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal." And the Times acknowledges that
"the tax code also lets business owners like Mr. Trump use losses to
avoid paying tax on future income — a lucrative deduction intended to
help troubled businesses get back on their feet." (Ordinary taxpayers
can also write off property depreciation and losses, but this is a
pittance compared to what big-time developers do.) The Times
quoted Trump lawyer Charles Harder as calling the story "demonstrably
false," and saying the paper’s assertions "about the president's tax
returns and business from 30 years ago are highly inaccurate." Then came the inevitable Trump tweets: "Real
estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s…were entitled to massive
write offs [sic] and depreciation which would, if one was actively
building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non
monetary. [sic] Sometimes considered 'tax shelter,' you would get it by
building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax
purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often
re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old
information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!" So he acknowledges and justifies the practices — all true — and then calls it "fake news." By the way, candidate Trump bragged about his big writeoffs in a 2016 fall debate, declaring, "I love depreciation!" One
side note is Trump's brief moonlighting as a corporate raider. From
1986 through 1988, Trump "made millions of dollars in the stock market
by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures
show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors
stopped taking his takeover talk seriously." So what's the bottom line, to use a green-eyeshade term? It
may well be that Donald Trump lost far more money than he wanted us to
know, paid far less in taxes than he wanted us to know, and was far more
aggressive in exploiting the tax system than he wanted us to know. But
there's no requirement that a businessman not take every available
deduction to avoid paying taxes. And we've known that Trump went through
boom-and-bust cycles, including the Atlantic City casinos that went
belly-up, in the past. A report that he was doing these things 30 years
ago, without any evidence of improper conduct, isn't going to change
many minds.
"CNN Tonight"
anchor Don Lemon seemed to board the impeachment train Wednesday,
predicting that Democratic lawmakers will actually go after President Trump and suggesting it could be the "remedy" for what some Democrats have called a "constitutional crisis." "Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes," Lemon began his monologue, echoing the declaration of House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.
"The president of the United States is just blowing right through our
system of checks and balances, the very thing that is supposed to keep
our Congress, the Judicary, and the Executive Branch working, which
means our country working. He is engaging in an ongoing coverup by
defying at every turn the representatives of you, the American people,
the very people who are supposed to be investigating fact-finding on our
behalf."
Lemon then interviewed Nadler about his committee's vote to hold Attorney General William Barr
in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with their requests
regarding further disclosure of the Mueller report and asked what was
the "remedy" to a constitutional crisis. "Well, we don't exactly
know what the remedy to [a] constitutional crisis [is,] other than the
application of law," Nadler responded before listing all the ways he
believed the Trump administration was being "lawless." "Why is that remedy not impeachment?" Lemon asked. "It may come to that if the president keeps up with this conduct, but we'll see," Nadler answered. During a panel discussion, Lemon congratulated himself for predicting that Democrats would eventually pursue impeachment. "I
hate to pat myself on the back, but I've said since pretty early on
-- a couple of weeks ago -- it appears that ... the ball is rolling
toward impeachment, that the Democrats have no other choice and do
this," Lemon said. "They either ignore the rule of law or -- because
then they too may look like they're allowing the president to just run
roughshod over them and over the Constitution." "How can Democrats
like Nadler say that this is a constitutional crisis, but then not use
the tool they have to stop a constitutional crisis?" Lemon later asked. Lemon
went on to clarify that he thought the "momentum" was heading
toward impeachment but did not specifically predict that Democrats would
be successful.
The CaliforniaDepartment of Education approved controversial sex education guidelines for public school teachers Wednesday that encourage classroom discussions about gender identity and LGBT relationships, but removed five resources and books, including one that explains sex to students as young as kindergarten. LGBT
advocates praised the new recommendations for giving attention to a
community that is often left out of sex education policies. But
some parents and conservative groups assailed the more than 700-page
document as an assault on parental rights, claiming it exposes children
to ideas about sexuality and gender that should be taught at home.
Opponents of a proposal to make changes to the sex education
guidance for California's teachers rallied Wednesday at the Capitol in
Sacramento.
(Associated Press)
"It's just scary what
they are going to be teaching. It's pornography," said Patricia Reyes,
45, a mother of six who traveled more than 400 miles to attend
Wednesday's hearing in Sacramento, the state capital. "If this
continues, I'm not sending them to school." "Not everything under
the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment," Greg
Burt, director of the California Family Council, told the Sacramento
Bee.
"Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment." — Greg Burt, director, California Family Council
But department administrators explained their view. “Our
priority is to make all children feel comfortable at school,” the
Department of Education said in a statement. “Dispelling myths, breaking
down stereotypes and linking students to resources can help prevent
bullying, self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and serious
considerations of suicide.”
"Dispelling myths,
breaking down stereotypes and linking students to resources can help
prevent bullying, self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and serious
considerations of suicide." — California Department of Education statement
The department considered changes to the state’s Health Education Framework during a public hearing in Sacramento on Wednesday, the Sacramento Bee
reported. More than 120 people registered to speak at the hearing to
support or oppose the new guidelines for K-12 health curriculum, as
nearly 200 protesters rallied outside. After several organizations
pushed back on “sexually explicit” and “offensive, reckless and
immoral” books included in the document, the board decided to remove
five books from the new framework. One book, titled, “Changing
You,” which shows cartoon illustrations of male and female genitals and
described what “having sex is” was originally recommended for
transitional kindergarten through third-grade students, the Bee
reported. "It's important to know the board is not trying to ban
books. We're not saying that the books are bad," board member Feliza I.
Ortiz-Licon told the Associated Press. "But the removal will help avoid
the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these
books."
"It's important to know the board is not
trying to ban books. We're not saying that the books are bad. But the
removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is
mandating the use of these books." — Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon, member of California State Board of Education
An
earlier draft of the guidelines also suggested high schoolers read the
book: “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You
Through Your Teens and Twenties,” which includes descriptions of anal
sex, bondage and other sexual activity. Ultimately, California’s
finalized framework tells teachers that students in kindergarten can
identify as transgender and offers tips for how to talk about that,
adding “the goal is not to cause confusion about the gender of the child
but to develop an awareness that other expressions exist.” The
document also gives tips for discussing masturbation with
middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful,
and for discussing puberty with transgender teens that creates “an
environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about
gender.” Schools
are not mandated to use the new framework in their curricula. The
framework serves as a way to educate teachers and administrators on
state standards about a wide range of health education topics, including
nutrition, physical activity, combating alcohol and drug abuse in
addition to sexual health. Students are able to opt-out from
lessons about sexual health, the Bee reported. But the state requires
students to attend lessons that explain gender identity, discrimination
and social issues such as the Supreme Court ruling of same-sex marriage. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Former Vice President Joe Biden,left, served as chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 when Anita Hill, right, testified
allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Supreme Court nominee Judge
Clarence Thomas.(Associated Press)
Opponents of a proposal to make changes to the sex education
guidance for California's teachers rallied Wednesday at the Capitol in
Sacramento.
(Associated Press)
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
