Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's
brother-in-law, Pastor Rhyan Glezman, slammed the Democratic hopeful
for his comments Tuesday night, when the candidate claimed he doesn't
see "any compatibility" between supporting President Trump and the teachings in Scripture after declaring that God "does not belong to a political party." "Yeah,
in the height of intellectual dishonesty for Pete to make claims that
there's no compatibility with being a Christian and voting for Trump,
[when] Pete, in fact, is the one who is pushing agendas and rhetoric
that is against, clearly against Scripture," Glezman said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Wednesday. "Just
everything that Pete is pushing is, it's anti-God. I'm just gonna be
honest with you," Glezman said. "Nothing lines up with Scripture for him
to make cases like to say that you cannot be a Christian and vote for
Trump. He's the one that is openly contradicting God's word over and
over." "Do you think that it's impossible to be a Christian and support Trump?" CNN host Erin Burnett had asked Buttigieg during a town hall. "I'm
not going to tell other Christians how to be Christian," Buttigieg
said, "but I will say I cannot find any compatibility between the way
this president conducts himself and anything I find in Scripture." Glezman
also reacted to a clip of Buttigieg on "The View" addressing
partial-birth abortion, in which co-host Meghan McCain asked the
candidate about the topic, saying Democrats -- including pro-life
Democrats -- want to know where his "line is." "But my point is
that it shouldn't be up to a government official to draw the line,"
Buttigieg said on the segment. "It should be up to the woman who's
confronted." "I'm
just in a state of lament when you hear that we have someone running
for commander in chief who can't make a moral decision on whether to
keep a child after it's already been born or to have it killed," Glezman
told Tucker on Wednesday. "What kind of moral suggestions is he going
to be given if he can't come to an understanding of that? It's just,
it's alarming." Fox News' Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.
The presidential candidate debate Wednesday night showed that Democrats simply have no idea how to defeat President Trump in the November election – and their frustration was on full display. Not one of the six Democrats
on stage in Las Vegas even claimed to have a plan to increase economic
growth, create jobs and grow wages – areas in which President Trump has
had great success and benefitted the American people. Democratic
socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; former New York City Mayor
Mike Bloomberg; former Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts; former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota all focused on taxing Americans who have
been successful and redistributing that wealth through massive
government-controlled welfare programs. What
separates the candidates is the degree to which they want taxes and
government to grow, and how many job-killing restrictions they want to
put on the private sector. But even the so-called “moderate”
candidates are advocating programs so massive that their most aggressive
tax plans would be wholly insufficient to fund them. The
candidates might as well have told potential voters that they intend to
tax employers to the point where they are unable to invest in their
businesses, create jobs or raise workers’ wages. That’s hardly an
effective campaign slogan. If you listened closely, you also heard
what I believe will cost the Democrats the election: their refusal to
acknowledge the obvious fact that the U.S. economy – and working-class
Americans in particular – are doing quite well. Rather, the candidates
fell all over themselves trying to outdo each other on claims that
Americans are suffering.
More from Opinion
Yet,
more people are working than at any time in our nation’s history, the
unemployment rate is near a 50-year low, and wages are rising for all
workers at rates not seen in a decade – higher for low earners than for
high earners. Income inequality is declining and we still have 1 million
more job openings than people unemployed. If you have a job or want
one, life is good. Contrary to what the Democrats on the debate
stage at least claim to believe, the economic future of our country
looks very bright and Americans know it – even if the Democrats running
for president don’t. According to Fidelity Investments’ 2020 New
Year Financial Resolutions Study, 78 percent of Americans believe they
will be better off in 2020 than they were in 2019. A December CNN
poll conducted by SSRS found that 68 percent of Americans expect our
economy to be in good shape a year from now – the best showing in CNN’s
polling since December 2003. In a December poll from Quinnipiac
University, 79 percent of Americans said “they are optimistic about
their own financial future.” Finally,
a Gallup poll released earlier this month found that “74% of Americans
say they will be better off financially in a year.” Those are
really tremendous numbers. And how Americans feel about the economy is a
huge indicator of how they will vote in the presidential election. A
December Gallup found that 84 percent of Americans believe the economy
is an "extremely" or "very" important issue in the upcoming election.
That’s a huge number and was higher than for any other issue. You would
think a presidential debate would spend some significant time discussing
it. The
poll found the least important issues were wealth distribution, climate
change and LGBT rights. You sure wouldn’t know that if you listened to
the Democratic debate. It’s hard to win an election when you’re
unable to figure out how to address the issue that’s most important to
voters. That’s where the Democrats find themselves and that’s why they
will lose in November.
Who won the Democratic debate Wednesday night? That's easy, says U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.: President Trump. “We
now know why they've spent so much time on impeachment because they
don't have a message that will resonate with the American people,”
Meadows said on "Fox News @ Night." He added that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seemed unprepared for the barrage of attacks by his fellow candidates. “He was just really just blown away,” he said. Meadows said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a self-proclaimed democratic socialist who leads in the polls, is “closer to Karl Marx than he is Carl Icahn.” BLOOMBERG UNDER SIEGE AT CHAOTIC DEBATE DEBUT, AS WARREN ATTACKS FIELD IN BID TO REVIVE CAMPAIGN Sanders’
message, according to Meadows, is, “Let us make sure that we take
everybody else's money and distribute it to those who don't have it. The
only person who's not distributing his money is Bernie Sanders.” “There
were a lot of blows that were given and a lot of shots taken. But
actually, Bernie Sanders seemed to come away unscathed," he added. Meadows said he doesn’t think Sanders is unstoppable but he is the candidate to beat. “He's
the one with the most momentum,” he told Fox News' Mike Emanuel. “And
as we see that Michael Bloomberg is not the one that's going to take him
on. Maybe somebody else on that debate stage tonight. But it just shows
that a billion dollars doesn't make you prepared for primetime because
obviously Michael Bloomberg was not prepared tonight for even the
simplest questions that he should have anticipated.”
"A
billion dollars doesn't make you prepared for primetime because
obviously Michael Bloomberg was not prepared tonight for even the
simplest questions." — Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
He
added that the last couple of weeks have been good for the president
“with a debacle that started in Iowa in the acquittal on impeachment.” “He's
feeling really good. He's feeling positive, mainly because he's
delivering on the promises that he made,” he said. “And he's going to
continue to do that not only for the next nine months but for the next
five years.”
Multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg
landed in Las Vegas like a highly anticipated show on the Strip. But
when he took to the stage with five competitors for the Democratic
presidential nomination Wednesday night, their debate immediately became
an Ultimate Fighting Championship match. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., landed the most blows and won the night. Warren would not be ignored or denied. Warren
flattened Bloomberg out of the gate using his own words against the
former New York City mayor and he never recovered. As a result, voters
got to see the real Warren, who was the front-runner last fall. And they
saw the real Bloomberg, not the filtered one seen on paid TV ads and in
social media. Warren’s strong performance helped her at a time when she needs it most and hurt Bloomberg so badly that he may not recover. If
you are a presidential candidate at this stage of the campaign and you
aren’t helping yourself then you’re hurting yourself and losing ground.
The other candidates on stage didn’t help themselves – and that means
they hurt their prospects.
More from Opinion
There was one winner and five losers at the end of the debate – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; former Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Bloomberg, who turned out to be the biggest loser of all. BIGGEST WINNER: Sen. Elizabeth Warren With
Bloomberg standing to her right Warren landed a left to the jaw with a
shattering exchange using his own words about women against him. She
then used his nondisclosure agreements, the stop-and-frisk tactic
employed by police primarily against minorities when he was mayor, and
his vast fortune estimated at more than $60 billion against him too. Warren
continued to hit Bloomberg by using his record as a weapon while she
highlighting her own in stark contrast. Bloomberg was unable to respond
effectively and his poor performance can’t be fixed by the hundreds of
millions of dollars in ads he is buying.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,
speaks as during a Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday,
Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)
But, that was just the start for Warren. She was determined to be heard and make her mark and she did just that. Warren
spent the debate drawing a sharp contrast with her opponents, making
the case for herself for all to see, and laying out her plans. Most of
all, Warren demonstrated once again that she could take on Trump and
that may be the thing that helped her the most. That fiery Elizabeth
Warren has been missing in debates and on the campaign trail of late and
she came roaring back Wednesday night. Warren comes out of this
debate with a lot of momentum. If she can capitalize upon it then the
results of three big contests from this Saturday to Super Tuesday will
reflect it – and will put her back in race as the progressive
capitalist.
BIGGEST LOSER: Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg Bloomberg’s
performance was a disaster. He was not the Bloomberg of his ads in this
debate – and that’s now a big problem for him. Spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on ads has bought Bloomberg name recognition, good
poll numbers and a pole position in the debate – but no amount of money
can guarantee a great debate performance. And that was the case
Wednesday night. Voters will see clips of this performance on TV and
read about it for days, and it will seriously hurt Bloomberg’s standing
in the presidential nomination race.
Democratic presidential candidate, former New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate
Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)
Warren exposed the real Michael Bloomberg and it was
not a pretty picture. It was Warren’s relentless challenge to Bloomberg
on a host of issues – including his treatment of women who worked for
him and his refusal to release them from nondisclosure agreements – as
well as his treatment of people of color with his stop-and-frisk policy. Bloomberg’s
attempts to apologize and explain only made the situation worse. His
apology came off as more about convenience than sincerity – and that
will register with voters too. Finally, Bloomberg also sounded a
lot like President Trump when asked about releasing his tax returns,
raising issues about his lack of transparency. Bloomberg leaned on the
fact that he entered the presidential nominating race late, after a
deliberate decision to skip the first four contests that require retail
politics and the vetting he was experiencing during the televised
debate. By the time Bloomberg releases his tax returns, it will
likely be after the Super Tuesday primaries March 3, after a big chunk
of primary votes will have been cast. When you add the issue of his
taxes to his treatment of women and people of color, Bloomberg will seem
a lot more like Trump than the guy who can beat Trump to a lot of
voters following his weak debate performance. LOSER: Sen. Bernie Sanders Sanders
is the front-runner in the polls and in a close second place in the
competition for delegates following the Iowa caucuses and the New
Hampshire primary, but he missed the chance to put this race away with a
strong performance Wednesday night. Instead, the self-described
democratic socialist who represents Vermont was repeatedly questioned
about his lack of transparency regarding his medical records, his recent
heart attack and the cost of his “Medicare-for-all” plan. All this
could hurt him. Clearly, Sanders has decided it is better to take
the heat than release his complete medical records in addition to
letters he has provided from doctors. But the issue of transparency
could hamper Sanders in the remainder of this race.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday, Feb.
19, 2020, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)
It wasn’t a bad performance by Sanders. He hit
Buttigieg early in the debate – a smart move since Buttigieg is cutting
into Sanders’ support among young voters. Sanders also hit
Bloomberg at points in the second hour of the debate. But that didn’t
make up for the hits Sanders took early in the night. The question
is whether the lack of transparency by Sanders on several fronts takes
hold and hurts him in future contests. We will find out in the next two
weeks. If not, then Sanders could continue to add to his delegate count
and that could give him an insurmountable lead when the results come in
on Super Tuesday. LOSER: Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg Buttigieg
is the leader in delegates at this early stage from his strong finish
in Iowa and New Hampshire. He used the debate to land a few blows on
Sanders, with whom he’s locked in a delegate fight. The former mayor
also hit Klobuchar, who he is competing with for moderate voters.
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg looks on during a
Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las
Vegas. (Associated Press)
While Buttigieg didn’t hurt himself that also means
he didn’t help himself. We will see how that factors into the results of
the Nevada caucuses Saturday, but the debate was a missed opportunity
for him to solidify his status as the early front-runner in the delegate
count. In addition, Buttigieg and Klobuchar had a number of
exchanges in their fight for moderate voters. In fact, Klobuchar cost
Buttigieg a win in New Hampshire and that dynamic is unlikely to change
after Wednesday night’s debate. It was a good but subtle strategy on a
night that called for stronger performance by Buttigieg to accelerate
his momentum in this race. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER LOSER: Sen. Amy Klobuchar Klobuchar’s
last strong debate performance helped her raise $12 million in badly
needed campaign contributions and go from the back of the pack to win
third place in the New Hampshire primary. But the senator from
Minnesota didn’t deliver that kind of performance Wednesday night.
Instead, we saw the Klobuchar of previous debates rather than the star
performer of the last debate that gave her the momentum and most
undecided voters in the last 72 hours of the New Hampshire primary
campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.,
speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday, Feb.
19, 2020, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)
Klobuchar’s challenge will be to convince Nevada voters and a national audience that her performance wasn’t a one-hit-wonder. LOSER: Former Vice President Joe Biden Biden’s
sights may be set on the Feb. 29 South Carolina primary – where he is
counting on strong support from the large number of African-American
voters – but he needed to roll the dice to deliver a strong performance
Wednesday night to look like a winner.
Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden
speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday, Feb.
19, 2020, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)
Instead,
Biden did nothing to help himself. He looked like a tourist in Las
Vegas rather than someone who should own the stage. Biden did little if
anything to reassure voters he’s the best one to take on Trump or stem
his slide in the polls. And that’s more bad news for Biden in this race. Nevada
voters began early caucusing this week and when we see results of their
caucuses Saturday we will have a stronger indication of where the
Democratic nomination battle is headed.
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone
is expected to be sentenced Thursday by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman
Jackson, who has been involved in several high-profile cases since being
appointed to the federal bench in 2011 by former President Barack Obama. In
recent years the 65-year-old Baltimore native and Harvard Law School
graduate has presided over cases involving Stone, former Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort and former Democratic U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
-- as well as one involving Hillary Clinton's Benghazi-related emails. Jackson said
Tuesday during a pre-sentence hearing that she will move ahead with the
sentencing of Stone this week -- rejecting requests by the defense to
delay or request a new trial. She has been described by some as tough, fair and always prepared. Here are more details about cases over which Judge Jackson has presided.
Roger Stone case
Jackson
is presiding over the Roger Stone case, in which a jury found him
guilty on all seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making
false statements to Congress in connection with former Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Stone was charged with
providing false statements to the House Intelligence Committee about
communication involving WikiLeaks, obstructing a congressional
investigation of Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential
election and witness tampering. During the trial, Jackson barred
Stone from speaking publically about the ongoing prosecution after a
picture of her appeared on his Instagram with what appeared to be
crosshairs on the background. Stone blamed the decision -- which he reviewed -- on an unnamed volunteer and apologized, to which Jackson replied last February, "I have serious doubts about whether you learned anything at all."
Roger Stone, a longtime Republican provocateur and former
confidant of President Donald Trump, waits in line at the federal court
in Washington, Nov. 12, 2019. (Associated Press)
"From this moment on, the defendant may not speak
publicly about this case -- period," Jackson said. "No statements about
the case on TV, radio, print reporters, or [the] internet. No posts on
social media. [You] may not comment on the case through surrogates. You
may send out emails about donating to the Roger Stone defense fund." "This
is not baseball. There will be no third chance. If you cannot abide by
this, I will be forced to change your surroundings so you have no
temptations," she added.
"This is not baseball. There
will be no third chance. If you cannot abide by this, I will be forced
to change your surroundings so you have no temptations." — Judge Jackson to Roger Stone
Ahead
of Thursday's scheduled hearing, Jackson was attacked by President
Trump in a Feb 11 tweet. He also criticized prosecutors' recommendation
that Stone should face seven to nine years in prison. "Is this the
Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that
not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked
Hillary Clinton? Just asking!" Trump wrote. After his tweets, the Justice Department
announced in a surprising decision it was revising the federal
sentencing guidelines of term length. Several prosecutors quit and Trump
was accused of interfering in the process, which he denied. Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy
said Jackson can impose whatever sentence she feels is appropriate,
regardless of how Trump or Attorney General Bill Barr feel about the
case. But McCarthy wrote recently that "the Stone prosecution is more politics than law enforcement. It was the Mueller probe’s last gasp at pretending there might be something to the Russia-collusion narrative."
Paul Manafort case
Jackson
sentenced former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to nearly seven
years in prison last March in connection with his guilty plea related to
foreign lobbying and witness tampering. She ordered a term of 73 months
to be added to a 47-month sentence given earlier on bank and tax fraud
charges in a separate case by Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis. In December, Manafort's state mortgage fraud charges were dismissed citing double jeopardy laws. “This
defendant is not public enemy number one, but he is not a victim
either,” Jackson said last March during Manafort's sentencing and prior
to his charges being dismissed. “The question of whether there was any
collusion with Russia ... was not presented in this case, period,
therefore it was not resolved by this case.” In 2018, Manafort
agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, pleading guilty to two felony
conspiracy charges in relation to his lobbying work with Ukraine. Last
February, Jackson ruled Manafort intentionally breached his guilty plea
agreement by lying to investigators on Mueller's team. "The
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) made its determination that the
defendant made false statements and thereby breached the plea agreement
in good faith," Jackson wrote. "Therefore, the Office of Special Counsel
is no longer bound by its obligations under the plea agreement,
including its promise to support a reduction of the offense level in the
calculation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of
responsibility."
Paul Manafort arrives in court in New York, June 27, 2019
after a judge threw out his New York mortgage fraud case on double
jeopardy grounds. (Associated Press)
Jackson grilled Mueller's team during the probe on whether Manafort lied to investigators before her eventual ruling. "So,
I'm trying to figure out what the importance is of his ongoing work for
a potential candidate in the Ukraine at that time is, and the
importance of any lies about that, or lies about Konstantin Kilimnik's
[who has ties to Russian intelligence] knowledge about that," Jackson
said. She appreciated Manafort's attendance in court last February
after denying his attempt to skip the hearing due to what he described
were health reasons. "I believe it was very helpful, very useful
and very important for you to have been here, Mr. Manafort," Jackson
said. "I know that we've had hearings where counsel sought to minimize
the burden on you and not have you be here, but this is about you, it's
not about them. And I think it's very important that they have you
available to ask questions to."
Jesse Jackson Jr. case
The
judge sentenced former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to 2-1/2 years in prison
back in 2013 after he was convicted of spending $750,000 in campaign
funds on personal items -- such as a gold watch, cigars and mounted elk
heads. Jessie Jackson Jr. is the son of civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., arrives at the E.
Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, Feb. 20, 2013.
(Associated Press)
During the case, she said that if she had given him
no prison time it would have suggested there was one system for the
well-connected and one for everyone else. "I
cannot do it. I will not do it," she said, adding that as a public
official, Jackson Jr. was expected to "live up to a higher standard of
ethics and integrity."
Clinton Benghazi email case
Jackson
tossed out a wrongful-death lawsuit against Hillary Clinton in 2017 by
the parents of two Americans who were among those killed in a terror
attack against a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The lawsuit
alleged that Clinton's use of the private email server caused their
deaths. The
ruling was based on the Westfall Act, which gives federal employees
immunity from tort claims arising out of acts made during the course of
their official duties. “Her actions – communicating with other
State Department personnel and advisers about the official business of
the department – fall squarely within the scope of her duty to run the
Department and conduct the foreign affairs of the nation as Secretary of
State,” Jackson wrote. Jackson
ruled the parents didn't sufficiency challenge that Clinton wasn't
acting in her official capacity when she used the email server. "The
untimely death of plaintiffs' sons is tragic, and the Court does not
mean to minimize the unspeakable loss that plaintiffs have suffered in
any way," Jackson wrote in a 29-page opinion. Fox News' Brooke Singman, Gregg Re and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Gun-rights activists scored a Second Amendment victory in Virginia this week over the state's Democrat governor and legislature -- and gun-control financier and Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, Laura Ingraham reported Tuesday. "Just
a few months ago, anti-gun Democrats in Virginia thought they could
easily ram through a new ban on so-called assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines," Ingraham said Tuesday night on "The Ingraham Angle,"
"and Gov. Ralph Northam was supporting this bill, of course, with a
phony argument that rolling back the gun rights of law-abiding
Virginians would make all Virginians safer." "But
Northam wasn't ready for the pushback, was he?" Ingraham said. "The
opposition made sure that their voices were gonna be heard -- and boy,
were they heard." The bill backed by Gov. Ralph Northam
would have banned the sale of assault-style weapons in Virginia. It
failed on a committee vote Monday morning, setting back one of the
biggest priorities for the newly minted Democrat-controlled government
in the state. Ingraham celebrated the victory in Virginia with
lawmakers losing out on their anti-Second Amendment push and noted
Bloomberg's involvement. "It's important to note that this
grassroots uprising was successful despite the millions that have been
pumped into the Commonwealth from out-of-staters like Democrat
presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg," Ingraham said. "Through his
group, Every Town for Gun Safety, he funneled 2.5 million into Virginia
last year to elect anti-Second Amendment Democrats." "But it turns
out there's still a lot of Jeffersonian spirit left in Virginia,"
Ingraham said. "Their Second Amendment rights aren't for sale."
"It turns out there's still a lot of Jeffersonian spirit left in Virginia. Their Second Amendment rights aren't for sale." — Laura Ingraham
The host warned that future anti-gun pushes will continue and asked viewers to imagine what Bloomberg would do as president. "But
Bloomberg and the rest of the anti-gun forces in America won't let this
defeat stop them," Ingraham said. "But what happened in Virginia
yesterday shows that when we the people argue the facts and we stand
united for a noble cause, we can overcome the corrupting influence of
money and leftist ideology." "A
Bloomberg nomination is guaranteed to do at least two things," Ingraham
said. "One, motivate the Republican base and two, drive up the price of
Smith & Wesson stock." Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this report.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday reportedly shut down rumors that she might consider serving as Michael Bloomberg’s running mate if he were to win the Democratic presidential nomination. "Oh
no! I'm just waiting and watching as this plays out. I will support
whoever the nominee is,” she told the moderator while in Puerto Rico for
a Clinton Global Initiative event. Last week, the 2016 Democratic
nominee played down the idea that she could be a vice presidential
pick, telling Ellen DeGeneres on her show, "Well, that's not going to
happen, but no.” In
the interview last Thursday she clarified, “I never say never because I
do believe in serving my country -- but it's not going to happen,”
citing when former President Obama asked her to be his secretary of
state after their hard-fought primary race in 2008. Clinton, who
lost the 2016 general election to Republican Donald Trump, posited
during the interview that Trump's behavior as president underscores the
double standard female candidates face. "We've got one of the most
emotionally acting-out people ever in the history of our country in the
White House and I don't hear anybody saying, 'He's just too
emotional,'” Clinton said, referring to a common critique of female
politicians. Last November, she told the BBC that “many, many,
many people” were pressuring her to think about running for president
again, but added, “I, as I say, never, never, never say never. ... But
as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is
absolutely not in my plans." If
she did enter the race as a presidential candidate, she would face an
uphill battle, having already missed primary voting in several states
and the deadline to be on the Democratic ballot in most others.
The
Justice Department pushed back Tuesday night at multiple reports
claiming Attorney General William Barr told people close to him he's
considering stepping down over President Trump's tweets, days after Barr admitted that Trump's tweeting made it "'impossible for me to do my job." "Addressing Beltway rumors: The Attorney General has no plans to resign," DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec tweeted. Barr "has his limits," one person familiar with Barr’s thinking told
The Washington Post. Its report suggested that Barr wanted Trump to
"get the message" to stop weighing in publicly in ongoing criminal
cases. An administration official gave a similar admission on Barr to
The Associated Press. Barr, speaking to ABC News last week, also
denied ever acting on improper influence from Trump or the White House.
White House officials told the Post that the president had no plans to
stop tweeting about Justice Department cases. He insisted he had a
"legal right" to make his voice heard on criminal cases. The White House did not immediately comment on the Tuesday night reports. Trump tweeted Tuesday he's considering suing those involved in
former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and said
his confidant Roger Stone deserved a new trial after being convicted of
witness tampering, obstruction and lying to Congress during the Mueller
probe. Hours later, a Justice Department official revealed prosecutors
had filed a sealed motion in court arguing the opposite, and that they
had Barr's approval to do so. Last week, Trump, in a late-night
tweet, criticized a federal prosecutor's earlier recommendation that
that Stone should be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. Soon
afterward, DOJ leaders adjusted the sentencing recommendation downward,
saying it was clearly excessive given Stone's obstruction-related offenses. All four prosecutors on the case stepped down within hours. Barr
asserted his independence in the Justice Department's decision to
intervene. "I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody...
whether it's Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president.” Over
the weekend, more than 2,000 former department employees signed a
public letter urging Barr to resign over his handling of the Stone case.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House Minority Leader
Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., came to Barr's defense
on Tuesday. The top Republicans insisted Barr had the "highest
character and unquestionable integrity" and Democrats' efforts to
"intimidate" him would fail spectacularly. Trump, too, assured
reporters he stood behind his attorney general, despite the criticisms.
"I have total confidence in my attorney general," Trump told reporters
earlier Tuesday. "I do make his job harder. I do agree on that. ... We
have a great attorney general and he's working very hard." Stone
has been a friend and adviser to the president for decades and was a
key figure in his 2016 campaign, working to discover damaging
information about the Clinton campaign. Stone's defense has asked for a sentence of probation, citing his age, 67, and lack of criminal history. Fox News' Mike Arroyo contributed to this report.
Roger Stone, a longtime Republican provocateur and former
confidant of President Donald Trump, waits in line at the federal court
in Washington, Nov. 12, 2019. (Associated Press)
Paul Manafort arrives in court in New York, June 27, 2019
after a judge threw out his New York mortgage fraud case on double
jeopardy grounds. (Associated Press)
Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., arrives at the E.
Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, Feb. 20, 2013.
(Associated Press)
