Miss America Cartoons

Kavanaugh hearings see flood of document releases as Dems claim to flout Senate rules

After beginning with a bizarre series of document releases that prompted one top Democrat to compare himself to Thracian gladiator Spartacus, the third day of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings centered on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation -- and a string of emails from earlier in the nominee's career, more than a decade ago.
As Democrats questioned Kavanaugh, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., on Thursday afternoon released a new batch of documents that appeared to be labeled "committee confidential," meaning they were cleared to be viewed only by the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the public.
Booker tweeted that the entire nominating process was a "sham," and claimed he was running the risk of being expelled from the Senate for breaking its rules by posting the Bush-era documents, which included Kavanaugh's thoughts on racial profiling in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks and his assessment of the Supreme Court's views on Roe v. Wade.
A Judiciary Committee spokesperson confirmed to Fox News late Thursday that at least some of the emails Booker had released were still "committee confidential" when he published them hours earlier, suggesting Booker had in fact violated Senate rules, although Republicans had said earlier in the day that they had cleared many of the documents for public release on Wednesday night.
Also on Thursday, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. -- another potential 2020 presidential contender -- circled back to a combative, mysterious moment during Wednesday's hearing, when she suggested Kavanaugh was hiding information intentionally.
Harris had asked Kavanaugh whether he ever had discussed Mueller or his Russia probe with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the nearly 300-member law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, a former personal attorney to President Trump. Kavanaugh demurred at the time, saying, "I'm not sure I know everyone who works at that law firm."
On Thursday night, Harris offered some more information about the foundation for her line of questioning.
"I received reliable information that you had a conversation about the special counsel or his investigation with the law firm that has represented President Trump," Harris began. "I will ask you again and for the last time -- yes or no, have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm Kasowitz Benson Torres about Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation?"
"The answer is no," Kavanaugh eventually replied. Harris moved on quickly, peppering Kavanaugh with an aggressive series of rapid-fire questions on everything from gay marriage rights to separations of illegal immigrant families at the border.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., had pressed Kavanaugh on the Kasowitz issue earlier.
"Your answer was vague," Blumenthal charged. "Have you discussed the special counsel investigation with anyone outside the group of judges on the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals]?"
"I've had no inappropriate discussions with anyone," Kavanaugh said. "If you're walking around in America, it's coming up, senator, so people discuss it."
WATCH: KAMALA HARRIS WARNS KAVANAUGH TO 'BE SURE ABOUT YOUR ANSWER' ON MUELLER DISCUSSIONS
Blumenthal's questioning echoed Harris' tone on Wednesday, when she briefly silenced the hearing room by flatly telling Kavanaugh, "I think you're thinking of someone, and you don't want to tell us."
The moment prompted another outburst from demonstrators. In total, 69 protesters were charged with unlawfully demonstrating in the Senate complex on Thursday, including 37 in the hearing room, according to Capitol Police officials. On Wednesday, 73 people were arrested and charged, including 66 from the hearing room.
For the most part, the day's questions focused on documents opaquely referenced by Democrats on Wednesday that Booker and other senators released Thursday.
Democrats pointed, for example, to a 2003 email that had been marked "committee confidential" in which Kavanaugh wrote: "I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so."
Kavanaugh, then a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, was being asked for his opinion on a draft op-ed to be bylined by pro-life women. He repeatedly told Democrats that the email reflected only his opinion on the views of "legal scholars," and were not necessarily a fair reflection of his own opinions.
Crucially, that opinion seemed to be shared Thursday by Maine pro-choice Republican Susan Collins, considered a key swing vote in Kavanaugh's potential confirmation.
"I am told that he was editing an op-ed for clarity and was merely stating a fact that three judges on the court were anti-Roe,” Collins said. “If that’s the case then, and it’s not expressing his view, then I’m not sure what the point is.” Collins later told Politico she would review the matter again over the weekend.
Democrats also highlighted a 2001 email referenced on Wednesday in which Kavanaugh seemed dismissive of Department of Transportation regulations that gave preference to minority-owned companies, even where they did not offer the most competitive bid on a particular contract.
"The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in reality is a naked racial set-aside," Kavanaugh wrote, as part of his analysis that conservative members of the Supreme Court would “realize as much in short order and rule accordingly.” Kavanaugh on Thursday defended the email as an assessment of his views on the Supreme Court's probable take on the matter.
Earlier Thursday, Sen. Booker, D-N.J., claimed he was taking a dramatic risk by publicizing emails from 2002 that he had said on Wednesday indicated that Kavanaugh was open to racial profiling.
“I am going to release the email about racial profiling and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate,” Booker announced, adding later: “This is about the closest I'll probably ever have in my life to an, ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.”
But in a strange twist, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said that the George W. Bush library and the Justice Department had cleared several of the documents for public release the previous night, suggesting that Booker, in fact, was not risking anything by going public with the documents. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee had hinted Wednesday that the documents would come out, saying there was "no reason" to keep them private.
However, on Thursday afternoon, Booker continued publicly releasing documents that he said had been marked "committee confidential," posting on Twitter, "We will continue to release more committee confidential documents to draw attention to this sham process."
Late Thursday, a Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson confirmed to Fox News that at least some of the documents Booker released were still "committee confidential" when he released them.
One of the 12-page email chains that Booker ultimately provided showed that, in 2002, Kavanaugh wrote that he "generally" favored racially neutral security measures in the long term. But he acknowledged that administration officials would need to "grapple" with the viability of a potential interim solution that included race as a consideration, suggesting that until race-neutral policies could be effectively implemented, national security concerns in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks could demand another approach.
Another email chain released by Booker later Thursday showed Kavanaugh admitting to "venting" in 2001 about reported changes to a bill providing funding both religious and non-religious drug and alcohol treatment centers.
"A religious drug treatment center should be no better -- but also no worse -- in the eyes of the government than a non-religious drug treatment center," Kavanaugh wrote, by way of arguing that the Constitution requires that faith-based organizations should not receive preferential treatment, but should still receive a "neutral" and fair shake.
Despite the tense atmosphere, there were pointed moments of levity. At one point, at the insistence of Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Kavanaugh introduced several girls on a softball team he has coached through the years, rattling off their names and grade levels one by one. When he finished, the hearing room, which on dozens of occasions this week played host to loud and hostile anti-Kavanaugh protesters, broke out into applause.
And even though Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn sparred with Sen. Booker earlier in the day as he appeared to flout Senate rules, the two shared laughs about book recommendations as the hearing concluded at the end of the evening.
Kavanaugh and members of the Judiciary Committee then headed into a private executive session. On Friday at 9:30 a.m., hearings will continue with a series of outside witnesses, including members of the nonpartisan American Bar Association, which recommended Kavanaugh as highly qualified.

Miss America contestant advances after response to NFL protest

Miss Virginia Emili McPhail raised some eyebrows after one of her answers during the Miss America contest.  (Facebook)

A Miss America contestant was selected as one of Thursday’s preliminary winners thanks in part to her response about NFL players kneeling in protest during the playing of the national anthem.

Miss Virginia Emili McPhail was asked what advice she would give players on whether to kneel or stand during the anthem, the Associated Press reported.

Calling it “a right you have,” McPhail waded into the polarizing issue, adding “but it’s also not about kneeling; it is absolutely about police brutality.”
Some NFL players have said they take a knee during the playing of the anthem to protest police brutality and social injustice.
The anthem protest has deeply divided the country, with some calling it disrespectful to the American flag and the military. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the NFL and the players over their actions.
After the competition, McPhail was asked by reporters if she was concerned that her answer would alienate those with opposing views.
“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I stood up for what I believed was right,” McPhail said.
The protest was started by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, sparking a wave of blacklash and support. Kaepernick, who is not signed by a team, was recently announced as the newest face of Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign.
The third and final preliminaries will be held Friday. The next Miss America will be crowned Sunday in Atlantic City.

Former FBI official McCabe under grand jury probe: report

Federal prosecutors have impaneled a grand jury to investigate former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe following the Department of Justice inspector general’s report alleging that McCabe approved a media disclosure to advance his personal interests.
The Washington Post reported that the grand jury has summoned more than one witness and the case is still underway. It remains unclear who were summoned to testify.
The existence of the panel indicates that the authorities are treating McCabe’s actions during his time at the FBI seriously and may even press charges if sufficient evidence is found. The grand jury is often used as an investigative tool to gather evidence, though it may not necessarily lead to charges.
Michael R. Bromwich, counsel for McCabe, indicated in a statement to Fox News that the grand jury was impaneled a month ago and said that it’s unlikely McCabe will be prosecuted, unless there’s pressure from the “high levels of the administration, and said the leak about the grand jury was a distraction from a “disastrous week” for Trump.
“Today's leak about a procedural step taken more than a month ago -- occurring in the midst of a disastrous week for the president -- is a sad and poorly veiled attempt to try to distract the American public. We remain confident that a thorough review of the facts and circumstances related to this matter will demonstrate that there is no basis on which criminal charges should be brought,” he said.
McCabe has been criticized by Republicans and Trump over his connections to the Democratic Party and for his opposition to the Trump administration.
Republicans point to allies of the Clinton family who made sizable donations to McCabe's wife’s political campaign. McCabe's name was also mentioned in the infamous “insurance policy” text message between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe before being removed.

"Today's leak about a procedural step taken more than a month ago -- occurring in the midst of a disastrous week for the President -- is a sad and poorly veiled attempt to try to distract the American public."
- Michael R. Bromwich, counsel to Andrew McCabe

McCabe was fired in March ahead of his planned retirement following a bombshell report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, claiming McCabe lied to investigators and former FBI Director James Comey at least four times, three of them under oath. Comey backed the findings of the DOJ watchdog, which then sent a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney in Washington.
The former deputy director reportedly authorized a leak to a newspaper reporter about the contents of a telephone call on August 2016 in order cast himself in a positive light in the upcoming story about an investigation involving Hillary Clinton. While McCabe had the authority to authorize such a disclosure, the inspector general determined that the authorization was aimed at advancing his own rather than the bureau’s interests.
McCabe insisted his ouster was part of the Trump administration’s “ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the special counsel investigation” into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
He set up an online fundraiser following his firing to cover potential legal costs, and it attracted more than $550,000 in contributions. He later announced that he would stop accepting donations.

California Dems Newsom, Feinstein drop to single-digit leads in latest poll

Two of California's best-known Democrats are slipping in the polls as the calendar advances closer to Election Day.
In fact, both Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein have only single-digit leads over their opponents, the results show.
In the race for governor, a Probolsky Research poll, conducted between Aug. 29-Sept. 2, shows Newsom leading Republican businessman John Cox by a mere 5 points, with 17 percent of respondents undecided, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Feinstein faces similar problems, with the poll showing her with only an 8-point advantage over progressive challenger Kevin de León. A quarter of the respondents told the pollsters they remain undecided.
Both Cox and de León have cut their opponents' leads since the primaries in June. Newsom took 34 percent of the vote while Cox received 25 percent. In California's "jungle primary" system, the two top finishers face off in the general election, regardless of party.
In the U.S. Senate race, Feinstein received support from 44 percent of voters while de León received only 12 percent -- though other candidates ran as well.
The Hispanic vote has been a source of frustration for Newsom, who has basically split that constituency with Cox, despite Hispanics historically preferring Democrats, the Chronicle reported.
For Feinstein, one worry is support among the Republicans, who have no candidate of the Senate race. De León, despite positioning himself as a more progressive candidate than Feinstein, has 5-point lead among Republicans. Still, nearly half of Republicans in the poll said they are undecided.
De León has been relentlessly attacking Feinstein from the left for not being progressive enough. Amid the chaotic Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the progressive Democrat attacked Feinstein for adhering to the process rather than joining the protesters.
“We should be praising the protesters and standing outside with them, not apologizing for their actions,” he tweeted. “We need a senator from California who will stand up and #RESIST not #ASSIST.”
The attack from de León followed Feinstein's apology Wednesday after a protest broke out during the Kavanaugh hearing.
“I'm sorry for the circumstances,” the senator told Kavanaugh. “We'll get through it.”
Cox, meanwhile, has been campaigning on the ground and went to the state’s multiple Division of Motor Vehicle offices with a promise that “help is on the way” to those waiting in lines.
“This is a great reference point for everything John talks about,” campaign spokesman Matt Shupe told the Chronicle. “It's about bringing more transparency to government. It's about approaching issues like a businessman. It's about reforming a government entity that nobody is happy with.”

Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing Cartoons

Top Dem candidate who said money 'corrupts' politics donated $100G to Obama and asked for US ambassadorship

A liberal millionaire now running for Congress in Pennsylvania -- and railing against the influence of money in politics -- has a history of making large donations to former President Barack Obama's campaign and other efforts.
Scott Wallace, grandson of a former vice president of Franklin Roosevelt -- who’s running as a Democrat in Pennsylvania's 1st Congressional District against Republican incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick -- gave more than $100,000 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and Presidential Inaugural Committee and also asked top administration official John Podesta to appoint him as U.S. Ambassador in South Africa.
Wallace has made criticism of money in politics a campaign issue, saying money “corrupts” politics and slamming President Trump for giving access to wealthy donors.

Scott Wallace and his wife Christy donated $30,800 and $28,500 respectively to the Obama Victory Fund. The now-Democratic candidate also forked out $50,000 to Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee.  (Scott Wallace Campaign)

In July 2008, both Wallace and his wife Christy donated $30,800 and $28,500 respectively to the Obama Victory Fund, the former president's political action commmittee, Federal Election Commission records show.
Also in 2008, Wallace gave Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee $50,000 – the maximum permitted contribution, which provided Wallace with tickets to Obama's January 2009 swearing-in ceremony, parade and inaugural balls.
As he was donating to various Obama funds, Wallace also began his efforts to become the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, his so-called “second country,” where he lived for several years while overseeing the Wallace Global Fund’s projects in the country, by directly pushing a top Obama official to consider him for the role.
TOP DEM CANDIDATE GAVE MILLIONS TO GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR TAXING FAMILIES ‘TO THE HILT’ FOR ‘IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDING’

"It has become my second country, and I would be deeply honored to be considered to represent President Obama as ambassador there."
- Scott Wallace

“I know you must have a million things on your plate, but as I mentioned to you, Elizabeth and Smith Bagley were encouraging me to reach out to you sooner rather than later about a possible appointment in an Obama administration,” Wallace wrote to Podesta on Nov 3, 2008, according to an email released by WikiLeaks.
“I am passionate about helping South Africa achieve its full promise, and see its upcoming elections and the next couple of years as critical to the health of its democracy. It has become my second country, and I would be deeply honored to be considered to represent President Obama as ambassador there,” he continued, openly offering his diplomatic services.
“I imagine that my service under Republicans in the Senate, as well as subsequent decades of working with Democratic Judiciary Committee leadership, should be of some help with Senate confirmation,” he added.

"I took the liberty of listing you as a reference in the application forms at change.gov, but then wondered if perhaps those need to be names outside the formal transition process."
- Scott Wallace

The liberal millionaire returned to the issue a few weeks later, sending another email to Podesta, who spearheaded Obama’s transition team, saying he listed Podesta as a reference in an application to work in the administration.
“John, I meant to ask you this at the Democracy Alliance conference, but had to duck out just before the end of your session … I took the liberty of listing you as a reference in the application forms at change.gov, but then wondered if perhaps those need to be names outside the formal transition process,” he wrote.
“John, let me also offer my assistance to the personnel team in a range of areas. From my 13 years as a grantmaker, and about 20 years in the field of criminal justice policy and research, my job is generally to identify and invest in the highest quality leaders of the most effective organizations,” Wallace wrote in a follow up email.

"Money corrupts politics and it corrupts it absolutely."
- Scott Wallace

TOP DEM HOUSE HOPEFUL FUNDED GITMO DETAINEES’ LEGAL HELP ‘JUST AFTER 9/11’
That history appears to contradict Wallace’s more recent statements about his views on the influence of money in politics.
“Money corrupts politics and it corrupts it absolutely,” Wallace said earlier this year at the Bucks County (Pa.) Democratic Forum.
He also criticized President Trump for giving access to wealthy donors.
“But when his buddies in Congress, like Paul Ryan and Brian Fitzpatrick, finally OK’d his massive tax cuts for corporations and billionaires, what did Trump do? Jetted to his Florida country club and bragged to a roomful of people who paid $200,000 to get in the door, that they all ‘just got a lot richer.’ Oooh, that’s rich,” Wallace said in a March news release.
Even in 2011, Wallace decried contributions from “wealthy elites” and suggested the U.S. political system was being ruined by such donors.
“Sacrifice is expected, improving your own lifestyle is not. This is not to say that American politics today is not awash in big money. Our political parties and politicians are massively dependent on contributions from corporations and wealthy elites,” he wrote in an op-ed for South Africa's Cape Times.
The Wallace campaign didn’t respond to Fox News’ request for a comment.

Second day of Kavanaugh hearings erupts into tense cross-examination on Mueller, racial profiling

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing boiled over into a series of tense exchanges late in the evening Wednesday, as high-profile Democrats lined up to hammer the appellate judge with thinly veiled accusations that he was hiding ties to President Trump's inner circle and harbored sympathies for racist policies.
In an especially combative moment late in the day, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., pointedly asked Kavanaugh whether he ever had discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller or his Russia probe with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, a former personal attorney to President Trump.
"Be sure about your answer," Harris warned. "I'm asking you a very direct question. Yes or no?"
"I'm not sure I know everyone who works at that law firm," Kavanaugh said. "I'm not remembering, but I'm happy to be refreshed."
"How can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm?" Harris asked, visibly exasperated. "This investigation has only been going on for so long, sir, so please answer the question."
"I'm just trying to think -- do I know anyone who works at that firm?" Kavanaugh eventually replied. "I'd like to know the person you're thinking of."
"I think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us," Harris shot back, sending the room into a few seconds of near-total silence.
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee then interjected briefly to defend Kavanaugh, saying that "this town is full of law firms" and that they "are constanly metastaizing, they break off, they form new firms -- they're like rabbits. There's no possible way we can expect this witness to know who populates an entire firm."
A barrage of protesters erupted in a chant of "Answer the question" before being led out by police as Lee spoke. In all, 73 people were arrested and charged for unlawful demonstrations within Senate buildings on Wednesday, including 66 people who were removed from the hearing room during the day, according to Capitol Police officials.
In another dramatic exchange, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., implied Kavanaugh had been open to racial profiling tactics, citing an email exchange between Kavanaugh and a colleague. However, Booker did not provide Kavanaugh a copy of the emails to review while questioning him about it, prompting another objection from Lee, who charged that it was inappropriate to "cross-examine" Kavanaugh about documents that he "can't see."
Booker countered that when Democrats received the emails, which he said were titled "racial profiling," they were marked "committee confidential," indicating that they contained sensitive information.
"The system is rigged," Booker said, arguing that the documents should not have been marked confidential, because they did not contain personal or national security information. "The process is unfair, unnecessary, unjust, and unprecedented on this committee."
Lee ultimately agreed that the emails should be released, but that Kavanaugh should still be able to review them: "There's no reason why this shouldn't be something we can't discuss in public -- I don't know why it was marked 'committee confidential,'" he said.
Also Wednesday evening, Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono pressed Kavanaugh at length about whether he was aware of inappropriate behavior by former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski when he clerked for Kozinski from 1991 to 1992. Kozinski abruptly retired last year after several woman who had worked as law clerks or colleagues accused him of sexual misconduct that included touching, inappropriate sexual comments and forced viewings of pornography in his chambers.
Hirono, who repeatedly has asked other judicial nominees whether they ever sexually harassed anyone, noted that Kavanaugh and Kozinski had kept in touch after his clerkship, with Kozinski recommending Kavanaugh during his 2006 confirmation hearings for his current job on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"You saw nothing, you heard nothing, and you obviously said nothing," Hirono said, even as Kavanaugh denied being aware of any misconduct by Kozinski and said he would have reported it if he had known.
For the most part, the lengthy hearing focused on Kavanaugh's writings and, in particular, key opinions he authored while serving on the nation's most prestigious appellate court.
At one point, Kavanaugh was asked by Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy about the constitutionality of individual federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential action -- a phenomenon that has attracted scrutiny after district court judges unilaterally brought temporary halts to President Trump's travel ban and other initiatives. Kavanaugh demurred, saying he could not discuss potential pending issues before the Supreme Court.

"I'm sorry about the circumstances, but we'll get through it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

After Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse decried what he said was the improper mixing of partisan politics with legal discussion during the hearing, he reiterated his arguments from Tuesday that Congress often delegates excessive authority to mostly unaccountable executive branch agencies.
WATCH: SASSE UNLOADS ON CONGRESS DURING CONFIRMATION HEARING
In response, Kavanaugh specifically touched on the Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), saying that even if the agency was a good policy idea, its creation was an improper "departure from historical practice" because it employed a single director, rather than a committee, who could only be removed by the president for cause.
Kavanaugh wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel striking down the CFPB's structure as unconstitutional in 2016, but was later reversed in part by a 7-3 vote in an unusual en banc review by other justices on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The en banc review found the CFPB's structure to be constitutional, but agreed with Kavanaugh that one of the agency's major interpretive decisions had improperly violated due process requirements.
"A single person can make these enormous decisions?" Kavanaugh told Sasse on Wednesday, referring to the director of the CFPB. "From my perspective ... that was an issue of concern."
The confirmation hearing has been chaotic at times, with Democrats trying to delay the proceedings as they complain they haven't received enough records from Kavanaugh's past work.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell found a way to allow Wednesday’s confirmation hearing to continue into the night, after a brief floor clash with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer had objected to McConnell’s request for the committee to continue meeting after 2 p.m., despite plans to go late. But McConnell, using a parliamentary maneuver, adjourned the Senate for the day -- because committees can meet as long as they like when the Senate is not in session. 
KAVANAUGH VOWS TO 'KEEP AN OPEN MIND IN EVERY CASE'
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee’s ranking member and the first Democrat to question the nominee, began her questioning of Kavanaugh by referencing the outbursts from protesters: “I'm sorry about the circumstances, but we'll get through it,” she said.
Feinstein asked the nominee about his past case argument that Washington D.C.’s assault weapons ban was unconstitutional. He said he was following the precedent of the Supreme Court, but acknowledged that gun violence posed significant policy concerns.
In his 2011 dissent in a follow-up to the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, Kavanaugh wrote that based on Supreme Court precedent, gun restrictions should be assessed principally by reviewing "text, history, and tradition," rather than a balancing analysis that mainly considers dangers to the public and the government's interest in regulation.
Kavanaugh wrote that there is "no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction" between semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns, rejecting the city's attempt to apply regulations to rifles, other than automatics, that could not constitutionally apply to handguns.
Feinstein also pressed Kavanaugh over the Roe v. Wade court decision regarding abortion. “Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade,” he said.
Later in the day, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., dismissed Kavanaugh's statements on Roe, saying that describing the case as important "existing Supreme Court precedent" was akin to callously introducing a woman as "my current wife," drawing a slight grin from Kavanaugh.
The nominee then stressed that "precedent on precedent" has since supported abortion rights, noting that the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey explicitly upheld Roe. But when pointedly asked by Blumenthal to vow to never overturn Roe, Kavanaugh reiterated that it would be inappropriate for nominees to the Supreme Court to discuss hypothetical cases during their confirmation hearings -- a view echoed by each sitting Supreme Court justice.
It was a recurring theme for Kavanaugh on the day, as he emphasized that he would remain an impartial jurist despite his personal views, both before and after the confirmation hearings. To argue that he can be trusted to be fair to all litigants, Kavanaugh cited his decision in the 2012 case Hamdan v. United States, in which he overturned the conviction of Osama bin Laden's personal driver, Salim Hamdan. The conviction, Kavanaugh said, violated the Constitution's Ex Post Facto provision by punishing a defendant under a system of military tribunals enacted after his alleged crimes.
“You'll never have a nominee who's ruled for a more unpopular defendant," Kavanaugh told senators Wednesday, saying that while Hamdan was a widely reviled Guantanamo Bay detainee, he was still entitled to some constitutional protections.
Feinstein also asked Kavanaugh about past comments regarding investigations involving a president, a key issue amid the Russia probe that has implicated numerous Trump associates. Kavanaugh said he’s never taken a position on the constitutionality of whether a president should be investigated while in office.
In response to later questions from Sasse, Kavanaugh emphasized that "no one's above the law," saying that while any criminal prosecution of a sitting president may face "timing" issues, there is no absolute constitutional prohibition against eventually pursuing such a prosecution.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., pressed Kavanaugh about what he knew about the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. Leahy also asked Kavanaugh if a president has a right to pardon himself, a power President Trump has said he believes he has.
“The question of self-pardons is something I have never analyzed,” Kavanaugh replied.
Outbursts from protesters have been a recurring feature since the hearings began. Moments after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley opened the hearing Wednesday, shouting could be heard from the back of the room: “Sham president, sham justice!” Ironically, at one point, protesters shouted as Kavanaugh discussed how he tried to be respectful in court. "I’ve tried to be a very collegial judge, I’ve tried to be civil," he said.
Kavanaugh served for more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and, before that, for five years as a lawyer in the White House Counsel's office in the George W. Bush administration. He also worked for independent counsel Ken Starr for three years during the probe that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
Kavanaugh's elevation from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court would mark a generational rightward shift on the Supreme Court, raising the stakes beyond those of last year's nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
The judge's nomination, though, will ultimately succeed or fail depending on a handful of swing-vote senators, including vulnerable red-state Democrats and moderate pro-choice Republicans who have all said that they would withhold judgment on the nominee.
Republicans command a narrow 51-49 Senate majority. Party leaders have said they hope to have Kavanaugh confirmed by a floor vote by early October, when the next Supreme Court term begins.

North Korea's Kim Jong Un expresses faith in Trump, reaffirms commitment to nuclear-free peninsula

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his South Korean counterpart will meet later this month to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, his state-controlled media reported Thursday.
Kim also expressed faith in President Trump efforts to settle a nuclear impasse, despite recent bumps in the diplomacy., the report said.
Chung Eui-yong, a special envoy from South Korea, told reporters that Kim stressed that "he has never talked negative about President Trump to his staff or anyone else," South Korea's Yonhap News reported.
Chung reportedly said North Korea expressed hope to improve the "North-U.S. relationship within Trump's first term."
The statement comes after a South Korean envoy met with Kim to set up the inter-Korean summit with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
KCNA said Kim and the South Korean delegation reached a “satisfactory agreement” over the planned inter-Korean summit.
Kim was paraphrased as saying it was “his will to completely remove the danger of armed conflict and horror of war from the Korean peninsula and turn it into the cradle of peace without nuclear weapons and free from nuclear threat."
The dates of the summit were expected to be released sometime Thursday.
Kim’s commitment to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula comes amid an impasse with the United States and growing skepticism of his intent to dismantle his nuclear weapons program.
His statement raises hopes that talks can get back on track following his meeting with President Trump in Singapore.
To overcome increasing dispute between Pyongyang and the U.S., Seoul is trying to persuade both countries to proceed with the denuclearization process simultaneously.
In addition, the South is aiming for a four-nation summit that would include China, to declare a formal end to the Korean War. Many see the peace declaration as a precursor to the North calling for the removal of all U.S. troops in the Korean Peninsula.
U.S. officials have insisted that the North must first takes steps to abandon its nuclear weapons before any peace declaration. Steps include allowing outside inspections, giving up some nuclear weapons during the early stages of negotiations and providing an account of components of its nuclear program.
Experts believe an end-of-war declaration could make it easier for North Korea to move toward discussions of a peaceful regime, diplomatic recognition and security concessions.
The North has routinely accused the United State of holding back the end-of-war declaration and making "unilateral and gangster-like" demands for denuclearization.
On Tuesday, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry issued a lengthy statement where it said an end-of-war declaration would be a necessary trust-building step that would "manifest the political will to establish the lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula."
The declaration would be among several issues discussed, South Korean officials said, between North Korean officials and South Korean envoys.
Nuclear negotiations between Pyongyang and Washington have settled into a stalemate since the summit meeting between Kim and Trump.
Citing a lack of progress in denuclearization, Trump called of a planned visit to North Korea by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month.
Moon recently said the inter-Korean summit could warm relations between the Unites States, which maintains that efforts to improve relations should coincide with efforts to denuclearize the North.
"If needed, we should pull forward the negotiations for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula with the development in relations between the South and North," Chung said.
Two past summits between the two Koreas in April and May removed fears of war between the two nations.
The frosty relationship between the United States and North Korea could present a tougher challenge for Moon’s third meeting with Kim, with his commitment to abandon his nuclear weapons in doubt.

Trump digs in after explosive New York Times op-ed, vows to drain swamp

President Trump calls The New York Times 'gutless' for publishing an anonymous op-ed reportedly from a senior administration official who claims individuals inside the White House are working to thwart the president; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports.
President Trump took to Twitter late Wednesday and vowed to continue "draining the swamp" after The New York Times ran an anonymous op-ed written by a senior White House official who labeled the president "petty and ineffective." 
"I'm draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back. Don't worry, we will win!" Trump tweeted.
The New York Times on Wednesday published an explosive opinion piece written that described a "two-track presidency" in which top officials are "working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [President Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations."
Trump called the piece "gutless."
"Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!" the president tweeted.
The piece titled "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," said that meetings with the president would "veer off topic and off the rails."
"He engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back," the anonymous author wrote.
The senior White House official wrote that many of the the administration's policies have already made America safer and more prosperous, "but these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."
The writer alleged that "there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment" to remove Trump from office because of the president's "instability ... But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. "
TRUMP BATTLES BOB WOODWARD BOOK, BUT AGREES ON ONE POINT: 'I'M TOUGH AS HELL ON PEOPLE'
Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had also demanded the unnamed author "resign."
"We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed. This is a new low for the so-called 'paper of record,' and it should issue an apology," Sander said in a statement.
The New York Times defended the piece.
"We are incredibly proud to have published this piece, which adds significant value to the public's understanding of what is going on in the Trump administration from someone who is in a position to know," a Times spokesperson said in response to the White House statements.
The op-ed was published one day after The Washington Post published excerpts from a forthcoming book by longtime reporter Bob Woodward in which the Trump administration was depicted as filled with second-guessing staffers and Cabinet members filching papers from the president's desk before he could sign them.