Oakland Mayor Cartoons 2018

Oakland mayor consulted with illegal-immigration activists before tipping off ICE raid

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who sparked national outrage when she undermined a federal immigration raid last month, worked with illegal-immigration activists before she warned the public about the raid-- a move that ICE said led to hundreds of illegals evading detention.
Schaaf took to Twitter to warn the public about the raid, and has stood by her decision despite a number of hardened criminals being caught -- and ICE officials warning that potentially hundreds of other criminals escaped as a consequence of the tipoff.
"It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city and we have not broken any laws," Schaaf said in a statement last month. "We believe our community is safer when families stay together."
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH SEX, ROBBERY CONVICTIONS AMONG THOSE WHO EVADED CAPTURE AFTER DEM MAYOR'S WARNING

Her move sparked anger not just from ICE officials, but also the Trump administration. The Justice Department is currently conducting a review of Schaaf's actions.

“What happened in Oakland was a disgrace to our nation,” President Donald Trump said in California on Tuesday.

KPIX5 reports that Schaaf was in touch with Centro Legal de la Raza just hours before the announcement, giving her information on what employers should do in the case of an ICE raid.

That group, which did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News, is a nonprofit with a focus on providing legal services to those in the country illegally. It also appears to act as an advocacy group for illegal immigrants -- printing an “ICE Activity Hotline” on its website.
'ANGEL FAMILIES' WANT TO SEE OAKLAND MAYOR PROSECUTED FOR THWARTING ICE RAIDS
"Centro Legal has been at the forefront of efforts to curtail unlawful collaboration between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities in order to prevent unjust deportations and keep immigrant families together," the group's website says. It does not appear to be affiliated with UnidosUS -- formerly the National Council of La Raza.

According to KPIX5, Schaaf also spoke with a Catholic priest at St. Jarlath’s Church and Emma Paulino at Oakland Community Organizations. Paulino appeared with Schaaf at a press conference warning of the raid.
"It is important for us to understand that sometimes what ICE is doing with these tactics is to try and paralyze our communities," she said.
Paulino told Fox News Friday that the conversations were about assessing whether or not to share the information with the community in the first place, and then how to do so in a way that did not create panic.
"It was about if we should share what we know and how to share that information in a responsible way so to not create panic in the community," she said. "People live in fear already."
KPIX5 reports that the emails also show that the Oakland Indie Alliance, a group of independent businesses, received a message saying, “Important Alert! Credible information ICE Raids in Oakland Sunday 2/25 and Monday 2/26” and, “This information comes directly from the Mayor.”
A spokesman for Schaaf told Fox News that she consulted “with several leaders and groups representing our immigrant community before she made her public comments.”
“She mentioned it in her initial press release and in numerous public statements after; it’s well known that she conferred with several people before making her decision,” he said.

He also said that she did not warn businesses, although added that “it appears those who she consulted with may have shared the information with business owners in an attempt to make sure the owners knew their obligations and responsibilities under state law.”

Families of victims of illegal immigrant crime have expressed their anger at Schaaf’s actions, calling for her to be prosecuted, as have groups which lobby for less migration into the U.S.

“As far as Libby Schaaf is concerned, what she did is nothing short of obstruction of justice,” said Ira Mehlman, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
“She is not compelled to assist ICE in doing its job, but she certainly has no right to interfere with ICE carrying out its lawful duties," he said. "In our view, the U.S. Department of Justice should look into the matter and prosecute her for obstruction if the circumstances warrant legal action.”
But amid the national controversty, Paulino told Fox News that Schaaf's stance was getting a very positive reception in Oakland.
"People are really supportive of her because she took a stand," she said. "She is serving the people who elected her."

Michael Flynn stumps in California for GOP opponent of Rep. Maxine Waters

Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn leaves federal court in Washington, Dec. 1, 2017.  (Associated Press)

Michael Flynn, the disgraced former national security adviser, campaigned for a Republican congressional candidate in California on Friday, making it his first public appearance since pleading guilty to lying to the FBI last December.
The Daily Beast reported Flynn was coming "out of hiding" to endorse Republican Omar Navarro in his challenge against U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, the 14-term Democrat in California’s 43^rd Congressional District.
Flynn reportedly attended a public event in La Quinta, Calif., about 130 miles east of Los Angeles. Navarro lost to Waters by more than 50 percentage points in 2016 in the strongly Democratic district.
Navarro said he and Flynn had been corresponding since meeting at last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, the Washington Examiner reported.
At the Friday event, Navarro slammed Waters, called for the president to endorse him and repeated an insult from Trump that Waters has a “low IQ.”
Waters hit back at Navarro and Flynn in a series of tweets, including noting that Navarro was on probation for a criminal conviction of installing a tracking device to his wife’s car.
Flynn’s appearance was the latest sign that he is re-entering political life while still awaiting sentencing and cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.
Mueller is also investigating the president’s possible obstruction of justice. As it relates to Flynn, the special counsel’s prosecutors have signaled intentions to interview Trump about his firing of Flynn, his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey and the FBI’s investigation into Flynn.
In February 2017, Flynn resigned under pressure from his role as national security adviser after it was revealed he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian officials.
The retired Army lieutenant general frequently campaigned for Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, leading the Republican National Convention crowd in anti-Hillary Clinton “Lock her up!” chants.
“If I’m paying the price for that decision [to join the Trump campaign], so be it and God can and will judge me at some point,” Flynn said to the crowd Friday.

Some Democrats want Pelosi out now, win or lose House in midterms

Some House Democrats wanted Nancy Pelosi out as their leader after they failed to win a string of 2017 special elections. And now some want the House minority leader out because they appear to have won a special election.
What gives with the paradox? It doesn’t make sense, except that some House Democrats are prepared to move on from Pelosi -- and some aren’t.
“The watch” is on again on Capitol Hill when it comes to Pelosi, how has been the House’s top Democrat for more than a decade.
Democrat Conor Lamb is on track to vanquish Republican Rick Saccone in a historically GOP district in southwest Pennsylvania that President Trump won by nearly 20 points.
Lamb distanced himself from Pelosi and ran as a moderate Democrat. And now Democrats are eager to replicate Lamb’s prototype in their quest to capture the House in November.
Republicans contend Pelosi is radioactive, considering how critics have branded her as a West Coast liberal losing touch with the party base.  And the plan to use the leader to put other moderate Democratic candidates on the spot this year. In other words, will you support Pelosi for House speaker should Democrats win the House? And it’s moderate to conservative Democrats who must win -- in districts Trump carried -- if Democrats are going to have a shot at winning the House.
Pelosi faced a firestorm of criticism in November 2016 after Democrats barely dented the Republican House majority. Democrats gained six seats when they needed 30 to control the House. Few expected Democrats to win the House,  but lots of political handicappers projected an anti-Trump backlash could help Democrats win at least 15 to 20 seats.
They never got close. Some Democrats tore into Pelosi. She drew a challenge for her leadership post from Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. Pelosi prevailed in the end, but an eye-popping 63 Democrats cast ballots for Ryan.
Ohio Rep. John Boehner in 2015 was forced out as House speaker, the chamber’s leader and top Republican, is a similar intra-caucus revolt.
Pelosi’s weathered the internecine tempest so far. But for how long?
Many political prognosticators suggest a Democratic wave is building this fall. If that’s the case, Democrats will swipe seats from Republicans in rural areas in the Midwest and perhaps the south where Pelosi isn’t popular. Could Democrats follow Lamb’s lead and disavow Pelosi?
That could be a sound electoral tactic. But it could cause a problem for Pelosi in her quest to return to the speaker’s suite.
The question is whether Pelosi could command the votes to again become Speaker.
This could be one of the great political incongruities of all time: Democrats win the House and simultaneously deny Pelosi the right to again clasp the speaker’s gavel. There’s a reason why Democrats were willing to re-elect Pelosi as minority leader for two years, despite 63 defections: give her another shot to lead Democrats out of the wilderness.
It may seem strange to potentially have Pelosi return to the Speakership after an eight-year exodus in the minority. But it’s far from unprecedented for house speakers to have broken service.
The first, Frederick Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, served as speaker in two different Congresses, interrupted by Speaker Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut. Same with Henry Clay, of Kentucky, who enjoyed three different turns at speaker.
Speaker Thomas Reed, R-Maine, led the House in the 51st Congress, then  again in the 54th and 55th congresses. The best examples of lawmakers returning to the speakership after exile in the minority are Speakers Sam Rayburn, D-Texas, and Joseph Martin, R-Mass. Rayburn became speaker in September 1940.
Martin took the reins in 1947. Rayburn came back in 1949. Martin and the Republicans rallied in 1953. Finally, Rayburn began his last tour as speaker in 1955.
Pelosi keeps close counsel on her future plans. Her confidantes point out it’s against her DNA to bow to pressure or not go without a fight. By the same token, Pelosi is an exceptional vote counter.
She knows how to gauge her caucus and if she has the votes to prevail, accurately predicting she’d get two-thirds of the vote in the Ryan challenge. If Pelosi doesn’t, she will likely exit.
It will boil down to simple mathematics.
Chatter is percolating throughout the Capitol that Pelosi may attempt a cunning departure in an attempt to bolster Democrats in their quest for the House and simultaneously hose Republicans.
House Republican leaders continued making their case this week that votes for Democratic candidates could again elevate Pelosi to speaker.
There’s a theory (and it’s just a theory) that Pelosi could time an exit later this year -- just after Republicans spend millions producing commercials and buying airtime that attempt to link Democratic candidates to her.
Such a scenario could leave Republicans on the hook with lots of outdated ad buys. They will have squandered millions of dollars making a case against someone who is no longer a factor.
Some Republicans may publicly rejoice that that they finally dispatched Pelosi. But sober GOPers know Pelosi taking her leave is bad news for them. It robs Republicans of a foil -- especially if the party is trying to link Democrats to Pelosi.
But these scenarios are just that: scenarios. And few believe Pelosi would bow out early.
Republicans successfully deployed Pelosi against Democrats when they won the House in 2010. Pelosi is certainly radioactive in certain districts. But it’s unclear if the Pelosi maneuver still works.
“This is part of the bankruptcy of the Republican Party,” Pelosi said. “They’re devoid of ideas about how they’re going to meet the needs of the American people. So it’s an ad hominem. They can’t win on the issues. So they go after a person.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley says of the Pelosi attacks: “I think they need to get a new game book. The attempts to use Nancy Pelosi, it’s failing them at this point. And I think, quite frankly, it’s sexist.”
Some quarters on Capitol Hill view Crowley as best situated to succeed Pelosi. Another possibility is her longtime rival, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat.
Ryan repeatedly says he won’t challenge Pelosi again. But he says she must go and that there’s merit in Lamb’s approach.
“Every candidate’s locally got to make that determination as to how in their own heart, how they feel about Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C., fits into their own agenda and their own election and how their people feel locally,” Ryan said.
Did Lamb’s distance from Pelosi make a difference in the race?
“I don’t think that your opponent should choose your party’s leaders,” said Pelosi, who’s represented San Francisco since 1986. “They’re coming after me because of my city. And they’re against LGBT and they’re against poor children. That’s been my mantra. The poor children of America, I’m here to support. Yes. I am a liberal.”
It’s those “liberal” credentials that work against Pelosi, even inside her party. Can conservative Democrats support liberal for Speaker again?
Unclear.
Lamb’s possible win may portend good things for Democrats in November. But they likely need to win about 25 seats to retake the House. The precise number is unclear because there are a number of vacancies.
The Lamb-Saccone race still isn’t official, and the district will be redrawn for November. And the death this week of Rep. Louise Slaughter, D.N.Y., has now put that seat in play. So, it’s unknown if Democrats will win the House and face a dilemma over who to elect as speaker.
But Pelosi watch is on again on Capitol Hill.

Russia retaliates, expels 23 British diplomats amid tensions over ex-spy poisoning

Russia retaliated against the United Kingdom Saturday morning, announcing it would also be expelling 23 British diplomats amid the growing tensions between the two nations over the nerve agent attack on a former Kremlin spy.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said it was ordering the closure of the British Council – a government organization for cultural and scientific cooperation – as well as ending an agreement to reopen the British consulate in St. Petersburg.
British diplomats have to leave within a week.
EX-RUSSIAN SPY SERGEI SKRIPAL POISONED: WHAT TO KNOW
The statement said the government could take further measures if Britain takes any more "unfriendly" moves toward Russia.
A spokesman for the British foreign ministry said in a statement Saturday they expected a reaction from the Kremlin and are assisting their staff members who have been expelled.
"Russia’s response doesn’t change the facts of the matter - the attempted assassination of two people on British soil, for which there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable," the statement said.
Russia’s retaliation comes days after British Prime Minister announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the suspicious poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March 4. The two remain in critical condition and in the hospital.
May said on Monday that it was “highly likely” the Kremlin is responsible for the attack, while Britain’s Foreign Minister Boris Johnson directly put the blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Our quarrel is with Putin’s Kremlin, and with this decision, and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K., on the streets of Europe, for the first time since the Second World War,” he told reporters on Friday. “That is why we are at odds with Russia.”
While Russia has vigorously denied any involvement in the attack, Western leaders banded together earlier this week and called out the Kremlin for meddling abroad.
In a rare joint statement, the leaders of the U.S., France and Germany joined May in accusing Russia of being behind the attack.
"It is an assault on U.K. sovereignty and any such use by a State party is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of international law. It threatens the security of us all,” the statement said.
The quartet wrote “there is no plausible alternative explanation” except Russian responsibility for the attack on British soil, and the Kremlin’s failure to respond to a “legitimate request” for an explanation “further underlines its responsibility.”
“We call on Russia to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council to uphold international peace and security,” the statement said.
IN JOINT STATEMENT, WORLD LEADERS AGREE RUSSIA BEHIND NERVE AGENT ATTACK ON FORMER SPY
The tensions threaten to overshadow Putin's expected re-election Sunday for another six-year presidential term.
Meanwhile, adding further strain, British police have opened a murder investigation into the suspicious death of London-based Russian businessman, Nikolai Glushkov. Authorities said Friday that he died from compression to the neck.
Russia also suspects foul play in Glushkov's death and opened its own inquiry Friday.
British police said there is no apparent link between the attack on Glushkov and the poisoning of the Skripals, but both have raised alarm in the West at a time when Russia is increasingly assertive on the global stage and facing investigations over alleged interference in the Donald Trump's election as U.S. president.
The source of the nerve agent — which Britain says is Soviet-made Novichok — is unclear, as is the way it was administered. Russia has demanded that Britain share samples collected by investigators.
Top EU diplomats were expected to discuss next steps at a meeting Monday, with some calling for a boycott of the upcoming World Cup in Russia. British Prime Minister Theresa May is seeking a global coalition of countries to punish Moscow.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

The Justice Department dealt a stunning blow to former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on Friday night, firing him just days before he would have been eligible for a lifetime pension after determining that he lied to investigators reviewing the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.
"Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

"I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately."

"After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)," Sessions said.

Former FBI official Andrew McCabe.  (Associated Press)

"The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe.  Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.
"The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, 'all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.'"
McCabe hit back in a fiery response of his own.
"This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally," McCabe said. "It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work.
"For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country," McCabe continued. "Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us. No more."

"For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. ... The President’s tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all."
- Andrew McCabe

Just after midnight Saturday, President Donald Trump reacted to the news in a Twitter message:
"Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy," the president wrote, "Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!"
McCabe's firing marked a stunning fall for a man who was No. 2 at the bureau for a time under former FBI Director James Comey, ran it and even was reportedly on President Donald Trump’s short list for the directorship.
But McCabe has also been mired in controversy in recent years.
Sessions’ decision to fire McCabe came as Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded a bureau oversight investigation, with a report expected to be critical of McCabe’s handling of the Clinton email probe, his handling of the bureau during the early months of the Russia investigation, and his ties to the Democratic Party.
Horowitz determined that McCabe hadn't been forthcoming in regard to the handling of the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.
The inspector general’s finding sparked an FBI disciplinary process that recommended McCabe’s firing.
ANDREW MCCABE CONTROVERSIES, FROM THE TRUMP TEXT SCANDAL TO HIS WIFE'S FAILED CAMPAIGN 
Sources told Fox News that the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility made the recommendation to fire McCabe. Sessions had the option to either accept the recommendation, or step in to stop the firing process.

FBI Director Christopher Wray.  (Associated Press)

Horowitz’s investigation, which landed McCabe in hot water, faults the former deputy director for the way he answered questions about his approval for interactions between an FBI official and a reporter about the bureau’s investigation into the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.
McCabe was “removed” from his post as deputy to FBI Director Christopher Wray in January, setting in motion a plan to leave the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans — including President Trump.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that the decision was entirely up to Sessions, but that McCabe was a "bad actor."
"That's a determination we [left] up to Attorney General Sessions, but we do think that it is well documented that he has had some very troubling behavior and has been a bad actor," Sanders said.
IG COULD SOON RELEASE EXPLOSIVE REPORT ON FBI'S CLINTON PROBE, AS SESSIONS WEIGHS FIRING MCCABE 
“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!” Trump tweeted in December, before McCabe’s removal.
McCabe became acting director of the FBI after Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017. McCabe led the bureau, independently, until Aug. 2, 2017 — during the early months of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates.
Republicans have also long criticized McCabe for his ties to the Democratic Party — his wife received donations during a failed 2015 Virginia Senate run from a group tied to a Clinton ally, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while the Clinton email probe was underway.
“How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?” the president tweeted in December.
The president was “not a part of the decisionmaking process,” when McCabe was removed from the bureau in January, press secretary Sanders said.
McCabe returned to the white-hot spotlight when Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released its memo on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses in connection with the Russia probe, saying that McCabe signed a FISA warrant targeting former Trump campaign volunteer adviser Carter Page.
“McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [FISA court] without the Steele dossier information,” the memo read. The Steele dossier was unverified, and financed as opposition research by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.
And recently uncovered text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page revealed a new timeline in the Clinton email probe, apparently showing McCabe’s knowledge of the investigation.
The text messages suggest that as of Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok, Page and McCabe were aware of new Clinton emails found on the laptop of disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, spouse of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
“Got called up to Andy’s earlier … hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. Sending team up tomorrow to review…this will never end …” Strzok wrote in a text message to Page.
SENATOR SEEKS ANSWERS ON WHY FBI WAITED WEEKS TO ACT ON WEINER LAPTOP IN CLINTON CASE
But it wasn’t until Oct. 27, 2016 that Comey was briefed on the newly discovered emails — meaning McCabe kept the director in the dark for a month.
Horowitz is specifically investigating McCabe and whether he wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after the presidential election, in which Clinton lost to Trump.
According to testimony obtained by Fox News from an Office of Special Counsel interview with former Comey Chief of Staff James Rybicki, McCabe’s office did not notify him until the night of Oct. 26, 2016.
The OSC also interviewed FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson, who testified that Comey was first briefed on the material found on Weiner’s laptop on Oct. 27, 2016.
Anderson noted that the director’s office decided to “urgently” address the situation.
“Given the significance of the matter, um, uh, that we had to proceed quickly,” Anderson told investigators. “It was just too, too explosive for us to sit on.”
So it wasn’t until Oct. 28, 2016, that Comey sent a letter to Congress announcing the “recent developments” of the discovery of the Clinton and Abedin communications found on the laptop —which he had just been briefed on a day before. That letter reopened the Clinton email probe just a week before the election. The inspector general is investigating McCabe’s involvement in this timeline.
Several Republicans also have pointed with alarm to the Strzok-Page texts and their references to McCabe in relation to an “insurance policy” to prevent Trump from being elected president, and a “secret society” within the bureau.

Los Angeles Judge Cartoons

Nobody knows anything: Why White House shakeup stories are, well, shaky

Kurtz: Trump firing more aides- unless he isn't

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on why the media really knows nothing in relation to the tidal wave of speculation about who the president will evict next from the administration.

It's one of the most honest headlines I’ve seen in quite a while:
"In Trumpworld, nobody knows anything."
Axios slapped that line on a piece by round-the-clock reporter Jonathan Swan, who was dealing with the tidal wave of speculation about who the president will evict next from the administration.
This, in my view, was a refreshing contrast to all the pundits saying we hear that H.R. McMaster or John Kelly or David Shulkin or Ryan Zinke could be out by the end of the day. It's not that those aren't fair journalistic pursuits—and not that I haven't done similar stories like that in my career—but in this White House, it's like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
Here's what Swan wrote: "We can tell you that Trump has been putting on a heck of an act privately in the past two days, if he really does have all these elaborate plans that are being attributed to him.
"Here's all we really know: Trump is in the mood for change, and there's a long list of people he's been fed up with for a while."
"That's it. As far as when they might go, and who might replace them, serious people are in the dark. Trump floats ideas all the time, and often nothing comes of them."
In an interview, Swan told me the Trump operation is incredibly difficult to cover because he speaks to "the top level of the White House, people in the president's inner circle, and they don't know what’s going on.
"Whether it's tariffs, the surprise on North Korea or staffing, it's very hard to confirm anything or definitively shoot anything down. They know they could be embarrassed in the next two hours because their boss is so mercurial."
Swan says he tries to be "hyper-cautious" and, as a scoop artist himself, "I don't pretend I'm some bastion of glory. But there's only so many times you can write that H.R. McMaster is leaving the White House; at some point the story will be correct. I'd have to get it from Donald J. Trump himself.
"People have read that story 15 times. What's the reader to think when he reads it for the 16th time?"
That, of course, doesn't stop journalists from trying.
It’s easy to dismiss all this as palace intrigue, and there is a media fixation on who's up and who's down. But in a very short time, Hope Hicks and Gary Cohn quit the White House, Trump fired Rex Tillerson and nominated Mike Pompeo as his successor, and tapped CNBC’s Larry Kudlow to replace Cohn as chief economic adviser.
And while it's true that the press sometimes gives short shrift to policy, that is inextricably bound up with who’s giving the president advice and speaking on his behalf. Tillerson was ousted in part because of disagreements on Iran, Korea, Russia and Jerusalem, and Cohn resigned in part because of disagreements on steel and aluminum tariffs.
With so much chatter, journalists are scrambling on several fronts.
The Washington Post reported flatly last night that Trump "has decided to remove H.R. McMaster," according to "five people with knowledge of his plans."
CBS's Major Garrett reported yesterday that "a purge is coming" and that chief of staff Kelly "may also be on the way out," along with "up to three Cabinet secretaries."
Fox's chief White House correspondent John Roberts reported, starting Wednesday night: "We don't know if these are going to happen, but we are told there could be a bloodbath" by Thursday or Friday. That, he said would include:
"H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, to be replaced by Ambassador John Bolton.
"Another potential change coming up, VA Secretary David Shulkin out, to be replaced by Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
"Another possible departure, it's rumored, this one may be further off, John Kelly, to potentially be replaced by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney."
At a photo op yesterday, the president was asked about upcoming staff changes.
"Well, the story was very false," Trump said. "I mean, they wrote a story about staff changes today that was very false." He did not specify which story he had in mind.
But if it's true that "in Trumpworld, nobody knows anything," all shakeup stories should be taken with many teaspoons of salt. That’s especially true since the president, who once called the Tillerson-is-leaving stories fake news, may simply not have made up his mind.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

IG could soon release explosive report on FBI's Clinton probe, as Sessions weighs firing McCabe

The Department of Justice’s inspector general could soon release his expected explosive report detailing a more than yearlong review of the FBI and DOJ’s Hillary Clinton investigation – an effort that has already put top FBI official Andrew McCabe and his pension in jeopardy.
Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Horowitz has told lawmakers he is aiming to release the report in the “March, April time period.”
On Wednesday, fresh evidence emerged that Horowitz may be winding down his efforts. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering firing McCabe over the findings in Horowitz’s review, sources said.
According to the New York Times, Horowitz concludes in his report that McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, which included an examination of McCabe allowing FBI officials to speak with reporters about the investigation into the Clintons.
The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that Sessions fire McCabe. If McCabe is fired this week, it could deprive the outgoing deputy director of pension benefits.
McCabe’s pension kicks in on Sunday, his 50th birthday, so the termination would have to be done by close of business on Friday to stop it.
“The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated,” DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement. “That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process.”
SESSIONS MULLING FIRING FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE BEFORE HE RETIRES
Horowitz’s investigation is looking at a variety of allegations, including whether it was improper for former FBI Director James Comey to make a public announcement about not recommending prosecution over the Clinton email arrangement.
Horowitz also is reviewing whether McCabe should have recused himself from the probe early because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party. (He did not do so until a week before the election.)
McCabe’s wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015, and she received donations from the super PAC of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.
In November, Horowitz said his team has interviewed dozens of people and had reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of its investigation. But he acknowledged during a congressional hearing last year the classified information involved and necessary security clearances have slowed the process.
Horowitz said his team would look at whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”
The review is also looking at whether the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and should have been recused. That’s in reference to official Peter Kadzik, who had been an attorney in the past for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Horowitz said the review is looking at whether any DOJ or FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.

Over the last year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been reviewing the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The review has already made a splash.
The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned.

Hillary Clinton fractures wrist after slipping in India resort bathtub, report says

Hillary Clinton arrives in Jodphur, India on Tuesday.  (AP Photo/Sunil Verma)

Hillary Clinton's visit to India suffered another setback this week as the former secretary of state fractured her wrist after slipping in the bathtub at the five-star resort where she was staying, according to a report by DNA India.
The website reported that Clinton was taken to a hospital in the city of Jodphur at around 5 a.m. local time Wednesday. Clinton underwent an X-ray and a CT scan that confirmed a hairline fracture of her right wrist.
The Times of India reported that Clinton had been given a plaster bandage and advised to go for another checkup in three days. The injury does not impact Clinton's ability to travel.
The Times of India and DNA India both reported that Clinton had been treated for pain in her right hand since she arrived in Jodphur Tuesday afternoon. The pain forced her to cancel a planned visit to the 15th-century Mehrangarh Fort Tuesday evening.
Earlier in the week, video showed Clinton slipping on stairs twice as she visited the Jahaz Mahal in the ancient city of Mandu. Clinton appeared to use her right had to catch herself on the stairs, but it was not immediately clear whether this fall was the source of her injury.
At the time of her injury, Clinton was staying at the Umaid Bhawan Palace, which houses the onetime ruling family of Jodphur and also functions as a hotel -- offering rooms from $700 per night.
Clinton attracted controversy earlier in her visit to India. At a conference in Mumbai over the weekend, she again suggested that racism and misogyny were explanations for her loss in the 2016 presidential election.
"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product," Clinton said. "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And [President Trump's] whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards."
"You know, you didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs," she went on. "You don't want, you know, to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are."
Clinton also claimed that white women voted for Trump because they succumbed to "a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."

Calif. judge bars LA from enforcing gang restrictions that authorities credited with reducing crime

Los Angeles has been precluded from enforcing most of its '90s-era, contentious gang injunctions, a federal judge has ruled.  (Reuters)

The city of Los Angeles has been barred from enforcing the vast majority of its gang injunctions, which applied restrictions on gang associations that authorities have long credited with reducing crime.
The ruling Thursday by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the injunctions were likely to be unconstitutionally broad, and affect people who did not have adequate opportunity to challenge them in court.
The gang injunctions are civil court orders that have applied to nearly 9,000 people and 79 gang sets since 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The orders can effectively prevent individuals from legally associating with people in gang-ridden neighborhoods or networks.
WHAT IS MS-13, THE VIOLENT GANG TRUMP PROMISES TO TARGET?
The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of the injunctions because the city could obtain them against gangs, rather than individuals.

"This ruling marks the end of gang injunctions as they worked in the city of Los Angeles."

That meant someone could become the subject of an injunction without ever being specifically named in a court document, or given enough notice to object.
"The court clearly recognizes the way the city of Los Angeles has been enforcing gang injunctions over decades violates due process in a way that makes it likely they will place people on gang injunctions who may not be gang members," ACLU attorney Peter Bibring said Thursday, according to the Los Angeles Times. "This ruling marks the end of gang injunctions as they worked in the city of Los Angeles."
A handful of the gang injunctions that did name individuals will reportedly remain in effect.
A Los Angeles police union condemned the ruling in a statement.
"Appropriately applied, gang injunctions are a valuable law enforcement tool intended to improve the safety of Los Angeles neighborhoods and stem the tide of drug dealing, assaults, and other violent crimes associated with gangs," the Los Angeles Police Protective League said.
"It's unfortunate that a judge would eliminate this important crime fighting tool instead of working to resolve any issues with its application," the union's statement added. "We urge the city to appeal this shortsighted ruling."
The ACLU had won a ruling last year for an Echo Park resident who alleged that he was unconstitutionally swept up in a gang injunction.
Thursday's ruling broadens the effect of that decision to those subject to gang injunctions prior to this year, when the city modified its gang injunction procedures.

Hillary Cartoons

The new 'deplorables': Democrats duck as Hillary hits 'backward' voters

The Democrats are gearing up for the midterms, emboldened by the apparent razor-thin win by Conor Lamb in a Pittsburgh-area district that Donald Trump carried by 20 points.
And they are starting to maneuver for 2020, with the likes of Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Terry McAuliffe and others maneuvering to take the party past Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
And yet, again, here comes Hillary Clinton.
And some Democratic lawmakers are distancing themselves from her latest remarks.
Which, not to put too fine a point on it, takes us back to one of the worst moments of her campaign, going after the deplorables.
It's one thing to attack Trump, the man who beat her in the Electoral College. It's another to denigrate his voters.
Here she is at a conference in Mumbai, talking about how she won the coasts but lost the "middle" of the country:
"I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," Clinton said. "And his whole campaign — 'Make America Great Again' — was looking backward. You know, you didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want, you know, to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it."
Let's unpack that for a minute. Trump voters were looking backward. They don't want black people to have rights. They don't want women getting jobs.
Really? Does Clinton not have a sense of how condescendingly awful that sounds?
Does she believe that's why she lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? Not that Trump appealed to struggling working-class voters, but that his supporters resent women, blacks and legal immigrants?
There was more. Clinton suggested white women voted for Trump because of "ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."
Seriously? While that may have happened in certain instances, does the first female presidential nominee of a major party believe that women are that ... subservient? I sure don't.
Hillary's party is not happy with this latest flashback.
"Even the staunchest Clinton allies as well as longtime advisers say the comments were cringeworthy and ultimately detrimental to Democrats," says The Hill.
Missouri’s Claire McCaskill told the Washington Post these were "fighting words":
"I think they were expressing their frustration with the status quo. I may not have agreed with their choice, but I certainly respect them. And I don’t think that's the way you should talk about any voter, especially ones in my state."
Ohio's Sherrod Brown told the Huffington Post: "I don't really care what she said. I just think that that's not helpful."
Hillary Clinton is entitled to say whatever she wants. She doesn't have to quiet down just because she’s frustrating other Democrats.
But this is an unfortunate throwback to the comments she made in the fall of 2016:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it."
That led some Trump backers to proudly identify themselves as deplorables.
Hillary Clinton blew a winnable election, but she did win the popular vote. Does she want to be remembered for disdaining the middle of the country?
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Kaya Jones goes off on gun control protesters in fiery Twitter rant

Chrystal Neria, better known by her stage name, Kaya Jones, shared some pretty frank thoughts about the gun control debate with her followers on Twitter during the pre-planned National School Walkout protests.
Jones, best known for her work performing with the Pussycat Dolls, has been a solo act since 2004. In 2017, she joined the National Diversity Coalition for Trump as its Native American Ambassador. Her public persona isn’t shy about voicing her conservative beliefs, which she did in a series of posts on Wednesday in reaction to the walkouts.
“They have their right to walk out & I have my right to bear arms. I’m not giving up my rights because a crazy man killed people. I’m holding on right to my rights so if a crazy man tries to kill me he’s got another thing coming. It’s called freedom,” she said in response to a post about the protests.
Two hours later, she continued her Twitter rant, this time going after the argument that gun advocates don’t care about children.
“This whole walk out on guns is a joke. You realize that in order to protect kids we need guns. The signs that read protect kids not guns are so unaware. You need a gun to fight a gun. It’s not a want it’s a fact. And it’s my right to be able to protect myself. #ItsCalledFreedom,” she wrote.
“Stop attacking the weapon. Remember there’s a brain and a body behind each choice. You can use a hammer as a weapon. What’s a weapon? Anything between you and whoever you want to harm. You are trained this is fighting classes. Anything is a weapon. A gun is just a faster one,” she continued.
The singer went on to note that victims of violence should feel empowered to study self defense in the wake of the tragedy.
“If you’ve ever been attacked in your life and didn’t want to learn everything about attackers or weapons you are being foolish. It’s therapeutic and empowering to know how to fight back. It’s better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have. #ItsCalledFreedom.”
She then launched into a pair of tweets challenging the notion that guns are the problem and not those who misuse them.
“Bad people kill people. Bad people use whatever they fancy to inflict harm. Bad people. Now don’t punish good people who want to protect themselves for the actions of Bad people. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and just happen to use a gun,” she posted over two images. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and just happen to use a gun.”
She concluded her Twitter tirade by noting that famed mass murderers Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler.
“Jim Jones used fear and words to influence 900 people to kill themselves drinking Koolaid, Adolph [sic] Hitler used words to influence millions to create genocide. How powerful the mind is. But hey the wars on guns.”