Rosenstein target of impeachment filing being prepared by House conservatives: report

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the target of an impeachment effort being undertaken by conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a report.
U.S. Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, both members of the House Freedom Caucus, are said to be leading the effort and could submit an impeachment filing in the next few days, Politico reported Friday.
Rosenstein has been clashing with some House Republicans for months over requests for Department of Justice documents, the Washington Examiner reported. The deputy AG oversees Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the White House ordered that more members of Congress receive access to classified information about an FBI informant linked to the Russia probe, despite objections from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
It was Rosenstein who named Mueller to lead the Trump-Russia probe after Rosenstein’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation because of Sessions’ own role in the Trump campaign.
Politico’s story on the possible impeachment filing against Rosenstein came on the same day that Rosenstein announced Mueller’s 12 indictments against Russian military intelligence officials on charges linked to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Speculation that President Donald Trump might fire Rosenstein increased in April, after FBI agents conducted raids at the office and home of Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney, the Hill reported.

Europe Immigration Cartoons

Trump says immigration into Europe has 'changed the fabric' of the continent

President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized Europe’s immigration policy, claiming it has “changed the fabric” of the continent in a negative way.
“I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn’t exist 10 or 15 years ago,” the president said in an interview with the Sun.
“I think what has happened to Europe is a shame,” he added. “Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame.”
TRUMP SLAMS MAY OVER ‘VERY UNFORTUNATE’ BREXIT PLAN, SAYS ‘IT WILL PROBABLY KILL’ US TRADE DEAL
Trump pointed toward his own Scottish and German roots, saying “I have a great love for the countries of Europe,” but noting that immigration has taken a toll.
“I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way,” Trump said. “So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad.”

"I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way."
- President Donald Trump

The Trump administration has taken a hardline view on immigration, touting its war on sanctuary cities that provide cover for illegal immigrants in the country and has ramped up the efforts to enforce existing immigration laws to secure the U.S. -Mexico border.
The White House recently won a court battle at the Supreme Court allowing to bar citizens from several mostly Muslim countries from entering the U.S.
Trump told the newspaper that most British people actually support his stance on immigration. “I think they like me in the U.K.,” he said. “I think they agree with me on immigration.”

Neckties may be next to face a ban in California, if mayor's proposal gains traction

Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris proposed this week to ban neckties from the workplace, citing a health study that suggested the fashion accessory restricts blood flow to the brain.  (City of Lancaster)

California has long been a place where the government has tried to influence the quality of life by enacting a ban on this, or a mandatory adoption of that.
Now a mayor in Southern California says he wants to ban neckties from the workplace, claiming the fashion accessory restricts blood flow to the brain.
R. Rex Parris, mayor of Lancaster, said he conceived the idea after reading a science blog that claimed neckties restrict 7.5 percent of blood to the brain, the Los Angeles Times reported.
“I spend a lot of hours every week on an elliptical or a bike just to increase blood flow to my brain, and it turns out every morning when I put on a tie I’m diminishing it,” Parris said.
The mayor’s proposal comes as the necktie’s presence in corporate America is waning. In 2015 a New York City Human Rights Commission said compelling men to wear ties is akin to demanding that women wear skirts because of their gender.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate in America today to make anyone do something that is now known to be detrimental to your health. Especially if it’s based on gender,” Parris said.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate in America today to make anyone do something that is now known to be detrimental to your health. Especially if it’s based on gender.”
- R. Rex Parris, mayor of Lancaster, Calif.

But a ban on dress codes, especially for private businesses, would likely run into legal problems. Michael Colantuono, a municipal lawyer, said the move would be unprecedented.
Parris ran the idea by the city attorney at a City Council meeting Tuesday, the Orange County Register reported. In order to approve the measure the city would be required to prove ties are detrimental to public health.
“I’m aware I’m going out on a ledge, but I live my life on ledges,” Parris said. “We’re interested in going in a positive direction until we’re stopped.”
But Parris, an established litigator for more than 30 years, said he hasn’t stopped wearing ties completely just yet.

Kavanaugh's baseball debts: Why the nominee's opponents are striking out

Stormy Daniels has been arrested, but I digress.
The Peter Strzok hearing degenerated into a circus, but never mind.
President Trump claimed that NATO allies have agreed to boost defense spending, only to be contradicted by France's president and called a liar by MSNBC anchors. But put that to the side.
The really big story is that Brett Kavanaugh loves baseball.
Loves it so much, in fact, that he blew a whole bunch of money on Washington Nationals tickets and went into debt.
When I first heard that The Washington Post had reported this, I figured it was a few paragraphs in the middle of a profile piece. But no, it's the lead.
The Supreme Court nominee "incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets," the paper said.
White House spokesman Raj Shah said explained that Kavanaugh "built up the debt by buying Washington Nationals season tickets and tickets for playoff games for himself and a 'handful' of friends," plus home improvements. He ran up debts in 2016 between $60,000 and $200,000 on three credit cards and a loan. Shah said some of the debts were also for home improvements.
But the debts were either completely or almost completely paid off last year, as "Kavanaugh's friends reimbursed him for their share of the baseball tickets," according to Shah.
Big deal, right?
Now the paper reported this as a straightforward review of his financial disclosure forms without touting it as some kind of scandal. Still, it's drawing plenty of ridicule online.
For one thing, it makes Kavanaugh seem more like an average American who was living a bit beyond his means. And he's a big baseball fan. Which you have to be to have season tickets to the Nats, who keep choking late in the season.
For another, if Kavanaugh had joined a big law firm, he could afford all the Nationals, Redskins, Wizards and Capitals tickets he wants. But he's been in public service for the last two decades and living on a judge's salary for the last 12 years.
The Atlantic asks how Kavanaugh paid off the debts so quickly, and that seems like a fair question—though the answer may be far from nefarious.

So by and large, the story feels a big whiff.
A better piece in the same paper, in my view, leads off with Kavanaugh regularly having a beer and burger at a joint called the Chevy Chase Lounge, but never telling the bartender what he does for a living. One neighbor, a Democrat, says they talked about "baseball and Springsteen," not politics.
Kavanaugh's wife is a village manager within Chevy Chase, a job that pays $66,000, who also doesn't mention what her husband does. At Georgetown Prep he listed himself as treasurer of the "Keg City Club—100 Kegs or Bust." He coaches girls' basketball at the local Catholic school, Blessed Sacrament, and even attends other coaches' basketball games.

This down-to-earth portrait is a sharp contrast to the ridiculous NARAL comment attacking him as "some frat boy named Brett."
The media are filled with stories about Kavanaugh's past writings and rulings on abortion, presidential power, impeachment, health care and other issues. But something has struck me in the past 48 hours.
Having lived through various firestorms over nomination battles—from Robert Bork to John Tower, from Clarence Thomas to Harriet Miers—this doesn't feel like it is rising to that level.
There is emotional intensity, to be sure, given the enormous stakes and the virtual certainty that Kavanaugh's confirmation would significantly shift the high court to the right.
But I've seen the Kavanaugh story slip down the lineup on many MSNBC opinion shows, and that seems to me to reflect a grudging recognition that he is extremely likely to be confirmed. There will be plenty of sound and fury, but given the supportive comments of Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, the Republicans look like they'll get to 50 votes.
If the opposition is down to stories about baseball debt, they're going to strike out.
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.

Giuliani slams Strzok for refusing to admit different versions of Trump dossier

Rudy Giuliani on Thursday slammed the “totally phony” Russia probe after anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok refused to identify the individuals who apparently handed the bureau three different copies of the salacious Trump dossier.
“Isn't that called collusion or conspiracy to gin up a totally inappropriate, totally illegally wire based on national security? And doesn't it taint the entire Russian probe?” Giuliani told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle.”
“That’s a disgrace, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller should be ashamed of himself. Those Democrats trying to protect that liar, Strzok, should be ashamed of themselves. And every FBI agent I know wants to see this guy drummed out of the bureau,” he said.

“That’s a disgrace, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller should be ashamed of himself. Those Democrats trying to protect that liar, Strzok, should be ashamed of themselves. And every FBI agent I know wants to see this guy drummed out of the bureau."
- Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani said the dossier led to fake news and the “national intelligence wiretap” of the Trump campaign officials.
“So how much of it is infecting the investigation today? We may never know, which is why I think the investigation is totally phony,” he added.
The inquiry into the dossier occurred during a fiery exchange earlier between Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Strzok, who appeared before a joint House committee about his role in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Jordan pressed Strzok about an email he sent to his colleagues, including FBI lawyer Lisa Page with whom he had an extramarital affair, indicating that he has seen different versions of the infamous Trump dossier from three different sources.
Jordan said he had the email the he sent to Page and several others with the subject: “BuzzFeed is about to accomplish the dossier.”
“It says this, ‘Comparing now the set is only identical to what (Sen. John) McCain had, parentheses, it has differences from what was given to us by (Mother Jones’ David) Corn and (Fusion GPS founder Glenn) Simpson.’ Did you write all that?” Jordan asked.
Strzok refused to answer and declined to confirm whether there were three copies of the dossier the FBI had its hands on, saying he can’t answer under the directive of the bureau.
McCain’s copy was identical to the copy that Buzzfeed gave the bureau, Jordan said, citing the email.
Jordan went on to press Strzok on whether he interacted with the Fusion GPS, noting that Simpson said last year in his testimony that nobody from his company was in contact with the FBI.
Strzok spoke for himself as said he never interacted with Simpson or Corn. “Sir, I can tell you I never had contact with Fusion, with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Corn.”

Liberal Hollywood Cartoons

George Lopez uses water bottle to pretend to urinate on Trump's star in Hollywood

Trash

Comedian George Lopez was recently seen in a TMZ video emptying a small water bottle onto President Donald Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, acting as though he was urinating.
It was unclear when the footage was taken, but the celebrity website posted the video Wednesday.
Late last year, the comedian was booed off stage at a juvenile diabetes event in Denver over an anti-Donald Trump routine that fell flat with the crowd, the New York Post reported.
The event -- where tables were sold from $5,000 to $100,000 -- appeared to be a disaster.
An attendee commented on a YouTube video that “George was asked nicely to stop making Trump jokes by a man in the front row who just donated $250K.” But “George doesn’t, continues. Gets booed.”
In the latest video, Lopez appeared to be in front of a small group of people in the new video and the person filming appeared to laugh. When Lopez ran out of water, he said, "Alright, let's go."
Los Angeles police in 2016 arrested a man who pleaded no contest to destroying Trump’s star with a sledgehammer and pickax about a week after Trump was elected.
James Otis eventually told reporters, “Upon reflection after my arrest, I had said I was proud and felt very good about destroying Mr. Trump’s star. However, now I realize I was wrong, that I shouldn’t have done it.”
He agreed to pay $4,400 and perform 20 days of community labor, CBS News reported.

For Trump it looks like a bad time to arrive in Britain -- Actually, it's ideal. Here's why

FILE -- January 27, 2017: U.S. President Donald Trump greets British Prime MinisterTheresa May as she arrives at the White House.  (REUTERS/Carlos Barria)

President Donald Trump will have to learn some new names in London. Earlier this week, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and David Davis, who led Britain’s arrangements for exiting the EU, resigned out of dissatisfaction with the government’s plans for Brexit.
On the surface, this looks like a bad time for Trump to arrive. Actually, it’s ideal.
The resignations happened because much of the British government — including Prime Minister Theresa May — treat Brexit as a problem to be managed, not an opportunity to be exploited. Most Tory activists want to leave the EU, as does a narrow majority of Conservative Members of Parliament (MP).
The Conservative Party is formally committed to leaving, and the fact that Britain will be exiting is enshrined in law. But May and her fellow Remainers want what’s known as a Kit-Kat Brexit — a coating of Brexit hiding a wafer of Remain.
Johnson and Davis resigned because the government’s effort to decide what it wants out of Brexit — known as the Chequers Plan--wouldn’t actually take the U.K. all the way out of the EU.
The Plan calls on Britain and the EU to develop a “common rule book” for goods. In practice, this would give the EU a veto over Britain’s ability to negotiate free trade deals with other nations, including the U.S. Nor would it give the U.K. much in other areas that it cares about.
Moreover, there’s no reason to believe the EU would agree to the Chequers Plans. The EU has consistently argued that Britain can’t have full access to the EU’s Common Market in goods unless it accepts the free movement of people — in other words, uncontrolled immigration.
And since the Chequers Plan is only Britain’s starting proposal, it will certainly be watered down even further as Britain negotiates with the EU.
The dissatisfaction in the Conservative Party isn’t limited to Johnson and Davis. The Chequers Plan is widely regarded as a betrayal of the Brexit Referendum, of the Party’s commitment to leaving, and of the promises that May herself has made.
In normal times, this might lead a Conservative MP to challenge May’s leadership. And that might indeed happen. But right now, almost no one wants an election. The British people are tired of them. The Conservative Party isn’t ready. It would enter the election divided, and that rarely leads to smashing victories. In short, May is powerful precisely because she is weak: If Conservative MPs got rid of her, many of them might lose their jobs in the resulting election.
None of this will be settled soon. It’s hard to see how the Chequers Plan can survive in its current form. Moves are already afoot in the Commons against it. And it’s hard to see how even a government as spineless as the one led by Theresa May could accept the EU’s likely demand that Britain keep its borders open.
And if it does, the Conservative Party — and indeed Labour — will face with another political rebellion, similar to the one that created the now nearly-defunct U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).
The U.S. can play an important role in this crisis, though not a decisive one. Donald Trump is not popular in Britain. (Expect to read about major protests in London on Friday.) And Trump and May do not enjoy a close personal friendship.
But Trump does bring something worthwhile: a strong commitment to negotiating a free trade area with Britain as soon as possible. Of course, the U.K. will want to do deals with many countries, but the U.S. matters more than anyone else.
May has already admitted that the Chequers Plan creates “a challenge for us in relation to the United States and standards”—a polite way of admitting that the U.K. cannot hope to do a deal with the U.S. based on mutual recognition of standards if it is committed to agreeing on standards with the EU.
As the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., Woody Johnson, has said, the Chequers Plan has left a US-UK trade deal “totally up in the air.”
Trump’s to-do list in Britain is both short and important. After congratulating Britain on spending 2 percent — or close to 2 percent — of its GDP on defense, he should tell May that he will move heaven and earth to conclude a free trade agreement with Britain by the time it formally exits the EU, at the end of March 2019 — but that he can do this only if Britain isn’t bound by an EU rulebook.
That is a plain statement of fact. It is also what the Australians — among others — have already told the British. Whether this will be enough to encourage the British government to drop its defensive attitude to Brexit is impossible to know. But Trump needs to say this as clearly, as convincingly, as repeatedly, and as publicly as he possibly can.
The alternative is simple: Britain remains de facto in the EU; it is drawn into promoting the EU’s regulatory agenda; the Conservative Party loses the next election to Jeremy Corbyn’s far-left Labour Party, and Trump enters 2020 having done nothing in trade except impose tariffs on all and sundry.
Trump may not be able to avert this. The May government may be bent on throwing away its opportunities, no matter what he says. Or May’s own opponents may bring her down. But if Trump does not try, the best opportunity to rescue the situation, and Trump’s own legacy on trade, will be lost.

Trump calls out Sessions over FBI lawyer Lisa Page's no-show at Congress

President Trump in an early morning tweet Thursday nudged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to act over FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s refusal to comply with subpoena and testify before Congress.
“As I head out to a very important NATO meeting, I see that FBI Lover/Agent Lisa Page is dodging a Subpoena & is refusing to show up and testify,” Trump tweeted early Thursday morning.
He continued, “What can she possibly say about her statements and lies. So much corruption on the other side. Where is the Attorney General?”
Sessions has been the target of Trump in the past. The presiden slammed him for recusing himself from the Russia-collusion investigation and for his “weak position” on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “crimes.”
“The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself...I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!” Trump tweeted last month.
Trump also aired out his frustration with Sessions’ lack of fervor in tackling allegations of government surveillance abuse, calling out his “disgraceful” decision to instruct the Department of Justice's inspector general to probe the allegations.
“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!” Trump tweeted.
Trump’s remarks came as Page defied a subpoena to appear on Wednesday before the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, even as her lawyer claims she “will cooperate with this investigation.”
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte said Wednesday that U.S. Marshals were called in to serve Page with a subpoena to testify and accused her of “apparently” having “something to hide.”
Attorney Amy Jeffress told Fox News that Page didn’t testify on Wednesday as they didn’t have enough time to prepare, noting that she would ask lawmakers to schedule another date for the interview behind closed doors.
Members of Congress seek to grill Page regarding about her anti-Trump text messages with embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she had an affair. Strzok, meanwhile, is set to testify publicly for the first time on Thursday before House Republicans who are investigating bias at the FBI.

Stormy Daniels arrested while performing at strip club, Avenatti says

Stormy Daniels' lawyer tweeted early Thursday that she was arrested while performing at a Columbus strip club.  (AP)

Stormy Daniels, the porn star who claims to have had an affair with President Donald Trump, was arrested early Thursday while performing at a strip club in Columbus, Ohio, her lawyer told Fox News.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has said she had sex with Trump in 2006 when he was married, which Trump has denied. She's suing Trump and his former longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and seeking to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement that she signed days before the 2016 presidential election.
Columbus police did not confirm the arrest to Fox News. The strip club where she was scheduled to perform, Sirens, also did not indicate any arrest was made.
Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote in a follow-up tweet that she was arrested for "allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner."
An Ohio law prohibits anyone who isn’t a family member to touch a nude or semi-nude dancer.
"Are you kidding me? They are devoting law enforcement resources to sting operations for this? There has to be higher priorities," he wrote.“This was a setup & politically motivated,” he said. “It reeks of desperation. We will fight all bogus charges.”
Despite being on the books for more than a decade, the Dispatch reported in September of 2017 that the law is seldom used. A spokesman from the Franklin County Sherriff’s office in Columbus told the paper that they had no recorded instances of it ever being cited.
Avenatti, who confirmed to Fox News that he sent out the tweets, said she will likely be charged with a misdemeanor and be released on bail.

Gun Ban Cartoons

New York Dem running for US House seat backs gun ban -- but won't say so publicly

New York Democratic Congressional candidate Tedra Cobb said she supports a ban on some firearms, but admitted that she will never say so in public out of fear of losing the election.  (Tedra Cobb campaign)

A Democratic congressional candidate in New York state said she supports a ban on some firearms, but admitted that she will never say so in public out of fear of losing the election.
"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Tedra Cobb is heard telling a group of teens in a video posted Monday, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
"And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, 'I want you to know, Cindy, I cannot say that,” Cobb added.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned."
- Tedra Cobb

The candidate, who’s running against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik in New York's 21st Congressional District, in the northernmost part of the state, was rebuked by others for her silence on the issue in the public.
Cobb explained that she cannot publicly come out in support of a gun ban as that will doom her election chances.
"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to,' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau [member of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action] said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"
Cobb has a platform for addressing gun violence nationwide, including the expansion of universal background checks and banning of bump stocks. But none of her official proposals suggest banning any type of firearms.
The Republican Party jumped on the issue, issuing a stark attack on Cobb, calling her “wildly out of touch” and accused her of “lying to voters.”
"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told the Free Beacon.
“First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times [as a St. Lawrence County official], and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens,” he added.
Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.

Kansas councilwoman allegedly bites corrections officer's thumb hard enough to break it during fight

Huron City Councilwoman Carol Fowler allegedly bit down on a corrections officer’s thumb during her booking process.  (Atchison County Sheriff's Office)

A local Kansas lawmaker is facing felony charges after she allegedly bit a corrections officer’s thumb so hard, she broke a bone.
Huron City Councilwoman Carol Fowler, 48, was taken into custody June 29 after failing to appear for a warrant, KSHB reported. Police allegedly had to use stun guns because she was fighting back, kicking and scratching, the Kansas City Star added.
On July 2, while in custody, Fowler refused to follow booking process instructions and when Atchison County Jail staff tried to remove her jewelry and personal items, she bit down on one of the officer’s thumb, breaking the bone, Sheriff Jack Laurie told the Atchison Globe.
Requests for comment from Fowler and a person listed as her attorney were not immediately answered. 
According to the county’s website, Fowler was still listed as a council member at the time of this report.
Fowler is facing three felony charges for the June 29 and July 2 incidents, including battery on a law enforcement officer.

Lisa Page will not appear for Capitol Hill interview despite subpoena, attorney says

Lisa Page, pictured in January, was due to be interviewed by two House committees Wednesday.  (Ron Sachs / CNP)

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page will not appear for a private interview with two House committees despite being subpoenaed, her attorney told Fox News Tuesday.
In a statement, Amy Jeffress said her client did not have enough time to prepare and had asked the the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees to schedule another date.
"The Committees have not honored this request," Jeffress said. "As a result, Lisa is not going to appear for an interview at this time."
In a statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said: "It appears that Lisa Page has something to hide ... She has known for months that the House Judiciary Committee has sought her testimony as part of our joint investigation with the Oversight Committee into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016, and she has no excuse for her failure to appear.
"Lisa Page is a key witness, and it is critical that she come before our committees to answer questions as part of our investigation," Goodlatte added.
Other GOP members of the Judiciary Committee slammed Page's refusal to appear, with Ron DeSantis of Florida calling it "pathetic" and Jim Jordan of Ohio said she was "once again showing the double standard."
"One set of rules for regular Americans, a different set for the Swamp!" Jordan added.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a member of the Oversight Committee, said Page's action was "indefensible."
Jeffress added that the FBI had not given her and Page the necessary materials to prepare for her hearing, saying the two had gone to the FBI to review the materials, "but after waiting for more than three hours, we were not provided with any documents."
Page originally was scheduled to appear before both committees Wednesday as part of their investigation into alleged bias at the Justice Department. She and FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is set to testify publicly before the committees Thursday, exchanged disparaging text messages about then-candidate Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign.
Page and Strzok both worked on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and, later, special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Both were removed from the Mueller probe last year after the Justice Department's internal watchdog made the special counsel aware of the anti-Trump messages.
The Judiciary and Oversight panels have already spent much of the summer holding hearings and interviews critical of the FBI and Justice Department. Democrats have strongly objected to the GOP-led investigation, saying it is an attempt to undermine Mueller's probe and sway public opinion against investigators.
A report by the Justice Department's internal watchdog released last month detailed the inflammatory texts between the two, including an exchange in which Strzok wrote "we'll stop it" in reference to a potential Trump election win.
Strzok was already interviewed privately by lawmakers on the two committees for 11 hours June 27.
The Judiciary Committee also held a contentious hearing June 28 with FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. In the hearing, Republicans angrily accused the officials of withholding documents from them and demanded details about surveillance tactics in the Russia investigation.

Trump, NATO head Stoltenberg have testy exchange at summit

President Donald Trump on Wednesday had a testy exchange with the head of NATO when he asked about energy agreements between Russia and several European countries.
Trump repeatedly pressed Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary general, on why the U.S. continued to pay money to the military alliance while countries continue to purchase energy from Moscow.
“We are stronger together,” Stoltenberg insisted, but acknowledged that there can be differences among allies.
Still, Trump persisted.
“But how can you be together when you’re getting energy from the group you want protection from?” the president asked.
Trump used Germany as an example. He asked Stoltenberg to explain why Berlin was getting energy from Moscow, and asserted that Germany was "totally controlled" by and "captive to Russia" over a pipeline project.
The president appeared to be referring to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would double the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany, skirting transit countries such as Ukraine. The project is opposed by the U.S. and some European Union members.
Trump said of Germany: "We're supposed to protect you against Russia" and yet you make this deal with Russia.
“Explain that,” Trump said. “It can’t be explained."
The U.S. role in NATO has been a focal point for Trump since before he was elected president. He tweeted Monday that the situation was “not fair, nor is it acceptable.” He said NATO benefits Europe “far more than it does the U.S.”
Trump has called upon NATO allies to meet commitments to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
He tweeted en route from Washington that European countries "want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it. Just doesn't work!"
Brussels is the first stop of Trump's week-long European tour that will include a visit to Britain and a meeting in Finland with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Democratic Supreme Court Judge Cartoons

Judge tosses out Trump administration's lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law

A federal judge on Monday threw out the Trump administration’s legal effort to overturn California’s immigration laws, marking a major defeat to the administration’s war on sanctuary states.
Judge John Mendez approved California’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit related to Senate Bill 54.
The state’s sanctuary law also known as the California Values Act, and Assembly Bill 103 – allows the state attorney general to inspect detention centers, the Sacramento Bee reported.
The sanctuary law, SB 54, which prohibits state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention, sparked rebellion by multiple counties across California seeking to opt out of the measure out fears for safety and argued that the state law is unconstitutional.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOWN STANDS UP TO STATE, VOTES TO REJECT SANCTUARY LAW       
Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued the state of California earlier this year over the sanctuary state policies, arguing that state lawmakers overreached their authority.
The administration’s lawsuit against a portion of Assembly Bill 450, which mandates companies to inform its staff within 72 hours of any federal requests to inspect employment records, was also rejected by the judge, the Bee reported.
But Mendez ruled that the suit against other parts of the same law – such as fines to employers who don’t reject requests by the federal officials to enter their workplaces without a warrant – is allowed to move forward.

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people."
- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. "Though the Trump administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law."
State Sen. Kevin de León, who introduced the sanctuary state law, said the judge’s decision was “a stunning defeat in the president's racist war on immigrants.”
“The federal judge's decision not only affirms the constitutionality of the California Values Act, but our firm belief that our state resources should not be used to torment immigrant communities and tear families apart,” he added in a statement to the Bee.

California's 'foreclosure capital' to give away $500 a month to residents in experimental welfare program

Stockton, California is set to become the first city in the nation to embark on an experiment of Universal Basic Income, paying 100 residents $500 a month without any conditions.
The program’s purpose is to eventually ensure that no one in the city of 300,000 people lives in poverty. The receivers of the cash will be able to spend the money on anything they want without any strings attached.
It will launch by 2019 and the 100 fortunate residents will receive the cash for a full 18-months as part of its testing phase before deciding whether to roll it across whole Stockton.
The city, which was once known as America's foreclosure capital, has recently fallen on hard times, with one-in-four residents living below the poverty line and the median household income nearly $8,000 lesser than the national median.
The city also racked up millions in debt from expensive development projects that led to the city’s bankruptcy in 2012.
“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.
Luckily, the experimental program won’t deplete the city’s coffers as it benefits from financial backing by wealthy Silicon Valley moguls. One of those backers is Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, whose the Economic Security Project contributed $1 million to the project.
“It is such a fundamental idea behind America that if you work hard, you can get ahead, and you certainly don't live in poverty. But that isn't true today, and it hasn't been true in the country for decades,” Hughes told CNN.
“I believe that unless we make significant changes today, the income inequality in our country will continue to grow and call into question the very nature of our social contract.”
Other Silicon Valley elites have also endorsed the idea, though mostly in rhetoric. “Universal income will be necessary over time if AI takes over most human jobs,” Business magnate Elon Musk wrote in a tweet last month.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said in May 2017 Harvard commencement speech.
The idea of Universal Basic Income isn’t new, with some European countries adopting some form of it. In Finland, 2,000 unemployed working-age people were given 560 Euros per month. The program, however, came to an abrupt end in April after the Finnish government decided not to extend the funding to the program, The Guardian reported.
In the U.S., the idea remains fairly new but it’s gaining traction in politically liberal areas in the nation such as Hawaii and the San Francisco Bay area.
In Oakland, California, Y Combinator, a startup incubator, is giving out $1,500 a month to randomly selected residents. It’s expected the money will soon be distributed to 100 recipients with a prospect of expanding the program to 1,000 people who will receive $1,000 monthly.

Kavanaugh's nomination leaves red state Democrats with dilemma of a lifetime – betray their party or voters?

On Monday evening, President Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, leaving red state Democratic Senators with the dilemma of a lifetime as they approach Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing: betray Chuck Schumer or betray the voters that put them there.
Any legal expert will tell you that Kavanaugh is deserving of resounding confirmation. In fact, Liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, called President Trump’s entire 25-person Supreme Court nominee list “distinguished” and “impressive.” Monday night,  in a piece entitled “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Amar wrote: “I strongly supported Hillary Clinton… [but] it is hard to name anyone with judicial credential as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.” thus giving red state Democrats no valid reason to oppose him.
The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to more than a dozen of Kavanaugh’s decisions, and more than 210 judges nationwide have cited his most popular opinions.  Perhaps most qualifying of all, though, is this singular sentence written by Kavanaugh: “[R]ead the words of the statute as written.  Read the text of the Constitution as written… Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution.”
This incontrovertible statement is precisely the role of a judge and precisely the reason not a single Democrat should oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, a Constitution-abiding judge with a proven track record.

As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.

If not out of principle, red state Democrats ought to vote for Kavanaugh based on political fate.
Ten Democratic senators up for reelection this November hail from states that President Trump won, and in many of them commandingly so.
President Trump won Claire McCaskill’s state of Missouri by 19 points; Joe Donnelly’s Indiana by 19 points; Jon Tester’s Montana by 21 points; Heidi Heitkamp’s North Dakota by 36 points; and Joe Manchin’s West Virginia by an eye-opening 42 points.
In each of these states, voters sent an unmistakable message to their elected officials: We support President Trump and his agenda.  And yet, in each of these states, their senators talk like Donald Trump – but vote like Chuck Schumer.
As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.
With a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planning a Senate confirmation vote this fall, these faux Trump-supporting Democratic senators now have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and vote for President Trump’s highly qualified nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Opposing Kavanaugh is fraught with political risks. Voting against Kavanaugh will undoubtedly open Democrats up to attacks from Republican opponents – attacks like those we’ve already seen in Missouri, where Republican opponent Josh Hawley calls out Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in a new ad over the upcoming Supreme Court vote.
As a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh approaches, every red state Democrat will be forced to answer the following question: are you Trump allies in word or in action?
Senator Jon Tester recently took out a full page ad in 14 Montana newspapers thanking President Trump and touting “Jon’s 16 bills signed into law by President Trump” (this despite his vote against tax cuts and against Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).
Will Jon Tester’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia renounced his support for Hillary Clinton and said he would be “open” to voting for Trump in 2020.
Will Joe Manchin’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Donnelly brags that he voted with Trump more than every other Democratic senator with just two exceptions (keep in mind they all voted against tax cuts and permitted the government to shut down).
Will Joe Donnelly’s words be followed by action?
Time will tell.
If these vulnerable Democrats do vote for Kavanaugh, they are sure to provoke the ire of the Democratic leadership. Asked about red state Democrats losing elections because of their votes against the nominee, Minority Whip Dick Durbin flatly stated: “They understand it’s an historic decision.  It’s about more than the next election.”
In essence, Durbin is perversely suggesting that these red state Democrats put party before people – the very people that made them United States Senators.
Ten Senate Democrats – Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Tammy Baldwin, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly – will have to make the choice to stand with Chuck Schumer or to stand with the people of their great states.
People over party should be the easy answer.
Kayleigh McEnany is the National Spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and BSFS from Georgetown School of Foreign Service. She also studied at Oxford University, St. Edmund Hall. Kayleigh is the author of the book "The New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement."