Gun maker Remington files for bankruptcy

Founded in 1816, Remington is America's oldest gun maker.

Firearms manufacturer Remington Outdoor Company has filed for bankruptcy protection in the face of falling sales and lawsuits stemming from the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday night.
According to the Journal, Remington announced that it would file for Chapter 11 last month but the actual filing was delayed after the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. that killed 17 people.
The paper reported that Remington officials plan to hand over the reins to its creditors in exchange for writing off most of the company's debt. Cerberus Capital Management LP bought Remington for $118 million in 2007, assuming $252 million in debt in the process.
Cerberus later formed a holding company called the Freedom Group Inc., consisting of Remington and other firearms manufacturers -- including Bushmaster, which Cerberus had purchased in 2006.
WEAPON MAKERS FLEE LIBERAL TOWNS AND HEAD TO GUN-FRIENDLY STATES
The Journal reported that the gun industry is facing low demand and high stock after Donald Trump's unexpected election to the presidency in 2016. According to the paper, firearms manufacturers boosted output in the run-up to the election, expecting that a Hillary Clinton victory would lead to a boost in sales ahead of tighter gun laws.
In 2016, families of the Sandy Hook victims filed a wrongful-death suit against Remington, claiming that it had negligently marketed "military-style" weapons to younger demographics -- namely, 20-year-old Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza.
A trial judge dismissed the initial lawsuit, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which is considering the matter.
Katie-Mesner Hage, an attorney with Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, which represents Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against the gun manufacturer said in a statement that “We do not expect this filing to affect the families’ case in any material way.”
Founded in 1816, Remington is America's oldest gun maker.

Bolton responds after Tim Kaine questions security clearance over Russia gun video

Incoming national security adviser John Bolton defended himself Sunday after a Democratic senator questioned whether he would be able to obtain the necessary security clearance over a video speech Bolton gave to a Russian pro-gun rights group in 2013.
On Saturday, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., tweeted out a National Public Radio report about the group Bolton spoke to, known as The Right To Bear Arms. The NPR report described one of the group's founders, Alexander Torshin, as an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin who served as the deputy speaker of Russia's parliament for more than 10 years.
"Can John Bolton even get a security clearance?" Kaine asked rhetorically. "Ties to Russian allies of Vladimir Putin?"
On Sunday, a spokesman for Bolton responded: "The Ambassador [Bolton] was asked by former [National Rifle Association] president Dave Keene to record a video for presentation to the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council. The Ambassador has never heard of The Right to Bear Arms until recent news coverage of the group."
According to the NPR report, Bolton was named to the NRA's international affairs subcommittee in 2011.
Kaine addressed his tweet in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning.
"Russia is the chief nation-state adversary of the United States, these kinds of contacts raise real questions in my mind about whether he could get a full security clearance or not," Kaine said. "We've already lost one national security adviser, Michael Flynn, because he was lying about contacts with foreign governments and had to be let go.
"I think, even though the Senate doesn't get a vote to confirm the national security adviser, I have many, many questions not only about John Bolton's philosophy, but about these contacts with Russia and potentially other governments."

Stormy Daniels claims she was threatened to stay silent about alleged Trump affair

Adult film star Stormy Daniels claimed she agreed to keep quiet about her alleged affair with President Trump after she received a chilling threat in a parking lot and worried that her infant daughter would be harmed, according to a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday.
Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she was threatened by a man who approached her in Las Vegas after she sold her story about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump during the American Celebrity Golf Tournament in Lake Tahoe.
“I was in a parking lot going to a fitness class with my infant daughter and a guy walked up on me and said to me, ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,’” she said. “And he leaned round and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It would be a shame if something happened to her mom.’”
She added, “I was concerned for my family and their safety.”
Trump has strongly denied the claims.
InTouch magazine initially bought her story for $15,000 but opted to kill it after Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue the publication.
In the CBS News interview, Daniels claimed the tryst with Trump took place one night during the three-round golf competition at the Edgewood Tahoe golf resort in July. If true, Trump would have been married a little more than a year to Melania. Their son, Barron, would have been four months old.
Daniels said her interaction with the president of the United States started after he showed her a picture of himself on the cover of a magazine. After a flirtatious exchange, she told him someone should “spank” him with that magazine. And then she said she did.
“He turned around and pulled his pants down a little -- you know, had underwear on and stuff, and I just gave him a couple swats,” she claimed. “From that moment on, he was a completely different person.”
Daniels claimed Trump told her she reminded him of his daughter. Daniels also said when she broached the topic of Trump’s marriage, he brushed it aside.
“He said, ‘Oh yeah, yeah, you know, don’t worry about that. We don’t even – we have separate rooms and stuff,’” Daniels told host Anderson Cooper, in an interview that was taped more than two weeks ago.
She claimed she and Trump had dinner in his hotel room followed by unprotected sex. Daniels, then 27, said she was not attracted to Trump who was 33 years older than she was at the time. She also claimed that Trump offered to get her on his NBC show “The Apprentice.”
The relationship between Daniels and Trump was not contained to a single evening. She claimed that they stayed in touch and that he invited her to a Trump Vodka launch party in California as well as to Trump Tower in Manhattan.
“This was not a secret,” she said, adding that when Trump called her she would often put him on speakerphone so others could hear the conversation.
About a year after their first meeting, Trump allegedly summoned her to his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles to discuss a possible appearance on “Celebrity Apprentice.” When she arrived, she claimed he was watching “Shark Week.”
“He made me sit and watch an entire documentary about shark attacks,” she said, adding that he allegedly wanted to have sex again but she said no.
Daniels said Trump called her about a month later and told her she did not get the TV gig.
Last week, records were released that showed Daniels passed a 2011 polygraph test in which she claimed she had unprotected sex with Trump in 2006. The news came on the heels of former Playboy model Karen McDougal suing to be released from a 2016 agreement requiring her to keep quiet about an alleged dalliance with Trump with similar details.
There had been some concern Daniel's credibility might be in question if she said she spent the night with Trump when he was seen somewhere else - or with someone else - at the tournament.
While Trump returned Sunday from his Mar-a-Lago resort to the White House, the first lady opted to stay in Florida with their son on a pre-scheduled spring break, the White House said.

America's Spending Bill Cartoons

Trump, GOP leaders face backlash over $1.3 trillion spending package

President Trump faces losing support from his base in the wake of his decision Friday to sign a controversial and much-derided $1.3 trillion spending bill -- over not only its size but its failure to fund his campaign promise of a wall on the U.S. southern border.
Trump briefly threatened to veto the legislation, voted through the House and Senate on Thursday and early Friday in order to avoid a government shutdown.

Conservatives balked at the $1.3 trillion price tag, as well as the failure to promote Republican causes such as the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the funding of the wall on the southern border in particular. While the legislation served up $1.6 billion for border security, it mainly consisted of repairs and additions to already existing fencing.
Congressional leaders and the White House noted that it increased funding for the military, infrastructure and also grants to fight the nation's opioid epidemic.

Trump blindsided White House aides and lawmakers when he tweeted Friday morning that he was considering vetoing the legislation over its failure to include funding for the border wall as well as a fix for the expiring Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that grants protection to illegal immigrants brought to the country as children.
But Trump eventually signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in remarks to the press with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money."
"It's not right, and it's very bad for our country," he said.
But he said military spending was vital and it was that concern that overrode his thoughts about vetoing the legislation.
TRUMP SIGNS $1.3 TRILLION SPENDING BILL, DESPITE EARLIER THREAT TO VETO
“Therefore, as a matter of national security, I've signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill…But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again,” he said.
Yet despite his distancing himself from it, the very act of him signing it enraged his base. A White House official told Axios that the reaction to the signing "is the hardest I've ever seen the base turn on Trump over anything."
"A big reason why people voted for him was because of his apparent willingness to stand up to the entrenched political class in both parties," the official said. "Voters wanted a fighter who wouldn't back down to 'the swamp' like a 'typical politician.'"
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who in 2016 wrote a book called “In Trump we Trust,” told Fox News Radio’s Tom Shillue that the ramifications will hit the GOP in the midterms, particularly in the House.
“The House will definitely flip, why would anyone vote Republican?” she said.
On Twitter, she also congratulated “President Schumer” and agreed with Trump that he won’t sign another bill like that, but added that was because a Democratic House would impeach him.
"The president was really sold a bill of goods here," Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax's chief executive, who is regularly in touch with Trump, told The Washington Post. "Conservatives look at this omnibus bill and say, 'This is not why they elected Donald Trump. This is not a good bill for him to sign.' "
Commentator Michelle Malkin said on "Fox and Friends" that she was “disgusted” with the legislation, but aimed most of her anger at congressional leadership.
“I’m beyond disappointed; I’m disgusted,” Malkin said. “I’m disgusted with the so-called GOP leadership. This falls squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. It is business as usual.”
Even in Congress, there was significant opposition to the legislation. The conservative House Freedom Caucus had encouraged Trump ahead of the signing to veto the bill, while budget hawk Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., repeatedly slammed the bill, later saying: “Maybe the GOP holding hands Democrats isn’t such a great idea.”

The Trump team continued to point the blame at Congress, with Trump campaign advisor Katrina Pierson tweeting back to Paul: “It would be more helpful to change out your leadership instead of doing everything possible to keep them in place.”

But other advisers were less supportive of the president.
“This was the worst day since the 2016 win. Signing that Bush/Obama budget was a kick in the gut,” a conservative advisor to Trump, but not in the White House, told Fox News. “I still love this President but, wow, hard to swallow this bitter pill. Funded Planned Parenthood and not a wall. What did we fight so hard for?”

Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill, despite earlier threat to veto

President Trump signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill Friday despite an earlier threat to veto the legislation due to the lack of border wall funding and a fix for DACA.
Trump signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in a press availability with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money."
"It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he said.
But he said that military spending was very important, and that concern overrode his thoughts about vetoing the legislation.
“Therefore, as a matter of national security, I've signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill…But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again,” he said.
He also called on Congress to end the filibuster in the Senate and to give him a line item veto.
“To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line item veto for all government spending bills," he said. "And the Senate must end -- they must end -- the filibuster rule and get down to work.”
Trump had tweeted earlier Friday that he was considering using the veto, saying that recipients of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program “have been totally abandoned by the Democrats.” He added that the border wall, which he said was "desperately needed for our National Defense" is not fully funded.
The House adjourned Friday morning until Monday, meaning that if Trump had vetoed the bill then the government would shut down.
Trump moved to end the DACA program in September, giving Congress a six-month window to come up with a legislative fix. That deadline has been delayed by court orders, but the fate of the 800,000 enrolled recipients is still uncertain.
Trump addressed DACA recipients at the press availability: "Republicans are with you," he said, before accusing Democrats of blocking efforts to fix DACA "every step of the way."
The White House has tried to use the DACA issue to convince Democrats to support approximately $25 billion in funding for Trump’s central campaign promise. But a congressional GOP source told Fox News talks broke drown after Democrats pushed for a path to citizenship to include also those who are currently eligible -- expanding those covered to 1.8 million.
The spending bill passed by Congress includes only $1.6 billion for border measures -- much of which is for repairs to already existing fencing. It explicitly rules out any new prototypes of the kind President Trump viewed this month in California. But House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the White House pushed back against conservative concerns on Thursday, saying it provided for 100 miles of border construction.
FUNDING FOR BORDER WALL IN SPENDING BILL DIVIDES CONSERVATIVES, ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS 
Democrats had claimed victory on the issue, pointing to the fact that Trump's requests for new deportation agents and detention center beds had gone unanswered, although they had expressed disappointment at the failure to get a DACA fix in the bill.
The deal has also irked more conservative members of Congress, who objected to the size and cost of the bill (which ran in at over 2,000 pages) as well as the failure to remove funding for Planned Parenthood and so-called "sanctuary cities."  Other Republicans approved of the deal, pointing to a massive increase in military and infrastructure spending as well as funding to help combat the nation's opioid crisis.
Trump’s veto threat was totally unexpected, particularly as the White House had signaled Trump would support the bill if passed by Congress. Most lawmakers have already left Washington for a two week recess. Some are on overseas trips already.

Schumer aide 'tired of all the winning' after Trump signs spending bill

A top aide to Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) mocked President Trump on Friday over the passage of a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill.
Schumer's communications director Matt House tweeted Friday afternoon that he was "tired of all the winning" after Trump signed the bill into law.

I, for one, am tired of all the winning.

— Matt House (@mattwhouse) March 23, 2018

House's tweet came amid furious reactions from conservative lawmakers and top Trump supporters online over the president signing the bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conservatives slammed the massive price tag of the measure and criticized its lack of funding for Trump's signature plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The measure did include a major increase in the military's budget.
Trump, who floated a potential veto earlier in the day, threatened Friday to "never" sign a bill like the omnibus spending package again. He had been pressuring Congress for months to include both funding for his wall proposal and a legislative fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients.
"Yeah, because you’ll be impeached," conservative commentator Ann Coulter tweeted in response to Trump's veto threat.
Coulter went on to imply that Schumer had personally defeated Trump in the battle over the bill.
"CONGRATULATIONS, PRESIDENT SCHUMER!" she added.

CONGRATULATIONS, PRESIDENT SCHUMER!

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 23, 2018

Matt Drudge, who runs the right-leaning news aggregation site Drudge Report, targeted Trump for failing to follow through on a threat to veto the bill Friday with the headline "Fake Veto" displayed on the website's homepage.
During an impromptu bill signing at the White House, Trump complained that "nobody read" the 2,232-page piece of legislation, which Congress passed quickly to avert a third government shutdown this year.
"It's only hours old. Some people don't even know what's in it," Trump said.

If Democrats run in 2018 like they're running in California, they're in big trouble

Kurt Bardella, Opinion Columnist
Published 3:08 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2018 | Updated 1:53 p.m. ET March 5, 2018

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

If you’ve been in politics long enough, you’ve heard the phrase, “As goes California, so goes the nation.”

In the case of the 2018 midterm elections, this could spell bad news for Democrats and good news for Republicans.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats openly and almost giddily mused about a potential 40-seat pickup in the House, nearly double the 24 seats they need to flip in order to retake the majority. However, recent weeks have given Democrats reason to think twice about their lofty expectations.

Their advantage on the generic ballot preference goes up and down and often falls to single digits. Even more troubling for their congressional takeover prospects, however, is the state of the Democratic Party in California.

California Democrats hosted their party convention in San Diego last weekend and made some absolutely puzzling decisions.

In a stunning rebuke of the establishment, the party refused to endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She won only 37% support from convention delegates, far short of the 60% she needed. Progressive challenger and state Senate leader Kevin de Leon also fell short, but he outperformed Feinstein with 54% of the vote.

Feinstein is still the heavy favorite to win re-election in November. But the rejection of Feinstein, a political icon in California, is a potentially important data point in the civil war brewing within the Democratic Party between the base and establishment.

Have the Democrats not learned anything from watching the war within the Republican Party?

What’s even more perplexing is the reality that Feinstein can’t get the party’s endorsement, but a female lawmaker being investigated for sexual misconduct in the state Capitol can get it.

There are other signs that show California Democrats just do not have their act together. For instance, the San Diego-area 49th congressional district was considered one of the top battleground seats in the country. For almost two decades, the district had been represented by my former boss, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. In January, Issa announced that he'd forgo re-election and retire at the end of his term.

Since then, the situation has deteriorated for Democrats. Now there are fears that under California's jungle primary system, in which the top two vote-getters go on to the general election regardless of party, so many Democrats are running that they'll divide the vote and a Democrat might not even make the top two.

In a completely botched effort to narrow the field, one candidate had prepared to leave the race and run for a different office at the local level, but inexplicably failed to review the residency guidelines and missed the cutoff to qualify for the local election by a single day. Another did drop out, but that leaves four relatively unknown Democrats still running for the congressional seat against a better known Republican lineup that includes a member of the state Board of Equalization, a state assemblyman, a San Diego County supervisor and a local mayor.

The Issa district isn’t an isolated situation, either. Seven Democrats are running in the Orange County district held by retiring Rep. Ed Royce. Four Democrats are challenging Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also in Orange County.

How can a party so divided hope to defeat the Republicans in November?

Complicating matters, Democratic candidates will once again face U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's litmus test. Since 2010, Republicans have likely spent more than $150 million on attack ads tying Democrats to Pelosi — and it has worked every time. Pelosi has gone from a 39% approval rating in 2013 to 29% in 2017. President Trump refers to Pelosi as theGOP’s “secret weapon.”

Clearly, the Democrats are their own worst enemies, but we knew that already having watched the sequence of events that put Donald Trump in the White House.

On paper, Democrats have every reason to be optimistic about their chances to take back the House. History is certainly in their favor. In the postwar midterm era, the median loss for a president’s party has been 22 seats. Since 1962, the president's party has lost 40 seats on average when the president’s approval rating is below 50% — and Trump’s is at 41%.

And yet, an icon like Feinstein can’t even get her state party’s endorsement. With prime pickup opportunities in reach, Democrats can’t even narrow the field in competitive districts and could be left out of the general election entirely. And the leader of congressional Democrats is the weapon of choice for Republicans to use against them.

If, and it might be a big if, Republicans somehow survive the midterms with their majority intact, Democrats will emerge the morning after demoralized and asking themselves: What went wrong?

The answers could very well lie in California.

Kurt Bardella, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is a former  spokesperson for Republican members of Congress and Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella