Trump attacks leaking 'cowards' as anonymous sources undermine White House

Kellyanne Conway says some people in and around the White House "are using the media to shiv each other"—and that she expects some folks to be fired.
President Trump escalated his rhetoric by tweeting: "The so-called leaks coming out of the White House are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media in order to make us look as bad as possible. With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!"
Publicly, at least, the leakiest White House in modern history is now admitting that leaks from within are a major and corrosive problem.
The president's position has long been that fake news is to blame, that the anonymous sources constantly quoted by media outlets often don't exist. We see this in the "massive over-exaggeration" part of the tweet.
But if the leakers are "traitors and cowards," then they quite clearly exist, and are quite clearly a big problem for the administration.
In her interview with Fox's Martha MacCallum, Conway said that "there are all kinds of leaks. Some leaks exist to hurt, I guess, colleagues. Some leaks exist because they disagree with the policies that are being put forth. But none of them are helpful."
I would exempt from this category what I call authorized leaks—those in which a top White House official approves giving one news outlet a scooplet in advance or an argument to counter a negative story.
But so much of what flows from this White House are leaks of a self-destructive nature. This is a theme of my book "Media Madness," in which Steve Bannon and Jared and Ivanka and Reince Priebus and others are constantly pointing fingers about who's whispering what to journalists. Anthony Scaramucci was going to crack down on leakers but didn't last long.
From the beginning, Trump couldn't even call foreign leaders without having the conversations, and sometimes the transcripts, show up in the press.
Things reached the point that when Sean Spicer demanded everyone on his staff turn in their cell phones for checking, that meeting was immediately leaked.
The same thing happened to his successor, Sarah Sanders, who held a meeting after that leak about an aide's jibe at a "dying" John McCain (which the administration has somehow turned into a six-day story, fueled by media outrage). Sanders said it was "disgusting" that her meeting would be leaked—and it very quickly was.
And while John Kelly stemmed the tide when he took over as chief of staff, there has been a torrent of leaks against him since he began losing influence.
Officials leak for many reasons: Settling personal scores. Pushing policy agendas. Trying to kill a proposed announcement. Deflecting blame for some fiasco. Or just because it makes them feel important.
But it's amazing when aides and advisers make the president look angry, detached, uninformed or unqualified, without having their names attached. No wonder he's attacking them as cowards.
Journalists are a tad conflicted on this subject. I like when people share information and insights on background or off the record, because it helps me do my job. As a longtime investigative reporter, I often relied on unnamed sources. But most of the leaks in question here involve political spitballing.
At the same time, any honest assessment would acknowledge that many of these White House leaks are designed to hurt rivals and undercut the boss, with ample help from the press.
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.

It's time to make Congress prove it can curb its out-of-control spending habit

Even Americans who don’t see eye to eye on every issue agree on one thing: our elected officials shouldn’t live by a different set of rules than the rest of us do.
A perfect case in point is spending. What happens when you and I try to live beyond our means is very different from what happens when lawmakers do the same thing.
If you or I were to overspend, it wouldn’t be long before warning letters and calls from creditors started coming. Then our paychecks would be garnished. Eventually, our car would be repossessed and our house taken over by the bank.
In short, our little spree would be over – and fast. But that’s not the way it works in Washington.
There, the debt is continuing to pile up – $21 trillion to date, higher than it’s been at any point in our nation’s history – but no creditor calls or shows up. Lawmakers simply return the next year and make the problem worse.

The simple truth is Washington is bankrupting the country and robbing future generations of Americans. It’s time we changed that. That’s why I think we should make Washington work like the rest of us do.

But that may be about to change, thanks to President Trump’s request that Congress cancel (or “rescind”) $15 billion that hasn’t been spent yet.
Now, a “rescissions package” that cancels $15 billion in spending doesn’t sound like much when you’re $21 trillion in debt. Even if the president were to follow up this request with additional ones (and he certainly should), only a small hole will be patched in our listing ship of state.
But we have to start somewhere.
And a successful rescission package will send a strong signal that, after decades of failed promises from politicians, Washington’s out-of-control spending problem can be fixed.
In fact, it has to be fixed. See, when it comes to Congress, we’re the creditors. Those are our tax dollars being mismanaged and misspent. It’s our children and grandchildren who will assume the burden of all the debt that is accumulating today.
So while rescissions aren’t a magic-bullet solution, they’re an important first step.
Just as an overextended family might cut up its credit cards, Congress needs to show that it can finally curb its out-of-control spending habit. And if lawmakers can’t do it with $15 billion in unspent money, then their addiction is even worse than it appears.
The simple truth is Washington is bankrupting the country and robbing future generations of Americans. It’s time we changed that. That’s why I think we should make Washington work like the rest of us do.
Just imagine the impact of a very different dynamic: What if the total amount the federal government could spend in a given year was directly linked to how well our economy was doing?
We could forge that connection if the government’s total budget (including all spending and special-interest tax loopholes) was limited to a fixed percentage of the nation’s wealth (defined as gross domestic product, or GDP).
Under such a model, the government could only spend more money if the economy grew. And if the economy didn’t, the government would have to cut back on its spending.
That’s the way my family operates, and I bet it’s how yours does too. When our income goes up, our spending can too. And when our income shrinks, we make do with less. Millions of Americans live this way every day, but in Washington it’s unheard of.
Now imagine that if the government ever spent more than was allowed (except in cases of declared economic or military emergency), across-the-board cuts would be imposed – with one important difference: instead of starting with cuts to the programs we as citizens use, the cuts would begin with the salaries of the president, the Vice President, and every Member of Congress.
That, too, is how the rest of America lives. After all, who among us gets paid if they don’t do their job? Under this model, our elected representatives would face the same workplace pressures those of us with a job do every day – perform or get no pay.
In such an environment, lawmakers would surely take greater steps to grow the economy and enable businesses to create more jobs. Infrastructure repairs and energy development would move to the top of the list. So would much-needed fixes to the problems that keep so many people from being able to work, like failing schools, stifling regulations, and anticompetitive licensure laws.
These procedural reforms may seem like a stretch but, as I said earlier, we’re the creditors here. If Americans were to demand such changes, they would happen.
Restoring fiscal discipline is a tall order, but it can be done – and a rescissions package gives our nation the start it needs. Washington, America is watching.

Pennsylvania primary results show surprising Trump strength. Take heart, GOP!

Tuesday’s primaries in Pennsylvania set the stage for races for 18 U.S. House seats that will be up for grabs in the November midterm elections. Court-ordered redistricting three months ago has made the outcome of those races increasingly unpredictable.
Democrats are looking to grab some of the Pennsylvania seats to help them take back the 23 seats they need to regain control of the House.
Pennsylvania supposedly holds the tea leaves that will tell the tale of what voters will do in November, or so we’re told. However, politics and people just aren’t that predictable.
The state’s recent redistricting left candidates playing the equivalent of musical congressional chairs with districts, with several incumbents choosing to retire. This gave way to a crowded field of candidates.
While the redistricting gave an edge to the Democrats, what will happen in November is anyone’s guess in the state that put President Trump over the top and into the White House on election night in 2016.
In one of the key House districts, incumbent GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick easily fought off a challenge from Dean Malik, an attorney, former Bucks County prosecutor and a veteran.
But three Democrats ran to unseat Fitzpatrick, including Steve Bacher, whose career includes higher education, nonprofit and government work; Navy officer Rachel Reddick, who was a registered Republican until 2016; and millionaire Scott Wallace, former counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Wallace was called a carpetbagger for moving back to Pennsylvania from Maryland to run. Evidently that worked for him quite well because he won the nomination handily.
Democrats hope to pick up the seat held by retiring GOP Rep. Charlie Dent. However, even among the Democrats running there seemed to be a Republican. Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli is tough on immigration, and in 2016 he took to Twitter (in tweets that he’s since deleted) to contact President Trump’s transition team and praise the president.
Morganelli also tweeted: “Thankful for your coming leadership. Waiting to hear from transition. Met you at Bedminister (sic) when I played in Member Guest.” Additionally, he attended an event with Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey in 2016 that opposed sanctuary cities.
This was in sharp contrast to the other Democrats running against him. Susan Wild, former Allentown city solicitor, was endorsed by Emily’s List. Greg Edwards, a liberal pastor, was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats.
Edwards said someone like Morganelli is unelectable because “if you try to run a Democrat like a Republican, the Democrats won’t show up.”
As of late Tuesday, Wild held a small but growing lead over Morganelli, who was still pulling close to 30 percent of the Democratic primary vote. The Republican primary between Marty Nothstein and Dean Browning was still too close to call.
Even though Democratic turnout was significantly higher than GOP turnout, the fact that so many Democrats pulled the lever for a Trump-like candidate provides some encouragement for the Republicans going into November.
In Western Pennsylvania, GOP state Rep. Rick Saccone, who lost to Conor Lamb in a special congressional election in March, was back again in hopes of pulling out a win in a more Republican-friendly district after the map was redrawn.
However, as of late Tuesday, with 94 percent of the precincts reporting it looked as though it was not meant to be. Saccone was losing to Republican State Sen. Guy Reschenthaler, who was endorsed by Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey.
The governor’s race featured a hotly contested Republican primary with incumbent Democrat Tom Wolf running unopposed. Both Republican candidates ran as their own version of President Trump.
State Sen. Scott Wagner pulled out a win over Pittsburgh business consultant Paul Mango, who considered himself an outsider in politics and said he wanted to restore faith in the American Dream. Wagner campaigned on the president’s tax cuts and people keeping more of their money in their paychecks.
In the Republican U.S. Senate primary, U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, who was endorsed by President Trump and the Pennsylvania Republican Party, beat Republican state Rep. Jim Christiana. Barletta was co-chair of the president’s 2016 campaign and will face Democratic Senator Bob Casey in November.
Look for Democrats in November to use the Conor Lamb playbook and run to the center, both statewide and in swing districts. It will be up to Republicans to effectively unmask their opponents for who they really are, and show their base they are the very people who will go to Washington and vote to undo every single thing that President Trump has accomplished.
The primary results had some good news for President Trump and the Republicans, as opposed to some of the special elections earlier this year.
If Republicans remind people of what’s at stake in November, Pennsylvania may help them keep their House majority.

DOJ responds to request for info on Comey's law professor friend

The Justice Department said Tuesday it responded to demands from Capitol Hill Republicans to turn over documents about former FBI Director James Comey's law professor friend who last year released contents of Comey’s memos to the media.
DOJ officials told Fox News the response was transmitted to Capitol Hill, but it was not immediately clear what the response was.
The House Oversight Committee told Fox News it did not receive any documents from the DOJ, but did receive a verbal response and expected to get the documents by Thursday.
Earlier this month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., made the request for records on Daniel Richman in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
"The committees are aware James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), shared or instructed staff to share at least some portion of the memos he drafted memorializing his conversations with President Donald J. Trump (the Comey Memos) to an individual named Daniel Richman,” the letter read.
Fox News has reported that Richman, who works at Columbia University, previously worked as a “special government employee” for Comey’s FBI on an unpaid basis. The lawmakers said they wanted more information on that arrangement.
"To assist the committees in their oversight of this matter, please provide a copy of any nondisclosure agreement(s) signed by Richman with FBI, DOJ or any other entity of the federal government," Gowdy and Goodlatte write.
Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for releasing memos documenting his private discussions with Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material.
Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to "special projects" by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a memorandum of understanding.
While Richman's portfolio included the use of encrypted communications by terror suspects, the sources said he also was sent talking points about the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Those talking points attempted to compare and contrast Clinton's use of an unsecured personal server exclusively for government business with the case of retired Gen. David Petraeus, who shared classified information with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, as well as the case brought against the late Sandy Berger. The former national security adviser under President Clinton pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives.
According to the Office of Government Ethics, a special government employee is "an officer or employee who is retained, designated, appointed or employed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, for not more than 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days."

Democrat Political Cartoons

Trump eyes Lewandowski for Kelly's job amid White House infighting

There are growing whispers that if John Kelly is eased out or bails out as White House chief of staff, the job could go to Corey Lewandowski.
I can report, based on my sources, that the president and his first campaign manager have discussed that possibility. Lewandowski has said he would accept a White House post if Trump calls him off the bench. But in the end it's unlikely to happen.
Still, the mere fact that Lewandowski is on the radar for the top job, after the campaign fired him in the spring of 2016, underscores his rising stock and the changing climate.
The president is increasingly focused on the midterms and, my sources say, believes the combative Lewandowski can be a valuable asset as Democratic chances of winning the House seem to be improving.
The signs are unmistakable that Lewandowski, now a consultant, TV surrogate and chief strategist for America First Policies, is back in the inner circle.
He and Trump speak regularly on the phone. He joined the president on Air Force One on the way to a Michigan rally over the weekend. Trump told the crowd: "Speaking of not being a patsy or a pushover, you ever watch Corey Lewandowski on the shows? Where's Corey? Corey!"
In calling Corey up to the stage, Trump said: "He only ran one campaign and he won. So he’s one for one." Lewandowski declared to the crowd that "this is Trump country!"
(The president also gave a shout-out to Citizens United chief Dave Bossie, a Fox News contributor and former deputy campaign manager.)
Trump wants Lewandowski to accompany him on other political trips as well. It's well known that the president likes being surrounded by people he is comfortable with, and the New Hampshire resident joined his orbit even before the campaign launched.
But Lewandowski is reluctant to take a top White House job, as Trump well knows. It would mean a huge pay cut for an operative who has spent two years building a business and has four children to support.
In an MSNBC interview Tuesday, Lewandowski ducked Chuck Todd’s question about "people speculating that you should be his chief of staff," and called Kelly "an American hero" who has "instilled discipline" in the building. He did not respond to several requests for comment.
Lewandowski is controversial and has his share of enemies inside the mansion. White House insiders say that while he is a trusted adviser to Trump, at least half the staff would resign if he were tapped as chief of staff. They don't believe Lewandowski, with no government experience, knows how to run an operation as complex as the West Wing, and say Trump knows he would be blowing things up by hiring him. And Lewandowski, for his part, would certainly want to bring in key aides to support him.
Another potential downside is that if Republicans get clobbered in November, Lewandowski would get much of the blame. And if the past is any indication, his tenure would be limited.
And yet chatter about the idea is growing in conservative circles. American Conservative ran a piece headlined "Corey Lewandowski: The Chief of Staff Trump Wants."
When Kelly took over last year, he tried to impose military-style discipline on the White House and limit Trump's contact with outsider advisers such as Lewandowski. Those restrictions have loosened as Kelly's authority has ebbed and his relationship with the president has grown increasingly tense.
Knowledgeable sources say that Trump's relations with Kelly are indeed strained, that they sometimes fight like brothers, but that neither one is ready to dissolve the partnership and no change is imminent.
Kelly called "total BS" on an NBC report that he has repeatedly called Trump an "idiot," saying they have an "incredibly candid and strong relationship." But the fact that the account was leaked to the network by four unnamed sources clearly shows that some in Trump's orbit are out to get Kelly.
Lewandowski is not part of that effort and has managed to forge a working relationship with the chief of staff.
Trump and Lewandowski discussed a possible senior White House post a year ago, shortly before Kelly replaced Reince Priebus as chief of staff. But the president concluded that the timing wasn't right.
Of course, Kelly may get past the "idiot" flap, repair his relations with Trump and stay on. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has denied that he is being considered for the vacancy at VA, which would provide a soft landing.
If Kelly goes and Lewandowski doesn't get the nod, it's certainly possible that Trump won't hire a chief of staff, or give someone the title in name only. He still has no communications director, two months after Hope Hicks announced her resignation.
The consensus in the White House is that Budget Director Mick Mulvaney or House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy would be a more likely replacement, although perhaps as more of an ambassador to the outside world than someone running the gears of government.
Trump's recent moves in hiring John Bolton and Larry Kudlow, who have broad independence, suggest the president is more at ease with a loose structure of trusted confidantes that mirrors the way he ran his real estate business.
What's clear is that Lewandowski, whatever his title or lack thereof, is going to be one of those voices.
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.

Cal Thomas: Hillary Clinton and the bitterness tour

When you hear “world tour” you usually think of superstars performing concerts in various cities for adoring fans. Not so with the presidentially deprived, entitlement-driven Hillary Clinton.
Last week, Hillary Clinton came to Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city, and to Sydney, its largest, with a huge chip on her shoulder. The chip has been there since the 2016 election and seems to be growing larger with every appearance.
As with almost everything else the Clintons do, it cost to hear her bitterness. Those who went to hear Clinton speak, more than 5,000 people, paid between $200 and $500 Australian dollars (about $15 to $380 US). What they heard was criticism of President Trump and his foreign and domestic policies. Not that long ago, Americans made an effort to stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge,” but no more. Especially with some Democratic politicians who seem to believe that government belongs to them and when Republicans win an election it was somehow stolen from its rightful owners.
Interviewed by former liberal Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Hillary Clinton eventually got to what she believes is the real reason she lost to Donald Trump. It was misogynistic men and women who voted the way their husbands told them to that prevented her from making history, or if you prefer, herstory.
Hillary Clinton was at it even before the event began by tweeting that President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal was a “big mistake” that actually makes the U.S. less safe. As if America would be safer by trusting the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world to live up to an agreement when Iran’s religious and political leaders regularly speak of their commitment to destroy us (and Israel, too).
In his account of her appearance, Chip Le Grand of The Australian newspaper writes that while Hillary Clinton was “at times disarmingly honest (that seemed to be a first), warm, funny and optimistic,” she also appeared “self-serving and sad.”

What do new contributors to the Clinton Foundation hope to get in return for their donations? More bitterness, perhaps? Very sad.

Like a boxer who doesn’t know when to leave the ring, Hillary Clinton is a two-time political loser who hasn’t gotten the message that she is unlikeable and unelectable. She would do herself and the country (not to mention the Democratic Party) a favor by retiring and leaving the scene of her political accident.
There is still money to be made, however, and to the Clintons money is their catnip.
The Wall Street Journal reported last Friday: “…it’s Clinton fundraising season. This has been true of every season of every year since the late 1970s. But this is a particularly important moment because of a major event that is now less than two weeks away. Last month Axios reported: ‘Longtime Clinton supporters last week received an invitation offering access to the family (the green invitation features photos of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) at a Clinton Foundation benefit on May 24 in New York, at prices ranging from $2,500 (”Friend”) for cocktail party and dinner, up to $100,000 (”Chair”) for “Leadership Reception for two, a premium table of ten, program recognition as Gala Chair and invitations to the Clinton Foundation Annual Briefing.’”
The now defunct Clinton Global Initiative (which not surprisingly stopped receiving large donations after Hillary Clinton’s defeat) spent a lot of donor money on a large staff, travel and “miscellaneous” expenses. What do new contributors to the Clinton Foundation hope to get in return for their donations? More bitterness, perhaps?
Very sad.
Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist. His latest book is "What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America". Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com.

NRA must publicly name plaintiffs fighting anti-gun law, despite high risk of 'harassment,' judge rules

A federal judge has ruled that pro-NRA plaintiffs must publicly disclose their names in a lawsuit challenging an anti-gun bill, even as the judge recognized that there is a high risk of harassment.  (AP)

A federal judge ruled Sunday that anonymous teenage plaintiffs helping to challenge Florida's sweeping anti-gun law must identify themselves publicly, even as he acknowledged the order would probably expose them to intense leftist "vitriol" and "harassment."
In a surprising turn, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker even suggested that he personally wanted to side with the NRA, which wants to shield the young plaintiffs' identities, but said his hands were ultimately tied by court precedent.
"If it were entirely up to this court, the court would not hesitate to grant the NRA's motion," Walker wrote in his ruling. "One need only look to the harassment suffered by some of the Parkland shooting survivors to appreciate the vitriol that has infected public discourse about the Second Amendment. And this court has no doubt the harassment goes both ways."
The NRA filed the lawsuit on Second Amendment grounds soon after Florida lawmakers approved gun legislation that would raise the age to buy guns to 21 years old. The age restriction is one part of a larger anti-gun bill signed by Gov. Rick Scott in the wake of the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead.
THIESSEN: CORPORATE BOYCOTTS OF NRA ARE REALLY BOYCOTTS OF UPSTANDING AMERICANS
Citing the harassment of one of its top Florida officials who was subjecting to threatening and profanity-laced emails and phone calls, attorneys for the NRA wanted to include a 19-year-old woman as a plaintiff in the lawsuit but wanted to keep her name confidential and instead identify her as Jane Doe.
The NRA also sought to include testimony from another 19-year-old man as well. The move was challenged by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The NRA has been in the crosshairs of anti-gun activists for the past several months, with Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg leading boycotts of corporations and politicians who refuse to summarily cut ties with the organization.
Anti-gun rhetoric has markedly intensified as well. Earlier this year, a Florida billboard calling the NRA a “terrorist organization" was funded by a former White House staffer for President Bill Clinton. That criticism was echoed in March by Connecticut Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, who said the NRA has "in essence become a terrorist organization."
NRA BREAKS 15-YEAR FUNDRAISING RECORDS, FILINGS SHOW
Marion Hammer, a former president of the NRA and its top Florida lobbyist, said the NRA was "very disappointed" in the judge's decision, but said that it was "too soon" to know what steps the organization would take next.
"We're trying to shield these young adults from some of the most evil, hateful stuff you can imagine," Hammer said in an email. "... Individuals should be able to stand up for their rights and beliefs in the Second Amendment without having to expose themselves to harassment and bullying."