Gregg Jarrett: Trump did the right thing by telling Jeff Sessions – You’re Fired!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions – who at long last turned in his resignation Wednesday after it was justifiably requested by President Trump – did more damage to the Trump presidency and to the nation than any public official in modern history. He clearly deserved to be fired long ago.
As I wrote in a column last month calling for his firing, Sessions was the personification of misfeasance or nonfeasance. His actions, or lack thereof, were born of incompetence. He rarely exhibited the kind of leadership skills that are demanded of the nation’s leading law enforcement official.
More often than not, Sessions was missing in action. As President Trump quite accurately remarked in a recent interview, “I don’t have an attorney general.” This is the reason Sessions was finally, if belatedly, shown the door. America and the president of the United States both deserve to have a functioning Justice Department and a competent attorney general.
There are many well-documented examples of Sessions’ ineffectiveness and incompetence.
The now-former attorney general ignored pleas from members of Congress to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including the former secretary of state’s destruction of documents under congressional subpoena.
Incredibly, Sessions refused to present compelling evidence of possible criminality by Clinton to a federal grand jury. And he never initiated an investigation into Clinton’s role in paying for Russian information that was then fed to the FBI for the sole purpose of damaging her political opponent, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
When evidence emerged that top officials at the FBI abused their positions of power to launch an investigation of Trump-Russia “collusion” without probable cause or an “articulable factual basis” – as required under FBI guidelines – Sessions failed to take aggressive action against those officials who may well have violated the law with impunity.
Sessions should have ordered that a grand jury examine the conduct of fired FBI Director James Comey – along with the conduct of disgraced FBI and Justice Department officials Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and others – to see if their highly questionable actions on the Clinton email scandal and other matters rose to the level of criminal conduct.
When it was learned that officials at the FBI and Justice Department concealed vital information and allegedly deceived judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to gain a warrant to wiretap a Trump campaign associate, Sessions did absolutely nothing about it. Instead, he obstructed lawful subpoenas issued by Congress, hiding evidence and covering up suspected wrongdoing.
Sessions’ committed multiple mistakes that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate baseless and absurd charges that the Trump campaign and Russia worked together to elect Trump.
Sessions mistakes are too numerous to list here, but I have documented them in detail in my best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.”
At the outset, the attorney general wrongfully disqualified himself from any involvement in the Mueller probe, citing a federal regulation that had no relevance or application. Recusal pertains to criminal cases – not to counterintelligence probes, which is what the Russia inquiry was when Sessions recused himself. Inexplicably, Sessions misunderstood the regulations.
When he testified before Congress, Sessions admitted he set his recusal in motion on his first day in office. He never advised President Trump of his intentions, betraying the president’s trust and poisoning their relationship from the outset. If not for Sessions’ deceit, it is unlikely that a special counsel would have ever been appointed.
Instead, Sessions’ replacement in overseeing the Russia case, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, took it upon himself to appoint Robert Mueller to preside over the probe. This played neatly into the scheme admittedly devised by Comey, who just happened to be Mueller’s close friend and long-time professional ally.
The appointment of Mueller was illegitimate. It should have never happened.
First, there must be a conflict of interest for a special counsel to be appointed. But since Sessions had recused himself from the Russia investigation, no conflict of interest existed.
Second, a suspected crime must be identified in the order appointing a special counsel. Yet, no crime was ever stated. In defiance of the law, the Muller probe turned into an investigation in search of a crime – looking for something – anything – to justify its existence.
The blame for this costly mess that has distracted our entire nation and taken up the time of Trump administration officials from their work on behalf of the American people rests squarely on Sessions’ shoulders.
As I noted in my book, President Trump – or any president, for that matter – deserves an attorney general who is forthright about his intentions, not someone who concealed his plan to step aside from a major investigation that would surely impact the new administration.
Sessions’ deception also deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust, which are essential to the job of attorney general. This ethical impropriety rendered Sessions unfit to serve.
It was no secret that Sessions would be fired after the midterm elections. President Trump had frequently expressed his impatience, disgust and frustration with his incompetent attorney general.
Yet, like Captain Renault in the classic film “Casablanca,” many in the media feigned shock at the announcement. Immediately, their hysterical overreaction took root.
Some claimed with certainty that this was an effort by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation because they contended that newly named Acting Attorney General, Mark G. Whitaker –Sessions’ chief of staff – would supplant Rosenstein in overseeing the probe.
No one bothered to mention that Rosenstein needs to be replaced in that role because of his own disqualifying conflict of interest. He is a key witness in the very case over which he presides, in violation of both federal regulations and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The outrage among the anti-Trump media was deafening Wednesday when Sessions’ dismissal was announced. They seemed oblivious to the fact that Cabinet changes following an election are not uncommon historically.
When President Richard Nixon was re-elected in 1972, he asked for and received the resignations of all members of his Cabinet, although he ended up retaining quite a few of them.
In 1979, all members of President Jimmy Carter’s White House staff and Cabinet secretaries tendered their resignations as part of a reshaping of the Carter administration before the 1980 presidential election. In all, Carter fired four Cabinet secretaries.
In fact, from 1945 until President Trump was inaugurated, 19 Cabinet secretaries were sacked by presidents.
Of course, it is always newsworthy when the head of a federal department is terminated. But the media’s unhinged reaction on Wednesday that nefarious designs are afoot is yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome – the irrational and paranoid reaction to everything President Trump does.
The anti-Trump media’s visceral hatred and abiding contempt directed against the president are so acute that these feelings impair all reasoned judgment. They no longer pretend to be fair, objective or neutral. They assume the worst and often ignore the obvious.
It was obvious that Sessions deserved to be fired long ago. Indeed, in a column I wrote 14 months ago headlined “Sessions should resign, but not before taking action against Clinton, Comey and Rice,” I recounted all of the attorney general’s failures of deed and character. I urged him to resign so as to restore some semblance of integrity to the Department of Justice. Had he left then, the damage he has wrought since would have been minimized.
It will take time and strong leadership for the Justice Department to regain the credibility it has squandered under Sessions’ notorious reign.
President Trump should be commended for taking action to right the ship. Whomever he nominates for the permanent position of attorney general will be challenged to repair the considerable damage Sessions has left in his wake.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, would be an excellent choice to replace Sessions. A leading member of the House Judiciary Committee, he is a former U.S. attorney who also served as chief of anti-terrorism and national security for the Eastern District of Texas in the Department of Justice.
Ratcliffe is well acquainted with the suspected corruption at the FBI and Justice Department. He would end the persistent cover-ups and would work assiduously to uphold the rule of law, while holding accountable those who broke it.

Left-Wing Antifa

A self-described left-wing Antifa group posted videos of a mob outside the Washington, D.C., home of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Wednesday evening, chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night.”
The now-deleted video was posted on social media by Smash Racism, D.C. The same group made headlines in September after activists confronted Sen.Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife inside a restaurant during Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
The group posted on Facebook that Carlson spreads "fear into our homes," and said it wanted to even the score.
"Each night you remind us that we are not safe. Tonight, we remind you that you are not safe either," the group posted. They also chanted, "Racist s---bag, leave town."
The post was later removed.
Carlson, host of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," was not home at the time. He said his wife, Susie, was home alone and heard the commotion from the kitchen. She called the police and locked herself into a pantry, he said. His brother -- who lives close by -- arrived about the same time as law enforcement.
The host said activists rang his doorbell, broke his oak door and one protester was apparently caught on security video mentioning a pipe bomb.
D.C. police did not immediately respond to a Fox News email early Thursday.
Carlson said he was at the Fox News office in Washington working on his opening monologue when neighbors texted him about the commotion outside his home. His wife of 22 years did not contact him because she didn’t want to distract him before he went on air, he said.
The group eventually scattered. It was unclear if there were any arrests. Carlson said the group posted online the home addresses of his brother and his former college roommate, Neil Patel, who co-founded the Daily Caller with Carlson.
Carlson said he is used to being confronted in public and has no interest in playing the role of victim, but he said his wife and his four children should not have to be exposed to the aggression while at home.
“Here’s the problem, I have four children,” he said by phone. “I never thought twice about leaving them home alone, but this is the reaction because this group doesn’t like my TV show.”
Twitter reportedly removed a photo of Carlson’s home address that was posted by the group. Smash Racism DC's account was suspended early Thursday.
Brit Hume, a Fox News commentator, took to Twitter to denounce the protest as “revolting, and frightening.”

CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended by White House, Sarah Sanders announces

About time that piece of trash (Jim Acosta) was put in his place!

CNN's Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass to access the White House was suspended "until further notice" Wednesday, hours after he engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with President Trump.
"I've just been denied entrance to the WH," Acosta tweeted Wednesday night. "Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit."
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders confirmed Acosta's tweet in a statement, claiming the suspension of his press credentials stemmed from his "placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern." She called the behavior "absolutely unacceptable."
CNN'S JIM ACOSTA STRUGGLES WITH WHITE HOUSE AIDE TO KEEP MICROPHONE DURING TESTY TRUMP EXCHANGE
The CNN reporter, during a news conference at the White House earlier Wednesday, got into a heated debate with Trump after he asked the president about the migrant caravan. Trump told Acosta to let him do his job.
“Honestly, I think you should let me run the country and you run CNN,” the president said.
The reporter tried to ask him another question before a female White House aide walked over to him.
Trump then told him, “That’s enough!”
Acosta continued to try to talk as the intern was seen trying to take the microphone from his hand. She grabbed the microphone but Acosta wouldn't give it up and there was brief contact between the two.
Sanders in a statement — which Acosta later labeled "a lie" — said that "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration."
"Contrary to CNN’s assertions, there is no greater demonstration of the President’s support for a free press than the event he held today. Only they would attack the President for not being supportive of a free press in the midst of him taking 68 questions from 35 different reporters over the course of an hour and a half — including several from the reporter in question," Sanders said.
"The fact that CNN is proud of the way their employee behaved is not only disgusting, it is an example of their outrageous disregard for everyone, including young women, who work in this Administration," she added.
CNN said Wednesday night that Acosta's suspension "was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today's press conference" and claimed Sanders "lied" in her explanation of what unraveled.
"She provided fraudulent accusations and cited an incident that never happened," CNN said. "This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better. Jim Acosta has our full support."
The White House Correspondents' Association in a statement called the move "unacceptable," and urged the White House to "immediately reverse this weak and misguided action."
Trump and Acosta often clash at press conferences. On Wednesday, the president called the reporter "a rude, terrible person" who "shouldn't be working for CNN."
TRUMP SLAMS CNN'S ACOSTA FOR PRESS CONFERENCE PERFORMANCE: 'YOU ARE A RUDE, TERRIBLE PERSON'
"I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you work for them," Trump told Acosta. “The way you treat Sarah Huckabee [Sanders] is horrible. And the way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way."
CNN fired back on Twitter, calling Trump's attacks on the media "un-American," and fellow White House reporters backed Acosta.
The White House intern who attempted to take the microphone from Acosta eventually handed it off to Peter Alexander, of NBC News. He called Acosta a "diligent reporter who busts his butt" — to which Trump shot back: "Well, I'm not a big fan of yours either, to be honest."
Other journalists, however, reacted differently, including Fox News' Chris Wallace, who called Acosta's behavior "shameful."
Acosta posted a video to Twitter after his "hard pass" was suspended, showing a Secret Service agent removing his media credentials to access the White House grounds from a lanyard.
The agent appears to have some trouble removing it.
"It's been here for a while, huh?" the agent asks.
"Well yeah I've been working at the White House for five years, covering two administrations, so yeah, it's been in that thing for a while," Acosta says.

Young Dumb Democrat Voter Cartoons

taylor swift voters

Crenshaw, the Republican U.S. House candidate mocked on 'SNL,' gets last laugh

Texas Republican Dan Crenshaw got the last laugh Tuesday, easily being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after being mocked for his war injury days earlier on "Saturday Night Live."
Crenshaw, 34, was favored to beat Democrat Todd Litton to win the seat being vacated by Republican Ted Poe before last weekend’s "SNL" episode in which castmember Pete Davidson made fun of his appearance, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Crenshaw won with 53 percent of the vote compared to Litton's 44.4 percent, according to Politico.
During a "Weekend Update" segment, Davidson said Crenshaw looked like "a hitman in a porno movie," when he referred to the veteran's black eyepatch. Davidson continued, "You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hitman in a porno movie. I'm sorry. I know he lost his eye in war or whatever."
Crenshaw lost his right eye in 2012 after a bomb exploded during a mission in Afghanistan, his third military deployment.
Davidson also poked fun at Florida Gov. Rick Scott and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
At his election victory party in Houston, Crenshaw brushed off the joke, saying “I’m from the SEAL team so we don’t really get offended,” according to the Chronicle.
Davidson's comments were widely denounced by Republicans, Democrats and veterans groups as insensitive. Some Republicans called on Davidson and the show to apologize.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who lost her legs in Iraq, demanded Davidson issue an apology.
"No one should ever mock a Veteran for the wounds they received while defending our great nation, regardless of political party or what you think of their politics. Pete Davidson owes Dan Crenshaw an apology," she said.
On Monday, Crenshaw said he wasn’t interested in an apology. He instead called for those affiliated with the show to donate $1 million to veterans groups, the Washington Post reported.
“There’s a lot of veterans that really need help, and frankly, this kind of thing is offensive to them,” Crenshaw said on CNN. “They feel laughed at.”

Dems' House takeover sets up series of legislative showdowns

After years in the political wilderness on Capitol Hill, Democrats will have the power to push their legislative agenda in Congress after winning the House majority Tuesday. But faced with a Republican-controlled Senate and White House, the Democrats are in for a series of showdowns that could leave the party undertaking more modest legislative goals on issues from prescription drug prices to infrastructure, while laying the groundwork for a more ambitious national agenda ahead of the 2020 presidential race.
Meanwhile, President Trump's wide-ranging wishlist, including his recently announced plan for a 10-percent middle-class tax cut and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's renewed call for an ObamaCare repeal, now requires significant revisions. Compromise between Democrats and Republicans will surely remain elusive as the midterm season is overtaken by presidential election politics, though analysts say both sides may be forced to strike some deals in pursuit of legislative wins.
Democrats' first major initiative will likely be to enact rules changes that govern the House, because those internal regulations do not require Senate passage. In the wake of the dramatic arrest of Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., in August on insider trading charges related to his role on the board of a prominent biotechnology company, ethics reforms are set to be a marquee area of focus.
DEMS RETAKE HOUSE, BUT GOP EXPANDS SENATE MAJORITY -- GIVING THEM CONTROL OVER JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has her eyes on the speaker's gavel, signaled as much on Tuesday night, vowing that "we will have a Congress that is open transparent and accountable to the American people."
“Tomorrow will be a new day in America,” Pelosi declared. "It's about restoring the Constitution's checks and balances to the Trump administration. ... It's about ending wealthy special interests' free rein over Washington."
She promised to "clean up corruption to make Washington work for all Americans."
Pelosi similarly pledged to lead "the most ethical Congress in history" when she first rose to the speakership in 2007 -- a boast that became a liability when she placed then-Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee, despite allegations he had stashed $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. (Jefferson was later convicted on bribery charges.)
"Members of Congress should not be sitting on boards of companies, especially those whose are impacted by policies — policy decisions and the government — so this is appalling, but it shows the brazenness of it all," Pelosi said on MSNBC earlier this year.
More substantive legislative changes are also possible on a series of high-profile policy items on which both parties have signaled they could ultimately have some common ground.

"The only legislative initiative that appears to be at stake is tax reform 2.0. Other than that, the same things happen."
— Fmr Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eaken

In June, Trump supported a compromise immigration bill that would have secured $25 billion for border wall construction while also providing a pathway to citizenship for so-called Dreamers, or illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. But after the legislation hit a wall of its own as moderate and conservative Republicans splintered, Trump seemingly withdrew that support and said his party should try again if a "red wave" materialized in November.
DEMS TO FLEX MUSCLE, AS HOUSE AFFORD THEM POWER TO SUBPOENA TRUMP ADMIN
Roosevelt University politics professor David Faris, who has said that the GOP likely wouldn't have made much legislative progress even it had retained control of the House, told Fox News that Trump might revisit that short-lived compromise effort in the coming months.
"If Democrats are willing to fund the border wall in exchange for the Dreamers -- I think that broad compromise has been there a long time," Faris said. "The real question is whether the president is willing to let go on restrictions on legal immigration. If he can let that go, I think the compromise is there."
Leaders from both parties have also publicly lamented soaring prescription drug costs. Trump has hammered Pfizer and other pharmaceutical giants on the issue, saying in July that they "should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason" and "are merely taking advantage of the poor."
The president has framed drug prices as an affront to his "America First" worldview, writing on Twitter that the companies are "giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere." Soon after his election, he charged that drug companies were "getting away with murder."
A 2015 Reuters study found that on average, prices for the world's top-20 highest selling medicines are three times more expensive in the U.S. than they are in Britain, owing to government pricing controls there.
On Tuesday, Pelosi promised to take action in brief remarks as early election returns poured in.
"Democrats will lower health care costs and prescription drug prices for seniors and families across America," she said. "Instead Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have put Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block, and will continue their cruel assault from the protections for people with preexisting conditions.
But the issue of soaring drug prices may be trickier to resolve than it appears. Trump already signed a bipartisan bill in October that guaranteed pharmacists the right to tell consumers when paying cash would be cheaper than using insurance for their prescriptions, over the objection of insurance companies. And Democrats, although united in their concern over soaring prices, are split on how to resolve the underlying problem.
Some Democrats want to allow the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, even though similar efforts in the past may have made the problem worse. On Tuesday night, Pelosi hinted at taking "very strong legislative action to negotiate down the price control of prescription drugs that is burdening seniors and families across America."

"I think it deserves some hearings, but it’s not as easy as it sounds. It’s not a magic bullet."
— Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., on Dems' plan for prescription drug prices

In 1990, Congress mandated that federal Medicaid programs either receive a 15 percent discount on drugs off their list prices, or the most competitive price offered to private payers -- an initiative that ultimately led drug companies to slash private discounts to roughly 15 percent off list prices.

But some in her party are skeptical. “It’s a great talking point,” Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., told Roll Call, referring to the idea of having the federal government negotiate with drug companies. “I think it deserves some hearings, but it’s not as easy as it sounds. It’s not a magic bullet.”
Infrastructure reform could also be an area of bipartisan consensus, as Democrats have vowed to use the committee process to build agreement on any proposal to improve the nation's roads, bridges, sewer systems, and schools.

On Tuesday, Pelosi specifically touted her plans to "deliver a transformational investment in America's infrastructure," including broadband networks, housing, schools, and sewers.
"Infrastructure has never been partisan," she claimed.
In October, Trump signed a bipartisan bill to provide several billions of dollars to fund drinking-water initiatives and Army Corps of Engineers projects, just one day after he signed a similarly bipartisan bill to combat the opioid epidemic and just two months after he signed a massive defense spending bill into law.
"If you want to know about bipartisan accomplishments, look no further than this Congress," Stephanie Penn, press secretary for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News. "Water infrastructure, opioids, defense, etc. All passed with overwhelming bipartisan support."
Trump's own infrastructure proposal, which called for a $200 billion federal investment in the hopes of spurring $1.5 trillion in additional funding from states and private investors, stalled in Congress earlier this year. Democrats balked at further spending cuts to pay for the measue, and instead suggested rolling back the GOP's recent tax overhaul. Republicans, meanwhile, split on whether to fund the plan with a gas tax or other mechanism.
RED-STATE DEMS WHO OPPOSED KAVANAUGH DROP LIKE FLIES IN MIDTERMS
Another potential showdown looms over Trump's recently renegotiated trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, which is slated to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) secures greater U.S. access to Canadian dairy markets and changes regulations to bring back more auto manufacturing to the U.S. and is considered one of the White House's crowning foreign policy achievements -- but it requires congressional authorization.
"The bar for supporting a new NAFTA will be high,” Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who is poised to become the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, told Politico. And Trump himself has similarly sounded a note of caution: "Anything you submit to Congress is trouble," he said.
But other analysts have warned that Democrats, by fighting Trump on trade, would risk drawing attention to his accomplishments -- and play into his critiques that they are only interested in obstruction. One of the only major concessions by the U.S. in the USMCA is that it preserves a tariff-dispute regulatory regime that Canada had insisted was a sine qua non.
"Given the modest nature of the revisions he pursued with these trade agreements, I don't see Democrats dying on that hill," Faris told Fox News. "I think the opinion within Congress is broadly supportive of these agreements. ... You could argue that's an area where the president has succeeded, and I don't think Democrats want to highlight that success by trying to stop it."
Still, Faris added, if Trump decides to escalate the ongoing trade conflict with China, a congressional clash could be imminent.
"The collision course possible here is with China," Faris said. "If we get to the point where we're talking aboutmost-favored-nation status, I could see a potentially significant battle with Congress over that." (The U.S. has afforded China permanent normal trade relations since 2000, an arrangement that afforded China the same trade advantages as other countries with that designation.)
While more partisan fireworks are likely in the next two years, Faris said, the actual impact of divided government may not be as significant as it might appear, owing to the lack of pending, articulated GOP policy proposals that actually hang in the balance.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously directed the Congressional Budget Office and now heads the conservative American Action Forum think tank, agreed, telling Fox News that the Democratic takeover of the House won't actually "change much."
"The only legislative initiative that appears to be at stake is tax reform 2.0," Holtz-Eaken said. "Other than that, the same things happen -- with [Democrats] doing a lot more oversight."

Battleground-state Dems who opposed Kavanaugh all defeated

Incumbent Senate Democrats in battleground states who opposed the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination appeared to have paid a price on Election Day, with senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Indiana's Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Florida's Bill Nelson all suffering defeat.
In fact, every Democrat incumbent who opposed Kavanaugh in states rated "toss up" by Fox News lost their race. In contrast, the lone Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, won his race.
"Every Dem Senator in a competitive race who voted against Kavanaugh lost," tweeted Tom Bevan, Co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Fox News polling offered evidence the Kavanaugh issue was a major problem for those battleground incumbent Democrats.
A Fox News poll from early October, just before the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, found 34 percent of North Dakotans said they would be less likely to vote for Heitkamp if she voted against Kavanaugh, with just 17 percent saying it would make them more likely to vote for her.
In Missouri, among the 28 percent of voters who said they could still switch candidates, almost twice as many said they'd be less likely to support McCaskill if she opposed Kavanaugh.
In Indiana, a Fox News poll found 32 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Braun if he voted against Kavanaugh, compared to 30 percent who would be more likely.
Sen. Manchin got grief for his vote for Kavanaugh, and was shouted at by protestors with chants of "shame!" One reporter asked him: "Do you think there's still a place for you in the Democratic Party after this?"
Manchin replied by saying, "I'm just a West Virginian."
Manchin also came under fire from his Republican opponent for waiting to announce his vote until after the Republicans had already secured enough votes. Many speculated that had been the deciding vote, he would have gone against Kavanaugh.
But he survived that charge.
The other incumbents Democrats took a different tack. Heitcamp told CNN she had been ready to support Kavanaugh until she heard his testimony. "I saw somebody who was very angry, who was very nervous," she said.
Donnelly came out with a more full-throated statement. “As I have made clear before, sexual assault has no place in our society," he said. "When it does occur, we should listen to the survivors and work to ensure it never happens again."
Lindsey Graham, who was outspoken in condemning what he saw as unfair treatment of Kavanaugh during the hearings -- he told Senate Democrats "God you all want power. I hope you never get it -- chimed in on the subject Tuesday night.
"One of the reasons we are winning big in the Senate tonight is because of the way Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh," he tweeted.

Dems to flex muscle with new House majority: Subpoenas, investigations, even possible impeachment talks loom

The incoming Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has the power to open a slew of investigations into the White House and President Trump when the new Congress is seated in January, and early indications are that Democrats plan to aggressively take advantage of their new authority.
Bogging down the Trump administration with burdensome document requests and subpoenas could backfire, political analysts tell Fox News, but there is little doubt that the strategy -- made more viable by heightened partisanship and loosened congressional norms -- would impair Republicans' messaging and even policy goals for the next two years.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who aims to reclaim the position of House speaker when her colleagues vote on leadership roles in the coming weeks, recently seemed to threaten to use congressional subpoenas as a cudgel against the White House.
“Subpoena power is interesting, to use it or not to use it,” Pelosi said at a conference in October, referring to the authority of House committees to summon individuals and organizations to testify or provide documents under penalty of perjury. “It is a great arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects." She added that she would use the power "strategically."
DEMS RETAKE HOUSE, BUT GOP EXPANDS SENATE MAJORITY -- GIVING THEM CONTROL OVER JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
On Tuesday night, as it became clear Democrats would retake the House, Pelosi appeared to double down on that rhetoric, declaring that the midterms were about “restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration."
"In sharp contrast to the GOP Congress, a Democratic Congress will be led with transparency and openness, so the public can see what's happening and how it affects them. ... We will have accountability," Pelosi said.

"A Democratic Congress will be led with transparency and openness."
— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Pelosi has said that unearthing Trump's personal tax returns would be "one of the first things we'd do" in an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle, calling it the "easiest thing in the world" to obtain them using statutory authority granted to congressional committees under the Internal Revenue Service code. Democrats made several efforts to obtain Trump's returns while in the minority, only to be rejected by House Republicans.
Trump would likely seek to stall those requests with legal challenges, and it remains unclear whether Democrats could publicly release his tax returns even if they obtained them for investigative purposes.
Before a rally in Indiana on Monday, Trump appeared unconcerned about the matter. "I don't care," he said. "They can do whatever they want, and I can do whatever I want."
House committees can effectively hold in statutory contempt anyone who refuses to fully comply with a subpoena relevant to the committee's legislative purpose and pertinent to its investigation. While criminal penalties, including fines and even imprisonment, are then possible with a judge's approval, separation-of-powers issues emerge when the House tries to penalize a member of the Executive branch.
In 2014, a federal judge denied House Republicans' efforts to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of court, saying the move was "entirely unnecessary."
FROM MAXINE WATERS TO JERRY NADLER, MEET THE LIKELY NEW HEADS OF KEY HOUSE COMMITTEES 
But even fruitless investigations can beleaguer and derail administrations, and historical evidence suggests they are becoming a popular partisan tool in the lower chamber for that reason.
Research conducted by Cornell University political science professor Douglas Kriner, who co-wrote the 2016 book "Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power," underscores how important control of the House, as opposed to the generally less partisan and slower-moving Senate, is to these congressional probes.
"We examined every congressional investigation from 1898 to 2014 – more than 11,900 days of investigative hearings," Kriner told Fox News. "What we found is that divided government is a major driver of investigations in the House. This is particularly true in periods of intense partisan polarization. For example, from 1981-2014, the House averaged holding 67 days of investigative hearings per year in divided government, versus only 18 per year in unified government."
KAVANAUGH EFFECT? RED-STATE DEMS WHO OPPOSED KAVANAUGH ALL OUSTED IN MIDTERMS
Kriner added that modern congressional probes seem geared towards "maximiz[ing] the political damage on the White House," rather than producing more substantive results. "Investigations are less likely to trigger new legislation than in previous, less polarized eras," Kriner told Fox News.
President Trump has repeatedly derided the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible illegal Russian collusion and obstruction of justice as a "partisan witch hunt," saying it's fueled by Democrats upset that he won the 2016 election. But it's not clear how effective those attacks have been: An August poll showed that 59 percent of registered voters approve of Mueller's investigation.
SECRET WATERGATE 'ROAD MAP' COULD OFFER GUIDANCE FOR MUELLER PROBE 
The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, Adam Schiff, already has warned his party would relaunch the Russia probe in the House with Democrats in charge.
“We will be able to get answers the Republicans were unwilling to pursue,” he recently told CNN.
Democrats have an array of potential avenues of investigation to pursue aside from Russia. In September, a federal judge ruled that Democrats have standing to sue Trump over potential violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which ostensibly precludes the president from accepting certain foreign favors. While the legal argument that Trump is violating this clause by maintaining lucrative and profitable overseas investments is far from settled, Democrats' pursuit of this line of argument offers some clues into what their investigations might focus on.
University of North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert who testified during impeachment proceedings of former President Bill Clinton, told Fox News in an interview that Democrats might focus on Trump's financial ties to Saudi Arabia.
"It is possible — would not be a surprise — if there were some interest in exploring the president’s Saudi connections or finances," Gerhardt said, before adding: "It would also not surprise me if the Democrats did not pursue these things."
TRUMP: SAUDI ARABIA DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO USE US-MADE BOMBS IN YEMEN 
The killing of dissident Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Turkey last month led to heightened scrutiny of the past connections between Trump's business empire and the Islamic country. The president initially condemned what he characterized as a rush to judgment against the Saudi government, before saying that its agents had apparently engaged in the "worst cover-up ever."
Trump has tweeted that he has "no financial interests in Saudi Arabia," and there is no evidence that he currently does. However, he has repeatedly touted his real estate deals with the country, saying at a 2015 rally that "they buy apartments from me" and "spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."
In August, Axios published a spreadsheet circulating among Republican circles on Capitol Hill documenting possible areas of focus for Democratic investigations. They include the White House's revocation of top former officials' security clearances, Trump's unreleased tax returns, and the administration's proposed travel ban and a prohibition on transgender individuals in the military. Other topics on the list, which Axios said originated in the office of a senior Republican lawmaker, are Trump's personal iPhone use and his personal payment to porn star Stormy Daniels -- a move that implicated, but did not appear to definitively violate campaign finance law.
Frequent Trump critic Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said in an interview last week that Democrats intend to "exercise oversight over the executive branch the way the Framers intended."
NAVY SEAL MOCKED BY 'SNL' FOR EYE INJURY WINS HOUSE SEAT
He went on to mirror Pelosi's threat: "We would be able to get Donald Trump's tax returns to see if he's being influenced by foreign entities. ... We can call in the secretary of Homeland Security [to] ask her why she still has hundreds of children she has not reunited that she ripped away from parents at the border. There are a lot of things that we can do with our oversight responsibility."
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who is poised to become the committee's chairman, offered another possible angle in an interview with The Hill. "I want to look at what President Trump has done, aided and abetted by the Republicans in Congress, to tear down the foundations of our democracy," he said.
Republicans who control the Oversight committee have rejected more than 50 Democratic requests for subpoenas of Trump administration documents, covering everything from the White House's decision not to defend key provisions of ObamaCare in court, to perks used by Cabinet members.
A particularly prominent possible investigation would revolve around Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, which critics have cited as potential obstruction of justice in part because Trump acknowledged that Russia-related matters were on his mind at the time.
“The cover-up is always worse than the crime, and this one is very shady,” Andrew Hall, who represented a top adviser to then-President Richard Nixon during Watergate, said in an interview. Hall has maintained that Trump will "undoubtedly be impeached."
However, legal experts, including emeritus Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, have said that penalizing the president for firing an FBI director who serves at his pleasure would be unconstitutional, and others have pointed out that Comey's firing would have done little to halt the Russia probe generally.
TRUMP QUOTES BEN STEIN, SAYS MIDTERMS WERE A 'TREMENDOUS SUCCESS' AS GOP EXPANDS HOLD IN SENATE
Mueller's findings, which are expected to be submitted to Congress in a matter of months, might provide a launching point not only for further investigations but for even impeachment proceedings.
"Impeachments tend to be driven by particular events that are instances of grave misconduct — not liking someone or being an opponent is not likely to be enough to get the whole process started," Gerhardt told Fox News.
Such an escalation, analysts warn, would potentially pose a risk to Democrats. "I don’t think there is something as well developed as a tradition not to seek an impeachment when it appears conviction is unlikely or unthinkable," Gerhardt added. "Nonetheless, I think there is always awareness of the possible risks of seeking an impeachment when conviction is impossible."
Handling many of these congressional inquiries will be the new White House Counsel, veteran high-powered Washington lawyer Pat Cipollone, who will oversee an office that dwindled from a staff of approximately 50 to fewer than 30 in recent weeks. That headcount is expected to expand significantly in the wake of Democrats' House takeover.
"He’s very talented and he’s a very good man," Trump said last month, referring to Cipollone. In a campaign email in the days leading up to Tuesday's vote, the president made an impassioned effort to cut down on Cipollone's workload, saying Democrats are interested only in "vicious obstruction and mindless resistance."
"We can only imagine what they’d do with legitimate power in our government," Trump said. "We can’t hand Democrats the keys to Congress. We can’t go back.”