New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo Cartoons

Republicans slam Rep. Cummings for hesitating to refer Cohen to DOJ

Rep. Cummings K. Harris Sugar Daddy

K. Harris

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:14 AM PT — Friday, March 8, 2019

House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings appears to be hesitant to follow through on referring Michael Cohen to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.
While speaking to reporters Thursday, Cummings said he needs more time to determine if there is any evidence Cohen may have committed perjury during his testimony last week.
Congressman Jim Jordan seized on the apparent lack of follow through on Cummings part by asking the chairman what he plans to do to hold Cohen accountable. According to Jordan, Cohen has lied to the Oversight Committee at least seven times on a wide range of topics, including his alleged request for a presidential pardon.
“I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump,” Cohen claimed.
That statement later appeared to contradict remarks made by Cohen’s own personal attorney.
“All I can say is Mr. Cohen’s got a story to tell, he was a leaky ship to begin with,” said Senator Lindsey Graham. “There was discussions about a pardon and he denied it, but that just furthers the narrative that maybe he’s not the best conveyor of the truth.”
This comes after Cummings warned Cohen about the consequences for lying to Congress.
“I have made it abundantly clear to Mr. Cohen, that if he comes here today and he does not tell the truth, tell us the truth, I will be the first one to refer those untruthful statements to DOJ,”stated Cummings. “So. when people say he doesn’t have anything to lose, he does have a lot to lose if he lies”.
Jordan was joined by Congressman Mark Meadows the day after Cohen’s hearing in calling for the Justice Department to investigate the inconsistencies.

Who's telling the truth about Cohen pardon request? It's anyone's guess: Charles Lane

The question of whether former Trump attorney Michael Cohen ever sought a pardon from the president is difficult to answer due to a lack of reliable sources, Washington Post opinion writer Charles Lane argued Friday.
During his testimony to Congress, Cohen claimed he never asked President Trump for a pardon, something the president asserts was a lie. Trump even took to Twitter and insisted that Cohen asked him directly about a pardon, and that Trump responded “no.”
On Friday's "Special Report" All-Star panel, Lane -- along with Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley and The Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech -- weighed in on the pardon matter as it factors into the ongoing Russia probe.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SHOW
Lane began by suggesting that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was still “holding out hope” that the president would pardon him after he was sentenced this week to 47 months in prison on tax and bank fraud charges. But regarding Cohen's pardon testimony, Lane said he could “see it either way” on whether Trump or Cohen was being truthful, adding that Cohen could have gone to “intermediaries” instead of the president.
“I personally would like to know what the real story is about this pardon. I want to know, was it dangled? I want to know, was it sought?” Lane told the panel. “The problem is, of course, is that we have these two guys who aren’t exactly on good terms with the truth who are our best witnesses to it.”

“The problem is ... we have these two guys who aren’t exactly on good terms with the truth who are our best witnesses to it.”
— Charles Lane, Washington Post opinion writer

Lane added that Trump is taking a risk for depicting Cohen as a “liar,” particularly because Cohen testified that he saw no proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Domenech said Trump “loves dunking” on his political enemies and that their “attitude” toward the president “dictates his attitude” toward them. He added that if House Republicans want to pursue a perjury charge against Cohen, the White House may be forced to prove that Cohen lied about not seeking a pardon.
Meanwhile, Riley noted that Manafort “isn’t out of the woods” just yet as he faces another sentencing next week for criminal behavior.

House Dems pass 'power grab' voting rights bill; McConnell says proposal has no chance in Senate

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House Democrats rally ahead of the passage of H.R. 1, "The For the People Act," at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, March 8, 2019. (Associated Press)

U.S. House Democrats passed a sweeping anti-corruption and voting rights bill Friday that they said was intended to make voting easier, as well as strengthen ethics rules, while also rejecting a motion to condemn voting by undocumented immigrants.
The legislation, dubbed the “For The People Act” or "H.R.1," passed 234-193 along party lines.
The proposal -- nearly 700 pages -- calls for Election Day to be designated a federal holiday, requires all states to offer automatic voter registration, restores voting rights to convicted felons, institutes independent redistricting commissions to weed out gerrymandering and requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of donors who contribute more than $10,000 in an effort to rein in dark-money groups. .
“It’s a power grab for the American people,” U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the House administration committee that shepherded the legislation, according to the New York Times.
The bill also requires the sitting president and vice president to release 10 years of federal tax returns, as well as presidential candidates.
“This bill is a massive federal government takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Friday, the Times reported.

“This bill is a massive federal government takeover that would undermine the integrity of our elections.”
— House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

The legislation has almost no chance of passing in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has indicated he will not bring the bill for a vote, effectively killing the bill.
"We know this bill is not going to be signed into law," said Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee on elections, on the House floor before the vote. "This bill is nothing but a bill that is for loading billions of billions of dollars into the coffers of members of Congress."
In the broader debate over voter accessibility, House Democrats also voted Friday to defend localities that allow non-citizens to vote in their elections, the Washington Times reported. The 228-197 vote would have almost no effect as noncitizens are barred from participating in federal elections. The GOP-backed measure would have added language to "H.R.1 stating that  “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues. The measure referenced San Francisco's policy of allowing noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to vote in school board elections.
Just six Democrats voted against it and one Republican opposed it.

As residents flee New York's high taxes, state uses intrusive audits to get cash from defectors

Another Democrat Joke pictured Here.

New York state goes to extraordinary lengths to catch wealthy residents who try to flee its burdensome taxes, leaving a gaping hole in the state’s treasury.
The aggressive approach by state tax collectors comes as the Empire State faces a $2.3 billion budget deficit that even Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo called “as serious as a heart attack.”
Cuomo, a vocal critic of President Trump, blamed congressional Republicans for passing tax reforms that reduced the state and local tax deduction Americans can take on their annual income tax forms -- meaning residents of high-tax blue states like New York have been feeling the pinch, sparking their exodus.
“This is the flip side. Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich,” Cuomo said last month. “We did. Now, God forbid, the rich leave.”

“Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. We did. Now, God forbid, the rich leave.”
— Gov. Andrew Cuomo

But New York state auditors are doing their best to ensure that those fleeing the state’s high taxes will face difficulties, including being subjected to an audit -- likely to be followed by a massive tax bill.
New York conducted 3,000 “nonresidency” audits between 2010 and 2017, recouping around $1 billion from the practice, CNBC reported.
Between 2015 and 2017, the auditors on average collected $144,270 per audit, with more than half of those who were audited losing their cases.
New York's success rate on audits can be attributed not only to the traditional methods of investigation like going through an individual’s credit card bills, but also to new high-tech tools that include tracking phone records, social media, and even veterinary and dentist records, according to the outlet.
Data show that between July 2017 and July 2018, the high-tax and Democrat-controlled states of New York and Illinois lost the most residents, with New York losing more than 48,000 residents, while Illinois’ population declined by more than 45,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
It remains unclear how many top-tax-paying residents were part of the people who fled the states, but the data show that low-tax red states like Florida and Texas gained new residents.
“If you’re a high earner in New York and you move to Florida, your chances of a residency audit are 100 percent,” Barry Horowitz, a partner at the WithumSmith+Brown accounting firm, told CNBC. “New York has always been aggressive. But it’s getting worse.”
New York is also working extensively to catch those high-worth individuals who fake their move to Florida in a bid to avoid paying steep taxes in New York.
Unlike in New York, where punitive tax rates apply to fund its burgeoning public sector and welfare state, Florida’s residents aren’t subjected to any income or estate tax.
Even Blanca Ocasio-Cortez, mother of pro-tax Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, touted Florida’s low-tax system after fleeing the Big Apple.

“I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here.”
— Blanca Ocasio-Cortez

“I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here,” she told the Daily Mail from her home in Eustis.
Yet New York's get-tough approach toward its former residents may pose some dangers in the long-term. While recouping unpaid money works for the state’s treasury in the short-term, such practices create a hostile environment for the wealthy that threatens to accelerate their exodus.
And with the top 1 percent paying nearly half of the income taxes in the state, New York can’t afford any more departures.
“Even if a small number of taxpayers leave, it has a dramatic effect on this tax space,” Cuomo said last month.

America Down The Drain Cartoons (Thanks to the Democrats)

Started with Obama

And ended with Nancy.

House passes broad resolution calling out racism, 'anti-Semitic' comments -- without naming Ilhan Omar

They're laughing at the American People. 

After several days of infighting and a near-rebellion by rank-and-file Democrats, as well as a major last-minute revision, the House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution that only indirectly condemned Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar's repeated 'anti-Semitic' and 'pernicious' comments -- without mentioning her by name.
The final vote was 407 to 23, with 23 Republicans voting no, and all Democrats, including Omar, voting yes. Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King, who faced his own bipartisan blowback for comments purportedly defending white nationalists, voted present.
The final draft of the resolution was expanded Thursday afternoon to condemn virtually all forms of bigotry, including white supremacy, in what Republicans characterized as a cynical ploy to distract from Omar's remarks. Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, speaking on the House floor to announce that he would vote against the resolution, remarked, "Now [the resolution] condemns just about everything. ... Hatred for Israel is a special kind of hatred. It should never be watered down."
Gohmert was joined in voting down the resolution by House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, as well as Reps. Lee Zeldin, Andy Biggs, Ken Buck, Michael Conaway, Chris Collins, Mike Rogers, Paul Gosar, Pete King, Rick Crawford, Ted Budd, Ted Yoho, Chip Roy, Dan Meuser, Jeff Duncan, Thomas Massie, Doug LaMalfa, Tom Graves, Steve Palazzo, Greg Steube, Mo Brooks, Mark Walker, and Michael Burgess.
“Today’s resolution vote was a sham put forward by Democrats to avoid condemning one of their own and denouncing vile anti-Semitism," Cheney said in a statement. “While I stand whole heartedly against discrimination outlined in this resolution, the language before the House today did not address the issue that is front and center."
Cheney called Thursday "a sad day for the House" and called for Omar's removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, just as Republicans stripped King of his committee assignments in January. (The House did not specifically name King in a bipartisan disapproval measure that followed his comments on white nationalism.)
And Rep. Zeldin, who is Jewish, issued a fiery condemnation of the resolution on the House floor, calling it a "watered down" resolution that was both "spineless" and "disgusting."
The lead-up to the vote on the resolution to condemn all "forms of hatred" exposed a growing rift between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the far-left progressive freshman contingent -- including not only Omar, but also Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and others -- that has emerged as a major challenge to her control over the House.
During debate on the House floor over the resolution, Rep. Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, slammed his party's leaders for hesitating to sharply condemn Omar, and remarked that supporting language condemning anti-Semitism "shouldn’t be this hard."
"Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism?" Deutch asked. "It feels like we're only able to call out the use of anti-Semitic language by a colleague of ours -- any colleague of ours -- if we're addressing all forms of hatred. It feels like we can't say it's anti-Semitism unless everyone agrees it's anti-Semitism."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after speaking with reporters during her weekly news conference Thursday on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Omar, peppered with reporters' questions as she left the House chamber following the vote, did not offer any comment.
Ocasio-Cortez, for her part, told Fox News that Democratic women of color "are being treated differently" and "targeted."
In a statement late Thursday, Omar, Tlaib, and Indiana Rep. Andre Carson called the vote "historic."
“Today is historic on many fronts," the representatives said. "It’s the first time we have voted on a resolution condemning Anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation’s history. Anti-Muslim crimes have increased 99% from 2014-2016 and are still on the rise.
“We are tremendously proud to be part of a body that has put forth a condemnation of all forms of bigotry including anti-Semitism, racism, and white supremacy," the statement continues. "At a time when extremism is on the rise, we must explicitly denounce religious intolerance of all kinds and acknowledge the pain felt by all communities. Our nation is having a difficult conversation and we believe this is great progress.”
Tensions have run high among Democrats in recent days. Apparently fed up with her party's inability to come together to condemn anti-Semitism in the past week, Pelosi reportedly even dropped her microphone and stormed out of a meeting with junior Democrats on Wednesday, amid fierce disputes over the planning and wording of the resolution.
And, on Thursday, Pelosi offered something of a strained excuse for the 37-year-old Omar, saying at a news conference, “I do not believe that she understood the full weight of the words.”
The final text of the resolution reflected the Democrats' deep internal divisions on the matter. It began by rejecting the "perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance."
Although the resolution stops short of using Omar's name, that provision was a transparent reference to her remarks at a progressive Washington cafe last week, in which she suggested that Israel supporters were pushing for U.S. politicians to declare "allegiance" to Israel.
2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS CIRCLE THE WAGONS AROUND OMAR
The accusation that Jewish politicians could be vulnerable to having "dual loyalties" has been made for centuries in various contexts, and has been seen widely as a religious-based attack intent on undermining their leadership. Tlaib, who was seated next to Omar during her comments at the cafe, made a similar comment in January, tweeting that Senate Republicans were more loyal to Israel than to their own country.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019, to unveil the "Immediate Financial Relief for Federal Employees Act" bill which would give zero interest loans for up to $6,000 to employees impacted by the government shutdown and any future shutdowns. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The resolution also “condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”
Last month, Omar ignited a bipartisan uproar across the country when she suggested on Twitter that some members of Congress have been paid by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to support Israel. AIPAC is a nonprofit organization that works to influence U.S. policy. ("Let me be really clear," New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, said. "Suggesting that support for Israel is beholden to a foreign power is absolutely unacceptable and illogical too.")
Fox News had been told the Democratic caucus was concerned about mentioning Omar by name -- a non-starter for many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Two knowledgable sources said such a scenario could increase security threats against Omar, who is Muslim.
But, Democrats went to great lengths to broaden the resolution's focus far beyond Omar's comments. A vote on the resolution was delayed briefly to add a new clause condemning other forms of bigotry, reportedly in response to concerns from members representing minority groups who felt left out.

 “I do not believe that she understood the full weight of the words.”
— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Ilhan Omar

Specifically, the new clause stated: "Whereas white supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence."
Conservative commentators mocked the dramatic, seemingly limitless expansion of the language, with Ben Shapiro writing, "This resolution must not pass until it includes condemnation of hatred against the disabled."

The resolution also "condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and 23 bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States."
It further "encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and amendments to the Constitution."

Many 2020 Democratic hopefuls, meanwhile, lined up to support Omar -- including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Others have preferred to duck the issue.
Asked about Omar at a news conference Thursday, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., insisted he wanted to hear only "on-topic" questions about unrelated legislation -- then, receiving none, stop taking questions entirely.
Top Republicans, however, have said the line between fair criticism of Israel and outright bigotry clearly had been crossed.

"Yeah, I can understand the settlement policy is being criticized," South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News on Thursday. "I can understand sometimes the actions Israel takes are disproportionate. But the point is, this wasn't about Israeli policy; it was about what the Jews do -- that the Jews control the media, and the Jews used their money to buy favors. That's the oldest anti-Semitic play in the book."
Fox News' Chad Pergram and Alex Pappas contributed to this report.

Why DNC blew it in barring a Fox debate after New Yorker piece

Some of Fox News’ liberal rivals have been cheering the Democratic National Committee’s decision to exclude the network from the party’s primary debates.
In fact, Jane Mayer, author of the New Yorker article cited as the reason for the decision, posted a celebratory tweet:
“Boom! DNC Chair says Fox can't sponsor 2020 Dem Primary Debate.”
But a number of prominent journalists have sharply criticized the move by committee chairman Tom Perez.
NBC reporter Jonathan Allen: “There are plenty of quality journalists at Fox, some of whom have been excellent questioners at past presidential debates.”
Politico’s Jack Shafer: “The idea that the New Yorker story could have alerted Perez to some previously hidden right-wing, anti-Democratic Party tendencies at Fox is hilarious…Any politician who can’t hold his own against a journalist from the other team should be disqualified from running.”
New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman: “Whether it’s the case or not, it sends a message of being afraid of something. Which is what Trump feeds off in opponents.”
While Perez said Fox “is not in a position to hold a fair and neutral debate,” Fox Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said he hoped the DNC would reconsider, since its moderators—Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Martha MacCallum—“embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism.”
DNC BARS FOX NEWS FROM HOSTING PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATES 
And that points up what was missing from the more than 11,000-word New Yorker story: an acknowledgement that Fox has a news division.
There were a couple of mentions of Wallace asking tough questions or Shepard Smith fact-checking the administration, but no exploration of the separation between the news side—anchors, reporters and editors—and the opinion side best known for prime-time hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson.
It’s hardly breaking news that they and other commentators, such as the hosts of “Fox & Friends,” generally support President Trump—although several harshly criticized him for a temporary retreat on the border wall that preceded the 35-day government shutdown. Hannity, in particular, speaks regularly to the president, and drew criticism from me and many others for accepting Trump’s invitation to come on stage, and praising him, at a November rally.
Trump does watch an awful lot of Fox and is influenced by what some hosts and guests say, as his Twitter feed makes clear. A number of people who had roles at Fox, most notably former co-president Bill Shine, have joined the administration. (By the way, two dozen journalists, such as Time’s Jay Carney, went into the Obama administration.)
I don’t want to cast any aspersions on Mayer, who I’ve known for decades, but she is well known for taking on such conservative targets as Trump, Mike Pence, Brett Kavanaugh, and the Koch brothers (her latest book is about “the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right”). The New Yorker has run a series of covers mocking Trump, and its longtime editor, David Remnick, has called the president a “master demagogue” and “unceasing generator of toxic gas.”
Fox News has been controversial since Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, a former Republican operative, founded it in 1996. It is an even bigger target now, as the nation’s dominant cable news network, in the Trump era.
Let’s look at some of the article’s findings:
--While the New Yorker largely ignored the news division, except for the quick mentions of Chris Wallace and Shep Smith, Fox had provided the magazine with far more material.
MacCallum, for instance, drew widespread media praise for her grilling of Kavanaugh when she obtained the only interview with him during his Supreme Court nomination fight.
Fox news anchor Neil Cavuto has occasionally chastised Trump, saying last year: “You are right to say that some are out to get you. But oftentimes, Mr. President, the problem is you.”
Fox chief legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Trump faces “at least four potential felonies” if Michael Cohen’s testimony is true.
The Mueller probe, the Cohen hearings and the hush-money investigation have all received ample coverage on Fox’s news shows.
What’s more, Baier complained on the air about not being able to secure an interview with Trump, and didn’t get one for nearly a year and a half until he traveled to Singapore. Wallace didn’t land a Trump sitdown for “Fox News Sunday” until last November.
--Baier and Megyn Kelly opened the first GOP debate in 2015 with tough questions aimed at Trump. The New Yorker says three unnamed sources “believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question” in advance. Kelly has said she doesn’t believe that, and Ailes is deceased.
But a Fox executive who was with Ailes the next day said he was furious that he hadn’t been informed of the questions by the journalists doing the debate prep in Cleveland. Also left unmentioned: Trump then went to war with Fox and Kelly and boycotted the network’s next debate.
--The website decided against running a story by Diana Falzone, then a Foxnews.com entertainment reporter, about the alleged affair with Stormy Daniels and a proposed cash settlement. Despite quotes from the executive who then ran the website that the story wasn’t sufficiently corroborated—other outlets in pursuit also declined to publish—the New Yorker quotes an unnamed source as saying Falzone was told the reason was that Murdoch wanted Trump to win.
But the Wall Street Journal—also owned by Murdoch—published a story on Stormy Daniels and Trump days before the election.
--The New Yorker accurately recounts how Ailes was fired as chairman in 2016 after numerous allegations of sexual harassment, and that the ouster came quickly following an outside investigation. That remains an embarrassing episode in the network’s history. But there is only the briefest mention of his successor, Suzanne Scott, the only woman running a major network, and nothing on the workplace reforms she has instituted.
--The magazine quotes Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who despises Trump, as saying she would never appear on Fox despite having done so in the past. There is no mention that she is an MSNBC contributor.
--Two Media Matters executives are quoted in the story. The liberal advocacy group has been openly crusading against Fox for years.
--The piece concludes that “Fox has a financial incentive to make Trump look good.” Even if that were true—the audience is not a monolith--one could just as easily argue that CNN and MSNBC (as well as the New York Times, as former executive editor Jill Abramson has said) have a financial incentive to make Trump look bad.
But there is no mention of the consistently anti-Trump tone on those two networks, whose opinion hosts have repeatedly assailed the president as unhinged, mentally deficient, racist, misogynist and dangerous; that is deemed normal.
Shouldn’t the DNC, by its own standard, consider those voices as well in weighing the fairness of network debates?
The president tweeted after the DNC excluded Fox that “I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!” That was not particularly helpful to Fox News at a time the network is being criticized for excessive coziness with Trump.
Perhaps this was inevitable, as Fox didn’t get a Democratic debate in 2016 either. But the record of Fox’s debate moderators, none of them in the opinion business, makes clear even to critics that any such event would be handled fairly.