Gingrich: Latest Washington Post report on Mueller meant to 'maximize the embarrassment' for Barr

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the report by the Washington Post that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reached out to Attorney General William Barr and let him know that his summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Russia investigation was leaked by someone seeking to “maximize the embarrassment” ahead of Wednesday’s hearings.
"The 'Deep State' and Washington has played these games for the whole history of the country, this is not something new,” Gingrich said on the “Ingraham Angle.”
In a late-breaking article, the Post reported that Mueller contacted Barr-- in a letter and phone call-- to express concerns after Barr released his own public summary of the report in March. Mueller reportedly pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by his office.
However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel Barr's summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had "misinterpreted" the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice.
Barr is expected to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
The Post's headline was entitled, "Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe"
Gingrich brushed off the report.
“After all the noise you just shrug your shoulders and say, ‘so what?’ Mueller had every opportunity to come out the day that Barr released his letter. Mueller could have at any point decided to refute it and as I understand the actual key sentences, the distortion is by the news media. The distortion is not by Barr,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich added, "Think about this. The media that Mueller is complaining about are the people who are now using Mueller’s complaint to further distort what is going on. You couldn't make this up.”
Fox News' Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Buttigieg raises eyebrows on vaccination stance, faces media criticism

South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg drew some backlash for his stance on mandatory vaccinations.
Buzzfeed reported that Buttigieg supports states' rights to mandate vaccinations, but also supports "some exceptions."
"The law of the land for more than a century has been that states may enforce mandatory vaccination for public safety to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease. Pete does support some exceptions, except during a public health emergency to prevent an outbreak," a spokesman for the South Bend mayor told Buzzfeed.
The 37-year-old progressive listed personal/religious exemptions, but reiterated that there must be "no public health crisis" for the exemptions to be honored.
"These exemptions include medical exemptions in all cases (as in cases where it is unsafe for the individual to get vaccinated), and personal/religious exemptions if states can maintain local herd immunity and there is no public health crisis," the spokesman added.
Buttigieg's stance on vaccination exemptions caught some attention on social media.
The 2020 candidiate was starting to generate negative press on Tuesday night. Mediaite's headline read "Buttigieg fumbles badly on vaccinations."
Buttigieg has since modified his stance, offering a "clarifying statement" to Buzzfeed late Tuesday night.
"Pete believes vaccines are safe and effective and are necessary to maintaining public health. There is no evidence that vaccines are unsafe, and he believes children should be immunized to protect their health. He is aware that in most states the law provides for some kinds of exemptions. He believes only medical exemptions should be allowed," the spokesman said.
Buzzfeed has been gathering the vaccination stances of all 2020 presidential candidates. Several candidates did not respond to Buzzfeed including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, former Obama HUD Secretary Julián Castro, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI.

Head of Venezuela's secret police breaks with Maduro

The head of Venezuela's feared secret police has turned his back on disputed President Nicolas Maduro in an open letter made public Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, Maduro took to Venezuela's airwaves to proclaim that the uprising sparked by opposition leader Juan Guaidó had been defeated. In a rambling address, Maduro said his regime had responded to the rebellion with "nerves of steel, maximum serenity and effective action" and claimed that the leaders of the uprising were under arrest and being questioned.
"This cannot go unpunished," said Maduro, who added that "all of those involved must surrender."
Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, the head of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), is the highest-ranking member of the country's security forces to break with Maduro since Guaidó called for a military uprising Tuesday morning.
In the letter, the authenticity of which was confirmed to The Associated Press by a U.S. official, Figuera wrote that while he always had been loyal to Maduro, "the time has come to seek new ways of doing politics" to try and "rebuild the country." The letter did not mention Guaidó by name but did say that Venezuela has experienced a damaging decline.
Earlier Tuesday, National Security Adviser John Bolton said the Trump administration was waiting for three key officials -- Maduro's defense minister, the chief judge of the supreme court and the commander of Maduro's presidential guard -- to act on what he said were private pledges to remove the beleaguered Venezuelan leader.
"All agreed that Maduro had to go. They need to be able to act this afternoon, or this evening, to help bring other military forces to the side of the interim president," Bolton said. "If this effort fails, [Venezuela] will sink into a dictatorship from which there are very few possible alternatives."
The defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López, publicly condemned Guaidó's move Tuesday as a "terrorist" act and "coup attempt" that was bound to fail.
"Those who try to take Miraflores with violence will be met with violence," he said on national television, referring to the presidential palace where hundreds of government supporters, some of them brandishing firearms, had gathered in response to a call to defend Maduro.

Opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, center, is greeted by a supporter in Caracas Tuesday. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

Guaidó has said that in the coming hours he would release a list of top commanders supporting the uprising.
"The armed forces have taken the right decision," said Guaidó. "With the support of the Venezuelan people and the backing of our constitution they are on the right side of history."
Anti-government demonstrators gathered in several other cities, although there were no reports that Guaidó's supporters had taken control of any military installations.
The SIBE was responsible for holding Leopoldo Lopez, Venezuela's most prominent anti-Maduro activist, in custody since his arrest in 2014. Lopez appeared alongside Guaidó, his political protege, Tuesday and claimed that he had been released from house arrest by security forces adhering to an order from Guaidó.
It was not immediately clear what role, if any, Figuera had played in Lopez's release.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

CNN's Don Lemon Cartoons

Democrats struggling for pocketbook message as roaring economy helps Trump

The economy is on fire right now, and that, more than anything, could be a major boost to President Trump's reelection chances.
And the Democrats are having a hard time figuring out how to run against this steamroller at a time of 4 percent unemployment and soaring stocks.
Of course, things could cool off before the election, as many economists predict a sharp slowdown in growth over the next two years.
But for now, the S&P and the Nasdaq just hit all-time highs, and the newly announced rebound in first-quarter growth, to 3.2 percent, trounced the market's all-important expectations.
I've always felt that a president presiding over strong growth is far more likely to win a second term, even if other hot-button issues are dominating the news. The flip side is that strong economic anxieties can derail a reelection campaign, even if the economy is recovering from a recession, as happened when George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. And the Wall Street meltdown in the fall of 2008 helped put Barack Obama in the White House.
The nettlesome challenge for the Democratic candidates is to avoid appearing that they're talking down a good economy or getting traction when most people are satisfied with their personal situation. During the 1982 midterms, Democrats privately hoped the jobless rate under Ronald Reagan would top 10 percent, which it did, but couldn't say so publicly on their way to picking up 27 House seats.
Joe Biden is touted for his ability to connect with white, working-class voters in such industrial states as Michigan and Pennsylvania. But if those workers, except in certain fields, are generally doing well, that clearly undercuts the pitch.
But don't take my word for it — ask Celinda Lake.
She's a veteran Democratic pollster who told Politico that "we really don't have a robust national message right now" on the economy. "We will tend to talk about things like paid leave and equal pay," which are popular but "don't add up to an economic message that is robust enough to win the presidency."
Lake also said that people may not agree with Trump, but they know what his message is. "And Democrats, you don't know what it is. And that's a recipe for disaster in 2020."
Look, many things will be at play in this election: Immigration. Health care. The Mueller report. Terrorism. Race relations. And Trump is underwater with key groups and has a 54 percent disapproval rating in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll.
And even on the economic front, not everything is Rosy Scenario. By the administration's own projections, we're looking at federal deficits over $1 trillion for the next four years. That's what you get when you combine only modest spending restraint with tax cuts, which many Americans feel didn't help them.
As the Politico piece notes, some Democratic candidates are taking broad swipes at the Trump economy, particularly on the subject of inequality.
Kamala Harris: "We have an economy in this country that is not working for working people."
Elizabeth Warren: "Let's make the zillionaires pay a fair share."
Beto O'Rourke would undo the "worst excesses" of the GOP tax cuts.
One of the reasons that no economic message is breaking through is that there are 20 Democratic candidates, each vying for a share of the spotlight. That would matter less in hard times, but the Democrats don't have that luxury.
If "it's the economy, stupid" is as true today as when James Carville coined it a quarter-century ago, beating Trump will be harder than many Democrats think.

CNN's Don Lemon cuts off guest who accused him of 'contributing' to political divide

CNN anchor Don Lemon lashed out at former White House aide Cliff Sims over President Donald Trump’s Charlottesville remarks and ended the segment early after he was accused by his guest of "contributing" to the political divide in the country.
While covering the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and the rally Trump held simultaneously in Green Bay, Wis. on Saturday night, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota began the conversation by criticizing President Trump’s pivot from his somber rally remarks about the deadly synagogue shooting in Poway, Calif. to his fiery attacks against the Russia investigation.
Sims responded by saying all Americans are “watching the same movie” and how they are “seeing dramatically different things” when it comes to the Trump presidency. He used Lemon’s response to Charlottesville as an example that his views of Trump’s remarks are “diametrically opposed” to many others, including himself, adding that Trump “did condemn” white supremacy.
“Then you’re delusional. Then you’re delusional, Cliff,” Lemon talked over Sims. “You’re saying because the president says words that are hollow- because the president said ‘we should come together.’”
“I couldn’t hear anything you just said, Don, because you insisted on talking over me,” Sims shot back. “So I really don’t know what you’re saying right now.”
“If you stop talking, then we won’t be talking over each other and I will let you respond,” Lemon said.
“Well, you want to interview me!” Sims exclaimed.  “You asked me to come on your program, so give me a chance to talk!”

CNN anchor Don Lemon (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)

Lemon accused the “Team of Vipers” author of saying that “the president’s words don’t matter,” which Sims denied. Sims then challenged Lemon to give an example of Trump “being a white supremacist.”
“I never called the president a white supremacist, so you’re watching the wrong program or you’re not hearing what I’m saying. What I have called the president is a racist,” the CNN anchor said. “When you call nations ‘s---hole countries,’ when you call African-American players ‘sons of b--hes, when you say there are ‘fine people on both sides,’ when you lie about it afterwards --“
Sims attempted to explain that Trump was saying there were “fine people on both sides” of the debate over Confederate statues, but Lemon insisted that’s not what the president said.
After another heated exchange, the former Trump aide accused Lemon of “contributing” to stoking division by re-litigating the Charlottesville remarks.
“I’m not the person who said that they were ‘fine people on both sides,’” Lemon fired back. “I’m not the person who called countries ‘sh--hole countries.’”
“You actually don’t even know if he said that because that’s another one of those based on anonymous and people in the room say blah, blah, blah, you actually don’t know if he said that,” Sims told Lemon.
“Yes, I do know that he said that,” Lemon claimed. “And it’s not ‘blah, blah, blah.”
The “CNN Tonight” host had enough of Sims and cut the segment short, shifting to someone he says “tried to bring this country together.”
“And that’s you, Don. You do a great job at that,” Sims sarcastically added before his mic was cut.
Lemon was actually referring to President Barack Obama.
Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @JosephWulfsohn.

Conway calls out Ocasio-Cortez for posts about Netflix documentary while 'away from tech'

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway appeared on “Hannity” Monday where she explained why she attacked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for not tweeting about the Sri Lanka Easter massacre and referred to media who haven’t pressed the freshman congresswoman as “fangirls.”
“I usually leave Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and some of these other freshmen like Ilhan Omar, [Rashida] Tlaib alone because basically when they speak, it's a gift to conservatives and to the Republican Party,” Conway said. But she told Sean Hannity that while she is pressed consistently on everything President Trump says, Ocasio-Cortez is treated like a ‘hero' and goes unchallenged in the media.
“But I really had to call her out here because I am on television shows, and I'm asked constantly, ‘Why didn't Donald Trump say this, why did he use that word? Where is the semi-colon in this tweet where I believe it should be.’  And I said hey, does anybody ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who you give a hero's welcome to?  All you fangirls ever bother to ask her why she’s been completely silent on the massacre against Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday?” Conway said.
Conway on Sunday criticized the freshman congresswoman for not tweeting about the bombings targeting Christians in  Sri Lanka.
"I see officials who get a lot of airtime and ink like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, congresswoman, who tweets many times about the mosque and never once about the Christians being killed in Sri Lanka," Conway said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter accusing Conway Sunday of attempting to "stoke suspicion" regarding the freshman lawmaker's religion. The New York congresswoman also noted she was visiting her grandmother in Puerto Rico for Easter and “away from tech.”
Conway criticized Ocasio-Cortez Monday while on 'Hannity" for not tweeting about Sri Lanka the next day, and instead promoted a documentary about herself.
“The very next day, still picking through the rubble in Sri Lanka, looking for survivors or of the deceased. She had time to tweet about a Netflix documentary about her,” Conway said. The Daily Caller pointed out that her tweets did end on April 18, and there were no tweets on Easter Sunday, but "her account did include both a tweet and a retweet about the upcoming movie “Knock Down The House.”
Conway reiterated the issue was not about her faith.
“It’s not about her faith, it’s about her selectivity,” Conway told Hannity.

Trump orders asylum overhaul, including new fee for applicants and faster adjudications, amid 'severe' border crisis

President Trump called Monday night for a sweeping overhaul to an asylum system he has long said is rife with fraud -- including a new fee to process asylum applicants, and the capacity to rapidly adjudicate applicants' claims while also barring them from working in the U.S. in the meantime.
In a presidential memorandum, Trump specifically told Attorney General William Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan that the move was necessary to address a "crisis" at the border. In an article published earlier this month, The New York Times acknowledged that the humanitarian crisis of illegal immigration has hit a "breaking point."
Arrests along the southern border have skyrocketed in recent months, with border agents making more than 100,000 arrests or denials of entry in March, a 12-year high. Immigration courts that process asylum claims currently have a backlog of more than 800,000 cases, and asylum applicants are increasingly staying in the U.S. even after their claims for asylum have been denied.
“That emergency continues to grow increasingly severe,” Trump's memo read. “The extensive resources required to process and care for these individuals pulls U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel away from securing our Nation’s borders.”
According to a White House fact sheet released Monday, on average, "out of every 100 aliens subject to expedited removal who claim a fear of persecution, only about 12 will ultimately be granted asylum."
And "around half of all aliens who make a credible fear claim and are subsequently placed in removal proceedings do not actually apply for asylum."

Honduran asylum seekers are taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents in San Diego this past Demceber. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo, File)

Thought the vast majority of asylum applications are ultimately unsuccessful, they still take months and even years to fully process. Asylum law is intended to provide harbor only to refugees fleeing personal persecution based on a limited number of factors -- such as political belief or religion -- and does not protect individuals fleeing bad living conditions or poverty.
The Trump administration last year rolled back an Obama-era expansion of potential asylum justifications, which extended protections to those alleging domestic abuse or gang-related attacks back home. White House officials said at the time that those categories were prone to abuse and expanded asylum law beyond its original intent.
In his memorandum, Trump gave his deputies 90 days to propose regulations so that all asylum applications are adjudicated within 180 days, except for those representing exceptional circumstances.
The White House and DHS officials did not immediately respond to questions about how much applicants might be forced to pay in asylum fees, and it is unclear how many families fleeing poverty would be able to afford such a payment.
The memo says the price would not exceed the cost of processing applications, but officials did not immediately provide an estimate for what that might be.

A Central American migrant takes a nap in the shade under a freight train car, last week in Oaxaca State, Mexico. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo)

Trump also wants to bar anyone who has entered or tried to enter the country illegally from receiving a provisional work permit and is calling on officials to immediately revoke work authorizations when individuals are denied asylum and ordered removed from the country.
Immigration officials say one reason asylum claims are booming is that migrants know they will be able to live and work in the U.S. while their cases play out -- and, in many cases, even after their claims have been rejected.
According to the White House, the number of "aliens who do not show up to court and are ordered removed in absentia has soared, with 17,200 removal orders issued in absentia in the first quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2019. ... If this pace continues, in absentia removal orders would more than triple the 2013 total."
For asylum cases originating in a credible fear claim, "in absentia removal orders are on pace to increase to 17,636 in FY 2019, around 20 times more than the total in FY 2010."
And since September 2018, "1 out of every 6 family unit cases filed on special expedited dockets at 10 immigration courts has ended with an in absentia removal order," the White House said.
Trump is also calling on DHS to reassign immigration officers and any other staff "to improve the integrity of adjudications of credible and reasonable fear claims, to strengthen the enforcement of the immigration laws, and to ensure compliance with the law by those aliens who have final orders of removal."
Fox News' Shannon Bream and The Associated Press contributed to this report.