Rep. Jerry Nadler Cartoons

Nadler slammed for 'harassment' after fresh Kavanaugh doc requests

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday accused the panel's Democratic chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler, of "harassment" and unethical conduct, after Nadler moved to seek records from Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's time in the George W. Bush administration.
Nadler's request came days after a liberal lion of the high court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defended Kavanaugh as a "very decent, very smart individual," and long after progressive activists have largely moved on to other matters.
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., said in a statement that Nadler's request is so "far outside the scope of judicial ethics, it’s harassment."
"Senate Democrats spent months launching false accusations in an attempt to smear Justice Kavanaugh’s reputation and block his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, and now House Democrats want to follow suit with yet another fishing expedition to tarnish his good name," Collins said.

In this July 10, 2018, photo, protesters hold signs supporting Planned Parenthood in Seattle and against Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Nadler, along with Hank Johnson, D-Ga., wrote to the National Archives to seek "certain presidential records related to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s service in the White House from 2001 to 2006."
They cited the Presidential Records Act, which allows congressional committees to obtain “contain information that is needed for the conduct of [their] business and that is not otherwise available," subject to executive privilege and other limitations.
Tens of thousands of documents relating to Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office were withheld during his confirmation process, the lawmakers said, after they were processed by a private attorney for potential privilege issues.
"As a result of this process, the Senate Judiciary Committee received only a small fraction of Justice Kavanaugh’s White House record before voting on his nomination," Nadler wrote.
Nevertheless, some of Kavanuagh's writings in the Bush administration did play a central role during his confirmation process. In a dramatic exchange during the hearings, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., now a presidential candidate, implied that Kavanaugh had been open to racial profiling tactics, citing an email exchange between Kavanaugh and a colleague in the Bush White House.
Booker did not provide Kavanaugh a copy of the emails to review, and claimed Republicans had tried to hide them. However, Senate Republicans said the documents had been publicly released earlier in the day, even as Booker suggested he could be expelled from the Senate for releasing them.
The emails released later on during the hearings showed Kavanaugh advocating for race-neutral security screening policies at airports after 9/11, but said that during an "interim" period before such policies could be implemented, administration lawyers would need to "grapple" with the possibility of factoring in race during screenings in the interest of national security.
In his letter, Nadler sought the new documents on a "rolling basis," and specifically asked for any "emails sent to or received by Justice Kavanaugh, including emails on which he was a carbon copy or blind carbon copy recipient, during the period in which Justice Kavanaugh served as staff secretary, including any documents attached to such emails."
Additionally, the Democrat requested "the textual records contained in Justice Kavanaugh’s office files from the period during which he served as staff secretary."
Any successful effort to remove Kavanaugh from the bench would require a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Several 2020 Democratic presidential contenders -- including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Pete Buttigieg -- have said they would be open to legislation that would expand the size of the Supreme Court, to effectively dilute the importance of conservative justices' votes. The size of federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, is set by Congress.
"When are we going to move on from the smear campaigns, and begin working on real, bipartisan solutions to improve the lives of the Americans we were elected to represent?” Collins asked.

AOC-backed candidate Tiffany Cabán concedes defeat in Queens DA race

Queens district attorney candidate Tiffany Cabán conceded defeat Tuesday night — six weeks after the Democratic primary election that pitted her against the establishment-backed Queens Borough President Melinda Katz.
“We terrified the Democratic establishment,” Cabán told her supporters at a party in Astoria.
“We showed [that] you can run on a boldly decarceral platform,” she added referring to her criminal justice reforms. “You don’t have to play by the old rules.”

In this June 26 file photo, Democratic primary candidate for Queens district attorney Tiffany Cabán responds to questions during an interview in the Queens borough of New York. Cabán told supporters Tuesday, Aug. 6 that she is calling it quits in her race for Queens district attorney that gained national attention. 

In a back-and-forth race that saw both candidates declare victory, the insurgent lawyer fought to the very end challenging dozens of invalidated affidavit ballots in court that she said were improperly excluded.
But after several attempts to claw back — including at a judicial hearing earlier Tuesday — she bowed out after it became clear she’d be unable to erase the 60-vote gap separating her and Katz.
“There’s still so, so much work to be done here in Queens — and you better believe I’m going to keep fighting,” Cabán said.
The Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-backed candidate shocked the city on June 25 when she appeared to beat Katz, a veteran Queens politician, by 1,100 votes on primary night. But the tables flipped when the Board of Elections tallied the absentee ballots and many of the provisionally cast ballots, giving Katz the lead.
Last Monday, the Board of Elections declared Katz the victor. The certified results showed Katz winning 34,920 votes, a razor-thin edge over Cabán’s 34,860. Katz now becomes the heavy favorite to win the job in the November general election in the increasingly left-leaning borough.

Hemingway: New York Times' Trump headline change 'scary' instance of bullying by online 'mob'

Blowback against the New York Times over a headline about President Trump's response to recent mass shootings is a frightening precedent, according to Mollie Hemingway.
The fact several media and political figures were able to convince the paper to change its headline after the first edition exposes the collective outrage as a "mob," Hemingway claimed Tuesday on "Special Report."
"Clearly, the first headline was more factual and less opinion-y than the second headline -- which was not a very well constructed headline," the Federalist senior editor said.
A headline about Trump’s remarks on the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton drew condemnation online -- including from some Democratic presidential candidates -- and was subsequently changed late Monday. The newspaper summarized Trump’s comments, in which he denounced hate and white supremacy, with the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” on the front page of its first edition.
In response, several Democrats blasted the newspaper.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called the headline a: "reminder of how white supremacy is aided by -- and often relies upon -- the cowardice of mainstream institutions."
Democratic presidential hopeful former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, D-Texas, called it, "unbelievable," and fellow contender Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., demanded the Times "do better."
"Lives literally depend on you doing better. Please do," the former Newark, N.J. mayor tweeted.
The paper's home-state Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic nomination, claimed the headline was inaccurate: "that's not what happened."
On "Special Report," Hemingway appeared to disagree.
"You hear a lot of people asserting things about Donald Trump without actually showing their work or showing evidence in support of it," she said.
"The New York Times was bullied and pressured by an online mob -- consisting of a lot of journalists -- to take that factual headline and change it to something else to fit a narrative that has been promoted by a lot of people.
"It can be kind of scary to watch media companies or corporations like the New York Times fall prey to these kinds of online mobs."
After the backlash, the Manhattan-based paper changed the top story's headline to, "Assailing hate but not guns."
Fox News' Gerren Keith Gaynor contributed to this report.

Trump trashes Beto O'Rourke, tells him to 'be quiet' ahead of El Paso visit

President Trump issued a fiery tweet late Tuesday for 2020 presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke ahead of his visit to the Democrat's hometown of El Paso, Texas, following last weekend's shooting that left 22 dead.
Over the past several days, O'Rourke has slammed the president, who he has placed blame for the massacre. The former congressman declared that Trump is a "racist" and compared his language to Nazi Germany's Third Reich. He also compared Trump's North Carolina rally-- where the "send her back" chant took place-- to "Nuremberg."
"That is a leader reveling in the hatred and the racism of the people that he purports to serve and to lead," O'Rourke said Monday.
Trump responded to O'Rourke and claimed the candidate is using a "phony name" in an attempt to appeal to voters.
"Beto (phony name to indicate Hispanic heritage) O’Rourke, who is embarrassed by my last visit to the Great State of Texas, where I trounced him, and is now even more embarrassed by polling at 1 percent in the Democrat Primary, should respect the victims & law enforcement - & be quiet!" Trump wrote in a late-night tweet.
O'Rourke responded to Trump's tweet and double-downed on his claim that Trump is responsible.
"22 people in my hometown are dead after an act of terror inspired by your racism," he tweeted. "El Paso will not be quiet and neither will I."
The president referred to the rally he held in El Paso back in February amid the national debate about the migration crisis and had previously boasted his crowd size in comparison to O'Rourke, who held a competing rally on the same night.
O'Rourke responded to Trump's attack.
"22 people in my hometown are dead after an act of terror inspired by your racism. El Paso will not be quiet and neither will I," O'Rourke told the president.

China Trade Cartoons

China vows response if US deploys missiles in region, arms race feared

A top Chinese military official on Tuesday said Beijing would “not stand idly by” if the U.S. goes forward with deploying intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific region, raising new fears an arms race.
Last weekend, Mark Esper, the U.S. defense secretary, said that he “would like to” place these missiles in Asia, while in Sydney. Australia's defense minister has said that country will not be a base for the missiles.
It was not clear when these missiles would be put into place, but one senior official from the U.S. told Reuters that it would be years away.
Esper made the comments after the U.S. withdrew from an arms control treaty with Russia from the Cold War-era. A senior U.S. official said Russia was in “material breach of the treaty” and made no effort to “come back into compliance.” The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Moscow accused the U.S. of breaching the treaty and asked for evidence that it was in violation.
Fu Cong, the chief arms control official in China, also Tuesday warned neighboring countries not to allow the U.S. to deploy such weapons on their territory.
Fu said China had no intention of entering a trilateral arms control deal with the U S. and Russia but would remain engaged in disarmament discussions.
The Pentagon has reportedly taken notice of the importance of its missile arsenal.
Defense One reported that the Pentagon is increasing its “stealthy long-range cruise missile” stockpile. Lockheed Martin is reportedly building an entirely new facility in Alabama to accommodate the demand for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, which were used in Syria and fired from a B-1 bomber.
The Associated Press contributed  to this report

California sued over law blocking Trump from ballot unless he releases tax returns

Four voters in California, along with the conservative transparency group Judicial Watch, announced Monday they have filed a federal lawsuit against the left-wing state, alleging its new law aimed at strong-arming President Trump into releasing his income tax returns is patently unconstitutional.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law known as the "Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act" last week. Its provisions would require Trump and other presidential primary candidates to file their tax returns for the most recent five years to the California secretary of state by November 26 or be excluded from the March 3, 2020 presidential primary ballot.
The law does not apply to the general election, so Trump would still appear on the November 2020 California presidential ballot if he secured the national Republican Party nomination.
"Within five days of receipt of the candidate’s tax returns, the Secretary of State shall make redacted versions of the tax returns available to the public on the Secretary of State’s internet website," the law states.
The measure sailed through the state's Democratic-led legislature. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown had vetoed a similar version of the law last year, noting that it "may not be constitutional" and sets a "slippery slope precedent" that could lead the state to demand all kinds of documents from candidates.
"Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?" Brown asked. "Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power."
But Newsom, a frequent Trump critic who declared in June that the GOP is "finished" and will devolve into a third party, disregarded those concerns.
The Constitution requires only three things of presidents: They have to be a natural-born U.S. citizen; must be at least 35 and must have lived in the country for at least 14 years. (Although the precise legal meaning of the term "natural-born U.S. citizen" is debated, it generally is taken to apply when someone is either born in the U.S. or born abroad to a U.S. citizen.)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif. Newsom signed a law Tuesday, July 30, requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

The four plaintiffs are two Republicans, one Democrat and one independent.
In their federal complaint, the plaintiffs call the law an unprecedented attempt by a state to add additional qualifications for the presidency.
"No state or federal law has ever mandated that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns to qualify or appear on a ballot," the complaint says. "The voluntary release of presidential candidates’ tax returns is a recent, and partial, phenomenon, notwithstanding a current media narrative suggesting otherwise."
In a statement, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: "This is a nonpartisan concern about the state running roughshod and attempting to amend the Constitution on its own."
“California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters," Fitton added. "It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”
Attorneys for Judicial Watch argue California's law effectively alters the Constitution by adding a new requirement for tax returns, something they say state governments don't have the authority to do.
California's law says voters need to know details about presidential candidates' finances to "better estimate the risks of any given Presidential candidate engaging in corruption."
But Judicial Watch argues that rationale could lead states to demand things like medical and mental health records and eventually things like Amazon purchases, Google search histories and Facebook friends. Conservatives, who recognize that Trump stands no chance of winning California's electoral votes regardless of the outcome of this dispute, have similarly sounded the alarm about where these restrictions might go in the future.
Judicial Watch also argues that by limiting the law to primary elections, it does not apply to independent candidates. Judicial Watch also says the law violates voters' constitutional rights to associate with presidential candidates and the voters who support them, rights it says are guaranteed under the First and 14th amendments.
The lawsuit names Secretary of State Alex Padilla as the defendant because his office is in charge of enforcing the law. Representatives for Padilla and Newsom declined to comment on Monday, saying they have not been officially notified of the lawsuit.
When he signed the law last week, Newsom released statements from three lawyers, including the dean of the University of California, Berkeley law school, saying the law is constitutional.
"SB 27, which requires that presidential candidates disclose tax returns, is constitutional. It does not keep any candidate from being on the ballot so long as he or she complies with a simple requirement that is meant to provide California voters crucial information," Berkeley dean Erwin Chemerinsky said. "This is the state acting to make sure that its voters have information that might be very important to them when they cast their ballots as to who they want to be President of the United States."
Newsom contends Congress has changed aspects of the presidency previously, including limiting presidents to two terms after President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms, and passing anti-nepotism laws after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, U.S. attorney general.

President Trump has said he will not release his tax returns as long as they are under audit. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

"If the federal government is not going to act, California needs to act. We've always done that," Newsom said in a video posted to his Twitter account.
Citizens have had to pay federal income taxes since 1913, but it wasn't until 1973 when a U.S. president made his personal tax returns public. Republican Richard Nixon released his tax returns publicly while he was being audited by the IRS, after an IRS employee leaked a portion of his returns to the media.
Ever since, U.S. presidents have released at least a summary of their personal income taxes. That includes most major candidates for president, with some exceptions. Former California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown did not release his tax returns when he ran for president in 1992.
In their lawsuit against California, the plaintiffs noted that  "one study found that 7 of 34 'major' candidates for president since 1976, or about 20 percent, refused to produce their tax returns."
The complaint specifically alleges violations of the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution, as well as the plaintiff's First Amendment rights to express their political preferences. Additionally, because the law only applies to party-affiliated candidates (non-party candidates do not participate in primaries), the suit also alleges a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and a federal equal protection statute.
Trump has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are being audited by the IRS.
Fox News' Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report.