Trump administration asks Supreme Court for green light to resume federal executions

The Trump administration filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, arguing that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had no legal basis for blocking the planned resumption of federal executions after a 16-year hiatus.
The request was sent by Solicitor General Noel Francisco to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will decide whether the Court will review the case.
The emergency request came hours after the D.C. court upheld a ruling blocking the Trump administration’s plan. The Justice Department had asked the court to block the injunction put in place by a district court judge that stalled the executions of four convicted murderers, Reuters reported.
Attorney General William Barr said in July the federal government would resume capital punishment and scheduled the executions of five death-row inmates for December and January, ending an unofficial decade-long moratorium on federal executions.
Barr said the DOJ owed it to the victims’ families to carry out the law/
A judge temporarily halted the executions after some of the chosen inmates challenged the new execution procedures. The inmates argued that the government was circumventing proper methods in order to wrongly execute inmates quickly.
A federal execution has not taken place since 2003. In the last 16 years, a protracted legal battle has drawn out over the drugs used in lethal injections.
Fox News’ Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why the press was blind to recognize Warren’s Medicare blunder

The media didn’t wake up until Elizabeth Warren started sinking in the polls.
For much of the year, she basically skated on a health care plan that is political suicide. But as the Massachusetts senator surged toward front-runner status, the poll-obsessed press essentially said hey, it’s working. Medicare for All is popular with the party’s progressive wing, Warren has a plan for everything, they’re all geniuses.
And yet, here was a leading Democratic candidate promising to run against President Trump by taking away private health insurance from 150 million Americans. It didn’t take a political genius to realize that this would be an unmitigated disaster in a general election.
But now that Warren has dropped from 27 to 16 percent in the Real Clear Politics polling average, you can hear the sound of pundits slapping their foreheads across America: Holy cow, what a blunder for her to embrace Medicare for All.
The Washington Post, in a front-page piece Sunday, describes the “political turbulence that Warren has experienced in recent weeks as she has attempted to extricate herself from a policy dilemma that has blunted her steady rise to the top ranks of the Democratic nominating contest.”
The New York Times warned the other day that “prominent Democratic leaders are sounding increasingly vocal alarms to try to halt political momentum for ‘Medicare for All’…rather than enter an election year with a sweeping health care proposal that many see as a liability for candidates up and down the ballot.”
And the Daily Beast, describing Warren’s “self-inflicted wound,” quoted an unnamed aide to a 2020 Democrat calling the proposal “f*** poison. You touch it, you turn to dust.”
Yet the press should have been all over this months ago. There was a blind spot, it seems to me, because journalists spend too much time on liberal Twitter, where government-run health insurance is beloved. And Warren did not get the usual front-runner scrutiny as her substantive campaign caught on, certainly not compared to the pummeling of Joe Biden.
And the biggest beneficiary has been Pete Buttigieg, a relative moderate who has campaigned against her approach.
The senator had signed onto the Bernie Sanders plan to make sure he couldn’t outflank her on the left, and now she’s paying the price.
Obviously, articles were written about Medicare for All and how it might be risky. Moderators dutifully asked Warren about it in several debates, and she repeatedly ducked questions on whether middle-class taxes would have to rise, focusing instead on what she claimed would be lower costs. But after each debate most journalists just moved on, and there was little follow-up in the Trump-centric environment.
Finally, Warren unveiled a gargantuan $20-trillion tax plan that simply fueled questions about paying for the massive program. And then she retreated, saying she wouldn’t push Medicare for All until the third year of her presidency—ostensibly to allow more transition time but in reality to slide the plan onto the back burner.
Warren and Sanders argue that they need big bold ideas to energize their voters. But there’s a reason that Nancy Pelosi says she’s not a fan of the plan, and that Barack Obama cautions left-leaning Democrats about touting a revolution.
The Post story said Warren had been warned that Medicare for All was a time bomb. Barney Frank, her fellow Massachusetts liberal, said he’d privately told her that backing Bernie on health care was “a terrible mistake” and that her shift should have come earlier.
“The irony is that a candidate whose political identity has been built in part on her reputation as a policy wonk — a potential president who boasts of having a plan for nearly every challenge facing everyday Americans — has been tripped up by a policy issue that has dominated politics and defined her party for years.”
The Times piece says many in the party “are gravely concerned about the impact that having a presidential nominee who backs Medicare for All at the top of the ticket would have on the most vulnerable Democratic candidates.” The paper quotes Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo as saying, “When you say Medicare for all, it’s a risk. It makes people feel afraid.”
Many Democrats with short memories forget how hard it was for Obama to pass the Affordable Care Act by a single vote, and that the flawed program has finally become popular after Trump repeatedly tried to abolish it. Allowing people to opt into Medicare, as Biden, Buttigieg and some others favor, would be a significant step forward for the party. Junking the program in favor of mandated government care — taking away people’s choice — was always pie in the sky.
But until Warren lost her polling lead, that obvious fact remained hidden in plain sight.

Top Republican urges against speculation after early leaks on FISA report findings

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., on Monday downplayed leaked reports that said the Justice Department’s inspector general's probe into the start of the FBI's Russia investigation determined that there was enough information to justify the agency's probe into members of the Trump campaign.
Meadows was asked about a report in the Washington Post that said Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report justified the FBI's action at the time. The New York Times, citing two unnamed sources, reported that the findings are expected to contradict some of the theories that President Trump has mentioned.
The former chairman of the House's Freedom Caucus said that all the reports are "based on speculation on information which has been leaked."
"There is little doubt in my mind that it will not be one the FBI’s finest days when the report is released," he said. "No one other than Horowitz and his team knows what’s in the report and they have left no stone unturned."
The reports, if true, would be seen as a potential setback for President Trump, who has insisted that the FBI's investigation was a witch hunt from the beginning and a blatant attempt by Democrats to overthrow his presidency.
Horowitz, who has not commented on the over year-and-a-half investigation, told Congress in a letter last month that he intended to make as much of the report public as possible, with minimal redactions. The report is due next week.
A key question examined by Horowitz has been the FBI’s application for a secret warrant to monitor Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
The Justice Department and the FBI obtained warrants in 2016 to monitor Page. Page told Fox News earlier this month he was "frustrated" he had not been interviewed in Horowitz's probe.
The warrant was renewed multiple times by judges, but Republican critics have decried the fact that the FBI relied in part in its application on uncorroborated information obtained by Christopher Steele, a former British spy who had been paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to conduct opposition research.
The government did disclose to the court the political loyalties of the people who hired Steele, according to Democrats on the House intelligence committee who released their own memo last year aimed at countering Republican allegations of law enforcement misconduct.
Horowitz provided a draft copy to Attorney General William Barr in September, and the Justice Department has since been conducting a classification review.
The Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that Barr disagrees with the report’s conclusion. He reportedly questioned whether or not the CIA, or other agencies hold information that could change the inspector general’s conclusion.
Barr has praised Horowitz in the past and called him “fiercely independent.”
"Inspector General Horowitz is a fiercely independent investigator, a superb investigator who I think has conducted this particular investigation in the most professional way, and I think his work, when it does come out, will be a credit to the department," Barr said earlier this month.
The Justice Department told Fox News  in a statement that "uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves. Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters."
Trump has tweeted about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and told “Fox & Friends” earlier this month that "what they have coming out is historic."
Fox News' Brooke Singman, Jake Gibson and the Associated Press contributed to this report

North Korea warns US will choose its 'Christmas gift' if Trump fails to meet looming nuclear deadline

The North Korean foreign ministry said on Tuesday that Washington would decide what “Christmas gift” it would receive if the United States fails to change its “hostile policies” on denuclearization before the end of the year, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
Ri Thae Song, North Korea’s vice minister of foreign affairs in charge of relations with the United States, warned of an approaching end-of-year deadline, saying that President Trump’s recent calls for more talks is “nothing but a foolish trick hatched to keep the DPRK bound to dialogue and use it in favor of the political situation and election in the U.S.,” Reuters reported.
He referred to North Korea by the initials of its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“The DPRK has done its utmost with maximum perseverance not to backtrack from the important steps it has taken on its own initiative,” Ri said in his statement. “What is left to be done now is the U.S. option and it is entirely up to the U.S. what Christmas gift it will select to get.”
North Korea has been ramping up missile tests and other military demonstrations in recent months in an apparent pressure tactic over the talks. Negotiations have faltered since a February summit between Kim Jong-un and Trump in Vietnam which broke down after the U.S. rejected North Korean demands for broad sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of its nuclear capabilities.
Kim later issued his end-of-year deadline and has also said the North would seek a “new path” if the U.S. persists with sanctions and pressure. Working-level talks last month in Sweden broke down over what the North Koreans described as the Americans’ “old stance and attitude.”
On Tuesday, Ri did not clarify what he meant by a “Christmas gift,” but a Reuters breaking news editor speculated on Twitter that North Korea could be threatening a satellite launch, an outright ICBM test, a SLBM test far from Korean Peninsula or a nuclear test.
In a November 18 statement, Foreign Ministry adviser Kim Kye Gwan suggested North Korea had no interest in meeting with Trump at another summit unless the U.S. offered substantial concessions before the deadline. The statement issued through KCNA came in response to a tweet from Trump that urged Kim to “act quickly, get the deal done” and hinted at another summit between them, saying “See you soon!”
“Three rounds of DPRK-U.S. summit meetings and talks were held since June last year, but no particular improvement has been achieved in the DPRK-U.S. relations,” the statement began. “The U.S. only seeks to earn time, pretending it has made progress in settling the issue of the Korean Peninsula.”
“We are no longer interested in such talks that bring nothing to us. As we have got nothing in return, we will no longer gift the U.S. president with something he can boast of, but get compensation for the successes that President Trump is proud of as his administrative achievements.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jerry Nadler Cartoons

Ronan Farrow says relationship with Hillary Clinton cooled when he looked into Weinstein

Ronan Farrow, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, said in an interview published Saturday his relationship with Hillary Clinton cooled when word began to spread he was looking into allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.
Farrow told the Financial Times in 2011 he was selected by Clinton, then the secretary of state, to work as a special adviser on global youth issues. He said they worked together for years but noticed a change in their relationship when word got out he was looking into Weinstein - one of her top fundraisers.
Farrow did not elaborate on how Clinton found out about his interest in Weinstein or how exactly the relationship cooled. After-hours emails from Fox News to representatives for Clinton and Farrow were not immediately returned. The paper said a Clinton spokesman did not comment for its article.
Farrow told the paper, “It’s remarkable how quickly even people with a long relationship with you will turn if you if you threaten the centers of power or sources of funding around them. Ultimately, there are a lot of people out there who operate in that way. They’re beholden to powerful interests, you become radioactive very quickly.”
Farrow and The New York Times won Pulitzers in 2018 for stories outlining sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein. The producer, 67, has pleaded not guilty to charges he raped a woman in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and performed a forcible sex act on a different woman in 2006. He is free on $1 million bail and maintains that any sexual activity was consensual.
Clinton, for her part, took days after the New York Times broke the Weinstein story to issue a statement. CNN reported that she said she was “shocked and appalled” by the revelations.
“The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior,” the statement read.

White House, in fiery letter, declares Trump won’t participate in House Judiciary impeachment hearing

The White House announced in a fiery letter Sunday night that President Trump and his lawyers won't participate in the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing scheduled for Wednesday -- even accusing the panel's Democratic chairman, Jerry Nadler, of "purposely" scheduling the proceedings when Trump would be attending the NATO Leaders' Meeting in London.
The five-page letter came as the Democratic majority on the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to approve a report on Tuesday that will outline possible charges of bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment. After receiving the report, the Judiciary Committee would prepare actual charges.
“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only "vague" details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics -- and not "fact witnesses" -- would apparently be attending.
"As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone said. "More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing."
He continued: "When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate. ...
READ THE FULL WHITE HOUSE LETTER
Cipollone's letter made clear that his response applied only to the Wednesday hearing, at least for now. Cipollone demanded more information from Democrats on how they intended to conduct further hearings before Trump would decide whether to participate in those hearings, amid sagging national support for Democrats' probe.
Specifically, Cipollone demanded to know whether Republicans would be able to cross-examine and call their own fact witnesses, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. (AP)

House-passed rules provide the president and his attorneys the right to cross-examine witnesses and review evidence before the committee, but little ability to bring forward witnesses of their own.
"If [Schiff] chooses not to (testify), then I really question his veracity in what he’s putting in his report,” said Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "It’s easy to hide behind a report," Collins added. "But it’s going to be another thing to actually get up and have to answer questions.”
Schiff has come under scrutiny from Republicans, in part because of his overtly partisan comments and his previous claim in a televised interview that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." A Schiff spokesperson later narrowed that claim in October, telling Fox News that Schiff himself "does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason.
An aide to Schiff insisted that when Schiff mentioned "we" had not spoken to the whistleblower, he was referring to members of the full House intelligence committee, rather than staff. NBC National Security reporter Ken Dilanian flagged Schiff's explanation as "deceptive" late Wednesday, and Schiff acknowledged he "should have been more clear" concerning whistleblower contacts.
The panel of constitutional scholars who will testify on Wednesday will weigh in on the question of whether the president committed an impeachable offense by allegedly withholding of military aid to Ukraine until it investigated former Vice President Joe Biden.
During impeachment hearings last month, a career State Department official testified that in January or February 2015, he "became aware that [Joe Biden's son] Hunter Biden was on the board" of Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings while his father Joe Biden was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president -- and that he raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest at the time. Joe Biden has openly bragged about pressuring Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid., all while Burisma was under scrutiny.
Republicans had urged President Trump not to attend the Democrats' hearings, arguing that his presence would validate a process they have repeatedly derided as partisan.  In his letter, Cipollone repeatedly derided what he called Democrats' "fundamentally unfair" process.
"Inviting the Administration now to participate in an after-the-fact constitutional law seminar -- with yet-to-be-named witnesses -- only demonstrates further the countless procedural deficiencies that have infected this inquiry from its inception and shows the lack of seriousness with which you are undertaking these proceedings," Cipollone wrote.
Nadler had written the president last week announcing a hearing for Dec. 4 at 10 a.m., and notified him of the committee’s intentions to provide him with “certain privileges” while they consider "whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House.” Nadler also extended an invitation to the president, asking whether “you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel.”
With polls showing support for impeachment flagging, Democrats were aiming for a final House vote by Christmas, which would set the stage for a likely Senate trial in January.  Surveys have shown that independents are souring on the idea of impeaching and removing Trump from office, including in critical battleground states like Wisconsin, even as House Democrats aggressively presented their focus-group-tested "bribery" case against the president over the past two weeks.
“I do believe that all evidence certainly will be included in that report so the Judiciary Committee can make the necessary decisions that they need to,” said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
She said Democrats had not yet finalized witnesses for the upcoming Judiciary hearings and were waiting to hear back from Trump on his plans to present a defense.
“If he has not done anything wrong, we’re certainly anxious to hear his explanation of that,” Demings said.
The House Judiciary's impeachment hearings will follow last month's hearings by the House Intelligence Committee, which heard from 12 witnesses during five days of testimony.
Trump has previously suggested that he might be willing to offer written testimony under certain conditions, though aides suggested they did not anticipate Democrats would ever agree to them.
“The Democrats are holding the most ridiculous Impeachment hearings in history. Read the Transcripts, NOTHING was done or said wrong!” Trump tweeted Saturday.
Late Sunday, Trump tweeted a link to a Fox News opinion piece written by legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and quoted the piece as saying the president had done "nothing impeachable."
Fox News' Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Liz Peek: Trump is gaining black voters -- that's terrible news for Democrats

Democrats are frantic. For decades, they have taken the black vote for granted. Today, there are signs that empty promises and radical leftist social policies are leaving black voters behind. Worse, polling shows that President Trump is picking up support from black voters. Having tarred the president as a racist and bigot, liberals cannot imagine that even one African American could possibly choose to support him. They are in denial, and it could cost them the 2020 election.
Democratic candidates are promising the moon to win over black voters. Reparations, massive support for historically black colleges, bail reform — everything is on the table. But there are signs that the candidate racking up the most consequential wins with minority voters is Trump.
Nothing — nothing — could be more threatening to Democratic prospects in 2020.
In a recent interview with CNBC, BET founder and billionaire Robert Johnson suggested that Trump’s reelection is “his to lose.” As a prominent black businessman and faithful Democrat, Johnson’s views are noteworthy. He cites the increase in black employment and the strong economy as helping Trump, as well as the leftward lurch of Democrats. “I do not see anybody in the Democratic primary race today that is enough in the center where I believe most of the voters are, and particularly where most African Americans are,” Johnson said.
Black activists say Johnson’s wealth puts him out of touch with mainstream black voters, and dismiss his concerns. But recent polling suggests Johnson is on to something.
Two polls, one by Emerson College and one from Rasmussen, put black support for Trump at or above 34 percent. Those soundings so alarmed Trump critics that a horrified CNN host described the two polls as “fake” and sarcastically suggested that only Kanye West and other black Trump surrogates had been surveyed.
The Emerson poll showed 34.5 percent of black registered voters supported the president, up from 17.8 percent a month earlier. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 8.3 points. Rasmussen showed the president with 34 percent approval from blacks.
Most polls put the president’s approval among black voters at about 10 percent. But it is worth noting that Trump won only 8 percent of black votes in 2016; as dismal as that showing was, it was better than that of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. And, as modest as 10 percent is, it’s better than his tally in 2016.
In 2016, Trump asked black voters, “What do you have to lose?” He hit a nerve, and while only a small fraction of that cohort pulled the lever for Trump, turnout among blacks receded to pre-Obama levels, which could well have cost Hillary Clinton the win.
This year, he has ramped up his outreach to African Americans, and it may be getting some traction. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats carried 90 percent of the vote in House contests, obviously a huge majority, but that was shy of the 93 percent that voted for Hillary in 2016. While Democrats are scoring better with white suburban women, they appear to be slipping among blacks.
Meanwhile, surveys conducted by Sienna College and the New York Times of key swing states show black voter support for Trump ahead of 2016 levels.
Why not? Trump signed the most consequential criminal justice reform bill in decades and is presiding over an economy that has delivered rising incomes and jobs to even the most vulnerable Americans, like ex-felons. The poverty rate is at the lowest level since 2001 and fell last year by 0.9 percent among blacks. Black unemployment is at record low levels and in recent years, gains in median household income for blacks have exceeded those of whites in most metropolitan areas.
In October, the Trump team launched Black Voices for Trump in Atlanta, with the president vowing to “campaign for every last African American vote in 2020.” In that inaugural address, the president told several hundred African American supporters, “the Democratic Party already left you a long time ago.” He added, “If you don’t want liberal extremists to run your lives, then today we say welcome to the Republican Party.”
Those remarks point to a real problem for the left: black voters tend to be more conservative than other Democrats. While Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Pete Buttigieg are busily rounding up progressive primary voters, they are leaving many blacks behind. Joe Biden is leading with that group. Some of his popularity no doubt stems from having served as vice president to President Obama, but it is also because Biden is a more moderate candidate than many of his rivals.
In sparring with the four progressive women of color in the House known as the “squad,” Trump may have offended liberal editorial writers, but it is unlikely he lost much support from black voters in Georgia. Research cited by the Times shows that over the past few decades, “The African American electorate has been undergoing a quiet, long-term transformation, moving from the left toward the center on several social and cultural issues.”
Further, WSJ/NBC polling shows “the percentage of white voters describing themselves as very liberal or liberal is roughly twice as large as the percentage of black voters who do so.”
Particularly on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, blacks do not line up with the far left. For example, while only 3 percent of white Democrats say abortion should be illegal, fully one-third of black voters say it should not be allowed. Some say that Buttigieg, who is married to a man, will struggle to win black support. And though blacks still embrace progressive economic messages from the likes of Warren, they also favor a strong economy and job creation.
That’s what Trump is delivering. Higher wages, opportunity zones, education reform, job training; how can Democrats compete with that? Not with a radical agenda and more empty promises.