Crying Democrat Cartoons

 

Fantasy land: Trump's not resigning and Beto is still a long shot

 

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the large amount of wishful thinking going on in the media where too many people have convinced themselves of the outcomes they want to see, such as Donald Trump resigning and Beto O'Rourke's potential political future.

There's a whole lot of wishful thinking going on these days.
Too many people, perhaps living in their own bubbles, have convinced themselves of the outcomes they want to see. And the phenomenon cuts across political and cultural lines.
Their instinct is that they must be right because it just seems so obvious to all thinking persons.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, the celebrated historian, writes terrific books about past presidents. But Goodwin, who was close to LBJ, went off on Donald Trump yesterday in a rather odd way.
On "Morning Joe," Goodwin said the situation in America "hasn't been this bad since the 1850s, and that didn't end up too well, with a Civil War that 600,000 people died in."
Okay, that's quite a comparison.
She did have a reasonable point in talking about "the miserableness of these people — there's no joy in that White House." Many have had to lawyer up, and there's been a record level of turnover, with some being trashed after their departure. And, said Goodwin, "the top guy doesn't have any joy."
Then came the wish-upon-a-star: "I think at some point he might resign. If this thing gets so bad."
Anyone who believes that Donald Trump is going to voluntarily give up the job that almost nobody thought he could win simply doesn't understand the man.
Then there are some of the Democrats who see an involuntary exit for Trump. I wrote yesterday about how some of them are now talking up indictment, rather than impeachment, as the media shift their focus from Russia to paying off alleged paramours. But some senior Democratic lawmakers are still talking up impeachment.
The Federalist puts it bluntly: "Why Democrats Would Be Insane to Impeach Donald Trump." Writer David Marcus notes that after Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, his approval rating hit 73 percent:
"The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course. But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there's more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along."
The piece argues that House Democrats, knowing there was no chance of a Republican Senate convicting Trump, "would presumably bring up articles of impeachment to hurt the president politically." But, he says, "Counterpunching Trump would like nothing more than to tell crowd after crowd at rally after rally that the angry Democrats on the elitist coasts and their friends in the deep state are attempting a coup."
Unless more evidence emerges in the Mueller probe, it remains a liberal fantasy.
Another object of fantasy is Beto O'Rourke. The media are so in love with this guy that they provide breathless updates about his 2020 prospects: He met with Al Sharpton! He spoke to Elizabeth Warren's former campaign manager. He "appears to have frozen the Dem field," says NBC.
The New York Times the other day pronounced him the "wild card" of the presidential campaign, "rousing activists" in early-voting states and drawing the interest of former Obama aides.
Now I get that O'Rourke raised record-shattering amounts of money in his 3-point loss to Ted Cruz. But he still lost — not exactly the usual launching pad for a White House bid. But some of his media boosters were talking him up during the campaign as a strong contender even if he lost the Senate race — because, well, he's Beto.
The Times does point out the downside:
"Mr. O’Rourke would surely have vulnerabilities in a primary, including an absence of signature policy feats or a centerpiece issue to date. In his Senate race, he was often disinclined to go negative, frustrating some Democrats who believe he wasted a chance to defeat Mr. Cruz, and he struggled at times in some traditional formats like televised debates. He is, by admission and design, not the political brawler some Democrats might crave against a president they loathe. And his candidacy would not be history-making like Mr. Obama's nor many of his likely peers' in the field, in an election when many activists may want a female or nonwhite nominee."
O'Rourke could always catch fire and win the nomination, I suppose. But for now, it's wishful thinking.
Finally, it pains me to write this because I'm a huge admirer of Steph Curry, the Golden State Warriors star who has a fabulous work ethic and whose three-point shooting transformed the game.
I don't expect athletes to be well informed on anything other than the mechanics of their sport. But Curry is buying into the fantasy that the American moon landings were faked.
This, a half-century since Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, apparently remains a popular conspiracy theory.
And when two hosts on a podcast said the landings never happened, Curry responded: "I don't think so either."
"You don't think so?" he was asked.
"Nuh uh," Curry replied. One of the hosts then brought up the theory that the government hired Stanley Kubrick to produce the phony show.
NASA has now invited Curry to visit its lunar lab at the Johnson Space Center and examine the lunar rocks brought back by Apollo 11.
Maybe Curry will be too busy nailing threes to go. Wishful thinking can be much more fun.

Flynn says FBI pushed him not to have lawyer present during interview

In a lengthy court filing Tuesday, attorneys for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn alleged that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities.
The document outlines, with striking new details, the rapid sequence of events that led to Flynn's sudden fall from the Trump administration. The filing also seemingly demonstrates that the FBI took a significantly more aggressive and subversive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency's sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.
According to Flynn's legal team, FBI agents deliberately refused to instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to "confront" him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
FBI AGENT STRZOK, WHO INTERVIEWED FLYNN, DISCUSSED 'MEDIA LEAK STRATEGY' 
If “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used, . . . to try to refresh his recollection," FBI agents wrote in a so-called "302" witness interview report cited by the filing. "If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, . . . they would not confront him or talk him through it.”
McCabe -- who was fired earlier this year for making unauthorized media leaks and violating FBI policy -- wrote in a memorandum that shortly after noon on Jan. 24, 2017, he called Flynn on his secure line at the White House, and the two briefly discussed an unrelated FBI training session at the White House. Quickly, the conversation turned to a potential interview, according to an account provided by McCabe that was also cited in the Tuesday filing.
McCabe said that he told Flynn he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” to discuss his contacts with Russian officials.
“I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only," McCabe wrote. "I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [General Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants."
Explaining why Flynn was not warned about the possible consequences of making false statements, one of the agents wrote in the 302 that FBI brass had "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport."
FBI INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED TO FISA COURT IN WARRANT TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE THAT YAHOO STORY WASN'T BASED ON DISCREDITED SPY'S REPORT
That tactics were apparently in sharp contrast to the FBI's approach to interviewing former Trump aide George Papadopoulos, who also pleaded guilty to making false statements and was recently released from prison. In a court filing last year, Special Counsel Mueller's team took pains to note that FBI agents who interviewed Papadopoulos on January 27, 2017 -- just days after the Flynn interview -- had advised Papadopoulos that "lying to them 'is a federal offense'" and that he could get "in trouble" if he did not tell the truth.
The revelations in the court filing, if accurate, would also sharply differ from the FBI's handling of its interview with then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, during the height of the presidential campaign. Clinton brought a total of nine lawyers to her interview -- a number that fired FBI Director James Comey said was "unusual ... but not unprecedented" in House testimony in September.

FILE - In this June 7, 2017 file photo, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe appears before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

A scathing report released earlier this year by the Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG) found that the FBI had taken actions "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" by allowing former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson to sit in on the Clinton interview -- even though "they had also both served as lawyers for Clinton after they left the State Department."
In fact, the IG wrote, FBI officials fretted about how many FBI representatives should be at the interview, for fear of prejudicing Clinton against the agency if, as expected, she went on to become president.
“[S]he might be our next president," FBI attorney Lisa Page wrote, in urging that the number of people at the interview be limited to four or six. "The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”
The IG report further noted: “Witnesses told us, and contemporaneous emails show, that the FBI and Department officials who attended Clinton’s interview found that her claim that she did not understand the significance of the ‘(C)’ marking strained credulity. (FBI) Agent 1 stated, ‘I filed that in the bucket of hard to impossible to believe.’"

In his fateful interview at the White House with since-fired anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and another FBI agent, Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies," according to the 302, which was dated Aug. 22, 2017 -- nearly seven months after the actual interview.
It was unclear why the document, with is ostensibly a contemporaneous account of the interview, was dated in August.
According to the 302, Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” as he gave the agents a "little tour" of his West Wing office. (McCabe reportedly testified later that the agents, after speaking with Flynn, “didn’t think he was lying" at the time.)
In his report on FBI and DOJ misconduct during the Russia and Clinton probes, the IG additionally noted that Strzok, who was one of the two agents who interviewed Flynn and who was later also fired for violating FBI policies, had compromised the FBI's appearance of impartiality by sending a slew of anti-Trump texts on his government-issued phone.
“In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the IG report said.
In one of those texts, Strzok wrote to Page in 2016 that Trump would not become president because "we'll stop" it from happening.

Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February 2017 or misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials about his contacts with Russian officials. In arguing that Flynn should receive no more than a year of probation and 200 hours of community service for making false statements to federal investigators, his lawyers Tuesday emphasized his service in the United States Army and lack of criminal record.
In a sentencing memo earlier this month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller recommended a lenient sentence -- with the possibility of no prison time -- for Flynn, stating he has offered "substantial" help to investigators about "several ongoing investigations."
Meanwhile, Comey revealed in closed-door testimony with House Republicans on Friday that he deliberately concealed an explosive memorandum about his one-on-one Oval Office meeting with President Trump in February 2017 from top Department of Justice officials.
The former FBI head also acknowledged that when the agency initiated its counterintelligence probe into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government in July 2016, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."
His remarks square with testimony this summer from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, whose anti-Trump texts became a focus of House GOP oversight efforts. Page told Congress in a closed-door deposition that "even as far as May 2017" -- more than nine months after the counterintelligence probe commenced -- "we still couldn't answer the question" as to whether Trump staff had improperly colluded with Russia.

Sarah Sanders slams press corps, calls Trump a 'fighter' who treats female, male journalists equally

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday defended President Trump's often combative style with the press, saying the president is a “fighter” who “hits back” at unfair criticism.
“I don’t always find the behavior of the press to be appropriate, either,” Sanders said during a conversation with Politico at the sixth annual Women Rule Summit. “I think that the president is somebody who’s a fighter. When he gets hit, he always hits back.”

"I think that the president is somebody who’s a fighter. When he gets hit, he always hits back."
— Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary

Her answer came after she was asked whether Trump’s behavior toward reporters, in general, has been appropriate. Sanders said she hopes that both the journalists and the president will tone down their rhetoric during future exchanges.
She said that when she's no longer press secretary she hopes she will be known for her transparency and honesty -- and for making America a better country.
“I hope that it will be that I showed up every day and I did the very best job that I could to put forward the president’s message, to do the best job that I could to answer questions, to be transparent and honest throughout that process and do everything I could to make America a little better that day than it was the day before,” she said.

"I hope that it will be that I showed up every day and I did the very best job that I could to put forward the president’s message, to do the best job that I could to answer questions, to be transparent and honest throughout that process and do everything I could to make America a little better that day than it was the day before."
— Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary

Sanders also rebuffed the suggestion that Trump targets female reporters with his criticism, saying the president clashes with male journalists on a frequent basis as well.
“The president’s had an equal number of contentious conversations with your male colleagues,” told interviewer Eliana Johnson. “Women wanted to be treated equally, and we have a president that certainly does that.”
In recent months, Trump was criticized after he made several disparaging remarks toward female reporters, including ABC’s Cecilia Vega, whom he said was “not thinking,” and April Ryan, a White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, whom he said was a “loser” who “doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing.”
At the same time, Trump clashed with CNN’s Jim Acosta, prompting the White House to temporarily remove the reporter’s access. Acosta's press credentials were reinstated following a lawsuit that was supported by all major news organizations.
Finally, Sanders denied reports that she will be leaving the administration.
“Not that I know about,” she said. “I take things one day at a time. As long as I feel like I’ve been called to the place that I am and I feel I’m an effective messenger for the president — and frankly, he feels like I’m an effective messenger for him — I’d like to continue doing what I do. I love my job.”

Migrant group demand Trump either let them in or pay them each $50G to turn around: report

---

Central American migrants march to the U.S. consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo) (AP)

Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana on Tuesday with a list of demands, with one group delivering an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home, a report said.
Among other demands were that deportations be halted and that asylum seekers be processed faster and in greater numbers, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
The first group of caravan members, that included about 100 migrants, arrived at the consulate around 11 a.m. Alfonso Guerreo Ulloa, an organizer from Honduras, said the $50,000 figure was chosen as a group.
“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the paper. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”
He said the money would allow the migrants to return home and start a small business.
A letter from the group criticized U.S. intervention in Central America and asked the U.S. to remove Honduran President Orlando Hernandez from office. They gave the consulate 72 hours to respond.
A letter from the second group of about 50 migrants arrived at the consulate around 1:20 p.m. asking the U.S. to speed up the asylum process and to admit up to 300 asylum seekers each day at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. Currently, around 40 to 100 are admitted.
“In the meantime, families, women and children who have fled our countries continue to suffer and the civil society of Tijuana continue to be forced to confront this humanitarian crisis, a refugee crisis caused in great part by decades of U.S. intervention in Central America,” the letter states.
Of the roughly 6,000 migrants who’ve traveled from Central America to Tijuana, around 700 have returned home, 300 have been deported and 2,500 have applied for humanitarian visas in Mexico, according to Xochtil Castillo, a caravan member who met with Mexican officials Tuesday.
Others have either crossed into the U.S. illegally, moved to other parts of Mexico or have fallen through the cracks, the Union-Tribune said.
“A lot of people are leaving because there is no solution here,” said Douglas Matute, 38, of Tijuana. “We thought they would let us in. But Trump sent the military instead of social workers.”

American Leftist Cartoons

Why Trump critics are now switching from impeachment to indictment

Two decades ago, liberals argued that Bill Clinton should not be impeached for his tawdry affair with Monica Lewinsky because, well, his lies were just about sex.
Today, some liberals are arguing that Donald Trump should be impeached because of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal because, well, it's not the sex, it's the hush money.
For well over a year, Trump's critics have been banking on Robert Mueller to come up with evidence of Russian collusion, and there have been only disconnected fragments. So now —never mind! — it's about women and money.
The old argument from the left: Trump has committed crimes and should be impeached!
The new argument from the left: Trump has committed crimes and should be indicted!
I'm in no way excusing what went on with the two women from his past. But here's some perspective.
To be sure, Mueller's sentencing memos last week provided some leads on the Russia matter. Michael Cohen, for instance, admitted lying to Congress about the time period that the president's company was pursuing a real estate deal in Moscow, and the memo says Cohen discussed his testimony with people in the White House.
But in the blink of an eye, the media focus seems to be switching to the Stormy narrative — the case being pursued not by Mueller but by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan.
Here's a key difference between Trump and Clinton. The 42nd president had his dalliance with Lewinsky while he was in office, in the White House itself, with a subordinate who was a lowly intern. Trump's alleged affairs with a porn star and a Playboy model took place 12 years ago when he was a celebrity businessman.
That's why most people don't care about what Trump did as a private citizen, and I get it. I got a lot of flak when I started reporting on the Stormy case — first broken by the Wall Street Journal days before the election — and always stressed that it was the financial paper trail that might come back to haunt the president.
And that's why the Southern District's probe of Cohen — who was reimbursed for making the $130,000 payment to Daniels and brokered the National Enquirer's $150,000 payment to McDougal — is troublesome for Cohen's former boss.
Yes, it's a campaign finance violation, and yes, those are usually punished by fines or even a slap of the wrist.
But the argument that prosecutors could make is that it was an attempt to subvert the election.
National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy, who worked in the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office and is a sharp critic of the Mueller probe, doesn't mince words in a piece for Fox:
"The president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws."
McCarthy's argument is that when Cohen pleaded guilty in August, "prosecutors induced him to make an extraordinary statement in open court: the payments to the women were made 'in coordination with and at the direction of' the candidate for federal office – Donald Trump.
"Prosecutors would not have done this if the president was not on their radar screen. Indeed, if the president was not implicated, I suspect they would not have prosecuted Cohen for campaign finance violations at all. Those charges had a negligible impact on the jail time Cohen faces, which is driven by the more serious offenses of tax and financial institution fraud, involving millions of dollars."
There is, of course, the not-insignificant matter of the Justice Department practice that a sitting president can't be indicted. That's why Democrats like Adam Schiff are now saying Trump could face jail time after he leaves office (if he's not reelected). And MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the president can be indicted for a crime "which helped him get elected."
Trump — proving that no one proofreads his tweets — said: "Democrats can't find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia." So now, he says, "the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama's - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer's liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!"
All Michael Cohen's fault, according to the president.
I don't minimize the importance of the payments to Daniels and McDougal to suppress their stories before the election. If a Democrat had done that, the right would be up in arms.
But I still think it's a stretch that it leads to indictment or impeachment, especially if the much-ballyhooed Russian collusion probe comes up dry.
And the reason is that the underlying offense (if there is one) was to keep embarrassing sexual disclosures from coming out. The point was to win an election, of course — and the president's pal at the Enquirer's parent company rolled over for him — but also spare Trump pain in his marriage.
My assumption is that much of the public won't see that as sufficient grounds to overturn an election or imprison a president — just as they didn't when Bill Clinton repeatedly lied about a similar subject.

Comey’s credibility under fire

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:49 AM PT — Monday, Dec. 10, 2018

Former FBI Director James Comey speaks to reporters after testifying under subpoena behind closed doors before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony is calling into question his credibility and decision making.
Republican lawmakers have been highlighting the big takeaways from last week’s questioning.
Congressman Jim Jordan outlined how Comey said “I don’t recall” eight times, “I don’t remember” 71 times, and “I don’t know” 166 times.
This comes as Comey is now accused of using a dubious Russian document to influence his decision in the Clinton email case.
According to a report last year, Comey used that information to announce last July that the Clinton email probe was over. However, the report suggested many close to the matter believed that information was bad intelligence and possibly even fake.
Comey is scheduled to return to Capitol Hill later this month for more questioning.