Press fired up as Comey rejects Trump wiretap claim, offers no evidence on Russia probe

James Comey didn’t want to say much yesterday on Capitol Hill, but for President Trump’s opponents, he said enough.
House Republicans wanted to focus on illegal leaks of classified information, scoring some points on that issue.
And all this managed to overshadow the first day of Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a reflection of the depth of this Washington obsession.
Eight words from the FBI director—“I have no information to support those tweets”—knocked down the most controversial claim of Trump’s presidency.
Comey also said a president has no power to order a wiretap, which dismisses the Trump charge that Barack Obama had set the alleged wiretap in motion.
By confirming that there is an FBI probe of contacts between Trump associates and Russia—which we already knew—Comey appeared to give ammunition to the president’s opponents. It wasn’t a “bombshell,” as some headlines had it, but it’s now official.
In other news that we already knew, Comey said the Russians wanted to damage Hillary Clinton and thereby help the Trump campaign. And Clinton people are upset that the Trump/Russia probe remained secret while Comey talked about reopening the Hillary email inquiry in late October.
But there is more to the story and the way it is being covered.
The Intelligence Committtee hearing was highly partisan, with Democrats asking Comey all kinds of questions, many based on news reports, that he insisted he could not answer. They were obviously trying to get it all on the public record and raise suspicions for the viewing audience.
As for the Republicans, they kept pressing, but didn’t get anywhere, for information on how Michael Flynn’s name was leaked over the contacts with Russia’s ambassador that led to his firing for not being truthful.
This dovetailed with some early-morning tweets from Trump, who said the Democrats “made up and pushed the Russia story” and “the real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!”
So now the media have two related situations in which there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
The one making big headlines, more than two weeks after Trump’s allegations, is that the FBI has nothing to support the notion that Obama directed some kind of 2016 surveillance against Trump.
The other, which has gotten little traction in the press, is that the FBI has found no evidence of improper collusion between the president or his associates and Moscow.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made this argument to me in a “Media Buzz” interview, saying the press is pushing a “false narrative” by not equally emphasizing the lack of evidence in the Russia probe. Of course, the White House press secretary wanted to focus on the Russian part of the equation while deferring to the intelligence panels on the wiretap claims that his boss has been unable to substantiate.
Now critics can say that the reason there is no evidence of collusion between Trump World and the Putin government is that Comey remains tight-lipped about an ongoing investigation. But in this leaky environment, it’s hard to imagine that damaging material, if it existed, wouldn’t have made its way into the press.
Based on Comey’s testimony, this thing could drag on for months. But the media should apply the same standards to both questions: Make no damaging assumptions unless there is proof.
And then there was this, in mid-afternoon: Gorsuch delivered his opening statement to a Senate committee, which was carried by Fox, while CNN and MSNBC stuck with the Comey hearing. Two big stories, no question, but hard to imagine that the opening day for a Supreme Court nominee wasn’t the day’s headline grabber.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Democrats set to grill Gorsuch on second day of confirmation hearing

The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Neil Gorsuch is likely to take a sharp turn Tuesday after a relatively smooth opening day on Capitol Hill where the nominee was able to speak about his view on topics like an the importance of an independent judiciary.
Senate Democrats on Tuesday get to attempt to raise concerns about President Trump's pick to replace the conservative icon Antonin Scalia. Democrats will likely try to make Gorsuch appear beholden to big business and out-of-touch with the poor. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said outright that Gorsuch was “selected by interest groups.”
Gorsuch has been preparing for the questioning. He has been holding closely guarded mock hearings that were attended by legal experts.
He wants to avoid the easy soundbite that could throw a wrench in his nomination process.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Monday, repeated a comment by White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said last month that Gorsuch "represents the type of judge that has the vision of Donald Trump."
"I want to hear from you why Mr. Priebus would say that," Durbin said to Gorsuch. "Most Americans question whether we need a Supreme Court justice with the vision of Donald Trump."
Gorsuch, a highly-credentialed judge and conservative member of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is roundly described by critics and friends as a combination of smarts, down-to-earth modesty, disarming warmth and careful deliberation.
But even so, some critics don't think he belongs on the court. They believe he is too quick to side with conservative and business interests at the expense of working Americans and the poor.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said Monday that the panel’s top priority is to find out if Gorsuch is a “reasonable, mainstream” conservative or not.
Sen. Schumer, D-N.Y., said last week that Gorsuch may “act like a neutral, calm judge” but in reality he “harbors a right-wing, pro corporate, special-interest agenda.”
Besides Gorsuch's take on the court’s role and his view on whether the Constitution is a living body meant to evolve with the times, Democrats are well aware that blocking Gorsuch’s nomination would be a tremendous blow to President Trump.
Trump is still recovering from his national security adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation and while Gorsuch addressed the panel Monday, FBI Director James Comey testified nearby that the bureau is investigating Russian meddling in the election and possible links between Trump associates and the Russians.
The Russian storyline as well as Trump's verbal attacks on federal judges both during the campaign and as president have fed into Democratic efforts to force Gorsuch to break publicly with the man who nominated him.
Gorsuch already has told some senators in private meetings that he found the criticism of the judges disheartening. But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the nominee needs to make a statement "publicly and explicitly and directly."
Democrats are not the only ones who work to thwart an opposing party's president's pick for the High Court.
Back in 2009, when Justice Sonia Sotomayor was going through her confirmation hearings, Republicans seized on a comment she made in 2001 that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Republicans hold 52 out of 100 seats in the Senate. Gorsuch needs 60 total votes. Of those 48 Democrats, 10 of them represent states in which Trump carried in November. His confirmation appears likely, but not guaranteed. Republicans can, however, “go nuclear” and change the rule to confirmation by a simple majority. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the unusual step in 2013 to break the filibuster.
Besides Russia, there are two Gorsuch decisions that will likely be a focal point. He once ruled in favor of school that declined to extend the length of a six-month leave of absence to a teacher with cancer. In another case, he ruled against the parents of an autistic son who sought reimbursement of the cost of a private program after they took the boy out of public school. The rulings were unanimous — Gorsuch was joined by liberal judges — and The Wall Street Journal editorial page called the rulings “correct” based on “statue and precedent.” Opinion editors at The Journal report that 89 percent of Gorsuch’s 171 employment cases were unanimous decisions.
Gorsuch pledged on Monday that he would be independent or “hang up the robe.”'
"These days we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes, seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. If I thought that were true, I'd hang up the robe. But I just don't think that's what a life in the law is about," Gorsuch said.

James Comey Cartoons

First Amendment controversy brews over Texas high school's prayer room

A Texas high school's on-site prayer room -- which serves as a spot where Muslim students can pray -- is stirring controversy.
Liberty High School in Frisco established the room in 2009, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is concerned that the room may be off-limits to students of other religious denominations.
He said in a letter Friday to the school district that any exclusion would be inconsistent with the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
A school district spokesman responded that the classroom is available to “students of all walks of life” in the afternoon when it is vacant.
The leader of a large Baptist church in Dallas told "Fox & Friends" Sunday that he is okay with the practice.
“I believe as long as students had equal access to the room it’s not a First Amendment issue,” Pastor Robert Jeffress said. “I believe we really as conservatives need to be careful that we don’t pervert the First Amendment like liberals do to use it for their own agenda.”
Muslim-American Mustafa Tameez, a Democratic political consultant, told "Fox & Friends" that Paxton is trying to create a controversy where one doesn’t exist.
“In airports we have a chapel where people can go pray,” he said. “So it’s not necessarily just for Muslim students. It’s for anybody, anybody of faith that wants to use a room to communicate with their creator."

Who is James Comey?

FBI Director James Comey will enter the House hearing Monday on Russian activities during the presidential election as an imposing figure in many ways -- standing 6-foot-8 and having been at the center of numerous, high-profile criminal probes.
His law-enforcement career began in the late 1980s. His relatively short time as head of the FBI includes his decision in July 2016 to investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers as secretary of state. The agency concluded the probe roughly three months later without recommending criminal charges, but it was considered a severe blow to Clinton’s ultimately failed White House bid.
Comey, a former registered Republican, was appointed in 2013 by then-President Obama to run the FBI.
As a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in the early 2000s, he prosecuted businesswoman Martha Stewart, who was convicted in 2004 in connection with stock deals and sentenced to five months in prison.
He also helped prosecute the Gambino crime family when he previously worked in that office, from roughly 1987 to 1993.
Comey also supported federal agents who sought felony charges in 2015 against then-CIA Director David Petraeus, related to his mishandling of classified information.
Comey was appointed by the George W. Bush administration to the position of deputy attorney general, responsible for overseeing Justice Department operations. (He has insisted the FBI is apolitical in its investigations.)
He left the Justice Department in 2005 to become a vice president and general counsel for defense contractor Lockheed Martin through 2010. He then joined the Connecticut-based hedge fund Bridgewater Associates before leaving in 2013 to teach at Columbia Law School in New York City.
Comey was born in Yonkers, N.Y., attended the College of William and Mary and earned a law degree from the University of Chicago. He is married with five children.

What you need to know: Comey to testify before House intel panel

FBI Director James Comey will testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday at a closely watched hearing.
So far, Comey has not made any detailed public comments on what are expected to be two key subjects of the hearing: reported investigations into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and President Trump’s wiretapping claims.
Here’s what you need to know:
Trump’s wiretapping claims

• President Trump claimed, in several early-morning tweets on March 4, that his phones had been tapped throughout the election by then-President Obama.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

• A spokesman for Obama called the accusation “false” and said “neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen."

• Attorney General Jeff Sessions has suggested he never provided information to Trump that may have supported the wiretapping allegation. 

•  On March 5, the White House called for Congress to investigate—now, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are demanding the FBI clear up the president’s claims.

• Both the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism asked the Justice Department to turn over any evidence supporting Trump’s allegations – including warrants and court orders. The DOJ said Friday it had "complied" with requests for information. 

• The leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees said earlier last week they didn't have evidence to back up the president’s wiretapping allegations. 

Claims on Trump campaign contact with Russia

• The New York Times and CNN reported in February that U.S. intelligence officials had evidence of repeated contacts between some Trump campaign associates and Russian officials. The Trump campaign denied any such contact.

• Attorney General Sessions held two meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, despite testimony before a Senate committee during his confirmation hearing that he had no communications with the Russians. 

• Sessions said that the meetings were not about the campaign, but rather in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

• Reports surfaced in February that Michael Flynn, then Trump’s national security adviser, had inappropriately discussed sanctions on Russia with the country’s ambassador before the inauguration and misled Vice President Pence. Flynn later had to resign amid the controversy.

• There are also claims that former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, had been in contact with Russian officials. A New York Times report said the FBI found evidence of this relationship—an allegation Manafort, who does business in Ukraine, has also denied.

• These allegations all come in the midst of a “dossier” allegedly compiled by a British intelligence official on behalf of Trump opponents during the campaign, which was created with the purpose to outline evidence that Trump, himself, had deep ties to Russia. The credibility of the dossier has been widely challenged.

Gorsuch enters high-stakes confirmation hearing after intensive preparation

In an isolated area of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in the White House complex, Judge Neil Gorsuch has spent the past few days being put through the rhetorical ringer. For hours on end, he sat alone at a table, peppered with questions about his personal and professional record, all in an effort to see if he would crack under the pressure.
The informal, but intrusive prep sessions are known as "murder boards" for their intensity, designed to simulate what the 49-year-old nominee to the Supreme Court will face in his Senate confirmation hearing starting Monday.
"He's a home run, he's smooth, he's going to go through great," said Thomas Dupree, a former Bush deputy assistant attorney general. "The [opposing] senators will take their shots, but I think he's close to a lock."
The stakes are enormous, not only for the nominee but also for the man who selected him from a list of 21 potential candidates announced during the presidential campaign. Aides say President Trump hopes a successful confirmation will build momentum for his separate political agenda, and bring a measure of stability and public confidence to what has been a challenging two months in office.
In the broader realm, filling the seat left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia will ensure the high court keeps a shaky right-leaning majority. And having that fifth conservative vote will help guide the administration as it makes strategic decisions about which high-profile issues to pursue in court-- like immigration, the environment, transgender rights and expanded executive authority.
"It's important Democrats and Republicans not roll over on this pick," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center. "The American people want their justices to be an independent check even to the president nominating you, to follow the Constitution, not their own political values."
Gorsuch will face a mixed reception, as Republicans largely welcome the nominee and some Democrats look for a line of attack – though they’ve been distracted lately by other battles over the GOP bid to replace ObamaCare and the president’s disputed claims about “wiretapping.” With their attention elsewhere, Gorsuch has been preparing.
Along with his courtesy visits to more than 70 members of the Senate who will decide his fate, Gorsuch has prepared for the spotlight by reviewing his own record, and enduring those closely guarded mock hearings.
The private rehearsals were coordinated by the White House Counsel's Office, and included more than a dozen participants -- government lawyers, conservative academics, and some of his former law clerks. The goal is to anticipate every possible line of questioning and danger zone -- to give measured answers but not reveal too much.
Sources say Gorsuch has settled in being himself, avoiding unscripted responses that might provide the televised "soundbite" to derail what has so far been a flawless confirmation journey.
Administration officials are privately confident he will shine in the hearings.
Republicans point to Gorsuch's unanimous 2006 confirmation to his appeals court seat as a template to blunt any efforts to filibuster this time.
Sources expect him to repeat in the upcoming hearings what he said 11 years ago, about the kind of judge he considered unacceptable: "Someone who is not willing to listen with an open mind to the arguments of counsel, to his colleagues, to precedent."

Hillary Clinton Cartoon