Trump plays down Roy Moore allegations, blasts 'liberal' rival in Alabama race

President Trump minimized allegations of sexual misconduct against Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore Tuesday, telling voters not to support Moore's Democratic opponent.

"I can tell you one thing for sure," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a Thanksgiving break at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. "We don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat [Doug] Jones ... We do not need somebody that's going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the Second Amendment."

When pressed on the allegations against Moore, some of which date back 40 years, Trump said, "Look, he denies it ... He says it didn't happen, and you know, you have to listen to him also."
"Forty years is a long time," Trump added, questioning why it took so long for Moore's accusers to come forward.
The president did not rule out campaigning for Moore ahead of the Dec. 12 special election, telling the reporters, "I'll be letting you know next week." Trump backed Moore's defeated opponent, Sen. Luther Strange, in September's primary runoff election.
LIBERAL VIEWS OF ROY MOORE'S DEMOCRATIC RIVAL COULD POSE PITFALL AMID SCANDAL
Six women have accused Moore of pursuing romantic relationships with them when they were teenagers and he was an assistant district attorney in his 30s. Two have accused him of assault or molestation. Moore has denied the allegations.
Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have both called on Moore to leave the race in light of the accusations. The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have pulled their support for Moore's campaign.
The allegations against Moore come amid a national reckoning over misdeeds by powerful men in media, business and politics. Trump said he is "very happy" that women are speaking out about their experiences.
"I think it's a very special time because a lot of things are coming out and I think that's good for our society and I think it's very, very good for women," Trump said.
More than a dozen women came forward in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election to say that Trump had sexually assaulted or harassed them over the years. He denied it. He was also caught on tape in 2005 boasting that he could grab women's private parts.
"When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump said on the "Access Hollywood" tape.
Trump declined to answer Tuesday when asked why he does not believe Moore's accusers.
Trump spoke moments after three of Moore's campaign surrogates held a press conference responding to some of the accusations against the 70-year-old Moore.
Attorney Ben Dupree described the allegations against Moore as "lies" circulated by "The Washington Post, the Republican establishment and the Democrat Party," who he said were waging a "three-front war to destroy Judge Roy Moore’s impeccable reputation."
The Moore campaign attempted to rebut claims by accusers Leigh Corfman, who claimed Moore molested her when she was 14; and Beverly Nelson, who said Moore assaulted her when she was a 16-year-old waitress. They also questioned reports that claimed Moore had been banned from a mall in Gadsden, Ala. due to his behavior around young girls.
The campaign also issued a statement Monday night that quoted two former restaurant employees and a former customer who said they did not remember Nelson working there or Moore eating there.
"Allegations are words, they are not facts." Moore campaign spokesman Stan Cooke said. "Allegations are words, they are not indictments and they are not charges."
Jones began airing a new ad Monday that features statements made by Sessions, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and first daughter Ivanka Trump responding to allegations of sexual misconduct against Moore.

Sessions said he had no reason to doubt Moore's accusers. Shelby, a Republican, said he will "absolutely not" vote for Moore. Ivanka Trump said there's a special place in hell for people who prey on children.

The ad was the first direct assault by the Jones camp against Moore on the allegations.

Gayle King talks with Stephen Colbert about Charlie Rose firing

"CBS This Morning" co-anchors Norah O'Donnell, left, and Gayle King, with their dismissed former colleague, Charlie Rose.  (CBS via Associated Press)

When Gayle King scheduled Tuesday's appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," her plan was to discuss "Oprah's Favorite Things," a holiday project with her friend Oprah Winfrey.

But Tuesday's news about the firing of King's "CBS This Morning" colleague, Charlie Rose, from both CBS and PBS over allegations of sexual misconduct, forced a change in the conversation.

“I came this close to canceling,” King told Colbert about her Tuesday late-night appearance. She said it was difficult to discuss the events leading to the dismissal of Rose, a man she described as "a friend."
Colbert commended King and CBS for how they handled the matter, explaining that King and fellow "CBS This Morning" anchor Nora O'Donnell had reported Rose's firing “objectively and fully” on their morning program earlier in the day.
“It’s still very painful. It’s still very hurtful,” King said. “Charlie and I, we have worked together, been friends. But when you think about the anguish of those women, despite the friendship, you still have to report the news.”

“It’s still very painful. It’s still very hurtful. Charlie and I, we have worked together, been friends. But when you think about the anguish of those women, despite the friendship, you still have to report the news.”

King also mentioned that she was “wincing” during Colbert’s opening monologue -- in which the late-night host cracked jokes about a sweeping number of recent sexual misconduct scandals involving high-profile figures in entertainment, media and government.
“It’s interesting,” King said. “When you were doing the monologue about other people I was like, 'Ah-ha,' and then it was Charlie and I thought, ‘He’s a friend.’ It’s difficult.”
Colbert replied jokingly, “Well, you did your job this morning. I did my job tonight.”
CBS fired Rose after the Washington Post reported that several women linked to Rose's PBS show accused the veteran journalist of sexual harassment. PBS dropped Rose's show and fired him shortly after the CBS announcement.

North Korean troops crossed into South while chasing defector, UN says

North Korean troops briefly crossed into South Korea while chasing one of their fellow soldiers who defected earlier this month, violating the armistice that ended the Korean War, the U.S.-led United Nations command said Wednesday.

At a live TV briefing, the command released dramatic video showing the unidentified soldier speeding down a tree-lined road past shocked North Korean soldiers, who begin to run after him. He crashes the jeep near the line that divides North and South in the so-called "truce village" of Panmunjom, where North and South Korean soldiers face each other at their closest distance just feet away.

Soldiers from the North sprint to the area, firing their weapons at the defector; one hurries across the dividing line before running back to the northern side. South Korean soldiers then crawl up to the defector, who has fallen injured in a mass of leaves against a small wall. They drag him to safety as North Korean troops gather on their side of the line.
Surprisingly, North and South Korean soldiers didn't exchange fire in the first shooting in the area in more than three decades.
U.S. Army Col. Chad G. Carroll, a spokesman for the U.N. command, said the North violated the armistice by "one, firing weapons across the MDL, and two, by actually crossing the MDL temporarily," referring to the military demarcation line that bisects the Koreas.
A U.N. Command statement said officials notified the North's military of these violations and requested a meeting to discuss the investigation results and measures to prevent future such violations.
North Korea hasn't responded and its official media haven't reported on the case. The North has previously accused South Korea of kidnapping or enticing North Koreans to defect. About 30,000 North Koreans have fled to South Korea, mostly via China, since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
South Korea's military has said North Korean soldiers used handguns and AK rifles to fire about 40 rounds at their former comrade, who was hit at least five times.
The JSA, jointly overseen by the American-led U.N. Command and by North Korea, is inside the 2.5-mile-wide Demilitarized Zone, which has been the de facto border between the Koreas since the war.
Meanwhile, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that the North Korean soldier had regained consciousness after undergoing two surgeries at Ajou University Hospital in Suwon, south of Seoul. One South Korean official told Yonhap the soldier was able to talk to doctors and requested to watch television in his room.
The official added that the soldier was suffering from "fear and heavy stress" from his ordeal and was being treated with "psychotherapy." A South Korean flag had "apparently" been placed in the soldier's room in an attempt to improve his mental state.
Hospital official Shin Mi-jeong confirmed to the Associated Press that the soldier is conscious and is no longer relying on a breathing machine. While his condition is improving, doctors plan to keep him at the intensive care unit for at least several more days to guard against possible infections.
While treating the wounds, surgeons removed dozens of parasites from the soldier's ruptured small intestine, including presumed roundworms that were as long as 10.6 inches, which may reflect poor nutrition and health in North Korea's military. The soldier is 5 feet, 7 inches tall but weighs just 132 pounds.

Sanctuary City Cartoons

Juan Williams: Democrats and the politics of impeaching Trump

Here is the big, year-end question for Democrats:

Is the anger at President Trump that carried them to big wins in the 2017 off-year elections strong enough to make them even bigger winners in the 2018 midterms?

The party’s leaders don’t buy it.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spent last week throwing cold water on excited calls from fellow Democrats to impeach the president.
And Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., echoed that line, telling a reporter that talk of impeachment is “premature… you might blow your shot when it has a better chance of happening.”
That makes sense.
But the grassroots energy inside the party — from moderates to left-wingers — is all about taking the fight to Trump to the point of impeachment.
A late October poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, found a “record level of support for impeaching Donald Trump,” with 49 percent calling for impeachment and 41 percent opposed.
That near-majority call reveals the deep split between the Democrats’ youthful, activist base and the party’s cautious, old guard, led by senior congressional leaders.

Both sides want to win in 2018. But in the run-up to next year’s election, it is the party’s establishment leaders who are losing the intraparty fight to restrain growing excitement at the prospect of impeaching Trump.

Both sides want to win in 2018. But in the run-up to next year’s election, it is the party’s establishment leaders who are losing the intraparty fight to restrain growing excitement at the prospect of impeaching Trump.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., recently ended a speech at Glamour’s Women of the Year Awards with a robust chant: “Impeach Him!”
Billionaire Tom Steyer, the party’s biggest donor in recent years, is running a multi-million dollar ad blitz that has led 1.5 million people to sign a petition calling for the president’s impeachment.
The advertisement says, “People in Congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons.”
Pelosi, when pressed on the Steyer advertisement, said impeachment “is not someplace I think we should go.” Similarly, Schumer reacted to Steyer by saying, “I’m not against him doing it but I think it is premature.”
Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), has joined the congressional leadership in withholding support for impeachment. He told ABC’s Martha Raddatz flatly, “I am not talking about impeachment.”
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the DNC’s deputy chairman, told the Atlantic that the Republicans present a major hurdle to successful impeachment, given their majorities in both the House and the Senate.
“I think that he totally deserves to be impeached, but given the present composition of Congress, it’s not about to happen soon,” Ellison said, “so why not focus on things that are right in front of us.”
These establishment strategists also point out that the last time Democrats aimed their fire at Trump’s often erratic behavior, they were not successful.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made the case that Trump’s words and actions should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. Obviously, it did not work.
Now political insiders argue it will be more fruitful for the Democrats to wait on the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump camp and Russia before jumping on the impeachment bandwagon.
Without clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, the start of impeachment hearings could create a backlash, as some voters rally to his side.
Another point to consider is fundraising.
At the moment, Federal Election Commission filings show the Republican National Committee having raised $93 million through August, with $47 million in cash available.
Democrats are nowhere near that sum. For all the big wins for Democrats this year and the talk of grassroots energy growing on the Democratic side, the party has raised far less than the GOP — $46 million through August with $6.8 million in cash on hand.
Top Democrats favor focusing on positive messaging — more jobs and better health care — aimed at increasing donor confidence.
But pragmatic strategies from the Democrats’ congressional leadership have not stopped calls for impeachment from growing inside the party.
In a revealing split with party leaders, six House Democrats announced proposed articles of impeachment against President Trump.
“We have taken this action because of great concern for our country and our Constitution, our national security and our democracy,” Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen said last week.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in July. He has told The New York Times his action was “speaking for and galvanizing those people who are appalled at the [president’s] recklessness and the incompetency.”
Two leading grassroots groups, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, are pushing for immediate impeachment. They can push all they like. At the moment, the Republican majority in Congress is sure to block them.
The Democrats are heady with momentum on their side as the 2018 midterms begin. But political momentum can fade. That is a big danger heading into midterms where the Democrats often fail to turn out.
That’s why Pelosi, Schumer and Perez are wrong not to at least wink at the activists calling for impeachment. It comes at no cost and it energizes the base.
Juan Williams currently serves as a co-host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET) and also appears as a political analyst on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace and Special Report with Bret Baier. Williams joined the network as a contributor in 1997.

Hillary is toast: Scandals finally catch up with Clintons

Imagine: even the New York Times’ Ross Douthat now thinks that Bill Clinton should have stepped down over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Douthat’s mea culpa op-ed in this past weekend’s paper, in which he confesses that he and others may have been wrong to dismiss Bill Clinton’s indefensible behavior, will serve as the official political obituary for Clinton, Inc.

Hillary Clinton is done, finished, kaput. Dogged by scandals old and new, out of step politically, her excess baggage has morphed into an entire baggage train, dragging her towards political oblivion. While it is refreshing to consider the landscape unadorned by Clintons, Republicans will miss her. Only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have contributed as generously to GOP fund-raising efforts in recent years, or so energized voters.

Mrs. Clinton is finally being held to account, at least in the court of public opinion, where it may matter most. As charges of sexual aggression swirl around prominent figures on the left and right, Bill Clinton’s gross and possibly criminal behavior is getting a second look. New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand took the revisionism to a whole new level when she told the New York Times that President Clinton should have stepped down when his sexual relationship with 22-year old staffer Monica Lewinsky came to light.
Though Gillibrand later tried to soften the blow by putting her statement in a modern context, the damage was done. Bill Clinton’s affairs and sexual aggression are now fair game, at a time when the country is outraged over such activities. Many have long considered Hillary’s defense of her husband hypocritical in the extreme. Even as she postured as a champion of women’s rights, she tossed Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick (who accused Clinton of rape), Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones under the bus.  These women accused Hillary of trying to intimidate them into silence. As recently as last year, Broaddrick broke down in tears as she recounted her 1978 ordeal. It would be hard to muster that emotion if the story were bogus.

Bill Clinton’s affairs and sexual aggression are now fair game, at a time when the country is outraged over such activities.

It is high time Bill Clinton’s misdeeds and Hillary’s defense of them received bipartisan condemnation. Gillibrand broke that sound barrier. Others have piled on, including Clinton-friendly pundits and apparatchiks like David Rothkopf, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, and Michelle Goldberg. Liberal screed and former staffer at the Center for American Progress Matthew Iglesias wrote on Vox recently, “I think we got it wrong”, saying that defending Mr. Clinton was a mistake. 
Meanwhile, there are increasing calls for a special counsel to investigate accusations that Hillary sold out the country by green-lighting the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-linked entity, in return for cash donated to the Clinton Foundation and to Bill directly. Mrs. Clinton is in a precarious position here; as she becomes more assertive in blaming her election loss on Moscow’s intervention, she has called for ever-widening scrutiny of all things Russian. This is a risky gambit for Mrs. Clinton; comparisons between actual payments made to Clinton, Inc. and smoky speculation about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia do not favor the former First Lady.
The Russia probe has also unearthed revelations that Hillary’s campaign shelled out millions of dollars to finance the infamous “Trump dossier,” which fed speculation about the president’s ties to Russia and how Moscow might have influenced the election. In other words, the Clinton team paid for a hit job on Trump that has been widely discredited but that ultimately led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the ever-expanding investigation that Democrats hope will bring down a duly elected president. It is a shocking chain of events, and one that has been extraordinarily damaging to the country.
Nonetheless, Hillary continues to tour the country, claiming with ever-greater vehemence that Russia undermined her campaign and put Donald Trump in the White House. That’s when she’s not blaming misogyny, the media, the DNC, Bernie Sanders, President Obama, James Comey and a host of others whom she considers responsible. Her tour is an embarrassment, not only for its content, but because it is yet another example of the never-ending Clinton lust for cash. She has been selling “VIP” tickets for nearly $1,200; you would think she might treat her loyal supporters to a freebie, after they doled out billions only to see her lose. The good news: plenty of websites are advertising tickets at 50 percent off.
Those steadfast supporters need some good news. Donna Brazile’s revelations that Hillary effected a clandestine takeover of the Democratic National Committee almost a year before the election, and made sure that the supposedly neutral organization pushed the nomination in her direction was salt in the wound.  Aside from the shocking disclosures, Brazile’s break with Clinton, Inc. is a sure sign that Hillary and Bill’s dominance of Democratic politics, nurtured by an incomparable fundraising behemoth, is coming to an end.
Not that they have yet ceded the floor. Last May Hillary and former DNC Chair Howard Dean launched Onward Together, a PAC established to fund groups dedicated to “encouraging people to organize, get involved and run for office.” Presumably Hillary tapped Dean for credibility in sponsoring the “progressive values” the PAC’s website claims. The Daily Caller has reported that six months in, Onward Together seems mainly intent on fundraising, with scant evidence that its revenues are being distributed to other organizations. 
With the Clintons, it has always been about the money. Onward Together will be a test. If the millions roll in, the Clintons will remain a force to be reckoned with. If not, they will fade into political obscurity. Already, monies flowing into the now-tainted Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have tumbled – down 42 percent in 2016 on top of a 37 percent drop the year before.
It’s also about the politics. Democrats have moved far to the left of Bill and Hillary. Worse for the Clintons, they are moving on.
Liz Peek is a writer who contributes frequently to FoxNews.com. She is a financial columnist who also writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter@LizPeek.

Border Patrol agent appeared to be ambushed by illegal immigrants, bashed with rocks before death

Illegal immigrants appeared to have “ambushed” two U.S. Border Patrol agents near the Texas border with Mexico and bashed their heads with blunt objects -- possibly rocks -- killing one agent and sending another to a hospital in serious condition Sunday, a National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) official told Fox News.

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was killed and another agent, who has not been identified, was injured while they were patrolling the Big Bend Sector, leading authorities to scour West Texas for the attackers, officials said. Although few details about the incident have been released, Brandon Judd, the president of the NBPC, told Fox News on Monday it appeared Martinez and the second agent were “ambushed” by a group of illegal immigrants.

“We don’t know exactly what happened because we weren’t there. However, just from agents that were working in the area, reports are saying it was an attack and it would appear to be an ambush,” Judd said.
He added: “There’s a high likelihood this was an assault on the agents.”

Rogelio Martinez, 36, was killed while patrolling the Big Bend Sector in Texas.  (Facebook)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has offered a reward of up to $20,000 "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible" for the attack.
Judd said Martinez died of blunt force trauma to the head, indicating the attackers most likely used a rock or rocks during the assault. The second agent also suffered blunt force trauma to the head. The area surrounding where the attack occurred also indicated rocks were likely used as weapons. An FBI official also said that, counter to initial reports, neither agent was shot.
“There were no indications the agents fired their weapons,” Judd said, citing accounts he received from agents who responded to the incident. He also said there were no signs of a stabbing.

“There’s a high likelihood this was an assault on the agents.”

Martinez was notified there was illegal immigrant traffic in the area while the agents were patrolling near Interstate 10, in the Van Horn Station area, according to Judd. He began following “footprints” on a trail when the attack occurred. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a news release that Martinez's partner made the initial call for help and reported they were injured and needed assistance.
Judd said details remained foggy on what led to the ambush and the FBI was investigating the incident.
Judd did not further comment on the second agent’s condition.
Martinez was from El Paso and had worked as a border agent since August 2013, assigned to the Big Bend Sector. He was also a father and brother, KFOX14 reported.
Border Patrol records showed the agency's Big Bend sector, which includes the area where Sunday's attack took place, accounted for about 1 percent of the more than 61,000 apprehensions its agents made along the Southwest border between October 2016 and May 2017. The region's mountains make it a difficult area for people to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico.
The Border Patrol website lists 38 agents, not including Martinez, who have died since late 2003 — some attacked while working along the border and others killed in traffic accidents. Martinez is the second agent to have died this year.
President Trump tweeted Sunday night: "Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!"

Trump crackdown on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick

A federal judge in California on Monday permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick ruled that the White House does not have the authority to impose new conditions on spending already approved by Congress.

“The Counties have demonstrated that the Executive Order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights,” the judge wrote in his order.
The latest decision is in line with the argument Orrick made in April that temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to crack down on sanctuary cities, prompting an appeal.
Trump has campaigned on ending sanctuary cities. He issued an executive order that called on cutting federal funds from cities as a penalty for shielding illegal immigrants.
"The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law," a  Department of Justice spokesman said in a statement. "The Justice Department will vindicate the President's lawful authority to direct the executive branch."
The judge’s ruling on Monday came after two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration.
"President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can't grant himself new authority because he feels like it," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement, adding that the ruling was “a victory for the American people and the rule of law.”
A DOJ lawyer argued in April that the initiative would only apply to a few federal grants, barely affecting the funding in the two counties that filed the lawsuits.
But the judge disagreed, saying the order was written vaguely and could “reach all federal grants” – potentially leading to cutbacks of millions of dollars to Santa Clara and San Francisco.