RiyadMedia

Melania Trump says she loves President Donald Trump and has “much more important things to think about” than allegations he cheated on her with a porn star, a Playboy Playmate or anyone else.

Mrs. Trump, who was interviewed by ABC while touring Africa last week, said people are just spreading rumors about her marriage.

“I know people like to speculate and media like to speculate about our marriage and circulate the gossip,” she said. “But I understand the gossip sells newspapers, magazines … and, unfortunately, we live in this kind of world today.”

She insisted allegations of her husband’s infidelities are not a concern.

Trump, who during the 2016 presidential campaign was heard on an old “Access Hollywood” tape talking about groping and try to have sex with women, has been accused of having multiple affairs. Porn star Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal have said they had sex with him years ago.

Trump has denied the trysts with Daniels and McDougal but has acknowledged reimbursing his lawyer for a $130,000 hush money payment made to Daniels. Mrs. Trump has generally kept quiet on the subject.

Asked in the ABC interview if she loves her husband, Mrs. Trump said, “Yes, we are fine. Yes.”

She played down a suggestion the repeated rumors of his philandering had put a strain on their marriage.

“It is not concern and focus of mine,” she said. “I’m a mother and a first lady, and I have much more important things to think about and to do.”

But when she was asked if the repeated rumors had hurt her, she paused. Then she reiterated the “media world is speculating.”

“Yeah, it’s not always pleasant, of course,” she said. “But I know what is right and what is wrong and what is true and not true.”

Portions of Mrs. Trump’s interview aired Friday on “Good Morning America.” Her full interview is set to air Friday night in an ABC News special, “Being Melania – The First Lady.”

Other portions of the interview aired earlier this week featured Mrs. Trump saying she could be “the most bullied person” in the world and saying women who make accusations of sexual assault need to “show the evidence.”

Donald Trump, on the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape that became public during the 2016 campaign, says when he’s attracted to beautiful women, “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet.” He said when you’re a star, women let you.

“Grab them by the p—-,” Trump adds. “You can do anything.”

Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in August to campaign finance violations alleging he, Trump and the National Enquirer tabloid were involved in buying the silence of Daniels and McDougal after they alleged affairs with Trump.
…

New York’s most conservative congressional district is unexpectedly in play as Republican incumbent Chris Collins, one of President Donald Trump’s first supporters, fights insider trading charges while seeking re-election.

Republican leaders in a western New York district that Trump swept overwhelmingly in 2016 are counting on party and presidential loyalty, even if it means voting for someone that even they wanted off the ballot.

“This district is Trump country, and it will continue to be,” said Erie County Republican Party Chairman Nicholas Langworthy. “It’s a conservative Republican district, and I expect that when the dust settles on election night it will re-elect a conservative Republican to the seat.”

Democratic challenger Nate McMurray is still the underdog but says his volunteers and donations have surged since Collins was charged in August, and his crowds have gone from handfuls to hundreds.

“It’s like an avalanche that started out with a little snowball that’s rolling downhill and getting bigger and bigger every day,” McMurray, a Grand Island town supervisor, said recently to a roomful of supporters. They included Tom Perez, the Democratic National Committee chairman, who dropped in to drum up enthusiasm in what had been a little-watched race.

Once considered a sure win for Republicans, Real Clear Politics now lists the race as a “toss-up,” and the Cook Political Report in mid-September moved the seat from “likely Republican” to merely “lean Republican.” McMurray said this week his internal polling showed the race to be a dead heat.

With Democrats forecast to make gains in the House, for some voters in the Republican-advantaged district, the decision will be more about keeping the challenger out than Collins in, analysts said.

“The old phrase of ‘all politics is local,’ the Tip O’Neill statement? These local races are not so local anymore,” American University political science professor Jan Leighley said.

Accusations against Collins

Collins, with a reported net worth of $44 million one of the wealthiest members of Congress, is accused of illegally leaking confidential information about a biopharmaceutical company to his son and the father of his son’s fiancee that allowed them to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock losses. The most serious charge carries a potential prison term of up to 20 years. If he wins and is later convicted and forced to resign, a special election would be held.

The 68-year-old Collins pleaded not guilty and initially vowed to continue his re-election campaign. He then agreed to be removed from the ballot “in the best interests of the constituents,” only to reverse course again and announce he would stay on the ballot — even as party leaders who had spent weeks exploring legal maneuvers to remove him were preparing to announce a replacement.

“The stakes are too high to allow the radical left to take control of this seat in Congress,” Collins said in a Sept. 19 statement. 

Collins is one of two Republican congressmen running for re-election while under indictment. Rep. Duncan Hunter, of California, has pleaded not guilty to spending campaign funds for personal expenses. Hunter and Collins were the first two Republicans to endorse Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, and their indictments drew a critical Sept. 3 tweet from Trump aimed at Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Tweeted Trump: “Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time.”

Since entering the race, Collins has limited his personal appearances largely to friendly gatherings like the Republican Women’s Autumn Brunch and the Newstead GOP Sportsman Extravaganza. He declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press.

“A lot of folks just happy that I’m back in the race,” he told WIVB this week. “They know what’s at stake. … Every seat matters. As you read the pundits now, it’s going to be a very close election to see who is going to be in the majority of the House come next year.”

The campaigns

Collins, a businessman who made his money by buying distressed businesses and turning them around, proudly carries an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and cites among his priorities never increasing entitlement programs, reforming the tax code and balancing the federal budget in 10 years.

He has been on the air with negative television ads, including one that was assailed by critics as racist. It showed McMurray speaking Korean as a portrait of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un floated in the background and captions falsely implied McMurray was talking about sending American jobs to Asia.

McMurray, a lawyer, studied the development of constitutional democracy in South Korea as a Fulbright scholar. His campaign has focused on health care for all, protecting Social Security, the environment and strengthening infrastructure. He said he supports gun rights but also universal background checks and a ban on bump stocks.

Out in the district, 23-year-old line cook Brett Schuman said the allegations against Collins were enough to sway him. “When there’s anything happening, criminal or otherwise, I’m going to defer to the other party.”

Retired engineer Don Lloyd said he liked McMurray’s background and education but would still vote for Collins, if only to help Republicans keep control of the House and preserve Trump’s agenda. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to take control of the chamber.

“Let’s face it, the election isn’t about Chris Collins — it’s about Trump,” said Lloyd, 70.

“So hold your nose, I guess.”
…

New York’s most conservative congressional district is unexpectedly in play as Republican incumbent Chris Collins, one of President Donald Trump’s first supporters, fights insider trading charges while seeking re-election.

Republican leaders in a western New York district that Trump swept overwhelmingly in 2016 are counting on party and presidential loyalty, even if it means voting for someone that even they wanted off the ballot.

“This district is Trump country, and it will continue to be,” said Erie County Republican Party Chairman Nicholas Langworthy. “It’s a conservative Republican district, and I expect that when the dust settles on election night it will re-elect a conservative Republican to the seat.”

Democratic challenger Nate McMurray is still the underdog but says his volunteers and donations have surged since Collins was charged in August, and his crowds have gone from handfuls to hundreds.

“It’s like an avalanche that started out with a little snowball that’s rolling downhill and getting bigger and bigger every day,” McMurray, a Grand Island town supervisor, said recently to a roomful of supporters. They included Tom Perez, the Democratic National Committee chairman, who dropped in to drum up enthusiasm in what had been a little-watched race.

Once considered a sure win for Republicans, Real Clear Politics now lists the race as a “toss-up,” and the Cook Political Report in mid-September moved the seat from “likely Republican” to merely “lean Republican.” McMurray said this week his internal polling showed the race to be a dead heat.

With Democrats forecast to make gains in the House, for some voters in the Republican-advantaged district, the decision will be more about keeping the challenger out than Collins in, analysts said.

“The old phrase of ‘all politics is local,’ the Tip O’Neill statement? These local races are not so local anymore,” American University political science professor Jan Leighley said.

Accusations against Collins

Collins, with a reported net worth of $44 million one of the wealthiest members of Congress, is accused of illegally leaking confidential information about a biopharmaceutical company to his son and the father of his son’s fiancee that allowed them to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock losses. The most serious charge carries a potential prison term of up to 20 years. If he wins and is later convicted and forced to resign, a special election would be held.

The 68-year-old Collins pleaded not guilty and initially vowed to continue his re-election campaign. He then agreed to be removed from the ballot “in the best interests of the constituents,” only to reverse course again and announce he would stay on the ballot — even as party leaders who had spent weeks exploring legal maneuvers to remove him were preparing to announce a replacement.

“The stakes are too high to allow the radical left to take control of this seat in Congress,” Collins said in a Sept. 19 statement. 

Collins is one of two Republican congressmen running for re-election while under indictment. Rep. Duncan Hunter, of California, has pleaded not guilty to spending campaign funds for personal expenses. Hunter and Collins were the first two Republicans to endorse Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, and their indictments drew a critical Sept. 3 tweet from Trump aimed at Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Tweeted Trump: “Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time.”

Since entering the race, Collins has limited his personal appearances largely to friendly gatherings like the Republican Women’s Autumn Brunch and the Newstead GOP Sportsman Extravaganza. He declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press.

“A lot of folks just happy that I’m back in the race,” he told WIVB this week. “They know what’s at stake. … Every seat matters. As you read the pundits now, it’s going to be a very close election to see who is going to be in the majority of the House come next year.”

The campaigns

Collins, a businessman who made his money by buying distressed businesses and turning them around, proudly carries an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and cites among his priorities never increasing entitlement programs, reforming the tax code and balancing the federal budget in 10 years.

He has been on the air with negative television ads, including one that was assailed by critics as racist. It showed McMurray speaking Korean as a portrait of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un floated in the background and captions falsely implied McMurray was talking about sending American jobs to Asia.

McMurray, a lawyer, studied the development of constitutional democracy in South Korea as a Fulbright scholar. His campaign has focused on health care for all, protecting Social Security, the environment and strengthening infrastructure. He said he supports gun rights but also universal background checks and a ban on bump stocks.

Out in the district, 23-year-old line cook Brett Schuman said the allegations against Collins were enough to sway him. “When there’s anything happening, criminal or otherwise, I’m going to defer to the other party.”

Retired engineer Don Lloyd said he liked McMurray’s background and education but would still vote for Collins, if only to help Republicans keep control of the House and preserve Trump’s agenda. Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats to take control of the chamber.

“Let’s face it, the election isn’t about Chris Collins — it’s about Trump,” said Lloyd, 70.

“So hold your nose, I guess.”
…

Facebook announced Thursday that it had deleted over 800 mostly U.S.-based pages and accounts that were posting politically oriented spam and engaging in “inauthentic behavior.” 

The social media giant declined a request from VOA News to name the 559 pages and 251 accounts. Nation in Distress, a pro-President Donald Trump page identified by The Washington Post as being among the banned, had over 3 million followers.

Facebook said that many of the pages and accounts had posted political clickbait across multiple fake accounts to drive users to their websites, where they were often targeted with ads. 

“Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was,” Facebook said on its news blog. “Others were ad farms using Facebook to mislead people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”

Facebook said “the ‘news’ stories or opinions these accounts and pages share are often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate,” noting the proximity of the 2018 midterm elections.

In the past, Facebook has purged dozens of pages spreading fake news originating from Iran and Russia, countries that have antagonistic relations with the U.S. The company says most of the pages and accounts banned this time were from the U.S.
…

Facebook announced Thursday that it had deleted over 800 mostly U.S.-based pages and accounts that were posting politically oriented spam and engaging in “inauthentic behavior.” 

The social media giant declined a request from VOA News to name the 559 pages and 251 accounts. Nation in Distress, a pro-President Donald Trump page identified by The Washington Post as being among the banned, had over 3 million followers.

Facebook said that many of the pages and accounts had posted political clickbait across multiple fake accounts to drive users to their websites, where they were often targeted with ads. 

“Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was,” Facebook said on its news blog. “Others were ad farms using Facebook to mislead people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”

Facebook said “the ‘news’ stories or opinions these accounts and pages share are often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate,” noting the proximity of the 2018 midterm elections.

In the past, Facebook has purged dozens of pages spreading fake news originating from Iran and Russia, countries that have antagonistic relations with the U.S. The company says most of the pages and accounts banned this time were from the U.S.
…

Missouri’s top election official on Thursday said the state was appealing a judge’s ruling that blocked enforcement of parts of a voter photo identification law, adding that the ruling was causing “mass confusion” ahead of a key election for a U.S. Senate seat.

Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in a statement said the state attorney general had appealed the ruling and asked it to be put on hold as that process plays out. 

At issue is Senior Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan’s recent ruling striking down a requirement that a voter lacking a valid photo ID must sign a sworn statement and present some other form of identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Callahan also blocked the state from advertising that a photo ID is required to vote.

Ashcroft said there’s confusion because Callahan’s ruling “directs the STATE not to use the statement.” But Ashcroft said it’s local election authorities who would have been responsible for requesting that voters without proper photo identification sign an affidavit, “so it is not clear if they are bound by the judge’s decision.”

“The judge’s decision has injected mass confusion into the voting process just weeks before an important election — an action the courts historically and purposely have not taken,” Ashcroft said, adding that many local election authorities already had trained poll workers to require voters to sign sworn statements.

Callahan’s ruling came as voters are preparing for a Nov. 6 election headlined by the race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Attorney General Josh Hawley, whose office is defending the state law on behalf of Ashcroft.

Strategist Symone Sanders of Priorities USA, a Washington-based liberal advocacy group that sued on behalf of some Missouri voters, in a statement praised Callahan’s ruling and criticized the photo ID law as having “required voters to sign a threatening and confusing affidavit to receive a regular ballot if they didn’t have photo identification.”

“What’s confusing is the secretary of state’s support of limiting access to the ballot box,” she said.

Missouri’s 2016 law was enacted when the Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of then-Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat. Voters in 2016 also approved a constitutional amendment intended to permit photo identification laws. The Missouri law was not yet in effect for the 2016 elections.

Voter photo ID requirements have been pushed by Republicans in numerous states as a means of preventing fraud. They have been opposed by Democrats who contend such laws can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.
…

Missouri’s top election official on Thursday said the state was appealing a judge’s ruling that blocked enforcement of parts of a voter photo identification law, adding that the ruling was causing “mass confusion” ahead of a key election for a U.S. Senate seat.

Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in a statement said the state attorney general had appealed the ruling and asked it to be put on hold as that process plays out. 

At issue is Senior Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan’s recent ruling striking down a requirement that a voter lacking a valid photo ID must sign a sworn statement and present some other form of identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Callahan also blocked the state from advertising that a photo ID is required to vote.

Ashcroft said there’s confusion because Callahan’s ruling “directs the STATE not to use the statement.” But Ashcroft said it’s local election authorities who would have been responsible for requesting that voters without proper photo identification sign an affidavit, “so it is not clear if they are bound by the judge’s decision.”

“The judge’s decision has injected mass confusion into the voting process just weeks before an important election — an action the courts historically and purposely have not taken,” Ashcroft said, adding that many local election authorities already had trained poll workers to require voters to sign sworn statements.

Callahan’s ruling came as voters are preparing for a Nov. 6 election headlined by the race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Attorney General Josh Hawley, whose office is defending the state law on behalf of Ashcroft.

Strategist Symone Sanders of Priorities USA, a Washington-based liberal advocacy group that sued on behalf of some Missouri voters, in a statement praised Callahan’s ruling and criticized the photo ID law as having “required voters to sign a threatening and confusing affidavit to receive a regular ballot if they didn’t have photo identification.”

“What’s confusing is the secretary of state’s support of limiting access to the ballot box,” she said.

Missouri’s 2016 law was enacted when the Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of then-Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat. Voters in 2016 also approved a constitutional amendment intended to permit photo identification laws. The Missouri law was not yet in effect for the 2016 elections.

Voter photo ID requirements have been pushed by Republicans in numerous states as a means of preventing fraud. They have been opposed by Democrats who contend such laws can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.
…

Missouri’s top election official on Thursday said the state was appealing a judge’s ruling that blocked enforcement of parts of a voter photo identification law, adding that the ruling was causing “mass confusion” ahead of a key election for a U.S. Senate seat.

Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in a statement said the state attorney general had appealed the ruling and asked it to be put on hold as that process plays out. 

At issue is Senior Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan’s recent ruling striking down a requirement that a voter lacking a valid photo ID must sign a sworn statement and present some other form of identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Callahan also blocked the state from advertising that a photo ID is required to vote.

Ashcroft said there’s confusion because Callahan’s ruling “directs the STATE not to use the statement.” But Ashcroft said it’s local election authorities who would have been responsible for requesting that voters without proper photo identification sign an affidavit, “so it is not clear if they are bound by the judge’s decision.”

“The judge’s decision has injected mass confusion into the voting process just weeks before an important election — an action the courts historically and purposely have not taken,” Ashcroft said, adding that many local election authorities already had trained poll workers to require voters to sign sworn statements.

Callahan’s ruling came as voters are preparing for a Nov. 6 election headlined by the race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Attorney General Josh Hawley, whose office is defending the state law on behalf of Ashcroft.

Strategist Symone Sanders of Priorities USA, a Washington-based liberal advocacy group that sued on behalf of some Missouri voters, in a statement praised Callahan’s ruling and criticized the photo ID law as having “required voters to sign a threatening and confusing affidavit to receive a regular ballot if they didn’t have photo identification.”

“What’s confusing is the secretary of state’s support of limiting access to the ballot box,” she said.

Missouri’s 2016 law was enacted when the Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of then-Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat. Voters in 2016 also approved a constitutional amendment intended to permit photo identification laws. The Missouri law was not yet in effect for the 2016 elections.

Voter photo ID requirements have been pushed by Republicans in numerous states as a means of preventing fraud. They have been opposed by Democrats who contend such laws can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.
…

Missouri’s top election official on Thursday said the state was appealing a judge’s ruling that blocked enforcement of parts of a voter photo identification law, adding that the ruling was causing “mass confusion” ahead of a key election for a U.S. Senate seat.

Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in a statement said the state attorney general had appealed the ruling and asked it to be put on hold as that process plays out. 

At issue is Senior Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan’s recent ruling striking down a requirement that a voter lacking a valid photo ID must sign a sworn statement and present some other form of identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Callahan also blocked the state from advertising that a photo ID is required to vote.

Ashcroft said there’s confusion because Callahan’s ruling “directs the STATE not to use the statement.” But Ashcroft said it’s local election authorities who would have been responsible for requesting that voters without proper photo identification sign an affidavit, “so it is not clear if they are bound by the judge’s decision.”

“The judge’s decision has injected mass confusion into the voting process just weeks before an important election — an action the courts historically and purposely have not taken,” Ashcroft said, adding that many local election authorities already had trained poll workers to require voters to sign sworn statements.

Callahan’s ruling came as voters are preparing for a Nov. 6 election headlined by the race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Attorney General Josh Hawley, whose office is defending the state law on behalf of Ashcroft.

Strategist Symone Sanders of Priorities USA, a Washington-based liberal advocacy group that sued on behalf of some Missouri voters, in a statement praised Callahan’s ruling and criticized the photo ID law as having “required voters to sign a threatening and confusing affidavit to receive a regular ballot if they didn’t have photo identification.”

“What’s confusing is the secretary of state’s support of limiting access to the ballot box,” she said.

Missouri’s 2016 law was enacted when the Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of then-Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat. Voters in 2016 also approved a constitutional amendment intended to permit photo identification laws. The Missouri law was not yet in effect for the 2016 elections.

Voter photo ID requirements have been pushed by Republicans in numerous states as a means of preventing fraud. They have been opposed by Democrats who contend such laws can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.
…

Arkansas’ highest court on Thursday upheld a voter ID law that is nearly identical to a restriction struck down by the court four years ago.

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a judge’s ruling against the law approved last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature and governor. A judge had blocked officials from enforcing the restriction, but justices in May stayed that ruling and kept the law in effect while they considered the case.

The high court in 2014 struck down a previous version of the voter ID law as unconstitutional.

The revised voter ID law, which was approved last year, requires voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot. Unlike the previous measure, the new law allows voters to cast provisional ballots if they sign a sworn statement confirming their identities. Opponents of the new measure had argued that it circumvented the 2014 ruling.

In the 5-2 ruling Thursday, justices said lawmakers had the power to enact the restriction by labeling it a change to a constitutional amendment related to voter registration requirements. “It is therefore constitutional,” Justice Robin Wynne wrote in the court’s ruling.

Arkansas officials argued the new law complies with part of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the 2013 measure. Justices in 2014 unanimously struck down the previous voter ID law, with a majority of the court ruling that it unconstitutionally added a qualification to vote. Three justices, however, ruled the measure didn’t get the two-thirds vote needed to change voter registration requirements.

A majority of the court has changed hands since that ruling, and more than two-thirds of the Arkansas House and Senate approved the new measure last year.

A justice who disagreed with the ruling Thursday questioned the court’s argument that the law was related to voter registration, noting that the state doesn’t require photo ID in order to register to vote.

“If providing photo identification were required at registration, requiring presentation of the card at the polling place would be more defensible,” Justice Jo Hart wrote. “Asking for a photo identification card at the polling place strikes me as locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he is optimistic about Republicans retaining control of both chambers of Congress in next month’s nationwide congressional elections, as well as his own re-election in 2020.

“I think the Republicans are very energized,” Trump told interviewers on his favorite news talk show, “Fox & Friends,” because of the robust U.S. economy and last week’s Senate confirmation of Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. “I really believe we’re going to do well. I think we’ll be successful.”

Trump’s prediction on the Nov. 6 elections halfway through his first four-year White House term is at odds with historical trends favoring the political party out of power, the Democrats at the moment, in U.S. midterm elections.

In addition, independent analysts say polling shows Democrats are poised to take control of the House of Representatives, while Republicans are likely to retain their slim majority in the Senate.

‘Bunch of haters’

Trump said that if Democrats assume control of the House, “We’ll just have to fight it out” over the next two years “because there’s a bunch of haters” against him and his policies. Some Democrats have already said that if they have a majority in the House they plan to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump and investigations of his personal finances and government programs he has changed since he assumed power in January 2017.

Still, Trump said if there is a Democratic takeover in the House, “It’s possible we’ll get along,” because both he and Democrats could reach agreement on infrastructure spending they both favor to repair crumbling highways and bridges in the U.S.

2020

As for 2020, Trump declined to say whether there was any possible single Democratic opponent he feared most in his bid for a second four-year term.

“So far, I like ’em all, everyone of them,” Trump said. “I don’t see a name I don’t like.”

Several Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, say they will make up their minds by the end of the year whether to mount a nationwide campaign against Trump. Already, some of them have been making campaign-style speeches in states with early 2020 Democratic primaries that will play a pivotal role in determining Trump’s eventual opponent.

Republican prospects

Trump said that with the economy doing well, often a key determinant in U.S. presidential elections, “I don’t see why I wouldn’t do well in the election. We’ve done more in less than two years than anyone in history, and I don’t think it’s even close.”

Yet, national surveys show voters consistently disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, currently by about a 53 to 43 percent margin.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he is optimistic about Republicans retaining control of both chambers of Congress in next month’s nationwide congressional elections, as well as his own re-election in 2020.

“I think the Republicans are very energized,” Trump told interviewers on his favorite news talk show, “Fox & Friends,” because of the robust U.S. economy and last week’s Senate confirmation of Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. “I really believe we’re going to do well. I think we’ll be successful.”

Trump’s prediction on the Nov. 6 elections halfway through his first four-year White House term is at odds with historical trends favoring the political party out of power, the Democrats at the moment, in U.S. midterm elections.

In addition, independent analysts say polling shows Democrats are poised to take control of the House of Representatives, while Republicans are likely to retain their slim majority in the Senate.

‘Bunch of haters’

Trump said that if Democrats assume control of the House, “We’ll just have to fight it out” over the next two years “because there’s a bunch of haters” against him and his policies. Some Democrats have already said that if they have a majority in the House they plan to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump and investigations of his personal finances and government programs he has changed since he assumed power in January 2017.

Still, Trump said if there is a Democratic takeover in the House, “It’s possible we’ll get along,” because both he and Democrats could reach agreement on infrastructure spending they both favor to repair crumbling highways and bridges in the U.S.

2020

As for 2020, Trump declined to say whether there was any possible single Democratic opponent he feared most in his bid for a second four-year term.

“So far, I like ’em all, everyone of them,” Trump said. “I don’t see a name I don’t like.”

Several Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, say they will make up their minds by the end of the year whether to mount a nationwide campaign against Trump. Already, some of them have been making campaign-style speeches in states with early 2020 Democratic primaries that will play a pivotal role in determining Trump’s eventual opponent.

Republican prospects

Trump said that with the economy doing well, often a key determinant in U.S. presidential elections, “I don’t see why I wouldn’t do well in the election. We’ve done more in less than two years than anyone in history, and I don’t think it’s even close.”

Yet, national surveys show voters consistently disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, currently by about a 53 to 43 percent margin.
…

The question before a panel of U.S. appeals court judges: Should non-native residents of Guam have a say in the territory’s future relationship with the United States?

Three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were at the University of Hawaii’s law school Wednesday to listen to arguments in an appeal of a federal judge’s 2017 ruling that says limiting the vote to those who are considered native inhabitants of the island is unconstitutional.

Voters would have three choices: independence, statehood and free association with the United States similar to island states that allow the U.S. exclusive military access to their land and waters while their citizens have the right to live and work in the U.S.

The case

Arnold Davis, a white, non-Chamorro resident of Guam, sued in 2011 after his application to participate in the vote was denied.

Last year’s ruling concluded that even though Guam has a long history of colonization and its people have a right to determine their political status with the United States, it’s unconstitutional to exclude voters simply because they “do not have the correct ancestry or bloodline.”

The ruling cites a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows non-Native Hawaiians to vote in elections for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees.

Guam appealed.

The vote would only be a “symbolic, but no less sacred, nonbinding expression of a political opinion of a subset of Guam,” Julian Aguon, an attorney representing Guam, argued Wednesday.

The vote would have ramifications for all who live on the island, said Davis’ attorney, Lucas Townsend. 

“This is a taxpayer-funded, government-sponsored vote involving the territory’s election machinery,” he said.

Guam plans to submit results to the president of the United States, Congress and the United Nations, Townsend said.

Who is eligible?

Voters wouldn’t be limited based on their race, but would include only those who were granted U.S. citizenship through the 1950 Guam Organic Act, and their descendants, Aguon said. Court documents in the case cite 1950 census data showing that the vast majority of the noncitizens on Guam at the time were Chamorro.

About one-third of the U.S. territory’s 160,000 people identify as Chamorro, the indigenous group that is believed to have migrated to Guam from Indonesia and the Philippines an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. The U.S. took control of Guam in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. The Navy ruled the island until Japan took control in 1941. The U.S. installed civilian leadership and granted citizenship to Guam residents in 1950.

It’s not clear when the judges will issue a ruling.

Upholding the lower court ruling will effectively end Guam’s self-determination effort, Aguon said after the hearing.

“This case is so important because it’s about defending the sacred right of self-determination, even if it’s a symbolic vote,” he said. “It really matters to the community. Guam has been colonized for hundreds of years, and this would finally give us some semblance of dignity to be able to have just this non-binding vote. And that’s what it means to me as a Chamorro as well.”
…

The question before a panel of U.S. appeals court judges: Should non-native residents of Guam have a say in the territory’s future relationship with the United States?

Three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were at the University of Hawaii’s law school Wednesday to listen to arguments in an appeal of a federal judge’s 2017 ruling that says limiting the vote to those who are considered native inhabitants of the island is unconstitutional.

Voters would have three choices: independence, statehood and free association with the United States similar to island states that allow the U.S. exclusive military access to their land and waters while their citizens have the right to live and work in the U.S.

The case

Arnold Davis, a white, non-Chamorro resident of Guam, sued in 2011 after his application to participate in the vote was denied.

Last year’s ruling concluded that even though Guam has a long history of colonization and its people have a right to determine their political status with the United States, it’s unconstitutional to exclude voters simply because they “do not have the correct ancestry or bloodline.”

The ruling cites a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows non-Native Hawaiians to vote in elections for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees.

Guam appealed.

The vote would only be a “symbolic, but no less sacred, nonbinding expression of a political opinion of a subset of Guam,” Julian Aguon, an attorney representing Guam, argued Wednesday.

The vote would have ramifications for all who live on the island, said Davis’ attorney, Lucas Townsend. 

“This is a taxpayer-funded, government-sponsored vote involving the territory’s election machinery,” he said.

Guam plans to submit results to the president of the United States, Congress and the United Nations, Townsend said.

Who is eligible?

Voters wouldn’t be limited based on their race, but would include only those who were granted U.S. citizenship through the 1950 Guam Organic Act, and their descendants, Aguon said. Court documents in the case cite 1950 census data showing that the vast majority of the noncitizens on Guam at the time were Chamorro.

About one-third of the U.S. territory’s 160,000 people identify as Chamorro, the indigenous group that is believed to have migrated to Guam from Indonesia and the Philippines an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 years ago. The U.S. took control of Guam in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. The Navy ruled the island until Japan took control in 1941. The U.S. installed civilian leadership and granted citizenship to Guam residents in 1950.

It’s not clear when the judges will issue a ruling.

Upholding the lower court ruling will effectively end Guam’s self-determination effort, Aguon said after the hearing.

“This case is so important because it’s about defending the sacred right of self-determination, even if it’s a symbolic vote,” he said. “It really matters to the community. Guam has been colonized for hundreds of years, and this would finally give us some semblance of dignity to be able to have just this non-binding vote. And that’s what it means to me as a Chamorro as well.”
…

President Donald Trump is stepping up his attack on Democrats over a health care proposal called Medicare for All, claiming it “would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.”

One senator who has introduced a Medicare for All proposal dismissed Trump’s statements as lies.

Trump, omitting any mention of improved benefits for seniors that Democrats promise, wrote in an op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today, “The Democrats’ plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised.”

But Medicare for All means different things to different Democrats. The plan pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who challenged Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, would expand Medicare to cover almost everyone in the country, and current Medicare recipients would get improved benefits. Other Democratic plans would allow people to buy into a new government system modeled on Medicare, moving toward the goal of coverage for all while leaving private insurance in place.

Trump’s column came as he is looking to paint Democratic candidates as extreme ahead of next month’s midterm elections. A White House official speaking to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to describe internal plans said that Trump’s health care attack would be echoed by the Republican National Committee and other GOP groups and that the president would continue to raise the attack during his campaign rallies.

​’No, Mr. President’

Sanders responded Wednesday in a statement, saying Trump “is lying about the Medicare for All proposal” that he introduced.

“No, Mr. President. Our proposal would not cut benefits for seniors on Medicare. In fact, we expand benefits,” Sanders said.

As Trump escalates his efforts on behalf of fellow Republicans, he is casting health care as one of an expanding list of choices for the electorate this year while seeking to raise the alarm about the consequences of Democratic control of the House or the Senate.

Medicare for All, also called single-payer over the years, was until fairly recently outside the mainstream of Democratic politics, but this year it has become a key litmus test in many party primaries and a rallying cry for progressive candidates. Under the plan by Sanders, all Americans would gain access to government insurance with no co-pays or deductibles for medical services.

Republicans contend that the proposal would be cost-prohibitive and argue it marks government overreach.

Trump has already sought to paint Democrats as extremists after the bitter confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and internal GOP polling obtained last month by the AP shows that the party believes the message will help galvanize Republican voters to the polls.

At a rally in Iowa on Tuesday, Trump argued that the only reason to vote for Democrats “is if you are tired of winning.” He was to hold a rally in Pennsylvania on Wednesday evening. 
…

President Donald Trump is stepping up his attack on Democrats over a health care proposal called Medicare for All, claiming it “would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.”

One senator who has introduced a Medicare for All proposal dismissed Trump’s statements as lies.

Trump, omitting any mention of improved benefits for seniors that Democrats promise, wrote in an op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today, “The Democrats’ plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised.”

But Medicare for All means different things to different Democrats. The plan pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who challenged Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, would expand Medicare to cover almost everyone in the country, and current Medicare recipients would get improved benefits. Other Democratic plans would allow people to buy into a new government system modeled on Medicare, moving toward the goal of coverage for all while leaving private insurance in place.

Trump’s column came as he is looking to paint Democratic candidates as extreme ahead of next month’s midterm elections. A White House official speaking to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to describe internal plans said that Trump’s health care attack would be echoed by the Republican National Committee and other GOP groups and that the president would continue to raise the attack during his campaign rallies.

​’No, Mr. President’

Sanders responded Wednesday in a statement, saying Trump “is lying about the Medicare for All proposal” that he introduced.

“No, Mr. President. Our proposal would not cut benefits for seniors on Medicare. In fact, we expand benefits,” Sanders said.

As Trump escalates his efforts on behalf of fellow Republicans, he is casting health care as one of an expanding list of choices for the electorate this year while seeking to raise the alarm about the consequences of Democratic control of the House or the Senate.

Medicare for All, also called single-payer over the years, was until fairly recently outside the mainstream of Democratic politics, but this year it has become a key litmus test in many party primaries and a rallying cry for progressive candidates. Under the plan by Sanders, all Americans would gain access to government insurance with no co-pays or deductibles for medical services.

Republicans contend that the proposal would be cost-prohibitive and argue it marks government overreach.

Trump has already sought to paint Democrats as extremists after the bitter confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and internal GOP polling obtained last month by the AP shows that the party believes the message will help galvanize Republican voters to the polls.

At a rally in Iowa on Tuesday, Trump argued that the only reason to vote for Democrats “is if you are tired of winning.” He was to hold a rally in Pennsylvania on Wednesday evening. 
…

President Donald Trump says he has been speaking to one of his former advisers, Dina Powell, about the possibility of succeeding Nikki Haley as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and he plans to speak with others about the post.

At the White House on Wednesday, Trump said Powell is one of many people being considered.

Haley announced on Tuesday that she is stepping down as U.N. ambassador and would vacate the post by the end of the year.

“It has been an honor of a lifetime,” Haley said, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office where they announced her pending departure Tuesday.

The former governor of the state of South Carolina has been seen by some as a relatively moderate voice in Trump’s Cabinet.

Her appointment as ambassador to the U.N. was seen as a surprise because she had been viewed as a critic of Trump’s confrontational style during the 2016 presidential campaign, as well as a proponent of free markets and global trade, in contrast to the president’s “America First” policies.

The 46-year-old Haley, whose parents emigrated from India, is one of six women in Trump’s Cabinet and is regarded as a potential future Republican Party presidential contender.

“No, I’m not running for 2020,” Haley said, adding she would be campaigning for Trump’s re-election in the next presidential election.

Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

President Donald Trump says he has been speaking to one of his former advisers, Dina Powell, about the possibility of succeeding Nikki Haley as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and he plans to speak with others about the post.

At the White House on Wednesday, Trump said Powell is one of many people being considered.

Haley announced on Tuesday that she is stepping down as U.N. ambassador and would vacate the post by the end of the year.

“It has been an honor of a lifetime,” Haley said, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office where they announced her pending departure Tuesday.

The former governor of the state of South Carolina has been seen by some as a relatively moderate voice in Trump’s Cabinet.

Her appointment as ambassador to the U.N. was seen as a surprise because she had been viewed as a critic of Trump’s confrontational style during the 2016 presidential campaign, as well as a proponent of free markets and global trade, in contrast to the president’s “America First” policies.

The 46-year-old Haley, whose parents emigrated from India, is one of six women in Trump’s Cabinet and is regarded as a potential future Republican Party presidential contender.

“No, I’m not running for 2020,” Haley said, adding she would be campaigning for Trump’s re-election in the next presidential election.

Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

Congress has approved a sprawling bill to improve the nation’s ports, dams and harbors, protect against floods, restore shorelines and support other water-related projects.

The massive Water Resources Development Act would authorize billions in spending for projects nationwide, including one to stem coastal erosion in Galveston, Texas, and restore wetlands damaged by Hurricane Harvey last year.

The bill also would help improve harbors in Seattle; Savannah, Georgia; and San Juan, Puerto Rico, and extend a federal program to improve drinking water quality.

The bill also sets up a new framework for large water projects run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The changes are intended to increase local input and improve transparency.

The Senate approved the bill, 99-1, on Wednesday, sending it to President Donald Trump.

 
…

Congress has approved a sprawling bill to improve the nation’s ports, dams and harbors, protect against floods, restore shorelines and support other water-related projects.

The massive Water Resources Development Act would authorize billions in spending for projects nationwide, including one to stem coastal erosion in Galveston, Texas, and restore wetlands damaged by Hurricane Harvey last year.

The bill also would help improve harbors in Seattle; Savannah, Georgia; and San Juan, Puerto Rico, and extend a federal program to improve drinking water quality.

The bill also sets up a new framework for large water projects run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The changes are intended to increase local input and improve transparency.

The Senate approved the bill, 99-1, on Wednesday, sending it to President Donald Trump.

 
…

Michael Avenatti held court last month with a dozen Democratic strategists in the main dining room at The Palm — a see-and-be-seen table at one of Washington’s most prominent power lunch spots.

Avenatti did most of the talking. While he offered few details about how he planned to raise enough money or hire the staff to run a presidential campaign, one participant and another person briefed on the lunch said he cast himself as one of the few Democrats who knows how to go head-to-head with President Donald Trump. The sources requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss details of the meeting.

Avenatti’s brash confidence is being closely watched by Democrats in Washington and key political battleground states with a mix of intrigue and trepidation. Trump’s victory over more experienced politicians in the 2016 campaign has reshaped traditional views of who would make a viable presidential candidate. Yet some party leaders are worried about trying to replicate Trump’s approach by backing another untested and unpredictable candidate — a concern that was heightened after Avenatti’s involvement in the recent Supreme Court confirmation fight.

Still, Avenatti has so far managed to stand out among the senators, governors and mayors expected to vie for the Democratic presidential nomination. Early state operatives are offering him advice, and he’s sold out Democratic Party dinners in Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s scheduled to be in South Carolina this weekend, and has another trip to New Hampshire planned on October 22.

Raymond Buckley, a veteran New Hampshire Democratic strategist, said ticket sales for a recent Hillsborough County Democratic Party fundraiser tripled within 48 hours after Avenatti was announced as the featured guest.

“There is great interest in him,” said Buckley, who met with the high-profile attorney. “I take everybody seriously. Donald Trump has taught us all a lesson. It is a mistake to be dismissive of anybody.”

But Avenatti has suddenly found himself on the defensive over his role in the acrimonious Supreme Court confirmation fight for Brett Kavanaugh, raising questions about whether his relentless self-promotion could backfire before a presidential campaign ever gets off the ground.

After two women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, Avenatti revealed that he was representing a third accuser, Julie Swetnick. In a signed declaration, Swetnick said she witnessed Kavanaugh engage in sexually inappropriate behavior.

In the same statement, Swetnick said she had been the victim of gang rape — an explosive allegation that garnered significant attention, even though she never accused Kavanaugh of the crime. Avenatti’s promise to provide people to corroborate Swetnick’s account never materialized. He says he tried to bring more information to the FBI, but the bureau never investigated.

Republican congressional aides say Avenatti’s involvement helped turn momentum back toward Kavanaugh. When the deciding vote on the nomination, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, announced that she was supporting Kavanaugh, she cited Swetnick’s “outlandish allegation” and said it was “put forth without any credible supporting evidence.”

Democrats quickly found themselves having to answer for Avenatti’s actions. During an early-voting rally in Iowa Monday, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker responded to questions about Avenatti’s client by stressing the validity of the other two accusers, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.

“What is obvious to most Americans, I think, is you have Dr. Ford and Ramirez come forward with credible claims,” said Booker, another Democratic weighing a presidential run.

Avenatti said he’s seen no drop in interest in his potential presidential prospects since he jumped into the confirmation fight, and cast the criticism of him as an inevitable response to his presidential prospects.

“It is being stoked by the Republicans and establishment Democrats that are very nervous about what my intentions are,” Avenatti said. “This is a direct response to individuals coming to the conclusion that I am a threat.”

To questions about his fundraising and planning, Avenatti said that he has not been providing details at introductory meetings, but stressed that he has donors lined up should he run and said that “we are going to have no problem raising money.” He also said he is hearing from people who are “very enthusiastic” about joining the campaign and “the only people that may be wary are establishment Democrats who are concerned because I don’t owe them anything.”

Avenatti’s uneven handling of the Kavanaugh allegations was a stark contrast to his role representing Stormy Daniels, the porn star who says she had sex with Trump and was paid by the president’s lawyer to keep quiet. While Trump and attorney Michael Cohen initially denied Daniels’ claims, details of the payment have been verified during court proceedings. Avenatti became a media fixture in the process, spending hours a day racing from one television studio to the next.

His interest quickly shifted from taking on Trump in the courtroom to challenging him in the presidential election. On Monday, Avenatti formally launched a federal political action committee, The Fight PAC, giving him the ability to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, pay for political travel and build a list of supporters. The PAC will not accept money from corporate PACs.

Avenatti’s PAC is being advised by Tracy Austin, a Los Angeles-based fundraiser who has helped several California Democrats, including Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra; Stephen Solomon, a digital media strategist; and Adam Parkhomenko, an aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Ready for Hillary PAC that preceded her campaign.

During his visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests on the presidential calendar, Avenatti has also sought out local consultants and party leaders familiar with the caucus and primary races. During a trip to Iowa in August, Avenatti was joined by Matt Paul, an Iowa-based former strategist to Clinton, and Jeff Link, a longtime adviser to former Sen. Tom Harkin.

Avenatti’s handling of the Kavanaugh confirmation fight was met with a mixed reaction in the early presidential voting states.

Steve Shurtleff, the top Democrat in the New Hampshire state house, said Avenatti’s promotion of his client may have undermined the credibility of Kavanaugh’s other accusers.

“If there was any other attorney connected to that woman, it might have helped avoid the three-ring circus it became,” said Shurtleff, who said he doesn’t see Avenatti as a viable presidential contender.

But Iowa Democrat Randy Brown, who hosted Avenatti at a Democratic fundraiser in August, said the prominent lawyer’s involvement may have helped energize some voters who may not have normally paid attention to the confirmation process.

“It fired them up more,” said Brown, chairman of the Iowa Wing Ding fundraiser.

As for the impact on Avenatti’s presidential prospects, Brown said the lawyer was simply “doing what he does best — getting his name out there.”
…

Michael Avenatti held court last month with a dozen Democratic strategists in the main dining room at The Palm — a see-and-be-seen table at one of Washington’s most prominent power lunch spots.

Avenatti did most of the talking. While he offered few details about how he planned to raise enough money or hire the staff to run a presidential campaign, one participant and another person briefed on the lunch said he cast himself as one of the few Democrats who knows how to go head-to-head with President Donald Trump. The sources requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss details of the meeting.

Avenatti’s brash confidence is being closely watched by Democrats in Washington and key political battleground states with a mix of intrigue and trepidation. Trump’s victory over more experienced politicians in the 2016 campaign has reshaped traditional views of who would make a viable presidential candidate. Yet some party leaders are worried about trying to replicate Trump’s approach by backing another untested and unpredictable candidate — a concern that was heightened after Avenatti’s involvement in the recent Supreme Court confirmation fight.

Still, Avenatti has so far managed to stand out among the senators, governors and mayors expected to vie for the Democratic presidential nomination. Early state operatives are offering him advice, and he’s sold out Democratic Party dinners in Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s scheduled to be in South Carolina this weekend, and has another trip to New Hampshire planned on October 22.

Raymond Buckley, a veteran New Hampshire Democratic strategist, said ticket sales for a recent Hillsborough County Democratic Party fundraiser tripled within 48 hours after Avenatti was announced as the featured guest.

“There is great interest in him,” said Buckley, who met with the high-profile attorney. “I take everybody seriously. Donald Trump has taught us all a lesson. It is a mistake to be dismissive of anybody.”

But Avenatti has suddenly found himself on the defensive over his role in the acrimonious Supreme Court confirmation fight for Brett Kavanaugh, raising questions about whether his relentless self-promotion could backfire before a presidential campaign ever gets off the ground.

After two women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh, Avenatti revealed that he was representing a third accuser, Julie Swetnick. In a signed declaration, Swetnick said she witnessed Kavanaugh engage in sexually inappropriate behavior.

In the same statement, Swetnick said she had been the victim of gang rape — an explosive allegation that garnered significant attention, even though she never accused Kavanaugh of the crime. Avenatti’s promise to provide people to corroborate Swetnick’s account never materialized. He says he tried to bring more information to the FBI, but the bureau never investigated.

Republican congressional aides say Avenatti’s involvement helped turn momentum back toward Kavanaugh. When the deciding vote on the nomination, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, announced that she was supporting Kavanaugh, she cited Swetnick’s “outlandish allegation” and said it was “put forth without any credible supporting evidence.”

Democrats quickly found themselves having to answer for Avenatti’s actions. During an early-voting rally in Iowa Monday, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker responded to questions about Avenatti’s client by stressing the validity of the other two accusers, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.

“What is obvious to most Americans, I think, is you have Dr. Ford and Ramirez come forward with credible claims,” said Booker, another Democratic weighing a presidential run.

Avenatti said he’s seen no drop in interest in his potential presidential prospects since he jumped into the confirmation fight, and cast the criticism of him as an inevitable response to his presidential prospects.

“It is being stoked by the Republicans and establishment Democrats that are very nervous about what my intentions are,” Avenatti said. “This is a direct response to individuals coming to the conclusion that I am a threat.”

To questions about his fundraising and planning, Avenatti said that he has not been providing details at introductory meetings, but stressed that he has donors lined up should he run and said that “we are going to have no problem raising money.” He also said he is hearing from people who are “very enthusiastic” about joining the campaign and “the only people that may be wary are establishment Democrats who are concerned because I don’t owe them anything.”

Avenatti’s uneven handling of the Kavanaugh allegations was a stark contrast to his role representing Stormy Daniels, the porn star who says she had sex with Trump and was paid by the president’s lawyer to keep quiet. While Trump and attorney Michael Cohen initially denied Daniels’ claims, details of the payment have been verified during court proceedings. Avenatti became a media fixture in the process, spending hours a day racing from one television studio to the next.

His interest quickly shifted from taking on Trump in the courtroom to challenging him in the presidential election. On Monday, Avenatti formally launched a federal political action committee, The Fight PAC, giving him the ability to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, pay for political travel and build a list of supporters. The PAC will not accept money from corporate PACs.

Avenatti’s PAC is being advised by Tracy Austin, a Los Angeles-based fundraiser who has helped several California Democrats, including Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra; Stephen Solomon, a digital media strategist; and Adam Parkhomenko, an aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Ready for Hillary PAC that preceded her campaign.

During his visits to Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests on the presidential calendar, Avenatti has also sought out local consultants and party leaders familiar with the caucus and primary races. During a trip to Iowa in August, Avenatti was joined by Matt Paul, an Iowa-based former strategist to Clinton, and Jeff Link, a longtime adviser to former Sen. Tom Harkin.

Avenatti’s handling of the Kavanaugh confirmation fight was met with a mixed reaction in the early presidential voting states.

Steve Shurtleff, the top Democrat in the New Hampshire state house, said Avenatti’s promotion of his client may have undermined the credibility of Kavanaugh’s other accusers.

“If there was any other attorney connected to that woman, it might have helped avoid the three-ring circus it became,” said Shurtleff, who said he doesn’t see Avenatti as a viable presidential contender.

But Iowa Democrat Randy Brown, who hosted Avenatti at a Democratic fundraiser in August, said the prominent lawyer’s involvement may have helped energize some voters who may not have normally paid attention to the confirmation process.

“It fired them up more,” said Brown, chairman of the Iowa Wing Ding fundraiser.

As for the impact on Avenatti’s presidential prospects, Brown said the lawyer was simply “doing what he does best — getting his name out there.”
…

Chants of “Lock her up!” rang once again throughout an Iowa arena as President Donald Trump rallied supporters Tuesday night.

But this time, the staple of Trump’s 2016 campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton had a new target: California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Trump, who was in the state boosting Republican candidates ahead of the Nov. 6 midterm elections, claimed that Feinstein, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had leaked a letter written by California professor Christine Blasey Ford alleging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.

Feinstein has denied her office was the source of the leak.

“Can you believe that?” Trump said, as his supporters turned the chant once deployed against the former secretary of state on another Democratic woman.

“Did she leak that? 100 percent,” Trump said, adding, “I don’t want to get sued, so 99 percent.”

In a statement, Feinstein called Trump’s remarks “ridiculous and an embarrassment.”

Ford had sought to remain anonymous when she brought the allegation against Kavanaugh to Feinstein’s attention. She later went public after reporters started trying to contact her. Kavanaugh staunchly denied Ford’s accusation.

“Dr. Blasey Ford knows I kept her confidence, she and her lawyers said so repeatedly,” Feinstein said. “Republican senators admit it. Even the reporter who broke the story said it wasn’t me or my staff.”

The rally in Council Bluffs, across the Missouri River from Omaha, Nebraska, was Trump’s latest stop on a busy tour campaigning for Republican candidates in the lead-up to midterms that will determine control of Congress. And it comes as the president is on a high wave following a series of wins, including Kavanaugh’s confirmation. It’s the second appointment Trump has made to the Supreme Court.

Indeed, Trump’s loudest applause came as he continued his victory lap, which has included bashing Democrats for attempting to sink the nomination. Trump and other GOP leaders say the effort energized Republican voters, who had long been considered less energized than Democrats.

“This is truly an historic week for America,” said Trump, praising Republican senators for standing up to what he called “the Democrats’ shameful campaign of political and personal destruction” against his nominee.

“They wanted to destroy that man,” Trump said. “What the Democrats did to Brett and his family is a national embarrassment, a national disgrace.”

Trump also rolled out new fuel standards that will be a boon for Iowa and other farm states that have pushed for greater ethanol sales. The long-expected change will lift the federal ban on summer sales of gasoline with high-ethanol blends and allow them year-round. The EPA currently bans the high-ethanol blend, called E15, during the summer because of concerns that it contributes to smog on hot days. Ethanol industry advocates say that fear is unfounded.

Speaking to a crowd of thousands, Trump said he was delivering a promise he’d made to Iowa voters years ago when he campaigned ahead of the state’s caucuses.

“Promises made, promises kept,” he said. He charged without offering evidence that if Democrats take control of Congress next month, they will seek to roll back his efforts.

The move was also seen as a reward for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who led Kavanaugh’s contentious but successful confirmation fight. Trump praised Grassley on Tuesday night as a “tough cookie” as he applauded local leaders including Iowa’s Republican Rep. David Young and Gov. Kim Reynolds, who face tough re-election fights.

Trump also boosted Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, who face voters next month. The pair received loud applause from the heavily Nebraskan crowd.

Early voting in Iowa began on Monday, and Trump urged those gathered to cast their ballots now. “Go! Just vote. Get it over with,” he urged.

Early voting accounted for 41 percent of the Iowa vote in 2016, according to the White House.
…

Chants of “Lock her up!” rang once again throughout an Iowa arena as President Donald Trump rallied supporters Tuesday night.

But this time, the staple of Trump’s 2016 campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton had a new target: California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Trump, who was in the state boosting Republican candidates ahead of the Nov. 6 midterm elections, claimed that Feinstein, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had leaked a letter written by California professor Christine Blasey Ford alleging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers.

Feinstein has denied her office was the source of the leak.

“Can you believe that?” Trump said, as his supporters turned the chant once deployed against the former secretary of state on another Democratic woman.

“Did she leak that? 100 percent,” Trump said, adding, “I don’t want to get sued, so 99 percent.”

In a statement, Feinstein called Trump’s remarks “ridiculous and an embarrassment.”

Ford had sought to remain anonymous when she brought the allegation against Kavanaugh to Feinstein’s attention. She later went public after reporters started trying to contact her. Kavanaugh staunchly denied Ford’s accusation.

“Dr. Blasey Ford knows I kept her confidence, she and her lawyers said so repeatedly,” Feinstein said. “Republican senators admit it. Even the reporter who broke the story said it wasn’t me or my staff.”

The rally in Council Bluffs, across the Missouri River from Omaha, Nebraska, was Trump’s latest stop on a busy tour campaigning for Republican candidates in the lead-up to midterms that will determine control of Congress. And it comes as the president is on a high wave following a series of wins, including Kavanaugh’s confirmation. It’s the second appointment Trump has made to the Supreme Court.

Indeed, Trump’s loudest applause came as he continued his victory lap, which has included bashing Democrats for attempting to sink the nomination. Trump and other GOP leaders say the effort energized Republican voters, who had long been considered less energized than Democrats.

“This is truly an historic week for America,” said Trump, praising Republican senators for standing up to what he called “the Democrats’ shameful campaign of political and personal destruction” against his nominee.

“They wanted to destroy that man,” Trump said. “What the Democrats did to Brett and his family is a national embarrassment, a national disgrace.”

Trump also rolled out new fuel standards that will be a boon for Iowa and other farm states that have pushed for greater ethanol sales. The long-expected change will lift the federal ban on summer sales of gasoline with high-ethanol blends and allow them year-round. The EPA currently bans the high-ethanol blend, called E15, during the summer because of concerns that it contributes to smog on hot days. Ethanol industry advocates say that fear is unfounded.

Speaking to a crowd of thousands, Trump said he was delivering a promise he’d made to Iowa voters years ago when he campaigned ahead of the state’s caucuses.

“Promises made, promises kept,” he said. He charged without offering evidence that if Democrats take control of Congress next month, they will seek to roll back his efforts.

The move was also seen as a reward for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who led Kavanaugh’s contentious but successful confirmation fight. Trump praised Grassley on Tuesday night as a “tough cookie” as he applauded local leaders including Iowa’s Republican Rep. David Young and Gov. Kim Reynolds, who face tough re-election fights.

Trump also boosted Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, who face voters next month. The pair received loud applause from the heavily Nebraskan crowd.

Early voting in Iowa began on Monday, and Trump urged those gathered to cast their ballots now. “Go! Just vote. Get it over with,” he urged.

Early voting accounted for 41 percent of the Iowa vote in 2016, according to the White House.
…