Mediaboss Marketing

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

Nov. 6, 2018 / 1:52 AM GMT/ UpdatedNov. 7, 2018 / 12:27 PM GMT

By Alex Seitz-Wald

It's a split decision.

Democrats won control of the House in Tuesday's critical midterm elections, and Republicans will hold the Senate after Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, defeated Democratic challenger Beto O'Rouke, NBC News projects.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laid out the vision of a Democratic majority in the House, saying Tuesday night it will "be led with transparency and openness."

"Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans its about restoring the constitution's check and balances to the Trump administration," she said in a speech. "Its about stopping the GOP and (Senate Majority Leader) Mitch McConnells assault on Medicare and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the health care of 130 million Americans living with pre-existing medical conditions.

In governor races, Democrats made some key gains even as Andrew Gillum in Florida was defeated and Stacey Abrams in Georgia was struggling. Both were vying to be their state's first African-American chief executives.

"We recognize that we didn't win it tonight," Gillum told supporters. Abrams is trailing, though her race remains too close to call.

With polls now closed in all states, Democrats' hopes for a tidal wave to rebuke President Donald Trump have been tempered by early returns that delivered some surprises in both directions for the out-of-power party.

"This is not going to be the wave election that people like me hoped for, but it could still be a good election," Democratic strategist James Carville said on MSNBC.

In addition to Texas, Republicans won key Senate contests in Indiana, North Dakota and Tennessee, suggesting the GOP may be on its way to ousting other vulnerable Democratic incumbents in red states, such as Missouri, where Sen. Claire McCaskill was defeated by Republican Josh Hawley, according to an NBC News projection.

Still, the Democrats will find plenty of bright spots after a campaign that often seemed to be playing in two different universes, one for the House, where Trump was a liability for Republicans, and one for the Senate, where he was an asset.

Powered by a suburban revolt against Trump, Democrats flipped more than two dozen congressional seats, a victory sweetened by out-of-the-blue victories in Oklahoma and Staten Island, New York, according to NBC News projections.

Democratic activists are also likely to cheer the defeat in the Kansas governors race of Republican Kris Kobach, who has a national profile for cracking down on undocumented immigrants and allegations of voting fraud, and the passage of a referendum in Florida to restore voting rights to 1.5 million felons, according to NBC News projections.

Governor races also presented a mixed decision, with Republicans winning Ohio and Florida, both crucial to Democrats' 2020 plans, while Democrats won in Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, and several others, and hold narrow leads in too-close-to-call races in Wisconsin and Iowa, two states Trump won.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Menedez, D-N.J., whose trial on corruption charges ended in a hung jury last year, won another term, despite his Republican opponent spending $23 million on the race, much of it from his own bank account, NBC News projected.

And a referendum to legalize marijuana in Michigan also appears headed for passage, though NBC News has not yet made a call in there.

Democrats were hoping that voters would reject Trump and the nationalist vision for America he's championed in the closing weeks of the race. The first rounds of NBC News exit polls show a majority of Americans, 54 percent, do not approve of Trump, with a substantial number 47 percent expressing strong disapproval.

Health care, which Democrats emphasized throughout the campaign, was the top issue for Americans, with 41 percent selecting it, followed by immigration and the economy, two issues seen as favoring Republicans, which were selected by 23 and 21 percent of voters, respectively.

Overall, Americans expressed a fairly dim view of the state of politics, with 56 percent saying the country is on the wrong track and three-quarters of Americans saying the country is becoming more divided.

What is clear, however, is that few congressional elections have ever captivated so many Americans.

Early voting exceeded 2014 levels in most states, according to TargetSmart, while campaign spending has been pushed to a record $5.2 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The superlatives demonstrate the significance millions of Americans have invested in this midterms, believing it will help determine the future of the country and who gets to be a part of it.

The character of this country is on the ballot. Who we are is on the ballot, former President Barack Obama, hoarse from campaigning, told Democratic volunteers at a Virginia campaign office Monday.

The race has already made history with a record number of women and people of color running for office, and gave voters a chance to make a number of firsts: First transgender governor, first Native American woman in Congress, first black woman governor, among others.

Trump is not on the ballot, but the president has explicitly sought to make this election a referendum on his agenda as he campaigns for Republicans across the country, holding 53 campaign rallies in 23 states, including 30 since Labor Day.

"I need you to vote for a Republican House and a Republican Senate so we can continue this incredible movement," Trump told supporters in Indiana on Friday.

In almost every midterm since the Civil War, Americans have opted to put a check on the president by handing more power to the opposition party in Congress.

The booming economy appears to be cushioning the blow for the GOP this year, but Trump has instead tended to focus on darker themes, for instance highlighting a caravan of migrants moving towards the U.S. southern border as much as he has the low unemployment rate.

With the Democrats winning the House, they plan to wield Congress vast oversight authority against the White House and could even vote to impeach the president, though removing him from office seems out of the question, since that requires a supermajority in the Senate.

Alex Seitz-Wald is a political reporter for NBC News.

Read more here:
Midterm election results: Democrats win House, GOP holds ...

Democrats are heading into Tuesday's high-stakes midterm elections with optimism, feeling strong about their chances of retaking the House of Representatives. Control of Congress is on the line as is the fate of Donald Trump's presidency. (Nov. 1) AP

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 26, 2018.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

WASHINGTON If Democrats have been a thorn in President Donald Trumps side while in the minority, just wait.

Some of his sharpest critics are among those in line to lead committees if Democrats win majority control of the House. They would have the power to issue subpoenas, call hearings and generally make Trumps life miserable.

Imagine the 3 a.m. tweets from Trump if Democrats use that power to probe whether he has financial ties to Russia and financial conflicts of interest or to subpoena the tax returns hes been reluctant to disclose. All of that would come on top of special counsel Robert Muellers ongoing investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats have campaigned on lowering the cost of health care and prescription drugs, infrastructure improvements and cleaning up corruption in Washington. Their oversight agenda isnt set, but those campaign promises are likely to inform it.

Our challenge will be to overcome the Trump administrations stonewalling and to keep the focus on the answers that the American people are owed from their government, said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Republicans are worried. House Speaker Paul Ryans political operation sent out a flyer, obtained by USA TODAY, to donors and industry leaders listing the Democrats they believed would be in leadership and the top committee slots.

"Dont let this happen, support Team Ryan today!"the flyer read.

Still, Democrats shouldnt start an oversight effort saying, "Now were going after President Trump,"said former Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chaired the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from 2007 to 2009.That would be "politicized"and "not credible."

But they could look into, for example, whether the Trump administration has turned its back on protecting peoples health or the environment or trying to make the tax code fair, he said.

I think that there are many legitimate oversight issues, and I think if those issues are reviewed in an honest and fair way, this administrations going to be embarrassed, because they havent done the job they should have been doing, he said.

Here are some House members who would be poised to lead oversight efforts.

More: Midterms: Races for governor, statehouses will help decide control of Congress for a decade

More: 2018 midterms: Racial justice motivating factor for young voters of color, poll finds

If Pelosi regains her former title of House speaker, shell play a leading role in shaping the narrative and scope of oversight efforts.

Centrist Democrats will likely want to pursue a cautious approach, while some progressives will want aggressive oversight of the administration.

Make no mistake whoever next becomes speaker, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican needs to provide complete oversight of this reckless, criminal administration starting on day one, Tom Steyer, thebillionaire activist who has called for Trumps impeachment, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

During a recent forum at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Institute of Politics, Pelosi said the calls for Trump's impeachment were"very divisive."But she said Democrats would make sure the Mueller investigations documentation is preserved for further examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Pelosi blasted Republicans during the forum for providing "absolutely no oversight" of government agencies. She has already convened meetings with members in line to chair committees to talk with them about their approach and coordination.

"This shouldnt be scattershot,"she said. "This should be responsible, honoring our Constitution and our responsibilities, seeking the truth and, in terms of the agencies of government, having the proper oversight to make sure that we are exercising our balance of power."

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 17, 2017.(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

While Cummings was often critical of Trump over the course of the 2016 election the congressmanat one point called Trump"dangerous" the two still metfor an hour in the Oval Office in March 2017 to discuss a proposal to lower prescription drug prices.

"Great discussion,"Trump tweeted after the meeting. (He later saidthat Cummings proclaimed he'd be one of the country's "great presidents," something Cummings denied.)

Cummings said he got "radio silence" from Trump after that meeting, thus ending that brief brush with bipartisanship.

If Cummings chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he would have jurisdiction over a broad array of topics. The rising costs of drug prices, along with other everyday issues confronting Americans, would be one part of his mission. Another would focus on waste, fraud and abuse in the Trump administration, according to a Democratic aide.

That could include oversight on topics such Trumps potential financial conflicts of interest and protecting against violations of the Constitutions emoluments clause," which prohibits officeholders from accepting payments from foreign governments without consent from Congress. Potential violation examples could include foreign government officials who buy up floors of Trump's hotel rooms orpay higher-than-market rents at Trump Tower, according to committee Democrats.

Other topics could include the handling of security clearances, attacks on government watchdogs and employees, ethics scandals involving senior administration officials and Trumps immigration and child separation policies at the southernborder.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, arrives at a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 18, 2018.(Photo: AP)

When House Republicans in March concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Schiff called the end of that yearlong probea terrible disservice to the country and the American people.

A former federal prosecutor, he said as early as February that there was "ample evidence"that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016, though he left it up to Mueller to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Schiff is likely to chair the House Intelligence Committee if Democrats win the House, and hes not ready to give up on the investigation.

He said in a statement that Democrats would need to "fully assess what areas of inquiry in the Russia investigation still require a full accounting"by reviewing their work along with what the Senate and Mueller have uncovered.

There are serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president, including perhaps the laundering of Russian money through his businesses, Schiff said in an Oct. 12 op-ed in the Washington Post. It would be negligent to our national security not to find out.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., joined at left by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., makes a statement at a gun-rights hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Nadler could chair the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over articles of impeachment.

So far, he has been guarded about his position, telling The Atlantic in September that he hasnt seen information thats proof positive that hes committed impeachable offenses.

Regardless, its clear Nadler would pursue a vigorous oversight agenda. A report by the committees Democratic staff called A Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Inaction, blasts the GOP majority for failing to conduct meaningful oversight on a host of issues, including election security, enforcement of federal ethics rules, breaches of the emoluments clause of the Constitution and allegations of obstruction of justice.

He told The New York Times last month that, if Democrats win control, the committeewould open an investigation related to allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing the Senate failed to do its job of advise and consent. He said the committee would likely subpoena records from the White House and FBI, which conducted an investigation into the allegations that Democrats said wasn't thorough enough.

Nadler has also been a critic of Trumps immigration policies, another topic that falls under the committees jurisdiction.

The abuses and ethical lapses we have seen in the Trump Administration, in the Trump Campaign and in Congress clearly show the need to address the culture of corruption that has developed in the absence of appropriate checks on power, Nadler said, delivering the weekly Democratic Address last month. This corruption is at the heart of what Donald Trump represents: self-interest and ego-driven decisions that come at the expense of the American people.

House Financial Services Committee ranking member Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., asks a question of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson during a hearing June 27, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

Waters was among more than a dozen Democrats and high-profile critics of Trump who were targeted last month with suspicious packages carrying bomb-like devices. She blamed Trump for promoting violence among his supporters and urged others to not be intimidated.

"We have to keep to doing what were doing in order to make this country right, she said in an interview with Blavity. Thats what I intend to do, and as the young people say, 'I aint scared.

If Democrats win the House, Waters would be in line to lead the House Financial Services Committee. That means more power to explore a key interest Trumps finances.

She has been seeking records that could show whether Trump, his family members and associates have financial ties to Russia.

She would also be in position to review Republican efforts to roll back Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform protections.

"Financial services issues are critical for all Americans and for our economy, and I am focused on making sure that our financial system is fair, she said in a statement.

Waters, who has long called for Trumps impeachment, made waves this summer when she encouraged protesters to confront Cabinet officials in public. Trump responded by calling her an extraordinarily low-IQ person and alleging falsely that she called for harming his supporters.

More: Forget the pantsuit. In 2018, 'badass' female candidates show strength after decades of being told how to look, sound and act

More: Think millennials are woke? Only a third plan to definitely vote in the midterms, poll says

More: Midterms: Democrats have more final advertising dollars in six of the nine hottest Senate races

Contributing: Eliza Collins

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/04/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-donald-trump/1851978002/

See the rest here:
2018 midterm elections: Democrats who could challenge ...

Christine Blasey Ford had just revealed her identity and was prepared to testify in public, detailing her allegations that Kavanaugh had tried to sexual assault her more than three decades ago. On top of that, a New Yorker article had just revealed that a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, was accusing Kavanaugh of exposing his genitals to her while they were college students.

Then came Michael Avenatti.

She also alleged that at some parties, boys lined up by a bedroom to "gang-rape" incapacitated girls and claimed those in the lineup included Kavanaugh and Judge. But she did not say Kavanaugh or Judge assaulted the girls in the bedroom, nor did she provide the names of corroborating witnesses.

Kavanaugh furiously denied the allegations.

But the eye-popping nature of those claims suddenly gave Republicans an opportunity to shift the narrative away from Ford's allegations and make a broader case that the growing accusations of sexual misconduct amounted to an orchestrated Democratic smear campaign, something Sen. Susan Collins, the swing GOP vote, cited herself when announcing she'd be the decisive vote to support Kavanaugh's confirmation.

A host of Democratic senators and senior aides told CNN that the allegations from Avenatti's client gave the GOP an opening to conflate -- and dismiss -- all the allegations in one broad brush.

"Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations," said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, when asked about the allegations raised by Avenatti and his client. "It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that's not where we should be."

Asked if Avenatti was helpful, Peters said: "I think we should have focused on the serious allegations that certainly appeared very credible to me that would be our best course of action."

Privately, the assessment was far more scathing.

"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

A Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said: "Not helpful at all. I think Susan was always yes, but Avenatti was a useful foil."

Reached for comment Saturday, Avenatti pushed back, criticizing anonymous Democrats as "cowards" and saying the assessment shows the "failed leadership" in the Democratic Party.

"It is outrageous that these so-called Democrats would attack a sexual assault victim from coming forward," Avenatti told CNN. "I guess their position is that she should have shut her mouth and remained silent? It is disgusting that these cowards blame my client and the other accusers from coming forward.""

Avenatti, who represented Daniels, the porn actress who was paid by Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen in the 2016 campaign to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump, has furiously criticized the FBI for not investigating the allegations, saying Swetnick would be willing to testify under oath about her claims.

In a statement released on Sunday, Swetnick said Collins "does not deserve to represent women" and that her allegations deserved an investigation.

"My allegations should have been investigated. I know of multiple corroborating witnesses and we were all prepared to speak with the FBI as we made known for weeks," the statement read.

Swetnick went on to say that key Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee "purposely prevented any inquiry into my claims and those of other sexual assault victims in the interest of politics."

While Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the allegation once they were made public to call for the confirmation to ground to a halt, other Democrats quickly distanced themselves from the allegation, choosing instead to keep the focus on Ford's claims -- and a lesser extent, Ramirez's.

And on Friday when she announced her critical decision to give Kavanaugh the votes to confirm his nomination, Collins called the allegation "outlandish" without "any credible supporting evidence."

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important," Collins said on the floor. "I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape."

Avenatti sharply criticized Collins -- and Democrats, as well.

"How do they know her claims, supported by six witnesses were not credible?" Avenatti said. "They did basically nothing to find out."

Many Democrats did not know what to make of the claims made by Avenatti's client. In particular, Democrats pointed to more than 1,000 pages of FBI tips on Kavanaugh that poured in and were never investigated -- some of which, they said, could have been credible. They said Swetnick's could well be credible -- or perhaps not.

"I just step back and I just look at the totality -- this was not attempted to be a serious process," said Sen. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, when asked if Avenatti was helpful to the case against Kavanaugh. He called the FBI probe a "coverup" directed by the White House

"I just consider this to be a larger story," Markey said, when asked again about Avenatti's clients came.

Peters said some Republicans pointed to the Swetnick allegations "to distract from the task at hand, which is really about pursuing what are serious allegations, and one that seemed to be credible.

"So there are always efforts whenever you dealing with a serious issue like this, that people want to change the discussion and have everybody chanse another different shiny object," Peters said. "Our job in the Senate, and it should have been the job of the FBI too, is to focus on those that are credible."

One Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee privately was more direct.

"It wasn't helpful because the story became about Avenatti," the Democratic senator said.

Avenatti, who headlined an Ohio fundraiser Friday and is considering running for president in 2020, said he wears that Democratic criticism with a "badge of honor."

"Many establishment Democrats are concerned because they see me as a threat," Avenatti said.

CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.

See more here:
Democrats say Michael Avenatti undercut their case against ...

Donald J. Trump, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Oct. 10, 2018 | Updated 3:45 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2018

President Donald Trump(Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Throughout the year, we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around a new legislative proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.

Dishonestly called Medicare for All, the Democratic proposal would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that eliminates all private and employer-based health care plans and would costan astonishing $32.6trillionduring its first 10 years.

As a candidate, I promised that we would protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and create new health care insurance options that would lower premiums.I have kept that promise, and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.

STANDARDS EDITOR: Medicare op-ed and all the reaction show democracy in action

Related: Factcheck.org has looked into statements made in this column.

I also made a solemn promise to our great seniors to protect Medicare. That is why I am fighting so hard against theDemocrats' plan that would eviscerate Medicare.Democrats have already harmed seniors by slashing Medicare by more than $800 billionover 10 years to pay for Obamacare.Likewise, Democrats wouldgut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care.

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. By eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors, and outlawing the ability of Americans to enroll in private and employer-based plans, the Democraticplan would inevitably lead to the massive rationing of health care. Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.

In practice, the Democratic Partys so-called Medicare for Allwould really be Medicare for None. Under the Democrats' plan, todays Medicare would be forced to die.

The Democrats' plan also would meanthe end of choice for seniors over their own health care decisions. Instead, Democrats would give total power and control over seniors health care decisions to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

More: Donald Trump knows nothing about Medicare, health care or Democrats: Talker

My family escaped socialism, now my fellow Democrats think we should move the party in its direction

Bernie Sanders: Trump lies about 'Medicare for All' and he's made health care worse

The first thing the Democratic plan will do to end choice for seniors is eliminate Medicare Advantage plans for about 20 million seniors as well as eliminate other private health plans that seniors currently use to supplement their Medicare coverage.

Next, the Democrats would eliminate every Americans private and employer-based health plan. It is right there in their proposed legislation: Democrats outlaw private health plansthat offer the same benefits as the government plan.

Americans might think that such an extreme, anti-senior, anti-choiceand anti-consumerproposal for government-run health care would find little support among Democrats in Congress.

Unfortunately, they would be wrong:123 Democrats in the House of Representatives 64percent of House Democratsas well as 15Democrats in the Senatehave already formally co-sponsored this legislation. Democratic nominees for governor in Florida, Californiaand Maryland are all campaigning in support of it, as are many Democratic congressional candidates.

The truth is that the centrist Democratic Party is dead. The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model Americas economy after Venezuela.

If Democrats win control of Congress this November, we will come dangerously closer to socialism in America. Government-run health care is just the beginning. Democrats are also pushing massive government control of education, private-sector businessesand other major sectors of the U.S.economy.

Every single citizen will be harmed by such a radical shift in American culture and life. Virtually everywhere it has been tried, socialism has brought suffering, miseryand decay.

Indeed, the Democrats' commitment to government-run health care is all the more menacing to our seniors and our economy when paired with someDemocrats' absolute commitment to endenforcement of our immigration laws by abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That means millions more would cross our borders illegally and take advantage of health care paid for by American taxpayers.

Todays Democratic Party is for open-borders socialism. This radical agendawould destroy American prosperity. Under itsvision, costs will spiral out of control. Taxes will skyrocket. And Democrats will seek to slash budgets for seniors Medicare, Social Securityand defense.

Republicans believe that a Medicare program that was created for seniors and paid for by seniors their entire lives should always be protected and preserved. I am committed to resolutely defending Medicare and Social Security from the radical socialist plans of the Democrats. For the sake of our country, our prosperity, our seniorsand all Americans this is a fight we must win.

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States. Follow him on Twitter:@realDonaldTrump

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/

Read more here:
Donald Trump column: Democrats are for 'open-borders ...

Ask any casual observer what the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation fight is about, and the answer will be the allegation that at a high school party 36 years ago, when Kavanaugh was 17, he drunkenly forced then-15-year-old Christine Ford onto a bed, tried to undress her and, when she tried to scream, covered her mouth with his hand.

That is now old news. In recent days, immediately after Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed to Democratic demands that the FBI investigate the 1982 incident, the Kavanaugh goal posts have moved dramatically. Now, a key issue is Kavanaugh's teenage drinking, and whether he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was asked about his drinking practices both in high school and at Yale University.

"Lying to Congress is a federal crime," Sen. Bernie Sanders noted in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. "Kavanaugh's truthfulness with the Senate goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court."

The new developments raised two questions. One, did Kavanaugh actually lie to the Senate about his drinking? And two, why are Democrats, now that they have finally won the FBI investigation they wanted into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, suddenly making a bigger deal of his drinking?

On the first, Kavanaugh clearly told the Senate he drank in high school and college. He told the Senate he sometimes drank to excess. But he said he did not black out, nor did he drink so much that he could not remember events that took place while he was drinking.

"I drank beer with my friends," Kavanaugh testified. "Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

That was pretty clear. Kavanaugh repeated it when the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, pressed him on whether he sometimes drank so much that he forgot what he did when he was drinking.

"Have you ever passed out from drinking?"

"I -- passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but -- but I've never blacked out," Kavanaugh said. "That's the -- that's the -- the allegation, and that -- that -- that's wrong."

Some Democrats and their allies in the press suggested Kavanaugh lied in his exchanges with Mitchell and the Democratic senators. But how? Kavanaugh was quite open about the fact that he drank in high school and in college, and also about the fact that he sometimes drank too much. He denied having alcohol-related blackouts, but said he had "gone to sleep" after drinking. On another occasion, responding to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, he said "I don't know" when asked if he had ever drunk so much that he didn't remember what happened the night before. It's hard to see where the "federal crime," as Sen. Sanders put it, is in that testimony.

But The Washington Post reported that "many Democrats have called for the FBI to take a broader look at whether Kavanaugh may have misled senators by minimizing his carousing behavior in high school and college." In particular, Democrats want to press the question of whether Kavanaugh ever blacked out from having too much to drink.

Why? The answer is the theory behind the Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh.

The most serious allegation against Kavanaugh is, of course, Christine Ford's. Kavanaugh has strongly and unequivocally denied it. The problem for Democrats is that there is no contemporaneous evidence to support Ford's claim. By her own account, Ford told no one of what happened at the time. She told no one in the next few years. No one in the next few decades. No one for 30 years, until, in 2012, when Ford says she told her therapist what had happened to her long ago.

The people Ford claims were at the home where she says Kavanaugh attacked her, including one close friend of Ford's, have said they have no memories that support her account.

So the Ford case is quite hard to make. And that is where, for Democrats, Kavanaugh's supposed blackouts come in. With no contemporaneous evidence that the Ford attack happened, Democrats are trying to make the case that it could have happened. What if Kavanaugh got drunk, attacked Ford and later didn't remember that he did it?

That is the theory behind some Democratic senators' questioning of Kavanaugh last week. The idea was to get Kavanaugh to admit alcohol-induced memory loss and thus undermine his firm contention that he did not do what Ford alleged. How could he really know? He himself admitted that he sometimes drank so much he couldn't remember what happened the night before. He could have attacked Christine Ford in an alcoholic blackout and never remember that he did it.

The problem, of course, is that is all anti-Kavanaugh theorizing. There's no evidence to support it, just as there is no evidence beyond Christine Ford's word to support the original attack allegation. But it's what Democrats have to work with right now, and it's why they are trying to change the subject from sexual misconduct to Kavanaugh's teenage drinking.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Read more here:
In Kavanaugh Fight, Democrats Move Goal Posts Far, Far Away