The border crisis is not a “national emergency,” and even Sarah Sanders knows it.

The press secretary released a statement on Twitter about the border funding bill by uploading a picture from Apple’s Notes app. “The Daily Show” wasn’t sure the form reflected the supposed gravity of the situation: “Nothing says ‘National Emergency’ like the app you use to remind yourself to get bananas,” it tweeted.

Why is Sanders using the app we all use for our grocery lists to announce that President Trump will declare a national emergency? Evidently, the press secretary was not prepared to release a statement on a move Trump had only hinted at.

The president said Tuesday he was not happy with Congress’ bipartisan bill on border security but that he might sign it anyway while looking for other ways to fund his wall. Apparently, he didn’t communicate to Sanders what this other way would be.

“The Daily Show” also tweeted that the announcement “is a pretty elaborate way to get out of Valentine’s Day dinner with Melania.” But really, it’s more of a break-up letter to many members of the president’s own party.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/at-least-on-the-national-emergency-the-daily-show-was-right

An attack last week against former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke in his Connecticut prison cell reflects “the mentality out there … that people won’t rest until he is either given a life sentence or killed in prison,” his lead trial attorney said Thursday.

Daniel Herbert joined Van Dyke’s wife, Tiffany, in demanding to know why Van Dyke was transferred to an out-of-state federal prison and why he was placed in the general inmate population, where he was beaten in the face within days of his arrival.

“They put my husband in a setting to be harmed because of the fact that he was a white man who harmed a black gentleman in the line of duty,” Tiffany Van Dyke said at a news conference. “He is a police officer who was convicted for doing his job, and at the basic minimum they were supposed to keep him safe.”

Attorneys stressed the danger Van Dyke faces in custody — just days after prosecutors filed a legal petition before the state Supreme Court that, if successful, could significantly lengthen his sentence.

Source Article from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jason-van-dyke-laquan-mcdonald-prison-attack-20190214-story.html

President Ivan Duque of Colombia meets President Trump at the White House on Wednesday. I believe Trump may use Duque’s visit or its immediate aftermath to announce the deployment of a limited number of U.S. Army or Marine personnel to the Colombian border with Venezuela.

Interim Venezuelan President Juan Guaido has now set a Feb. 23 date for when his followers will attempt to force U.S. aid convoys through the Colombian-Venezuelan border. Venezuela’s pretender-president Nicolas Maduro has blocked those border crossings with his military. But while it was originally expected that the opposition might attempt an aid crossing on Tuesday, Guaido instead announced that Feb. 23 would be the crunch date. This invites the question: Why the delay from Tuesday to Feb. 23?

I think it’s because the U.S. and Guaido know that they have not yet been able to persuade a sufficient critical mass of Venezuelan military officers to flip towards Guaido. They assessed that, had Guaido attempted to force through the aid on Tuesday, Maduro’s forces would have violently subdued them. The key here, then, is what changes between now and Feb. 23. In the context of pre-existing Trump administration interests in sending a small military force to Colombia (remember John Bolton’s accidental 5,000 troops to Colombia note a couple of weeks back?), I suspect the Trump administration has now indicated to Guaido that it will deploy a limited military force to the border before Feb. 23.

That action would certainly be proportionate and justified in defense of U.S. diplomat and USAID officials at the border. Of course, it would also provide eyeball-to-eyeball pressure on the Venezuelan military and Maduro’s Cuban intelligence service base. It would challenge them to choose between either allowing the aid convoys through, or firing on Venezuelan civilians and perhaps even U.S. diplomats and facing the consequences.

Remember, the Trump administration’s Venezuela strategy is focused far more on breaking the military’s link to Maduro than on influencing Maduro per se. Of course, any new U.S. military deployment to Colombia would require that nation’s assent. And that speaks to a second “why now” issue: Duque’s evolving position.

Certainly, Duque is under increasing U.S. pressure to more aggressively confront Maduro’s regime. Although Duque’s administration is heavily critical of Maduro, it is cautious about being enveloped in a spiral towards war. Still, with Duque in Washington to seek new U.S. aid support for Colombian domestic security initiatives, and U.S. forces already present on Colombian soil for counter-drug operations, it is far from unfeasible that a new, limited U.S. border deployment might be authorized. Colombia might even welcome that deployment to deter the increasingly unpredictable Maduro.

As I say, I expect a near-term Trump announcement on a limited U.S. military deployment to Colombia.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-trump-is-likely-to-announce-hes-sending-troops-to-the-colombian-venezuelan-border

Santa Clara County Sheriff deputies and San Jose police are in a standoff with a driver in a UPS truck at North First Street and West Trimble Road in San Jose after a slow speed chase.

According to the sheriff’s office, this was a hostage situation. Deputies are saying the hostage is now safe.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office tells ABC7 News the suspect is now the only person in the UPS truck.

The truck is completely surrounded.

According to deputies, the pursuit started at Chynoweth Ave and Pearl Ave in San Jose. Deputies say the suspect shot at them during the pursuit.

SKY7 caught a woman walking with her hands up towards deputies. The Santa Clara County Sherriff’s office is calling her a suspect.

UPS also issued a statement saying, “UPS is working with local authorities to understand the situation.”

Drivers are being asked to avoid the area. This is an active scene.

Stay with ABC7 News for the latest details on this developing story.

Source Article from https://abc7news.com/hostage-safe-authorities-in-standoff-after-chase-with-ups-truck-in-sj/5139539/

President Ivan Duque of Colombia meets President Trump at the White House on Wednesday. I believe Trump may use Duque’s visit or its immediate aftermath to announce the deployment of a limited number of U.S. Army or Marine personnel to the Colombian border with Venezuela.

Interim Venezuelan President Juan Guaido has now set a Feb. 23 date for when his followers will attempt to force U.S. aid convoys through the Colombian-Venezuelan border. Venezuela’s pretender-president Nicolas Maduro has blocked those border crossings with his military. But while it was originally expected that the opposition might attempt an aid crossing on Tuesday, Guaido instead announced that Feb. 23 would be the crunch date. This invites the question: Why the delay from Tuesday to Feb. 23?

I think it’s because the U.S. and Guaido know that they have not yet been able to persuade a sufficient critical mass of Venezuelan military officers to flip towards Guaido. They assessed that, had Guaido attempted to force through the aid on Tuesday, Maduro’s forces would have violently subdued them. The key here, then, is what changes between now and Feb. 23. In the context of pre-existing Trump administration interests in sending a small military force to Colombia (remember John Bolton’s accidental 5,000 troops to Colombia note a couple of weeks back?), I suspect the Trump administration has now indicated to Guaido that it will deploy a limited military force to the border before Feb. 23.

That action would certainly be proportionate and justified in defense of U.S. diplomat and USAID officials at the border. Of course, it would also provide eyeball-to-eyeball pressure on the Venezuelan military and Maduro’s Cuban intelligence service base. It would challenge them to choose between either allowing the aid convoys through, or firing on Venezuelan civilians and perhaps even U.S. diplomats and facing the consequences.

Remember, the Trump administration’s Venezuela strategy is focused far more on breaking the military’s link to Maduro than on influencing Maduro per se. Of course, any new U.S. military deployment to Colombia would require that nation’s assent. And that speaks to a second “why now” issue: Duque’s evolving position.

Certainly, Duque is under increasing U.S. pressure to more aggressively confront Maduro’s regime. Although Duque’s administration is heavily critical of Maduro, it is cautious about being enveloped in a spiral towards war. Still, with Duque in Washington to seek new U.S. aid support for Colombian domestic security initiatives, and U.S. forces already present on Colombian soil for counter-drug operations, it is far from unfeasible that a new, limited U.S. border deployment might be authorized. Colombia might even welcome that deployment to deter the increasingly unpredictable Maduro.

As I say, I expect a near-term Trump announcement on a limited U.S. military deployment to Colombia.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-trump-is-likely-to-announce-hes-sending-troops-to-the-colombian-venezuelan-border

CHICAGO (CBS) — A day after learning former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was beaten in a federal prison in Connecticut, his wife demanded to know why he was transferred out of Illinois in the first place, and called on authorities to do a better job of protecting his safety as he serves a nearly 7-year sentence in the murder of Laquan McDonald.

“I cannot and will not stand by somebody hurting my husband,” Tiffany Van Dyke said Thursday morning, flanked by her husband’s attorneys. “We are done being hurt. I’m standing up for my husband right now because he can’t. He cannot stand up for himself and fight anymore.”

“At the end of the day, I want my husband home. I need him to be safe,” she added. “The next time this could happen, they could kill him. I cannot bury my husband.”

Tiffany Van Dyke said she got a call Wednesday that her husband had been attacked at Danbury federal prison in Connecticut. Until then, she said she didn’t even know where her husband was serving his sentence, much less that he’d been transferred out of the Illinois prison system.

“I’m demanding reasons. I’m demanding answers as to why they took my husband from a state facility and put him in a federal facility,” she said. “If they assume and they claim that it’s for his safety, his safety has not been met. They have endangered him greatly.”

Former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke and his attorney Daniel Herbert listen during Van Dyke’s sentencing hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, Friday, Jan. 18, 2019, in Chicago, for the 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald. (Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune via AP, Pool)

In a statement Thursday morning, Illinois Department of Corrections spokeswoman Lindsey Hess said Jason Van Dyke was transferred out of state custody “under the terms of the Federal Intergovernmental Agreement.

“For safety and security purposes, the Department does not discuss details of those transferred under this agreement. No further information is available at this time,” she added.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons confirms that Van Dyke was beaten, saying “minor injuries occurred.” Van Dyke’s legal team said the former officer informed them of the attack on Tuesday, a week after he was transferred to Danbury Federal Correctional Institution, a low- to minimum-security facility. Van Dyke’s attorneys said they were not informed about the transfer until after it happened.

Tiffany Van Dyke said she and her children have not spoken to her husband since he was sentenced on Jan. 18, and she hasn’t been able to find out how he’s doing after the attack.

“I do not know if he is safe at this moment. I do not know the extent of his injuries,” she said.

Attorney Tammy Wendt said Jason Van Dyke informed her of the attack Tuesday, during a conference call with his appellate attorneys.

She said she repeatedly has tried to call federal authorities to get answers about what happened but has been met with dead ends. She said Illinois prison officials also would not give her an explanation for the transfer.

However, Wendt said a prison employee reached out to her to tell her about the attack.

“He said he needed to let us know that Jason’s safety was at risk,” Wendt said.

While she did not know the extent of Van Dyke’s injuries, she said he suffered facial and head injuries in the attack.

Wendt said the confidential informant told her Van Dyke was placed in the general population at Danbury immediately after his transfer from Illinois, “as if he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.”

“Even though they call this a minimum security prison, these are violent people on the last leg of their sentence. That’s why they’re calling it minimum security,” she said. “To put a police officer who has spent his entire career locking up bad guys in with these bad guys, it doesn’t take a genius to know that that’s obviously going to get him in trouble, and it’s just unconscionable that this happened to him.”

RELATED: Jury Convicts Jason Van Dyke Of Second-Degree Murder, 16 Counts Of Aggravated Battery In Death Of Laquan McDonald

Wendt and lead defense attorney Daniel Herbert said they are doing everything they can to reach out to state and federal authorities to make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.

“I think it’s time that we have to look at this and say enough is enough,” Herbert said.

“We just hope that our leaders will come to their senses and recognize that Jason Van Dyke has all the rights of anyone that’s in prison,” he added. “He’s a tough man, and he’ll go in there and serve his sentence, and keep his mouth shut, but he needs to be protected.”

Tiffany Van Dyke said, before her husband was transferred to Danbury, he was in isolation while in prison in Illinois, on lockdown 23 hours a day.

“Any other normal prisoner in any other institution is allowed a telephone call, is allowed to see their loved ones, visit, is allowed to speak to family and friends, social workers, therapists, guidance from preachers, priests. Any of the above they’re allowed. My husband’s not being afforded those rights,” she said.

She also said it was “mind-boggling” to her that her husband would be transferred to a prison on the East Coast, saying it would be a major financial hardship for her and her daughters to visit him in Connecticut.

While Van Dyke was sentenced to 81 months — or nearly 7 years — in prison, he likely will serve about three, given credit for good behavior.

However, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Special Prosecutor Joseph McMahon have filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking a new sentencing hearing in the case.

They argue it was improper for Judge Vincent Gaughan to sentence Van Dyke only for his conviction for second-degree murder and not for the 16 counts of aggravated battery, which they noted carry a longer minimum sentence.

Tiffany Van Dyke said the petition for a new sentencing for her husband “absolutely frustrates and sickens” her.

“Now the attorney general and the special prosecutor want to go for more time because they’re unhappy, because they think the judge didn’t do his job. I know for a fact the judge did his job. He did what he’s supposed to do. He followed the rule of law, and it sickens me the fact that they want to put more time on my husband,” she said.

Source Article from https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/14/jason-van-dyke-prison-attack-wife-demands-answers-laquan-mcdonald-shooting/

Immigration advocates are suing the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen — and other individuals and U.S. agencies — over the Trump administration’s newly implemented “Migrant Protection Protocols” initiative, which forces some asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while they await immigration court dates. Many refer to the initiative as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center and American Civil Liberties Union officially challenged the policy Thursday in a lawsuit dubbed Innovation Law Lab et al. v. Nielsen et al. The suit claims “Migrant Protection Protocols” violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and various international human rights laws.

The suit represents 11 asylum seekers and six organizations impacted by the policy. The 11 asylum seekers — 10 men and one woman — are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala and from different families, said a person close to the suit.

“Migrant Protection Protocols” is possibly the biggest change to immigration policy implemented by the Trump administration. When it was announced in December, it immediately drew criticism from immigration advocates who called it “due process disaster.”

Prior to the December announcement, asylum seekers had been allowed to live in the United States while wearing an ankle monitor as they waited for immigration court dates.

Under the new plan, some asylum seekers who cross the border at in San Ysidro, a legal checkpoint in San Diego immediately north of the U.S.-Mexico border, are processed by immigration officials and then returned to Tijuana, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official. They receive an 800-number to check the status of their case, as well as a return date for when their asylum claim will be processed.

According to a fact sheet released last month by DHS, the program applies to “aliens arriving in the U.S. on land from Mexico (including those apprehended along the border) who are not clearly admissible and who are placed in removal proceedings.”

The policy has rolled out in Tijuana and San Diego with the intention that it ultimately be adopted at check points across the southern border.

The policy is meant to address concerns that asylum seekers fail to show up for court hearings, according to Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen.

“Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates,” Nielsen wrote in a press release in December when the policy was announced.

Nielsen said in congressional testimony in December when she announced “Migrant Protection Protocols” that asylum seekers “more than not” fail to show up to their court dates. And President Trump said in January that only two percent of asylum seekers make their court dates. However, Justice Department shows that 89 percent of asylum seekers were present for their court hearings in fiscal year 2017.

About 93,000 migrants claimed asylum in the United States in fiscal year 2018. Under the new policy, many of those immigrants would be sent to Mexico. But some officials there have said the country isn’t equipped to handle them.

Tonatiuh Guillén, the commissioner of Mexico’s National Migration Institute, a federal agency, said at a December press conference that Mexico has neither the operational or legal capacity to receive the asylum seekers the United States was planning to send into its territory. “We can’t receive them,” he said, according to a translation by CBS News.

However, the spokesperson for the Mexico Committee on Foreign Relations said at a press conference last month that while his government didn’t agree with the United States’ new protocol, it would comply.

The ACLU and SPLC filed their suit in the Northern District of California.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asylum-seekers-aclu-splc-sue-kirstjen-nielsen-department-of-homeland-security-remain-in-mexico-2019-02-14-live-updates/

President Ivan Duque of Colombia meets President Trump at the White House on Wednesday. I believe Trump may use Duque’s visit or its immediate aftermath to announce the deployment of a limited number of U.S. Army or Marine personnel to the Colombian border with Venezuela.

Interim Venezuelan President Juan Guaido has now set a Feb. 23 date for when his followers will attempt to force U.S. aid convoys through the Colombian-Venezuelan border. Venezuela’s pretender-president Nicolas Maduro has blocked those border crossings with his military. But while it was originally expected that the opposition might attempt an aid crossing on Tuesday, Guaido instead announced that Feb. 23 would be the crunch date. This invites the question: Why the delay from Tuesday to Feb. 23?

I think it’s because the U.S. and Guaido know that they have not yet been able to persuade a sufficient critical mass of Venezuelan military officers to flip towards Guaido. They assessed that, had Guaido attempted to force through the aid on Tuesday, Maduro’s forces would have violently subdued them. The key here, then, is what changes between now and Feb. 23. In the context of pre-existing Trump administration interests in sending a small military force to Colombia (remember John Bolton’s accidental 5,000 troops to Colombia note a couple of weeks back?), I suspect the Trump administration has now indicated to Guaido that it will deploy a limited military force to the border before Feb. 23.

That action would certainly be proportionate and justified in defense of U.S. diplomat and USAID officials at the border. Of course, it would also provide eyeball-to-eyeball pressure on the Venezuelan military and Maduro’s Cuban intelligence service base. It would challenge them to choose between either allowing the aid convoys through, or firing on Venezuelan civilians and perhaps even U.S. diplomats and facing the consequences.

Remember, the Trump administration’s Venezuela strategy is focused far more on breaking the military’s link to Maduro than on influencing Maduro per se. Of course, any new U.S. military deployment to Colombia would require that nation’s assent. And that speaks to a second “why now” issue: Duque’s evolving position.

Certainly, Duque is under increasing U.S. pressure to more aggressively confront Maduro’s regime. Although Duque’s administration is heavily critical of Maduro, it is cautious about being enveloped in a spiral towards war. Still, with Duque in Washington to seek new U.S. aid support for Colombian domestic security initiatives, and U.S. forces already present on Colombian soil for counter-drug operations, it is far from unfeasible that a new, limited U.S. border deployment might be authorized. Colombia might even welcome that deployment to deter the increasingly unpredictable Maduro.

As I say, I expect a near-term Trump announcement on a limited U.S. military deployment to Colombia.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-trump-is-likely-to-announce-hes-sending-troops-to-the-colombian-venezuelan-border

On Thursday, the Tennessee Valley Authority voted to shut down the Paradise Fossil Plant in Drakesboro, Ky.

Dylan Lovan/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Dylan Lovan/AP

On Thursday, the Tennessee Valley Authority voted to shut down the Paradise Fossil Plant in Drakesboro, Ky.

Dylan Lovan/AP

Despite pressure from President Trump, the Tennessee Valley Authority board of directors voted Thursday to close a large coal-fired power plant.

Trump’s involvement had drawn criticism because the Paradise Fossil Plant in western Kentucky buys coal from a company headed by a large donor to the president’s campaign, Murray Energy Corp. Chairman, President and CEO Robert Murray.

TVA board member and Trump appointee Kenny Allen was the only member to vote no on closing the Paradise plant.

“I am still concerned about the overall economic impact of retiring Paradise Unit 3 on the community,” said Allen.

Communities near the plant had lobbied to keep it open. Murray Energy employee Danny Byars told member station WKYU that he worries about long-term job security.

“We went from four crews to three crews [at the mine] already,” Byars said. “If they shut down, then we have to find someone else to buy our coal.”

TVA board member and Obama appointee Virginia Lodge sided with the majority and said, “I don’t want anybody to think we have not heard and understood the heartfelt pleas from these communities. If we could make our decisions based on our sympathetic feeling it would be easy. Unfortunately we’ve all taken an oath to do what we think is best for the entire Valley.”

In an environmental assessment published earlier this month, TVA staff proposed retiring the coal-fired plant. The report says, “As a large coal unit with medium operating costs and a high forced outage rate, as well as the need for significant repairs, PAF Unit 3 does not fit current and likely future portfolio needs.”

The staff estimates that closing the Paradise plant and another in eastern Tennessee called the Bull Run Fossil Plant would save the agency $320 million. The vote on Thursday to close Bull Run was unanimous.

This continues a trend at the TVA of shuttering coal plants in favor of other sources for generating electricity, including natural gas and renewable energy. The move has helped attract companies like Google to the area that build large data centers and want to power them with cleaner sources of energy.

Despite that, President Trump said on Twitter on Monday evening, “Coal is an important part of our electricity generation mix and @TVAnews should give serious consideration to all factors before voting to close viable power plants, like Paradise #3 in Kentucky!”

The president did not issue a public comment after the vote, but environmental groups were quick to celebrate.

“Once again, Trump’s cynical efforts to bail out millionaire coal executives have been overcome by the reality that coal plants can no longer compete with cleaner, cheaper energy sources,” says Mary Anne Hitt, senior director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

Murray Energy Corp. did not respond to a request for comment. In an emailed statement before the vote, the company reached the opposite conclusion of TVA staff: “In the interest of the TVA ratepayers, the remaining coal-fired unit at the Paradise Plant must remain in operation. The power will be more reliable and lower cost.”

Despite concerns about coal’s significant contributions to climate change, Trump has made his support for the coal business a key point during his election campaign and presidency.

Last year, Trump ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take steps to help struggling coal and nuclear power plants, which have trouble competing against cheaper natural gas and renewable energy. No such plan has been carried out so far. Meanwhile, coal plants have continued to close during Trump’s time in office, and coal consumption in the U.S. has hit its lowest point in nearly four decades.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694769097/trump-tweet-fails-to-save-kentucky-coal-fired-power-plant

Greg Miller is national security correspondent for The Washington Post, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the author of “The Apprentice: Trump, Russia and the Subversion of American Democracy.”

He didn’t read intelligence reports and mixed up classified material with what he had seen in newspaper clips. He seemed confused about the structure and purpose of organizations and became overwhelmed when meetings covered multiple subjects. He blamed immigrants for nearly every societal problem and uttered racist sentiments with shocking callousness.

This isn’t how President Trump is depicted in a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. Instead, it’s McCabe’s account of what it was like to work for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The FBI was better off when “you all only hired Irishmen,” Sessions said in one diatribe about the bureau’s workforce. “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos — who knows what they’re doing?”

It’s a startling portrait that suggests that the Trump administration’s reputation for baseness and dysfunction has, if anything, been understated and too narrowly attributed to the president.

The description of Sessions is one of the most striking revelations in “The Threat,” a McCabe memoir that adds to a rapidly expanding collection of score-settling insider accounts of Trump-era Washington. McCabe’s is an important voice because of his position at the top of the bureau during a critical series of events, including the firing of FBI chief James Comey, the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller, and the ensuing scorched-earth effort by Trump and his Republican allies to discredit the Russia probe and destroy public confidence in the nation’s top law enforcement agency. The work is insightful and occasionally provocative. The subtitle, “How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” all but equates the danger posed by al-Qaeda and the Islamic State to that of the current president.

But overall, the book isn’t the comprehensive account McCabe was presumably capable of delivering. He seems reluctant to reveal details about his role in conflicts at key moments, rarely adding meaningful new illumination to areas of the Trump-Russia-FBI timeline established by Mueller, news organizations and previous authors.

McCabe is a keen observer of detail, particularly when it comes to the president’s pettiness. He describes how Trump arranges Oval Office encounters so that his advisers are forced to sit before him in “little schoolboy chairs” across the Resolute Desk. Prior presidents met with aides on couches in the center of the room, but Trump is always angling to make others feel smaller.

McCabe was known as a taciturn figure in the bureau, in contrast to the more garrulous Comey. His book reflects that penchant for brevity, with just 264 pages of text. Even so, he documents the president’s attempts to impair the Russia probe and incessant attacks on the institution, describing the stakes in sweeping, convincing language.

“Between the world of chaos and the world of order stands the rule of law,” McCabe writes. “Yet now the rule of law is under attack, including from the president himself.”

Inevitably, the book includes disturbing new detail about Trump’s subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin. During an Oval Office briefing in July 2017, Trump refused to believe U.S. intelligence reports that North Korea had test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile — a test that Kim Jong Un had called a Fourth of July “gift” to “the arrogant Americans.”

Trump dismissed the missile launch as a “hoax,” McCabe writes. “He thought that North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so.”

McCabe, of course, has some baggage that hurt the reputation he’d built over 22 years at the bureau and raised questions about his credibility. He was accused by the FBI inspector general of making false statements about contacts with the media.

McCabe also has ample motivation to lash out at the president. He had been a target of Trump insults and taunts for nearly two years by the time he was fired, mainly because McCabe’s wife, a pediatrician, had run for state office in Virginia with the financial backing of longtime Clinton ally and former governor Terry McAuliffe.

Trump seized on the connection to insinuate that McCabe had stifled the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails — a claim debunked by internal FBI investigations. Trump seems never to have let go of the issue, even as he dangled the FBI director job to McCabe, sneering in one conversation that it “must have been really tough” when McCabe’s wife lost her race. “To lose,” Trump said, driving the dagger further. “To be a loser.”

When McCabe was finally forced out, it was in the most petty fashion possible. He was fired just 26 hours before his own self-declared retirement date. Trump was gleeful. “Andrew McCabe FIRED,” he tweeted. “A great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI.”

But for all of the understandable alarm and indignation that McCabe registers, he seems, like other Trump dissidents, never to have found reason or opportunity to stand up to the president. There are paragraphs in “The Threat” that recount in detail McCabe’s inner outrage — but no indication that those thoughts escaped his lips in the presence of Trump.

What is it that makes otherwise proud public servants, Comey included, willing to subject themselves to Trump-inflicted indignities?

Deference to the office? A determination to cling to power? A view of oneself as an indispensable institutional savior?

At one point, McCabe puts his odds of getting the FBI director’s position at “one-in-ten-million,” but he goes through a job interview with Trump that feels like a charade from the outset.

One of the most frustrating aspects of “The Threat” is that it steers around scenes where McCabe might have provided more detail or insight. He is known to have had a series of tense interactions with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the aftermath of Comey’s firing, each suspicious of his counterpart and convinced that the other should recuse himself from the Russia probe.

McCabe was also witness to secret conversations in which Rosenstein raised the possibility that officials should wear a wire in meetings with the president. You won’t learn about any of that in “The Threat.”

McCabe skims over the conduct of two of his FBI subordinates, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, whose text exchanges during an illicit affair included disparaging remarks about Trump and, when they were later revealed, fueled doubts about the organization’s impartiality.

When first confronted with the details of the Page-Strzok texts, McCabe was asked by the inspector general whether he knew that Page — his closest legal adviser — had had interactions with the press. McCabe said he didn’t, though in fact he had authorized those contacts. In the book, he downplays that false testimony as a momentary mental lapse during a confusing conversation — which sounds a lot like the excuses offered by countless defendants who find themselves being prosecuted by the FBI for lying.

McCabe’s disdain for Trump is rivaled only by his contempt for Sessions. He questions the former attorney general’s mental faculties, saying that he had “trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues.”

Logs on the electronic tablets used to deliver the President’s Daily Brief to Sessions came back with no indication he had ever punched in the passcode. The attorney general’s views on race and religion are described as reprehensible.

Sessions “believed that Islam — inherently — advocated extremism” and ceaselessly sought to draw connections between crime and immigration. “Where’s he from?” was his first question about a suspect. The next: “Where are his parents from?”

McCabe notes that he would like to “say much more” about his firing and questions of his candor toward other bureau officials, but that he is restrained from doing so because he is pursuing a lawsuit.

There is one area, however, in which he is considerably more forthcoming than Comey. He acknowledges that the bureau made major miscalculations in its handling of the Clinton probe in 2016 and its decision to discuss it publicly.

“As a matter of policy, the FBI does everything possible not to influence elections,” he writes. “In 2016, it seems we did.”

By Andrew G. McCabe

St. Martin’s. 274 pp. $29.99

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/andrew-mccabes-disturbing-account-of-working-for-sessions-and-trump/2019/02/14/91eba5a4-3081-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s announcement that not only would President Trump declare a national emergency to build a border wall, and that he would support it, is going to come back to haunt conservatives.

As I noted last month, the possibility of an emergency declaration became a lot more likely when Trump caved on border wall funding to end the government shutdown, thus making him feel he had to find another way to show his base that he was willing to use all the tools at his disposal to try and deliver on his campaign promise.

The idea of Trump taking such an action was then, and remains now, a terrible idea with dangerous consequences for limited government conservatives. McConnell’s blessing makes matters even worse.

Those who seek to limit the size and scope of government should want it to be more difficult for the executive to arbitrarily use power. That Trump is taking this action means that a Republican president will have been on board with using emergency powers to undertake a massive infrastructure project without the consent of Congress. What’s more, the Republican leader in the Senate, along with no doubt plenty of other Republicans, will have signed on this action, along with, no doubt, plenty of conservative Trump cheerleaders.

For the past week, we’ve been debating infeasibility of the Green New Deal. But many of its provisions suddenly become a lot more politically possible if a president is allowed to seize emergency powers in such a way. If Trump succeeds, it would not be difficult for a Democrat to declare an emergency based on the National Climate Assessment, and then go about using the military for massive infrastructure projects in clean energy.

The only hope for limited government conservatives is that any emergency declaration gets quickly enjoined, and eventually nixed, in federal court. At least then, the silver lining would be that a legal precedent would be set that the president cannot attempt such an end around Congress.

Either way, however, Trump’s action and the likely overwhelming support by Congressional Republicans will shred their ability to resist any sort of attempt by a future Democratic president seeking to broadly employ executive power.

And all for what? Even in the event of an eventual victory in court, any legal process is going to take at least a year to be resolved, without much time to do actual construction before the 2020 election, which Trump could lose. So basically there’s a non-zero chance that Trump will have gotten Republicans to go along with him setting a precedent for the next Democratic president, only to not even have a border wall to show for it.

This is a dangerous, rash, reckless, and myopic decision that should be passionately opposed by all principled conservatives.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-declaring-a-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall-with-mcconnells-support-will-come-back-to-haunt-conservatives

There are new revelations about what took place in Washington during the extraordinary period from May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, to May 17, 2017 when Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.

The short version is: The reports were true. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein really did discuss wearing a wire to secretly record the president. Rosenstein and others did discuss invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office. And the FBI did adopt an aggressive new investigation strategy, targeting the president himself, almost instantly after the Comey firing.

It’s all true, that is, if revelations in an upcoming book by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are accurate. The bottom line on that is that, at least from what we know now, McCabe’s story seems consistent with information congressional investigators have been able to glean elsewhere.

“It’s just like we thought all along,” said one House Republican upon hearing the news. “If McCabe’s account is true, it confirms what we thought, that Rod Rosenstein was serious when he talked about wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said.”

Whether that happens, in the House at least, is up to the new Democratic majority. But Rosenstein has so far declined to answer congressional questions on the wearing-a-wire and 25th Amendment matters.

To promote his book, McCabe has done an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes.” Correspondent Scott Pelley appeared on CBS Thursday morning with a preview. “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”

As another part of his book promotion, McCabe published an excerpt Thursday morning in the Atlantic. The theme of the excerpt is that, after the Comey firing, McCabe was determined to cement in place a Trump-Russia investigation that could not be stopped by the president.

It might be more accurate to say “investigations.” McCabe wrote that he ordered an “overall review” of the FBI’s Trump-Russia work. “Were there individuals on whom we should consider opening new cases?” he wrote. “I want to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away.”

The New York Times reported last month that in that period, the FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation focused on the president himself. “Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security,” the Times reported. “Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.”

That is one sort of investigation. The other probe McCabe wanted to nail into place was what became the Mueller investigation. Describing the decision to appoint Mueller — the decision was actually made by Rosenstein — McCabe wrote, “If I got nothing else done as acting director, I had done the one thing I needed to do.”

And then there were the talks about secretly recording the president and using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. According to CBS, top law enforcement officials were discussing which Cabinet members might be persuaded to go along with an effort to remove Trump. “They were counting noses,” Pelley said on CBS Thursday morning. “They were not asking Cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating.”

Much, if not all, of what McCabe reports has been reported before. But an eyewitness, insider account lends new weight to the idea that the highest levels of the national security apparatus experienced a collective freakout in the days after the Comey firing.

In particular, it intensifies questions about Rosenstein’s behavior in those eight days. Remember that Rosenstein played a key role in the removal of Comey. A few days later, he was talking about removing the president for having removed Comey. The sheer audacity of that has stunned even experienced Capitol Hill observers.

“The guy who wrote the memo providing the justification for firing Comey is then upset that the swamp is mad at him for helping fire Comey and then comes up with a plan to wear a wire and invoke the 25th Amendment,” said the House Republican.

After the CBS report, the Justice Department, on Rosenstein’s behalf, issued a statement saying McCabe’s account was “inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Rosenstein, the Department said, “never authorized any recording that Mc. McCabe references.” That was not exactly a denial of the basic story that Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire.

One final note. The frenzy of May 2017 set off investigations that continued previous investigations that, as far as the public knows today, have not uncovered evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. And if those investigations have not found that proof by now, they certainly had not found it in May 2017. And yet the investigations multiplied, and are still multiplying to this day.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-eight-days-in-may-new-revelations-about-intrigue-to-remove-president-trump

We’ve detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you’re not a robot.

Source Article from https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-14/manafort-s-breached-plea-agreement-should-make-senate-reconsider

CLOSE

U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue says this is a victory for the American and Mexican people along with anyone who has lost a loved one to the “black hole of addiction.”
USA TODAY

It’s been described as a “high-tech version of hell” and it holds some of the nation’s most dangerous criminals – including, maybe soon, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

The federal government’s ADX “Supermax” prison in Florence, Colorado, is “the prison of all prisons,” said Louisiana State Penitentiary maximum-security warden Burl Cain. 

It makes sense that a drug lord who’s already escaped two high-security Mexican prisons would be sent there. In 2001, Guzman bribed his way out of prison in a laundry basket. In 2015, he escaped out of another penitentiary in a movie-style jailbreak: crawling into a hatch beneath his shower and hopping on a waiting motorcycle through a tunnel dug underground. 

Federal authorities haven’t confirmed exactly where Guzman will be held, but U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue said Thursday that Guzman faces “a sentence from which there is no escape and no return.” 

Here’s what you should about his possible new home:

How secure is it?

The prison, also called the “Alcatraz of the Rockies,” is surrounded by razor-wire fences, gun towers, heavily-armed patrols and attack dogs. Snipers guard the grounds in gun towers. No inmate has ever escaped the prison. 

More: ‘El Chapo’ escaped from two prisons. This time, he’s probably headed to the ‘Alcatraz of the Rockies’

What’s a prisoner’s day like?

Inmates spend about 23 hours of every day in solitary confinement inside a 12-by-7-foot cell made of concrete with a small window. The room is designed so that inmates cannot have contact with others or much of the outside world. 

“You’re designing it so the inmates can’t see the sky. Intentionally,” former Supermax prison warden Robert Hood told CNN. “You’re putting up wires so helicopters can’t land.”

Each cell contains a toilet, shower and bed (a concrete slab with a thin mattress). Meals are slid through openings in the doors.

“This place is not designed for humanity … It’s not designed for rehabilitation,” Hood told The New York Times

An hour of outdoor time for inmates placed in restraints is allowed some days inside a cage slightly larger than the cells. Travis Dusenbury, who spent 10 years locked up in the prison, told Vice that that was the only contact he had with people, if his neighbor’s schedule lined up with his.

“The closest human contact you could get was what we called ‘finger handshakes’ through the fence,” Dusenbury said.

Notorious criminals who are there

  • Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who is serving a life sentence for a series of mostly mail bombs that killed three people and injured 23 others over 17 years. 
  • Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who faces a death sentence after setting off bombs near Boston Marathon’s finish line in 2013, where three people died and more than 250 people were injured. He has been convicted of 30 charges, including conspiracy and use of a weapon of mass destruction.
  • Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui is serving a life sentence for conspiring with hijackers to kill Americans. 
  • Shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is serving a life sentence for charges including use of a weapon of mass destruction, attempted murder of aircraft passengers and attempted homicide of U.S. nationals overseas.
  • Oklahoma City bombing accomplice Terry Nichols is serving a life sentence for planting a bomb that killed 168 people in an Oklahoma City federal building. 
  • Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, who is serving life sentences for a series of bombings including one at the 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta that killed two people and injured more than 100.  

Contributing: Marina Pitofsky and The Associated Press. Follow Ashley May on Twitter: @AshleyMayTweets

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/14/el-chapo-supermax-prison-joaquin-guzman-may-face/2868219002/

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Feb 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Congress on Thursday aimed to end a dispute over border security with legislation that would ignore President Donald Trump’s request for $5.7 billion to help build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border but avoid a partial government shutdown.

Late on Wednesday, negotiators put the finishing touches on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, along with a range of other federal agencies.

Racing against a Friday midnight deadline, when operating funds expire for the agencies that employ about 800,000 workers at the DHS, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice and others, the Senate and House of Representatives aimed to pass the legislation later on Thursday.

That would give Trump time to review the measure and sign it into law before temporary funding for about one-quarter of the government expires.

RELATED: Trump visits border wall prototypes amid protests




Failure to do so would shutter many government programs, from national parks maintenance and air traffic controller training programs to the collection and publication of important data for financial markets, for the second time this year.

“This agreement denies funding for President Trump’s border wall and includes several key measures to make our immigration system more humane,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, a Democrat, said in a statement.

According to congressional aides, the final version of legislation would give the Trump administration $1.37 billion in new money to help build 55 miles (88.5 km) of new physical barriers on the southwest border, far less than what Trump had been demanding.

It is the same level of funding Congress appropriated for border security measures last year, including barriers but not concrete walls.

Since he ran for office in 2016, Trump has been demanding billions of dollars to build a wall on the southwest border, saying “crisis” conditions required a quick response to stop the flow of illegal drugs and undocumented immigrants, largely from Central America.

He originally said Mexico would pay for a 2,000-mile (3,200-km) concrete wall – an idea that Mexico dismissed.

Joaquin, 36, a chef from Guatemala who says he was deported from the United States, builds a bed in a tree, near a section of the border fence separating Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico, February 26, 2017. “I’ve tried to cross so many times that the (U.S.) border guards even got to know me, but I never made it back,” said Joaquin, who makes a living by collecting trash in Tijuana that he tries to sell to a local recycling plant. REUTERS/Edgard Garrido SEARCH “FENCE GARRIDO” FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH “WIDER IMAGE” FOR ALL STORIES.

Joaquin, 36, a chef from Guatemala who says he was deported from the United States, poses for a photograph while leaning on a section of the border fence separating Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico, February 26, 2017. “I’ve tried to cross so many times that the (U.S.) border guards even got to know me, but I never made it back,” said Joaquin, who makes a living by collecting trash in Tijuana that he tries to sell to a local recycling plant. REUTERS/Edgard Garrido SEARCH “FENCE GARRIDO” FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH “WIDER IMAGE” FOR ALL STORIES.

Mexican architect Carlos Torres, 68, adjusts signs near the double border fences separating Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico, February 25, 2017. “Walls won’t halt immigration,” Torres said. Trump, he said, “doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Here at this fence, people keep crossing every week.” REUTERS/Edgard Garrido SEARCH “FENCE GARRIDO” FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH “WIDER IMAGE” FOR ALL STORIES.

Mexican architect Carlos Torres, 68, is reflected in a glass window of his house near a section of the double border fences separating Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico, March 1, 2017. “Walls won’t halt immigration,” Torres said. Trump, he said, “doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Here at this fence, people keep crossing every week.” REUTERS/Edgard Garrido SEARCH “FENCE GARRIDO” FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH “WIDER IMAGE” FOR ALL STORIES.

Joaquin, 36, a chef from Guatemala who says he was deported from the United States, sits underneath a tree near a section of the border fence separating Mexico and the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico, February 28, 2017. “I’ve tried to cross so many times that the (U.S.) border guards even got to know me, but I never made it back,” said Joaquin, who makes a living by collecting trash in Tijuana that he tries to sell to a local recycling plant. REUTERS/Edgard Garrido SEARCH “FENCE GARRIDO” FOR THIS STORY. SEARCH “WIDER IMAGE” FOR ALL STORIES.




Trump has not yet said whether he would sign the legislation into law if the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Republican-led Senate approve it, even as many of his fellow Republicans in Congress were urging him to do so.

Instead, he said on Wednesday he would hold off on a decision until he examines the final version of legislation.

But Trump, widely blamed for a five-week shutdown that ended in January, said he did not want to see federal agencies close again because of fighting over funds for the wall.

Senator Richard Shelby, the Republican negotiator who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a Twitter post he spoke to Trump later on Wednesday and he was in good spirits. Shelby told Trump the agreement was “a downpayment on his border wall.”

‘NATIONAL EMERGENCY’

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is in regular contact with the White House, said Trump was “inclined to take the deal and move on.”

But Graham also told reporters that Trump would then look elsewhere to find more money to build a border wall and was “very inclined” to declare a national emergency to secure the funds for the project.

Such a move likely would spark a court battle, as it is Congress and not the president that mainly decides how federal funds get spent. Several leading Republicans have cautioned Trump against taking the unilateral action.

Under the bill, the government could hire 75 new immigrant judge teams to help reduce a huge backlog in cases and hundreds of additional border patrol agents.

Hoping to reduce violence and economic distress in Central America that fuels immigrant asylum cases in the United States, the bill also provides $527 million to continue humanitarian assistance to those countries.

The House Appropriations Committee said the bill would set a path for reducing immigrant detention beds to about 40,520 by the end of the fiscal year, down from a current count of approximately 49,060.

Democrats sought reductions, arguing that would force federal agents to focus on apprehending violent criminals and repeat offenders and discourage arrests of undocumented immigrants for minor traffic violations, for example.

Pastor Jose Murcia, 47, preaches to migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018.

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Nicolas Alonso Sanchez, 47, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., poses for a picture as he holds a cross at a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018. “God helped me and gave me the strength, helped me to make my dreams come true. God gave me all the strength to get all the way here,” Sanchez said. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., pray before food distribution outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico December 1, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Juan Francisco, 25, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., shows his tattoo of the 23rd Psalm of the Book of Psalms as he poses for a picture outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 26, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Victor Alfonso, 29, from Guatemala, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., poses for a picture as he wears charms depicting the Virgin of Guadalupe at a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 26, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

David Amador, 25, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., poses for a picture as he holds a cross at a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 28, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., raise their hands while praying before moving by buses to a new shelter, in Tijuana, Mexico November 30, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

A migrant, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., is wrapped with a banner depicting the Virgin of Guadalupe in front of a riot police cordon, as migrants try to reach the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico in Tijuana, Mexico November 25, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Herso, 17, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., poses for a picture as he wears a t-shirt depicting the Virgin of Guadalupe outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018.

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

A booklet of Psalm 119:105 is left on a self-made tent at a temporary shelter of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., in Tijuana, Mexico November 27, 2018.

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Migrants, part of a caravan from El Salvador traveling to the U.S., pray as they are blocked by the Mexican police during an operation to detain them for entering the country illegally, in Metapa, Mexico November 21, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., raise their hands as they listen to the preaching of pastor Jose Murcia (not pictured) outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

A migrant, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America traveling to the U.S., sleeps with a book in Spanish “What does the Bible teach us?” in a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

A writing “Jesus Christ is the Lord” is seen on a car window outside a temporary shelter for a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Elmer, 29, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., poses for a picture as he holds an icon depicting Jesus Christ and the Virgin of Guadalupe while lining up for food distribution outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 24, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

Juan Francisco, 25, from Honduras, part of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America traveling to the U.S., shows his tattoo reading “I can do everything with Christ who strengthens me” as he poses for a picture outside a temporary shelter in Tijuana, Mexico November 26, 2018. 

(REUTERS/Alkis Konstantinidis)

An image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is seen in a tent of migrants part of a caravan of thousands from Central America trying to reach the United States, on a street in Tijuana, Mexico, December 15, 2018.

(REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins)




The Senate Appropriations Committee, which is run by Republicans, said there were provisions in the bill that could result in an increase in detention beds from last year.

Lowey said the bill would improve medical care and housing of immigrant families in detention and expand a program providing alternatives to detention.

The wide-ranging bill also contains some important domestic initiatives, including a $1.2 billion increase in infrastructure investments for roads, bridges and other ground transport, as well as more for port improvements.

With the 2020 decennial census nearing, the bill provides a $1 billion increase for the nationwide count. Also, federal workers, battered by the record 35-day partial government shutdown that began on Dec. 22 as Trump held out for wall funding, would get a 1.9 percent pay increase if the bill becomes law.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan Editing by Robert Birsel and Chizu Nomiyama)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/14/us-congress-advances-border-security-bill-without-trump-border-wall/23669538/

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

Washington (CNN)Paul Manafort’s latest legal debacle deepened the core intrigue underlying special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe: Why have so many of President Donald Trump’s associates been caught lying about contacts with Russians?

    ‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘politics/2019/02/13/paul-manafort-plea-deal-russia-investigation-jessica-schneider-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘body-text_17’,theoplayer: {allowNativeFullscreen: true},adsection: ‘const-article-inpage’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-small-169.jpg”,”height”:124},”xsmall”:{“width”:307,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-medium-plus-169.jpg”,”height”:173},”small”:{“width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”http://www.noticiasdodia.onlinenewsbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-large-169.jpg”,”height”:259},”medium”:{“width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-exlarge-169.jpg”,”height”:438},”large”:{“width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-super-169.jpg”,”height”:619},”full16x9″:{“width”:1600,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-full-169.jpg”,”height”:900},”mini1x1″:{“width”:120,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181206195954-04-paul-manafort-file-1206-small-11.jpg”,”height”:120}}},autoStartVideo = false,isVideoReplayClicked = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,mediaMetadataCallbacks,mobilePinnedView = null,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = false;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = CNN.Features.enableAutoplayBlock ? false : autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, isVideoReplayClicked, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);videoEndSlateImpl = new CNN.VideoEndSlate(‘body-text_17’);function findNextVideo(currentVideoId) {var i,vidObj;if (currentVideoId && jQuery.isArray(currentVideoCollection) && currentVideoCollection.length > 0) {for (i = 0; i 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.showEndSlateForContainer();if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.disable();}}}}callbackObj = {onPlayerReady: function (containerId) {var playerInstance,containerClassId = ‘#’ + containerId;CNN.VideoPlayer.handleInitialExpandableVideoState(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, CNN.pageVis.isDocumentVisible());if (CNN.Features.enableMobileWebFloatingPlayer &&Modernizr &&(Modernizr.phone || Modernizr.mobile || Modernizr.tablet) &&CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(containerId) === ‘fave’ &&jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length > 0 &&CNN.contentModel.pageType === ‘article’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(containerId);mobilePinnedView = new CNN.MobilePinnedView({element: jQuery(containerClassId),enabled: false,transition: CNN.MobileWebFloatingPlayer.transition,onPin: function () {playerInstance.hideUI();},onUnpin: function () {playerInstance.showUI();},onPlayerClick: function () {if (mobilePinnedView) {playerInstance.enterFullscreen();playerInstance.showUI();}},onDismiss: function() {CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer.disable();playerInstance.pause();}});/* Storing pinned view on CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer So that all players can see the single pinned player */CNN.Videx = CNN.Videx || {};CNN.Videx.mobile = CNN.Videx.mobile || {};CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer = mobilePinnedView;}if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length) {videoPinner = new CNN.VideoPinner(containerClassId);videoPinner.init();} else {CNN.VideoPlayer.hideThumbnail(containerId);}}},onContentEntryLoad: function(containerId, playerId, contentid, isQueue) {CNN.VideoPlayer.showSpinner(containerId);},onContentPause: function (containerId, playerId, videoId, paused) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, paused);}},onContentMetadata: function (containerId, playerId, metadata, contentId, duration, width, height) {var endSlateLen = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0).length;CNN.VideoSourceUtils.updateSource(containerId, metadata);if (endSlateLen > 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.fetchAndShowRecommendedVideos(metadata);}},onAdPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType) {/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays an Ad */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onAdPause: function (containerId, playerId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType, instance, isAdPause) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, isAdPause);}},onTrackingFullscreen: function (containerId, PlayerId, dataObj) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleFullscreenChange(containerId, dataObj);if (mobilePinnedView &&typeof dataObj === ‘object’ &&FAVE.Utils.os === ‘iOS’ && !dataObj.fullscreen) {jQuery(document).scrollTop(mobilePinnedView.getScrollPosition());playerInstance.hideUI();}},onContentPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, event) {var playerInstance,prevVideoId;if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreEpicAds’);}clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onContentReplayRequest: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);var $endSlate = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0);if ($endSlate.length > 0) {$endSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–active’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’);}}}},onContentBegin: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.enable();}/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays a video. */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.mutePlayer(containerId);if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘removeEpicAds’);}CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoSourceUtils.clearSource(containerId);jQuery(document).triggerVideoContentStarted();},onContentComplete: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreFreewheel’);}navigateToNextVideo(contentId, containerId);},onContentEnd: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(false);}}},onCVPVisibilityChange: function (containerId, cvpId, visible) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, visible);}};if (typeof configObj.context !== ‘string’ || configObj.context.length 0) {configObj.adsection = window.ssid;}CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibrary(configObj, callbackObj, isLivePlayer);});CNN.INJECTOR.scriptComplete(‘videodemanddust’);

    ‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘tv/2019/02/13/lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘body-text_30’,theoplayer: {allowNativeFullscreen: true},adsection: ‘const-article-inpage’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-small-169.jpg”,”height”:124},”xsmall”:{“width”:307,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-medium-plus-169.jpg”,”height”:173},”small”:{“width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”http://www.noticiasdodia.onlinenewsbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-large-169.jpg”,”height”:259},”medium”:{“width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-exlarge-169.jpg”,”height”:438},”large”:{“width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-super-169.jpg”,”height”:619},”full16x9″:{“width”:1600,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-full-169.jpg”,”height”:900},”mini1x1″:{“width”:120,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190213172147-lead-jessica-schneider-did-manafort-lie-to-mueller-live-jake-tapper-00005108-small-11.jpg”,”height”:120}}},autoStartVideo = false,isVideoReplayClicked = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,mediaMetadataCallbacks,mobilePinnedView = null,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = false;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = CNN.Features.enableAutoplayBlock ? false : autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, isVideoReplayClicked, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);videoEndSlateImpl = new CNN.VideoEndSlate(‘body-text_30’);function findNextVideo(currentVideoId) {var i,vidObj;if (currentVideoId && jQuery.isArray(currentVideoCollection) && currentVideoCollection.length > 0) {for (i = 0; i 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.showEndSlateForContainer();if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.disable();}}}}callbackObj = {onPlayerReady: function (containerId) {var playerInstance,containerClassId = ‘#’ + containerId;CNN.VideoPlayer.handleInitialExpandableVideoState(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, CNN.pageVis.isDocumentVisible());if (CNN.Features.enableMobileWebFloatingPlayer &&Modernizr &&(Modernizr.phone || Modernizr.mobile || Modernizr.tablet) &&CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(containerId) === ‘fave’ &&jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length > 0 &&CNN.contentModel.pageType === ‘article’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(containerId);mobilePinnedView = new CNN.MobilePinnedView({element: jQuery(containerClassId),enabled: false,transition: CNN.MobileWebFloatingPlayer.transition,onPin: function () {playerInstance.hideUI();},onUnpin: function () {playerInstance.showUI();},onPlayerClick: function () {if (mobilePinnedView) {playerInstance.enterFullscreen();playerInstance.showUI();}},onDismiss: function() {CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer.disable();playerInstance.pause();}});/* Storing pinned view on CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer So that all players can see the single pinned player */CNN.Videx = CNN.Videx || {};CNN.Videx.mobile = CNN.Videx.mobile || {};CNN.Videx.mobile.pinnedPlayer = mobilePinnedView;}if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length) {videoPinner = new CNN.VideoPinner(containerClassId);videoPinner.init();} else {CNN.VideoPlayer.hideThumbnail(containerId);}}},onContentEntryLoad: function(containerId, playerId, contentid, isQueue) {CNN.VideoPlayer.showSpinner(containerId);},onContentPause: function (containerId, playerId, videoId, paused) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, paused);}},onContentMetadata: function (containerId, playerId, metadata, contentId, duration, width, height) {var endSlateLen = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0).length;CNN.VideoSourceUtils.updateSource(containerId, metadata);if (endSlateLen > 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.fetchAndShowRecommendedVideos(metadata);}},onAdPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType) {/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays an Ad */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onAdPause: function (containerId, playerId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType, instance, isAdPause) {if (mobilePinnedView) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleMobilePinnedPlayerStates(containerId, isAdPause);}},onTrackingFullscreen: function (containerId, PlayerId, dataObj) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleFullscreenChange(containerId, dataObj);if (mobilePinnedView &&typeof dataObj === ‘object’ &&FAVE.Utils.os === ‘iOS’ && !dataObj.fullscreen) {jQuery(document).scrollTop(mobilePinnedView.getScrollPosition());playerInstance.hideUI();}},onContentPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, event) {var playerInstance,prevVideoId;if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreEpicAds’);}clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onContentReplayRequest: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);var $endSlate = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0);if ($endSlate.length > 0) {$endSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–active’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’);}}}},onContentBegin: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (mobilePinnedView) {mobilePinnedView.enable();}/* Dismissing the pinnedPlayer if another video players plays a video. */CNN.VideoPlayer.dismissMobilePinnedPlayer(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.mutePlayer(containerId);if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘removeEpicAds’);}CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoSourceUtils.clearSource(containerId);jQuery(document).triggerVideoContentStarted();},onContentComplete: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (CNN.companion && typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreFreewheel’);}navigateToNextVideo(contentId, containerId);},onContentEnd: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone && !Modernizr.mobile && !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ && videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(false);}}},onCVPVisibilityChange: function (containerId, cvpId, visible) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, visible);}};if (typeof configObj.context !== ‘string’ || configObj.context.length 0) {configObj.adsection = window.ssid;}CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibrary(configObj, callbackObj, isLivePlayer);});CNN.INJECTOR.scriptComplete(‘videodemanddust’);

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump-russia-probe/index.html

    In the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a year ago, 71 percent of Americans said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter. Now, it’s 51 percent.

    Scott McIntyre for NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Scott McIntyre for NPR

    In the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a year ago, 71 percent of Americans said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter. Now, it’s 51 percent.

    Scott McIntyre for NPR

    One year after the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., the urgency for new gun restrictions has declined, but roughly half the country is concerned a mass shooting could happen at a school in their community, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.

    In the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting that killed 17 people on Valentine’s Day, 71 percent of Americans said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter. Now, it’s 51 percent.

    When it comes to whether stricter gun legislation should be an immediate priority for Congress, 42 percent say it should be. In April 2018, it was 10 points higher.

    Still, a solid majority — 59 percent — say their first reaction when hearing about mass shootings is that the country needs stricter gun laws. Only a quarter say their first thought is that more people need to carry a gun.

    And 53 percent of Americans are concerned that a mass shooting could happen at a school in their community. By a 63-to-43 percent margin, women are far more concerned than men about that possibility.

    “Not surprisingly, the results show that the outcry against gun violence has lessened from what it was immediately following the shooting at Parkland,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “Yet, there is a strong consensus that gun violence is a serious problem and action needs to be taken.”

    There are also big partisan, racial and age divides. Republicans are less likely than Democrats to support gun restrictions, support for which has decreased over the past three decades; nonwhites are more likely to be affected by gun violence and more likely to want gun restrictions to be an immediate priority for Congress; and two-thirds of people 18 to 29 would rather control gun violence than protect gun rights.

    A memorial garden for the 17 people that were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. When it comes to whether stricter gun legislation should be an immediate priority for Congress, 42 percent say it should be. In April 2018, it was 10 points higher.

    Scott McIntyre for NPR


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Scott McIntyre for NPR

    The decline of support for gun restrictions and the NRA’s role

    Since 1990, the number of people saying they support gun restrictions has decreased.

    In this poll, 51 percent said the laws covering the sale of guns should be stricter, while 36 percent think they should be kept the same.

    But that’s far lower than 1990, for example, when violent crime was higher, 78 percent said they were in favor of increased restrictions, Gallup found.

    Loading…

    Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

    And there is a huge partisan divide on this question — 80 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents think gun laws need to be stricter, while 59 percent of Republicans think they need to be kept as they are.

    Loading…

    Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

    A big reason for the decline in support for gun restrictions and the increase partisanship is the National Rifle Association, the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the country.

    “There’s been a change in the message from the NRA [since 1990], from guns not just being something used for recreation, but their change and their move to guns being one [a message] of protection,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll.

    Because urgency for action peaks right after a tragedy, the NRA routinely stays quiet in the immediate aftermath, waits and then goes on offense.

    A week after the Parkland shooting, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre went to the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, and called for “hardened” schools. In other words, adding teachers and resource officers armed with guns to schools.

    Just hours after LaPierre made his remarks, President Trump echoed that language, seemingly reading right from the NRA script.

    “We have to harden our schools, not soften them,” Trump said then.

    Americans broadly in support of specific gun restriction policies

    Despite the NRA’s efforts, Americans are still broadly in favor of various gun restrictions the organization has lobbied against.

    According to the poll, while Americans favor employing school resource officers or armed guards in schools (72 percent said it would make a difference), arming teachers was the least popular (39 percent) in a list of policy options to reduce gun violence.

    The list included requiring background checks at gun shows or private sales (82 percent); requiring mental health checks (79 percent); banning high-capacity ammunition clips (65 percent); creating a national database to track all gun sales (64 percent); and banning the sale of semi-automatic assault-style weapons (60 percent).

    Loading…

    Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

    Many of those are measures Democrats have pushed, but the NRA is firmly against and Republican elected officials have opposed. But Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of some of these measures – 70 percent think requiring background checks would help and 74 percent think the same of mental health checks.

    Americans have a mixed view of the NRA with 42 percent having a favorable opinion of it and an equal 42 percent with a unfavorable one, according to the poll.

    Among gun owners, 62 percent have a favorable view of the organization, while 24 percent do not.

    The NRA struggled in the months following the Parkland shooting. It reported a revenue drop of $55 million. Executives cut budgets, and its streaming TV arm, NRATV, was hit with layoffs.

    But there’s some evidence opposition to the NRA may be softening some. In March 2018, 40 percent said they were more likely to support a brand or company that had cut ties with the NRA. That’s down to 31 percent now.

    Thirty-seven percent of Americans say they less likely to support a brand or company that has cut ties with the NRA, the same percentage as in March 2018, according to the survey.

    An NRATV host was critical of the Parkland students and parents speaking out and calling for new gun restrictions. But Americans overall have a pretty positive view of the students — 58 percent have a favorable impression of them.

    Nearly two-thirds of Americans also believe the Parkland students are having at least some impact on gun reform.

    Racial divisions are acute

    Nonwhites are also 15 points more likely than whites to live in fear of a shooting in their community schools (39 percent to 24 percent). And they are twice as likely to express a great deal of concern about the possibility of a mass shooting at a school in their community (28 to 13 percent).

    Nonwhites are also 17 points more likely to have either been or know someone who has been threatened with a gun or been the victim of a shooting (48 to 31 percent).

    Loading…

    Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.

    Perhaps not surprisingly then, nonwhites are far more likely to urge immediate action on enacting gun restrictions (53 percent versus 35 percent).

    And among nonwhites, there is a nearly 30-point gap between those who say it is more important to control gun violence (67 percent) compared to those who say it is more important to protect gun rights (28 percent).

    There are also political divides, especially when it comes to the importance of the Second Amendment compared to other key constitutional protections — 58 percent of the country says it is just as important as other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of the press.

    But while 74 percent of Republicans think so, 56 percent of Democrats do not.

    The survey of 880 adults was conducted from Feb. 5 through Feb. 11 by The Marist Poll for NPR and the PBS NewsHour. Results for all Americans have a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points. There were 722 registered voters surveyed. Where they are referenced, there is a margin of error of +/- 4.3 percentage points. There were 314 gun owners surveyed. Where they are referenced, there is a margin of error of +/- 6.5 percentage points.

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694223232/poll-a-year-after-parkland-urgency-for-new-gun-restrictions-declines

    Despite the good news of a pending deal for government funding, Washington is still very far from a reasonable consensus on the border and a wall.

    We fear the Democrats’ facile political slogans are fueling a dangerous new set of beliefs on that side of the aisle. And we fear that President Trump will continue the destructive tradition of expanding executive power and abusing emergency declarations.

    A proper discussion on border enforcement will begin only when Democrats can embrace the very reasonable idea that Trump likes to communicate: A country without borders is not a country. Democrats go so far in their resistance to Trump’s immigration stances and rhetoric (some of which we have also opposed), that they often end up calling for open borders. Just beneath the surface in Democratic talk is the notion that the U.S. is morally required to admit all comers. This is why Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that “ a wall is an immorality.” This is not only untrue, but embarrassing.

    Citizens’ demand for an orderly immigration system is not immoral. It is a rightful expression of their self-governance. The requirement that all migrants present themselves at lawful points of entry and that they be deterred from illegal crossings, is not only a moral requirement but an essential one if any orderly immigration system is to exist. The rule of law depends on it.

    The Democrats’ open-borders stance, intended as an expression of tolerance and openness, is instead an attack on the principles of self-governance.

    Most of California’s border with Mexico has walls or wall-like barriers such as fences. Surely, Pelosi is aware of this. If a wall in San Diego is moral, then how is a wall in the Rio Grande Valley immoral?

    The question was never over whether to build “a wall,” but whether to upgrade or extend existing walls. This is quite obviously a matter of prudence. In some places, walls are more or less needed. In some they are more or less feasible. A rational Congress interested in border security and the rule of law would give Homeland Security the funding it needs to build barriers in the highest-value places.

    And there may be plenty that Trump’s DHS can do, even with this slender congressional support, to fund enhancements of border barriers. But we reiterate our earlier warning that Trump would be exceeding his proper authority if he tried to use emergency powers to fund wall-building that Congress didn’t fund.

    Presidents have for decades stretched the definition of “emergency,” and it would undermine the constitutional order to aggressively stretch emergency powers. The border situation is bad, but it’s not a crisis and it’s not getting worse. If immediate action were needed before Congress could act, we would understand an emergency declaration. Using emergency powers because Congress won’t act in the way Trump demands would make Trump a one-man legislator.

    With the passion of a potential government shutdown apparently behind us, we hope that on immigration, Washington can come to its senses.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/yes-on-borders-yes-on-walls-where-appropriate-no-on-emergency-powers

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been unable to escape criticism after announcing he is pulling the plug on the state’s massive high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco that was more than a decade behind schedule and billions in the red.

    “Let’s be real,” Newsom said in his first State of the State address on Tuesday. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.”

    The embattled $77-billion bullet train has been an embarrassment for the Golden State and has been plagued by problems almost from the start.

    CALIFORNIA TO PULL PLUG ON BILLION-DOLLAR BULLET TRAIN, CITIES BALLOONING COSTS

    Newsom took his pitch to Twitter following the announcement, saying he is still going to “make high-speed rail a reality” despite the bullet train misfire.

    “This is so much more than a train project. It’s a transformation project. Anchored by high-speed rail, we can align our economic, workforce, and transportation strategies to revitalize communities across our state,” he tweeted.

    “For those who want to walk away: Abandoning high-speed rail means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it. I’m not interested in sending $3.5B in federal funding–exclusively allocated for HSR–back to the White House.”

    However, the tweets didn’t go over well with all.

    NEWSOM SLAMS TRUMP’S BORDER POLICIES, SAYS CALIFORNIA WON’T BE PARTY TO ‘POLITICAL THEATER’

    “Didn’t think that seeing your ‘spin’ on the destruction of an important project to CA could make me any more irritated but I was wrong. You can’t slash it and claim to save it,” one person tweeted.

    “This decision is the path to the end of your political ambition. Your lack of leadership is truly and deeply disappointing,” another wrote.

    One tweet connected Newsom to Simpsons’ character Lyle Lanley, who, in an episode of the iconic TV show, tricked Springfield residents to spend millions building a monorail in the city only to pocket the money himself and flee.

    NEW CALIFORNIA GOV. NEWSOM MAKES EARLY GUN CRACKDOWN PUSH

    But it wasn’t all bad reviews for Newsom, as others backed his comments.

    CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

    “We are the only country in the civilized world without high-speed rail. Bravo Governor let’s not stay stucked (sic) in a world of 20-years ago,” one person wrote.

    “I agree. The way the country has resisted High-speed rail is mind-boggling. We need to move ahead into the 21st,” another added.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-talks-states-high-speed-rail-decision-gets-compared-to-the-simpsons-character

    February 14 at 5:58 AM

    There’s a supermax prison in Florence, Colo., two hours outside Denver. It’s the highest-security penitentiary in the United States. Since opening in 1994, no prisoner has escaped from the Administrative Maximum Facility — known as “the ADX” — one reason former members of federal law enforcement expect the Sinaloa cartel drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán will spend the rest of his life there.

    “For him to escape, he would have to have a warden in his pocket,” said a retired federal corrections officer, who spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “It’s a very controlled environment. No one moves there without permission at all. No two inmates move in the facility at the same time.”

    The retired officer, who was assigned to ADX, described the entire penitentiary as a singular special housing unit. The special housing unit (or “the SHU”) is solitary confinement. Prison officials at ADX did not respond to a request for comment.

    Guzmán would be in rare company at the ADX, joining 400 male inmates and a roster of infamous convicted felons: Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Terry Nichols, co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing; Robert Hanssen, the traitorous double agent; and Zacarias Moussaoui, al-Qaeda operative and 9/11 conspirator.

    Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor, described the penitentiary as a secure housing unit for “the most dangerous and notorious criminals in the world.”

    For many ADX visitors, the most memorable part of the penitentiary is the eerie silence that encases the hallways.

    “I don’t think I saw another inmate while I was there,” former federal prosecutor Allan Kaiser said of visiting his client, Sal Magluta, who was convicted of leading a massive drug organization in South Florida and sentenced to 200 years. “It was immaculately spartan: The floors just shined, the walls were clean, the hallways were empty. There was no one around, no sounds.”

    ADX inmates are locked in small cubicles the size of a bathroom for 23 hours per day, according to Deborah Golden, staff attorney at the Human Rights Defense Center, who has visited the ADX several times. Each austere cell is adorned with a bed (a concrete slab covered with a thin foam mattress) and a three-in-one “combo toilet, sink and drinking water unit.” Some inmates may luck out with a single slit in the door that shows a sliver of the hallway.

    There are two types of prisoners serving time at the ADX, Golden explained: The vast majority of inmates were transferred to the ADX for disciplinary or management reasons. A smaller number were sent there directly based on their conviction or previous history.

    Golden said Guzmán (who escaped from two maximum-security Mexican prisons — in 2001 with the assistance of prison guards and in 2015 through a tunnel underneath the shower in his jail cell) would be a “direct commit.”

    According to Golden, the administrative super-maximum program offers a completely different, more isolated approach. With 400 inmates, the ADX also has the highest prisoner-to-guard ratio, allowing increased and personalized attention per inmate.

    In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the country became increasingly concerned about violent crime. The stereotypical “superpredator” loomed large in the public mind — conscienceless criminals who lacked empathy and were so reckless they impulsively killed, robbed and raped. The tough-on-crime stance that evolved under President Bill Clinton’s administration came and went, yet many of its policies and programs, including the administrative super-maximum security prisons, are still enforced.

    In a 2017 news conference, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Robert Capers, said the U.S. government assured Mexico it would not seek the death penalty if Guzmán were extradited, standard procedure for U.S.-Mexico extraditions, according to law enforcement.

    Having been convicted Tuesday of running a drug trafficking enterprise, Guzmán faces multiple life sentences; he will be sentenced in federal court June 25.

    “I expect the Bureau of Prisons would be concerned about El Chapo’s communication access; his phone calls, email access and letters are likely to be more closely monitored than the average prison there for federal drug possession,” Golden said, adding that the bureau should account for other factors, such as medical needs, security and communication needs, housing availability, and space.

    When you go inside most prisons — even high-security prisons — they’re busy. People are walking around. But not at the ADX.

    “The segregation is intense; it’s a punitive environment as harsh as any place on Earth,” Levin said. “It won’t be a coincidence if El Chapo is sent there.”

    Read more

    Sen. Ted Cruz’s solution to border wall impasse: Make El Chapo pay for it

    El Chapo trial provides a deep look inside the Sinaloa cartel’s drug empire

    As El Chapo trial opens, attorneys offer contrasting portraits of ‘mythological’ drug lord

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/14/el-chapo-escaped-two-prisons-mexico-no-ones-ever-busted-out-adx/

    Soon after speaking to President Trump about the firing of his boss James Comey, Andrew McCabe, who became the bureau’s acting director, began obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the president and his ties to Russia. In his first television interview since his own firing, McCabe tells 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley he wanted those inquiries to be documented and underway so they would be difficult to quash without raising scrutiny.

    “I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe tells Pelley in the interview. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

    The interview with the veteran FBI agent who rose to acting director of the bureau will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, February 17 at 7:00 p.m., ET/PT on CBS.

    “I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision,” McCabe said.

    The White House responded to the opening of that investigation, calling it a “completely baseless investigation.”

    The first excerpt from the interview was broadcast on “CBS This Morning” Thursday as Pelley appeared on the program to talk about his report on McCabe.

    Andrew McCabe tells “60 Minutes” why he opened investigations involving Trump

    “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about,” Pelley said on the show.

    “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”

    Pelley said McCabe confirms in their interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with President Trump. Previously, a Justice Department statement claimed that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically, but McCabe said it was taken seriously.

    “McCabe in [the 60 Minutes] interview says no, it came up more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it,” Pelley told “CBS This Morning.”

    McCabe has written a book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” in which he describes his career, and the FBI investigative process.  It’s an insider’s account that details FBI decisions in the 2016 election and what took place at the bureau in the days between the firing of Comey and the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to probe Russian influence in the election. 

    Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-says-he-ordered-the-obstruction-of-justice-case-of-president-trump-60-minutes/