SNAP Benefits: Trump Administration Wants To Change Who Qualifies – NPR
SNAP Benefits: Trump Administration Wants To Change Who Qualifies – NPR

A grocery store in New York City advertises that it accepts food stamps. A Trump administration proposal could result in 3 million people losing their food assistance.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A grocery store in New York City advertises that it accepts food stamps. A Trump administration proposal could result in 3 million people losing their food assistance.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration wants to change the way states determine who qualifies for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits, also known as food stamps. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 3 million people would lose their food assistance as a result.

The administration says it wants to close what it calls a “loophole” that allows states to give benefits to those would not otherwise be eligible by raising or eliminating income and asset limits. Forty states and the Washington, D.C., now take advantage of this option, and have done so for many years.

“This proposal will not only save money, but more importantly it preserves the integrity of the program while ensuring nutrition assistance programs serve those most in need,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in announcing the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register. His agency estimates the change would likely save $2.5 billion a year.

But proponents of the current system say it helps low-income families who work, but have huge child care, housing and other expenses that leave them with insufficient money to buy food. States currently have the flexibility to not cut off benefits as soon as a family’s gross income exceeds a certain level, but to more slowly phase out the food aid. It also automatically qualifies 265,000 school children for free lunches. Under the administration’s proposal, those children would have to apply separately to continue to get those meals.

“This rule would take food away from families, prevent children from getting school meals, and make it harder for states to administer food assistance,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Stabenow noted that Congress refused to include the proposal in last year’s farm bill.

“This proposal is yet another attempt by this administration to circumvent Congress and make harmful changes to nutrition assistance that have been repeatedly rejected on a bipartisan basis,” she said.

The proposed rule change is one of several the administration has made or is considering that restricts safety net programs for low-income individuals and families.

The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal and opposition is expected to be fierce. Anti-poverty groups see it as part of a much broader campaign by the Trump administration to push people off government aid even as they continue to face financial struggles. The change would like face a legal challenge if it goes into effect.

Right now, the law sets a gross income cap of 130% of the poverty line for SNAP recipients — about $33,000 for a family of four. But states use something called “broad-based categorical eligibility” to allow families getting other assistance to receive some SNAP benefits even if their incomes are as high as 200% of poverty, as long as they have other expenses that cut their net incomes below a certain level. States like the option because it gives them more flexibility to help families that have fluctuating incomes and still have trouble buying food.

“These are working families who are just above SNAP’s income cutoff,” said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “What the [current system] does is say to workers that if you want to work a few more hours, you don’t risk losing SNAP because you take the extra shift. So it’s promoting work.”

Dean notes that the change would also eliminate benefits for many seniors and individuals with disabilities who would be cut off if their assets exceed $3,500. Many states have waived the asset limit because they argue that it discourages low-income families from saving, and it’s a huge administrative burden trying to keep track of a recipients’ bank account and other assets.

But that has also led to one high-profile case that the administration and some Republicans repeatedly tout as evidence that the program needs to be fixed. The case involves a wealthy Minnesota man, who had extremely low income but huge assets, and said he applied for and collected SNAP to show that the program is flawed. Dean and others counter that the man intentionally abused the system and that it is highly unusual for someone with so many assets to have so little income, which includes interest on savings and investments.

Perdue called SNAP a “temporary safety net” and said the administration wants to help people “move away from SNAP dependency.”

About 36 million people now receive monthly SNAP benefits. That number has declined steadily since 2013, when it exceeded 47 million.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/23/744451246/3-million-could-lose-food-stamp-benefits-under-trump-administration-proposal

30 views no comments
Silence the ‘squad’ by rebutting their terrible ideas – Washington Examiner
Silence the ‘squad’ by rebutting their terrible ideas – Washington Examiner

To prevent policy action by the “squad” of far-left congressional Democrats (Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley), conservatives should seek to debate them at every opportunity. Doing so, we can persuade Americans that the squad’s ideas aren’t very good and articulate how our ideas are better.

Such an approach is far superior to screaming “Send her back!” at Ilhan Omar and throwing profanity laden insults or threats at any other member of the squad. That course only risks making the squad a more sympathetic cause to people otherwise skeptical of their ideas.

Conservatives should have confidence in a better tradition, the source of enduring American democracy and prosperity: the marketplace of ideas. Where capitalism fosters creation of the best new goods, services, and technologies, so too does our democracy empower the best policies. We should trust in this ideas marketplace. After all, the squad doesn’t offer particularly stellar ideas.

Let’s start with Omar.

While the congresswoman is often too casually criticized, her ideas are quite bonkers. For just two examples, Omar appears to be anti-Semitic and is in favor of gutting our military. Explaining her recent vote against defense spending, Omar said, “We should be using some of this money to address the housing shortage in this country.”

Forgive me, but more crappy public housing isn’t going to do much to protect us from Chinese imperialism, Russian expansionism, and international terrorism.

Ocasio-Cortez seeks a massive government expansion at the expense of individual earnings and individual choices. She benefits from capitalism while simultaneously deriding it. Her inner circle exudes a zealotry in tune with historic enemies of humanity.

Tlaib also doesn’t appear to have much affection for Jews, nor does she offer much belief in or support for the private sector. But Tlaib does like to swear a lot. Is her example a good template for persuading more Americans to vote Democratic? I think not.

Pressley is probably the squad’s intellectual star. Even then, Pressley’s hard line socialist agenda is omnipresent. Pressley recently attacked Secretary of Urban Housing and Development Ben Carson for lacking “empathy and humanity.”

Why such anger? Because Carson doesn’t want to build as many new public housing projects as Pressley seeks. Instead, he promotes social mobility over reliance on government services.

The basic point is this. Socialism is a defective ideology in absolute divergence with our marketplace of ideas. Socialism aims to control that which the marketplace aims to empower. Socialism aims to dictate that which the marketplace constantly creates. Socialism aims to remake America into a nation where “know better” politicians make a few choices in supremacy of a marketplace of choices by entrepreneurs, consumers, and voters.

History and present day reality suggest that’s not a very clever idea. To prevent the squad from expanding their power, conservatives should focus on the policy, not the personalities.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/silence-the-squad-by-rebutting-their-terrible-ideas

26 views no comments
Mueller testimony: schedule, start time, what to expect, how to watch – Vox.com
Mueller testimony: schedule, start time, what to expect, how to watch – Vox.com

This week, for the first and perhaps only time, former special counsel Robert Mueller will answer questions about his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice — but it’s unclear how much he’ll say.

On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee beginning at 8:30 am Eastern, and then before the House Intelligence Committee starting at noon Eastern. Questioning in the first three-hour session will largely focus on obstruction of justice, while the second two-hour session will focus on Russian interference with the 2016 election.

The testimony will be aired on networks such as NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN. Vox will also live-stream it on Twitter and Facebook, and we’ll embed a live stream here when one is available.

Mueller’s testimony comes nearly four months after he completed his investigation, nearly three months after the government released a redacted version of his report, and nearly two months after he spoke publicly about his findings. It’s also at a time when Mueller’s findings have faded from the political conversation somewhat, as the scandal many Democrats once hoped could spur impeachment proceedings and bring down President Trump has not done either.

But many Democrats (and the occasional Republican) have argued that Mueller’s findings were in fact quite damning, and deserve far more public attention and scrutiny. And they think the major public spectacle of Mueller’s testimony could be better than a 448-page report at delivering those facts to the public. Even if, as Mueller has previously suggested, his testimony will only be repeating what’s in the report already.

Why Mueller is testifying to Congress

“I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter,” Mueller said when he addressed the public for the first (and so far only) time in May, just before he stepped down as special counsel. But House Democrats weren’t satisfied — they subpoenaed Mueller in June, in an effort to force him to answer questions before key committees. Despite Mueller’s reluctance, negotiations ensued, and the sides eventually struck a deal for the testimony that will take place Wednesday.

In his May statement, Mueller said that “any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report” — that is, he might try to answer every question by simply restating what his report says, or declining to answer. The Justice Department also sent Mueller a letter urging him to stick to the report itself, and even claiming that talking about internal investigative decisions in more detail could fall under executive privilege.

Mueller’s testimony may not reveal new bombshells. However, it will at the very least provide a high-profile setting for him to restate the findings in his report (which, though it’s a best-seller, many people haven’t read — as of early May, a CNN poll of US adults found only 3 percent of respondents read the whole thing). And it should refocus media attention on those findings. Namely:

  • That the Russian government tried to help Trump win the 2016 election
  • That the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats
  • That Trump’s campaign advisers had a host of shady ties to Russia
  • That despite this, the investigation did not establish a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia to interfere with the election
  • That six former Trump advisers committed crimes by lying to investigators
  • And that Trump, once he became president, tried again and again to impede the investigation — though Mueller decided not to outright reach a conclusion on whether this constituted criminal obstruction of justice

What Mueller found on obstruction of justice

The first testimony session, before the Judiciary Committee, will focus on the portion of the report that focused on obstruction of justice. That’s likely because half of the report has by far more material about Trump personally.

There are two broad areas members of Congress can focus on here — questions on Mueller’s factual findings about Trump’s potential obstruction of justice, and questions about his legal analysis and DOJ’s behind-the-scenes decision-making in this fraught probe.

Mueller’s factual findings on Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation

The special counsel examined 10 different instances of possible obstruction; among the key events Mueller collected facts and evidence on are:

  • Trump tried to get then-FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into whether Michael Flynn lied about his Russia contacts (but Comey didn’t do it).
  • Trump then fired Comey.
  • Trump tried several times to get then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from oversight of the Russia investigation or to rein in the probe (which Sessions didn’t do).
  • Trump directed then-White House counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller fired (but McGahn didn’t carry this out). Trump later tried to get McGahn to falsely deny this took place.
  • Trump and his legal team urged key figures in the probe (like Paul Manafort) not to “flip,” attacked those who did flip (like Michael Cohen), and sent messages to Flynn when he was about to flip.

Much of this clearly seems to be aimed at trying to impede the Russia investigation. And while Mueller wrote that the evidence doesn’t establish that all this “was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” he added that Trump could well have had other corrupt motives (such as preventing politically damaging information or separate crimes from coming to light).

This fact pattern was stunning enough that after then-Republican Rep. Justin Amash reviewed this part of the report, he felt compelled to push for Trump’s impeachment. (He has since left the Republican Party.) But many of these details still aren’t widely known, so Democrats are hoping to publicize them more in these hearings.

Mueller’s legal analysis and the Justice Department’s decision-making on obstruction

Then there’s the special counsel’s analysis and decision-making. Mueller’s report examined whether those above Trump actions met the three requirements for whether something can be considered criminal obstruction of justice — whether it involved an obstructive act, whether it had a connection to a pending proceeding, and whether Trump’s intent was corrupt.

But throughout, Mueller avoided coming to an explicit conclusion on whether any of these individual acts — or the combination of them — qualified as criminal obstruction of justice. He said he determined to do this because the Justice Department has held that a sitting president can’t be indicted. “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” he writes.

Oddly, however, Mueller also went out of his way to point out that he did not have “confidence” that Trump did not obstruct justice — and claimed that if Trump indeed “clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” he would say so. The implication was that the evidence against Trump on obstruction shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Attorney General William Barr, however, did end up dismissing it: After Mueller submitted his report, Barr quickly proclaimed that according to his review of the evidence, Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal.

This rather unusual sequence of events — Mueller’s decision not to issue a prosecutorial judgment, his decision to say he didn’t have “confidence” in Trump’s innocence, and Barr’s clearing of the president — raises many questions. So Democrats may well press Mueller for information about behind-the-scenes decision-making here, and whether he felt there was political interference by Barr.

What Mueller found on Russian interference and the Trump campaign

In Mueller’s second testimony session of the day, before the House Intelligence Committee, he’ll be pressed about the Russian effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential election and whether any Trump associates were involved in that effort.

Russian election interference: social media propaganda and email hacking

Per Mueller, Russia criminally interfered in the election in two main ways. First, there was a Russian effort to spread social media propaganda that could hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and help Trump (as well as sow division in the United States). Second, Russian intelligence officers hacked leading Democrats’ emails and electronic documents, and later either posted them directly or had them provided to WikiLeaks.

But was anyone in the Trump campaign involved? “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities,” the Mueller report says.

Now, there is one big loose end involving Mueller’s findings about what happened in 2016. Heavily redacted sections of the report discuss whether Trump associates were involved in the dissemination of those hacked emails. This section discusses longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone’s contacts with WikiLeaks and, apparently, advance information Trump was told. However, Mueller will not be permitted to discuss that material, to avoid prejudicing Stone’s trial on charges of obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering (which is scheduled for November). So it is not clear whether questioning on this topic will be fruitful.

The Trump campaign-Russia contacts

Beyond the specific election interference conspiracy, Mueller’s report contains a lengthy chronicle of the Russian government’s contacts with the Trump campaign — though none of these ended up being the basis for criminal charges. These include:

  • Michael Cohen made an effort, approved by Trump, to get the Russian government’s help advancing a project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. (Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about this effort.)
  • George Papadopoulos got a tip that the Russian government had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of emails, and had contacts with a Maltese professor and two Russian nationals. (Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about these contacts.)
  • Paul Manafort had various contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national, during the campaign — he shared internal Trump polling data with Kilimnik and discussed the campaign’s strategy with him. (Manafort was convicted of financial crimes mostly related to his past Ukraine lobbying work.)
  • Carter Page made a trip to Moscow in July 2016, where he gave two speeches and met a Russian deputy prime minister and an official at a Russian oil company. (Mueller concluded that Page’s activities in Russia “were not fully explained” but didn’t charge him with any crimes.)
  • Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016 in hopes of getting damaging information about Hillary Clinton. They did not, however, get useful information. (Mueller considered charging this as a campaign finance violation — an effort to get a thing of value from foreign nationals — but concluded there was insufficient evidence.)
  • After repeated requests from Trump, Michael Flynn reached out to Republican operative Peter Smith about trying to obtain Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails from Russian hackers. (The effort was unsuccessful, and Smith died by suicide in early 2017.)
  • During the transition period, Flynn reached out to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to urge him to respond with restraint to the outgoing Obama administration’s new sanctions. (Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about these statements.)

However, this volume of the report says relatively little about Trump himself. It does reveal that Trump had ambitions for a lucrative Russian business deal and was eager to “find” Clinton’s emails. But Mueller revealed no evidence that Trump was personally involved in or aware of most of those other shady contacts.

Overall, rather than any super-spy conspiracy involving the highest levels of the Trump campaign, the Mueller report seemed to tell a story of a series of disorganized contacts and missed opportunities.

None of it makes the Trump campaign look particularly good — and we can expect Democrats to hammer that point home. Expect Republicans, though, to hammer home the point that after a nearly two-year investigation, Mueller did not ultimately charge a conspiracy between any Trump official and any Russian to interfere with the 2016 election.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/7/23/20703923/mueller-testimony-schedule-time-watch-live-stream

54 views no comments
FBI Director Wray: Russia intent on interfering with U.S. vote – Reuters
FBI Director Wray: Russia intent on interfering with U.S. vote – Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Russia is determined to interfere in U.S. elections despite sanctions and other efforts to deter such actions before the next presidential election in 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said on Tuesday.

“The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections,” Wray said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Wray appeared at an oversight hearing a day before Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, was due to testify publicly before Congress about his two-year investigation of Russian interference to sway the 2016 presidential race toward President Donald Trump.

“Everything we’ve done against Russia has not deterred them enough?” asked Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican committee chairman. “All the sanctions, all the talk, they’re still at it?”

“Yes. My view is until they stop they haven’t been deterred enough,” Wray responded.

Mueller’s investigation disclosed an elaborate campaign of hacking and propaganda during the 2016 presidential race and resulted in indictments that charged 25 Russian individuals and three Russian companies.

The United States has imposed election-related sanctions on Russian oligarchs and military intelligence officials and there is a push for legislation threatening tougher sanctions in the U.S. Congress.

The Russia investigation cast a shadow over Trump’s White House tenure and the president has repeatedly downplayed the Kremlin’s role in trying to help him win. At last year’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, he sided with Moscow over U.S. intelligence agencies.

In his most recent meeting with the Russian leader, in June, Trump appeared to make light of the issue, wagging his finger at the laughing Russian leader as he said, “Don’t meddle in the election, please.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, criticized Trump for joking about the issue.

“Have you personally briefed the president about these threats,” she asked Wray.

“We have had a number of meetings with others in the (White House) National Security Council,” to discuss Russian efforts to interfere with the elections, he replied.

Wray includes efforts to interfere in U.S. elections in a broader category of foreign influence campaigns in which foreign governments to affect U.S. political sentiment or discourse.

He told the Council of Foreign Relations in April that he viewed the 2018 congressional elections as a “dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.”

Wray told senators the FBI was working with private sector platforms about “different forms of foreign influence messaging, whether it’s propaganda and fake news.”

Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Tom Brown

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security/fbi-director-wray-russia-intent-on-interfering-with-u-s-vote-idUSKCN1UI1XW

23 views no comments
‘How to avoid arrest’: ICE agents capture 35 in raids targeting thousands – Washington Examiner
‘How to avoid arrest’: ICE agents capture 35 in raids targeting thousands – Washington Examiner

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested just 35 illegal immigrants last week as part of raids that targeted about 2,000.

President Trump directed ICE to arrest and deport illegal immigrants with court-ordered deportation orders last month, but he delayed Operation Border Resolve several weeks after the plan went public.

The ICE operation began on Sunday, July 14, and targeted thousands of migrants in 10 of the largest cities in the Unites States. While officials expected the operation to yield around 200 arrests, just under three dozen migrants have been detained after the first week, according to government figures obtained by the New York Times.

ICE acting Director Matthew Albence said that the number of apprehensions is low and was likely heavily influenced by efforts to protect and hide illegal immigrants from ICE agents.

“I don’t know of any other population where people are telling them how to avoid arrest as a result of illegal activity,” Albence said. “It certainly makes it harder for us to effectuate these orders issued.”

“You didn’t hear ICE talking about it before the operation was taking place,” he added.

Democrats and immigration activists launched an information campaign intended to reach those illegal immigrants that Operation Border Resolve sought to deport prior to ICE taking action.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her caucus members to warn illegal immigrants in their districts ahead of the raids, telling Democrats to educate migrants on the best action to avoid deportation should an ICE agent knock on their door.

The New York Police Department ordered its officers not to work with ICE officials operating in the city prior to the deportation action. In Los Angeles, police refused to help ICE and took active efforts to thwart the agency’s operations, such as releasing details about the raids and taking part in a message to migrants that they need not obey ICE agents without a warrant.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/how-to-avoid-arrest-ice-agents-capture-35-in-raids-targeting-thousands

26 views no comments
Boris Johnson wins contest to be United Kingdom’s new prime minister – USA TODAY
Boris Johnson wins contest to be United Kingdom’s new prime minister – USA TODAY
CLOSE

Boris Johnson succeeds Theresa May as Britain’s new prime minister.
USA TODAY

LONDON – Boris Johnson succeeded Theresa May as Britain’s new prime minister on Tuesday and the incoming leader faces a bumpy ride amid pressure to get the nation’s stalled exit from the European Union – known as Brexit – over the line.  

Britain’s 77th prime minister will also have to deal with an escalating crisis with Iran. 

American-born Johnson, 55, who enjoys a good relationship with President Donald Trump, becomes Britain’s 14th prime minister to serve under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. He will be the third leader from the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party, including David Cameron – who called 2016’s controversial referendum on EU membership – charged with making sure that Brexit takes place.

In a brief address, Johnson said he would “deliver Brexit” and “unite the country.”

Johnson won about two-thirds of eligible votes in a weeks-long contest decided by an internal party vote by approximately 160,000 Conservative Party members after May stepped down over her handling of Brexit. Britain elects a party, not a leader, meaning the ruling party can change its leader and still remain the government of the day. 

Johnson beat Jeremy Hunt, a close political ally of May’s. 

“Congratulations to Boris Johnson on becoming the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be great!” Trump tweeted. 

While Johnson was the odds-on favorite to win, he will be quickly tested. 

He inherits a government that has repeatedly failed, three years after the EU vote, to find a practical solution to a seemingly intractable problem: While the British public narrowly opted to depart the 28-nation bloc, the majority of British lawmakers still don’t believe it’s in the nation’s economic or diplomatic interests. 

Amid an unraveling nuclear deal between world powers and Iran – precipitated by Washington’s withdrawal, a year ago, from the accord – Tehran has seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, an important waterway in the Persian Gulf.

Britain has found itself caught between the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran with its renewed sanctions, asset freezes, deployment of extra troops to the region and the designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, and its commitment to the nuclear deal.  

Back at home, many economists and political scientists believe Brexit could substantially damage Britain’s standing in the world and usher in dramatic changes on everything from its border security to food standards and human rights. It could also impact the status of Scotland, where political nationalists have vowed to try to exit the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if Brexit is completed.  

“There are many people in the Conservative Party who want Brexit more than anything else on this Earth, and they are prepared to take not only a desperate act, but perhaps also an unconstitutional one,” said Timothy Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London, referring to Johnson’s refusal to rule out suspending Parliament in order to force through a so-called no-deal Brexit if it does not happen by October 31. Hunt had adopted a more cautious approach, ruling out hard deadlines.   

Meanwhile, EU leaders say they are not willing to renegotiate the terms of an exit deal already agreed upon with May, and which ultimately led to her ouster. Of particular concern to both parties: Northern Ireland’s border with EU member Ireland. 

Britain’s Parliament rejected May’s EU deal, largely because of a measure designed to ensure an open border for goods and services as enjoyed by all EU members. Johnson thinks the “backstop” keeps Britain too closely bound to EU rules. 

An invisible border is also crucial to the regional economy and underpins the peace process that ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland.

Johnson’s leadership appears to increase the chance of a “no-deal” Brexit, a scenario that would see decades of EU legislation that covers areas from aviation to trade effectively evaporate overnight. The Confederation of British Industry, a business lobby group, has warned a “no-deal” Brexit would lead to the largest decline in business investment in Britain since the 2009 financial crisis. Economic growth would be weaker.

Companies and members of the public have been stockpiling essential materials, foods and medicines, according to market research firms such as Blis. In Northern Ireland, officials fearing potential “no-deal”-related power shortages have drawn up plans to requisition electricity generators from the British Army in Afghanistan.

Polls suggest a majority of Britons oppose a no-deal Brexit and Britain’s Parliament has taken steps to ensure that lawmakers are not bypassed on any “no-deal” decision.

Johnson has vowed to bridge this impasse, partly by injecting new energy into Britain’s highest office, saying Tuesday he would help “bring a new spirit of can-do.”

“We are once again going to believe in ourselves, and like some slumbering giant we are going to rise and ping off the guy ropes of self doubt and negativity.”

Many Americans may not recognize Johnson’s name.

But they may know about his unruly mop of blond hair and gaffe-prone speeches, which have drawn comparisons to Trump, not least by Trump himself. 

“He’s a different kind of a guy, but they say I’m a different kind of a guy, too,” Trump said approvingly of Johnson last week. “We get along well.”

A former journalist, London mayor and foreign secretary, Johnson is never far from British tabloid headlines. He is known for such antics as getting stuck hanging on a zipwire over the Thames River or being caught on camera tripping a child during a soccer game. He has been criticized for his inflammatory use of language, calling Muslim women who wear the burqa – an enveloping outer garment – “letter boxes” and “bank robbers.” Johnson attended the most prestigious schools and colleges. He was born in New York, but gave up his U.S. passport amid a tax probe.

Hunt was a successful entrepreneur before going into politics. He replaced Johnson as Britain’s current foreign secretary. Before that, as health secretary, he presided over aggressive reforms to Britain’s beloved public health service that split public opinion. 

Iain Duncan Smith, a Conservative Party politician who once led the party, said that whoever occupies No. 10 Downing Street – the prime minister’s official office and residence – the “U.S. is simply the strongest ally that we have” and “making sure that the U.K. and the U.S. are as much as possible together on critical events is vital.”

Smith said that it was right that Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Kim Darroch, resigned this month after leaked diplomatic cables he sent back to London described Trump’s White House as “inept” and “clumsy.” His comments led to a fierce response from Trump. During a live TV leadership debate with Hunt, Johnson refused to explicitly back Darroch, in contrast to Hunt who called Trump “disrespectful and wrong.”  

Outgoing leader May offered her “full support” to Johnson. 

She will officially tender her resignation to the queen on Wednesday. Johnson will take office later the same day, following his own audience with the monarch.

Post to Facebook

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/23/boris-johnson-succeeds-theresa-may-as-britains-prime-minister/1741769001/

33 views no comments
Trump administration to propose rule that would cut 3.1 million people from food stamp program: report – Fox News
Trump administration to propose rule that would cut 3.1 million people from food stamp program: report – Fox News
Video

Minnesota millionaire proves how easy it is to qualify for food stamps

Trump cracks down on food stamp fraud; Millionaire Rob Undersander and Sen. Jeff Howe weigh in.

The Trump administration is set to propose a rule Tuesday that would cut about 3.1 million Americans from the food-stamp program in an effort to save taxpayers about $2.5 billion a year, reports said.

The U.S. has seen low levels of unemployment, which is seen as a major factor in low levels of participation in the program. President Trump tweeted earlier this month that food stamp use is at a 10-year low. Politifact verified the claim.

Reuters, citing a U.S. Department of Agriculture, reported that residents in 43 states who receive help from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, automatically enroll in the food-stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The USDA intends to review these TANF cases to see if participants qualify for the program.

“This proposal will save money and preserve the integrity of the program,” Sonny Perdue, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said in a conference call. “SNAP should be a temporary safety net.”

SNAP, which was formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, is a federal program that provides grocery assistance for people out of work or with low incomes living in the U.S. To qualify for the program, individuals must make 130 percent or less of the federal poverty level based on the household size.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The move was criticized by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who told The Washington Post that the move is another attempt by the Trump administration to “circumvent Congress and make harmful changes to nutrition assistance that have been repeatedly rejected on a bipartisan basis.”

Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-to-propose-rule-that-would-cut-3-1-million-people-from-food-stamp-program-report

29 views no comments
When Is Robert Mueller’s Testimony And What Will Congress Ask? – NPR
When Is Robert Mueller’s Testimony And What Will Congress Ask? – NPR

Special counsel Robert Mueller arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with lawmakers in June 2017. Mueller is back on Wednesday to testify before two House committees about his findings on election interference in 2016.

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Special counsel Robert Mueller arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with lawmakers in June 2017. Mueller is back on Wednesday to testify before two House committees about his findings on election interference in 2016.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Former special counsel Robert Mueller is testifying before Congress on Wednesday, and lawmakers have so many questions they may not have enough time to ask them all.

The House judiciary and intelligence committees have scheduled hearings for 8:30 a.m. and noon.

Majority Democrats and minority Republicans are expected to try their utmost to get the most good they can from Mueller — in very different ways.

Members of Congress already postponed Mueller’s hearings once to wrangle more time. Complicating the matter will be Mueller himself, who has said he intends to confine his testimony to what he has already set forth in his report.

In addition, the Justice Department sent Mueller a letter on Monday night saying it expects Mueller to not stray beyond what is publicly known about his work, citing executive privilege.

That won’t constrain members of Congress from trying.

Here are some of the questions they might ask, broken up by the majority and the minority members on these committees.

Democrats: Just summarize your findings

One basic goal for Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is to get Mueller to say on TV what he has already said in dry print.

The special counsel’s office uncovered an unprecedented wave of “active measures” launched by Russia against the 2016 election, aimed at blocking Hillary Clinton from being elected and at helping put Donald Trump into office.

It documented a number of contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russians and it established a number of what Democrats call questionable actions taken by Trump before and after the election.

Democrats have sought to tamp down expectations about big new revelations from Mueller beyond the scope of his findings.

Republicans: Did you find a conspiracy with the Trump campaign?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander — Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., likely wants a sound bite of his own that he knows Mueller probably will give.

He wants the former special counsel to say that he did not establish there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians who interfered. That was one conclusion from Volume I of the Mueller report.

What will be trickier for both Democrats and Republicans are the findings of Volume II of Mueller’s report, in which the special counsel explicitly did not clear Trump of obstructing justice. The report faulted uncooperative witnesses — including Trump himself — and cited the Justice Department policy proscribing him from seeking an indictment against a sitting president.

Mueller later explained in his own brief statement at the Justice Department that he never considered it an option to charge Trump.

Attorney General William Barr has since said that he agrees Mueller could never have indicted Trump — but Barr felt that Mueller could have said whether he believed an indictment was necessary.

This will likely come up in the hearings.

Mueller’s own view was that expressing an opinion about charges, even apart from the special counsel’s ability to bring them, would be unfair to Trump. The president’s immunity also means he could never have a day in court in which to defend himself against any allegation, Mueller believed.

This complicated knot of legal interpretation may make it difficult for members of the committee majority and minority to bounce a clean ricochet off Mueller.

Democrats: What didn’t you investigate?

Mueller has stepped down and his work is over. But Democrats are anxious about trying to preserve some momentum to animate their own ongoing investigations into Trump.

The president and his supporters have pointed to Mueller’s findings and called them the final word on any alleged impropriety. Trump has said, for example, that he assumes Mueller obtained his tax returns and concluded nothing was wrong.

Now Democrats will have the ability to ask Mueller whether that’s true. The answer could have some of the biggest long-term political implications for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her majority.

If Mueller says — in so many words — that his report is a clean bill of health for Trump, it will mean new headwinds for Democrats’ investigations and strengthen opponents’ criticism that they’re just new fishing expeditions.

If Mueller appears to clear the way for the judiciary, intelligence and other committees to press ahead with the work they’ve begun, Democrats would be happy to take the torch from him.

But remember, the Justice Department has made it clear that Mueller should not discuss aspects of the investigation that have been redacted and not cleared for public consumption.

Republicans: Who are you to “exonerate” anyone?

Trump, White House aides and their supporters in Congress argue that Mueller has violated the most basic responsibility of a prosecutor: assess whether there’s sufficient evidence of lawbreaking and, if so, seek an indictment.

If not, don’t.

It isn’t a prosecutor’s job to write a report about findings short of charges and it isn’t his role to “clear” anyone, Mueller’s critics argue. Everyone is supposed to be cleared in the American system unless she or he is proved guilty.

Yet Mueller wrote this: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

So not only have White House attorneys faulted Mueller for his report — “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper,” as lawyer Emmet Flood scoffed — members of Congress likely want to ask Mueller why he went so far afield of what they consider his remit.

Democrats: Will you say now whether you’d indict Trump?

Look for majority Democrats to take the opposite tack.

Barr, the attorney general, has said he considered the way clear for Mueller to say whether he believed Trump merits criminal charges in connection with the alleged obstruction of justice — with the caveat that there could be no actual indictment.

All right, Nadler and his colleagues may say to Mueller, not only are you off the Justice Department payroll, your own former boss has said he didn’t object to your giving an opinion about this. Even though the Justice Department’s policy kept you from charging Trump, would you if you could have?

Or to put it a different way, would anyone else who has done the things you’ve found Trump has done face criminal charges?

Republicans: Why did you remove Peter Strzok?

The melodrama involving Strzok, formerly a top FBI counterintelligence specialist, and Lisa Page, formerly a top FBI lawyer, has been one of the most embarrassing subplots in the Russia imbroglio for the FBI.

Strzok and Page exchanged a number of candidly political text messages on their government phones in 2016 at the time they were involved in an extramarital affair.

When investigators discovered all this and publicized the story and their messages, it fueled criticism that the Russia investigation was the product of “bias” by an insider cabal out to get Trump.

Mueller removed Strzok from the special counsel’s office when he got word about the text messages. Expect Republicans to invite him to relate that story early and often — and to press him about why they should accept anything from an office that included Strzok and others who’ve been criticized for political “bias.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/23/744066061/6-questions-congress-may-ask-robert-mueller-during-his-testimony

21 views no comments
35 arrested in ICE operation that targeted 2,000 – CNN
35 arrested in ICE operation that targeted 2,000 – CNN

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/23/politics/ice-raids-35-arrests/index.html

20 views no comments
Trump announces budget deal reached with Congress – ABC News
Trump announces budget deal reached with Congress – ABC News

President Donald J. Trump announced late Monday that he and congressional leaders had reached a deal on a two-year budget and the debt ceiling.

“I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills,” Trump tweeted, calling the deal “a real compromise.”

The White House and congressional leaders had for weeks negotiated over raising the limit on federal borrowing and setting budget cap numbers.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images
President Donald Trump speaks at a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House, July 22, 2019, in Washington.

In a joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer confirmed the deal, suspending the debt limit until after the next presidential inauguration, July 31, 2021, while claiming Democrats “have achieved an agreement that permanently ends the threat of the sequester.”

“We are pleased that the Administration has finally agreed to join Democrats in ending these devastating cuts, which have threatened our investments to keep America Number One in the global economy and to ensure our national security,” Pelosi and Schumer stated. “With this agreement, we strive to avoid another government shutdown, which is so harmful to meeting the needs of the American people and honoring the work of our public employees.”

With all “four corners” of Capitol Hill pledging their support to the president, the bill is likely to pass.

After insisting on parity in any spending increases for defense and non-defense spending throughout the negotiations, the duo noted that Democrats “secured robust funding” for domestic spending and “are pleased that our increase in non-defense budget authority exceeds the defense number by $10 billion over the next two years.”

“It also means Democrats secured an increase of more than $100 billion in funding for domestic priorities since President Trump took office,” the Democrat leaders wrote. “After a long negotiation, we have only agreed upon offsets that were part of an earlier bipartisan agreement.

Schumer and Pelosi signaled a vote could occur before the end of the week, when Congress begins its six-week summer recess.

“The House will now move swiftly to bring the budget caps and debt ceiling agreement legislation to the Floor, so that it can be sent to the President’s desk as soon as possible,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote. “With this agreement, we can avoid the damage of sequestration and continue to advance progress for the people.”

In a tweet, McConnell wrote, “I am glad the administration and Speaker Pelosi have reached a two-year funding agreement that secures the resources we need to continue rebuilding our armed forces. The next step is for the House and the Senate to pass this agreement so that President Trump can sign it into law.”

House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey said the agreement would provide “the largest-ever increase in base funding above sequestration levels.”

“With the more reasonable budget caps in this agreement, we will be able to undertake an orderly appropriations process and invest For the People — in priorities like education, health care, infrastructure, the environment, and tackling the climate crisis,” Lowey, D-N.Y., stated.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-announces-budget-deal-reached-congress/story?id=64495852

27 views no comments
Harry Kazianis: Increased US-North Korea tensions could return them to brink of nuclear war – Fox News
Harry Kazianis: Increased US-North Korea tensions could return them to brink of nuclear war – Fox News
Video

North Korea threatens to resume missile tests

Pyongyang warns planned joint U.S.-South Korean military drills put nuclear talks at risk; Benjamin Hall reports from London.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un seems to believe that President Trump broke a promise. That’s a big problem – and in the worst-case scenario, it could return the U.S. and the North to the brink of a catastrophic nuclear war.

It could all be due to a simple misunderstanding.

In the space of just a few weeks, we have gone from Trump meeting with Kim – after briefly setting foot in North Korea – to veiled threats from the North Korean regime that it may scrap its self-imposed ban on testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that could carry nuclear bombs to the U.S.

NORTH KOREA HINTS IT WILL LIFT NUCLEAR MISSILE TEST SUSPENSION

What seems to have happened is that Kim and his inner circle have interpreted words and phrases in a way that suits their interests – just as they have done before.

The result could be tragic – a renewed round of missile or nuclear tests that could trigger armed conflict. If all goes wrong, the conflict could escalate into a nuclear war.

If you read over the two statements Pyongyang released that started this latest dispute, it is clear North Korea is upset about joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises set to take place Aug. 2-25.

According to the Kim regime, the military exercises violate “the commitments made at the highest level.” In other words, the North is saying Trump is breaking a promise not to conduct such exercises with the South.

According to the Kim regime, the military exercises violate “the commitments made at the highest level.” In other words, the North is saying Trump is breaking a promise not to conduct such exercises with the South.

In fact, the North Korean government claimed: “The suspension of joint military exercises is what President Trump, commander-in-chief of the U.S., personally committed to at the DPRK-U.S. summit talks in Singapore under the eyes of the whole world and reaffirmed at the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting in Panmunjom, where our Foreign Minister and the U.S. Secretary of State were also present.”

The DPRK is the abbreviation for North Korea’s official name – the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Multiple White House officials and South Korean officials who I’ve spoken with tell me they have no knowledge of any promise by President Trump to suspend the joint military exercises. In fact, as far as these officials know, this topic was not even discussed between Trump and Kim during their recent meeting.

Trump did make promises on the issue of the joint exercises in the past, but there are some important caveats that North Korea fails to mention. As a result, the North and the U.S. have big differences over what each side believes Trump has committed to.

During his Singapore summit with Kim last year, Trump clearly stated that “we will be stopping the war games” – criticizing joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises as expensive and provocative.

However, there was a major catch to such a promise. Trump never agreed to an open-ended agreement to indefinitely halt U.S. military exercises with South Korea. The U.S. president simply said he canceled one set of scheduled exercises because “under the circumstances, that we’re negotiating … I think it’s inappropriate to be having war games.”

But there are a few twists that could lead to some confusion on North Korea’s part. Parsing his exact words during a news conference at the Singapore summit, Trump expressed his support for a joint exercise freeze “unless we see future negotiations are not going along as they should.”

Unfortunately, what also complicates this matter is the fact that Trump stated he would put military exercises “on hold while negotiations with Pyongyang were ongoing.”

Which is it?

Well, at least one thing is clear. Trump, true to his word, did suspend two large exercises. The U.S. Defense Department announced that it had “indefinitely suspended select exercises.” But the only U.S.-South Korean exercises explicitly noted were one called “Freedom Guardian” and two “Korean Marine Exchange Program” trainings that were scheduled to occur in the three months following the summit.

The Defense Department statement also noted that any additional suspensions depended on “good faith” negotiations with North Korea, keeping in line with Trump’s promise. And, indeed, following the Hanoi summit, more exercises were suspended.

In coming days, all of this will come to a head. U.S. and North Korean working-level groups are set to sit down to craft an agreement based on foundational language and broad outlines stemming from discussions during the last two summits.

However, North Korea hasn’t confirmed a date or time for talks. With that being the case, it seems the U.S. will move forward with the joint military exercises with South Korea. That doesn’t break any pledge made by Trump. In fact, it honors the promise he made.

But following his latest meeting with Trump, it is possible that Kim thought Trump would suspend military exercises again, just as he did after the Singapore and Hanoi summits.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump could declare the joint military exercises are suspended in a tweet – provided that the North Koreans agree to a date and time in the next few days. That would avert a crisis and allow diplomacy to continue unimpeded.

In the meantime, talks between the U.S. and North Korea remain fragile. Every single word, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, matters. One false move – or in this case misinterpretation of what was or was not agreed to – could bring us back to 2017 and threats of nuclear war. I pray we never see such days again.

Adriana Nazarko, a Center for the National Interest Korean Studies summer associate, contributed to this op-ed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM HARRY KAZIANIS

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/harry-kazianis-north-korea-thinks-trump-broke-a-promise-to-them-heres-why-thats-a-problem

23 views no comments
DOJ tells Mueller to limit testimony to his public report | TheHill – The Hill
DOJ tells Mueller to limit testimony to his public report | TheHill – The Hill

The Justice Department on Monday told former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerThis week: Mueller dominates chaotic week on Capitol Hill Top Republican considered Mueller subpoena to box in Democrats Kamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump for obstruction MORE that he should limit his Wednesday testimony before Congress to the four corners of his public report on Russian interference.

“Any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges,” Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer wrote in a letter to Mueller that was obtained by The Hill.

“These privileges would include discussion about investigative steps or decisions made during your investigation not otherwise described in the public version of your report,” Weinsheimer wrote.

“Consistent with standard practice, Department witnesses should decline to address potentially privileged matters, thus affording the Department the full opportunity at a later date to consider particular questions and possible accommodations that may fulfill the committees’ legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests,” he added.

It was already expected that Mueller was unlikely to speak beyond what is spelled out in the redacted version of his 448-page report on Russian interference into the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President TrumpDonald John TrumpChelsea Clinton announces birth of third child Ukrainian officials and Giuliani are sharing back-channel campaign information: report Trump attacks ‘the Squad’ as ‘racist group of troublemakers’ MORE. The new letter all but guarantees that.

Weinsheimer noted that he was responding to a July 10 letter from Mueller that requested guidance from the department “concerning privilege or other legal bars applicable to potential testimony in connection” with the subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees for his appearance.

Weinsheimer reiterated statements made by Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrUkrainian officials and Giuliani are sharing back-channel campaign information: report Will Democrats be up to the task of publicly interviewing Mueller? A question for Robert Mueller MORE that it is ultimately Mueller’s decision to testify. He emphasized that Mueller should not reveal anything related to the redacted portions of the report — which conceal grand jury material, details on ongoing investigations, classified material and information on third parties.

Mueller, who is now a private citizen after leaving his post as special counsel, is slated to testify in back-to-back hearings before the Judiciary and Intelligence panels on Wednesday, a combined appearance that is expected to last roughly five hours.

In his only public remarks on the investigation on May 29, Mueller indicated he did not want to testify before Congress. He also said any testimony would not go beyond his report, stating, “The report is my testimony.” Democrats eventually subpoenaed him to testify last month.

In a brief interview Monday evening, Mueller’s spokesman Jim Popkin told The Hill that the former special counsel would stick closely to the details of the report in his public appearance.

“As I think he made crystal clear then, you can expect him to stick as much as he can to the four walls of the Mueller report,” said Popkin, pointing to his May 29 statement.

Popkin said that Mueller would make an opening statement to Congress that would not be viewed by the Justice Department beforehand. He also said Mueller would make the public version of the report a statement for the congressional record.

Mueller has been preparing for his testimony with a small group of attorneys from the special counsel’s office using space provided by his former law offices of Wilmer Hale, Popkin said.  

Democrats are hoping for Mueller to bring to life portions of his report that paint a damning picture of Trump’s efforts to thwart and gain control of the investigation.

Some have tempered expectations, saying they don’t expect the hearing to yield new information, but said nonetheless that the hearing will be successful if they’re able to shine a light on what the special counsel’s investigation found.

Mueller did not reach a conclusion one way or another on whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation, saying that the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion prevented him from even considering the question. Mueller is unlikely to answer questions Wednesday about whether he would have charged Trump if not for that opinion.

Mueller’s report also details numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, however the investigation found insufficient evidence to charge associates of the campaign with conspiring with Moscow to meddle in the election. Trump and his allies have heralded that result as vindicating him of allegations of “collusion” with Russia.

Still, Mueller’s marathon appearance on Capitol Hill could generate bad headlines for the White House, attracting wall-to-wall media coverage and elevating some of the more unsavory details of his exhaustive report. 

Source Article from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/454233-doj-tells-mueller-to-limit-testimony-to-his-public-report

26 views no comments
Puerto Rico’s mass protests were partly sparked by this news outlet’s publication of leaked texts – CNN
Puerto Rico’s mass protests were partly sparked by this news outlet’s publication of leaked texts – CNN

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/media/investigative-journalism-ricardo-rossell/index.html

31 views no comments
Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era – Politico
Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era – Politico

President Donald Trump is on track to match President Barack Obama’s levels of red ink. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Analysis

The president endorsed a bipartisan budget deal without any of the spending restraints previously demanded by Republicans.

President Donald Trump may have to hand out some new nicknames — for himself — after endorsing a bipartisan budget deal with Congress: “Trillion Dollar Trump?” “Deficit Don?”

With a new bipartisan budget deal that does nothing to cut federal spending, Trump is on track for another $1 trillion deficit this year. And there’s no reason to believe the following fiscal year will be any different, with ballooning deficits from higher spending, the 2017 tax cuts — Trump’s signature legislative achievement, which slashed revenue — and none of the entitlement reforms long preached by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

Story Continued Below

Candidate Trump bragged that he would pay off the entire federal debt in eight years, but President Trump is governing as if deficits don’t matter.

In fact, Trump is approaching the level of red ink from President Barack Obama’s first term, when Obama racked up trillion-dollar deficits four years in a row. Trump is on pace to do the same, starting with this year’s yawning deficit of more than $1 trillion, according to budget estimates.

But there are huge differences: Trump has a growing economy with historically low unemployment and a soaring stock market, while Obama was battling a brutal downturn in the economy during the worst recession in 80 years, making it much harder to curb federal spending.

Though Trump’s administration has repeatedly proposed massive cuts in its annual budget plans, lawmakers in both parties have laughed off the proposals. Now Trump has agreed to a second sweeping budget deal with Democrats that increases spending by more than $300 billion.

“This was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!” Trump tweeted Monday night in announcing his support for the $1.37 trillion package.

But some in Trump’s party were far less excited, wary that the profligate spending under Trump makes Republicans look like hypocrites.

“Everybody here basically… talks about it in a campaign and then gets into the rhythm here and we keep generating all these deficits and adding to all that debt,” Sen. Mike Braun (Ind.) said. “That’s what I ran against. That’s one of the big things why people back in Indiana elected me.”

Other Republicans said Trump wasn’t to blame.

“It’s not the president who is spending too much. It’s Congress,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa), who argued there was little her party could do to take a harder line in the talks against spending. “Do we want a shutdown in the government again? We don’t want to shut down the government.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who served as the lead Democratic negotiator, and Senate Minority Leader Schumer (D-N.Y.) hailed the deal, saying it met their priorities for more domestic spending while “turning off” the tens of billions in automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect if no deal were reached.

“Democrats have always insisted on parity in increases between defense and non-defense, and we are pleased that our increase in non-defense budget authority exceeds the defense number by $10 billion over the next two years,” the two Democrats said in a joint statement. “It also means Democrats secured an increase of more than $100 billion in funding for domestic priorities since President Trump took office.”

Part of the deal would include a second debt ceiling increase under Trump, with few of the spending reductions demanded by the GOP in the Obama era.

Instead, Trump and the GOP’s biggest fiscal priorities — bolstering the Pentagon and slashing tax rates — have trumped the GOP’s deficit hawk rhetoric. The deal also seeks to prohibit Democrats from tying the administration’s hands on key border and spending priorities, which Republicans see as a big win.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had pushed Trump to enter into budget negotiations for months, arguing that avoiding a default and shutdown was worth the price of increasing spending with a Democratic House in divided government.

But McConnell was careful to call it “The Administration-Pelosi Budget Deal” in his news release, despite the fact he’ll back it because of the increase in Pentagon spending. Not a word was included about the deficit.

“I am very encouraged that the administration and Speaker Pelosi have reached a two-year funding agreement that secures the resources we need to keep rebuilding our armed forces,” McConnell said. “This was our top objective: Continuing to restore the readiness of our armed forces and modernize our military to deter and defend against growing threats to our national security.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), a close Trump ally, is backing the agreement but said Democrats “refused to even discuss meaningful budget offsets and more importantly, any long-term reforms to the driving spending forces adding to our debt.”

Other Republicans complained about the increase in the deficit, but that doesn’t mean they’re prepared to vote against the package either — not with Trump giving them cover to vote for it.

“I’m very concerned about it. Particularly on the entitlement side, the mandatory spending side, which is where most of the money is. And that’s something that the president has not had a particular interest in doing anything about,” acknowledged Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the party whip. “We’re going to end up spending more than a lot of Republicans, I’m sure, would like. But that’s what it’s going to take to get a deal.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is up for reelection next year, said Trump hasn’t done enough on the deficit but insisted the problem is caused by both parties. And Cornyn noted he’s likely to back the agreement, “reluctantly.”

“I don’t see the alternative,” Cornyn said. “We’re not going to deal with the growth in deficits and debt and mandatory spending this week. Sadly, that’s not on the table.”

The U.S. deficit is on track to exceed $1 trillion this year — the highest level since 2012, when much of the country was still climbing out of the recession. In fact, deficits have never been so high outside of wartime or an economic recession.

Within four years, the Treasury is set to spend more on interest payments than on the nation’s entire defense budget.

Some of Trump’s close advisers, including hard-line fiscal conservatives like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, pushed for more cuts to spending or a one-year deal at current spending levels.

But Democrats refused to go along with such a plan, and at the end of the day, Mnuchin and Trump believed a happy Wall Street — along with voters who like federal spending and want to see the values of their 401K plans rising — was more important than the deficit, to the disappointment of GOP conservatives.

“We have to be focused on fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) said on CNN on Monday afternoon. “It’s one thing for Republicans to talk about it, but we’ve got to live up” to it.

Sarah Ferris and Caitlin Oprysko contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696

47 views no comments
Boris Johnson, one of Britain’s most eccentric politicians, on track to be next prime minister – Los Angeles Times
Boris Johnson, one of Britain’s most eccentric politicians, on track to be next prime minister – Los Angeles Times

It’s an image burned into millions of British brains: Boris Johnson, then mayor of London, dangling haplessly from a zip line as he finds himself stranded in mid-zip, in midair.

He’s clad in a baggy business suit. A bit of floppy blond hair peeks from beneath an oversized-looking helmet. The harness holding him in place resembles a giant diaper — or nappy, as fellow Brits would say.

His toes point outward, Charlie Chaplin-style, as if he has just completed a particularly awkward pirouette. His trousers are hiked to reveal a slice of leg above the sock line. From each hand, he waves a British flag, which from a distance looks comically tiny.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson looks entirely ridiculous. But improbably, he also looks perfectly at ease.

The 2012 photo is so well remembered, perhaps, because it seems to sum up so much about Johnson: the performative persona, the trademark outrageousness, the self-referential jokiness, an absolute immunity to embarrassment.

And beneath the flamboyance, there’s a flash of the unwavering ambition that is now nearly certain to culminate in Johnson taking up residence days from now at 10 Downing St., the storied residence of the prime minister of the United Kingdom.

A contest to elect the Conservative Party’s leader, who will become the country’s leader as well, is nearly complete. The voting by 160,000 party members — who skew white, wealthy and older — ended Sunday, with the winner expected to be announced Tuesday and installed in office as soon as Wednesday.

At 55, Johnson is a political figure who defies categorization — or, at times, seems to demand it. One of his biographers, Sonia Purnell, calls him a “Marmite politician,” after that peculiarly British foodstuff, a spreadable yeast extract that people tend to love or hate.

Either way, his improbable rise reflects a bizarre and confounding political moment for Britain as it barrels toward an Oct. 31 date for Brexit, its departure from the European Union.

Detractors call Johnson buffoonish and unprincipled, reckless and feckless. Admirers consider him refreshingly anti-establishment, bracingly unfiltered in his utterances, far smarter than he’s given credit for, with an Everyman appeal that belies his posh pedigree.

Gaffes and blunders that would sink most politicians seem to simply roll off Johnson. He’s prone to racist remarks such as calling nonwhite Commonwealth citizens “piccaninnies” — which he later said was satire. He also compared women in niqab, or face-covering veils with a slit for eyes, to mail slots.

While he was foreign secretary, he carelessly blurted out that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman arrested during a family visit to Iran, was teaching journalism while on her trip. That assertion, vehemently denied by her family and employer, is widely blamed for contributing to her continued imprisonment on spy charges.

More recently, Johnson drew scorn from some leading Conservatives when he appeared to almost casually capitulate to President Trump’s attacks against Britain’s widely respected envoy to Washington, Kim Darroch, after leaked diplomatic cables revealed the ambassador’s sometimes scathing take on the U.S. president’s personality and mode of governance. Darroch stepped down the day after Johnson, in a televised debate, failed to defend him.

While cultivating a colorful tabloid-friendly political style, the twice-divorced Johnson strenuously demands privacy in his personal life — although it occasionally bursts into messy public view, as it did earlier this summer when police were summoned after reports of a loud late-night domestic dispute between Johnson and his partner, Carrie Symonds.

Now that he is poised to become prime minister, there’s a jarring contrast between the air of antic hilarity that so often accrues to Johnson’s public image and the utter seriousness of Britain’s political predicament.

If he wins the race against his lone rival, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, he will take up the task that felled his predecessor, Theresa May: either leading the country as it splits from the EU without any deal — a scenario that economists warn could be economically disastrous — or managing to get some amended withdrawal agreement through Parliament.

Any further delays, or a softening of the government’s stance, would leave Johnson vulnerable to attacks by far-right figures such as Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-line Brexit Party that swept to victory in European Parliament elections two months ago.

Many believe Johnson is simply not up to the job.

“He’s lied his way through life; he’s lied his way through politics; he’s a huckster,” Conservative politician Chris Patten, who was the last British governor of Hong Kong, told Bloomberg TV this year. “As well as being mendacious, he’s incompetent.”

Britain voted to break away from the EU in 2016 after a bruising referendum campaign in which Johnson played a key role, cheerleading loudly for the “leavers.” His side won, but narrowly: 52% of voters backed the divorce, and 48% voted to remain in the bloc.

Street protests and legal challenges ensued, and politicians resigned, including then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

May, his successor, vowed to not only deliver Brexit by March 29, 2019, but to unite the country. But that deadline came and went, and she resigned in June after lawmakers three times decisively rejected the withdrawal agreement she struck with her EU counterparts.

EU officials agreed to the latest extension, but have repeatedly and categorically stated that the deal on offer is the only one available and not open to renegotiation.

That Johnson is poised to take up the leadership role at this extraordinarily delicate juncture is still mind-boggling to many of his compatriots. He himself has for years enjoyed delivering colorful variants on the improbability of his becoming prime minister.

“It is more likely that I will be reincarnated as an olive, locked in a disused fridge, decapitated by flying Frisbee,” he told Channel Four news in 2015.

But longtime observers say that hallmark flippancy masks relentless drive and determination. Biographer Andrew Gimson calls him “very, very ambitious.”

“He said he always wanted to be a member of Parliament, and always wanted to get to the top,” he said. “But he also wanted to do it on his own terms.”

Charisma has carried Johnson far, but he’s dogged by his reputation for unreliability.

“Boris, well — he’s the life and soul of the party, but he’s not the man you want driving you home at the end of the evening,” Conservative politician and then-Home Secretary Amber Rudd said in a 2016 debate before the Brexit referendum.

Others, pointing to Johnson’s long climb to the top, warned against dismissing outright his chances of success.

“I think he could be a good prime minister, but we simply can’t tell in advance,” said Gimson, adding that Johnson “might benefit from low expectations.”

One veteran of Britain’s rough-and-tumble politics, 86-year-old former Cabinet minister Michael Heseltine, said the likely new prime minister could be counted upon to do one thing, at least: to take a canny measure of public sentiment and act in the most opportunistic way possible.

Johnson is “a man who waits to see the way the crowd is running,” Heseltine said last year on the ITV program “Good Morning Britain.” And then, he said, he “dashes in front and says, ‘Follow me!’”

Special correspondent Boyle reported from London and Times staff writer King from Washington.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-07-22/boris-johnson-one-of-britains-most-eccentric-politicians-on-track-to-be-next-prime-minister

33 views no comments
ICE attempted to bring a Tennessee man into custody. His neighbors formed a human chain – ABC Action News
ICE attempted to bring a Tennessee man into custody. His neighbors formed a human chain – ABC Action News

HERMITAGE, Tenn. — A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent tried to bring a man in Hermitage, Tennessee, into custody, but

neighbors formed a human chain






to allow the man and his son to get home.

This happened Monday morning in the area of Brooke Valley Drive and Forest Ridge Drive. The man had entered into his van with his son when an ICE vehicle blocked him in.

Over the next few hours, neighbors came out to support their neighbor, bringing them water, gas and wet rags so they could stay in their van.

“We made sure they had water, they had food, we put gas back in the vehicle when they were getting low just to make sure they were OK,” Felishadae Young, a neighbor, said.

Eventually, after about four hours, the neighbors created a chain to allow the father and son to run into their home. They were able to do so and ICE left.

The ICE agent had an administrative warrant. While that does allow ICE to detain someone, it doesn’t allow ICE to forcibly remove someone from their home or vehicle.

“There were two immigration officials sort of bullying a family inside of their own vehicle, telling them that they had an administrative warrant, which isn’t the same thing as a judicial warrant, and trying to harass them and fear them into coming out,” Daniel Ayoadeyoon, a local lawyer who came to the scene to help, said. “They were saying, ‘if you don’t come out, we’re going to arrest you, we’re going to arrest your 12-year-old son,’ and that’s just not legal, it’s not the right law.”

There were metro Nashville police officers at the scene. They were not trying to assist in the arrest, but simply there to have a presence after being called by ICE.

Several people near the vehicle broadcasted on Facebook Live during the event.

Neighbors said while ICE had left, they believe that they will be back, and if they do return, the neighbors said they plan to once again do everything in their power to support their neighbors.

“I know they’re gonna come back, and when they come back, we’re coming back,” Young said.

After the event, the neighbors once again formed a chain to help the family into a car so they could leave their home.

“I could see if these people were bad criminals, but they’re not, they’re just trying to provide for their kids,” Stacey Farley, a neighbor, added. “The family don’t bother nobody, they work every day, they come home, the kids jump on their trampoline, it’s just a community.”

Metro Nashville Police released a statement on their role:

“An ICE representative telephoned the Emergency Communications Center at 7:19 a.m. He relayed that ICE attempted to stop a white Ford van, the driver would not stop, but did proceed to a driveway on Forest Ridge Drive. The caller said the driver was sitting in the van and was not getting out. He requested the police department’s assistance, but did not specify what he wanted the police department to do. When the police arrived, they learned that ICE was attempting to serve a detainer only on the individual. The man was sitting in the van with a 12-year-old boy.

The officers were instructed to not be involved in the service of the detainer, but to stand by from a distance to keep the peace if necessary. ICE ultimately left while the man was still in the van. The police left accordingly.”

Mayor Briley released a statement:

“It is my job as Mayor is to keep all Nashvillians safe.

This morning, ICE agents attempted to detain a Nashville resident. However, the agents did not end up detaining the resident, and no arrests were made.

Our police officers do not actively participate in immigration enforcement efforts and only serve as peacekeepers. The officers were at the incident today to keep neighbors safe and secure a perimeter.

I am keenly aware that this type of activity by our federal government stokes fear and distrust in our most vulnerable communities, which is why we do not use our local resources to enforce ICE orders.

I will continue to work with local advocacy organizations like TIRRC to make sure residents know their rights and that support and resources are available for undocumented immigrants should the need arise.”

Nashville Metro Councilman Bob Mendes also released a statement:

“I had just early voted this morning at Howard School, and began seeing social media comments about the unfolding situation in Hermitage and I decided to take a look.

MNPD’s policy is that they do not assist ICE with CIVIL immigration enforcement. It appears that once the officers on the scene assessed that this was a civil immigration matter, they were instructed to not participate in serving the papers, to keep their distance, and to only be involved if it became necessary to keep the peace. To me, it looked like the officers were properly following their instructions.

There are reports I have heard that the ICE agents may have been telling the gentleman in the van that he had to give himself up or else MNPD would arrest him. If that’s what they said, that’s not true. Again, Metro’s policy and MNPD’s policy is to not be involved in federal civil immigration enforcement. Our city is less safe if people are afraid of MNPD.”

This story was originally published by

Catlin Bogard






and Jesse Knutson on

WTVF






.




Source Article from https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/ice-attempted-to-bring-a-tennessee-man-into-custody-his-neighbors-formed-a-human-chain

34 views no comments
Rashida Tlaib’s call for a $20 minimum wage tees up a great question for the next Democratic debates – Washington Examiner
Rashida Tlaib’s call for a $20 minimum wage tees up a great question for the next Democratic debates – Washington Examiner

Rep. Rashida Tlaib says that more than doubling the federal minimum wage is no longer enough and that it should actually be $20 per hour. In the process of doing so, she has stumbled upon a great question for participants in the next round of Democratic presidential debates.

Tlaib made the remarks in a talk with One Fair Wage, and they were captured by Republican opposition group America Rising. In the clip, she says, “By the way, when we started it, it should have been $15. Now I think it should be $20 — make sure America Rising hears that. It should be $20 an hour, $18 to $20 an hour at this point. They say all of this is going to raise the cost, but I can tell you, milk has gone up, eggs has gone up, everything has gone up.”

Democratic candidates, including the relative centrist Joe Biden, have come out in favor of a $15 minimum wage. But given how in the previous debate Democrats came out in favor of radical proposals including providing free health insurance to illegal immigrants that had never really been part of the national conversation, it would be interesting to see if any of the candidates would feel the need to join Tlaib’s call for a $20 per hour. If they do not support a $20 minimum wage, it would be interesting to hear all of them articulate on what basis they support a $15 minimum wage while believing a $20 minimum wage would be too high.

A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that raising the minimum wage to $15 would increase wages on the surface for the affected population, but as many as 3.7 million fewer people would be employed (or more conservatively, 1.3 million). Furthermore, it predicted the increase would reduce economic output, lower business income, raise prices, and “reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion.”

Democrats tend to argue only the first part of this case — that it would, on the surface, increase wages. But they tend to neglect the offsetting effects of a wage hike on prices and employment. So is there a level at which Democrats believe the government could set a minimum wage that would be so high that the negative effects would outweigh the positive effects? The new bar set by Tlaib would be a good jumping off point for such a discussion.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rashida-tlaib-just-teed-up-a-great-minimum-wage-question-for-the-next-democratic-debates

24 views no comments
Appeals court rules against Trump administration on indefinite detention of asylum-seekers | TheHill – The Hill
Appeals court rules against Trump administration on indefinite detention of asylum-seekers | TheHill – The Hill

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled against the Trump administration’s policy allowing for the indefinite detention of certain asylum-seekers, saying a lower court ruling temporarily blocking it can remain in place.

In the ruling, the judges said the Department of Justice did not make a “persuasive showing that it will suffer irreparable harm if it is required to provide bond hearings pending the outcome of this appeal in the same way it had done for several years.”

However, the appeals court did not allow a district judge’s order requiring the government to release some asylum-seekers within a certain amount of time after immigration proceedings begin, saying it “would impose short-term hardship for the government and its immigration system.”

Barr first issued the order earlier this year, determining that asylum-seekers who pass a “credible fear” test and go on to full deportation proceedings aren’t entitled to bond hearings.

But Judge Marsh Pechman, a Clinton appointee in federal court in Seattle, ruled earlier this month that policy is unconstitutional and blocked it from being enforced.

The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit — Carter appointees Judges Mary Schroeder and William Canby as well as Judge Morgan Christen, an Obama appointee — declined to place a stay on Pechman’s ruling.

“The government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its underlying argument that the government may indefinitely detain the plaintiffs without affording bond hearings at all,” Monday’s order reads.

Pechman had also ruled earlier this year that the Trump administration must take several steps in regard to asylum-seekers who are detained during immigration proceedings, including that certain migrants should be released if they are not granted a hearing within seven days of those proceedings beginning.

But the judges said that lawyers for the Trump administration showed that those requirements would be “too burdensome,” and temporarily halted the order as the full appeal of Pechman’s ruling plays out.

The appeals court is set to rule on the policies further, and Monday’s order asked that arguments be scheduled in the case for October of this year.

The Trump administration was critical of Pechman’s ruling against Barr’s asylum policy, with White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham saying in a statement that the order is “at war with the rule of law.”

On Monday officials said they were pleased the panel partially granted the government’s request.

“Unfortunately, in the same decision, the Ninth Circuit also allowed a radical decision from a district judge to go into effect during the pendency of the government’s appeal, which had held unconstitutional a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” said Deputy Press Secretary Steven Groves in a statement. “Based on the unprecedented theory that illegal aliens who recently entered the country have a constitutional right to be released on bond into the United States, the district court struck down a statute passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress during the Clinton administration specifically requiring certain aliens to be detained pending their asylum proceedings.”

He said the administration expected to ultimately prevail in the appeal.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling comes as the Trump administration seeks to implement tighter restrictions on asylum.

Trump officials announced last week that they would not accept asylum claims from migrants who pass through another country while traveling to the U.S.’s southern border, with limited exceptions. That rule is currently being challenged in a pair of federal courts.

— Updated at 11 p.m.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/454208-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-administration-on-indefinite

35 views no comments
Justice Department tells Mueller his House testimony ‘must remain within the boundaries’ of public report – Fox News
Justice Department tells Mueller his House testimony ‘must remain within the boundaries’ of public report – Fox News
Video

What impact will the Mueller report findings have on the 2020 election?

Robert Mueller to testify before Congress; reaction from the ‘Special Report’ All-Stars.

A Justice Department official told former Special Counsel Robert Mueller that his upcoming testimony to House lawmakers “must remain within the boundaries” of the public, redacted version of his report, in a letter obtained by Fox News on Monday evening.

The letter, obtained exclusively by Fox News, signed by Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer, states: “Dear Mr. Mueller: I write in response to your July 10, 2019 letter concerning the testimonial subpoenas you received from the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

“Your letter requests that the Department provide you with guidance concerning privilege or other legal bars applicable to potential testimony in connection with those subpoenas.”

After stating the decision to testify is Mueller’s to make, the letter continues: “But the Department agrees with your stated position that your testimony should be unnecessary under the circumstances. The Department generally does not permit prosecutors such as you to appear and testify before Congress regarding their investigative and prosecutorial activity.

READ THE FULL LETTER HERE

Video

“In addition, the Department already has taken the extraordinary steps to make almost your entire report, as well as a substantial volume of your underlying investigative material, available to the committees.

“Should you testify, the Department understands that testimony regarding the work of the Special Counsel’s Office will be governed by the terms you outlined on May 29 — specifically, that the information you discuss during your testimony appears in, and does “not go beyond,” the public version of your March 22, 2019 report to the Attorney General or your May 29 public statement.”

It continued: “Finally, any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by the executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges.

“These privileges would include discussion about the investigative steps or decisions, made during your investigation not otherwise described in the public version of your report. Consistent with standard practice, Department witnesses should decline to address potentially privileged matters, thus affording the Department the full opportunity at a later date to consider particular questions and possible accommodations that may fulfill the committees’ legitimate need for information while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

BRET BAIER: MUELLER HEARING COULD BACKFIRE ON DEMOCRATS

The letter comes after a deal was struck earlier this month for Mueller to give extended testimony as part of an agreement for him to appear before congressional lawmakers later this month, Democratic Party officials said at the time.

Mueller’s highly anticipated appearance was pushed back at his request, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a joint statement.

Mueller had been scheduled to testify on July 17 about the findings of his two-year Russia probe after he was subpoenaed by the panels last month.

Video

The former special counsel’s only public comments on the investigation came in May, when he did not clear Trump of wrongdoing and reaffirmed his reluctance to testify in front of Congress. He did not say whether Trump obstructed justice during his probe.

DEMOCRAT CONFIDENT MAJORITY OF CAUCUS WILL BE IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT AFTER MUELLER TESTIMONY

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” he said at the time. Mueller’s report did not assert that evidence showed Trump had, in fact, committed a crime.

Charges were brought against three businesses and 34 people, including former Trump aides, senior advisers, and Russian agents, although no Americans were indicted in connection with attempts to conspire with Russians to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller found no evidence the Trump team conspired with Russian actors, despite multiple outreach efforts aimed at involving the Trump campaign.

Mueller also told reporters any testimony he gave would not exceed what’s contained in his report.

“There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress,” Mueller said. “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-department-tells-mueller-his-house-testimony-must-remain-within-the-boundaries-of-public-report

34 views no comments
Trump announces support for two-year bipartisan budget deal that boosts spending, suspends debt limit – The Washington Post
Trump announces support for two-year bipartisan budget deal that boosts spending, suspends debt limit – The Washington Post

Damian Paletta

Erica Werner

July 22 at 8:24 PM

The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reached a tentative two-year budget deal Monday that would raise spending limits by $320 billion and suspend the federal debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.

The agreement, which still must be passed by Congress, probably would prevent a debt-ceiling crisis later this year but also would continue Washington’s borrowing binge for at least two years.

“I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills,” President Trump tweeted Monday. “This was a real compromise to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!”

The deal was met with fierce resistance from some prominent Republicans who said that it would add too much to the debt, a backlash that will force congressional leaders to work hard this week to ensure they have enough votes for passage. The agreement also could spark concerns from some House liberals because of concessions made to the Trump administration, as both parties try to stake out positions that resonate with voters ahead of the 2020 election.

The agreement marks a significant retreat for the White House, which insisted just a few months ago that it would force Congress to cut spending on a variety of programs to enact fiscal discipline. Instead, the White House agreed to raise spending for most agencies, particularly at the Pentagon.

In exchange, White House officials received verbal assurances from Democrats that they would not seek to attach controversial policy changes to future spending bills, although it’s unclear how that commitment would be enforced.

Pelosi brokered the deal with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whom Democrats and even some Republicans had considered the best arbiter for a compromise. White House acting budget director Russell Vought sought last week to force Democrats to commit to $150 billion in budget changes in exchange for the new spending, but his demand was rejected.

Instead, negotiators agreed to $77 billion in accounting changes that probably wouldn’t constrain any future spending. But the deal locked in more spending for the military, something Trump has tried to make a hallmark of his first 30 months as president. He has told advisers that if he is reelected, he wants to focus on spending cuts beginning in 2021, and he has largely cast aside the budget-slashing goals some of his aides have advocated since his inauguration in 2017.

“We are, I think, doing very well on debt, if you look at debt limit, however you want to define that, but we’re doing very well on that and I think we’re doing pretty well on a budget,” Trump told reporters Monday. “Very important that we take care of our military, our military was depleted and in the last two-and-a-half years we undepleted it, okay, to put it mildly, we have made it stronger than ever before. We need another big year.”

The deal would suspend the debt ceiling until July 31, 2021, meaning it probably would not need to be addressed again until the fall or winter of that year. And the agreement would set spending levels through Sept. 30, 2022.

The deal was reached as the House prepares to leave Washington at the end of this week for a six-week summer recess, giving Pelosi little margin for error to pass the legislation in a matter of days. The Senate is in session for an additional week and is expected to take up the deal next week before senators, too, head out on recess.

Many Republicans spent the bulk of the Obama administration insisting that the budget needed to shrink and calling for a constitutional amendment to balance it. A number of those lawmakers have either left in recent years or muted their criticism of Trump’s embrace of big deficits, and some GOP leaders in recent weeks have said they need to focus on passing budget deals and not getting into messy fights without a clear strategy.

In December, Trump decided late in negotiations to block a bipartisan spending agreement, leading to a long government shutdown.

“Somebody needs to calmly and clearly lay out the alternatives, because we saw what happened last time,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) told reporters Monday. “We ended up in a shutdown mode, and I don’t think that’s good for anybody.”

Still, some conservatives expressed outrage Monday that the White House would back such a big increase in spending when deficits are already ballooning.

Rep. Mike Johnson (La.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he spoke with Trump on Saturday and urged him to oppose the emerging deal.

“I encouraged the president that he would have his right flank if he would hold the line and allow us all to do the fiscally responsible thing and that is limit this out-of-control spending,” Johnson said. “He responded well . . . he understood the sentiments.”

Fiscal hawks also said they were mortified.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said, “As we understand it, this agreement is a total abdication of fiscal responsibility by Congress and the president. It may end up being the worst budget agreement in our nation’s history.”

But some Democrats said they were upset that Democratic leaders did not secure a commitment from the White House that Trump would stop using money from military programs to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And others complained that their extensive efforts to boost funding for things such as college are frequently dismissed while conservative priorities are often met.

“Notice how whenever we pursue large spending increases + tax cuts for corporations, contractors & connected, it’s treated as business as usual,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter. “But the moment we consider investing similar [money] in working class people . . . they cry out it’s ‘unrealistic.’ ”

Also as part of the deal, Democratic leaders agreed not to include controversial policy changes, known as “riders,” in future spending bills. Those measures, which can be tied to hot-button issues such as abortion and immigration, can imperil spending legislation. Opponents of these measures often call them “poison pills.”

“There will be no poison pills, additional new riders . . . or other changes in policy or conventions,” congressional leaders wrote in an outline of the deal.

But lawmakers often disagree on what constitutes a poison pill, and the debate could be revived once specific spending bills are introduced.

By raising spending limits for the military and nondefense programs for the next two years, the White House and Pelosi have effectively erased key remnants of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was supposed to constrain spending for a decade.

“With this agreement, we strive to avoid another government shutdown, which is so harmful to meeting the needs of the American people and honoring the work of our public employees,” Pelosi and Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers and the White House still must pass spending bills to fund government operations for the next fiscal year, which will begin in October, but that is considered an easier task now that budget levels have been set. The $320 billion in new spending that the White House and Pelosi agreed to represents an increase over what the reduced budget levels would have fallen to if the limits had begun next year.

The government spends more money than it brings in through revenue, and that difference is called the budget deficit. To cover the deficit, the government borrows money by issuing debt. The debt has grown from about $19 trillion when Trump took office to more than $22 trillion this month. The government must pay interest on the money it borrows, and this year it will pay more than $350 billion to finance its borrowing.

The deficit has widened since Trump took office. It was $587 billion in 2016, President Barack Obama’s last full year in office, and is projected to reach $1 trillion this year. The larger deficit is a result of higher spending and the 2017 tax cuts, which have led to a large drop in forecast revenue, according to budget experts. White House officials have argued that the combination of higher spending and tax cuts has helped the economy grow and that they plan to cut spending when the economy is on a stronger footing.

The deal could raise questions about the White House’s future negotiating strategy. Democrats targeted Mnuchin as a negotiating partner during the current talks because they thought he represented their best option for a compromise. Typically, the budget director or White House chief of staff would play a more prominent role. But acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney has poor relations with House Democrats, and many have written off working with Vought.

It’s unclear whether this dynamic will change when lawmakers begin their next round of negotiations on the specific spending bills, debates that are likely to drag into September.

“I think Mr. Mnuchin has a different perspective on some of this than others in the administration, Mulvaney and Vought among others,” said Johnson, the Louisiana Republican. “And I don’t know if it’s yet decided which perspective will win the day. But we know there are some very smart and very thoughtful people involved in the negotiations, and we hope that at the end of the day they’ll do the right thing.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-announces-support-for-two-year-bipartisan-budget-deal-that-boosts-spending-suspends-debt-limit/2019/07/22/94cf2172-acb6-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.html

27 views no comments
‘The People Can’t Take It Anymore’: Puerto Rico Erupts in a Day of Protests – The New York Times
‘The People Can’t Take It Anymore’: Puerto Rico Erupts in a Day of Protests – The New York Times

michael barbaro

“The Daily” is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Alexandra Leigh Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Adizah Eghan, Kelly Prime, Julia Longoria, Sindhu Gnanasambandan and Jazmín Aguilera. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Julia Simon, Stella Tan and William Rashbaum. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/puerto-rico-protests-politics.html

33 views no comments