A New York federal judge barred the Justice Department on Tuesday from changing its lawyers in a legal fight over the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman, an Obama appointee, said government lawyers’ motion for the change was “patently deficient” except in the case of two lawyers who have already left the department or the civil division which is handling the case.

“Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” Furman wrote.

TOP DEMOCRAT ON HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS PANELS WILL FIGHT TO OPPOSE TRUMP CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON CENSUS

The Justice Department sought to switch out its legal team Monday after some of its attorneys seemed to be giving up on the legal fight. Attorney General Bill Barr told the Associated Press that he had learned from a top DOJ civil attorney leading the litigation effort that multiple people on the team preferred not to continue.

Trump reacted to the ruling hours after it was issued.

“So now the Obama appointed judge on the Census case (Are you a Citizen of the United States?) won’t let the Justice Department use the lawyers that it wants to use. Could this be a first?” he tweeted.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised Furman’s ruling in a Tuesday statement.

TRUMP SLAMS ‘FAKE’ REPORTS THAT CITIZENSHIP QUESTION FIGHT IS OVER

“The Justice Department owes the public and the courts an explanation for its unprecedented substitution of the entire legal team that has been working on this case,” said Dale Ho, ACLU voting rights project director. “The Trump administration is acting like it has something to hide, and we won’t rest until we know the truth.”

Trump has vowed to continue his effort to include the question, even after the U.S. Supreme Court last month temporarily blocked him from introducing it. The president has indicated he would use his executive order power to add the question to the census.

Furman also questioned how the Justice Department would meet deadlines in the case if a batch of new attorneys came on board, noting that government lawyers have three days to submit written arguments in the case.

“As this court observed many months ago, this case has been litigated on the premise — based ‘in no small part’ on Defendants’ own ‘insist[ence]’ — that the speedy resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims is a matter of great private and public importance,” he wrote. “If anything, that urgency — and the need for efficient judicial proceedings — has only grown since that time.”

The judge ordered that any DOJ lawyer who wished to withdraw from the case submit a signed sworn affidavit with a sufficient reason.

On Tuesday, the president blasted the Supreme Court on Twitter over the citizenship question decision and its 2012 ruling that held the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — which he has tried to repeal — in place.

“I have long heard that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is a President’s most important decision. SO TRUE!” he posted.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a Fox News request for comment.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-judge-denies-doj-request-to-change-lawyers-in-census-citizenship-question-case

Two New York Republicans announced this week that they are suing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezTwo Republicans sue Ocasio-Cortez over Twitter blocks Overnight Defense: Drama over 3B House defense bill | Democratic tensions threaten to snag legislation | White House threatens veto | US, Taliban talks end with ‘roadmap for peace’ Dem tensions snag defense bill MORE (D-N.Y.) over being blocked from her personal Twitter account.

Former state assemblyman Dov Hikind and congressional candidate Joseph Saladino, who is running in a Republican primary for the chance to battle Rep. Max RoseMax RoseThe Hill’s Morning Report — Harris brings her A game to Miami debate Progressives, centrists in open warfare after House caves on Trump border bill GOP scores procedural win by securing more funding to enforce Iran sanctions MORE (D-N.Y.), announced lawsuits this week against the freshman Democratic congresswoman, seeking injunctive relief in the form of a court order demanding they be unblocked.

Saladino announced in a press release that he had filed suit in the Southern District of New York, while Hikind told Fox News that he had filed his claim in the state’s Eastern District.

“I have officially filed my lawsuit against AOC for blocking me on twitter,” Saladino tweeted. “Trump is not allowed to block people, will the standards apply equally? Stay tuned to find out!”

“If we can’t talk to one another, the whole system breaks down,” Saladino added in his press release. “Look what is happening in my district when entrenched NeverTrumpers are confronted by America First ideas. Like it or not we live in the same city and we need to be professional.”

In an interview with Fox News, Hikind pointed to a recent court ruling declaring that President TrumpDonald John TrumpGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Sustaining progress with Mexico on migration Government to issue licenses for business with Huawei MORE is not allowed to block critics from his official Twitter account because of his status as a public official as legal precedent for his claim.

“Just today the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that elected officials cannot block individuals from their Twitter accounts, thereby setting a precedent that Ocasio-Cortez must follow,” Hikind told the network. “Twitter is a public space, and all should have access to the government officials on it.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not immediately return a request from The Hill for a comment on the pending lawsuits.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/house/452327-two-republicans-sue-ocasio-cortez-over-twitter-blocks

Former Vice President Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that he and his wife, Jill, had made $15 million since he left office in 2017. That’s far more income than the other major Democratic candidates, and it came mostly from the release of his book Promise Me, Dad.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Former Vice President Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that he and his wife, Jill, had made $15 million since he left office in 2017. That’s far more income than the other major Democratic candidates, and it came mostly from the release of his book Promise Me, Dad.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Former Vice President Joe Biden has referred to himself as “middle class Joe” throughout his political career, and used to regularly joke about being the “poorest person on Congress.”

Those terms no longer apply.

Biden and his wife, Jill, have together earned more than $15 million since Biden left office. That’s according to tax returns and other financial disclosure forms released by Biden’s campaign on Tuesday. The bulk of the Bidens’ earnings come from book sales and paid speaking engagements – two routine sources of income for former high-ranking public officials.

The documents show Biden has earned far more than the rest of the 2020 presidential field, with the likely exception of billionaire Tom Steyer, who entered the race Tuesday.

The Bidens’ adjusted gross income for 2018 was $4.5 million. It was even higher — $11 million – in 2017. They have paid a federal tax rate of just over 33% each year.

By comparison, Vermont. Sen Bernie Sanders earned $561,293 last year, California Sen. Kamala Harris reported $1,884,319. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren took in $846,394, and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg reported $152,643.

Presidential candidates typically don’t release their tax returns until they’ve become their party’s nominee. President Trump broke tradition and refused to make his tax returns public. As Democrats have continued to make that a political issue, the majority of the 2020 field have made their own financial information public. Biden’s campaign points out that he’s now disclosed the last 21 years of tax returns, including disclosures during his 2008 run and time as vice president.

Biden’s itemized financial disclosure shows that his income came mostly from his book Promise Me, Dad about his late son Beau Biden and the book tour that accompanied its release. He also made over $2 million from other paid speaking engagements, an average of over $127,000 per event. Event companies, universities, and community groups were among those who provided for Biden’s paid speeches, but not major corporations or industry groups.

The Bidens gave $275,896 to charity last year. The rate – about six percent of their overall income – was higher than any other candidate except Warren, who also donated about the same percentage of her income.

Here is the latest tax information from Biden and several of the other Democratic candidates who have reported it.

Former Vice President Joe Biden (2018 return)

Adjusted gross income: $4,580,437
Taxes paid: $1,528,208, or 33% rate
Charity: $275,796, or 6%

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (2018 return)

AGI: $152,643
Taxes paid: $20,136, or 13.2%
Charity: $765, or 0.5%

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (2018 return)
AGI: $214,083
Taxes paid: $29,170, or 13.6% rate
Charity: $3,750, or 1.8%

California Sen. Kamala Harris
AGI: $1,884,319
Taxes paid: $697,611, or 37%
Charity: $27,259, or 1.4%

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (2018 return)
AGI: $202,912
Taxes paid: $29,906, or 14.7%
Charity: $8,295, or 4.1%

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (2018 return)
AGI: $338,121
Taxes paid: $65,927, or 19.5%
Charity: $6,602, or 2%

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (2017 return)
AGI: $366,455
Taxes paid: $81,019, or 22%
Charity: $1,166, or 0.3%

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
AGI: $ $561,293
Taxes paid: $ $145,840, or 26%
Charity: $18,950, or 3.4%

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (2018 return)
AGI: $846,394
Taxes paid: $230,965, or $27.3%
Charity: $50,128, or 5.9%

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/740020635/middle-class-joe-no-more-biden-earned-15-million-since-leaving-office

July 9 at 7:41 PM

President Trump sat across from British Ambassador Kim Darroch during the annual St. Patrick’s Day lunch on Capitol Hill in March, inquiring about Brexit and bragging of his strong political standing, according to people familiar with their exchange.

It wasn’t the first time they met. Trump interacted with Darroch on a number of occasions in London and Washington, and most of the president’s senior aides have attended parties at the luxurious, chandelier-draped embassy in Northwest Washington and met with the ambassador at the White House. 

But after leaked cables showed Darroch criticizing Trump’s administration as “inept” and the president as “insecure,” the president seemed to have a memory lapse. 

“I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool,” Trump wrote Tuesday on Twitter. 

The rejoinder fit a familiar pattern for Trump, who is quick to minimize ties with people who criticize him or who find themselves facing an onslaught of negative attention that reflects poorly on the president.

Among those who have gotten the “I barely know the guy” treatment: Former acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker, conservative commentator Ann Coulter, former lawyer Michael Cohen, fired FBI director James B. Comey, former senior White House aide Stephen K. Bannon, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former State Department official Brett McGurk, longtime adviser Roger Stone, former White House aide Cliff Sims, former campaign aide George Papadopoulos and even the rapper Lil Jon, who starred on Trump’s reality TV show “Celebrity Apprentice.” 

The people change, but the comments are eerily similar — and are something of a joke among some Trump advisers. 

“I hardly even knew this guy,” Trump said of Comey, whom he met with several times in the Oval Office before firing him in May 2017. “I don’t know Whitaker,” Trump said in November about the man he just picked to be attorney general but who was suddenly facing sharp scrutiny. “I barely know him,” Trump said of George T. Conway, the husband of top aide Kellyanne Conway whom he met on a number of occasions, after he lambasted the president on Twitter. At one point, he said Manafort, the former campaign chairman, had “nothing to do with our campaign.”

“I don’t know who Lil Jon is,” Trump said of the rapper who appeared in two seasons of “The Apprentice” and later said that the president called him “Uncle Tom.” “I don’t. I really don’t.”

He has downplayed the role of a number of former administration officials, including White House counsel Donald McGahn and defense secretary Jim Mattis, after they criticized him.

“Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books,” Trump said of Bannon, his former chief White House strategist and campaign chairman, after the president felt Bannon depicted him negatively in a book by Michael Wolff.

People who know Trump well say he has a sharp memory for remembering people, and the president himself has boasted of having “one of the great memories of all time.” His aim in proclaiming to barely know someone is to minimize the importance of their critical comments or detract from the praise he believes they are unjustly receiving.

On the flip side, people who have barely met Trump can quickly turn into exceptional figures if they lavish the president with praise. He has bragged about dozens of books — and their authors — on Twitter that depict him positively. Aides say he has not read most of the books he has praised.

People who agree with or support him, particularly on Fox News, are often lauded by Trump or become “very respected.” When Trump was in need of a foreign policy team early in his candidacy and Papadopoulos was willing to sit by him, the president deemed him an “excellent guy.”

“The motivating factor on whether he has met someone or he hasn’t is whether the meeting is advantageous to the story he is telling,” said Tim O’Brien, a biographer and author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald.” “Trump constantly creates his own reality when he tells stories about who he has spoken to, who he hasn’t spoken to, or what he has experienced to win the point he is trying to make. It’s not in order to tell the truth.” 

The degree to which Trump has a relationship with someone he claims not to know varies. In the case of Darroch, Trump does not know him particularly well, by all accounts, and the president has never been to the British Embassy. He has not met with the ambassador extensively one on one, U.S. and British officials say, but Darroch has been in every meeting between British Prime Minister Theresa May and Trump, officials say. Darroch said in leaked cables he had met Trump seven or eight times, according to people familiar with the cables’ contents.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about his interactions with Darroch.

Some people who know Trump have produced records to document their relationship after the president says none exists.

Trump called George Conway — who has become a fervent critic of the president — a “stone cold LOSER,” a “whack job” and a “husband from hell.”

“I barely know him,” Trump said.

But Conway kept a letter from Trump praising his legal abilities after a dispute years ago in which Conway helped the then-real estate magnate, as well as other communications between the two in 2016 and 2017.

“It didn’t surprise me because it is one of his regular go-to lies,” Conway said, chuckling as he recalled Trump’s dismissal of him in an interview. Trump called Sims a “low level gofer” after his book was released earlier this year, which was critical of people in the White House but not the president directly. The former campaign and White House aide declined to comment Tuesday but responded at the time with pictures of the two men. White House aides said the pair regularly saw each other. Sims titled the last chapter in his book “Disposable.” 

The president’s interactions with Comey were extensively documented in former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report and in contemporaneous memos written by the fired FBI director.

Asked Tuesday about Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who now faces new charges, Trump said that he was “not a fan” of his and that they had a falling-out years ago, which the president didn’t elaborate on while taking questions from reporters. 

“I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years,” Trump said. 

In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine before Epstein was in trouble, Trump sang a different tune. 

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,” Trump said.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-barely-know-the-guy-to-minimize-critics-trump-employs-selective-amnesia/2019/07/09/c5e3eeda-a259-11e9-b8c8-75dae2607e60_story.html

CLOSE

President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on Obamacare, a day after his administration asked a federal court to strike down the entire law. Speaking in the Oval Office, he said Republicans “will be the party of great health care.” (March 27)
AP

A federal appeals court questioned Democratic lawyers Tuesday about whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, violated the Constitution.

The judicial scrutiny is the next phase in a case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit where the appeals court must decide if it will uphold a lower court’s ruling that struck down the landmark health care law.

Attorneys from a coalition of 16 Democratic states and the House of Representatives, and lawyers from the Department of Justice and a group of 18 Republican states, presented their cases to the appeals court in New Orleans.

According to reports from CNN and Reuters, two judges appointed by Republican presidents — one nominated by former President George W. Bush and the other by President Donald Trump — on the three-judge appellate panel grilled Democratic lawyers on whether the law was still constitutional after Congress in 2017 eliminated a tax provision in the law tied to Obamacare’s individual coverage mandate. The other judge, who was appointed by a Democratic president, did not ask any questions, according to CNN.

If the decision eventually goes to the full appeals court, that too is dominated by judges picked by Republican presidents.

Tuesday’s oral argument in New Orleans was part of the latest legal challenge threatening the law’s key features – and possibly the entire 974-page statute.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is leading the coalition of Democratic states arguing in favor of Obamacare’s continuing constitutionality, said in a statement that the Trump administration was “pressed to explain” why American lives “should be put at risk.”

“If they have their way, millions of Americans could be forced to delay, skip or forego potentially life-saving healthcare,” he said. “Our state coalition made it clear: on top of risking lives, gutting the law would sow chaos in our entire healthcare system.  

“We will fight the Trump Administration tooth and nail,” Becerra concluded.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Tuesday that Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration are “demanding that the court strike down every last provision of the ACA.”

“The ACA is a pillar of health and economic security, standing alongside Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security,” Pelosi said during a press conference ahead of the hearing. “But the GOP is showing that they want to destroy the Affordable Care Act for America’s families.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in an op-ed published on FoxNews.com Tuesday morning that it was time for Obamacare to be struck down so that the states could continue to innovate when it comes to health care policy.

“ObamaCare may be the best thing that Washington bureaucrats could ever hope for, but the truth is we think even bigger in Texas,” Paxton wrote. “It’s time the courts returned control over health care to the laboratories of democracy the founders established so that we can see all that they can accomplish.”

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Obamacare was constitutional under Congress’ power of taxation; and did so again in 2015, when it saved the law’s critical tax credits in federal as well as state insurance exchanges.

But in December, federal District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that by repealing the tax on people who refuse to buy insurance, Congress in 2017 rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional and, by extension, the law itself. The repeal was included in the $1.5 trillion tax cut pushed through the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Donald Trump.

That ruling has not been implemented – pending the appeal in New Orleans – but the implications are huge. If the law is wiped out, so too would be insurance for 20 million people, protection for people with preexisting conditions, subsidies for low-income people, Medicaid expansions in many states, coverage for young adults up to age 26 and more.

On one side are the Trump administration and 18 states, led by Texas, that agree with O’Connor’s decision and want the law dismantled. On the other side are the U.S. House of Representatives and 16 states, led by California, seeking to have that ruling reversed. A threshold question is whether the House, and possibly the liberal states, have the required legal authority to defend a law the federal government is not defending.

During Tuesday’s hearing, appellate judges Jennifer Elrod and Kurt Engelhardt quickly cut into the opening statement from Samuel Siegel, the attorney representing the Democratic coalition of states defending Obamacare.

Siegel argued that Congress intended for the health care law to survive despite eliminating the tax provision associated with the individual mandate.

“All the court has to do is look at the text,” he said.

Judge Elrod suggested, however, that maybe lawmakers deliberately ended the mandate because they knew it would upend the rest of the health care law.

“Aha, this is the silver bullet that’s going to undo Obamacare,” Elrod said of lawmakers.

“If you no longer have a tax, why isn’t it unconstitutional?” Elrod also asked.

In addition, Engelhardt seemingly pointed to Congress rather than the courts to resolve the ultimate question of the fate of the ACA. In 2017, Congress — which, at the time, had a Republican-controlled House and Senate  — failed to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.

“There is a political solution here,” Engelhardt said.

The betting line among most legal experts is that a decision reversing the trial judge and allowing the health care law to survive would not be heard by the Supreme Court, which already has spoken on the law’s constitutionality. But if the appeals court agrees that the law should be struck down, the high court is virtually certain to hear an appeal – possibly next year.

The battle lines were three-sided before the December district court ruling. While the two sets of states argued for the Affordable Care Act’s survival or demise, the Trump administration wanted only the individual mandate and associated insurance changes quashed, including protections and cost controls for people with preexisting conditions. 

In his decision, O’Connor said the intentions of both the 2010 and 2017 Congresses had to be considered. “The former enacted the ACA,” he said. “The latter sawed off the last leg it stood on.”

Since then, the administration has joined the conservative states in calling for the entire law to be dismantled. Assembling something to take its place would be left to Congress and individual states.

Like what you’re reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/09/appeals-court-grills-democratic-lawyers-aca-also-known-obamacare/1681897001/

Tom Steyer, the billionaire liberal activist who earlier this year said he would not pursue the Democratic nomination for president, reversed course on Tuesday, announcing his campaign for president in 2020.

“The other Democratic candidates for President have many great ideas that will absolutely move our country forward, but we won’t be able to get any of those done until we end the hostile corporate takeover of our democracy,” Steyer said in a statement, released alongside his announcement video.

“As an outsider, I’ve led grassroots efforts that have taken on big corporations and won results for people. That’s not something you see a lot of from Washington these days. That’s why I’m running for President,” he continued.

Steyer, who has poured millions of his own money into electing Democrats throughout the years, said in January that he would not seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, instead saying he would redouble his efforts to impeach President Donald Trump.

“I will be dedicating 100 percent of my time, effort and resources to one cause: working for Mr. Trump’s impeachment and removal from office,” he said in January.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Hedge fund billionaire and Democratic fund-raiser Tom Steyer speaks during a town hall event, Jan. 29, 2018, in New York.

In a tweet on Tuesday, he conceded that his efforts to “hold the president accountable” are “not enough.”

But now Steyer is shifting is focus to beating Trump at the ballot box, and in a four-minute video released Tuesday, he unveiled his platform for his presidential bid, focused on curbing the influence of corporations in politics and combating climate change.

“I think what people believe is that the system has left them,” he said in the video. “I think that people that corporations have bought the democracy, that the politicians don’t care about or respect them, don’t put them first, are not working for them, but are actually working for the people who have rigged the system. Really what we’re doing is make democracy work by pushing power down to the people.”

Steyer seems to be angling to cast himself as an outsider with a populist message to appeal to the broad spectrum of ideologies in the Democratic Party, amid the massive Democratic field, which now still stands at 24 candidates after California Rep. Eric Swalwell’s exit Monday.

“Americans are deeply disappointed and hurt by the way they’re treated by what they think is the power elite in Washington, D.C., and that goes across party lines and it goes across geography,” he asserted. “We’ve got to take the corporate control out of our politics … We care about improving the world and handing it on to the next generation in a way so that they can lead better lives than we’ve had.”

“And that’s exactly what I’m doing,” he added.

In 2018, through his two political organizations, Need to Impeach and NextGen America, Steyer spent $120 million in the midterm elections with the goal of electing progressive candidates across the country, turning out young voters and garnering support for Trump’s impeachment.

Despite his multi-million dollar push to impeach the president, which began in 2017 with the launch of the grassroots organization he heads dedicated to removing Trump, the word “impeachment” is never mentioned throughout his announcement video. But the video does briefly feature the president, his son, Donald Trump Jr., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other controversial figures including, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shrkeli, and disgraced financier Bernie Madoff.

Steyer has been one of most generous Democratic donors in the past few election cycles, pouring at least $236 million in federal elections since 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ analysis of campaign finance data.

Steyer quickly rose to the single biggest political contributor in 2014 when he funneled nearly $74 million into federal elections through a super PAC he launched that year, NextGen Climate Action.

He has since remained as one of the top donors, spending more than $91 million during 2016 election cycle and another $74 million in the last cycle.

The California billionaire also dropped $12 million into Need to Impeach in its first year. Steyer’s Need to Impeach campaign is also one of the biggest online ad spenders. According to political ad spending data from Facebook and Google, the group has spent at least $8 million on online ads since May 2018, when the platforms started disclosing ad spending data.

So far this election cycle, Steyer has already given multiple seven figure checks totaling $14 million to his NextGen Climate Action Committee, according to campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission.

To seek the Democratic nomination, he has stepped down from his leadership roles at both NextGen America and Need to Impeach, but he “has committed over $50 million through 2020 to ensure both organizations fulfill their missions,” according to the release. Steyer’s outside groups position him to begin his presidential ambitions with a robust grassroots network, despite his late entry into the race.

The former hedge fund investor joins the crowded field with only one week before the qualifying deadline for the second Democratic debates in Detroit at the end of this month. To land on a debate stage, he will need to cross the 65,000 donor mark or garner 1 percent in at least three polls, but both appear unlikely in such a short time frame.

Even if he accumulates 65,000 donors, Steyer would be the 21st candidate to qualify and likely be edged out by the 20 other candidates who have secured a spot through polling, according to the Democratic National Committee’s tiebreaker rules.

ABC News’ John Verhovek contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/billionaire-activist-tom-steyer-enters-2020-presidential-contest/story?id=64213865

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta is under intense scrutiny for his role in cutting a lenient plea deal more than a decade ago for Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier charged this week with federal sex trafficking crimes.

But among some human trafficking lawyers and victims advocates, concern has been building for months about the embattled Cabinet secretary, who as the U.S. attorney in Florida secured the federal non-prosecution agreement against Epstein in 2008.

In interviews Tuesday, experts said the Acosta-era Labor Department — one of the federal agencies tasked with preventing human trafficking — has been far too slow to certify special visas for trafficking victims, potentially weakening protections for an already vulnerable population.

“I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the new procedures will slow down the process exponentially,” said Martina Vandenberg, the president of the Human Trafficking Legal Center in Washington, D.C.

For the last 19 years, victims of what the government calls a “severe form of human trafficking” have been eligible to apply for what are known as T-visas, a temporary immigration benefit that allows them to remain in the United States for up to four years if they assist with a trafficking investigation or prosecution.

The Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, or WHD, is one of the agencies that can certify whether a T-visa applicant is actually a trafficking victim. Under the Obama administration, the WHD usually completed this crucial step within weeks or a few months, said Julie Ann Dahlstrom, a professor at Boston University School of Law who represents trafficking victims.

But under the Trump administration, the process has effectively ground to a halt, experts said. The processing time for T-visa applications across the federal government lasts anywhere from 16 months to almost three years, according to data on the website of the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that decides on applications.

“It’s very much a departure from past procedures, and it creates additional barriers for fearful people, especially immigrant workers, who need to be incentivized to report a crime,” said Dahlstrom, who said she has three T-visa cases pending — including one that has been effectively stalled since April 2018.

For victims of human trafficking, including undocumented laborers who are worried about deportation or being reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the consequences of the apparent federal slowdown are serious, Vandenberg said.

“We have to remember that time is of the essence for trafficking victims. They’re terrified to come forward in this environment, and then to learn that one of the agencies that has authority to certify T-visas is not being responsive — that’s extremely troubling,” she said.

“But it’s part and parcel of the way this administration has dismantled two decades’ worth of protections for trafficking victims,” she added.

President Donald Trump, for his part, has claimed his administration is committed to tackling what he described in February as the “scourge” of trafficking, saying in remarks in the White House Cabinet Room: “My administration has made the fight against human trafficking one of our highest priorities.”

But lawyers and advocates are frustrated by an administration — particularly the Labor Department under Acosta, who is facing growing calls for his resignation over his role in the Epstein case — that they believe has been needlessly sluggish on this issue.

In early May, Cheryl Stanton, the current head of the department’s Wage and Hour Division, imposed a seven-week moratorium on certifications for all new T-visas and U-visas, a separate special category. The development was first reported by Bloomberg Law.

In a statement to NBC News, a Labor Department spokesperson said in part: “As part of Administrator Cheryl Stanton’s due diligence as the head of a large government agency, she thought it was prudent to understand the authorities delegated from the administrator to others in the agency,” including T- and U-visa certifications.

The moratorium has been reversed, and last Monday the Labor Department released new guidelines that advocates believe have added unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, including a policy that says department investigators cannot certify a T-visa until an outside law enforcement agency does its own probe.

“It’s unnecessary because the [Labor Department] has the ability to investigate these things,” said Erika Gonzalez, a senior attorney at the Los Angeles-based Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, or CAST. “Under this administration, we apparently no longer give survivors the benefit of the doubt.”

If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a T-visa recipient can apply for permanent residency after three years, according to the USCIS website.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-epstein-fallout-acosta-s-critics-warn-troubling-lack-resources-n1027966

Retired Marine and previous Democratic congressional candidate Amy McGrath on Tuesday announced that she is launching a 2020 challenge against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Gabbard defends Biden as Harris defends non-mandatory bussing Kentucky Democrat announces challenge to McConnell MORE (R) in Kentucky.

McGrath released a three-minute campaign video, titled “The Letter,” that depicts her and other Kentuckians writing letters to their senator with concerns about health care, jobs and affordable college that were ignored. 

“Everything that’s wrong in Washington had to start some place. How did it come to this?” McGrath said in the video. “That even within our own families, we can’t talk to each other about the leaders of our country anymore without anger and blame.”

She said McConnell “was elected a lifetime ago” and has “bit by bit, year by year — turned Washington into something we all despise.”

McGrath also claimed that “budgets and health care and the Supreme Court are held hostage” in a Congress led by the Republican leader who has been in the Senate since 1985.

“A place where ideals go to die,” she added.

“The challenge of today is inside each of us. How do we reconcile our belief in basic human decency with our anger at those who block progress at all costs?” McGrath asked in the campaign video. “There is a path to resetting our country’s moral compass, where each of us is heard and we can become, once again, the moral and economic leader of a world in disarray.”

McGrath was one of the most prominent Democratic congressional candidates during last year’s midterm elections. The former fighter pilot was one of the top fundraisers of the cycle and narrowly lost her bid to unseat Rep. Andy BarrGarland (Andy) Hale BarrKentucky Democrat announces challenge to McConnell Democrats set to use McConnell’s legislative graveyard against him 58 GOP lawmakers vote against disaster aid bill MORE (R) in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSenate Democrats launching digital ads against GOP senators on ObamaCare lawsuit Susan Collins says she doesn’t regret Kavanaugh vote ‘in the least’ The national security risk no one is talking about MORE (D-N.Y.) reportedly met with her at Democratic Party headquarters earlier this year to pitch her on the idea of launching a Senate bid against McConnell.

Kevin Golden, a spokesman for McConnell’s re-election campaign, knocked McGrath as an “extreme liberal who is far out of touch with Kentuckians.” 

“Comparing President TrumpDonald John TrumpGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Sustaining progress with Mexico on migration Government to issue licenses for business with Huawei MORE’s election to 9/11, endorsing a government takeover of healthcare, and calling the wall ‘stupid’ is a heckuva platform that we will be delighted to discuss over the next sixteen months,” Golden said in a statement. 

Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, mocked McGrath’s entry into the race.

“Amy McGrath blew a suburban KY House race in 2018 despite spending huge amounts of money. Statewide in 2020 against @Team_Mitch will be infinitely more difficult,” Hunt wrote. “Why? She’s still the same person who called herself ‘the most progressive person in Kentucky.’”

–Updated July 9 at 10:12 a.m.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452117-kentucky-democrat-announces-challenge-to-mcconnell


Mr. Gore’s assertion that “we cut down on illegal immigration,” as Nafta created better jobs in Mexico, sits uneasily alongside the fact that by the end of the Clinton administration in 2000 there were 4.5 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico living in the United States, up from two million a decade earlier.

The prediction from Clinton administration officials that Nafta could vault Mexico into the select group of developed economies — an aspiration shared on the other side of the border too — never really came to pass.

Perhaps the most resonant of Mr. Perot’s observations, however, had to do with the broader impact of trade on American workers. “If we keep shifting our manufacturing jobs across the border and around the world and deindustrializing our country, we will not be able to defend this great country, and that is a risk we will never take,” he said.

Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist who as chief economist for the Labor Department helped prepare Mr. Gore for the debate, said Mr. Perot’s case was overstated. Not that many workers were displaced by trade at the time, the economy was creating other middle-income jobs, and those displaced had opportunities to bounce back.

What Mr. Perot said might not have been true then, but it is now, Mr. Katz said: “On substance, he was well ahead of his time.”

The “sucking sound” from Mexico was never really heard, but there certainly was one from China after it entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 — a move supported by the Clinton and Bush administrations. And the jobs the labor market is creating tend to be in the service sectors toward the bottom of the pay scale.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/business/economy/ross-perot-nafta-trade.html

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA — A panel of two Republicans and one Democrat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case asking them to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. The Democrat did not speak, although she remains overwhelmingly likely to reject this attack on Obamacare.

The Republicans, by contrast, came to court today wearing their partisan hats. When Samuel Siegel, the first of two lawyers defending the law, was at the podium for his portion of the arguments, Judges Jennifer Elrod and Kurt Englehardt peppered him with questions, many of them delivered in a mocking tone. At one point, Englehardt even accused Siegel of making an argument that betrays the American Revolutionary War.

Meanwhile, the three lawyers opposing the law did receive some critical questions from the two Republican judges, but those questions were not especially animated and they soon trailed off. Kyle Hawkins, the lawyer who delivered the bulk of the anti-Obamacare arguments, spent much of his time speaking before a silent panel, punctuated mainly by listless questions from Elrod that seemed designed primarily to give him something to talk about.

The most ominous sign of all is that the Republicans spent a considerable amount of time discussing what would be the appropriate scope of a court order striking the Affordable Care Act — a matter that obviously is only relevant if they intend to strike the law.

An estimated 24,000 Americans will die every single year, who otherwise would have lived, if Obamacare is ultimately struck down.

There were a few hints that either Elrod or Englehardt may be too embarrassed by the weak arguments raised by the plaintiffs to ultimately grant them the relief they seek. And both Republicans at one point floated a possible middle ground that would strip protections from Americans with pre-existing conditions while still leaving some of the law intact.

But the smart money would not bet on the rule of law winning out after Tuesday’s argument. Texas v. United States appears likely to end in the triumph of partisanship over law, at least in the Fifth Circuit.

The premise of Texas is that the 2017 tax law, which zeroed out a provision of the Affordable Care Act that previously required most people without health insurance to pay higher taxes, actually repealed the entirety of Obamacare.

The argument goes something like this: that provision, known as the “individual mandate” is actually drafted as two separate provisions. The first provides that most Americans “shall” carry health insurance. The second imposes a tax on people who fail to do so. After 2017, the amount of that tax is zero dollars.

In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court famously upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of Congress’ power to tax. But wait! Because that tax is now zero, that means it’s no longer a tax, so it must be unconstitutional. Worse, because the word “shall” still appears in the law, that means that the post-2017 version of Obamacare must now be read as a command to buy health insurance — and an unconstitutional one at that.

There are numerous problems with this argument, but the biggest one is that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected it in NFIB. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in that case.

Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.

Before 2017, in other words, the law gave people a choice between paying a tax or buying health insurance. After 2017, they fully comply with the law by either carrying insurance or paying zero dollars.

Nevertheless, both Elrod and Englehardt repeatedly characterized the zeroed out mandate as a “command” to purchase insurance. That’s simply not true under NFIB.

Should the court ultimately strike down the mandate, that in and of itself doesn’t mean much. The mandate now does nothing, so a decision eliminating it should also do nothing, but that’s where the plaintiffs’ arguments take a weird turn.

When a court strikes down part of a law, it often must ask whether other parts of that statute must fall as well — an inquiry known as “severability.” Severability is a speculative inquiry. It asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that one provision was invalid.

But such speculation is unnecessary in Texas. Congress already answered this question. It spent much of 2017 debating how much of the Affordable Care Act to repeal. In the end, they only had the votes to repeal one provision, the individual mandate.

Thus, even if you assume that the neutered mandate is unconstitutional, we already know that Congress would have preferred for the rest of the law to stand. That’s because Congress effectively repealed the individual mandate while allowing the rest of the law to stand.

The Supreme Court, moreover, held in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that judges should be very reluctant to strike down constitutional provisions of a law after they find that a provision of that law is unconstitutional. “In order for other . . . provisions to fall,” Murphy held, “it must be ‘evident that [Congress] would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of [those] which [are] not.’”

And yet, both Elrod and Engelhardt appeared allergic to the idea that they are required to follow Murphy. Judge Engelhardt even suggested, at one point, that Murphy should be turned on its head, and that the burden should fall on the lawyers defending the law to prove why the whole thing shouldn’t be struck down.

When Douglas Letter, a lawyer for the U.S. House of Representatives, was at the podium, Engelhardt launched into an angry rant, demanding to know why the House couldn’t fix the problem by amending the Affordable Care Act to take this case off the table. When Letter eventually gave the obvious answer, that the Senate would have to pass the law and President Donald Trump would have to sign it, Engelhardt acted like Letter had stepped into a trap.

Why should judges become “taxidermists?” Engelhardt asked in one of the oddest moments of the argument. If part of a law is unconstitutional, why shouldn’t the political process resolve how much of the law should remain? And until it does, Engelhardt appeared to suggest, the proper remedy is just to remove the entire law.

The answer, of course, is that Engelhardt’s approach is the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court said should be done in Murphy.

In fairness, there were a few moments when Elrod and Engelhardt appeared embarrassed by the gravity of what they appear likely to do. When Letter first stepped to the podium, for example, he read to them the language from NFIB holding that the plaintiffs’ reading of the individual mandate is dead wrong, and both Republicans sat for a few moments in silence before they appeared to regain their footing and go back on the attack.

Similarly, both Republicans, at some points, appeared bothered by the idea that Obamacare provisions completely unrelated to the individual mandate might have to fall — a provision requiring restaurants to display caloric information came up a few times, for example. Elrod and Engelhardt both, at times, seemed to float the possibility of striking down the law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions and other insurance regulations, while maybe keeping other parts intact.

But the argument overall was a disaster for Obamacare and, given the staggering weakness of the plaintiffs’ arguments, the rule of law. Texas also could amount to one of the most significant mass killings in American history.

Again, about 24,000 people will die every year. Year after year. If Obamacare is struck down. That’s tens of thousands of fathers who will never kiss their daughters again, and tens of thousands of wives who will never hold their husbands again.

If an invading army committed such an act — If it killed 24,000 innocent people, year after year — we would name that act an “atrocity.” Resolutions would be debated in the United Nations Security Council. Peacekeepers would be sent to intervene.

But in this case, one of the greatest acts of mass killing to occur on American soil since the Civil War will not be committed by an army. It may, however, be committed by Jennifer Elrod and Kurt Engelhardt.

If the law permitted such a result, then perhaps it could be justified. But there is no law supporting such an outcome. It’s just pure, cruel ideology all the way down.


Source Article from https://thinkprogress.org/republican-judges-seem-determined-to-strike-down-obamacare-ad1f584ee8cb/


The lawsuit was brought by 18 Republican-led states and is supported by the Trump administration. | Jonathan Bachman/AP Photo

Health Care

Health insurance for 20 million people and protections for pre-existing conditions are on the line.

07/09/2019 05:02 PM EDT

Updated 07/09/2019 06:34 PM EDT


NEW ORLEANS — A panel of federal appeals judges aggressively questioned whether Obamacare can survive during Tuesday afternoon oral arguments in a case that could upend the 2010 health care law.

Two Republican appointees on the three-judge panel frequently interrupted attorneys to question whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and if not whether the entire law could stand without it. The ACA’s future appeared murky after two hours of oral arguments at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it’s not clear if the judges were ready to uphold a federal judge’s earlier decision invalidating the law.

Story Continued Below

The lawsuit, which is supported by the Trump administration, puts at risk coverage for 20 million people covered by the ACA, as well as the law’s popular protections for insurance protections. The closely watched case is expected to eventually move to the Supreme Court, which has saved the law twice already, and could ultimately decide Obamacare’s fate next year in the height of the 2020 campaign.

This latest legal threat to Obamacare was filed by a group of red states in February 2018, months after Republican-led efforts to repeal the law collapsed in Congress. They argue that Congress’ decision to scrap the individual mandate penalty in its 2017 tax cut rendered the law unconstitutional because the Supreme Court previously upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of taxing power. Congress lowered the penalty for not purchasing health coverage to $0, but the mandate remains on the books.

In December, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor sided with the Republican-led states, shocking legal experts. The lawsuit was once seen as a long-shot, but it’s received serious consideration by Republican-appointed judges.

Appellate Judge Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, on Tuesday posited that lawmakers — who failed to agree on an Obamacare replacement plan two years ago — deliberately eliminated the mandate penalty because they knew the rest of the law would have to fall. She said perhaps lawmakers thought, “Aha, this is the silver bullet that’s going to undo Obamacare.”

Attorneys for the 20 Democratic-led states that are defending the law, as well as the Democratic-controlled House, countered that Congress clearly intended for the rest of the law to survive when it eliminated the mandate penalty.

“All the court has to do is look at the text,” said Samuel Siegel, the attorney representing the Democratic-led states.

The three-judge appellate panel is expected to rule in the coming months. They could back the lower court ruling invalidating all of Obamacare or overturn it entirely. The judges may also determine that the elimination of the individual mandate penalty only renders certain parts of the ACA unconstitutional, such as its protections for individuals with preexisting medical conditions. That was the Trump administration’s original stance on the lawsuit before recently embracing the lower court ruling against the entire ACA.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, pointed out that Congress could settle the dispute over the health law’s future by immediately stripping out the individual mandate entirely, eliminating the basis for the lawsuit. He also questioned why the Republican-controlled Senate hasn’t weighed in on the lawsuit.

“They’re sort of the 800-pound gorilla who’s not in the room,” Engelhardt said.

But in Washington, Senate Republicans were not eager to talk about the case, and several are betting privately that the ACA will survive. Some expressed concern a court decision throwing out the entire law could create chaos in the health care system if it took effect immediately.

“If the appellate court upholds the lower court’s decision, then I hope they’re able to provide a transition,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “If the court decides it’s not [constitutional], then we have our work cut out for us.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday said Congress would act “quickly, on a bipartisan basis” to restore preexisting condition protections if the courts struck them, but there’s no guarantee that they would. Republicans have supported less robust protections than those provided by the ACA, and Democrats aren’t likely to accept anything less.

Democrats, who saw their promises to defend coverage and pre-existing conditions as winning campaign messages in 2018, are eager to again press that case in 2020.

“The stakes cannot be higher,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Millions of Americans will suffer if Republicans succeed. Shame on them.”

Still, what happens next in the courts isn’t clear. During the Tuesday hearing, theRepublican-appointed judges raised numerous questions about whether any party had any legal standing to challenge the ACA’s constitutionality in the first place or to appeal the federal judge’s earlier ruling against the ACA.

The standing issue emerged as a recent wild card in the legal proceedings — the appeals panel two weeks ago first raised questions about whether anyone could challenge the decision after the Trump administration in March shifted its legal strategy to fully side with the Republican-led states.

The judges could toss the entire lawsuit if they determined the red states who brought the case haven’t suffered any harm from the removal of the individual mandate penalty. Attorneys for those states argued that even without a tax penalty, the mandate causes harm by forcing them to spend money on government health care coverage for more people.

“The ACA causes classic pocketbook injury to the states,” said Kyle Hawkins, the attorney representing the Republican-led states.

Meanwhile, the judges seemed confused by the Trump administration’s legal position. The Department of Justice supports the lower court ruling against the entire ACA, but at the same time it has argued that some provisions of the law — which the DOJ hasn’t specified — should remain.

DOJ attorney August Flentje argued that it’s too soon to determine exactly which provisions can remain even if it’s struck down.

“A lot of this stuff will need to be sorted out,” Flentje said. “It’s complicated.”

The lone Democratic appointee on the three-judge panel was silent throughout the hearing. The judges gave no indication on when they might rule on the case.

The ACA has remained in effect since a federal judge found it unconstitutional last December, and the Trump administration has said it will enforce the law while the legal battle continues.

Alice Miranda Ollstein and Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/obamacare-lawsuit-1404171

Tweeting at President Trump on Tuesday, Britain’s foreign secretary on Tuesday got it half-right and half-wrong.

Hunt’s comments follow two separate Twitter attacks by Trump on Prime Minister Theresa May and Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Sir Kim Darroch. Trump is furious over leaked diplomatic cables in which Darroch criticized his administration.

Here’s what Hunt had to say.

Hunt continued:

Let’s start with the good stuff.

Hunt is absolutely correct to point out that Trump’s words are “are disrespectful and wrong to our Prime Minister and my country.” As my colleague Quin Hillyer points out, Trump’s insults have repeatedly afflicted his dealings with America’s closest ally.

But while the president is understandably angry over Darroch’s cables, he has no reason to lash out at Prime Minister Theresa May. She has shown him great respect at all times. Trump’s words to a departing foreign ally are thus petulant, uncouth, and fundamentally unbecoming of the special relationship.

Hunt is also right to point out what should be a basic point: Diplomatic cables are supposed to offer candor. Ambassadors do not serve as simple faces in foreign capitals; they serve as the head of a diplomatic mission. Informing a government of another government’s intricacies is a fundamental part of any good ambassador’s job. Darroch did that. What failed him was either an idiot leaker in the U.K. Foreign Office or a foreign actor who released the cables.

That said, Hunt is quite wrong to suggest that Darroch will remain in Washington if he becomes prime minister. An ambassador cannot function effectively if, as now, a host government is unwilling to facilitate his meetings. From a British interest point of view, this basic diplomatic point must supersede all other concerns in this saga. That doesn’t mean Trump’s refusal to deal with Darroch is appropriate or justifiable; it isn’t. But it is the situation.

Hunt knows as much. Trailing Boris Johnson in the race to take over from Theresa May later this month, Hunt believes this tweet will get him some good press and perhaps buffer his cause to remain as foreign secretary if Johnson wins.

But the ultimate point, however unfair, is clear: Darroch will have to be reassigned.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/british-ambassador-jeremy-hunt-was-half-right-in-his-attack-on-trump

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/acosta-defends-epstein-deal/index.html

While Mr. Perot had done business with every administration since Lyndon B. Johnson’s, the federal government was one of his favorite targets. Washington, he told its own denizens, “has become a town with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don’t ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.”

Improbably, he surged in the polls while the Republican incumbent, George Bush, and the Democrat, Bill Clinton, trained their fire on each other. Polls showed that Mr. Perot’s support came from across the spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, mostly from the middle class. Citizen drives got him on the ballot in all 50 states. He was on the cover of Time magazine.

But at the peak of his popularity, he unexpectedly dropped out of the race. Months later, he jumped back in, saying his withdrawal had been prompted by Republican “dirty tricks” to sabotage his daughter’s wedding with faked compromising photographs.

He did surprisingly well in three presidential debates, often mocking the “gridlock” in Washington. “It’s not the Republicans’ fault, of course, and it’s not the Democrats’ fault,” he said in the second round. “Somewhere out there there’s an extraterrestrial that’s doing this to us, I guess.”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ross-perot-death.html

A day after declaring the United States would “no longer deal with” the British ambassador who disparaged his administration, President Trump lobbed several personal insults at him on Twitter.

“The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy,” Trump tweeted early Tuesday. “He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was handled.”

“I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool,” the president continued. “Tell him the USA now has the best Economy & Military anywhere in the World, by far.”

He added: “They are both only getting bigger, better and stronger…..Thank you, Mr. President!”




In leaked memos that were published by The Mail, a British tabloid, over the weekend, Ambassador Kim Darroch described the Trump White House as “inept,” “dysfunctional” and “unpredictable.”

“We don’t really believe this Administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept,” Darroch wrote in one.

The British Foreign Office did not dispute the authenticity of the messages.

“The British public would expect our ambassadors to provide ministers with an honest, unvarnished assessment of the politics in their country,” the Foreign Office said in a statement. “Their views are not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government. But we pay them to be candid. Just as the U.S. ambassador here will send back his reading of Westminster politics and personalities.”

Darroch, 65, is a career British diplomat who has been in his ambassador post in Washington since January 2016.

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Trump said Darroch “has not served the U.K. well.”

“We’re not big fans of that man,” the president said.

Trump then announced the administration would “no longer deal” with Darroch in a Monday tweet.

“I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well thought of within the U.S.,” the president tweeted. “We will no longer deal with him.”

___

Read more from Yahoo News:

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/09/a-pompous-fool-trump-trashes-uk-ambassador-who-disparaged-his-administration/23766850/


Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, speaks during a news conference on July 2, 2019, in Hong Kong. | Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

South China Morning Post

07/09/2019 09:52 AM EDT

This story is being published as part of a content partnership with the South China Morning Post. It originally appeared on scmp.com on July 9, 2019.

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor gave her strongest pledge yet on Tuesday morning when she declared the highly unpopular extradition bill that sparked several mass protests was “dead”, changing from an earlier script that it “will die” in 2020.

Story Continued Below

While protesters had demanded a full withdrawal, Lam stressed her stance on Tuesday had already been definitive.

Speaking before the weekly meeting with her advisers in the Executive Council, Lam described the government’s work in amending the law as a “complete failure.”

The chief executive acknowledged there were lingering doubts that the government could restart the amendment process within the Legislative Council’s current term, which ends in 2020.

“There is no such plan, the bill is dead,” Lam said.

She admitted her stance on Tuesday did not differ much from when she announced last month that the legislative process would be suspended, adding: “In some sense, even if [the bill] is withdrawn today, it can be retabled at Legco within three months.”

The bill would have allowed Hong Kong to transfer suspects to jurisdictions it lacks extradition agreements with, including mainland China. Critics feared it would remove the legal firewall between the city and the mainland, exposing suspects to opaque trials across the border.

Lam, however, stood firm on not setting up a top-level probe into clashes between police and protesters.

She said the Independent Police Complaints Council would launch an investigation, and that all parties involved in the demonstrations, including protesters, police, media and onlookers, could provide information.

There have been widespread calls for a judge-led commission of inquiry (COI) to be set up, with former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang the latest to add his voice, in a commentary asking for such a commission that was published in the Post on Tuesday.

“While I respect [Li’s] views … I’m afraid on this particular issue of an independent COI, the view has been taken for the IPCC to perform this role,” Lam said.

Lam also touched on the 2014 Occupy movement, during which protesters had called for the implementation of genuine universal suffrage.“Five years ago, we finished Occupy Central, we moved on, without addressing those fundamental problems,” Lam said. “But this time I don’t think we can continue to ignore those fundamental and deep-seated problems.”

Asked if she would restart discussions on political reform, Lam said she was “not targeting a particular issue.”

She added: “It could be economic problems, it could be livelihood issues, it could be political divisions in society.”

The chief executive also said she was “willing to engage in an open dialogue with students without any preconditions.”

Student leaders from eight universities said they would only talk to Lam if she agreed to their two conditions on Friday: meet them in a town hall-style open meeting and promise to exonerate protesters.

Lam reiterated that the government did not call a protest on June 12, during which there were violent clashes between police and protesters, a “riot.”

She also said it would be against the rule of law to grant an amnesty to arrested protesters “at this stage,” without investigations and prosecutions.

The weekly Exco meeting was the first at the Chief Executive’s Office since June 11. A meeting last week was held at Government House, while two others were canceled due to the recent protests.

Among protesters’ demands are that all references to clashes on June 12 as a riot be retracted.

“In the coming three years, there must be officials stepping down to fulfill the accountability system,” Tien told a radio show, referring to the time left for the current administration.

Tien, however, refused to say who he had in mind.

Speaking on the same program, Liberal Party lawmaker Felix Chung Kwok-pan said it was not possible for Lam to step down at the moment. He also suggested that if ministers were to quit, it would be difficult to find others to replace them.

“Given now how hot the kitchen is, which is almost burning, who would be willing to join and work for the government?” Chung said.

Instead, he suggested changes in Exco.

“Exco is one of the most important advisory bodies for the chief executive … Now there are problems, should there be changes in Exco? At least there is action to show the government is not only saying it will change or listen,” he said.

Tien, a lawmaker of the Roundtable group, also suggested that Exco members should not have background links to political parties and should remain politically neutral.

Additional reporting by Elizabeth Cheung

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/hong-kong-extradition-bill-carrie-lam-1402272

Barely more than an hour after it convened a special session called by the Democratic governor to debate gun legislation, the GOP-controlled General Assembly abruptly adjourned without taking any action, stunning hundreds of gun control activists and gun rights protesters who had packed the Capitol.

The Senate gaveled in shortly after noon and at about 1:30 p.m., voted 18 to 20 along party lines to adjourn until November 18 – after a state election in which all 140 legislative seats are on the ballot.

A few minutes later, the House of Delegates followed suit, as Democrats expressed surprise and outrage.

“The Republicans in this state are totally controlled—I mean 100 percent – controlled by the National Rifle Association,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who fumed in the marble hallways in the Capitol. “Anybody who doubts that, go take a look where the money is spent and go take a look at their votes.”

He struck a defiant note.

“This is far from over,” he said. “In the end, let me assure you we are going to prevail, one way or another.”

House Minority Leader Eileen Filler-Corn, who had been consulting with Republicans even after the session started about what the rules of engagement would be, was almost shaking with anger.

“Shocking,” she said. “Disturbing. But it’ll be up to the voters in November now… ”

Gov. Ralph Northam (D) said Republicans had abdicated their duty. “I expected them to do what their constituents elected them to do – discuss issues and take votes,” Northam said in a statement. “An average of three Virginians die each day due to gun violence. That means hundreds of Virginians may die between today and November 18…It is shameful and disappointing that Republicans in the General Assembly refuse to do their jobs.”

Before adjourning, Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) pulled a bill he had filed on Monday that seemed to suggest Republicans might find some common ground with Democrats. His bill would have banned firearms from local government buildings around the state and make any violation a felony. State law now bans guns only in courthouses, and a violation is a misdemeanor.

But Norment faced an intense backlash from members of his own party and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group, and moments after Tuesday’s session began, he announced he was pulling the bill.

“I do not support — nor will I support — any measure that restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” Norment said.

Minutes after the General Assembly adjourned, Jason Ouimet, acting executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, released a statement applauding the House and Senate Republican leadership and calling the special session “a complete taxpayer-funded distraction.”

Earlier Tuesday, armed militia members and gun control activists had swarmed the grounds and streets outside the State Capitol building.

Men in camouflage, some with holstered handguns dangling from their hips, gathered not far from a heavily female crowd wearing red “Moms Demand Action” T-shirts. Busloads of activists rolled into the city, their passengers bracing for a long day.

By 8:30 a.m. about 150 pro-gun demonstrators, several carrying assault rifles, gathered outside the white-columned building.

Jeff Squires, 57, said he wants legislators to hear firsthand from gun owners who feel under siege.

“It’s an incremental taking-away of rights,” Squires said. “There’s an agenda to take away guns, and this is how they’re doing it. I understand there’s violence. It’s not just with guns, though. It’s people with those guns.”

At the nearby bell tower in Capitol Square, Gov. Ralph Northam (D), in a suit and tie despite the summer heat, addressed an hour-long peace vigil, leading several hundred people in chants of “Enough is enough!” and a call and response of “Why are we here? Votes and laws!”

When Northam ordered the special session in the wake of the May 31 mass shooting in Virginia Beach that left 12 dead, he said he wanted “votes and laws, not thoughts and prayers” to address gun violence in the state, which claimed more victims in 2018 than traffic deaths.

The governor held hands with African American community leaders, and they sang “We Shall Overcome.” He was joined by Richmond’s mayor, Levar Stoney (D), and the city’s police chief, schools superintendent and other officials. Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) also stood with Northam, as did state senators Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and Barbara A. Favola (D-Arlington) and Del. Delores L. McQuinn (D-Richmond).

Richmond NAACP President James Minor called on attendees to “support our governor” and his gun control efforts. And he sent a political message in biblical language: “If you cannot do right by the people, if you cannot do right by the children, then ye shall be removed.”

Stoney told the crowd: “There will be a day of reckoning. If not today, then it will be at the ballot box in November.”

This is a pivotal election year in Virginia. All 140 seats in the legislature are on the ballot in November, and Democrats are hoping to take control of both chambers for the first time in more than 20 years. Republicans have a 51-48 edge in the House of Delegates and a 20-19 advantage in the Senate, with one vacancy in each chamber.

That dynamic puts even more heat into the incendiary issue of gun control, which animates the base of each party. National groups, including the pro-gun NRA and the gun control groups Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady and Moms Demand Action, have been focusing on the fight in Virginia.

Democrats filed measures, backed by Northam, aimed at reducing the availability and lethality of firearms. His priorities include a ban on devices that make guns fire faster or hold more bullets, limiting handgun purchases to one per month, instituting universal background checks and allowing courts to seize weapons from someone deemed to be a threat.

On Tuesday, activists on both sides of the issue formed a line that snaked around the Pocahontas State Office Building as they filed in to try to meet with lawmakers before the General Assembly was to convene at noon.

As the pro-gun group headed inside, several members pulled out their gun permits.

“Are you carrying?” a guard asked everyone who filed in, while the metal detector alarms rang again and again as they passed through.

Charles Nesby of Norther Virginia headed into the Pocahontas building with an orange “Guns save lives” sticker on his chest, a red “Make America Great Again” cap on his head and a semiautomatic pistol on his hip. His expectations were beyond low as rode the elevator to the offices of the two liberal Democrats who represent him, Ebbin and Del. Richard C. “Rip” Sullivan Jr (D-Fairfax).

“Waste of my time,” Nesby, 68, predicted on the way up.

Sullivan’s office was closed when Nesby arrived a little before 9 a.m. But three floors up, he had better luck with Ebbin, who not only remembered the email Nesby had sent him but invited him into his office to talk about it.

Ebbin explained his desire for universal background checks, recalling how he visited a gun show and saw how easy it was to buy weapons without one.

“We walked in the gun show, and I said, ‘We do not want to go through a background check, and they said, ‘Go to this booth,’ ” Ebbin said. “They said, ‘Fine, you don’t look like a bank robber.’ ”

Ebbin said he imagined that Nesby has undergone background checks.

“I have a White House top-secret [clearance],” said Nesby, a retired Navy captain who was assistant secretary of veteran’s affairs under president George W. Bush.

As their meeting wrapped up, Ebbin said he would like to get together with him again to discuss gun policy further. Nesby was pleasantly surprised.

“We just had a nice talk with Ebbin,” he told a friend. “He wants to talk afterwards. He did receive my email and actually read it.”

“No!” said the friend, Russ Fisher of Woodbridge.

“Yeah, he was familiar with it,” Nesby said. “I was shocked.”

Republicans who control the legislature have stymied gun control bills year after year and have accused Northam of trying to capi­tal­ize on tragedy for political gain.

Some thought the GOP might concede some ground in the gun debate after Norment filed his bill on Monday. But it caught GOP colleagues off guard and sparked cries of betrayal from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group.

Several pro-gun activists on Tuesday said they were angered by Norment’s bill, calling it a misguided attempt to find compromise with Northam.

“It wouldn’t have prevented what happened in Virginia Beach,” said David Custer, 51.

More than two dozen pro-gun activists clogged the hallway outside Norment’s sixth-floor office at one point Tuesday morning. The senator was not there, so two aides stepped up to engage them.

“We feel like we were ambushed,” one man told an aide.

Outside on the sidewalk, waiting in a line that by late morning snaked around two sides of the Pocahontas building, John Wilburn fumed.

“I think it’s a backstabbing move,” said Wilburn, 41, a real estate broker who lives in Christiansburg, in the far southwest part of the state. He wore a T-shirt that read, “I carry because I care.”

He summed up legislators this way: “Some of them have character, and some of them are a squish.”

Republicans had filed several measures designed to stiffen penalties for violations of gun laws. Sen. William R. DeSteph Jr. (R-Virginia Beach) introduced bills to increase sentences for brandishing anything that even looks like a firearm at law enforcement officers, for violating a protective order while armed and for concealing a firearm while committing a felony.

Raising mandatory minimum sentences is a route that Northam already has said he opposes, arguing that it disproportionately affects people of color.

At least one other Republican introduced bills aimed at tightening gun laws, although more modestly than the Democratic proposals. Del. Glenn R. Davis Jr. (R-Virginia Beach) proposed a measure that would allow localities to ban firearms in buildings used for governmental purposes, as long as they also included steps such as metal detectors to keep people from sneaking in weapons.

Davis also proposed making it slightly harder to get a concealed-carry permit, eliminating the option to demonstrate competence by taking an online or video test in favor of an in-person demonstration. Davis said he has gotten pushback from the NRA and the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Davis said he’s looking for middle ground. “Gun safety and protecting the rights conveyed by the Second Amendment don’t have to be mutually exclusive,” said Davis, who noted that he was a competitive shooter in high school. “I think it’s common sense.”

Both sides of the issue have spent the past few weeks rallying public support. The NRA held a series of closed “town hall” meetings around the state, while Northam’s cabinet secretaries hosted more than half a dozen “roundtables.”

Republicans have accused Northam of trying to use the Virginia Beach shooting to rehabilitate his political image. Northam has been under a cloud since February, when a racist photo came to light from his 1984 medical school yearbook page.

He first apologized for the photo, then disavowed it but admitted wearing blackface at an event that same year. Since defying calls to resign, Northam has said he would dedicate his term in office to fighting racial disparities.

Sen. Amanda F. Chase (R-Chesterfield), who this year began wearing a handgun on her hip on the Senate floor, called the session a “political stunt.”

She said it was “a waste of taxpayer money,” given that the GOP-controlled legislature this year already killed gun control bills similar to what the governor is proposing.

In Capitol Square on Tuesday, some gun-toting protesters held aloft images of the photo from Northam’s yearbook, which featured a person in Ku Klux Klan robes and another in blackface at what appeared to be a costume party. Printed atop the blown-up image was, “The man behind the sheet wants your guns.”

Democrats, many of whom called on Northam to resign earlier this year, have rallied around him over gun control, which they believe is popular among Virginians.

Northam wants the legislation to be voted on by the full House and Senate, instead of the usual practice of killing the bills in committees, but prospects seem dim.

Del. Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax), the House minority leader, said she had gotten no assurances from Republican leaders that they would allow floor votes.

“I’m hopeful,” Filler-Corn said. “I commend the governor for moving forward. Doing nothing is not an option.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gun-debate-hits-full-throttle-in-richmond-as-legislature-convenes/2019/07/09/caf20590-a1d4-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html


You must be a full digital subscriber to read this article


You must be a digital subscriber to view this article.


Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.



Source Article from https://www.omaha.com/money/southwest-airlines-drops-a-route-from-los-angeles-to-omaha/article_a04e66ca-e21f-5dc9-b121-ccba310d2863.html

People gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last month as decisions are handed down, including on the census.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

People gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last month as decisions are handed down, including on the census.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

President Trump says his administration was “very strongly” contemplating a delay in the 2020 census because the Supreme Court has blocked the addition of a question on citizenship status.

That shocked a lot of people in government, business and academia who have a stake in the enormous, complex and costly undertaking that counts the U.S. population every 10 years — and has done so since 1790.

Among other things, the census is meant to determine how much clout each state has in Congress, and which parts of each state have the most. So any delay in the next national head count could postpone the next round of turnover at all levels of elected office.

The census has been remarkably regular over the life of the nation.

But there was a time when Congress delayed applying the count as intended — essentially ignoring it for almost a full decade — and, like today, the controversy centered around immigration and people moving to cities.

What the census does and what it means to politics

The census numbers are used to re-slice the pie of federal funding under a variety of programs. And once each decade, these numbers are used to reallocate the seats in Congress to maintain proportional representation there (and in the Electoral College).

If a state gains population relative to other states, it gains one or more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (and thus in the Electoral College). And if a part of a state grows relative to other parts, the map of that state’s congressional districts is redrawn accordingly.

Much of the same dynamic plays out in state legislatures and local election districts as well. The national process is called reapportionment, and within each state it is called redistricting.

So the simple facts a census presents have great political consequences.

The census has been one of those elements of American life that seemed to proceed apace, whichever party was in the White House or dominating Congress. Clearly mandated in the Constitution and supported by tradition, it has generally been considered a model of evenhanded administrative achievement.

These processes commence upon completion of the decennial census.

Except for that time they did not.

What happened in 1920?

A century ago, the 1920 census was done on time, but reapportionment did not immediately follow.

That was because the 1920 census confirmed a reality that had been visible to the naked eye for years: America was becoming an urban nation, and more than ever a nation of immigrants.

The 1920 census discovered that less than half the U.S. population lived on farms, in rural areas or in towns smaller than 2,500 people. In a little more than a single generation, jobs, commerce and culture had lured millions to America’s cities and metro areas. Many came from the countryside, many came from other countries — and both movements posed challenges to the establishment in Washington.

The Congress of the early 1920s was dominated by members elected from rural districts, reflecting the economics and politics of the previous century. Most of those from the South were Democrats, but most from everywhere else were Republicans, and the Republicans had clear majorities in both chambers of Congress.

These incumbents knew that a reapportionment would cost some of their states some of their seats. But beyond that, representing a state with fewer seats would mean competing against fellow incumbents to survive. Even in the growing states, shifting power to the cities meant longtime country pols were losing out to someone preferred by city folk.

So the Republican leaders in Congress simply stalled the reapportionment bill that would have normally been enacted in 1921. Indeed, they stalled it all the way through the next four congressional election cycles. It was not until 1929 that a reapportionment law was finally enacted — even as the 1930 census was being prepared.

Deals were struck between the parties and the states in that 1929 law to enable its enactment. One deal changed the formula by which the 435 seats in the House are divided among the states. Another compromise evened out the losses for each party in the short run.

But the larger realities could not be compromised or papered over indefinitely. One was the growing claim on government resources by metro areas as opposed to farmland interests. The other was the growing presence of immigrants in those metro areas.

A century later, some of the same tensions persist

The percentage of foreign-born residents in the U.S. was estimated at 13.5% in 2018, matching the all-time record from the census of 1910. The 1920 census also showed how the clustering of immigrants in a few states was changing the populations and politics of those states — primarily in Eastern centers such as New York, Boston and Philadelphia and in the burgeoning industrial cities on the Great Lakes.

Both of the tensions that mattered in 1920 persist a century later. The distinction between voting patterns of metro and non-metro residents is as stark as it has ever been.

Exit polls in 2016 showed Trump receiving 62% of the vote in rural areas but just 35% in urban precincts. A national survey by Selzer & Co. for Grinnell College last December found Trump with 61% approval in rural areas and 31% in urban (with suburbs and small towns in the low 40s).

But the cutting edge of the census issue in our day is the immigration issue, as highlighted by the president’s own emphasis on it. Trump first emerged from the pack of Republican candidates in 2015 by emphasizing his support for a border wall with Mexico and a ban on Muslim immigrants.

Frustrated so far in his efforts to build that wall, or to overhaul the laws governing immigration, the president has sought out other means of forcing the issue. These have included his challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program benefiting those brought to the U.S. illegally as minors.

Last week, the census citizenship question was thrust into the spotlight when, in reaction to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision rebuffing the administration on the issue, President Trump said he wanted to wait until the court had a chance to reconsider and “make a final and decisive decision.”

But the court’s next term does not begin until October, and the Census Bureau’s printing deadlines make that highly problematic if the census is to begin in January as planned.

The court’s ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, did allow for the government to come back with a justification for adding the question. Roberts wrote that the purported reason offered by the Commerce Department (having to do with enforcing the Voting Rights Act) “seems to have been contrived” and was “incongruent with what the record reveals.”

So census officials are facing a choice. They can delay their work indefinitely or they can drop the matter that seems so crucial to the president. Trump reiterated last week “it’s very important to find out if somebody is a citizen as opposed to an illegal.” (It should be noted that many non-citizens reside in the U.S. legally.)

Most visible in recent days has been the policy of separating families of asylum-seekers at the Mexican border, and the controversies over the conditions in detention camps for children.

As deadlines come and go for printing the forms for the 2020 census, a delay in that institution may well be the latest way for the president to demonstrate his commitment.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/738111496/cities-and-immigrants-drove-census-controversy-100-years-ago

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/index.html