Recently Added Videos

SAN DIEGO (AP) — An appeals court on Wednesday upheld a freeze on Pentagon money to build a border wall with Mexico, casting doubt on President Donald Trump’s ability to make good on a signature campaign promise before the 2020 election.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a lower court ruling that prevented the government from tapping Defense Department counterdrug money to build high-priority sections of wall in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

The decision is a setback for Trump’s ambitious plans. He ended a 35-day government shutdown in February after Congress gave him far less than he wanted. He then declared a national emergency that the White House said would free billions of dollars from the Pentagon.

The case may still be considered, but the administration cannot build during the legal challenge.

“As for the public interest, we conclude that it is best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction,” wrote Judges Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee.

A freeze imposed by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of Oakland in May prevented work on two Pentagon-funded wall contracts — one spanning 46 miles (74 kilometers) in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma, Arizona.

Honduran migrant Joel Mendez, 22, passes his eight-month-old son Daniel through a hole under the U.S. border wall to his partner, Yesenia Martinez, 24, who had already crossed in Tijuana, Mexico, Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. Moments later Martinez surrendered to waiting border guards while Mendez stayed behind in Tijuana to work, saying he feared he’d be deported if he crossed. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

Honduran migrant Joel Mendez, 22, feeds his eight-month-old son Daniel as his partner Yesenia Martinez, 24, crawls through a hole under the U.S. border wall, in Tijuana, Mexico, Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. Moments later Martinez surrendered to waiting border guards while Mendez stayed behind in Tijuana to work, saying he feared he’d be deported if he crossed. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

Honduran migrant Leivi Ortega, 22, wearing a rosary, looks at her phone while she, her partner and their young daughter, wait in hopes of finding an opportunity to cross the U.S. border from Playas de Tijuana, Mexico, Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2018. In early December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that the San Diego sector experienced a “slight uptick” in families entering the U.S. illegally with the goal of seeking asylum. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

In a photo taken from the Tijuana, Mexico, side of the border wall, a guard on the U.S. side, at left, watches Honduran migrants jump the wall into the United States, Sunday, Dec. 2, 2018. Thousands of migrants who traveled via caravan are seeking asylum in the U.S., but face a decision between waiting months or crossing illegally, because the U.S. government only processes a limited number of cases a day at the San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)




While the order applied only to those first-in-line projects, Gilliam made clear that he felt the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition, was likely to prevail in their argument that Trump ignored Congress’ wishes by diverting Defense Department money.

Gilliam went a step further Friday by ruling definitively that the administration couldn’t use Pentagon counterdrug money for the two projects covered in his May order or to replace 63 miles (101 kilometers) in the Border Patrol’s Tucson, Arizona, sector and 15 miles (24 kilometers) in its El Centro, California, sector.

The administration immediately appealed.

N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, strongly disagreed with the appeals court ruling, saying it misread constitutional separation of powers.

“The majority here takes an uncharted and risky approach — turning every question of whether an executive officer exceeded a statutory grant of power into a constitutional issue,” he wrote in his dissent. “This approach is in contradiction to the most fundamental concepts of judicial review.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Its attorneys argued that the freeze on Pentagon funds showed a “fundamental misunderstanding of the federal appropriations process.”

At stake is billions of dollars that would allow Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term.

Trump declared a national emergency after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to the 35-day shutdown. Congress agreed to spend nearly $1.4 billion on barriers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings, which was well below the $5.7 billion the president requested.

Trump grudgingly accepted the money but declared the emergency to siphon cash from other government accounts, finding up to $8.1 billion for wall construction. The money includes $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and $600 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund.

Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper has yet to approve transferring the military construction funds. The Treasury Department funds have so far survived legal challenges.

The president’s adversaries say the emergency declaration was an illegal attempt to ignore Congress.

The administration said the U.S. needed emergency protection to fight drug smuggling. Its arguments did not mention illegal immigration or unprecedented numbers of Central American families seeking asylum at the U.S. border , which have dominated public attention in recent months.

The administration has awarded $2.8 billion in contracts for barriers covering 247 miles (390 kilometers), with all but 17 miles (27 kilometers) of that to replace existing barriers not expand coverage. It is preparing for a flurry of construction that the president is already celebrating at campaign-style rallies.

Trump inherited barriers spanning 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), or about one-third of the border with Mexico. Of the miles covered under Trump-awarded contracts, more than half is with Pentagon money.

The Army Corps of Engineers recently announced several large Pentagon-funded contacts.

SLSCO Ltd. of Galveston, Texas, won a $789 million award to replace the New Mexico barrier. Southwest Valley Constructors of Albuquerque, New Mexico, won a $646 million award for the work in Tucson. Barnard Construction Co. of Bozeman, Montana, won a $141.8 million contract to replace barrier in Yuma and El Centro.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/03/appeals-court-trump-cant-use-pentagon-cash-for-border-wall/23762704/

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

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/2020-census-citizenship-question-donald-trump/index.html

One week after her story drew national attention, Marshae Jones, the Alabama woman who faced criminal charges after a shooting caused her to miscarry, will not be prosecuted, the Alabama district attorney announced Wednesday.

“After viewing the facts of this case and the applicable state law I have determined that it is not in the best interest of justice to pursue prosecution of Ms. Jones on the manslaughter charge for which she was indicted by the grand jury,” Jefferson County District Attorney Lynneice Washington said at a press conference. “Therefore, I am dismissing this case and no further legal action will be taken against Ms. Jones in this matter.”

In recent days, Washington’s office faced heavy criticism for Jones’s indictment, and Jones’s lawyers had filed a motion to have the case dismissed.

”There are no winners, only losers in this sad ordeal,” Washington added.

At the end of June, Alabama news outlets reported that Jones, a 27-year-old Birmingham resident, had been taken into police custody after a grand jury indicted her on manslaughter charges for the death of her then-5-month-old fetus. Police argued that Jones had initiated a fight with 23-year-old Ebony Jemison in December and was directly responsible for the fact that Jemison fired a bullet that struck Jones in the stomach.

According to a report from Al.com, police initially charged Jemison with manslaughter over the shooting. But a jury declined to indict her, saying that Jones initiated the altercation and that Jemison was acting in self-defense when she shot at Jones. That same jury later indicted Jones, arguing that she “intentionally caused the death of her unborn baby by initiating a fight knowing she was five months pregnant.”

Local police also blamed Jones for the shooting. “Let’s not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here,” Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Danny Reid said shortly after the shooting. “She had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection.”

The indictment was heavily criticized and immediately raised questions about why the woman who was shot was the one charged. Reproductive rights advocates argued that Jones’s story was a troubling example of the ways pregnant women of color are criminalized in states like Alabama, which has prosecuted hundreds of women for things like “chemical endangerment” while pregnant. These groups argued that many more pregnant women in the state might be punished in the wake of a recently passed law that bans most abortions in Alabama. The law is scheduled to go into effect in November.

In a statement released Wednesday, Jones’s lawyers said they were pleased that the charges had been dismissed and that the district attorney “chose not to proceed with a case that was neither reasonable nor just.”

”With the dismissal of charges, the community of support that surrounded Marshae can now channel its immense passion and energy toward ensuring that what happened to Marshae won’t ever happen again,” they added.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/3/20681511/marshae-jones-alabama-miscarriage-shooting-charges-dismissed

As President Trump’s appointees have worked doggedly to assemble the most ambitious and costly Fourth of July ceremony the nation’s capital has ever seen, they have been guided by one overriding principle: It cannot be a repeat of his 2017 inauguration.

The transformation of the Lincoln Memorial’s grounds into a made-for-TV setting, complete with a VIP seating section for donors and other political supporters, represents the culmination of a four-month-long effort to produce the military celebration the president has envisioned for nearly two years.

For a public gathering that is ostensibly targeting an audience of hundreds of millions of Americans, the display of weaponry, aircraft and pyrotechnics has been scripted primarily to satisfy an audience of one. By having Trump speak to a select audience, flanked by armored tactical vehicles, organizers hope he will avoid the prospect of facing a smaller crowd of the sort that gathered on the Mall for his swearing-in.

But the White House has also been scrambling in recent days to line up enough attendees, as Trump’s aides fret that either thunderstorms or the traditional free concert on the other end of the Mall could diminish the crowd for Trump’s 6:30 p.m. speech. The issue of crowd size has been a sore point with Trump since his inauguration, when far fewer people showed up compared with Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural ceremony and the president pressed National Park Service officials for nonexistent photographic evidence of a larger audience.

The administration has provided 5,000 tickets to the military, the Pentagon announced Wednesday. Trump’s reelection campaign has handed passes out to allies, donors and trade associations — from the American Bankers Association to the British Embassy, according to people familiar with the matter, while several fundraisers and operatives also were tasked to hand out tickets.

The White House has been a bit clumsy in some of its attempts to give away the passes, however, and officials said there were plenty of tickets still available this week. Members of one nonprofit advocacy organization — which does not accept any gifts from the government — received an email from the Office of Public Liaison this week, offering up to five tickets for Trump’s remarks.

The event will easily be the most expensive Independence Day fete on the Mall in history. The Park Service has committed to spending nearly $2.5 million for Trump’s involvement alone, and the air show and transport of tanks and other heavy machinery will also run into the millions. The president, however, described it Wednesday as a bargain.

“The cost of our great Salute to America tomorrow will be very little compared to what it is worth,” the president tweeted. “We own the planes, we have the pilots, the airport is right next door (Andrews), all we need is the fuel. We own the tanks and all. Fireworks are donated by two of the greats. Nice!”

While work on the project has accelerated in recent weeks, it can be traced directly back to the president’s July 2017 visit to Paris, where he attended a Bastille Day parade along the Avenue des Champs-Elysees. Current and former aides recalled that they were texting during the parade as they watched Trump’s reaction to the jet booms, gun trucks and marching troops, aware that he would want to replicate it back home.

Riding in the president’s specially armored limousine on the way to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, Trump again brought up a celebration of military might — and began sketching out a parade with tanks, flyovers and more before Air Force One even took off. Aides who warned him that tanks would tear up the streets said he dismissed such concerns — and said there would be ways around them.

“There were many long conversations with the boss about this,” said one former senior administration official.

Trump’s initial idea, to hold a military parade coinciding with Veterans Day last year, was scuttled after its projected cost of up to $92 million became public.

One former White House official said that then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who was sensitive to pushback he received from the Pentagon, helped put the brakes on the military parade that Trump has wanted for “forever.” But under current acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, this person added, Trump has more leeway to indulge his whims and impulses.

During Polish President Andrzej Duda’s visit to the White House last month, Trump arranged for an F-35 fighter jet to fly over the complex — and the president loved the display, one White House official said.

Discussions around the current event began at least as early as Feb. 21, when Trump brought it up in a lunch with Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, according to an individual familiar with the matter. Three days later, Trump urged Americans to prepare for “one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th . . . Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!”

Since then, White House, Interior and Pentagon staffers have engaged in extended negotiations over what sort of commemoration the federal government could undertake without additional appropriations from Congress. Officials from both the Park Service and the Defense Department have raised logistical and budgetary concerns at several points, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. Many of those concerns have been brushed aside.

Two U.S. defense officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Pentagon has been planning for the July 4 celebration since at least February, when specific requests for aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber were made by the White House.

Military officials did not see a problem with the requests, considering them to be part of a civic event that the Pentagon would typically support. Briefing slides with aircraft on them were created and distributed in some parts of the Pentagon, one of the defense officials said.

But as July neared, the Pentagon ran into a challenge: The White House did not want defense officials to detail the military’s involvement out of deference to the president’s desire to have surprises for observers during the aerial show. The situation created a dynamic in which it appeared the Pentagon was less organized for the celebration than it really was, one of the defense officials said.

One apparent exception was the president’s desire to include tanks in the celebration. A third defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said many top military officials were not aware that the president definitely wanted tanks involved until last week. Two M1A2 Abrams tanks were shipped up on rail cars from Fort Stewart in Georgia over the weekend along with other armored vehicles, including M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

National Park Service officials remain concerned that the deployment of tanks on the Lincoln Memorial’s grounds could damage its curbs and sidewalks, which are not designed to hold the weight of a vehicle weighing more than 60 tons. The federal government spent $30.7 million to refurbish the memorial under the Obama administration, including its sidewalks, and the Trump inaugural committee still hasn’t reimbursed the agency for damage it inflicted to the memorial during its setup in January 2017.

With the event less than a day away, some details were still being worked out. White House officials have repeatedly urged Trump to stick to the script his staff has prepared for him to deliver Thursday, which includes a unifying message about patriotism and avoids political taunts or attacks, and aides say he has agreed not to give a political speech. But his aides were tentatively planning to play campaign music when he takes the stage, according to one individual familiar with the plan.

And while the Park Service has dipped into a pot of entrance and recreation fees to transfer nearly $2.5 million for the White House portion of the event, it is unclear which parks will end up losing funds as a result. At one point, Interior officials raised the idea of taking money from sites located in liberal communities such as San Francisco’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area, according to a person familiar with the discussion, but that has yet to take place.

The decision to tap funds normally reserved for projects aimed at enhancing visitors’ experience has sparked howls of protest from Democratic lawmakers and National Park Service advocates, who note the agency has a $11.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on environment appropriations, said Wednesday that she plans to “schedule a hearing to get a full accounting from Interior Secretary Bernhardt on the use of National Park fees to pay for this event.”

“This administration needs to be reminded that the power of the purse belongs to Congress,” she said.

Will Ritter, co-founder of Poolhouse, a Republican ad agency, said that while Thursday’s event is more elaborate than past July 4 observances, some of the criticisms are overblown.

“Panicking partisans that think this is the cinematic beginning of a military state need to grab a sparkler and a Bud,” Ritter said. “It’s much bigger than one person, much more important than showing off metal, nailing the president or ‘owning the libs.’ It should be an unapologetic celebration that we are blessed to live in the greatest nation on earth, during the best time in human history. Have a hot dog!”

The president’s advisers say Trump sees the event as a way to associate himself with the flag and patriotism, which will resonate with many Americans the way his comments criticizing National Football League players for kneeling during the national anthem did.

After wading into the anthem debate, according to two former senior administration officials speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, Trump told his aides, “It’s a winning issue for me.”

“What are they going to say? I’m being too patriotic? I believe in America?” one official recounted Trump saying. “Give me a break.”

Asked about the event Wednesday, Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh was unapologetic. “President Trump loves this country,” Murtaugh said. “He’ll never apologize for that.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-effort-to-build-suspense–and-crowds–for-trumps-fourth-of-july/2019/07/03/10c2b00a-9da8-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html

Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an “Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll” emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way.

For example, one survey question asked, “Who would you rather see fix our Nation’s shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat,” while another somewhat tautological question asked: “Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat.”

Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump’s go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced “a Lyin’ Democrat” and “a Low IQ Democrat”), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, “Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?” while another wrote, “Is this for real? It sounds too crazy …”

The survey was indeed published by Trump’s official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign’s official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site:

“Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee.”

The poll’s true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information —  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.

The full list of questions was as follows:

  1. Who would you rather see fix our Nation’s shattered immigration policies? 
    – President Trump
    – A MS-13 Loving Democrat
  2. Who would you trust more to protect America from foreign and domestic threats?
    – President Trump
    – A Corrupt Democrat
  3. Who would you rather handle our Nation’s economy?
    – President Trump
    – A Radical Socialist Democrat
  4. Who do you believe is more transparent with the American People?
    – President Trump
    – A Lyin’ Democrat
  5. Who do you trust to NOT raise your taxes?
    – President Trump
    – A High Tax Democrat
  6. Who do you believe will ALWAYS put America FIRST?
    – President Trump
    – A Sleazy Democrat
  7. Who do you believe will keep their promises?
    – President Trump
    – A Lyin’ Democrat
  8. Who do you believe will fight for you every day?
    – President Trump
    – A Low Energy Democrat
  9. Who do you believe is better for America?
    – President Trump
    – A Low IQ Democrat
  10. Who will you vote for in 2020?
    – President Trump
    – A Radical Socialist Democrat

The “Trump vs Democrat” poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of “mainstream media accountability,” which Trump’s website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. “Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?” 

Source Article from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-democrat-poll-survey/

Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani warned European nations Wednesday that Tehran will “take the next step” in increasing its uranium enrichment closer to weapons-grade levels this coming Sunday if they do not offer a new deal by then, adding that they will increase it to “any amount that we want”.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting in Tehran, Rouhani said: “In any amount that we want, any amount that is required, we will take over 3.67.

“Our advice to Europe and the United States is to go back to logic and to the negotiating table. Go back to understanding, to respecting the law and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Under those conditions, all of us can abide by the nuclear deal.”

Iran’s nuclear deal currently bars it from enriching uranium above 3.67%, which is enough for nuclear power plants but far below the 90% needed for weapons.

This week, Iran reportedly breached that low-enriched uranium stockpile limitation. Under terms of the multinational 2015 nuke deal, Iran can keep a stockpile of no more than 660 pounds of low-enriched uranium. The country originally pledged to stay within those limits if Britain, France, Germany and the rest of the European Union followed through with plans to provide Iran access to international banking systems.

IRAN SURPASSES URANIUM STOCKPILE LIMIT SET BY NUCLEAR DEAL, STATE MEDIA SAYS

Rouhani gave a Sunday deadline.

The 2015 deal has been unraveling since the U.S. withdrew its support in 2018. The original deal saw sanctions on Iran lifted in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, but President Trump restored crippling sanctions against Iran upon pulling out of the accord, weakening the agreement altogether.

NEWT GINGRICH SAYS IRAN IS ‘VERY CLOSE TO BREAKING’ UNDER TOUGH SANCTIONS: ‘THIS IS A VERY SHAKY REGIME’

President Trump claimed the deal, which was agreed upon during President Obama’s time in office, only put weak limits on the regime’s nuclear activity and still would allow Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon once key parts of the agreement lapse.

Former President Obama released a statement at the time, arguing the nuclear deal “is working” and “has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program,” saying that’s why Trump’s announcement “is so misguided.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ Nicole Darrah, Alex Pappas and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/world/irans-hassan-rouhani-warns-europe-nation-will-take-next-step-to-enrich-uranium-to-weapons-grade-level-if-new-deal-isnt-reached

R. Alan Pritchard, one of two attorneys for Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, heads into Shelby County General Sessions Court Wednesday in Memphis. He asked the court to drop more than two dozen cases as the hospital reviews its collection policies.

Andrea Morales for MLK50


hide caption

toggle caption

Andrea Morales for MLK50

R. Alan Pritchard, one of two attorneys for Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, heads into Shelby County General Sessions Court Wednesday in Memphis. He asked the court to drop more than two dozen cases as the hospital reviews its collection policies.

Andrea Morales for MLK50

This article was produced in partnership with MLK50, which is a member of the ProPublica Local Reporting Network.

Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, the largest hospital system in Memphis, Tenn., said it has suspended “court collection activities” over unpaid medical bills — just days after an investigation by MLK50 and ProPublica (which also appeared on NPR) detailed its relentless pursuit of debts held by poor people and even its own employees.

“We recognize that we serve a diverse community and we are always thinking about how we can do more and serve our community better,” Methodist said in a written statement. “Over the next 30 days we will be reviewing our policies and procedures to ensure we are doing everything possible to provide the communities we serve with the care and assistance they need. Also, we will immediately suspend any further court collection activities during this period.

“As a learning organization that is committed to continuous quality improvement, we want to be absolutely sure that our practices continue to support our mission and vision of improving every life we touch regardless of ability to pay.”

Methodist dropped more than two dozen cases that were set for initial hearings on Wednesday’s morning docket at Shelby County General Sessions Court.

“Currently, Methodist is in the process of reviewing its collection processes,” R. Alan Pritchard, one of Methodist’s attorneys, told General Sessions Court Judge Deborah M. Henderson.

“You are free to leave,” Henderson told one defendant, who looked puzzled, a purse on her shoulder and a folder full of papers in her hand.

Henderson called the names of other defendants whose cases were on the docket.

Again and again, Pritchard said: “Dropped, please, your honor.”

One of the defendants whose case was dropped is Adrien Johnson, who works for the city of Memphis. Methodist sued him this year for an unpaid hospital bill of more than $900.

Reached by phone, Johnson said he believes the hospital bill was for X-rays he had taken while he was covered by his wife’s insurance. Wednesday was his first court date, and after the hearing, he said he wasn’t clear what the status of his debt was.

“I don’t know what they’re doing,” he said. “I need to find out what’s going on.”

From 2014 through 2018, the hospital system affiliated with the United Methodist Church filed more than 8,300 lawsuits, according to an MLK50-ProPublica analysis of Shelby County General Sessions Court records. That’s more than all but one creditor during that five-year period.

One story by the news organizations chronicled the struggle of Carrie Barrett, who makes $9.05 an hour at Kroger, to pay her 2007 hospital bill for $12,019. The bill has ballooned to more than $33,000 due to interest and attorney’s fees.

Another story detailed how Methodist sues its own employees, some of whom make less than $13 an hour, for unpaid bills related to care delivered at its hospitals. Its health plan doesn’t allow workers to seek care at hospitals with more generous financial assistance policies.

Defendants talked about how the lawsuits upended their lives and left them in a position where they would never be able to pay off their debts, which grew from year to year as interest mounted.

With $2.1 billion in revenue and a health system that includes six hospitals, Methodist leads the market: In 2017, it had the most discharges per year and profits per patient, according to publicly available data analyzed by Definitive Healthcare, an analytics company.

Methodist says it has “a hospital in all four quadrants of the greater Memphis area, unparalleled by any other healthcare provider in our region,” plus more than 150 outpatient centers, clinics and physician practices. The system also said it provides community benefits of more than $226 million annually.

The number of lawsuits Methodist files isn’t out of proportion to its size, at least compared to competitor Baptist Memorial Health Care and Regional One Health, the county’s public hospital. But Methodist stands out in other respects.

Its financial assistance policy, unlike those of many of its peers around the country, all but ignores patients with any form of health insurance, no matter their out-of-pocket costs. If they are unable to afford their bills, patients then face what experts say is rare: A licensed collection agency owned by the hospital.

Also, after the hospital sues and wins a judgment, it repeatedly tries to garnish patients’ wages, which it does in a far higher share of cases than other nonprofit hospitals in Memphis. A court-ordered garnishment requires that the debtor’s employer send to the court 25% of a worker’s after-tax income, minus basic living expenses and a tiny deduction for children under age 15.

Methodist secured garnishment orders in 46% of cases filed from 2014 through 2018, compared with 36% at Regional One and 20% at Baptist, according to an analysis of court records by MLK50.

Methodist’s announcement was welcomed by some local lawmakers.

“Methodist has been such a great community partner throughout Shelby County that I’m glad to hear they’re reviewing their process over the next 30 days,” said Shelby County Commissioner Mickell Lowery, whose district includes Methodist University Hospital.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said: “I was surprised to read about Methodist Le Bonheur’s billing practices, and I’m glad that the company is re-examining them. … I will continue to monitor this situation and look forward to the company’s assessment.”

But the Rev. Anthony Anderson, a United Methodist elder at Faith United Methodist in Memphis, was more reserved.

“I am still heartbroken, and I say that spiritually,” Anderson said. “It breaks my heart to know that a Methodist-related entity, a hospital, would have these types of practices.”

He welcomed the policy review, but only if it leads to the complete erasure of all outstanding patient debt.

“This debt needs to be wiped away,” Anderson said. “That will be the direction I will be pushing towards as a Methodist — that we don’t burden families with these type of financial penalties.”

New data obtained from Shelby County General Sessions Court shows that Methodist has filed more than 600 new lawsuits this year. Its most recent suits were filed on June 21, days before the MLK50-ProPublica stories were published. Its most recent garnishment order was filed on Tuesday.

Wendi C. Thomas is the editor of MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. Email her at wendicthomas@mlk50.com and follow her on Twitter at @wendicthomas.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/03/738638055/memphis-hospitals-suspend-debt-collection-suits-including-suits-against-employee

An anonymous Customs and Border Patrol agent accused their supervisor of joking about “running over” illegal immigrants in an interview with CNN.

The interview aired Wednesday. CNN reporter Nick Valencia spoke with a “veteran agent” who agreed to blow the whistle on abuses in CBP facilities and speak about the culture of the Border Patrol in exchange for staying anonymous.

“He was making fun of [dead migrants],” the anonymous official said. “[He said,] ‘what difference does it make? It’s just another life.'”

“He made a comment also regarding running over illegals, and I’m like, ‘you cannot run over people,'” the agent said.

The agent compared CBP holding facilities for illegal immigrants to a zoo and called the conditions “filthy.”

The agent’s accusations come after the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General released a report detailing poor conditions in crowded holding facilities. Illegal immigrants detained by CBP are held in overcrowded cells with limited access to food, clean water, soap, and clean clothing.

On Monday, ProPublica reported on offensive and derogatory social media posts from a private group of 9,500 people that included current and former CBP agents. Members of the group, named “I’m 10-15” for the CBP code for “aliens in custody,” shared posts joking about dead migrants and calling for others to throw burritos at members of Congress visiting CBP holding facilities.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/anonymous-border-agent-says-supervisor-joked-about-dead-migrants-running-over-illegals

WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration had not dropped its efforts to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census, contradicting statements made by his own officials including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

The U.S. Supreme Court last Thursday blocked Trump’s plan to add the citizenship question, saying administration officials had given a “contrived” rationale.

Administration officials including Ross said on Tuesday that the census forms were being printed without the citizenship question.

Critics have called the citizenship question a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the decennial population count and engineer an undercount in Democratic-leaning areas with high immigrant and Latino populations. That would benefit non-Hispanic whites and help Trump’s fellow Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures, the critics said.

RELATED: Controversy over the 2020 census

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 30: Kevin Smith, Associate Director for Information Technology at the US Census Bureau, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham, Robert Goldenkoff, strategic issues director at the Government Accountability Office and Nicholas Marinos, information technology and cybersecurity director at the GAO, testify before a House Appropriations Subcommittee about preparations for the upcoming 2020 Census, on April 30, 2019 in Washington, DC. The 2020 census has caused controversy as the Trump administration is pushing to include a citizenship question. (Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images)




“The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

White House and Commerce Department officials had no immediate comment on Trump’s tweet.

“There’s nothing fake about the Department of Justice writing us saying printing is starting without the citizenship question,” the American Civil Liberties Union, which had challenged the citizenship question in court, wrote on Twitter.

Trump’s hardline policies on immigration have been a key element of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.

Trump last Thursday also said he is exploring whether the census, which the U.S. Constitution requires be carried out every 10 years, can be delayed.

But Ross, a key figure in the controversy, said in a statement on Tuesday, “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

 

MARYLAND COURT CASE

At the same time, the Justice Department told a judge in Maryland presiding over an ongoing court battle over the citizenship question that the administration had made a final decision not to proceed, according to two lawyers involved in the litigation.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel asked for the administration to submit its declaration in writing by next Monday, according to one of the lawyers. So far, the court docket shows no such filing.

Trump’s administration had told the courts that its rationale for adding the question was to better enforce a law that protects the voting rights of racial minorities. Critics called that rationale a pretext for partisan motives.

Although the Supreme Court left open the possibility of the administration adding the question in the future, there was little time left for officials to come up with a new rationale. The administration had said in court filings that it needed to finalize the details of the questionnaire by the end of June.

The census is used to allot seats in the U.S. House and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. Opponents have said the citizenship question would instill fear in immigrant households that the information would be shared with law enforcement, deterring them from taking part.

Citizenship status has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census. Since then, it was included only on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population.

A group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations challenged the legality of the administration’s plan.

Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on Jan. 15 that the Commerce Department’s decision to add the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also have issued rulings to block the question.

Furman said the evidence showed that Ross had concealed his true motives for adding the citizenship question and that he and his aides had convinced the Justice Department to formally request its addition to the census.

Evidence surfaced in May – documents written by a Republican strategist before he died last year – that those challenging the question said showed the administration’s plan to add a citizenship question was intended to benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic white people in redrawing electoral districts based on census data.

(Reporting by Makini Brice and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/03/trump-denies-wh-retreat-on-census-citizenship-question/23762447/

“We are pleased with the District Attorney’s decision to dismiss the charges against Marshae Jones. It is the appropriate decision, both for our client and for the State of Alabama. This is the outcome we sought this week in our motion to dismiss. We are gratified the District Attorney evaluated the matter and chose not to proceed with a case that was neither reasonable nor just. The District Attorney’s decision will help Marshae continue to heal from this tragic event and work to rebuild her life in a positive and productive way. She moves forward with enormous gratitude for the support she and her family have received during this challenging time. With the dismissal of charges, the community of support that surrounded Marshae can now channel its immense passion and energy toward ensuring that what happened to Marshae won’t ever happen again.”

Source Article from https://www.wbrc.com/2019/07/03/da-dropping-manslaughter-charge-against-marshae-jones/

Justice was served – at long last – when a jury found Navy SEAL Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher not guilty Tuesday of charges including murder and attempted murder in the killing of an ISIS fighter in Iraq.

The verdict proved that even the badly broken military justice can still get things right on occasion.

Gallagher, who heroically risked his life and served his country for 20 years in the Navy, should never have been charged. He spent nine months in prison awaiting his trial and was treated disgracefully by the Navy he so loyally served.

NAVY SEAL EDWARD GALLAGHER FOUND NOT GUILTY ON MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES

Gallagher was found not guilty of charges including premeditated murder, willfully discharging a firearm to endanger human life, retaliation against members of his platoon for reporting his alleged actions, obstruction of justice and the attempted murder of two noncombatants.

The SEAL was convicted of posing for a photo with a casualty – the least serious charge against him. This conviction is punishable by up to four months imprisonment. However, he has already served more time than that awaiting his trial.

The acquittal of Gallagher on all the most serious charges against him shows that not everyone in the United States military justice system has embraced overzealous and unjust prosecutions of members of our military. We should honor the brave Americans in uniform who carry out their duties despite grave danger while they face enemy fighters who want to kill as many Americans as possible.

Gallagher, who heroically risked his life and served his country for 20 years in the Navy, should never have been charged. He spent nine months in prison awaiting his trial and was treated disgracefully by the Navy he so loyally served.

Navy prosecutors and agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) should be ashamed of their treatment not only of Gallagher, but of his family. Who drags minor children out into the streets at gunpoint in the middle of the night, then dismisses it as “standard operating procedure?”

The NCIS, that’s who.

Unfortunately, Gallagher is not the only member of our military unjustly prosecuted for fighting enemy forces.

Another is Army Lt. Clint Lorance, on whose legal defense team I serve. He was unjustly convicted of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder after he ordered his men to fire on two motorcycle-riding Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Yet another military member unjustly prosecuted is former Army Green Beret Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, who is facing trial on a charge of killing a Taliban bombmaker in Afghanistan who was responsible for the deaths of Americans.

All three cases are embarrassing stains on the military justice system.

The decision to charge Gallagher was inexcusable. He should never have been charged with the killing of a mortal enemy of the United States who was a member of ISIS, one of the most radical and deadly jihadist groups on the planet.

ISIS fighters have committed the most gruesome and atrocious acts imaginable – public beheadings, burning people to death in cages, slicing little boys in half, mass terror against Christians and more.

Yet prosecuting our courageous warriors is a recurring anti-American theme that infected the military justice system around 2012 and hasn’t stopped.

Fortunately, the defense team in the Gallagher case did an incredible job of uncovering prosecutorial corruption before the case reached the jury.

Gallagher’s attorneys uncovered deliberate attempts by overzealous Navy prosecutors and NCIS agents to spy on his defense team. This involved an illegal search without a warrant –violating Gallagher’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution – and also threatened his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

In addition, the Navy violated the sacrosanct privacy of the attorney-client privilege. Such misconduct cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

Thankfully, even in the military justice system we adhere to the time-honored American principle that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

At Gallagher’s trial, a young Navy SEAL medic – Special Operator 1st Class Corey Scott – admitted he had cut a breathing tube of the ISIS fighter who Gallagher was accused of killing and said that cutting the breathing tube caused the fighter’s death.

“Did Chief Gallagher kill this terrorist?” Gallagher’s attorney asked Scott at Gallagher’s trial.

“No,” Scott answered.

Then the government’s own pathologist testified that he could find no evidence of a stab wound nor any blood on the dead fighter, nor could he conclude that anything Gallagher did killed the ISIS fighter.

The charges against Gallagher should have been dismissed then, but the trial continued. What a shame.

As an ex-Navy JAG attorney, I’m ashamed of what corrupt Navy prosecutors and NCIS agents did to war hero Gallagher and his family. But I’m proud to say that a clearheaded United States Navy jury put a stop to the insanity, at least in this case.

But without a meaningful overhaul of the military justice system, rogue military prosecutors are still likely to target prominent warfighters like Chief Eddie Gallagher. What a slap in the face to the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country.

President Trump, as commander in chief, should put a stop to this. He can do three things to right the ship. 

First, the president should vacate all charges against Army Lt. Clint Lorance and return him to active duty.

Second, President Trump should immediately end the court-martial against Army Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And finally, the president should convene an advisory committee of former judge advocates with marching orders to find ways to ensure that our warriors are no longer prosecuted for killing the enemy.

Now is the time to act, Mr. President.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY DON BROWN

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/don-brown-not-guilty-verdict-for-navy-seal-gallagher-is-welcome-news-he-shouldnt-have-been-prosecuted

When a 16-year-old New Jersey boy was accused of raping an intoxicated girl, filming the assault and sending the video to his friends, the prosecutors sought to try him as an adult.

But a state Superior Court judge in South Jersey shot down that request in part because, the judge said, the boy “comes from a good family” and is destined “for a good college.”

Now a state appeals court has overturned the decision and warned the judge against showing leniency to juveniles of privilege, raising the question of what such judicial reasoning would mean for “juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores.”

Prosecutors can now seek an indictment on charges they choose to pursue against the teen, who would be tried as an adult. Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni said in a statement released Wednesday that he was “grateful” for the appeals court decision, and “assessing our next steps, which will include discussions with the victim and her family.”

The suspect, identified in court papers only as G.M.C., in 2017 filmed himself with a girl, “Mary,” who was also 16 at the time, in a closed-off, dark basement and then sent the clip to friends with a text: “[w]hen your first time having sex was rape,” according to the appeals court ruling.

Mary and G.M.C. were at a “pajama-themed” party, and both teens were drunk when G.M.C. allegedly led her to a basement sofa, according to the ruling by the appeals court. “Her speech was slurred, and she stumbled as she walked,” the ruling said.

“While on the sofa, a group of boys sprayed Febreze on Mary’s bottom and slapped it with such force that the following day she had hand marks on her buttocks,” the ruling said.

G.M.C. then penetrated Mary from behind in a home-gym portion of the basement. In the video he sent to seven friends, her torso is exposed, and her head is hanging down. One of the friends said that the video showed Mary’s head hitting the wall repeatedly.

Prosecutors said that during the assault, the door to the gym was blocked by a foosball table, and the lights were off.

“[G.M.C.’s] conduct as it relates to the charged offenses was both sophisticated and predatory. He was aware of the off-limits areas in advance of the party,” prosecutors said, adding that “filming a cellphone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement.”

Following the alleged assault, others at the party checked on Mary and found her on the floor vomiting.

She was driven home by a friend’s mother, and told her mother the next morning that she feared “sexual things had happened at the party,” the appeals court ruling said. “She did not understand how she could have gotten bruise marks on her body or how her clothing had torn.”

She then learned that G.M.C. was sending the video of the assault to his friends, and asked him to stop. When he didn’t, her family pressed charges.

Prosecutors in New Jersey can seek to send a juvenile case to adult court for serious crimes, including sexual assault, if the accused is 15 or older.

If Judge James Troiano, serving in the family court division, had decided to charge G.M.C. as an adult, as the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office requested, the teen would have faced counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and two counts of third-degree invasion of privacy. He would have had to register as a sex offender.

But in a July 30, 2018, decision, Troiano, who is now 69, denied the prosecutors’ request.

The “young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well. He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high,” the judge said, noting also that G.M.C. was an Eagle Scout.

Troiano also “expressed concern that the prosecutor did not indicate … that she had explained to Mary and her mother the devastating effect” adult charges would have on G.M.C.’s life, the appeals court ruling said.

The judge said he questioned Mary’s claimed state of intoxication at the time of the assault.

“Some people would argue that, you know … how could she possibly have gotten as drunk as she says she was?” the judge asked. “That’s really not important. I think it’s an issue here, whether or not this young lady was intoxicated to the point that she didn’t understand what was going on.”

And he wondered whether G.M.C.’s actions could be classified as a rape, saying he distinguishes between sexual assault and rape.

“In my mind,” Troiano said, a rape is “where there were generally two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person into … an area where … there was nobody around, sometime in an abandon[ed] house, sometimes in an abandon[ed] shed, shack, and just simply taking advantage of the person as well as beating the person, threatening the person.”

Troiano added that G.M.C.’s text calling the encounter a rape was “to me, just a 16-year-old boy saying stupid crap to his friends.”

“[D]o I believe that it shows in any way a calculation or cruelty on his part or sophistication or a predatory nature? No, I do not,” Troiano said.

But the appeals court said prosecutors at least proved that “the delinquent act in question, if committed by an adult in this case, would have been aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault,” which would allow for the case to go to adult court.

“Rather than focusing on whether the prosecutor’s consideration of the statutory factors supported the application, the judge decided the case for himself,” the appeals court decision said.

“That the juvenile came from a good family and had good test scores we assume would not” spare “the juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores” from adult court, the ruling said.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who is running for president, weighed in on the decision Wednesday. “I don’t care what kind of family you’re from — sexual assault is never acceptable,” she wrote on Twitter. “Stop making excuses for perpetrators and start standing up for those who’ve been violated.”

“Our kids don’t need to be coddled. They need to be taught not to rape,” she said.

Anna Martinez, the acting director of New Jersey’s Division on Women, also rebuked the judge’s decision.

The “‘boys being boys’ mentality that excuses incredibly heinous crimes and treats offenders to a slap on the wrist, rather than true accountability” is “unconscionable,” Martinez said in a statement. “When it comes from a sitting member of the judiciary, it’s inconceivable.”

“Dismissing these traumas with platitudes for an offender’s academic record, rather than in the interest of justice for the victims, is reprehensible,” she added.

G.M.C.’s attorney, Mitchell J. Ansell, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Three days after the ruling on Troiano’s decision, the New Jersey appeals court reversed a decision by another state family court judge, Marcia Silva of Middlesex County, against having a 16-year-old accused of raping a 12-year-old charged in adult court.

Silva argued that the alleged victim and the 16-year-old were the only witnesses, and “there is little, if any, tangible evidence.”

“The judge went on to say that even if this 12-year-old’s statement was true, the offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense,” the appeals court said.

“Beyond losing her virginity,” Silva said of the 12-year-old, prosecutors did not claim that she “suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional.”

But the appeals court ruled that the 16-year-old was culpable, even if the victim had not said “no” — as prosecutors said she had — because she was 12 at the time of the alleged assault.

“It was not the judge’s role to essentially try the matter or substitute her judgment for that of the prosecutor,” the appeals court said in the decision.

Peter McAleer, the director of communications and community relations for New Jersey Courts, said neither Troiano or Silva were commenting on the cases. He said Troiano is retired, but still serves periodically.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/n-j-judge-spared-teen-rape-suspect-because-he-came-n1026111

Image copyright
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Image caption

Tanks are prepared for Mr Trump’s 4 July military parade

The US military has told Washington DC residents not to panic if they see tanks on the streets for President Donald Trump’s Independence Day parade.

At least two Bradley armoured carriers and two M1A1 Abrams Tanks will be moved to the heart of the US capital for the president’s “Salute to America”.

The National Park Service will reportedly divert nearly $2.5m (£2m) to cover the cost of the event.

Mr Trump tweeted his 4 July celebration will be “the show of a lifetime.”

As well as tanks, the event will feature a military jet flyover, an extended fireworks show and speech by the president at the Lincoln Memorial.

Mr Trump invited the leadership of the Department of Defense to celebrate alongside him on Thursday.

The president will be joined by top brass, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, the highest-ranking US military officer.

But the weather forecast is threatening to rain on Mr Trump’s parade. Afternoon and evening thunderstorms are predicted for Thursday.

Army Col Sunset Belinsky told a local CBS News affiliate: “Residents of the Capitol City will see the vehicles move through their neighbourhoods, but should not panic.”

The tanks were moved from a railyard in south-eastern Washington DC on Tuesday evening.

Col Belinsky did not disclose where the tanks would be displayed on the National Mall in the city centre.

Image copyright
Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images

Image caption

A visitor stands in front of temporary fencing along the National Mall as set up continues for Mr Trump’s “Salute to America”

Mr Trump’s Independence Day plans have divided opinion.

Critics of the president see it as an inappropriately partisan display and a misuse of public funds.

The National Park Service is diverting a portion of entrance and recreation fees intended to improve parks across the US in order to foot the bill for the parade, reports the Washington Post.

In previous years, the 4 July celebration on the National Mall has typically cost the agency about $2m, according to the newspaper.

The diverted funds are just a small fraction of the National Park Service’s $2bn plus budget.

But the agency complained in March that it is facing almost $12bn in backlogged maintenance and repair needs – exacerbated by the US government shutdown at the beginning of this year.

Trump administration officials have not disclosed how much taxpayers’ money will be used for the 4 July celebration. Military flyovers alone cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour.

Mr Trump said in a tweet that the expense “will be very little compared to what it is worth”.

On Monday, the National Park Service issued a permit to feminist group Code Pink, allowing them to display an inflatable balloon depicting Mr Trump as a baby on a section of the National Mall on 4 July to protest against the “militarisation” of the US holiday.

“We requested a space on the large, empty expanse at the base of the Washington Monument that would not have obstructed anyone’s view but would have allowed the president to see the baby,” said the group in a statement.

But organisers were denied permission to use helium for the balloon to make it airborne.

Image copyright
Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Image caption

The president and first lady at last year’s 4 July celebration

Reports that the White House has distributed VIP tickets to major donors and political appointees have stoked accusations that the event will be partisan rather than patriotic.

The Democratic National Committee has been given no tickets for the event.

This week, Mr Trump’s re-election campaign reportedly sent out an email to some of its donors in the Washington area, encouraging supporters to attend the event.

Both the Republican National Committee and Mr Trump’s campaign confirmed to US media they had received passes to hand out.

The Department of Defence said in a statement it had received 5,000 tickets from the White House.

It is unclear whether those without a ticket will be permitted into an area protected by Secret Service as the president delivers his speech.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48856990

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” took a look back Wednesday at the many Democrats who blasted President Trump for what they insisted was a “manufactured crisis” at the southern border.

The talking point was often repeated by Democrats throughout the year, particularly when Trump sought funding for a border wall in an address to the nation from the Oval Office in January.

In their joint response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., both accused Trump of trying to “manufacture” a crisis.

“Fox & Friends” showed numerous clips of other Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, making similar arguments. The accusation was repeated by many in the mainstream media, including CNN’s Don Lemon, who said Trump was “determined to convince you there is a crisis at the border.”

ATTKISSON: REALITY AT US SOUTHERN BORDER CLASHES WITH MEDIA’S PARTISAN NARRATIVE

OCASIO-CORTEZ REPEATS ‘CONCENTRATION CAMP’ COMPARISON, DESPITE CRITICISM OVER REMARK

“How quickly they’ve changed their tune,” Ainsley Earhardt remarked, pointing to recent statements by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about the dire situation at the border.

Hosts Brian Kilmeade and Griff Jenkins, who have both reported from the border this year, noted that the Border Patrol and other government officials have been pleading for help from Congress for months.

“From the California governor?! He should just resign at this point, to say that it’s a manufactured crisis at his border,” said Kilmeade.

Jenkins argued the crisis was not manufactured by the president, but by the “inaction of Congress to reform the asylum laws,” as border officials insisted should be done.

The DHS secretary under Barack Obama, meanwhile, is pushing back on Democrats’ drive to decriminalize border crossings, saying such a move would be tantamount to “open borders” policy and will lead to hundreds of thousands more people flooding into the U.S. every month.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” Jeh Johnson told The Washington Post.

“That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-friends-looks-back-on-dems-claims-of-manufactured-border-crisis-how-quickly-theyve-changed-their-tune

After months of relative stability, the Democratic presidential race could be in the midst of its first major shake-up.

Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are on the rise — while former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who have been in first and second place for most of the year, have seen their positions worsen in recent polls.

To be clear: Biden remains the leader in every recent poll. But the size of that lead on average is no longer as impressive as it’s been — and in a few polls, it’s gotten quite small indeed, raising questions about just how solid the frontrunner’s position is.

Sanders, meanwhile, has lost his position as the one major alternative to Biden. The Vermont senator’s support level in polls has dropped significantly since the early months of the year and has remained stagnant for the past two months while Warren and Harris have surged. On average, that trio of candidates is now about tied for second place.

The only other candidate to escape the bottom tier in polls so far has been South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But Buttigieg has declined a bit of late, as he deals with a police shooting back at home and more support has gone to Warren and Harris. While both senators now enjoy double-digit support, the mayor is stuck in the single digits in most recent polls. The other 20 candidates have failed to gain any traction.

Seven long months remain until the Iowa caucuses. The big question for the race right now, though, is whether this post-debate slump is a temporary setback for Biden — or whether it’s the start of his campaign’s collapse.

It’s now clear: Biden is a weak frontrunner

For a few short weeks after Biden officially entered the presidential race on April 25, it looked like he could easily put this whole thing away.

Since then, he has been in first place in every single national and early-state poll. He leads in Iowa. He leads in New Hampshire. He leads in South Carolina. And he leads among voters of all races and ethnicities.

All of this is in fact still true, even after the first debate. But there have long been doubts within the party about Biden’s campaign — about whether he had grown out of touch with a changing Democratic electorate, about his longtime tendency to speak in a way that causes problems for him, and about his age and his ability to withstand the rigors of the election trail. Accordingly, as measured by endorsements, Biden’s support within the party hasn’t been resounding.

The first debate exacerbated all those doubts, particularly when Harris criticized Biden for his position on busing. But it’s the post-debate polls that should really set off alarm bells in Biden-world. On average, Biden is at 27 percent nationally, per RealClearPolitics. Even before the debate, he’d declined 9 points from his commanding-looking 41 percent peak. In the few days after it, he’s fallen another 5 points.

And though some polls continued to show Biden leading his next-closest rival by double digits, a CNN national poll showed him ahead of Harris by just 5, and a Quinnipiac poll showed him ahead of her by just 2. So the race has gotten closer.

Another worrying sign for Biden is that Harris appears to have gained ground among black voters. While black voters are a key Democratic constituency broadly, they are particularly important in the early primary state of South Carolina, where they make up more than 60 percent of the primary electorate. Biden has consistently led among black voters by wide margins in polls, but Quinnipiac showed Harris just 4 points behind him.

The takeaway overall is that Biden remains a frontrunner, but a weak one. The first debate showed he is not rock-solid — far from it. The scenario where he wins everything in a cakewalk now seems far less likely. Just how much trouble he’s in will be determined in the coming weeks, as we see whether he can stanch his bleeding of support.

Bernie Sanders’s support actually dropped two months ago

Another candidate having a tough time of late is Bernie Sanders.

The 2016 runner-up had long seemed a natural contender for the nomination this time around, and his call for a “political revolution” made a sharp contrast to Biden’s more establishment-friendly campaign.

In the more crowded field this time around, Sanders’s position in polls has never been fantastic — especially considering he is so well-known — but it was decent. He spent the first four months or so of the year in second place behind Biden. And through mid-March, his support was trending slowly upward, eventually reaching 24 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.

But soon afterward, Sanders’s support stopped improving. And as you can see below, in late April it dropped rather dramatically:


RealClearPolitics

Interestingly, most of Sanders’s decline was not around the time of Warren and Harris’s rise, but rather before that — around the time of Biden’s announcement and large polling bump.

As mentioned above, this announcement bump for Biden has since eroded, so we might have expected Sanders’s polling position to recover too.

But it hasn’t. Sanders has remained stuck in the mid- to high teens in national polls (whereas his mid-March peak was at 24 percent). Biden’s recent woes have benefited not Sanders but instead Warren and now Harris. And since Sanders hasn’t grown his support, he’s now battling with those two for second place.

Overall, it does seem that Sanders’s campaign has underperformed expectations for someone who got more than 40 percent of the overall Democratic primary vote in 2016. In retrospect, it seems that a significant portion of Sanders’s support was due to the dynamics of that race (a head-to-head contest where he was the only alternative to Hillary Clinton). This time around, there are other options.

Sanders’s policy and political agenda is also less distinctive than it was in 2016 — his marquee policies like Medicare-for-all and free college have been embraced by other contenders, and Warren’s candidacy is also focused on challenging the power of corporations and billionaires (though they have their differences). So while Sanders remains a top-tier contender and shouldn’t be counted out, this surely isn’t where he’d hoped to be at this point in the race.

Both Warren and Harris have risen — but Harris’s rise may be more dangerous to Biden

Finally, after months in which the race could basically be summarized as “Biden, Sanders, and the rest,” two other contenders have clearly joined the top tier: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Warren was commonly speculated about as a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton from the left in the 2016 cycle, but she ended up deciding not to run. This time around, once she got in, her rollout of a DNA test aimed at proving she was in fact part Native American was widely panned. She started off at an unimpressive position in the polls and had some difficulties fundraising, and pundit after pundit declared she was underperforming.

But Warren continued to campaign hard — with a strategy focused on releasing oh-so-many detailed policy plans, with the result that her sheer number of plans became a running joke. And many Democratic voters turned out to like what they were hearing from her.

By May, Warren had risen to third place on average but still tended to poll in the single digits. But she’s kept on improving through June, and passed Sanders to get second place in a few polls taken in the weeks before the debate.

After that debate, she seems to have maintained her position — but Harris shot up to join her and Sanders at around the 15 percent support level. There hasn’t been much early-state polling lately, but a few Iowa polls have similarly shown first Warren rising and then Harris.

Particularly interesting is Harris’s improving support among both black voters — again, Quinnipiac shows her getting 27 percent there, just 4 points behind Biden, a major change. Strong margins among black voters were crucial to both Barack Obama’s 2008 victory over Clinton and Clinton’s 2016 win over Sanders — and could be key to Biden’s defeat.

“At the moment, Harris is putting together an Obama/Clinton like coalition of white college grads + African-Americans,” CNN’s Harry Enten tweeted. And that may be a more troubling development for Biden than the surge of disproportionately white voters toward Warren and Buttigieg. This makes Harris a serious threat to the frontrunner indeed.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20679930/2020-presidential-election-polls-harris-biden-warren-sanders

Just in time for the Fourth of July, Nike and washed-up footballer Colin Kaepernick have joined forces in an America-bashing cavalcade. The enormous sportswear company planned to release a new red, white, and blue sneaker adorned with American Revolutionary Betsy Ross’ 13-star flag, this country’s first banner.

However, Kaepernick complained to Nike that this all-American symbol is – what else? – racist. “After images of the shoe were posted online, Mr. Kaepernick, a Nike endorser, reached out to company officials saying that he and others felt the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

So, Nike decided that they could not just do it. They scrapped the new product and, in turn, igniting a fresh national controversy.

NIKE DROPPED BETSY ROSS-THEMED FOURTH OF JULY SNEAKER AFTER COLIN KAEPERNICK COMPLAINED, REPORT SAYS

For starters, why is anyone listening to this creep?

Kaepernick is one of the most divisive people in this country. He started the “take-a-knee” movement that had Americans shouting at each other for perhaps 18 months or more. Rather than set aside our differences and unify ourselves through “The Star-Spangled Banner,” he chose to pit Americans against each other over one of the few things that hold us together.

Shame on him!

This punk has not played football since 2016. And he didn’t distinguish himself much, at that. I know nothing about football, and the less I learn about it, the better. What I do know is, rather than play ball, he created massive migraines for the entire NFL. When he got other players to take to their knees during the national anthem before games, he sent ratings into a tailspin as revolted fans clicked off their HDTVs. No wonder team owners dodged him like the measles.

If this bum has a problem with Betsy Ross’ 13-star flag and the original 13 colonies, then, as Brian Kilmeade observed Tuesday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Kaepernick has a problem with today’s American flag. It has 13 stripes, which also represent our original 13 colonies and the first 13 American states. So, Kaepernick’s fight is with any and every American flag created since 1776.

Disgusting!

As for Nike, shame on this corporate giant for caving into this loudmouth. Nike should have ignored Kaepernick and sold these shoes to the millions of Americans who love this country, rather than knuckle under to the rants of this solitary anti-American, tattoo-encrusted loser.

The only person to escape favorably from this needless mess is Gov. Doug Ducey, R-Ariz.

“Words cannot express my disappointment at this terrible decision,” Ducey said today via Twitter. ”I am embarrassed for Nike. Nike is an iconic American brand and American company. This country, our system of government and free enterprise have allowed them to prosper and flourish.”

“Instead of celebrating American history the week of our nation’s independence, Nike has apparently decided that Betsy Ross is unworthy, and has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism,” Ducey added. “It is a shameful retreat for the company. American businesses should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.”

“Nike has made its decision, and now we’re making ours,” Ducey continued. “I’ve ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority to withdraw all financial incentive dollars under their discretion that the State was providing for the company to locate here.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Ducey concluded: “Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike. We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history…And finally, it shouldn’t take a controversy over a shoe for our kids to know who Betsy Ross is. A founding mother. Her story should be taught in all American schools. In the meantime, it’s worth googling her.”

Down with Kaepernick! Up with Ducey!

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY DEROY MURDOCK

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/deroy-murdock-nike-steps-on-its-own-shoelaces-in-latest-kaepernick-fiasco

Taken alone, that step does little to bring Iran closer to the potential development of a nuclear weapon. And the stockpile could easily be reduced to compliance by shipping the excess abroad. But the violation of the 2015 agreement nonetheless served as a warning that the pact itself was in imminent danger.

In response, top diplomats from the European Union, Britain, France and Germany released a statement on Tuesday warning that they were “extremely concerned” and that “our commitment to the nuclear deal depends on full compliance with Iran.“

“We are urgently considering next steps” under the terms of the 2015 agreement, the Europeans said, though they did not elaborate.

Mr. Rouhani’s statement on Wednesday appeared to rebuff those warnings, setting the stage for Iran to resume production of more highly enriched uranium.

The Iranians have said they are trying to preserve the nuclear deal, but they have expressed increasing impatience with the Europeans’ requests that Tehran abide by the 2015 agreement — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or J.C.P.O.A., — long after the Trump administration stamped it a dead letter.

“Iran is committed to the full implementation of the #JCPOA: as long as E3/EU implement THEIR economic commitments,” Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif, wrote on Twitter late Tuesday night, referring to the European Union and its three signatories to the deal, Britain, France and Germany.

“So moving forward, Iran will comply with its commitments under the JCPOA in exactly the same manner as the EU/E3 have — and will — comply with theirs,” Mr. Zarif added. “Fair enough? “

.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/world/middleeast/iran-uranium-enrichment-rouhani.html

President Donald Trump on Wednesday branded as “fake” news reports his administration was dropping plans to ask people if they are U.S. citizens on the 2020 census — despite officials in his own administration having said on Monday that the question will not be asked. 

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and a Justice Department lawyer had both said Monday that the Census Bureau is in the process of printing the census questionnaire without the citizenship question.

Their statements came four days after a Supreme Court decision that effectively blocked the question being added to the 2020 census questionnaire.

The high court ordered the case challenging the question to be reconsidered by a lower court, leaving the Commerce Department with little or no time to have the dispute settled legally before this past Monday’s deadline for printing the questionnaires.

But Trump, in a tweet Wednesday, said, “The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE!”

“We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s use of the word “quest” echoed its use by The New York Times on Tuesday in its lead paragraph of a story that said the Trump administration, “in a dramatic about-face, abandoned its question to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.”

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to CNBC’s query as to wherther the census form will ask the citizenship question.

A Census Bureau spokesman referred questions about the president’s tweet to the Commerce Department, which did not immediate respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration’s plan to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census had been controversial since it was first announced in March 2018. In addition to that question, the Census Bureau at the time said that respondents would be asked how many people live in their residences, and those persons’ ages, sexes, Hispanic origin, race, relationship and homeownership status.

Critics of the citizenship question say it would reduce the census’s accuracy, and undercount minority populations, including immigrants.

An undercount of those groups in turn could affect the allocation of billions of dollars worth of federal funds, whose distribution often is related to census data. An undercount also could affect how district seats in the House of Representatives are drawn.

A citizenship question has not been posed to all U.S. households in decades.

On Tuesday, Ross, in a statement had said, “I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.”

“The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census,” Ross said.

Also Tuesday, a Department of Justice lawyer, in an email to legal challengers of the citizenship question, wrote, “”We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process.”

Democrats had celebrated that day the Trump administration’s apparent decision to abandon the controversial question for the upcoming census.

“Today’s decision is a welcome development for our democracy,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at the time.

“House Democrats will be vigilant to ensure a full, fair and accurate Census.”

A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for a statement on Trump’s tweet

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. on Wednesday cited the Justice Department lawyer’s statement in a tart response to Trump’s new tweet.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/03/trump-says-absolutely-moving-forward-with-census-citizenship-question.html


AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Analysis

Other presidents have celebrated the Fourth. It’s hard to think of one who has less sense of what it’s about.

July 03, 2019

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

Since President Donald Trump announced his proposal for a military display and presidential speech on the National Mall, Trump’s critics across the political spectrum, have reached a consensus: The president’s intrusion into Independence Day is a hijacking. New York Times columnist Michelle Cottle complains that Trump is “trampling a longstanding tradition of keeping these events nonpartisan — apolitical even — and focused on bringing the nation together.” The same sentiment came from the Washington Post’s editorial page, and from conservative Trump skeptics like radio host Charlie Sykes and former GOP Congressman David Jolly.

It’s true that the president has upended many of the traditions of the celebration; the location of the fireworks have been moved; the president has demanded a heavy military presence, including tanks in the streets of Washington, and he plans to deliver a speech in front of a crowd where the choicest locations will be reserved for ticket holders, a feature somewhat at odds with Trump’s rhetorical scorn for the elites and D.C. insiders.

Story Continued Below

By one measure, the criticism is overwrought. There have been presidents who’ve appeared during celebrations at the Capitol, most recently Harry Truman in 1951. President Richard Nixon offered up a videotaped speech aired on the Mall in 1970; other presidents, including Calvin Coolidge and John Kennedy, traveled to Philadelphia’s Independence Hall to mark the occasion. (If you want one measure of how far we have traveled since JFK’s time, note that he devoted much of his speech to celebrating the emerging European Union: “The United States looks on this vast new enterprise with hope and admiration,” JFK said “We do not regard a strong and united Europe as a rival but as a partner.”)

As for the parade—well, if Trump wants military armored vehicles to accompany the flyover by the Navy’s Blue Angels, stealth fighters and Air Force One, maybe he’s just trying to emulate Thomas Jefferson, who watched a military parade from the White House back in 1801, rather than the celebrations of military might more common to Moscow and Pyongyang.

And if Trump takes the opportunity to play politics with the speech, something he can rarely resist, it’s worth keeping in mind that political parties have been using the Fourth of July celebrations as platforms ever since our first parties, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, began holding separate Independence Day events in several locations back in the 1790s.

Celebrations of the Fourth do not tend to benefit both parties equally, and here, Trump may well be demonstrating his instinctive grasp of which way a big event tends to nudge the populace. In 2011, two academics who studied the political effect of Fourth of July festivities concluded that: “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party. … The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century, [so] there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican Party.”

So, yes, there’s been plenty of ground laid for the kind of thing Trump plans to do.

For all that, history also suggests there’s good reason that his plan is rubbing people the wrong way. For one, it really is rare; it’s far more common for presidents to vacate Washington on the Fourth of July, or to remain at the White House, than to insert themselves into the proceedings.

And on a more troubling level, what Trump is doing is wreathing himself in the most potent symbols of American history—delivering a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, site of the 1963 March on Washington, looking across at a landscape of monuments—without any appreciation for the history that made that whole landscape possible. Perhaps uniquely among American presidents, he sees himself without any connection to the American story, any link to presidents past, other than his manifest superiority to any of them.

Someone who can say of himself that he has been treated worse than any president in history—four of whom were assassinated—has an impressively unique understanding of his own role in the American story, to say the least. He has rarely if ever reached back to his predecessors to find any kind of meaningful historical connection, especially the kind that would reach across lines of party and ideology to find common national ground on a day like the Fourth. Kennedy often reached back to the first generation of American political leaders; Ronald Reagan quoted FDR and JFK in many of his addresses.

Trump prefers to think of himself as the lone, overarching figure who can bend history to his will. “I alone can fix it,” he said in his 2016 acceptance speech. Neither that speech, nor his inaugural, invoked the name of any past leader. He appears to believe that the American economy turned 180 degrees on the day of his inauguration, rather than moving on the same upward trajectory it had been on for the better part of a decade. Nor is he bound by the restraints that have guided his predecessors in understanding when partisan politics ought to give way to more unifying themes.

This is, after all, a president who went to a CIA commemoration of its fallen agents and bragged (falsely) about the size of his inaugural audience and the number of times he appeared on the cover of Time magazine. This is the president who has repeatedly made blatantly political arguments in speeches to different branches of the military, when his long line of predecessors as commander in chief all somehow managed to observe the bright line between national leadership and partisan brawling.

There’s also a more personal dimension to the Trumpification of the Fourth. Throughout his presidency, he has taken outsize delight in over-the-top celebrations and honors given him by foreign governments, a delight that seems to translate into bizarre foreign policies. Receive the Gold Medallion from Saudi Arabia, and you brush aside the kingdom’s murder and dismemberment of an American resident. Enjoy lavish banquets in China, and the brutal crackdown on a million Uighurs goes unmentioned. Get a “beautiful letter” from Kim Jong Un and maybe North Korea can keep its nukes. (And would you really be totally shocked if Kim showed up at the White House to help Trump celebrate the Fourth?)

Trump has been obsessed by the idea of a massive military parade ever since attending the Bastille Day celebration in Paris two years ago, first ordering up a Veterans Day parade for 2018 that was canceled only after the price tag proved embarrassingly high. For someone who literally cannot grasp the possibility that more people voted for his opponent than him, or that fewer people came to his inaugural than his predecessor’s, it is not much of a reach to imagine that in the president’s mind he will see the flyovers and the fireworks as a nation paying tribute to the greatness of a man, rather than the other way around.

It is true that, on some public occasions, Trump has been able to subordinate this vanity to a sense of occasion, at least in his literal words. His speech in Normandy at the 75th anniversary of D-Day was an unexceptionable tribute to the men who stormed the beaches, although a different White House might have thought better of staging an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in front of a graveyard filled with the bodies of those men. He has delivered State of the Union speeches without describing Democrats in the House chamber as treasonous, or the media in the press sections as enemies of the people.

What remains unsettling, however, is the thoroughly reasonable conviction that when the president delivers such homilies, he has no real connection to those words. At any moment, it’s plausible to expect that the id will drive the superego from the podium, and the explosion of grievance, self-pity and rage will erupt—dominating a day that has in recent times been free of political division.

To be fair, however, that would not be the worst result of a presidential Fourth. Back in 1845, President James Polk presided over a fireworks display at the White House. During the festivities, 12 rockets were accidentally fired into the crowd, and two people were killed. If the worst thing that happens tomorrow is just a speech, we can be thankful for small favors.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/03/fourth-of-july-donald-trump-military-display-national-mall-227263