Recently Added Videos

Rep. Ilhan Omar is “off her rocker” and her fellow member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a “joke” who will be seen “ultimately as an asterisk” in history, according to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Omar, D-Minn. is facing fierce backlash after a speech at a Muslim rights group’s event in which she described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as “some people did something.”

Speaking on the Brian Kilmeade Show on Fox News Radio, Christie, who initially thought his wife was in the Twin Towers on the day of the attacks, said: “As somebody who had my wife two blocks away from the World Trade Center that day, my brother on the floor of the New York Stock exchange, and a number of people in our local parish here who passed away, a murder occurred.

AOC, RASHIDA TLAIB LEAP TO DEFENSE OF ILHAN OMAR AFTER HER ‘SOME PEOPLE DID SOMETHING’ 9/11 REMARKS

“Multiple murders occurred, 2,900 murders occurred on that day by radical Islamic terrorists and that’s the way it should always be spoken about to honor those victims and this woman is completely – let’s put aside her religion for the moment – as a public servant, she’s off her rocker to be describing it that way and it’s a disgrace, it’s a disgrace to anyone in her congressional district who voted for her.”

On fellow freshman Democrat Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who leapt to Omar’s defense, Christie dismissed her as nothing more than a flash in the pan.

“This is the problem with people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They like to talk a lot, but they don’t want to be held responsible for anything they say, and the fact is that to diminish the attacks on 9/11, the greatest attack ever perpetrated on this country, on our soil from a terrorist organization, is to demean the lives that were lost that day, both among those who were in those buildings and on those planes, and those who lost their lives trying to save them.

ILHAN OMAR, IN BIZARRE CLIP, JOKES ABOUT PEOPLE SAYING ‘AL QAEDA’ IN MENACING TONE

“What she should do is apologize, and be done with it, because there’s no justifying it, and listen, part of it too Brian, is I’m so tired of hearing ‘AOC’ as she’s called, being given airtime in this country. She’s a joke.

“She got elected because a member of Congress [Joe Crowley] went to sleep and never went back to his district and was too busy running for speaker rather than running to keep his congressional seat and I think she will be seen ultimately as an asterisk in history because I can’t imagine she will stay all that long.

Omar told a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraiser earlier this week: “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

CAIR was actually founded in 1994.

Her comments have drawn ire from the likes of Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, and the New York Post, which published a dramatic front page Thursday with an infamous photo of New York City’s Twin Towers on fire on the day of the attacks.

ROD ROSENSTEIN SAYS IT’S ‘COMPLETELY BIZARRE’ TO SAY WILLIAM BARR IS ‘TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE’ ON MUELLER REPORT

The page read: “Here’s your something: 2,977 people dead by terrorism.”

Christie also offered his thoughts about Julian Assange, calling him a “villain”

“In the end, I think Assange is a criminal and I think that’s what’s going to be proven when he’s brought to an American courtroom,” he told Brian Kilmeade.

And on Bill Barr’s testimony earlier this week, and James Comey’s subsequent comments attempting to dismiss it, he said: “Jim has completely taken leave of his senses and to try to defend the indefensible, which goes all the way back to his conduct and what he said about Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016, the letter he wrote in the fall of 2016, Jim is still trying to defend the indefensible.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“How is electronic surveillance not spying? You’re in a covert way, gathering information from someone who doesn’t know you’re doing it. Sounds like spying to me. Now it may be legal, and may have been justified and AG may look at this and say, you know what, under all the circumstances I think opening the counter-intelligence investigation was legally justified.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chris-christie-ilhan-omar-is-off-her-rocker-aoc-is-a-joke-should-apologize-for-9-11-comments

How much of the current mess would have happened without Trump is unknowable. But, by his own standard, he deserves all the blame, because he took all the credit for a decline in border crossings in 2017. “We’ve already cut illegal immigration at the southern border by 61%,” he said in early 2017, one of many such boasts. “You know, the border is down 78%. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down — it went up,” he boasted that summer.

Source Article from https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/04/11/dana-milbank-border-trump/

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) remain at the top of the latest early state primary polls, but lately, they’ve been accompanied by a new candidate in the third-place spot: Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

The two most recent Iowa polls and the most recent New Hampshire poll all show Buttigieg in third place — still several points behind Biden and Sanders, but a point or two ahead of any other Democratic contender.

It’s not that Buttigieg has totally separated himself from the rest of the pack, since Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) are just a couple points behind him in all of these polls. But it’s worth noting when a candidate suddenly goes from regularly polling at zero to 1 percent to placing third in a very large field.

Those three recent polls are:

Whether Buttigieg will manage to retain this position or grow his support further is of course unclear at this point, but we now have three polls suggesting he’s struck a chord with some Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire in a way that most of the many other Democratic candidates who have jumped into the race have not.

In fundraising too, Buttigieg has done surprisingly well. His campaign said he raised $7 million in the first quarter of this year, the fourth-best in the field (behind Sanders, Harris, and Beto O’Rourke — Biden hasn’t begun fundraising yet). This was spurred, Buttigieg recently told Vox’s Ezra Klein, by his appearance at a CNN town hall on March 10.

Lots of people still have no idea who Pete Buttigieg is

Just one month ago, Buttigieg was a complete unknown. Many pollsters hadn’t even bothered to include him as an option in polls. But when they did, the South Bend mayor never topped 1 percent in any national, Iowa, or New Hampshire poll tracked by RealClearPolitics.

Indeed, Buttigieg is still relatively little known. Monmouth’s new poll found that 46 percent of Iowa Democratic voters didn’t yet have an opinion (either favorable or unfavorable) about Buttigieg. In comparison, almost every Democratic voter has an opinion on Biden, Sanders, and Warren, while 70 percent or more have an opinion of Harris, O’Rourke, and Booker.


These are the best-known contenders — click here to see the favorability ratings for the full field.
Monmouth

You could argue that this is a promising sign for Buttigieg, since many Democrats seem to have barely heard of him at this point, but a significant number who have heard of him in these early states say they’ll vote for him. Alternatively, one could argue that he’s a new face and that his appeal will wear off as he faces attacks and criticism.

Early states matter

In national polls, Buttigieg still hasn’t gotten as much of a bump. He’s no longer down at 1 percent, but Harris, Warren, O’Rourke, and Cory Booker have tended to still be ahead of him in recent polls.

While national Democratic primary polls are most common and tend to get the most attention, there is of course no “national Democratic primary” election day. Instead, the first contests will be in Iowa (currently scheduled for February 3, 2020) and New Hampshire (currently scheduled for February 11, 2020).

These contests tend to drive out poorly performing contenders and win increased attention and credibility for those who do well. For instance, both Barack Obama and John McCain spent all of 2007 trailing in national polls, but Obama’s Iowa win and McCain’s New Hampshire win in January 2008 shook up their respective races, and each eventually became the nominee. So the dynamics in these early states are worth watching closely.

In any case, it’s still incredibly early, with those first 2020 contests just under 10 months away. There haven’t yet been any debates, the race hasn’t gotten really nasty, and the poll leader Joe Biden hasn’t even officially begun his campaign. But Buttigieg has clearly had the best first quarter of any lesser-known candidate.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/12/18307668/buttigieg-mayor-pete-polls-democratic-primary-2020

Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who is running for president as a Democrat, quickly joined Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

“Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we,” he tweeted. “The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.”

In a series of tweets, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., a Democratic presidential candidate and a veteran who served in Afghanistan, also criticized Mr. Trump.

“After 9/11 we all said we were changed. That we were stronger and more united,” he tweeted. “That’s what ‘never forget’ was about. Now, a president uses that dark day to incite his base against a member of Congress, as if for sport. As if we learned nothing that day about the workings of hate.”

Another 2020 presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, also chimed in.

“The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion,” she tweeted. “It’s disgusting. It’s shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.”

It was unclear late Friday who made the video that the president tweeted. In recent weeks, his Twitter feed has promoted at least two controversial videos that came from elsewhere on the web.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/us/politics/trump-ilhan-omar-sept-11.html

Ana Garcia (left) and her daughter Genesis Amaya of Valley Stream, N.Y., were reunited through the Central American Minors program in 2016 before President Trump terminated the program.

Claudia Torrens/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Claudia Torrens/AP

Ana Garcia (left) and her daughter Genesis Amaya of Valley Stream, N.Y., were reunited through the Central American Minors program in 2016 before President Trump terminated the program.

Claudia Torrens/AP

The Trump administration has agreed to settle a lawsuit with a dozen Central American families who challenged the government’s cancellation of a program that was designed to reunite children in that region with their parents living in the U.S.

As a result, some 2,700 children living in Central America may be allowed to enter the U.S. at a time when the Trump administration is actively trying to dissuade other migrants from attempting to come to this country.

The program, called the Central American Minors program, was initiated during the Obama administration in 2014 in response to a surge of unaccompanied minors who sought to join their parents. Minors in Central America who had parents residing legally in the U.S. were eligible to apply for permanent residence as refugees, or for parole — a designation allowing someone to legally reside in the U.S. Over 1,335 minors arrived in the United States, according to a 2018 court order.

That order followed the Trump administration’s termination of the program in August 2017. The government also rescinded parole for about 2,700 minors who already had been conditionally approved, but had not yet traveled to the U.S.

The International Refugee Assistance Project and the law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, filed suit on behalf of the families whose children essentially were in the pipeline when the administration canceled the program. The plaintiffs alleged that there was a “secret shutdown” of the program in the early days of the Trump administration, even as the government continued to solicit and accept funds from applicants to pay for medical examinations and travel to the U.S.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled in December 2018 that the administration’s mass revocation of the conditional approvals for the minors was illegal. In a March 1 ruling, she ordered the government to resume processing the children. But she did not compel the Department of Homeland Security to “reach any particular outcome with respect to the processing of any individual beneficiary.”

Under the terms of the settlement, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service “agrees to process the approximately 2,700 individuals who were conditionally approved for parole prior to the CAM Parole program’s termination and then issued rescission notices, as well as any later born children who are classified as add-ons.”

According to a statement announcing the settlement, the International Refugee Assistance Project said, “The government anticipates most applicants will be approved for parole and allowed to travel to the U.S.”

One plaintiff, identified in court documents only as “S.A.,” had applied on behalf of her daughter and grandchild.

“My heart jumps and cries for joy because there are so many who need to escape danger. I have faith that I will be together with my daughter and grandson soon,” she said in the IRAP statement.

“We are so pleased that after many years apart our clients will finally have the opportunity to reunite with each other in safety,” said IRAP Litigation Staff Attorney Linda Evarts.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712948933/trump-administration-to-allow-2-700-central-american-children-into-the-u-s

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

(CNN)The car used by a New York tourists who went missing last month has been recovered off the coast of the Dominican Republic, police said Friday.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/americas/dominican-missing-couple/index.html

    Should President Trump follow through on a proposal to release migrants in U.S. “sanctuary cities,” it would be a major departure from the way federal agencies are handling detainees. It could also be prohibitively costly and make it more difficult to deport migrants once they reach those cities.

    The plan — which Trump tweeted Friday is under “strong consideration” — would have the Department of Homeland Security moving migrants from detention centers to cities scattered across the country in vans, buses and airplanes. It would require a massive investment in transportation infrastructure, something that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials told the White House would be “an unnecessary operational burden.”

    It also would mean placing those detainees in cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, meaning it could be very difficult to arrest them again.

    During the recent surge of Central American families crossing into the United States, most were apprehended at or near the southern border with Mexico. With a deficit of detention beds, the U.S. government mainly releases the families to shelters or bus depots. Detainees are sometimes released directly to the streets of border towns, allowing immigration authorities to focus staffing and funding on deportations and criminal operations.

    Trump’s proposal, which government officials said is aimed at punishing Democratic strongholds for their positions on immigration policy, calls for sending the detainees to sanctuary cities, where they can live without fear of local authorities reporting them to federal immigration officials. There are hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide, ranging from tiny rural counties to New York City and the entire state of California.

    The idea, DHS officials said, seemed predicated on the belief that an influx of migrants would be a burden to sanctuary cities. Trump has long maintained that killers, rapists and drug dealers are streaming across the border and that releasing migrants into U.S. society is a security risk. In fact, studies show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

    Mayors of such cities condemned the White House plan on Friday, with most dismissing it as an unrealistic political stunt. Some already have waged successful legal battles against the Trump administration’s threat two years ago to slash federal funding to sanctuary cities.

    Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, Calif., called the plan “an outrageous abuse of power — using human beings to settle political scores.” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said it “is just another in a long line of scare tactics and half-baked ideas.”

    Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone of Somerville, Mass.,which has a population of 81,000, said he would welcome any immigrants the government wants to send his way.

    “Fine by me,” he said on Twitter, firing back at Trump. “But does he realize that the moment after people get ‘placed’ they’ll start moving to wherever they want to go? Every city has an open border.”

    Homeland Security prefers to detain immigrants until they are eligible for deportation, but officials are releasing tens of thousands every year because of mass migration from Central America, rising numbers of families, limited detention space and legal restrictions on how long the government can detain children.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended 103,000 migrants last month — double the number in March 2018 — including nearly 60,000 family members.

    CBP typically transfers migrants to ICE for detention, though this year holding cells grew so crowded that border agents started releasing some families at the border. ICE can also release migrants on bond or ankle-monitoring devices after verifying their future address and handing them a notice to appear in immigration court. Unaccompanied migrants are sent to Health and Human Services shelters, where case workers find a parent or guardian for them to live with in the United States.

    Congress has allocated billions of dollars for this system, and none of it involves transporting immigrants to sanctuary cities — which some say makes the president’s plan illegal.

    “It makes no sense,” said John Sandweg, an acting ICE director in 2013 and 2014 in the Obama administration, adding that it would violate federal law by diverting money “for political purposes.”

    “At a time like this, when ICE is just overwhelmed by the number of Central Americans arriving, having to divert further resources to send a political message is outrageous,” he said.

    Sandweg said the government “would pay big money” for the White House’s plan to deliver migrants to sanctuary cities. In addition to transportation costs, officials would have to assign immigration agents to escort them to their destinations. Currently, migrants usually buy their own bus or airline tickets.

    “It’s ludicrous,” Sandweg said. “It’s meddling in operations at an extreme level.”

    Matthew Albence, ICE’s acting deputy director, questioned the proposal in an email to the White House in November after it was first raised as a possibility, saying that arranging for transportation would strain the department and weaken its enforcement efforts.

    “As a result of the influx at the border and the record number of aliens in detention, we have already had to decrease our interior operational footprint to manage these cases, resulting in less officers out on the streets making arrests of criminal aliens, public safety threats, fugitives, and other immigration violators,” Albence wrote in an email reviewed by The Washington Post. “Not sure how paying to transport aliens to another location to release them — when they can be released on the spot — is a justified expenditure.”

    After heeding Albence’s advice not to pursue the idea, the White House went back to DHS in February to try again. Legal advisers rejected it.

    Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors less immigration, said the plan would give migrants a free ride to their destinations. Because sanctuary cities often refuse to turn over migrants arrested for crimes to ICE, sending them there could make it more difficult to apprehend for deportation later, she said.

    Vaughan said White House officials who are new to immigration policy have likely overstepped in this case.

    “There are a lot of immigration policy amateurs in senior positions at the White House, and some of them should stay in their lane — which is not immigration,” she said.

    On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump said blocking funding for sanctuary cities would be a top priority, saying at the time: “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.”

    But Congress has not passed any such legislation, and Trump’s other efforts to stem migration have faced legal challenges. At least seven federal courts have blocked the Trump administration from broadly cutting off funds to sanctuary jurisdictions.

    Vaughan said the Trump administration has conditioned some Justice Department crime-fighting grants on local cooperation with immigration enforcement. But generally that is limited to a provision in federal law that says local governments cannot prohibit communication between police and federal immigration agents.

    The law does not require localities to detain immigrants after police have arrested them for an unrelated crime, but ICE can pick them up when a judge releases them from their criminal cases.

    After Trump took office, sanctuary jurisdictions were initially fearful that he would restrict their federal funding for school lunches, fuel aid and other essential programs. But those fears faded as they prevailed in court.

    Hundreds of localities have since strengthened their sanctuary policies, according to the San Francisco-based Immigrant Legal Resource Center. California passed a slate of new laws and the highest court in Massachusetts said local law enforcement cannot detain someone based solely on an immigration detainer.

    Curtatone, Somerville’s mayor, said that the city is “always going to be a sanctuary and welcoming city for all” and that an influx of immigrants wouldn’t change much for cities such as his.

    “Somerville has experienced a continuous wave of immigration now for well over a century of Europeans and those from the Caribbean and Central and South America,” he said in a telephone interview. “We speak more than 52 languages in our neighborhoods and our schools. We embrace it.”

    Fred Barbash contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trumps-plan-to-send-migrant-detainees-to-sanctuary-cities-draws-concerns-about-cost-legality/2019/04/12/0ecec7d2-5d4a-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html

    A federal appeals court in California took action Friday that would temporarily allow the Trump administration to return asylum seekers to Mexico.

    The decision is in response to the Trump administration’s emergency motion filing from Thursday asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to stop a nationwide injunction that would bar the government from continuing its policy of forcing migrants to wait in Mexico as their asylum cases play out.

    The court asked that opposition to the emergency motion be filed by Tuesday, 9 a.m. local time.

    The government’s motion said the injunction issued Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg rested on “serious errors of law” and blocked an initiative “designed to address the dramatically escalating burdens of unauthorized migration.”

    The administration had asked for an administrative stay that would take place immediately and remain in place while the court considers the issue of a longer stay while the appeals process plays out in a possibly months-long process.

    The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the court earlier Friday to deny the emergency request that would keep in place the administration’s policy of returning asylum-seekers to Mexico while they wait for court dates.

    In response to the judge’s decision Friday evening, Judy Rabinovitz, who argued the case for the ACLU, said, “this is just an interim step while the court considers the government’s stay request.”

    “We’re very disappointed in the 9th Circuit’s decision and we hope that the stay will be short-lived,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Friday night. The group is part of the lawsuit seeking to stop the policy.

    “The plaintiffs and others like them are very vulnerable to harm in Mexico and should be able to pursue their asylum claims in the United States,” she added.

    The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.

    The organizations seeking to stop the policy of returning migrants to Mexico said in a brief earlier Friday that the government’s request should be denied and that there was not “sufficient urgency” to warrant an administrative stay.

    “The government should not be allowed to manufacture the need for an emergency administrative stay by failing to timely file a stay request,” the brief said.

    In issuing a preliminary injunction temporarily stopping the policy, Seeborg had ordered that it go into effect Friday to give the administration time to appeal.

    “It was a huge victory for us and it’s a huge defeat for the Trump administration at least in terms of a signal that you are not above the law,” Rabinovitz said of Seeborg’s ruling.

    Seeborg also ruled that all 11 migrants named in the lawsuit must be allowed to enter the U.S. within two days of the order taking effect.

    While the order was not set to officially go into effect until Friday, an official with Mexico’s immigration agency told NBC News the government had not been returning newly arrived migrants to Mexico since the judge issued his decision on Monday.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-admin-files-emergency-request-stay-order-blocking-return-asylum-n993991

    President Donald Trump on Friday shared a video on Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s recent comments on the September 11, 2001, terror attacks as the freshman lawmaker has faced death threats.

    Omar encountered backlash after comments she made during a speech at a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) event last month.

    “For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen, and frankly I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it,” Omar said. “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

    CAIR, a civil-liberties organization, was founded in 1994. A spokesperson from Omar’s office told The Washington Post that the congresswoman misspoke; CAIR doubled in size after the 9/11 attacks. (The Post did a deep dive into the context of Omar’s comments.)

    Read more: Rep. Ilhan Omar’s errant 9/11 comments slammed by the New York Post with controversial cover

    The video Trump shared on Friday zeroed in on Omar saying “some people did something.” That moment from the speech is juxtaposed with footage from the day of the attacks in New York City. The tweet Trump shared included the caption, “WE WILL NEVER FORGET!”

    Trump has his own history of controversy when it comes to his characterization of the 9/11 attacks, and he has routinely made false claims about what transpired that day.

    Many Republicans and some Democrats felt Omar’s comments were insensitive and downplayed the terrorist attacks.

    Reacting to Omar’s remarks in a tweet on Tuesday, Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, said, “First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something.’ Unbelievable.”

    Democratic Rep. Max Rose, who’s also a veteran of Afghanistan and from New York City, described Omar’s remarks as “insensitive” and “offensive.”

    Omar has also faced criticism in the media, including a contentious New York Post cover, which also portrayed that fragment of her speech above a photo of the twin towers collapsing. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described the cover as “horrifying” and “hateful.”

    Meanwhile, the “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade responded to Omar’s remarks by questioning if she’s “an American first.”

    Reacting to Kilmeade’s suggestion, Omar tweeted, “This is dangerous incitement, given the death threats I face. I hope leaders of both parties will join me in condemning it. My love and commitment to our country and that of my colleagues should never be in question. We are ALL Americans!”

    Omar has also recently faced backlash over comments she’s made on Israel, which were condemned by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as anti-Semitic. She has since apologized.

    Some in the media have come to her defense over this most recent comment.

    “The point she was actually making … was that the acts of 19 men who committed the atrocities of 9/11 should not be held against the billion Muslims who live around the world,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes said on Thursday.

    A New York man was recently arrested and charged with threatening to assault and murder Omar. He is accused of calling her a “terrorist” in an expletive-laced phone call to Omar’s office.

    “Do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood?” the man said to a staffer over the phone, according to a press release from the US Attorney’s Office in the Western District of New York. “Why are you working for her, she’s a (expletive) terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her (expletive) skull.”

    The freshman Democrat’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from INSIDER.

    Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-shares-video-on-ilhan-omars-911-comments-2019-4

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

    Seoul (CNN)North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is calling on the US to stop “its current way of calculation” if it is interested in continuing diplomatic talks, according to a report from the country’s state news agency KCNA.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear-talks/index.html

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

    (CNN)Four days before his arrest in connection with the three Louisiana Baptist church fires, Holden Matthews expressed disgust with Baptist beliefs on Facebook, CNN has learned.

      Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/us/louisiana-church-fires-suspect/index.html

      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to present a united Democratic Party on Friday as lawmakers closed out a Washington-area retreat, despite suggestions that she is grappling with her own version of the “Tea Party” that roiled the Republican Party establishment during the Obama years.

      Pelosi told reporters after the Democratic Caucus’ policy retreat in Virginia that it was a “very substantive, unifying, energizing” conference.

      LESLIE MARSHALL: PELOSI AND OCASIO-CORTEZ ARE IN A POWER STRUGGLE, WITH PELOSI WINNING

      “This was an ‘alleluia,’ a cause for celebration for what it means in the lives of the American people,” she said.

      But since reclaiming the gavel in January, the California Democrat has been forced to spend much of her time putting out fires from her party’s left flank as it pushes policies such as reparations for black Americans, ‘Medicare-for-all’ and the Green New Deal. She is currently facing another revolt against a bipartisan budget measure to increase spending for the Pentagon and domestic agencies, with critics on the left objecting to the increases for the military.

      Amid a string of such confrontations, Melissa DeRosa, New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s top aide, reportedly told a crowd on Thursday that a new Tea Party is forming on the left.

      “We saw this play out in the Tea Party, and I feel like at the time the Democratic Party sort of stood on the other side and said, ‘They’re destroying themselves. How do they not see what they are doing? This is crazy! But fine, they can destroy themselves; it’s to our betterment,'” DeRosa said, according to Crain’s. “And I think a version of that is happening right now on the Democratic side.”

      On the Republican side, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he sympathized with Pelosi.

      “I was almost tempted to call up my friend the speaker and say, ‘Congratulations, you’ve got a Freedom Caucus on your hands,'” he told reporters Thursday, referring to the conservative faction aligned in part with the Tea Party movement.

      For her part, Pelosi has dismissed the idea that Democrats are divided, scolding reporters on Thursday: “You guys have it all wrong.”

      “We have such a unified caucus. But it serves your purpose to say we’re seething,” she said, according to Roll Call. “You’re on the wrong track. But you can waste your time on that while we go forward with what we’re going to do for the American people.”

      PELOSI APPEARS TO MOCK OCASIO-CORTEZ OVER RELIANCE ON TWITTER FOR SUPPORT

      But as she uttered those words, another controversy was brewing from the freshman class of the party as Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was criticized for describing 9/11 as “some people did something.” Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., rallied to Omar’s side as she faced fierce criticism from Republicans for the remarks.

      On Friday, speaking at the end of the Democratic Caucus meeting, Pelosi indicated when asked about the controversy that she’d be speaking to Omar about the issue, saying her policy is to “call them in before I call them out.”

      The 9/11 controversy comes a month after Omar suggested that supporters of Israel were pushing for U.S. politicians to declare “allegiance” to that nation. The comments resulted in a broad resolution against bigotry that did not mention Omar by name, leading to accusations that party leaders allowed the text to be watered down under pressure.

      But Democrats have also had difficulty forming a message on hot-topic issues like immigration where, amid activists and some 2020 hopefuls calling for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), lawmakers have struggled to come up with a solution to the crisis at the border other than opposing President Trump’s controversial policies.

      The Washington Post reported that at this week’s retreat, a “session on the issue organized by liberal members largely focused on how to reduce enforcement and detention.”

      CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

      But legislative plans currently do not include border security measures.

      The Associated Press contributed to this report.

      Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-grapples-with-her-own-tea-party

      The Trump administration is reportedly considering releasing migrants detained at the southern border on the streets of so-called sanctuary cities. Not only is this a clear abuse of power, but it is an abuse that seemingly seeks to enact revenge on jurisdictions because of their commitment to enforcing basic constitutional rights.

      As the Washington Post reported on Thursday, the idea was explicitly political. As one congressional investigator explained to the Post: “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.”

      Wielding law enforcement as a tool to secure political advantage by, for example, deliberately releasing detained migrants in heavily Democratic areas undermines the basic idea of rule of law by replacing a commitment to justice with bowing to the whims of a political leader for partisan ends. Not only does this undermine the most basic premise of justice, but it also presumes that law enforcement should be beholden to the president, regardless of the constraints of law.

      But the proposal to simply drop migrants in so-called sanctuary cities around the country is a step more pernicious even than simply supporting an authoritarian-style abuse of power.

      Sanctuary cities, despite their frequent characterization as simply safe havens for illegal immigrants, are more accurately jurisdictions that refuse to abridge civil liberties simply because ICE wants them to.

      This is an important distinction. Outside of sanctuary cities, ICE can, without a warrant, request that individuals be detained and held or turned over to the agency. That process skirts constitutionally protected rights such as due process as well as prohibitions against government detention without cause. Moreover, the concern that collaboration with ICE would be abused and undermine civil liberties is not an abstract fear but one that has played out in reality even resulting in the unlawful detention of citizens.

      That the Trump administration would actively suggest not only undermining the rule of law but do so with the explicit aim of targeting cities because of their commitment to defending civil liberties merits no defense. That the White House would float such an idea in the first place should be a concern to citizens of all political inclinations as it demonstrates clear contempt for legal limits on power and a casual willingness to disregard even the most basic laws and principles.

      Thankfully, this time such a plan was flat-out rejected by the legal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and prompted whistleblowers to approach Congress. But as Trump looks to take immigration enforcement in a tougher direction, it seems to be just these sort of objections that he would like to circumvent.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-double-danger-of-trumps-proposal-to-drop-migrants-in-sanctuary-cities

      Rep. Ilhan Omar is “off her rocker” and her fellow member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a “joke” who will be seen “ultimately as an asterisk” in history, according to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

      Omar, D-Minn. is facing fierce backlash after a speech at a Muslim rights group’s event in which she described the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as “some people did something.”

      Speaking on the Brian Kilmeade Show on Fox News Radio, Christie, who initially thought his wife was in the Twin Towers on the day of the attacks, said: “As somebody who had my wife two blocks away from the World Trade Center that day, my brother on the floor of the New York Stock exchange, and a number of people in our local parish here who passed away, a murder occurred.

      AOC, RASHIDA TLAIB LEAP TO DEFENSE OF ILHAN OMAR AFTER HER ‘SOME PEOPLE DID SOMETHING’ 9/11 REMARKS

      “Multiple murders occurred, 2,900 murders occurred on that day by radical Islamic terrorists and that’s the way it should always be spoken about to honor those victims and this woman is completely – let’s put aside her religion for the moment – as a public servant, she’s off her rocker to be describing it that way and it’s a disgrace, it’s a disgrace to anyone in her congressional district who voted for her.”

      On fellow freshman Democrat Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who leapt to Omar’s defense, Christie dismissed her as nothing more than a flash in the pan.

      “This is the problem with people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They like to talk a lot, but they don’t want to be held responsible for anything they say, and the fact is that to diminish the attacks on 9/11, the greatest attack ever perpetrated on this country, on our soil from a terrorist organization, is to demean the lives that were lost that day, both among those who were in those buildings and on those planes, and those who lost their lives trying to save them.

      ILHAN OMAR, IN BIZARRE CLIP, JOKES ABOUT PEOPLE SAYING ‘AL QAEDA’ IN MENACING TONE

      “What she should do is apologize, and be done with it, because there’s no justifying it, and listen, part of it too Brian, is I’m so tired of hearing ‘AOC’ as she’s called, being given airtime in this country. She’s a joke.

      “She got elected because a member of Congress [Joe Crowley] went to sleep and never went back to his district and was too busy running for speaker rather than running to keep his congressional seat and I think she will be seen ultimately as an asterisk in history because I can’t imagine she will stay all that long.

      Omar told a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraiser earlier this week: “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

      CAIR was actually founded in 1994.

      Her comments have drawn ire from the likes of Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, and the New York Post, which published a dramatic front page Thursday with an infamous photo of New York City’s Twin Towers on fire on the day of the attacks.

      ROD ROSENSTEIN SAYS IT’S ‘COMPLETELY BIZARRE’ TO SAY WILLIAM BARR IS ‘TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE’ ON MUELLER REPORT

      The page read: “Here’s your something: 2,977 people dead by terrorism.”

      Christie also offered his thoughts about Julian Assange, calling him a “villain”

      “In the end, I think Assange is a criminal and I think that’s what’s going to be proven when he’s brought to an American courtroom,” he told Brian Kilmeade.

      And on Bill Barr’s testimony earlier this week, and James Comey’s subsequent comments attempting to dismiss it, he said: “Jim has completely taken leave of his senses and to try to defend the indefensible, which goes all the way back to his conduct and what he said about Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016, the letter he wrote in the fall of 2016, Jim is still trying to defend the indefensible.

      CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

      “How is electronic surveillance not spying? You’re in a covert way, gathering information from someone who doesn’t know you’re doing it. Sounds like spying to me. Now it may be legal, and may have been justified and AG may look at this and say, you know what, under all the circumstances I think opening the counter-intelligence investigation was legally justified.”

      Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chris-christie-ilhan-omar-is-off-her-rocker-aoc-is-a-joke-should-apologize-for-9-11-comments

      President Trump told then-Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan during a trip to the southern border last Friday that he would pardon the government official if he was convicted of violating immigration laws as a result of enforcing the White House’s agenda, according to a report published Friday evening.

      Trump made the promise to McAleenan during their trip to Calexico, Calif., on April 5 in the same conversation in which he told Customs and Border Protection to block Central American asylum-seekers from entering the country.

      Trump said he “would pardon him if he ever went to jail for denying U.S. entry to migrants,” senior administration officials told CNN.

      Two days after that conversation, Trump and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen parted ways, and he announced McAleenan would be taking over the 240,000-person department as acting secretary.

      It’s not clear if the comment was meant seriously and Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      A homeland security spokesman told CNN, “At no time has the President indicated, asked, directed or pressured the Acting Secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the Acting Secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.”

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-told-immigration-official-illegally-blocking-asylum-seekers-would-bring-pardon

      Is the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange justice against a man who broke the law, or is it a warning shot that journalism is under threat in the United States?

      It’s a difficult question to answer, in part because it brings up a host of other related questions: Do you consider WikiLeaks a journalistic organization or not? Did Assange actively participate in criminal activity to obtain classified intel, as the US government alleges, or did he just disseminate information passed on to him and is therefore protected by the First Amendment? Does it matter that Assange and his organization seem to have developed at the very least an affinity to Russia? And is the single charge he faces in the United States the total of the government’s push for justice — or is it just the opening salvo in what will become a larger war to punish Assange (and anyone else who publishes classified information)?

      These questions all came to a head on Thursday when, after months of speculation, Assange was arrested in London by British police after being expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy there. He now faces likely extradition to the US. After his arrest, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment alleging that Assange conspired with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password on a Defense Department computer network in order to download classified records and transmit them to WikiLeaks in 2010.

      That, however, isn’t all the US government is upset about. Starting in 2010, WikiLeaks published a video of an airstrike in Iraq that killed civilians, military documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and State Department cables in which diplomats gave candid assessments of foreign governments, all provided by Manning. The unprecedented leaks gained enormous attention and made Assange a sort of celebrity — and a target, as top US officials like Attorney General Eric Holder publicly mused about how they could charge him. Perhaps freshest in mind, however, is the “hacktivist” organization’s decision to publish Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta’s emails in the months before the 2016 election.

      There has long been a debate about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. Some view Assange and WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency and an ultimate example of forcing government accountability. Others see the work as dangerous and treacherous.

      With Assange’s arrest and the unsealing of the Justice Department’s indictment, the dust around WikiLeaks has been kicked up again. Some groups dedicated to free speech and press have decried the incident as a foreshadowing of dark times to come for American journalism, while many observers have celebrated it as justice served.

      “This case raises a number of really thorny questions about what it means to be a journalist, and who is entitled to the constitutional protections that do exist to ensure that the public gets the information it needs,” David Schulz, senior counsel at Ballard Spahr LLP and director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, told me.

      A lot of people are celebrating Assange’s arrest — but not everyone

      At WikiLeaks, Assange has made a lot of enemies, and by many accounts, he’s a jerk. He’s also been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid an investigation into a sexual assault allegation against him in Sweden.

      Many in the national security space hold animosity toward him for compromising sensitive confidential information, including about US military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and communications from State Department officials. Many Democrats also blame him, at least partially, for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election after WikiLeaks published Podesta’s emails and hacked information from the Democratic National Committee.

      “Julian Assange got what he deserved,” author Michael Weiss wrote in the Atlantic.

      “He’s our property, and we can get the facts and truth from him,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told CNN.

      Groups dedicated to free speech and press have had a different read.

      Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy, and technology project, said in a statement that any prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operation would be “unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”

      “The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling,” said Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, in a statement. He added that the US government could “set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.”

      Barry Pollack, an attorney for Assange, echoed the sentiment in an email to Yahoo News. “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges,” he said.

      This is a little like getting Al Capone on tax evasion

      When reports surfaced last year that the US government had indicted Assange, there was a lot of speculation about what, specifically, he was being charged with. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop laid out at the time, the US government had already charged people they’d accused of leaking classified information, including Manning, but going after the publisher of that information was highly unusual. It’s one of the reasons President Barack Obama’s Justice Department hadn’t charged Assange years ago.

      But after Assange’s arrest on Thursday, the Department of Justice unsealed the indictment, which is dated to March 2018. The charge: “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” related to Assange’s alleged attempt in 2010 to help Manning figure out a password she needed to access more classified documents and information. Per the indictment, it appears the attempt was unsuccessful.

      Compared to what some observers thought the indictment might be — including much more serious charges under the Espionage Act — the charge against Assange is, frankly, a pretty small one. If he’s convicted, he could face up to five years in prison — less time than he spent hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.

      It’s a bit like gangster Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion charges: It’s probably not what the US government wanted to get him on, but it’s the way they could do it.

      “This is not the thing they care about,” Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told me. “It’s the thing that they can win a court case over.”

      For those who view Assange as a criminal as contemptible as Capone, that’s a win — take what you can get. But for civil liberties defenders, it’s a reprehensible overreach.

      That the US government would go to such extreme lengths to go after Assange has caused some alarm, especially in light of how small the charge is against him, at least for now. “It would be pretty unusual for the government to go to this amount of effort to extradite someone if that was the only issue,” Sanchez said. “If their only contribution to the crime has been that they ran some software against a password hash and then failed to actually help, then that probably wouldn’t result in someone’s extradition.”

      Journalists aren’t given a free pass to commit crimes in the pursuit of a story — but they also haven’t been punished for publishing info that came from one

      That’s not to say that what the indictment alleges Assange did, if convicted, isn’t a crime.

      And reporters don’t get to just commit any crime they want in the name of journalism. If I punch someone to get them to talk to me for a story or break into their house to steal documents, I can still be charged with assault or robbery.

      “Journalists are not scot-free to do whatever they think they need to do in order to pursue an act of journalism,” said Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin.

      Whether Assange committed a crime in his work with Manning is something that will ultimately be decided if he is indeed extradited and brought to trial. That’s when courts will determine whether he knowingly violated the law to gain access to information. What it could all hinge on: Did he just advise Manning on how to avoid detection, or was he conspiring with her to get information in an illegal way?

      There are some prior cases that illustrate how this could play out, and where the line is. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Bartnicki v. Vopper. In that case, a person intercepted and recorded a phone call between a union negotiator and union president and sent it to a radio station, which played a tape of the conversation. The court ruled that the First Amendment protected the broadcaster because it hadn’t participated in the illegal interception.

      Other cases, however, have gone the other way. A Texas television station was implicated when a man made recordings of his neighbor’s cordless phone conversations discussing plans to interfere in the local school district’s insurance contract. (The station ultimately settled the related lawsuit.) A journalist was arrested for allegations that he aided and abetted a TWA pilot who stole evidence from the TWA Flight 800 crash in the 1990s.

      “There is established in the law a pretty bright line,” Schulz said. “You cross it when you become a participant in illegal activity.”

      This is a lot bigger than a password

      The debate about Assange and WikiLeaks stretches far beyond helping Manning crack a password. It has reopened the ongoing discussion about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. It has also raised questions about the government’s intentions and whether this opens the door to prosecuting more journalists or not.

      On the former point, people have different opinions of whether what WikiLeaks does — dumping troves of data indiscriminately — is really journalism.

      “Is a data dump journalism? That’s an interesting question,” Gitlin said. “In the case of war crimes footage, I feel comfortable saying that by working with Manning on that, Assange was performing an act of journalism. But when you release terabytes of data indiscriminately, I don’t know what to call that, but it’s not self-evidently journalism.”

      Indiscriminate data dumps such as those WikiLeaks engages in can have dangerous consequences. For example, human rights advocates have complained that WikiLeaks’ activities have endangered activists in China, and the platform has released information on government sources that the US has gone to great lengths to protect.

      Making the matter even more complicated is the evolution of WikiLeaks itself. Back in 2010, it gave the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian troves of information. In 2016, it was clearly rooting for Trump and trying to undermine Clinton. And as Foreign Policy points out, Assange was at the same time declining to publish damaging information on the Russian government. Members of Trump’s administration have even gone so far as to denounce WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” (To be sure, a lot of journalism is far from unbiased.)

      More specifically to Assange and the charge against him right now, there are concerns that there could be more charges brought against him in the future. That’s one of the concerns Wizner, from the ACLU, raised in his statement. “We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange,” he said.

      The New York Times noted that if the Justice Department does intend to charge Assange with additional offenses, it would likely need to do it before the UK decides whether to send him to the US. The extradition process could take months or even years, so there’s a non-zero chance more charges could be added — and press advocates worry that any broader charges related to WikiLeaks’ work could have a chilling effect on more traditional media outlets that are considering publishing leaked information.

      “Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,” Wizner told CNN in 2017. “Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations.”

      Adding another layer of anxiety is the Trump administration and its contentious relationship with the press. The president has openly discussed an interest in loosening up libel laws and frequently derides the media.

      The controversy over WikiLeaks’ place in the journalistic sphere and what Assange’s arrest means for reporting isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It may very well be that Assange did commit a crime — but his arrest might not be something we should cheer, at least not without some reflection.


      The news moves fast. Catch up at the end of the day: Subscribe to Today, Explained, Vox’s daily news podcast, or sign up for our evening email newsletter, Vox Sentences.

      Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/12/18308186/assange-arrest-freedom-of-press

      The judges also wrote that the prosecutor submitted material that appeared to catalog violations of international law by the C.I.A., including inflicting “extremely cruel, brutal and gruesome” physical and mental pain on its captives; refusing to let captives sleep, eat, drink and pray; as well as shaming captives through “acts of a sexual nature.”

      Although the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, established nearly two decades ago, American governments have cooperated, or at least not interfered, with the court on some of its work in other investigations.

      Americans suspected of having committed crimes in countries that are members of the court are potentially subject to prosecution. Afghanistan, Poland, Lithuania and Romania are all members.

      Param-Preet Singh, associate director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, called the court’s decision a “devastating blow” to victims.

      “The judges’ logic effectively allows states to opt out on their obligation to cooperate with the court’s investigation,” she said. “This sends a dangerous message to perpetrators that they can put themselves beyond the reach of the law just by being uncooperative.”

      Guenael Metraux, a Swiss scholar who has also appeared before international tribunals in The Hague, said the court’s decision was self-destructive to its own authority.

      “Judicially, this is the closest thing to a suicide,” he said. “It’s a catastrophically misguided surrender of responsibilities that will be painted by the U.S. administration as a resounding victory and perceived by others as a model on how to resist the court.”

      Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html

      The Secret Service detained a man outside the White House on Friday afternoon after he apparently attempted to light himself on fire.

      A Secret Service spokeswoman confirmed the man had tried to set his jacket on fire, and the D.C. Fire Department responded to administer first aid. No information about the man’s condition or reason for setting himself on fire was immediately available.

      The identity of the man was not released. It appears only one person was involved in the incident.

      Authorities removed reporters, who were gathered on the driveway, from the area following the incident. Most were guided back into the West Wing.

      The Secret Service said the man was operating an electronic, wheelchair-type scooter before he set himself on fire.

      He was taken to the hospital. Authorities closed Pennsylvania Avenue and locked down the White House as authorities investigated a suspicious package found near the man.

      Authorities lifted the lockdown on the White House late Friday afternoon. The Associated Press reported President Trump was at the White House at the time.

      It is unclear if the man will be arrested or face charges. He is being described by multiple media outlets as a likely protester.

      The Secret Service said they are still investigating.

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/man-sets-himself-on-fire-outside-of-white-house

      Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if Chinese cybertheft had been openly addressed earlier.

      Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images

      Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if Chinese cybertheft had been openly addressed earlier.

      Bill Hinton Photography/Getty Images

      Technology theft and other unfair business practices originating from China are costing the American economy more than $57 billion a year, White House officials believe, and they expect that figure to grow.

      Yet an investigation by NPR and the PBS television show Frontline into why three successive administrations failed to stop cyberhacking from China found an unlikely obstacle for the government — the victims themselves.

      About This Story

      This story is part of a joint investigation with the PBS series Frontline, which includes an upcoming documentary, Trump’s Trade War, scheduled to air May 7, 2019, on PBS.

      In dozens of interviews with U.S. government and business representatives, officials involved in commerce with China said hacking and theft were an open secret for almost two decades, allowed to quietly continue because U.S. companies had too much money at stake to make waves.

      Wendy Cutler, who was a veteran negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, says it wasn’t just that U.S. businesses were hesitant to come forward in specific cases. She says businesses didn’t want the trade office to take “any strong action.”

      “We are not as effective if we don’t have the U.S. business community supporting us,” she says. “Looking back on it, in retrospect, I think we probably should have been more active and more responsive. We kind of lost the big picture of what was really happening.”

      None of the dozens of companies or organizations that NPR reached out to that have been victims of theft or corporate espionage originating from China would go on the record.

      And for its part, the Chinese government officially denied to NPR and Frontline that it has been involved in such practices.

      Wendy Cutler, a former diplomat and negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, delivers a 2015 speech at the Asia Society in Hong Kong. Cutler told NPR that U.S. businesses wouldn’t let the trade office take direct action on their behalf in Chinese cybertheft cases.

      Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images

      Wendy Cutler, a former diplomat and negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, delivers a 2015 speech at the Asia Society in Hong Kong. Cutler told NPR that U.S. businesses wouldn’t let the trade office take direct action on their behalf in Chinese cybertheft cases.

      Bruce Yan/South China Morning Post via Getty Images

      But that’s not what former U.S. Attorney David Hickton found. When he took over in the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2010, he says, he was inundated with calls from companies saying they suspected China might be inside their computer systems.

      “I literally received an avalanche of concern and complaints from companies and organizations who said, ‘We are losing our technology — drip, drip, drip,’ ” he says.

      Hickton opened an investigation and quickly set his sights on a special unit of the Chinese military — a secretive group known as Unit 61398. Investigators were able to watch as the unit’s officers, sitting in an office building in Shanghai, broke into the computer systems of American companies at night, stopped for an hour break at China’s lunchtime and then continued in the Chinese afternoon.

      “They were really using a large rake — think of a rake [like] you rake leaves in the fall,” he says. “They were taking everything … personal information, strategic plans, organizational charts. Then they just figured out later how they were going to use it.”

      But when Hickton went to the companies, eager for them to become plaintiffs, he ran into a problem. None of the companies wanted any part of it. Hickton says they had too much money on the line in China.

      “What we were tone-deaf to is [that] we seemed to think we could just walk in and wave the flag of the USA,” Hickton says, “and it just didn’t work.”

      Even today, five years later, Hickton still won’t name most of the companies involved — and they have never come forward.

      Eventually he was able to convince five largely local companies and the steelworkers union to come forward, mostly, he says, because he grew up in Pittsburgh and went to school with a lot of the managers.

      David Hickton, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, speaks during a 2014 announcement of indictments against Chinese military hackers, with former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin.

      Alex Wong/Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Alex Wong/Getty Images

      David Hickton, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, speaks during a 2014 announcement of indictments against Chinese military hackers, with former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin.

      Alex Wong/Getty Images

      “I knew these people,” Hickton says. “They trusted me. … We couldn’t ask them to be patriotic at the expense of engendering a shareholder case.”

      But, he says, he could have included hundreds — or even thousands — more.

      “We’ve made a terrible mistake by being so secretive about our cyberwork,” he says. “We have not fairly told the people we represent what the threats are.”

      Government and business leaders interviewed by NPR and Frontline said individual companies were making millions of dollars in China over the past decade and a half and didn’t want to hurt short-term profits by coming forward. They demanded secrecy, even in the face of outright theft.

      But now the impact of that secrecy is coming to light, they say. Companies are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in future losses from the theft, and U.S. officials say they are years behind trying to tackle the problem.

      Michael Wessel, commissioner on the U.S. government’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, says it wasn’t supposed to be this way. U.S. officials had high hopes when China officially joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

      “There was a honeymoon period in the first six or seven years, a desire to try [to] make things work,” Wessel says.

      But, he says, starting around 2006, businesses began coming to him saying that China had stolen their designs or ideas or had pressured them into partnerships and taken their technology.

      Just like with Hickton, Wessel says, they wouldn’t come forward publicly.

      “The business community wanted the administration to come in hard without anyone’s fingerprints being on the reasoning behind it,” he says. “They wanted the profits, but they also didn’t want the possible retribution.”

      Wessel says that was never going to work. While nothing in the original trade agreements specifically mentions cybertheft, the U.S. could have brought criminal cases forward, enacted sanctions or opened investigations under rules set up by the World Trade Organization — if a company would let it.

      Court cases and documents from recent years offer a clue into what experts believe has really been going on. The Chinese government has been accused of stealing everything from vacuum cleaner designs to solar panel technology to the blueprints of Boeing’s C-17 aircraft.

      Hackers from China, often with ties to the government, have been accused of breaking into gas companies, steel companies and chemical companies. Not long ago, Chinese government companies were indicted for stealing the secret chemical makeup of the color white from DuPont. China developed its J-20 fighter plane, a plane similar to Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor, shortly after a Chinese national was indicted for stealing technical data from Lockheed Martin, including the plans for the Raptor.

      Chinese hacking made occasional headlines, but none really grabbed Americans’ attention. There was one exception.

      In 2010, Google went public in announcing that it had been hacked by the Chinese government. Thirty-four other American companies that were also part of the hack stayed silent. Most have kept it a secret to this day.

      A man places flowers outside Google’s Chinese headquarters in Beijing, on Jan. 15, 2010. The tech giant’s accusation that year that it had been hacked by China cast light on a problem few companies discuss: the pervasive threat from China-based cybertheft.

      Vincent Thian/AP


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Vincent Thian/AP

      A man places flowers outside Google’s Chinese headquarters in Beijing, on Jan. 15, 2010. The tech giant’s accusation that year that it had been hacked by China cast light on a problem few companies discuss: the pervasive threat from China-based cybertheft.

      Vincent Thian/AP

      NPR tracked down 11 of the total 35 companies. All of them either did not respond to NPR’s request or declined to comment.

      A former top Google official who was closely involved in managing the hack told NPR that Google was “infuriated” that no other company would come forward, leaving Google to challenge China alone.

      “[We] wanted to out all of the companies by name,” said the official, who spoke on the condition their name not be used because they did not have permission from Google to speak about the incident. “One of the companies we called, said ‘Oh, yeah, we’ve been tracking this for months.’ It was unbelievable. The legal department talked us out of it.”

      “We felt like we stood up and did the right thing,” the former official said. “It felt like Helm’s Deep, the battle from The Lord of the Rings in which you’re impossibly surrounded and severely outnumbered.”

      James McGregor, a former chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, who was there at the time, says the companies kept even business organizations like his from speaking out.

      “What they should have done is held a press conference and say, ‘We 35 businesses have been hacked,’ and you would have put it right back on China,” says McGregor. “Instead, they just all hid under a rock and pretended it didn’t happen.”

      McGregor says their silence left little room for punishment, and worse, he says, it hid the extent of the problem.

      Across the ocean, cybersleuth Dmitri Alperovitch was sitting at his desk at a security company in Atlanta when Google called looking for backup. He says when he took a look, he was stunned.

      “I knew pretty much right away this is something very different,” says Alperovitch, who is co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. “For the first time we were facing a nation-state and intelligence service that was breaking into companies — not governments, not militaries, but private sector organizations.”

      But, he says, U.S. government officials were nowhere to be seen.

      “They did not even publicly concur with the attributions that Google had made at the time,” he says.

      Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in California on May 1, 2017. Alperovitch said he was stunned after Google announced it was hacked by China.

      Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

      Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in California on May 1, 2017. Alperovitch said he was stunned after Google announced it was hacked by China.

      Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

      Obama administration officials say they did not turn a blind eye to the Google hack or cybertheft from China.

      The administration was struggling with other important priorities, such as North Korea, Iran, the economy and climate change, says Evan Medeiros, Obama’s top China specialist and then a staffer at the National Security Council.

      “Direct confrontation with China does not usually result in lasting solutions,” Medeiros says, noting that President Obama secured an agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping to halt the attacks and put together a regional trade agreement — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — to add pressure.

      But neither measure lasted.

      “Hindsight is always 20/20,” he says. “I wish that we had spent more time … finding creative ways to punish them for creating a nonlevel playing field.”

      Without those punishments, the attacks continued.

      In the year after the Google hack, Alperovitch uncovered two more serious intrusions that, he says, involved thousands of American companies.

      In the fall of 2011, he went to the White House to warn officials about what he had found. He sat down in the Situation Room with a half-dozen top administration leaders.

      “The most surprising thing to me was the lack of surprise,” Alperovitch says. “I got the distinct impression that none of this was news. When I pressed them on why they were not taking stronger action against China, their response was, ‘We have a multifaceted relationship with China.’ ”

      Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama following a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2015. During the visit, the two leaders announced an agreement to halt cyberattacks.

      Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images

      Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama following a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2015. During the visit, the two leaders announced an agreement to halt cyberattacks.

      Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images

      Alperovitch says White House officials told him that some of the same companies that were being victimized by China also wanted to continue doing business in China.

      “They didn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize that billions of dollars of trade we were doing at the time,” he says.

      Ask McGregor, the American business representative, how companies can complain about China’s behavior to the U.S. government while simultaneously preventing the government from taking strong action, and his answer is blunt.

      “Companies were afraid of China,” he says. “American business companies’ incentives are to make money.”

      McGregor today advises dozens of American companies in China, and he says they are confronting a new reality. China is no longer an up-and-comer — it’s a true competitor and quickly closing in on America’s high-tech sector. McGregor says company leaders are beginning to ask whether years of theft and hacking have given China an edge that the United States will no longer be able to stay in front of.

      And U.S. government officials are asking whether federal agencies will be able to catch up on enforcement.

      Top government leaders told NPR that federal agencies are years behind where they could have been if the theft had been openly addressed.

      Even at the Defense Department, as late as 2014, cybertheft from China was not one of the Pentagon’s top priorities.

      “Our intelligence agencies were looking at the Middle East, at the Russians,” says Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding, a China expert who worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council.

      He says he had never given the issue of Chinese cybertheft much thought. But then, in the fall of 2014, he loaded a confidential briefing into his computer. It was case after case in which the Chinese government had stolen the product designs from almost a dozen high-tech American companies, in a couple of cases almost putting them out of business.

      “It immediately changed my conception, my view of the world,” he says. “I realized I did not know how the world worked.”

      U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping leave an event in Beijing on November 9, 2017. The Trump administration, and the Obama administration before that, have brought concerns regarding cybertheft to the Chinese directly.

      Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images


      hide caption

      toggle caption

      Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images

      U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping leave an event in Beijing on November 9, 2017. The Trump administration, and the Obama administration before that, have brought concerns regarding cybertheft to the Chinese directly.

      Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images

      Spalding says he made it his mission to get the word out to other government agencies. But even in 2015, he says, he was met mostly with a shrug.

      He says he went to the departments of Commerce and the Treasury, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. State Department.

      “The two responses we got were, ‘Oh my gosh, this is really, really bad.’ And the second one is, ‘That’s not my job,'” Spalding says. “That was almost the universal answer we got every time we went to a senior leader. Bad problem but not my problem.”

      Spalding, who retired from the Air Force last year, says in the final years under Obama and now under President Trump, agencies are finally starting to take some action. The Justice Department is bringing criminal cases, the trade representative’s office is investigating China’s dealings and both administrations have brought concerns to the Chinese directly.

      But, Spalding says, it may have come 10 years too late.

      “We all missed it,” he says. “We have to understand the problem and get to work on it.”

      Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s-businesses-turned-a-blind-eye

      This week, Lucasfilm will hold its annual Star Wars Celebration, the official convention for the franchise. The company skipped holding a convention last year. It was last held in Orlando, Florida, in 2017. This year, it’ll be held in Chicago’s McCormick Place from April 11th–15th.

      We’re expecting to see quite a bit of Star Wars news come out of the convention this year, including a trailer for the upcoming Episode IX (and, presumably, something to call it other than “Episode IX”), a first look at The Mandalorian, a retrospective on Episode I: The Phantom Menace, the return of The Clone Wars on Disney+, and quite a bit more.

      If you aren’t in Chicago, you’ll still be able to follow along online: Lucasfilm will be streaming panels and hosting interviews throughout the weekend. You can check out the entire schedule here, but here are some of the highlights:

      Friday, April 12th

      • Star Wars: Episode IX: 11AM CT (12PM ET)
      • Vader Immortal: A Star Wars VR Series: 1:30PM–2:30PM CT (2:30PM–3:30PM ET)

      Saturday, April 13th

      • Bringing Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge to Life at Disney Parks, 11AM-12:30PM CT (12PM-1:30PM ET)
      • Premiere of Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order: 1:13PM–2:30PM CT (2:13PM–3:30PM ET)

      Sunday, April 14th

      • The Mandalorian: 11AM-12PM CT (12PM-1PM ET)
      • Star Wars: The Clone Wars: 3:30PM–4:30PM CT (4:30PM–5:30PM ET)

      Monday, April 15th

      • Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 20th Anniversary: 11AM–12PM CT (12PM–1PM ET)

      Source Article from https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/12/18299283/star-wars-celebration-2019-live-stream-schedule-watch-online

      It’s a dead giveaway.

      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would consider it punishment were her city saddled with more undocumented migrants while they await their court hearings.

      The thrust of a Washington Post report on Friday, citing anonymous Department of Homeland Security “officials,” was that the White House had asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement about unloading illegal immigrants detained at the border in places proudly known as “sanctuary cities.”

      Pelosi’s office said the suggestion exposed the administration’s “cynicism and cruelty” in “using human beings … as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants…”

      The whole point of sanctuary cities, from the standpoint of their lawmakers, is that illegal immigrants need a safe place to evade deportation. Illegal entrants and asylum seekers, after all, are only here to pursue a better life for themselves and their families (and all the better if Democrats can load them up on welfare).

      Why, then, would a city like San Francisco, which lies in Pelosi’s district, not leap at the chance to bring in more of their well-meaning friends?

      Outside of providing more beds, free healthcare, and free child services, courtesy of the American taxpayer, Democrats in Congress have shown no interest in doing anything about the hundreds of thousands of migrants making their way to the U.S. from Central America.

      Wouldn’t these well-meaning foreigners be best served in cities like New York, Boston, and Seattle, where local authorities refuse to comply with federal agents in deporting illegal aliens?

      The Post’s story never really demonstrates that the intent of the White House was to “retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries,” as the article puts it. It cites unnamed sources who claim that was the purpose but, even though the story’s authors, Rachel Bade and Nick Miroff, said they reviewed “email messages,” the one email by a White House official in the report is completely innocuous.

      “The idea has been raised by 1-2 principals that, if we are unable to build sufficient temporary housing, that caravan members be bussed to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities,” White House deputy policy coordinator May Davis said in an email dated Nov. 16, according to the report. “There is NOT a White House decision on this.”

      That’s it. That’s the one supposedly damning email sent by someone from the White House included in the Post’s story.

      Acting Deputy Director of ICE Matthew Albence replied to the email, suggesting that transporting aliens long distances from the border would be yet another strain on the agency and that there were liability concerns if anyone were hurt during the trip. In a statement to the Post, Albence denied that he was ever “pressured by anyone at the White House on the issue” and that he was merely “asked my opinion” and that his advice was heeded. A statement from the White House said effectively the same thing.

      Yet, even if the proposal was crafted as a politically cynical move, it doesn’t explain why Democrats wouldn’t eagerly invite more illegals or undocumented asylum seekers into the districts and cities that are supposed to be the most welcoming. Pelosi had said herself Thursday, “Of course there’s room and there’s a need” for more immigrants showing up at the border.

      Okay, but not in San Francisco!

      Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/shouldnt-nancy-pelosi-want-detainees-released-into-her-sanctuary-city