Recently Added Videos

Prosecutors investigating President Trump made big news Friday, but it wasn’t about Russia. Rather, in their sentencing recommendation for fixer Michael Cohen, lawyers with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York wrote that in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who wanted money to keep quiet about sexual dalliances. While such arrangements are legal, prosecutors argued that since the payoffs occurred during the campaign, they were violations of campaign finance laws.

Cohen, who is cooperating because prosecutors nailed him for tax evasion and bank fraud in his private business, pleaded guilty to two felony campaign finance violations. So no one has to talk about an “alleged” campaign finance scheme; there’s already a guilty plea. But what was really significant about the sentencing memo was that prosecutors specifically said Trump told Cohen to do it.

“With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election,” prosecutors said. “He acted in coordination with and at the direction of [Trump].”

Those words caused a sudden shift in the debate over investigating the president. What had been a two-year-long conversation about Trump and Russia instantly became a conversation about Trump and campaign finance.

“Prosecutors are now implicating the president in at least two felonies,” said CNN.

“Federal prosecutors in New York say that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to commit two felonies,” said NBC’s Chuck Todd.

“At least two felonies,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.

“Implicated in two felonies,” said anti-Trump gadfly George Conway, husband of top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

And so on.

“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him,” said Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who will become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee next month, “that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.”

Jerry Nadler, the Democrat who will chair the House Judiciary Committee, said the campaign finance charges “would be impeachable offenses because, even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.” Nadler said he has still not determined whether the charges, even though they could be the basis for impeachment, are important enough to actually go forward, at least yet.

Nadler’s public caution is understandable; his committee will have the responsibility of starting the impeachment process, if that is what Democratic leaders decide. But the fact is, a number of Democrats clearly believe they already have enough evidence to impeach.

One significant problem could be that the campaign finance charge against the president is a pretty iffy case. Back in 2010, the Justice Department accused 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards of a similar scheme — an alleged campaign finance violation based on a payoff to a woman with whom Edwards had had an affair (and a child).

Edwards said he arranged the payment to save his reputation and hide the affair from his wife. The Justice Department said it was to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

The New York Times called the Edwards indictment “a case that had no precedent.” Noting that campaign finance law is “ever changing,” the paper said the Edwards case came down to one question: “Were the donations for the sole purpose of influencing the campaign or merely one purpose?”

The Justice Department failed miserably at trial. Edwards was acquitted on one count, while the jury deadlocked in Edwards’ favor on the others. Prosecutors opted not to try again.

President Trump would point out that the accusation against him differs in at least one key respect from Edwards. Prosecutors accused Edwards of raising donor money to pay off the woman. Trump used his own money, which even the byzantine and restrictive campaign finance laws give candidates a lot of freedom to use in unlimited amounts.

So even more than Edwards, if the Justice Department pursued a case against Trump, it would be on unprecedented grounds.

But the political reality is, it doesn’t really matter if it is a weak case. And it doesn’t matter if Trump himself has not been indicted, or even that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Because now, Democrats can say, “The Justice Department has implicated the president in two felonies. Two felonies. TWO FELONIES!”

Politically, that’s as good as an indictment of Trump. Perhaps even better, since it does not give the president a forum to make a proper legal defense.

The last few days have seen a big pivot in the campaign against Donald Trump. For two-plus years, it was Russia, Russia, Russia. But despite various revelations in the Russia probe, the case for collusion remains as sketchy as ever. Now, though, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have given Democrats a new weapon against the president. Look for them to use it.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-sudden-shift-in-get-trump-talk-now-its-campaign-finance-not-russia


Women Rule Summit

12/11/2018 10:35 AM EST

Republican Reps. Mia Love of Utah and Elise Stefanik of New York on Tuesday asked President Donald Trump to cool it with the incendiary comments and tweets, adding that the GOP should focus more on policy and efforts to advance female candidates.

During a Women Rule panel discussion hosted by POLITICO, the two members of Congress discussed the challenges of being women in the Republican Party, including dealing with at-times inhospitable behavior by male party leadership.

Story Continued Below

For Love, the issue has come under the spotlight personally. Trump singled her out during a news conference just after this year’s midterm elections and mocked her for losing her seat. Love, the first black Republican woman elected to Congress, said she was taken aback by Trump’s assertion that she did not adequately embrace him on the campaign trail.

“Mia Love gave me no love. And she lost. Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia,” Trump said during the Nov. 7 news conference.

Love had an opportunity to respond Tuesday, saying she ran on her own principles and was not remorseful for diverging from Trump on certain issues.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/republican-women-tell-trump-to-chill-1056437

TIME magazine named “The Guardians” and the “War on Truth” as the 2018 Person of the Year – marking the first time that someone who is no longer alive was selected.

Jamal Khashoggi, Maria Ressa, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo and the Capital Gazette will grace four different versions of the prestigious cover. The magazine noted that the Person of the Year title isn’t always an honor, but representative of the influence a person, group or idea had within the last year — for better or worse.

“Today, democracy around the world faces its biggest crisis in decades, its foundations undermined by invective from on high and toxins from below, by new technologies that power ancient impulses, by a poisonous cocktail of strongmen and weakening institutions,” TIME Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal said in a statement after breaking the news Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.

Khashoggi – a Washington Post columnist — was brutally murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Ressa is the editor of a Philippine news website often praised for criticizing the local government while Lone and Soe Oo were arrested while attempting to investigate the massacre of Rohingya Muslims and the Capital Gazette lost five staffers when a gunman burst into the newsroom.

“From Russia to Riyadh to Silicon Valley, manipulation and abuse of truth is the common thread in so many of this year’s major headlines, an insidious and growing threat to freedom,” Felsenthal continued. “In its highest forms, influence — the measure that has for nine decades been the focus of TIME’s Person of the Year — derives from courage.”

Felsenthal added that TIME is recognizing “four journalists and one news organization who have paid a terrible price to seize the challenge of this moment,” as they “are representative of a broader fight by countless others around the world.”

The magazine noted that as of Dec. 10, at least 52 journalists have been murdered in 2018.

U.S. lawmakers have condemned the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo, File)

“For taking great risks in pursuit of greater truths, for the imperfect but essential quest for facts that are central to civil discourse, for speaking up and for speaking out, the Guardians—Jamal Khashoggi, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, Maria Ressa and the Capital Gazette of Annapolis, Md.—are TIME’s Person of the Year,” Felsenthal said.

Last year, Trump famously claimed he “took a pass” on being TIME Magazine’s 2017 “Person of the Year” after the publication reportedly called and said they’d “probably” offer him the spot. The magazine disputed his claim and selected “The Silence Breakers” who helped advance the #MeToo movement.

Trump took home the honor in 2016 after his upset victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. The president may be disappointed, as he recently told reporters that he should be selected for a second time.

“I can’t imagine anybody else other than Trump,” he said. “Can you imagine anybody else other than Trump?”

Robert Mueller finished third, while finalists Vladimir Putin, Ryan Coogler, Christine Blassey Ford, Moon Jae-in, Meghan Markle, March of our Lives activists and Separated Families didn’t make the cut.

TIME began the annual tradition back in 1927 with the Man of the Year honor, which was changed to Person of the Year in 1999. Past winners include everyone from Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King Jr. to “the computer” and “Ebola fighters.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/time-2018-person-of-the-year-goes-to-jamal-khashoggi-the-guardians-and-the-war-on-truth

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi are set to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday morning in hopes they can come to a budget agreement to avoid a partial government shutdown next week.

In recent weeks, talks on funding matters have stalled over funding for a border wall.

Trump drew some rhetorical lines in the sand in early morning tweets Tuesday — repeating a series of questionable claims. He again pushed to make good on his campaign promise to build what he’s now calling a “Great Wall.” He continued to attack Democrats for wanting “open borders,” despite Democrats agreeing to spend billions of dollars for border security to repair or replace existing fencing — but not for Trump’s proposed wall. He claimed that “large new sections” of his wall had been built although that is not the case, and he touted success in barring the “large Caravans” of Central American migrants seeking refugee that Trump used to gin up fears about illegal immigration leading up to the 2018 midterm elections.

In another tweet, he claimed that if Democrats don’t agree to funding, the military will build the wall.
“If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall. They know how important it is!” Trump tweeted.

“I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi,” Trump added.

The funding fight represents the last time Trump can push through legislation while still holding a Republican-controlled majority in both the House and Senate. Come January, Democrats will take over the House, making it much harder for Congress to pass any legislation that Trump backs.

Trump has repeated his demands for $5 billion toward building a wall at the southern border, threatening to shut down the government if Congress sends him an appropriations bill that does not include funding for border security.

Evan Vucci/AP
President Donald Trump speaks during a tour to review border wall prototypes, March 13, 2018, in San Diego, as Rodney Scott, the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector chief, listens.

“[A shutdown] could happen over border security. The wall is just a part of border security — a very important part — probably the most important part,” Trump told reporters last month. “But could there be a shutdown? There certainly could, and it will be about border security, of which the wall is a part.

Republicans leading the House and Senate support Trump’s aggressive push for funding. But they need Democrats to support the proposal in the Senate to pass the 60-vote threshold, complicating any funding negotiations.

Senate Democrats are holding firm and have refused to budge from the $1.6 billion that’s currently approved in the bipartisan Senate funding bill.

If Trump won’t accept the $1.6 billion offer, Democrats will push for Trump to support a continuing resolution for Department of Homeland Security appropriations that maintains current levels of funding, or $1.3 billion, through the end of next September, a Democratic aide told ABC News.

Republicans think Trump isn’t planning on backing down from his demands.

“I haven’t heard it, no. I haven’t heard any indication of it, no,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters Monday afternoon.

CQ Roll Call via Getty Images, FILE
Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer conduct a news conference in the Capitol on May 22, 2018.

Congress has already succeeded with the low-hanging fruit – sending Trump bipartisan legislation to fund five of 12 areas of appropriations. But there are still seven bills that have not advanced all the way through Congress and require consideration by Dec. 21, when current funding expires.

A shutdown would be the second of the year, following a three-day partial government shutdown last January over the status of hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.

A shutdown this time around would only impact certain government agencies and departments, including the departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, State and Agriculture.

While essential government functions and employees would continue to work, a shutdown would impact tens of thousands of others, and slow down key government functions.

ABC News’ John Parkinson, Trish Turner, and Ben Siegel contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/schumer-pelosi-meet-trump-hash-border-funding/story?id=59726978

WASHINGTON — Beto O’Rourke hasn’t made up his mind about a possible presidential run in 2020, but behind the scenes he’s speaking to potential kingmakers among a constituency whose support he’ll need in a Democratic primary: African-Americans.

In the last two weeks, the soon-to-be-former Texas congressmen met with former President Barack Obama at his Washington office, a source familiar with the meeting confirmed to NBC News, and spoke by phone with the Rev. Al Sharpton and fellow 2018 progressive darling Andrew Gillum. The O’Rourke-Obama meeting was first reported by The Washington Post.

The phone call with Gillum has not been previously reported, and was described to NBC News by two sources told of it later. One source, granted anonymity to describe a private conversation, said the pair discussed their mutual preference that someone “young and unapologetically progressive” lead the Democratic Party going forward. The two men had never spoken before, according to the source, and it was Gillum who reached out to O’Rourke to arrange the call.

Gillum, who narrowly lost his bid for Florida governor, also met with Obama recently and has been sounding out key Democrats about his political future.

Sharpton, an MSNBC anchor and civil rights activist, told NBC News that he invited O’Rourke to a Martin Luther King Jr event in January, and that O’Rourke called him on Friday to say he could not attend but wanted to keep lines of communication open.

Sharpton said O’Rourke offered no clues about his possible presidential intentions, which O’Rourke has been re-thinking. After seemingly closing the door on a White House run during his Senate campaign, he re-opened it late last month, saying he had ”made a decision to not rule anything out.”

African-American voters, long a bedrock constituency for the Democratic Party, has only seen its political clout enhanced by recent changes in the presidential primary calendar that moved more Southern states with significant black populations earlier in the process.

Hillary Clinton’s entire margin of victory in the 2016 nomination fight with Sen. Bernie Sanders came thanks to lopsided delegate hauls in key Southern races. She won 74 percent of the primary vote in South Carolina, the first Southern primary, and posted similar tallies Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, all of whom held their 2016 primaries as part of a two-week sprint after Super Tuesday.

Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both African-Americans senators who are considered among the top tier of potential candidates, both campaigned aggressively in Southern states ahead of the midterm elections — including for Gillum.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/beto-o-rourke-sounding-out-prominent-black-democrats-he-ponders-n946281

December 11 at 9:33 AM

A former Canadian diplomat now working for the International Crisis Group is missing in China, news that could further complicate an already tense diplomatic standoff over the arrest of a senior Chinese tech executive in Vancouver last week.

News of Michael Kovrig’s disappearance comes just hours before a Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer for Huawei Technologies, is due to appear in court for a bail hearing on U.S. charges related to alleged Iran sanctions violations. 

Since her Dec. 1 arrest at Vancouver’s airport, Canadian authorities have stressed that her arrest is a legal, not a political matter. But China sees her arrest as a U.S. bid to gain trade war leverage and has warned of “severe consequences” should she not be released.

Though it is not yet clear if there is any link between Meng’s case and Kovrig’s disappearance, the timing of his disappearance will no doubt complicate the standoff over the Huawei case.

Michael Kovrig is a former Canadian diplomat posted to Beijing. Since February 2017, he has been working for the International Crisis Group, covering security issues across northeast Asia. He frequently spoke to the media about his research, including The Washington Post.

His employer said it is looking into his disappearance. “International Crisis Group is aware of reports that its North East Asia Senior Adviser, Michael Kovrig, has been detained in China,” the think tank said in a statement.

“We are doing everything possible to secure additional information on Michael’s whereabouts as well as his prompt and safe release,” it added.

On Tuesday, Meng will ask a Canadian court to release her from jail so that she may await her extradition hearing in the comfort of one of her two multimillion-dollar homes, watched by a private security firm she will hire at her own expense and an electronic monitor.  

Meng, 46, is requesting bail on grounds that she is in poor health and has close ties to Vancouver. Her lawyer suggested her husband could serve as her guarantor. 

The Canadian judge on Monday questioned whether her husband would be an appropriate choice and raised questions about whether the electronic monitor could be hacked. 

The hearing resumes on Tuesday. 

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/former-canadian-diplomat-reported-missing-in-china-following-arrest-of-huawei-executive/2018/12/11/350c6bb8-fcdb-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html

Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer won’t cave to President Trump’s long-held demand for a border wall when they meet with him at the White House on Tuesday, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

Pelosi (D-Calif.), who’s vying to become the next House speaker, and Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader, plan to make it clear to Trump during the Oval Office sit-down that they are willing to earmark between $1.3 and $1.6 billion for border security-related measures but won’t allot any funding for the construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, a source involved in the negotiations said.

“Both leaders will only be bringing to the table what their members are already for: some funding for long-passed and long-established border security that has nothing to do with a wall,” the source told the Daily News.

The Democratic opposition is likely to rile Trump, who has demanded Congress allot at least $5 billion for his wall ahead of a Dec. 21 spending deadline. Trump has threatened to veto any bill that falls short of his demand, which would result in a partial government shutdown.




The source said Trump, not Democrats, will be to blame if a shutdown ensues.

“Both the Senate and the House have a deal that can pass,” the source said, referencing a bill with bipartisan support that includes $1.6 billion border security component. “The question is what the President will sign.”

A White House spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/12/10/pelosi-schumer-to-refuse-trumps-border-wall-demand-raising-specter-of-government-shutdown-sources/23614640/

Addressing the House of Commons on Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed a vote on her Brexit withdrawal or transition agreement with the European Union. The vote was originally planned for Tuesday but will now take place at an as yet undetermined date before Jan. 21, 2019.

May’s delay of this vote is a big deal. It proves that her plan lacks the support of the House of Commons. Still, it was necessary for a simple reason: Had the Commons voted on Tuesday, May’s plan would have been defeated and her position as prime minister imperiled to the point of a leadership challenge.

The operative question now is how May intends to attract enough votes to win a vote in the future?

The answer is far from clear. May says she’ll focus on getting improved clarity over what any border arrangement might look like if Britain and the EU have been unable to reach a post-Brexit transition arrangement when the transition period concludes on Dec. 31, 2020. Known as the “backstop,” and applying only if Britain and the EU had not agreed a trade deal by the end of the transition period, it would involve some form of border control at the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland border with the EU member state, the Republic of Ireland. But it’s unclear whether gaining such clarity would give May the votes she needs.

And it gets worse for May. Because while British parliamentarians want to avoid any formal border with the EU, the EU demands a backstop arrangement that would allow EU customs inspectors to check goods passing across the border. The challenge for May is that her government relies on the support — and would probably collapse absent it — of a Northern Irish party, the DUP, that opposes any kind of formal border arrangement.

May’s ultimate challenge, however, is how she gets any more concessions out of the EU that might allow her to win parliamentary support for her Brexit deal. And absent that parliamentary support, a Hard Brexit, or Brexit absent any transition agreement, would follow. The vast majority of economists believe such an outcome would risk sending Britain spiraling into a recession.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-theresa-may-delayed-parliaments-brexit-vote

Poland’s Solidarity labor union has joined forces with climate skeptics from America to call for “a restoration of the Scientific Method and the dismissal of ideological dogma” in the study of climate change as part of a joint declaration the union has submitted to the United Nations in partnership with a U.S.-based free-market think tank.

This is the same labor union founded under the leadership of Lech Walesa, the Nobel Prize winner who organized anti-Soviet movements in the 1980s.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly made the case that catastrophic climate change is imminent and that human emissions are largely to blame. The latest in a series of reports from the IPCC was released in October to measure “the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

The IPCC has maintained a significant presence throughout the U.N.’s 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is widely known as COP24. U.N. officials view the recently released IPCC report as a “wake up call” for conference participants to finalize negotiations for implementing the Paris climate agreement, which calls on participating countries to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Although 195 countries adopted the language of the climate agreement during a December 2015 COP meeting in Paris, the agreement cannot be fully implemented until after 55 of the countries responsible for producing a combined total of 55 percent of the world’s emissions accept the treaty’s terms, according to the U.N.

Media coverage of the intergovernmental panel’s climate change report has made the case for “urgent and unprecedented changes” built around emissions restrictions to curtail global warming that could lead to catastrophic conditions.

But the joint declaration — which was signed by Jaroslaw Grzesik, chairman of Solidarity’s energy and mining secretariat; Dominik Kolorz, president of Solidarity in Poland’s Silesian region; and James Taylor, a senior follow for environment and energy policy with the Heartland Institute — makes the point that “there is no scientific consensus on the main causes and consequences of climate change.”

The Heartland Institute, which is headquartered in Illinois, has gained international recognition for challenging the premise of theories that link human activity with catastrophic levels of global warming. The free-market think tank released the latest version of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change at a media event last week in Katowice just as the COP24 meeting was getting underway. More than 100 scientists, economists, engineers, and other experts from across globe who have insight into the dynamics of earth’s climate have come together to take part in the nongovernmental panel, which began releasing the studies in 2009.

They conclude that “[t]he global war on energy freedom, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The world’s policymakers ought to acknowledge this truth and end that war.”

Unlike its U.N. counterpart, the nongovernmental panel performs a cost-benefit analysis into the use of fossil fuels that highlights the benefits to humanity.

“Despite calling for the end of reliance on fossil fuels by 2100, the IPCC never produced an accounting of the opportunity cost of restricting or banning their use,” the report says. “That cost, a literature review shows, would be enormous. Estimates of the cost of reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the amounts said by the IPCC to be necessary to avoid causing ~2°C warming in the year 2050 range from the IPCC’s own estimate of 3.4% to as high as 81% of projected global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050, the latter estimate nullifying all the gains in human well-being made in the past century.”

Solidarity’s willingness to defy climate alarmism while making a principled stand on behalf of sound science will reverberate across Europe long after COP24 comes to an end, James Lakely, the director of communications for the Heartland Institute, said in an email.

“Propaganda fades, truth endures,” he said. “Solidarity proved with its joint statement with Heartland that it will not be pushed around by the jet-set bureaucrats of the United Nations. I think that is the case with Poland as a whole. The people of Poland get 80 percent of their power from coal. Going ‘carbon free’ in the next decade or so will destroy their economy and society. The Polish people know this, so they will not be pushed around by the UN — nor should it, as Solidarity made clear in their meeting with Heartland.”

He added:

Still, the money and organization standing behind climate change policies is considerable. That much was made clear in remarks made by Michal Kurtyka, a Polish energy official who is serving as the COP24 president.

Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C., who writes for several national publications.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/polands-solidarity-union-joins-forces-with-us-climate-change-skeptics

In a letter published by The Washington Post, the group, which includes several long-serving members from both sides of the aisle including Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Al D’Amato (R-NY) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), warned of an approaching “dangerous period” that compelled them to “speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law” and the Constitution.

Source Article from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-senators-trump-mueller-investigation-editorial_us_5c0f3424e4b06484c9fde188

President Trump and senior administration officials have justified their border crackdown by saying that asylum seekers ought to come to the US legally, by presenting themselves at a port of entry, rather than crossing the border illegally and starting the process once in the US.

New numbers show that that’s exactly what happened — and the Trump administration wasn’t necessarily ready for it.

On Monday, Customs and Border Protection released statistics on how many people had claimed a fear of persecution, the first step in the asylum process, after crossing illegally and being caught by Border Patrol agents, and how many claimed fear when found to be “inadmissible” (without valid papers) trying to cross legally at a port of entry.

In context, the numbers make it clear that there are three phenomena at the border, nested inside each other.

At the broadest level, there was a 25 percent increase in people coming into the US without papers from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018 — a big one-year increase, but one largely based on how few people came into the US at the beginning of Trump’s first term.

There’s a more intense spike — 67 percent — in the number of asylum seekers coming. And most specifically and critically, there’s a 121 percent jump in asylum seekers coming legally to ports of entry.

The share of illegal border crossers who sought asylum increased just 1 percentage point, from 13 percent to 14 percent, from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. But the share of people coming to the US at ports of entry who sought asylum nearly doubled: from 16 percent of all “inadmissible” people at ports of entry in 2017 to 31 percent of “inadmissibles” in 2018.

Customs and Border Protection officials acknowledged Monday that even more people would be seeking asylum at ports of entry if officials weren’t engaging in “queue management” — also known as “metering” — a policy by which asylum seekers are often turned away at ports of entry because officials say there’s no room to process them.

The current numbers are “really a reflection of what we could intake and process in FY2018,” a Customs and Border Protection senior official told reporters Monday. “This number would be higher if not for resource constraints at ports of entry,” the reason CBP gives for why they’ve limited the number of asylum seekers who can enter the US through the most popular border crossings since this summer.

In other words, the asylum “crisis” that has so consumed the president is in large part a crisis that’s happening at ports of entry, where people are trying to come the right way.

Along the western sectors of the border, a majority of asylum seekers are coming legally

“Inadmissible” aliens include everyone processed at a port of entry without proper papers — not only asylum seekers but people who try to come in with expired visas, people who are denied entry because they’re on a watch list, and people who are caught being smuggled in vehicles crossing into the US.

But the new stats show that fewer people came to ports of entry without papers for reasons other than seeking asylum in 2018 than in 2017 (even as a lot more non-asylum seekers tried to cross into the US between ports of entry). And thousands more people came to those ports to seek asylum.

Across the border, there are still more people seeking asylum after crossing between ports of entry than at them. But that’s largely due to the fact that a ton of asylum-seeking families are coming in through the Rio Grande Valley, an area controlled by smugglers where the bridges at ports of entry are often unsafe.

In Arizona, according to Vox’s analysis of the CBP data, nearly half of all asylum seekers are coming at ports of entry. In California, it’s more than half.

And Trump administration officials agree with human rights advocates that those numbers would be even higher if the “metering” policy weren’t in effect.

Before 2016, seeking asylum legally was perfectly straightforward. An asylum seeker presented herself at an official port of entry, said she feared persecution in her home country, and was processed as an “inadmissible” alien. Eventually, she’d be given a screening interview by an asylum officer to determine whether she’d be able to submit a full application.

But a tactic that the Obama administration first adopted in 2016 as an emergency measure at a couple of ports in California has become, since this summer, a near-constant state of affairs at most of the major border crossings where migrants arrive on foot.

Thousands of people were waiting to cross at the San Ysidro port of entry, in Tijuana, even before the Central American caravan began to arrive in town in November. During a week in September, no asylum seeker was taken in at the main port in Nogales, Arizona. The American Civil Liberties Union (citing the Mexican government) estimated in October that 450 people were waiting on bridges in El Paso.

As I wrote last month, the question of who, exactly, is to blame for metering — whether the Trump administration is telling the truth when it cites a resource shortage, and whether that shortage is within its power to fix — is very much an open question.

But the new stats raise the possibility that the practice might actually be causing more people to give up and cross illegally in some areas. In El Paso, the increase from 2017 to 2018 in people seeking asylum at ports of entry was smaller than any other region — quite possibly due to the aggressive metering policies in place there. But the increase in people crossing between ports of entry and then claiming asylum was larger than any other region.

CBP officials maintain that solving the problem isn’t as simple as increasing capacity at ports of entry — that the much bigger issue is that once people are processed, they too often disappear before finishing their asylum proceedings.

But for all the accusations that asylum seekers are taking advantage of American generosity and trying to circumvent American law, we now have pretty suggestive official evidence that the current crisis is, as much as anything, a result of more people coming the right way than the administration is equipped to allow in.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2018/12/10/18134707/border-crisis-asylum-caravan-illegal

WASHINGTON — With backing from progressive Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, activists have taken Congress by storm in recent weeks with rallies demanding radical action to prevent a climate catastrophe. On Monday, over 100 protesters were arrested at the offices of House Democratic leaders.

But 3,800 miles away in Paris, there’s a very different set of climate-related protests going on as French activists, angered by a fuel tax, have plunged President Emmanuel Macron’s administration into crisis.

The French “yellow vest” protests have ignited a debate on the left in the U.S. over how to avoid a similar backlash if Democrats get the chance to enact new environmental laws. And the demonstrations come as environmental issues are taking on more prominence amid dire reports from the United Nations and U.S. government warning lawmakers they have only limited time to minimize the damage.

At the center of the debate is whether Democrats should pursue a carbon tax as part of their climate plan or whether they might risk enraging low- and middle-income voters, particularly those in rural and suburban America, by raising the cost of living.

Watching the news in France unfold, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden chastised some on the left for expressing sympathy with the protesters “amassing against a carbon tax.” That drew a sharp response from the Democratic Socialists of America, who accused Tanden of defending “regressive taxes that don’t make the rich and fossil fuel companies pay their fair share.”

Activists and academics in America wonder whether what’s happening in France might foreshadow struggles at home someday, especially after Donald Trump rode populist resentment of his own to victory in 2016. Trump, who has dismissed his own government’s climate reports, has already claimed the Paris demonstrations as validation of his decision to abandon the Paris Climate Agreement. What’s more, the U.S. is currently defending the use of fossil fuels at the ongoing United Nations climate talks in Poland.

While not the same as the French fuel tax, the carbon tax has long been touted by many climate experts as a simple way to push companies and consumers toward a green economy by making pollution more expensive.

But the newest wave of American climate activists, including Ocasio-Cortez, have taken a different approach.

Although not explicitly opposed to a carbon tax, they’ve focused their energy on what they call a “Green New Deal” that would put federal spending on renewable energy on par with wartime military budgets.

“Any sort of Macron-style carbon tax that’s coupled with extreme austerity measures handing more wealth to those on top is not progressive,” Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for Justice Democrats, told NBC News. “This mistaken and elite-driven approach to climate is exactly what the Green New Deal aims to combat through massive public investment and economic mobilization.”

The details of the Green New Deal are still vague. Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a House Select Committee to study the issue and come up with a plan to move quickly to a renewable energy economy rather than begin with one specific approach.

That gives lawmakers some flexibility, and activists see it as a more sustainable political message as well. Rather than lead with a punitive tax, they are instead pitching their plan as a way to create jobs at home.

“The Green New Deal would not only tackle climate change, but poverty and unemployment in a way we’ve never seen in our lifetimes,” Stephen O’Hanlon, interim communications director for the Sunrise Movement said, while participating in the climate change sit-in at House minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s office on Monday.

On the other hand, carbon tax supporters say it’s not fair to lump their ideas in with Macron’s fuel tax, nor to treat them as mutually exclusive to a Green New Deal.

The “Yellow Jacket” demonstrations come as environmental issues are taking on more prominence amid dire reports warning lawmakers they have limited time to minimize the damage.Lucas Barioulet / AFP – Getty Images

Proposed carbon taxes on the left, like a plan by economists Mark Paul and Anders Fremstad at the People’s Policy Project, and on the right, like a plan backed by former George W. Bush adviser Greg Mankiw and former Ronald Reagan adviser Martin Feldstein, take into account the impact on working people. Both plans propose using revenue from the tax to pay dividends to Americans that would at least partially offset increases in the cost of living.

“If leftists can’t get behind a carbon tax (properly designed, of course), we’re in real trouble,” Michael S. Linden, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, tweeted on Monday.

But there could be limits to a carbon tax as well.

While France’s situation is unique, Kristina Costa, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, said it pointed to the challenge of tackling pollution from cars and trucks, which she noted is an urgent need but harder to achieve than other emission cuts, including at power plants. Because large swaths of America are dependent on cars, a carbon tax could raise the cost of commuting, but not always change their behavior.

“It will increase prices and people will feel that, but if you live in rural Indiana, you don’t have a choice but to drive a car,” she said.

To soften the blow, policymakers could keep raising fuel standards on vehicles and pumping research dollars and tax credits into electric vehicles so that owners are less affected by changes in oil prices. But that runs into dangerous territory: Consumers might see higher prices from a carbon tax before they see the benefits from new technologies.

Lex Paulson, a political science professor at Sciences Po Paris and strategist for Macron’s En Marche movement, said the protest’s roots were complex and fed into a broader revolt beyond the fuel tax alone, but he still saw important lessons for the climate debate in America. Getting buy-in from voters on an overall plan is important, and Macron set the stage for a populist backlash in part by imposing the fuel tax while cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time.

“Unless everyday people feel like the change being asked of them is fair and fits into a coherent vision, they will reject it as something by an elite for an elite,” Paulson said.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/paris-protests-open-rift-american-left-spark-u-s-climate-n946296

Alleged Russian agent Maria Butina, suspected of trying to infiltrate the National Rifle Association and influence US policy toward Russia, has pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to act as a foreign agent without registering with the Justice Department, according to NPR.

It was not immediately clear how the deal will be structured for Butina. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Multiple news reports signaled Butina was already cooperating with prosecutors. A representative for the US Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the case.

Butina, a former American University graduate student, had previously pleaded not guilty to US charges in July that she was acting as an agent of the Russian government and conspiring to take actions on Russia’s behalf.

Prosecutors have accused her of working with a Russian official and two US citizens to try to infiltrate the powerful NRA lobby group that has close ties to Republican politicians including President Donald Trump, and influence Washington’s policy toward Moscow.

In this undated handout photo provided by the Alexandria Sheriff’s Office, Russian national Maria Butina is seen in a booking photo in Alexandria, Virginia.
Alexandria Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

Butina’s lawyers previously identified the Russian official as Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of Russia’s central bank who was hit with US Treasury Department sanctions in April.

One of the two Americans mentioned in the prosecutors’ criminal complaint was Paul Erickson, a conservative US political activist who was dating Butina. Neither Erickson nor Torshin has been accused by prosecutors of wrongdoing.

Butina’s cooperation will mainly focus on telling investigators about the role of Erickson and her interactions with Russian officials, CNN reported.

The case against Butina is being prosecuted by the US Attorney’s Office in Washington and the National Security Division, and not US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election and any coordination between Moscow and Trump campaign members.

The government’s complaint against Butina did not explicitly mention Trump’s campaign. Trump has denied any collusion with Moscow occurred.

Reuters previously reported, however, that Butina was a Trump supporter who bragged at parties in Washington that she could use her political connections to help get people jobs in the Trump administration.

In a December 8, 2016, class project at American University, she gave a presentation titled “What Might President Trump’s Foreign Policy Be Toward Russia?” and listed several of Russia’s policy objectives, according to a copy reviewed by Reuters.

Whether she could help shed any light on contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia is not known.

Moreover, the prosecutors in her case have previously made mistakes, including erroneously accusing Butina of offering sex in exchange for a position in a special interest group. The errors could possibly have helped give Butina more leverage in reaching a plea deal.

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/maria-butina-alleged-russian-agent-plea-deal-in-conspiracy-case-2018-12

CLOSE

Andrés Manuel López Obrador wins Mexican presidency, becoming first leftist to govern in decades.
USA TODAY

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican government has announced plans to spend $30 billion over the next five years on Central American development, an initiative designed to slow migration from some of the hemisphere’s poorest and most violent countries through Mexico and toward the United States.

Exact details were still pending on how the money would be disbursed, but the Mexican Foreign Ministry said in a tweet Monday that Mexico “will change its migration policies to respond to the needs required in the south of our country and Central America.”

The Mexican announcement comes as more 5,000 Central American migrants traveling in caravans have congregated in Tijuana, where many had hoped to make asylum claims in the United States, but face waiting lists of more than several months.

And it serves as an early test of the relationship between new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and President Donald Trump, who has already cut aid to Central America and vowed to halt all foreign aid to the region if the caravan wasn’t stopped.

The two leaders have maintained cordial relations. But as a candidate, López Obrador vowed that he “will not do the dirty work of any foreign government,” a clear swipe at demands Trump was imposing on Mexico to stop the migrant caravan.

It also comes as an early initiative on the migration issue from López Obrador — who, on the campaign trail, responded to questions on migrants transiting Mexico that his country “will not do the dirty work of any foreign government.”

López Obrador hasn’t repeated that pledge since being elected July 1 and has instead proposed a sort of “Marshall Plan” for Central America, which he insists will diminish the need to emigrate in the first place. 

“We’re going to guarantee that the rights of migrants in our territory are respected,” he told reporters on Dec. 5. “About how to resolve the problem, we’re putting together a proposal to invest in productive projects and job creation. And, not only that, in work visas as well for Mexican and for the United States.”

More: Mexico’s new president sworn into office, pledges to curb corruption, bring change

More: New data shows asylum claims spiking at U.S. ports of entry

López Obrador swept into office on a domestic agenda of curbing corruption, combating poverty and reasserting state influence over economic affairs. But the arrival of so many caravan travelers in Tijuana has thrust migration to the top of the bilateral agenda as he starts his six-year administration — during which time he promises “respect” for the United States and Trump.

López Obrador promises to focus the work of Mexico’s network of consulates in the United States on “defending” the millions of Mexicans living north of the border. But focusing on the thousands of Central Americans transiting the country hasn’t proved a priority for successive Mexican administrations, even as asylum claims accumulate and migrants fleeing violence and poverty increasingly see Mexico as a destination country.

“It’s not part of their project. There is very little to gain politically from it,” said Carlos Bravo Regidor, a professor at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics. “Nobody wants to deal with it, it’s very hard to find a solution and very easy to screw up.”

Members of the López Obrador administration have negotiated with their U.S. counterparts since before his Dec. 1 inauguration. The Washington Post reported last month that the incoming López Obrador administration and U.S. government had agreed to a plan known as “Remain in Mexico,” in which asylum seekers stay in Mexico while their claims are heard in U.S. courts.

Interior Minister Olga Sánchez Cordero denied any deal, saying Mexico would not serve as a “safe third country,” which means migrants setting foot in Mexico would be unable to seek asylum in the United States and be required to do so in Mexico instead.

Migration observers say “Remain in Mexico” would serve a similar purpose to Mexico becoming a “safe third country.”

“This would be like giving Mexico an excuse to put up a wall and then force people to cross the only way possible, the illegal way,” said Gilberto Martínez Amaya, director of a migrant shelter in Tijuana.

Mexico has had moments in its history of welcoming migrants such during the Spanish Civil War. Thousands of Guatemalans also fled to southern Mexico and settled there during a 1980s civil war.

Asylum claims in Mexico have climbed 10-fold over the past five years to 14,596 in 2017 — a figure expected to be easily surpassed this year due to the arrival of several caravans.

Less than 1 percent of the country’s population is foreign-born, however, and attitudes towards migrants can be complicated — especially toward those from poorer countries, said Javier Urbano, a migration expert at the Iberoamerican University.

“The biggest part of the immigration that has arrived here is from groups that are socioeconomically medium or high,” Urbano said. “The number of permits the Mexican government gives to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador is barely between 2 percent and 3 percent of all the people who ask.”

Polls show attitudes toward the caravan are slipping, even though the caravans crossing the country toward Tijuana were met with outpourings of generosity as Mexicans provided everything from food and water to shoes and shelter. A November survey by the newspaper El Universal found 55 percent of respondents wanting the López Obrador administration to “take tougher measures” with future caravans.

In a July letter to Trump, López Obrador pitched the U.S. president on partnering to develop Central America — not unlike what he’s proposed for underdeveloped parts of southern Mexico, where he’s planning to build a refinery, two railway lines and plant millions of hectares of trees.

“Such a plan that addresses the political and economic needs of Central Americans would be a more humane response to the regional crisis than additional funds for border walls and family and child detention centers” said Mike Allison, an expert in Central American politics at the University of Scranton.

But he added, “Our Central American partners do not have the best record when it comes to combating corruption and promoting good governance.”

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/10/mexico-pump-30-billion-into-central-america-halt-migrant-caravan-donald-trump-lopez-obrador/2272077002/

December 10 at 6:05 PM

President Trump’s top White House adviser on energy and climate stood before the crowd of some 200 people on Monday and tried to burnish the image of coal, the fossil fuel that powered the industrial revolution — and is now a major culprit behind the climate crisis world leaders are meeting here to address.

“We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability,” said Wells Griffith, Trump’s adviser.

Mocking laughter echoed through the conference room. A woman yelled, “These false solutions are a joke!” And dozens of people erupted into chants of protest.

The protest was a piece of theater, and so too was the United States’ public embrace of coal and other dirty fuels at an event otherwise dedicated to saving the world from the catastrophic effects of climate change. The standoff punctuated the awkward position the American delegation finds itself in as career bureaucrats seek to advance the Trump administration’s agenda in an international arena aimed at cutting back on fossil fuels.

“There are two layers of U.S. action in Poland,” said Paul Bledsoe, an energy fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and former Clinton White House climate adviser.

One is the public support of fossil fuels, which Bledsoe said is “primarily aimed at the president’s domestic political base, doubling down on his strategy of energizing them by thumbing his nose at international norms.”

The quieter half is the work of career State Department officials who continue to offer constructive contributions to the Paris climate agreement that President Trump loves to loathe.

Which facet of the American presence proves more influential in Poland could have a big impact on whether this year’s climate summit, now in its second week, ends in success or failure.

Because greenhouse gases do not pay attention to national borders, a global front on climate action is crucial. The summit provides the only venue for countries to coordinate their push to curb ongoing global warming.

“This week is going to be telling,” said Helen Mountford, vice president of climate and economics at the World Resources Institute.

Monday’s presentation came after a weekend in which the U.S. delegation undercut the talks by joining with major oil producers Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in blocking full endorsement of a critical U.N. climate report. The report, by some of the world’s leading scientists, found that the world has barely a decade to cut carbon emissions by nearly half to avoid catastrophic warming.

But the United States balked at a proposal to formally “welcome” the finding, setting off a dispute that, while semantic in nature, carried ominous portents that the United States could become an obstacle to progress in Katowice.

“The worrying issue is the signal that it sends,” Mountford said.

A State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing sensitivity of the talks, said negotiators “faithfully serve the administration and do their best to defend U.S. economic and other interests.”

The planned U.S. exit from the Paris accord in 2020 has left a lingering question here about which countries will commit to ramping up their ambition in the years ahead and who can serve as a unifying force if the world is serious about making the changes necessary to address climate change.

The United States’ mercurial role in Poland is far different from 2014, when President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping — whose countries account for about 45 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions — struck a deal to limit those emissions in a high-profile announcement in Beijing.

Or 2015, when Obama and other top U.S. officials worked phones and backrooms, encouraging other world leaders in Paris to sign on to a deal aimed at creating a global effort to combat climate change.

Three years later, the idea of the United States as a leader at the international climate talks has evaporated. At a recent Group of 20 summit in Argentina, 19 of the 20 world leaders in attendance reiterated their commitment to climate action — only the United States stood apart. Trump has repeatedly dismissed a federal report about how climate change is already battering the states.

Behind the scenes, U.S. negotiators have soldiered on, pushing for long-held views that span several administrations, such as urging transparency in how countries report their emissions and standardizing the rules that govern the climate accord.

Those are policies “we’ve been pushing for decades. It’s not a new thing,” said Jonathan Pershing, who served during the Obama administration as the State Department’s special envoy for climate change and lead U.S. negotiator to the U.N. climate talks.

Pershing praised the career officials the administration has in Poland, calling them savvy and experienced. Likewise, other delegations have also said that U.S. officials have continued to play a key role, even if it has diminished from past years.

“The U.S. delegation is comprised of seasoned climate change negotiators. On most issues, they have maintained the positions of the previous administration. In some instances, they have remained constructively quiet. They reach out to other delegations informally to build bridges and propose solutions,” said Carlos Fuller, a negotiator for a coalition of small island and low-lying coastal countries that are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

“This is regrettable, as some of the best climate change scientists in the world are American. A lot of the data feeding the science comes from U.S. institutions and platforms. However, the White House policy statements have forced their negotiators to take this stance,” Fuller said.

The conference in Katowice brings together delegates from nearly 200 countries to try to kick-start a process that has shown worrying signs of stalling out. The goals are to raise global ambitions in the quest to cut carbon emissions, to establish a rule book for measuring progress and to put serious financial backing behind the developed world’s support for emissions reduction among developing nations.

Much of the negotiating work is highly technical, with the big-picture framework of the Paris talks replaced by the nitty-gritty of establishing standards and protocols. It is work tailor-made for diplomats and bureaucrats, and ill suited to politicians.

Monday’s protest was part of a demonstration by activists determined to disrupt the U.S. government’s only planned public contribution to the debate at this year’s global climate conference, the most important review of progress — or lack thereof — since the meeting in Paris.

After dozens of activists had shouted, “Keep it in the ground!” and “Shame on you!” for roughly 10 minutes, they marched together from the room. In the calm that followed, administration officials continued with their pitch for carbon-capture technologies to clean up coal, hydraulic fracturing to unearth gas and a new generation of nuclear energy plants.

Scientists say that a rapid migration away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy is essential in the quest to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change. But Griffith, the White House adviser, said that an exclusive focus on wind and solar is misguided at a time when the global energy supply is still dominated by carbon. He and his colleagues touted the economic benefits of shale gas and insisted that coal can be made much less polluting given the right technology.

“Alarmism,” Griffith said, “should not silence realism.”

But with many of the alarming pronouncements coming from scientists, Griffith was pressed on whether the U.S. approach really reflected the gravity of the moment.

One audience member asked whether the U.S. government accepted the urgency embedded in the United Nations’ recent report: “Do you believe that we have 12 years to save the planet and civilization as we know it?”

Griffith declined to say.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/that-was-awkward–at-worlds-biggest-climate-conference-us-promotes-fossil-fuels/2018/12/10/aa8600c4-f8ae-11e8-8642-c9718a256cbd_story.html

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCorsi sues Mueller for alleged leaks and illegal surveillance Comey: Trump ‘certainly close’ to being unindicted co-conspirator Trump pushes back on reports that Ayers was first pick for chief of staff MORE is scrambling to find a new chief of staff to replace John KellyJohn Francis KellyMORE — and the turmoil is casting a harsh light on his administration.

The probe by special counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE is picking up speed, amplifying the inherent risks in working for the volatile Trump. It has made a job that would once have been a career pinnacle fraught with peril.

“You’re not becoming the chief of staff for the president of the United States,” one Republican operative told The Hill on Monday. “You’re becoming the chief of staff for Individual-1.”

Mueller is the tip of the spear aimed at Trump, but there are other problems facing him, too. 

The Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives next month, the administration is already considered understaffed in crucial areas and the president’s chances of reelection are seen as shaky at best.

“Do you want to be chief of staff if this guy doesn’t get reelected?” said another source in Trump’s orbit.

The question of who would fill Kelly’s shoes had seemed settled as recently as Saturday, with Vice President Pence’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, being lined up for the role.

But the putative deal fell apart the next day. It is claimed that Ayers is eager to return to his native Georgia with his young family, but the explanation is viewed with acute skepticism in Washington — especially coming from an aide whose ambition is conspicuous even by the standards of the capital.

“Nick Ayers is so sharp-elbowed, so ambitious, that now the professional political community is in shock,” was the Republican operative’s verdict.

Among Trump loyalists, Ayers’s decision is also the subject of considerable — and often profane — anger. They believe he has embarrassed the president.

Trump critics, meanwhile, have taken the Ayers decision as a sign that he sees the writing on the wall.

“Nick Ayers doesn’t need more money, doesn’t need to return to Georgia, and hasn’t suddenly developed moral scruples about associating with Trump,” Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, wrote on Twitter on Monday. “He’s fleeing the Trump ship.”

The president has been pushing back on such ideas and lambasting the media yet again. 

“I am in the process of interviewing some really great people for the position of White House Chief of Staff. Fake News has been saying with certainty it was Nick Ayers, a spectacular person who will always be with our #MAGA agenda. I will be making a decision soon!” he wrote on Sunday evening.

The chief of staff role, in particular, is an arduous one in the Trump era. The first person to hold the position, Reince PriebusReinhold (Reince) Richard PriebusSantorum: John Kelly ‘didn’t work’ at controlling Trump John Kelly’s exit raises concerns about White House future Rubio says he’s a ‘huge’ fan of John Kelly: ‘It’s a loss to see him go’ MORE, was fired via tweet by Trump as the president sat on Air Force One, leaving Priebus humiliated. Kelly suffered through innumerable negative stories about the loss of his initial influence with the president and had to battle many internal foes.

At a more fundamental level, neither man was able to restrain the president.

“It’s a no-win scenario to work for this president, who always makes his own decisions. When a general as accomplished as Kelly can’t even corral the president, who could?” a third GOP operative with ties to the White House said.

There are some defenders of the president’s approach.

Former White House communications director Anthony ScaramucciAnthony ScaramucciJohn Kelly was always doomed to fail as chief of staff John Kelly to leave White House at year’s end Miami Herald reporter hits back at Scaramucci over criticism of Epstein story MORE, who was fired by Kelly, told The Hill, “Ultimately the president likes conflict and ironically doesn’t like sycophants. He has zero tolerance for the Washington crowd that alters their behavior while he is in the room and badmouths him when he is not.”

But independent experts are not so generous.

Robert Schlesinger, the author of a book on presidents and their speechwriters, noted that Trump had “troubles at the beginning” when it came to staffing because of the suspicion with which he was regarded by much of the GOP establishment. Things have only worsened since.

“Now, two years in, you have the legal problems — and it is very clear that Trump is going to be Trump and do Trumpian things,” Schlesinger added.

A shortlist for the chief of staff position has been drawn up following the Ayers refusal.

Among the names mentioned are Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsTrump pushes back on reports that Ayers was first pick for chief of staff Trump floating Mark Meadows for White House chief of staff: reports Pence aide Ayers will not be White House chief of staff MORE (R-N.C.), the chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus; White House budget director Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyTrump pushes back on reports that Ayers was first pick for chief of staff Trump floating Mark Meadows for White House chief of staff: reports Pence aide Ayers will not be White House chief of staff MORE; David Bossie, deputy campaign manager on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; and Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinOn The Money: Stocks slide after Trump warns China: ‘I am a Tariff Man’ | Mnuchin urges Congress to pass new NAFTA without changes | Postal reforms could inflame Trump-Amazon feud Mnuchin urges Congress to pass Trump’s new NAFTA without changes Stocks slide after Trump warns China: ‘I am a Tariff Man’ MORE.

After initial reports that Meadows was not interested, he reinserted himself back into contention with a statement on Monday noting that serving in the role “would be an incredible honor.”

Bossie, a longtime conservative activist who was one of the first people to seriously encourage Trump to run for the White House, is also said by people close to him to be interested.

Others, including Mulvaney and Mnuchin, are reportedly more ambivalent. And some long-shot candidates have sought to cool speculation about themselves. 

Randy Levine, the president of the New York Yankees, responded to reports that listed him as a contender by telling Fox News that he had “spoken to nobody about the chief of staff job” and was “very happy being president of the Yankees.”

Among some aides, there is a desire that the new chief of staff should be of roughly similar age to the 72-year-old president. They theorize that such a person would tend to have a better instinctive understanding of Trump’s sensibilities — and would be more likely to retain his respect. Ayers, who is 36, would have tested that thesis.

Other Republicans worry that the difficulties of recruiting people to top positions will affect the White House in a larger sense. 

The communications team, the White House Counsel’s Office and the political operation are all understaffed, they contend — a particularly serious problem as the ship heads into its choppiest waters to date.

Referring to the Mueller investigation, one GOP source said, “The White House is not ready for war. They do not have a chief of staff and they have a bare-bones general counsel staff.”

This source lamented that there was “a lot of talent on the street” following the loss of around 40 Republican House seats in November’s midterm elections, but added, “Many of them are reluctant to go into the Trump White House because of the long-term stigma.”

Asked to clarify, the source said, “It’s a stigma from working for the president that would harm future employment opportunities.”

Some high-profile figures who have exited the Trump administration have failed to pick up the kind of lucrative post-White House jobs that veterans of other recent presidencies have enjoyed.

For now, Trump would presumably settle for recruiting a chief of staff without further drama. But that might be more easily said than done.

“Trump has yet to show any evidence that he wants someone in that job who will tell him hard truths,” said Chris Whipple, the author of “The Gatekeepers,” a book about past chiefs of staff. 

“You really have to wonder who would want to be Donald Trump’s chief of staff when this administration is headed for a world of trouble,” he added. “A Democratic House, Robert Mueller closing in — any contender for White House chief of staff has to think about lawyering up.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump’s presidency.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/420684-the-memo-ayers-decision-casts-harsh-light-on-trump

Addressing the House of Commons on Monday, British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed a vote on her Brexit withdrawal or transition agreement with the European Union. The vote was originally planned for Tuesday but will now take place at an as yet undetermined date before Jan. 21, 2019.

May’s delay of this vote is a big deal. It proves that her plan lacks the support of the House of Commons. Still, it was necessary for a simple reason: Had the Commons voted on Tuesday, May’s plan would have been defeated and her position as prime minister imperiled to the point of a leadership challenge.

The operative question now is how May intends to attract enough votes to win a vote in the future?

The answer is far from clear. May says she’ll focus on getting improved clarity over what any border arrangement might look like if Britain and the EU have been unable to reach a post-Brexit transition arrangement when the transition period concludes on Dec. 31, 2020. Known as the “backstop,” and applying only if Britain and the EU had not agreed a trade deal by the end of the transition period, it would involve some form of border control at the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland border with the EU member state, the Republic of Ireland. But it’s unclear whether gaining such clarity would give May the votes she needs.

And it gets worse for May. Because while British parliamentarians want to avoid any formal border with the EU, the EU demands a backstop arrangement that would allow EU customs inspectors to check goods passing across the border. The challenge for May is that her government relies on the support — and would probably collapse absent it — of a Northern Irish party, the DUP, that opposes any kind of formal border arrangement.

May’s ultimate challenge, however, is how she gets any more concessions out of the EU that might allow her to win parliamentary support for her Brexit deal. And absent that parliamentary support, a Hard Brexit, or Brexit absent any transition agreement, would follow. The vast majority of economists believe such an outcome would risk sending Britain spiraling into a recession.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-theresa-may-delayed-parliaments-brexit-vote

VANCOUVER (Reuters) – A Canadian provincial court weighing whether to grant bail to a top executive of Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technologies [HWT.UL], who is facing possible extradition to the United States, adjourned on Monday without deciding her fate.

U.S. prosecutors want Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou to be extradited to face accusations she misled multinational banks about Huawei’s control of a company operating in Iran, putting the banks at risk of violating U.S. sanctions which would incur severe penalties, court documents said.

Meng, the 46-year-old daughter of Huawei’s founder, was arrested on Dec. 1 as she was changing planes in Vancouver. In a sworn affidavit, she said she is innocent and will contest the allegations against her at trial if she is surrendered to the United States.

The judge in Monday’s bail hearing said he rolled the proceedings over to Tuesday at 10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EDT/1800 GMT) because he wants to hear more about the issue of surety – who will take responsibility for Meng’s actions if she is released.

Meng’s lawyer David Martin, who told the court high-tech surveillance devices and a 24-hour security detail would ensure his client does not flee and proposed a C$15 million ($11.3 million) bail guarantee, had offered her husband as surety.

But the judge and the public prosecutor called into question whether Meng’s husband could perform this duty as he is not a resident of British Columbia, where Vancouver is located, and would not suffer if she were to breach her bail conditions.

Meng’s arrest has roiled markets over fears it would exacerbate tensions between the United States and China, already at a high over tariffs. The two sides have agreed to trade negotiations that must be concluded by March 1.

Beijing has demanded Meng’s immediate release and threatened “consequences” for Canada. But both Chinese and U.S. officials appear to be avoiding linking her arrest to the trade dispute.

Meng’s lawyer offered C$14 million in property equity and C$1 million in cash as a guarantee. The public prosecutor said he wanted half in cash and half in property.

At one point the judge asked why Meng had avoided travel to the United States since 2017 if not to avoid arrest. Martin cited a “hostile” climate toward Huawei in the United States.

“I ask the court to ask itself, what motive could she possibly have to flee?” Martin said, arguing the evidence against her was not overwhelming.

“If she were to flee, or breach order in any way … it doesn’t overstate things to say she would embarrass China itself.”

Meng appeared confident in court early on Monday, smiling and taking her lawyer’s arm. But by mid-afternoon she appeared more tense, gesturing rapidly as she conferred with members of her legal team.

She has argued she needs to be released because she has severe hypertension and fears for her health.

Huawei is the world’s largest supplier of telecommunications network equipment and second-biggest maker of smartphones, with revenue of about $92 billion last year. Unlike other big Chinese technology firms, it does much of its business overseas.

U.S. officials allege Huawei was trying to use the banks to move money out of Iran. Companies are barred from using the U.S. financial system to funnel goods and services to sanctioned entities.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Huawei and its lawyers have said the company operates in strict compliance with applicable laws, regulations and sanctions of the United States and other parties.

“We will continue to follow the bail hearing tomorrow. We have every confidence that the Canadian and U.S. legal systems will reach a just conclusion,” the company said on Monday.

Reporting by Anna Mehler Paperny; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing, David Ljunggren in Ottawa and Karen Freifeld in Washington; Writing by Anna Mehler Paperny and Nick Zieminski; Editing by Bill Rigby and Sonya Hepinstall

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei/canadian-court-weighs-bail-for-jailed-cfo-of-chinas-huawei-idUSKBN1OA02Z

As part of her agreement, Butina will plead guilty to conspiring “with a Russian government official … and at least one other person, for Butina to act in the United States under the direction of Russian Official without prior notification to the Attorney General,” according to a copy of the plea document obtained by ABC News. The deal also mandates Butina cooperate with federal, state and local investigators and could see her serve a short prison sentence or be released for time served, upon which she would likely be deported to Russia, according to the Times. It must still be approved by a federal judge.

Source Article from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/maria-butina-guilty-plea-conspiracy_us_5c0efd9ee4b06484c9fdbc0e