Recently Added Videos

CLOSE

USA TODAY’s Susan Page delivers three lessons from the President Clinton impeachment in 1998 that are relevant today.
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Democrats who are contemplating impeaching President Donald Trump after they take control of the House of Representatives next month are considering a cautionary tale: what happened the last time a president was impeached.

President Bill Clinton survived, but his top accuser, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, didn’t, and it was the Republican Party that lost seats in the next election. 

“Impeachment is hell,” warned independent counsel Ken Starr, whose exhaustive investigative report on Clinton was the basis for the House vote, taken precisely 20 years ago Wednesday. Starr thought through all that happened in writing his new book, Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. With the benefit of hindsight, he said in an interview, “The better call would have been a resolution of censure,” a measure that would have expressed disapproval of the president’s actions but left him in office.

Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader, was one of 45 senators who voted to convict Clinton, but he has second thoughts of his own. “I do think he made mistakes,” Lott said in an interview. “But in retrospect, I think it probably should not have been done.”

Outraged by allegations of perjury, obstruction of justice and sexual misbehavior leveled against the president, Clinton’s political opponents argued that impeachment was the right course for the country. House Republicans impeached Clinton, but the Senate refused to convict him.

There are calls to impeach Trump over allegations that he colluded with Russians during the 2016 campaign, obstructed investigations and violated campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women. Last week, his former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced to prison for making those payments to suppress publicity about accusations of sexual trysts. Tuesday, Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn was in court, where he asked to postpone his sentencing for lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation. 

As Washington waits for special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, the I-word is in the air – and memories of the case of Clinton are a major factor in the debate. 

More: Clinton impeachment: 20 years later, where are key figures from historic battle?

More: Poll: Pardon me? Most say Trump should be impeached if he pardons himself

Success rate low, unintended consequences high

Republicans who played key roles in impeaching the president 20 years ago warned that the possibility of success is low and the prospect of unintended consequences high. Those lessons reinforced caution among top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is likely to be elected speaker in January, and New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is likely to chair the Judiciary Committee.

The House vote on Dec. 19, 1998, was just the second time in U.S. history that the House had voted to impeach a president. Both presidents survived Senate trials – Clinton in 1999 and Andrew Johnson in 1868. (In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned in the face of his likely impeachment amid the Watergate scandal.) 

Nadler was a junior congressman during Clinton’s impeachment. He became one of the president’s fiercest defenders, denouncing his impeachment as a “partisan coup d’etat.” He is poised to chair the committee that would consider Articles of Impeachment against Trump.  

He urged Democrats to proceed with care. The question is not only whether the president committed an impeachable offense, he said, but also whether the offense is so serious that it can convince his own supporters that he should be removed from office. Trump would need to hold 34 of the 53 Republican senators to prevail in a Senate trial.  

Two decades ago, when Starr submitted his report, Eric Swalwell was a 17-year-old high-school senior in California. Now he’s part of the House Democratic leadership and a member of the Judiciary Committee. The consequences of Clinton’s impeachment aren’t lost on him, either.

“No one is above the law,” Swalwell said in an interview. “But you have to balance that against the reality of whether what you’re seeking to do would be successful. If you’re just doing it to score political points and you know you would never have support from the Senate, then I don’t know if that’s good for the country.”

For him, he said, there would need to be “an impenetrable case” against the president that commanded bipartisan support and reflected a consensus across the country. 

A disruption of democracy

Impeachment is a disruption of democracy, holding officials accountable by overturning the results of an election. In Article II of the Constitution, the founders made impeachment easy, requiring only a simple majority in the House. But they made conviction difficult, requiring two-thirds of the Senate.

They left the grounds for impeachment, of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” open to the best judgment of the day.

Historian Jeffrey Engel, co-author of “Impeachment: An American History,” calls impeachment “the framers’ safeguard, a nuclear option provided to halt tyranny and corruption at the top, to employ a term they would neither have employed or understood.”

The accusations against Trump echo those the founders had in mind, he said, especially their fear that a president might be corrupted by foreign influence.

“I think the founders would be surprised that he hasn’t already been impeached,” Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, said in an interview. He noted that the polarized politics of today and the solidity of Trump’s core support make conviction a distant prospect, whatever the charges.

Count that among the lessons from Clinton’s impeachment. 

“The No. 1 takeaway I have is that nobody comes out looking good in the end,” Engel said. “I’m struck by how all the leaders of the Republican leadership who went after Clinton found themselves resigned or disgraced or both.”

The costs for Clinton’s accusers were high. Starr, who served as solicitor general and a federal Appeals Court judge, said the controversy that surrounded his role as independent counsel prevented him from being considered for a Supreme Court appointment. Gingrich, who acknowledged he was “stunned” when Republicans lost seats in the 1998 midterms amid the impeachment debate, resigned. Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, who filed the first impeachment charges, saw allegations of his own marital infidelity aired by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt.

“I suppose the lesson there is if you have those sorts of problems, personal problems, you probably ought not to be taking a high-profile stance on an issue like the impeachment,” Barr said in an interview, though he argued it was right to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. “It certainly impacted my family, and that was unfortunate.”

Those cautions aside, some analysts and some voters assume Democrats will impeach Trump. “It’s inevitable,” said Michael Steel, a Republican strategist and former aide to House Speaker John Boehner, citing pressure from the Democrats’ most liberal voices. “They won’t be able to stop themselves.”

A 54 percent majority of Americans predicted in a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll taken in October that if Democrats won control of the House, they would seriously consider impeaching the president. More than a third of those surveyed, 39 percent, said they supported the idea themselves, including more than two-thirds of Democrats.

Incoming New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leader among the new class of liberal Democrats, said on Capitol Hill that Trump has “far surpassed” the standards Republicans used to impeach Clinton. Would it be premature to impeach Trump? “Not to me,” she said.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who is considering a presidential bid, invested millions of dollars in a group called Need to Impeach, airing TV ads that call Trump “dangerous” and his impeachment “a moral responsibility.” 

During the midterm campaign, Steyer’s campaign annoyed some top Democrats who saw it as a distraction at least and damaging at most, especially for candidates in swing districts. Most Democratic leaders, including former President Jimmy Carter, urged the party’s candidates to focus on issues such as health care and to defer making pronouncements on impeachment until Mueller filed his report.

Pelosi urged Democratic colleagues who pushed for impeachment to give Mueller the time and space he needs to complete his inquiry. Associates said Pelosi, a California congresswoman when Clinton was impeached, noted that in the last impeachment, it was the House speaker who lost his seat, not the president. 

‘People would revolt’

One central player in today’s drama doesn’t seem to be looking for lessons from the past: Trump.

“It’s hard to impeach somebody who hasn’t done anything wrong and who’s created the greatest economy in the history of our country,” the president told Reuters in an Oval Office interview last week. “I’m not concerned, no. I think that the people would revolt if that happened.” 

Even so, NBC News reported that Trump told friends he was alarmed about the prospect of impeachment.

Gingrich, a Trump ally, said the president hasn’t been interested in talking about Clinton’s strategy of survival. “He couldn’t care less,” Gingrich said in an interview. Trump trusts his instincts and has honed his own style. “For 30 years now, Trump has been very successful as a counterpuncher. He has a New Yorker’s attitude about fighting” and a willingness to “pound his way” through challenges. 

“What he doesn’t have is a capacity to be passive,” Gingrich said. “Trump believes, probably correctly, he’s his own best communicator and if he keeps his base revved up, he will not be convicted, period. He will be president, period.”

CLOSE

A New USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll shows that most Americans think that President Trump doesn’t have the power to pardon himself. The poll shows that more than half of Americans, including almost a third of Republicans, would back impeachment if he issues himself a pardon.
Buzz60

 

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/18/20-years-after-clinton-impeachment-lessons-loom-trump-congress-russia/2287529002/

WASHINGTON—The Senate on Tuesday passed a landmark bill that would change sentencing guidelines for federal prisoners—and would allow early release for potentially tens of thousands of inmates who were convicted of nonviolent crimes.

The bill was overwhelmingly approved in an 87-12 vote. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) was absent. The legislation now heads to the House, where it also has bipartisan support. Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) has promised to take it up before the session of Congress ends.

Known as the First Step Act, the bill would be the most far-reaching overhaul of the federal criminal justice system in decades. It would shorten some mandatory minimum sentences and give judges more discretion in determining penalties, among other provisions.

President Trump said Tuesday night that he looked forward to signing the bill.

“Congratulations to the Senate on the bi-partisan passing of a historic Criminal Justice Reform Bill,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “This will keep our communities safer, and provide hope and a second chance, to those who earn it.”

The bill divided the Republican caucus, leading to tension between lawmakers. At a closed-door lunch on Tuesday, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah defended the bill and pressed Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana about proposed amendments to the bill, according to a person in the room. Voices became elevated, to the point where Republican aides said they heard yelling from the other side of the door.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) described the discussion as “spirited.”

The House will consider the bill this week. A version of the bill passed the House earlier this year, so it is expected to be approved.

“He’s got a pen ready to sign this bill,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the Judiciary Committee chairman, said of the president. Mr. Trump’s endorsement of the bill last month brought several Republican senators worried about being criticized for being weak on crime on board.

The bill calls for evaluating all federal inmates to find convicts who have a low risk of recidivism and didn’t commit violent crimes—and then helping them through programs like counseling and job training. For every 30 days spent in a program, an inmate can earn 10 days of prerelease custody, for up to a year of release early to a halfway house or program outside of prison.

“The overwhelming majority of prisoners eventually get out,” Mr. Lee said in an interview. “What we want is to make society safer by reducing the likelihood they will reoffend once they get out.”

Inmates who participate in education programs have 43% lower odds of returning to prison than those who don’t, according to a 2013 study by Rand Corp., a nonprofit research organization. Employment after release was also 13% higher among prisoners who participated in either academic or vocational education programs than those who didn’t.

The bill applies only to the federal prison system, which has about 180,785 inmates and makes up a small percentage of the U.S. jail and prison population. But for future defendants in federal courtrooms and present convicts in federal prisons, it could spell less prison time—and sooner release.

Opponents of the bill introduced amendments that were ultimately unsuccessful. Mr. Cotton advocated for more specific language in the bill on what violent crimes were ineligible for early release. Proponents argued that this was redundant.

Mr. Kennedy called the bill “paint on rotten wood” and said he couldn’t give more “discretion to the Bureau of Prisons to decide who gets to stay in prison and who gets to stay free.”

Last-minute changes were amended to exclude additional categories of violent felons for early release, including carjackers who intended to cause serious bodily injury. A different amendment allowed faith-based groups to receive public funding for recidivism programs.

The bill also would reduce, retroactively, some penalties affected by the disparity in crack-cocaine sentencing and powder-cocaine sentencing, which was narrowed in a 2010 law. Most people serving time for crack in 2010 were black, while those serving time for powder-cocaine charges tended to be white or Hispanic.

“There are people sitting in jail right now for selling an amount of drugs the size of a candy bar who have watched people come in and leave for selling enough drugs to fill a suitcase,” said Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) on the Senate floor of the disparity.

Write to Natalie Andrews at Natalie.Andrews@wsj.com

Appeared in the December 19, 2018, print edition as ‘Senate Passes Criminal Justice Overhaul.’

Source Article from https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-landmark-criminal-justice-overhaul-bill-in-bipartisan-vote-11545185430

Migrants, one carrying a child, who plan to turn themselves over to U.S. border agents, walk up the embankment after climbing over a U.S. border wall from Playas de Tijuana, Mexico, last week. On Tuesday, members of the Hispanic Caucus called for improved medical facilities and trained personnel at ports of entry.

Moises Castillo/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Moises Castillo/AP

Migrants, one carrying a child, who plan to turn themselves over to U.S. border agents, walk up the embankment after climbing over a U.S. border wall from Playas de Tijuana, Mexico, last week. On Tuesday, members of the Hispanic Caucus called for improved medical facilities and trained personnel at ports of entry.

Moises Castillo/AP

More than a dozen members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus called for an independent investigation into the death last week of a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl in U.S. custody, saying the absence of medically trained agents and a series of “disturbing systematic failures” prevented government officials from providing adequate care for the child.

The delegation of Democratic Congress members and representatives-elect retraced Jakelin Caal Maquin’s final days, first with a tour of the Bounds Forward Operating Base in Antelope Wells, N.M., where the girl and her father were initially taken into custody, then the Lordsburg Border Patrol Station where she was treated by Emergency Medical Technicians.

“We learned today there were some very disturbing systematic failures in how the young girl’s condition was handled,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

In a news conference with reporters Castro was critical of Customs and Border Protection protocols and described several instances in which he said officials could have intervened to save the child’s life, including the 94-mile bus ride between the two facilities on which there was no medically trained professional on board.

“It’s systemic failure like that that we have had a chance to uncover today,” Castro said, adding that he plans to recommend policy changes to prevent such a “tragic death” from happening again.

The little girl made the arduous journey to the U.S. from Guatemala with her father, Nery Gilberto Caal. The two were part of a group of 163 migrants who turned themselves in to Border Patrol officers on Dec. 6 — three days after her seventh birthday — and taken to the Antelope Wells port of entry.

Upon arrival, the father, who speaks a Mayan language and Spanish, signed an English language waiver, declaring that the girl had no current health issues.

Some time later, the two boarded a bus for transfer to the Lordsburg Border Patrol Station. It was on the bus when the child began vomiting and her father first alerted officials to her illness.

By the time the bus arrived, an hour and a half later, the girl had stopped breathing and was twice resuscitated by Border Patrol agents who had been warned of her condition ahead of time by officials on the bus.

Eventually she was flown by helicopter to a hospital in El Paso, Texas, where she suffered another cardiac arrest. She died on Dec. 8 of suspected dehydration and shock.

Rep. Raul Ruiz, who is also a doctor in California, told reporters he was appalled by the lack of medical facilities at the Lordsburg station, noting it lacked proper medical equipment, including a medical bed.

“The child was laid on a flat table,” Ruiz said.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Houston added that as of Tuesday afternoon, the table held two microwaves.

Ruiz said CBP should implement mandatory examinations of all incoming migrants, including vital-sign checks and a cursory physical exam of those who are vomiting.

He also questioned the decision to transfer Jakelin to a second facility and suggested she could have received more immediate attention at a hospital near Antelope Wells.

The delegation also blasted the Trump administration for demanding more funding to expand the border wall instead of ensuring overwhelmed border crossings and detention centers receive sufficient resources and basic supplies, including food, water and accommodations.

“The SPCA would not allow animals to be treated the way human beings are being treated at this facility,” Rep. Al Green of Texas said.

According to several of the representatives, the Antelope Wells facility has no running water in the entire building because the water is contaminated. As a result, border agents and detained migrants are limited to two outdoor portable toilets.

In Lordsburg, detained adults and children are forced to use a toilet in a shared open space with no privacy, they said.

“There’s a mass of humanity wrapped in foil laying on the floor,” Castro added, touching on the overcrowding problem that many ports of entry in rural areas are grappling to address.

“The only reason this facility is still open as it is now is because these cameras can’t get in … If the public could see, they would treat human beings in a decent fashion,” Green told reporters.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/678035538/hispanic-caucus-calls-for-investigation-into-migrant-childs-death

The Department of Justice on Tuesday made official new regulations to make bump stocks illegal. The move makes sense, even though it isn’t likely to make a major difference in combating mass shootings.

Bump stocks are an attachment that can make semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire by taking advantage of the recoil after firing a gun, causing it to move quickly back and forth as the shooter’s finger rests on the trigger. They are not particularly widespread and over the years were mainly a niche item that some gun hobbyists used for recreational purposes. They received national attention after the Las Vegas shooting, when Stephen Paddock used the attachments to help him unleash an avalanche of bullets on a crowd, killing 58 people.

Under the new regulations, bump stocks will be considered “machine guns” for the purposes of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rules.

The change makes sense. The federal government goes to great lengths to restrict the availability of machine guns. It is illegal to own any fully automatic gun manufactured after 1986, and acquiring one manufactured before that is typically prohibitively time consuming and expensive and requires significant background checks and registration.

Given how much effort the ATF goes through to restrict machine guns, it makes sense that it would also ban parts such as bump stocks that can allow a relative novice to turn a semi-automatic gun into a weapon that roughly approximates a machine gun. After Las Vegas, even the National Rifle Association suggested that the ATF consider updating regulations on bump stocks, arguing, “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Doing this within the confines of clarifying existing regulations also avoids a scenario of Congress writing a law pitched as a ban of bump stocks that is written in a way that allows for broader regulation of semi-automatic guns.

While the move makes sense, it also shouldn’t be seen as something that is going to have much of an effect on mass shootings. In nearly all cases, bump stocks would be pretty useless as they make guns a lot less accurate.

The Las Vegas tragedy was unique in the sense that somebody was shooting on a large crowd from above, about 1,200 feet away, so he wasn’t aiming at any specific person, but rather was firing off as many rounds as possible toward a general area to maximize the carnage. So that was a rare instance in which having access to bump stocks probably increased the death toll. But the attachment would be unlikely to help shooters in other cases.

UPDATE: As Robert VerBruggen and Steve Gutowski point out, pursuing this action by regulation rather than through an act of Congress, the Trump administration is opening itself up to legal challenges. The issue is that regulations define a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” While the bump stock can approximate automatic fire, it still requires multiple pulls of the trigger.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bump-stock-ban-makes-sense-even-if-it-wont-make-much-of-a-difference

“They were all for adults!” she said.

Jonathan Hirsch, a social studies teacher who oversees tobacco and vaping education at Redwood High School in Larkspur, Calif., where 36 percent of 11th graders say they vape, said that even students who want to quit struggle mightily to do so. They will purposely not take their Juuls to school, only to relent at lunchtime and rush home for a hit.

Mr. Hirsch said that although instilling a fear of disease can be a successful tool to prevent cigarette smoking, using fear to intercede with students already vaping does not work. Faced with losing their devices — their nicotine — they become furtive or lash out. One parent took away his son’s vape, Mr. Hirsch said, and the boy got so worked up that he punched a tree and broke his hand.

Nor do habitual vapers stop because of the threat of consequences. “When I asked my students the other day if they know someone who routinely leaves the class to vape because they ‘have to,’ at least two-thirds raised their hands,” Mr. Hirsch said.

The perception that everyone vapes points to the biggest obstacle in persuading teenagers to quit: the pugnacious, peer-glued nature of adolescence itself. It’s stylish. Forbidden.

In addition, while making that first step in recovery — owning the addiction — is difficult for any addicted person, it’s arguably harder for teenagers, who are loathe to admit dependence on anyone or anything.

“It’s not often that you find a 16-year-old who says, ‘Hey Mom and Dad, I’m addicted to vapes, can you take me to therapy?’” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a Stanford professor and developmental psychologist who researches adolescent behavior around tobacco products. “Young people don’t do that. And how many even know they’re addicted?”

With little guidance, doctors are formulating individual approaches. Dr. Tanski, an associate pediatrics professor at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, begins her assessments indirectly. She’ll ask, “Are your friends vaping?”

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/health/vaping-nicotine-teenagers.html

There is no one else to blame but President Trump if there’s a partial government shutdown later this week.

The president said he would take the recriminations if there’s a shutdown. The question now is whether Trump will sign a spending bill that doesn’t fund his border wall.

“A lot of us are trying to help him,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., lamented when asked about the effort to secure dollars for the border wall. “It didn’t work out.”

And so in the coming days, the House and Senate will likely approve some form of a short-term spending measure to avert a partial government shutdown in the wee hours of Saturday morning. If there’s no action, then nine federal departments would close just days before Christmas. Instead, a tentative, stopgap package simply re-ups the remaining seven spending bills at current levels through Feb. 8.

“If we do go to February, what happens then?” asked Shelby, not so rhetorically.

Not much changes. Except Democrats will control the House next year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., seemed mystified as to why House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would want to wrestle with government funding issues when she matriculates to the speaker’s suite in January.

“I believe that incoming Speaker Pelosi has little latitude to make a deal,” McConnell observed. “I would assume her preference would be to roll out the new Democratic agenda with the fresh, new Democratic Congress.”

“I believe that incoming Speaker Pelosi has little latitude to make a deal. I would assume her preference would be to roll out the new Democratic agenda with the fresh, new Democratic Congress.”

— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

McConnell added that he thought punting to February “would be the least desirable outcome from the speaker’s point of view.”

Au contraire.

To quote McConnell, this is “the new Democratic agenda with the fresh, new Democratic Congress.”

Democrats flipped the House in part because Trump proved virulent in key districts. Pelosi is more than happy to tangle with the president over an issue like the border wall. The wall may energize Trump’s core supporters and enrapture red states. But the wall is utterly toxic in swing districts and suburbia.

That scenario helps Pelosi on two fronts. It presents the California Democrat a fulcrum to use for leverage against the president and simultaneously on behalf of liberal Democrats in her caucus.

Moreover, an elongated wall fight would potentially help Pelosi temper the narrative that all her side will do is investigate Trump.

To be sure, there will be plenty of investigating of the Trump administration by a Democratic House. But there are only so many cubic centimeters of available news oxygen.

A February fight over the wall means news outlets will have to devote some time to the wall brawl and not just focus on alleged misdeeds by the president.

Is there any question who prevailed here? If this were a boxing match, you could hear the bell clanging at ringside. Ding-ding-ding. Round one is over. The judges would award a unanimous decision to Pelosi.

The looming question now is will Trump sign a bill – sans wall – to avert a government shutdown this weekend?

Trump has been unpredictable on this issue before. In March, members of the president’s administration negotiated an omnibus spending package to avoid a government shutdown. Budget Director and now Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney ballyhooed the merits of the deal. The House and Senate approved the plan.

But just hours before the deadline, the president almost sparked a government shutdown when he threatened to veto the measure. He ultimately signed the accord.

Trump faced a revolt from his base when details leaked out about the size and scope of the omnibus spending package. One wonders if the president may reject anything Congress passes — especially if his partisans threaten mutiny.

That’s the quintessence of the problem stemming from the Oval Office meeting Trump conducted last week with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Trump threatened a shutdown and took responsibility. The bravado invigorated the president’s loyalists. But Trump’s bluster could backfire if he retreats now.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders indicated on multiple occasions Tuesday that the administration could still build the wall – even without a congressional appropriation.

“There’s certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use to couple with the money that would be given to us through congressional appropriations that would help us get to that $5 billion,” Sanders said.

“There’s certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use to couple with the money that would be given to us through congressional appropriations that would help us get to that $5 billion.”

— White House press secretary Sarah Sanders

Such a maneuver is called “reprogramming,” in congressional-ese: Take money Congress already passed and “reprogram” it for a purpose other than the original intent. Trump signed into law the Military Construction/VA appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers budget falls under the “MilCon/VA” bill. It’s possible the Trump administration could request a “reprogramming” of Army Corps of Engineers money for the wall. But that gambit requires sign-off by key members of the House and Senate appropriations Committees.

“They have to have congressional blessing for most reprogramming,” Pelosi said

That said, an administration can shift a little bit of money for purposes not sanctioned by Congress. But we’re only talking about a few million dollars here. That’s million with a “M.” Pocket lint in Washington.

The Trump administration says it’s seeking potential routes to bypass Congress. That’s a problem because Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse.

“They should read the Constitution,” said one person familiar with the congressional appropriations process. Another source said “It would create a sh–storm” if the White House tried to circumvent Capitol Hill.

Don’t congressional Republicans have the back of the president? As Shelby said, they tried to help. But the political street couldn’t accommodate what Trump requested. Remember that many GOPers fear voters could blame them for a shutdown. So they were willing to cash it in.

A scenario like this one seems to unfold in much the same way every Christmas in Washington. There’s a crisis du jour. The sides appear steeled in their resolve. And then, almost at the last minute, somebody buckles not long before Santa slides down the chimney.

In truth, the outcome of this impasse was likely determined by the most influential people in Washington. Not the lawmakers, but the lawmakers spouses and their families. After all, they want to get everyone home for Christmas.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/will-trump-forgo-border-wall-to-avoid-government-shutdown

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is changing the way it reviews sponsors who want to care for migrant children in government custody — backing off a requirement that all people in the house are fingerprinted.

The fingerprint requirement began in June amid the zero-tolerance policy at the border that led to the separation of some 2,400 children from their parents. The children taken from parents were placed in shelters until a sponsor, often a parent or other family member, could be found and evaluated before releasing the children to that sponsor.

But the addition of fingerprinting has slowed the process and clogged the shelters. Some potential sponsors have said they couldn’t get people in their homes to be fingerprinted because they were afraid. The information is shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and officers have arrested some 170 sponsors and others on immigration violations using the fingerprint data.

More than 49,000 children crossed the border alone during the 2018 budget year. While overall number of children coming to the U.S. is down from a high in 2016, minors are staying in shelters longer and the total number of children detained at once is at an all-time high. The average length of time that children spend in shelters has increased from 40 days in fiscal year 2016 to 59 in fiscal year 2018, according to federal data. There are currently more than 14,000 children in 137 government shelters around the country.

Austin, Texas-based Southwest Key Programs operates facilities to hold immigrant children in Arizona, California, and Texas, including one facility in an old Walmart. It has greatly expanded its operations this year as more children have been held for longer periods.

“We are greatly encouraged by this,” Juan Sanchez, the agency’s chief executive officer, said of the change. “This will help all care givers reduce the time these children stay in shelters and give them the foundation they need to thrive and prosper.”

U.S. Health and Human Services officials say fingerprints will still be required for sponsors and will be cross-checked with the FBI databases and U.S. Department of Homeland Security arrest records.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, the agency that manages the children, will do public-records checks on all adult household members. Fingerprints for those adults will still be required in certain circumstances, including if the records check uncovers disqualifying factors, like a history of child abuse, a documented safety risk for the child or the child is especially vulnerable.

The requirement change could result in the release of many more children from the centers. A series of tents that opened in June to house older children in Tornillo, Texas, was to close later this month. The space originally had 400 beds, but it expanded twice and now holds roughly 2,700 minors. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mark Weber, said on Tuesday afternoon that the agency had yet to make a decision about whether Tornillo will close by year’s end.

Health and Human Services officials say their focus is the health and safety and best interest of the child, and they treat that responsibility with care.

But Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., was unmoved by the policy shift.

“Rather than prioritizing the well-being and safety of children, the Trump administration continues to use them as bait to round up and deport their family members,” he said in a statement.

The New York Civil Liberties Union and other firms sued over the fingerprint policy last month, arguing it had slowed the process for releasing migrant children.

During the zero-tolerance policy over the summer, Health and Human Services was not accustomed to managing families with children who came to the border and had no system in place to track families together. The parents were criminally charged with illegal entry. Because children can’t go into criminal custody with their parents, they were separated at U.S. Border Patrol facilities.

The Border Patrol must transfer children to Health and Human Services custody within 72 hours, and if parents returned before then, they were reunited with their children. If not, they became unaccompanied minors who stay in shelters are given access to education, food and health care and exercise.

The summertime separations resulted in worldwide outrage, and President Donald Trump stopped the separations. A federal judge required the government to reunite the families.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

Source Article from http://time.com/5483712/trump-administration-migrant-children-sponsors-policy/

A reporter shouted “do your job” at White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday, as she wrapped up the briefing after roughly 15 minutes at the podium.

Breakfast Media’s Andrew Feinberg confirmed to Fox News that he was the reporter who shouted, “Do your job, Sarah!”

Feinberg took to Twitter following the incident, sending a variety of messages that coincided with the message barked to Sanders.

“Sarah Huckabee Sanders refuses to do the job for which she is paid money raised from US taxpayers. She delays each briefing so she can use a presidential event as an excuse to end it early. She does not respond to emails, she does not meet with (most) reporters,” Feinberg tweeted. “Why is she here?”

Sanders declined a request for comment when reached via email by Fox News.

Feinberg added, “Many reporters who cover the White House work for smaller media outlets, and it’s clear the administration feels those reporters (including me) are not worth their time.”

Not everyone was amused by the outburst and some media members defended Sanders. NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News she simply can’t make the White House press corps happy.

“If she holds regular briefings, they’ll devolve into chaos with folks like [CNN Chief White House Correspondent] Jim Acosta and [CNN political analyst] April Ryan playing for the cameras. If she doesn’t, there’s complaints about a lack of press access to the executive branch,” Houck said. “This is yet another example of how the D.C. press want to have their cake and eat it too.”

“Your conduct was rude and extremely unprofessional,” reporter Jordan Schachtel responded. “It’s not your job to shout out to the WH Press Sec and tell her how to do her job. Props for shooting your shot for the CNN/MSNBC gig though!”

Washington Examiner reporter Paul Bedard added, “And WH reporters wonder why @realDonaldTrump cancelled their Christmas party.”

NATE SILVER DISMISSES RUSSIAN TROLLS’ INFLUENCE ON 2016 ELECTION

Feinberg followed up by claiming that he hasn’t been able to get a single meeting with Sanders since she replaced Sean Spicer as press secretary.

“When I find her in her office she is invariably heading to a meeting and tells me to ‘shoot me a note,’” he wrote. “Do I get a response to that note? Never.”

Feinberg then complained that he is not part of the pool rotation and, therefore, has to ask special permission to join “so-called ‘pool sprays.’”

“Has a single one of those requests been granted in the year and a half she has been in the @PressSec job? Never,” he wrote. “Her office also arranges invite-only pen-and-pad briefings with senior officials (Chief of Staff, Nat’l Security Adviser, etc) on occasion. I am at the White House nearly every day but do I ever hear about them before I see nearly every other reporter coming out of them? No.”

‘SNL’ TOUGHER ON TRUMP THAN PAST PRESIDENTS — BUT HERE’S WHY THAT MAY NOT CHANGE

Feinberg is managing editor of the little-known Breakfast Media and once worked at a Russian state-owned news site called Sputnik. He went on to declare that “one can argue that the White House press secretary has a limited amount of time and attention,” but other reporters are ignored, too.

“By ignoring me and others like me, she effectively ignores those Americans who read our work and rely on us for news each day,” he wrote.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reporter-shouts-at-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-following-briefing-do-your-job-sarah

For the bill’s supporters, Tuesday’s vote was the culmination of a five-year campaign on Capitol Hill that only months ago appeared to be out of reach while Mr. Trump was in office.

Much of the same coalition that pushed the First Step Act had rallied around similar legislation, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. With Mr. Obama’s support, as well as that of Mr. Grassley and Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, the more expansive bill had appeared destined for passage before Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, stepped in and refused to give it a vote in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Mr. McConnell seemed intent on denying proponents another shot this year, but they secured a powerful ally early on in Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Over the course of the past year, Mr. Kushner worked with Mr. Grassley, Mr. Durbin and Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, to draft a compromise that the president could back. With Mr. Trump’s endorsement, the group brought a strong majority of Senate Republicans on board. By last week, under intense pressure from his own party and the White House, Mr. McConnell relented. And on Tuesday, facing his own re-election fight in 2020, he somewhat unexpectedly cast his own vote in favor of the bill.

“This is the biggest thing,” a jubilant Mr. Grassley said after the vote, showing off a vote card to reporters. “Except maybe getting a Supreme Court justice.”

He embraced another Democrat central to its passage, Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey and one of only three African-American senators.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/senate-criminal-justice-bill.html

LORDSBURG, N.M. —Democratic Rep. Joaquín Castro issued a call for the head of Customs and Border Protection to step down for failing to speedily report the death of a 7-year-old girl while in border officials’ custody.

Castro made the demand Tuesday after he and 11 other members of Congress visited border facilities to find out more about the death of Jakelin Caal Maquin.

“Based on my conversations with him, based on his conduct I believe he should step down,” Castro said of Commissioner Kevin McAleenan at a news conference outside the Lordsburg station.

Castro has previously criticized McAleenan for failing to advise Congress of Jakelin’s death within the 24 hours required by law or mentioning it when he testified before Congress last week. McAleenan has said he didn’t want to politicize her death.

Castro said it was “because it’s such a rare occurrence that makes it arguably the most significant thing that could have been discussed that morning.”

In addition, Castro and the other congressional members criticized the condition of the facilities they toured, saying they jeopardized the health of immigrants and CBP agents and officers working there.

Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., an emergency care physician, said the visit and conversations with supervisors “revealed” that Jacklin suffered seizures before she eventually became unresponsive.

“One could argue the judgment should have been to call the aeromedical evacuation. It took them, from unresponsiveness to evacuation, over an hour,” he said.

Jakelin and her father were picked up Dec. 6 near the Antelope Wells port of entry. Hours later, she was put on a bus to Lordsburg, but began vomiting on the bus and had a 105-degree fever, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS arranged for an ambulance to meet the bus carrying the girl and her father at Lordsburg, about 90 miles away. DHS has said the girl was not breathing when she arrived at the station an hour and a half later.

Ruiz criticized the available medical equipment and training of border officers to handle medical emergencies. He said her vital signs should have been taken when her father first reported she was ill at Antelope Wells; she could have been evacuated then “and she could have still been alive.”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/congressman-castro-demands-top-border-official-resign-after-migrant-girl-n949651

House Republicans on Tuesday released a transcript of their explosive closed-door session a day earlier with fired FBI Director James Comey, who revealed during the questioning that FBI agents knew “exactly” what ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had told Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to interviewing Flynn at the White House.

The 173-page transcript, which documented congressional Republicans’ second hearing with Comey this month, additionally included Comey’s explanation of why he broke normal protocol by sending two FBI agents into the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, without involving or notifying White House lawyers.

Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during that fateful interview about whether he had talked with Kislyak about Russia modulating its response to sweeping sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration, as well as whether he had discussed whether Russia could veto a United Nations vote condemning Israel. His sentencing was delayed on Monday until March, after a fiery hearing in which the presiding judge openly voiced his “disgust” at Flynn’s conduct.

SARAH SANDERS SAYS FLYNN WAS ‘AMBUSHED’ AT WHITE HOUSE BY FBI AGENTS

Flynn was fired in February 2017 for misleading Vice President Mike Pence on the same topic, but was not charged with any wrongdoing related to the substance of his communications with Kislyak. And, a Washington Post article published one day before his White House interview with the agents, citing FBI sources, publicly revealed that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn’s calls and cleared him of any criminal conduct.

“The agents went to interview Flynn to try and understand why the national security adviser was making false statements to the vice president of the United States about his interactions with the Russians during the transition,” Comey said, responding to a question from House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

Comey added: “I knew certain classified facts about the nature of [Flynn’s] interactions with the Russians” prior to sending the agents into the White House.

The former FBI director confirmed that one of the agents he sent was a “career counterintelligence agent,” and the other was Peter Strzok — who has since been fired from both Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and from the FBI over his apparent bias against President Trump. Comey denied specifically sending Strzok, or hand-picking the agents who questioned Flynn.

WITNESS REPORT REVEALS FLYNN’S EQUIVOCAL ANSWERS TO FBI AGENTS SENT BY COMEY

“I knew that the vice president was making statements that he attributed to conversations he’d had with Mr. Flynn that were starkly at odds with those classified facts,” he said.

Gowdy then said: “You knew exactly what General Flynn had said to the Russian Ambassador before you interviewed him.” Comey replied, “Yes.”

Comey quickly added: “I’m only hesitating because I don’t know what I don’t know, but we understood clearly the nature and extent of a variety of communications, telephonic, between Mr. Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. … I’m only hesitating because, if there were other communications, other phones, other means of communication, we wouldn’t know that. But we had clear transcripts of the conversations that we had.”

Comey also said he had not discussed the Flynn interview with Trump: “We had an open investigation, criminal investigation, counterintelligence investigation,” Comey said. “There was no way I would discuss that with the president.”

An FBI witness report released Monday that documented the January 2017 Flynn interview — finalized in February 2017 — showed that Flynn apparently was aware his calls had been wiretapped. On two occasions, agents wrote, Flynn thanked them for reminding him of some of his talks with Kislyak concerning the United Nations.

“Yes, good reminder,” Flynn said at one point, according to the witness report.

COMEY ADMITS DECISION TO SEND FBI AGENTS DIRECTLY TO FLYNN BROKE PROTOCOL, SAYS FBI GOT ‘AWAY WITH’ IT

Pressed on his public remarks earlier this month that the FBI broke its normal protocol by interviewing Flynn without involving the White House Counsel, Comey acknowledged that “in a more established environment, there would’ve been an expectation that the FBI would coordinate the interview through White House Counsel.”

He continued, “I’d never worked in a transition time before, but my understanding was that, in a more established administrative environment, you wouldn’t get away with just calling the witness and saying, ‘Can we come and talk to you?'”

Comey also pushed back on Republicans’ questions as to why the FBI didn’t warn Flynn that he could be prosecuted for lying to them. Investigators had issued those warnings to several other targets in the Russia probe. In a court filing last year, Mueller’s team took pains to note that FBI agents who interviewed former Trump aide George Papadopoulos on January 27, 2017 — just days after the Flynn interview — had advised Papadopoulos that “lying to them ‘is a federal offense'” and that he could get “in trouble” if he did not tell the truth.

“He was an extraordinarily experienced person and so reasonably should be assumed to understand you can’t lie to the FBI,” Comey told House Republicans.

“Second, it’s not protocol. The FBI does not do that in noncustodial interviews,” he added. “And, third, you want to find out what the witness will say to you before you heat up an interview by raising the prospect that the witness might be lying to you.”

Comey said he did not recall whether Flynn had asked about an attorney, but said then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had “volunteered to him that you are welcome to have somebody present from the White House Counsel’s Office. And I think he said, in substance, there’d be no need for that.”

According to a memorandum he wrote at the time, McCabe had advised Flynn that should he choose to seek counsel, the Justice Department would have to become involved.

Comey also disclosed that then-Acting Attorney General Dana Boente made a remark along the lines of, “Oh, God, I was hoping that would go away,” when reminded of Trump’s request that the Justice Department make clear he was not under criminal investigation. Comey, who said he had relayed Trump’s request to Boente, added he did not personally inform the public that Trump was not under investigation because he felt that was the DOJ’s decision to make.

Later during the hearing, under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Comey admitted he had eliminated any mention of President Obama’s secret email alias — which he used to communicate to Hillary Clinton on her private email server — from his public remarks at a July 5th, 2016 news conference announcing that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information.

Comey explained: “Let’s imagine the Russians had captured that communication. … We didn’t want to do anything to confirm to the bad guys that they might have Barack Obama’s private cover email unclassified.” Comey emphasized that Obama and Clinton did not discuss classified information using that email arrangement.

But the fired FBI Director said he was worried that Clinton had exposed Obama’s secret email alias by communicating with him while she was overseas.

“The concern we had was about the exposure of his unclassified email account, which was not in his name,” Comey said.

Separately, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Comey how he informed Trump about the FBI’s knowledge of the infamous, unverified opposition research dossier compiled by a firm funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“I was very concerned that he might interpret it as an effort to pull a J. Edgar Hoover on him,” Comey said, adding that he explained “that it was unverified, that it wasn’t something that we were investigating, and then, once the conversation, in my judgment, started to go off the rails, by then telling him we were not investigating him personally.”

The former FBI director excoriated Republicans on Monday after exiting the hearing — his second Capitol Hill appearance this month where he was called to answer questions on the Russia and Hillary Clinton email probes.

“Someday, they’ll have to explain to their grandchildren what they did today,” a defiant Comey said of the Republicans on the two House committees that conducted the interview, accusing them of not defending the FBI from President Trump’s attacks.

Former FBI Director James Comey, with his attorney, David Kelley, right, speaks to reporters after a day of testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(Associated Press)

Republicans, for their part, have accused Comey of not being forthcoming. He was called back to Capitol Hill after an appearance in early December in which he repeatedly claimed not to know or remember the answers to numerous questions. Jordan told reporters he was not satisfied with Comey’s answers on Monday, either.

DOSSIER THAT FBI RELIED ON TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE CONTAINED MANY ‘LIKELY FALSE’ CLAIMS, KEY REPORTER SAYS

Comey, though, cast the questioning from lawmakers on the House Judiciary and Oversight committees as political and defended his own leadership, under which agents investigated Clinton and began probing relationships between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“We had to make very hard decisions in 2016,” Comey said. “I knew we were going to get hurt by it. The question was how do we reduce the damage.”

Asked by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge whether he bore any responsibility for the FBI’s reputation taking a hit, he responded, “No.”

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Comey called it “frustrating to be here.”

“The questions about Hillary Clinton and Steele dossier strike me as more of the same,” Comey said. “I didn’t learn anything new in there. Maybe they did.”

Lashing out at Republicans, Comey also called for them to stand up to the “fear of Fox News, fear of their base, fear of mean tweets” and “stand up for the values of this country.”

Earlier, North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters Republicans planned to focus their Comey questioning on a new FBI document that was released Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act and published by Politico.

ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT’S PHONE WAS COMPLETELY WIPED AFTER HE WAS FIRED FROM MUELLER PROBE

He told reporters he wanted Comey to clarify when he first became aware of the involvement of the Democratic National Committee, law firm Perkins Coie and the opposition research group Fusion GPS in the production of the dossier.

“I want to give him a chance to clarify all that,” Meadows said.

That heavily redacted document details the information regarding the bureau’s Russia investigation that Comey, serving as FBI director at the time, briefed Trump about shortly after the Republican was elected president. The document, once again, suggests the FBI was vague in the sourcing of the dossier’s origin as being funded by anti-Trump Democrats.

But Meadows also says he believes it could conflict with previous statements from Comey about what he knew of the dossier’s origins at the time.

“I can’t imagine how the director of the FBI did not know the connection between Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, and the DNC, as it related to the infamous dossier,” Meadows told reporters.

During an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier in April, Comey said he first learned about the existence of the dossier in the fall of 2016 but still didn’t “know…for a fact” that the DNC and Hilary Clinton campaign had funded the work. The dossier was funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign. The FBI document vaguely refers to it as being paid for by “private clients.”

“An FBI source … volunteered highly politically sensitive information … on Russian influence efforts aimed at the US presidential election,” the memo said.

Referring to Steele, who authored the dossier, the memo said, “The source is an executive of a private business intelligence firm and a former employee of a friendly intelligence service who has been compensated for previous reporting over the past three years.” It also said, “The source collected this information on behalf of private clients and was not compensated for it by the FBI.”

Trump has railed against the FBI for relying in part on a dossier funded by Trump’s political opponents as it began investigating the relationships between Russia and members of Trump’s campaign.

Earlier this year, Comey said during his book tour that he didn’t tell the president about the origins of the dossier during the briefing, saying it “wasn’t necessary.”

Comey returned for more Capitol Hill testimony after the prior Dec. 7 session left lame-duck Republican lawmakers fuming as Comey repeatedly said “I don’t remember,” “I don’t know” and “I don’t recall” when grilled about investigations Republicans believed were aimed at hurting Trump.

The questioning covered the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s email server and how a counter-intelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election morphed into an all-encompassing probe of Trump’s inner circle, including the obtaining of FISA warrants used to spy on American citizens.

A transcript of the marathon interview was released on Dec. 8, demonstrating the fired FBI boss’ lack of responsiveness and the tension between him and GOP lawmakers.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Caroline McKee contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-releases-transcript-of-explosive-closed-door-comey-questioning

Judge Emmet Sullivan’s extraordinary rebuke of Michael Flynn indicates that the former national security adviser has painful days ahead. But by suggesting to Flynn’s legal team that they ask for a sentencing delay, and then accepting that delay, Sullivan’s words might also indicate Flynn has given special counsel Robert Mueller little incriminating material on President Trump.

After all, had Flynn’s evidence provided a prosecution link to Trump or his inner circle, we might have expected Sullivan to treat the former national security more favorably.

That was most certainly not the case on Tuesday. Prior to accepting Flynn’s request for a sentencing delay, Sullivan asked prosecutors whether they had considered charging Flynn with treason. They said they had not. But the judge wasn’t stopping there. Flynn’s conduct, Sullivan said, filled him with disgust. He added, “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president. Arguably, this undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.”

Wow. While Sullivan then backtracked on his words, the judge knows the publicity of this case and its political importance. I therefore have little doubt that he had judicial grounds to motivate his rhetoric.

Again, however, if Flynn had provided some great value to Mueller, would Sullivan have been so harsh? Perhaps he would have, but I doubt it. As pertaining to plea deals such as Flynn’s, U.S. federal prosecutions are built on a system that is designed to balance leniency in return for evidence offered. In this case, Flynn’s evidence offered is supposed to be only peripherally linked to the indictment of two of his Turkey-lobbying business partners. While Flynn’s sentencing has now been delayed until March so as to offer his greater testimonial value to the government, that was not why Mueller suggested Flynn might be given a no-prison sentence. Again, the Turkey-lobbying business is peripheral to Mueller’s investigative remit: possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.

That brings us to the many redactions in Mueller’s sentencing report on Flynn. They now suggest that there is far more damaging material pertaining to Flynn that is waiting to come to light here. I strongly suspect that this will involve documentation of Flynn’s effort to subvert U.S. national interests and federal law in order to serve aggressive Turkish government interests: specifically, Turkey’s interest in extracting exiled Turkish cleric, Fethullah Gulen, from the U.S. But Flynn’s record of erratic behavior indicates that his Turkish antics were born of arrogance and greed rather than treasonous intent.

Yet for Trump, Tuesday at least was not a bad day. Put simply, Sullivan strongly implied that whatever Mueller had got from Flynn was not enough to justify Flynn receiving a lenient sentence. He has delayed sentencing so as to give Flynn more time to help the government in order to help himself.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/tuesday-was-a-bad-day-for-mike-flynn-and-a-good-day-perhaps-for-trump

December 18 at 3:55 PM

President Trump has agreed to shut down his embattled personal charity and to give away its remaining money amid allegations that he used the foundation for his personal and political benefit, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood announced Tuesday.

Underwood said that the Donald J. Trump Foundation is dissolving as her office pursues its lawsuit against the charity, Trump and his three eldest children.

The suit, filed in June, alleged “persistently illegal conduct” at the foundation, which Trump began in 1987. Underwood is continuing to seek more than $2.8 million in restitution and has asked a judge to ban the Trumps temporarily from serving on the boards of other New York nonprofit organizations.

Underwood said Tuesday that her investigation found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

“This is an important victory for the rule of law, making clear that there is one set of rules for everyone,” she added in a statement.

The shuttering comes after The Washington Post documented apparent lapses at the foundation. Trump used the charity’s money to pay legal settlements for his private business, to purchase art for one of his clubs and to make a prohibited political donation.

Trump denied that the organization had done anything wrong. In late 2016, he said he wanted to close the foundation before he became president to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. But the New York attorney general blocked that move while the investigation continued.

The settlement with Underwood’s office represents a concession by Trump to a state inquiry he has decried as a partisan attack. The case is one of numerous legal investigations of Trump organizations that have proliferated during his presidency.

In a court filing in New York, Underwood said that the foundation’s remaining $1.75 million will be distributed to other charities approved by her office and a state judge.

Alan Futerfas, an attorney for the Trump Foundation, issued a statement criticizing Underwood for “politicizing” the agreement.

“The Foundation has been seeking to dissolve and distribute its remaining assets to worthwhile charitable causes since Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2016 Presidential election,” Futerfas said. “Unfortunately, the NYAG sought to prevent dissolution for almost two years, thereby depriving those most in need” of the foundation’s money, he said.

Futerfas said that, over its life, the foundation had given away about $19 million, including $8.25 million donated by Trump himself. The rest of the money came from other donors, notably pro-wrestling moguls Vince and Linda McMahon, who gave $5 million. Trump later chose Linda McMahon to head the Small Business Administration.

As part of its agreement with the attorney general’s office, the foundation will be required to sell its remaining assets and donate the proceeds, said Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Underwood.

That includes a Denver Broncos football helmet signed by former quarterback Tim Tebow, which Trump bought at a charity auction in 2012 with $12,000 in Trump Foundation money. The charity also owns two large portraits of Trump, for which Trump paid a combined $30,000 in foundation money.

Trump now values the three items — for which he spent $42,000 in charity money — at a combined $975, according to a recent IRS filing.

The attorney general’s suit alleges that Trump used his charity’s money as his own piggy bank — including to help his presidential campaign by paying for giveaways at Iowa rallies.

“The Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments to not-for-profits from Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization,” Underwood wrote in the initial suit.

The Post’s reporting showed that, for years, Trump appeared to use the foundation — which was, by law, an independent entity — to make payments that bolstered his interests.

The largest donation in the charity’s history — a $264,231 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989 — appeared to benefit Trump’s business: It paid to restore a fountain outside Trump’s Plaza Hotel. The smallest, a $7 foundation gift to the Boy Scouts that same year, appeared to benefit Trump’s family. It matched the amount required to enroll a boy in the Scouts the year that his son Donald Trump Jr. was 11.

The attorney general’s investigation turned up evidence that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — all listed as officers of the charity — had never held a board meeting. The board hadn’t met since 1999. The charity’s official treasurer, Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, told investigators that he wasn’t aware that he was on the board.

State investigators asked him what the foundation’s policies were to determine whether its payments were proper.

“There’s no policy, just so you understand,” Weisselberg said.

At one point, Trump used the charity’s money to make a $25,000 political donation to Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R). The charity didn’t tell the IRS about that, as required — and instead listed that donation as a gift to an unrelated charity in Kansas with a similar name. Trump’s team blamed accounting mistakes.

In 2016, state investigators allege, Trump effectively “ceded control” of his charity to his political campaign. He raised more than $2 million at a fundraiser in Iowa that flowed into the foundation. Then, the state said, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski determined when and where it would be given away.

“Is there any way we can make some disbursements . . . this week while in Iowa?” Lewandowski wrote in an email cited in Underwood’s lawsuit.

Trump gave away oversize checks from the foundation at campaign events in the key early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, pausing his campaign rallies to donate to local veterans’ groups.

Federal law prohibits charities from participating in political campaigns. As president, Trump has called repeatedly for that law to be repealed.

Underwood has asked the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether the Trump charity broke tax laws. Both agencies have declined to comment.

In his statement Tuesday, Futerfas praised the foundation for operating with “virtually zero expenses.”

Indeed, the charity had no paid employees.

It also spent very little on advice from lawyers. From 2001 to 2016, the foundation spent $163 on legal fees — and, in many of those years, it spent nothing.

The demise of the Trump Foundation still leaves one mystery regarding a large portrait of Trump that the future president bought for $20,000 in 2007, using money from the charity. What became of it after that is unknown.

In 2017, after The Post wrote about the portrait, Trump listed it as an asset on his charity’s IRS forms. He assigned it a value of $700. But he did not say where it was.

On this year’s tax forms, however, the painting’s value was listed at $0. Trump’s attorney did not respond to a query from The Post about why.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-agrees-to-shut-down-his-charity-amid-allegations-he-used-it-for-personal-and-political-benefit/2018/12/18/dd3f5030-021b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

<!– –>

The White House suggested Tuesday that President Donald Trump could back down from his demand for $5 billion to fund his proposed border wall in a year-end spending bill.

Trump’s push for the money has threatened a partial government shutdown when funding for seven agencies lapses after midnight Friday. Last week, the president said he would be “proud” to close parts of the government over border security.

“We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion that we’ll work with Congress,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News on Tuesday morning. She added that the Trump administration could support $1.6 billion in border security funding proposed by Senate Democrats, as long as it can “couple that with other funding resources” to get to $5 billion.

WATCH: These virtual walls could be the cheaper and more effective alternative to Trump’s $5 billion border wall

She added that “at the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have cast the potential lapse in funding as the “Trump shutdown.” When Pelosi goaded Trump into an Oval Office fracas last week, the characterization appeared to irritate the president.

Sanders’ comments mark a de-escalation in the White House’s rhetoric on the proposed barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump has repeatedly threatened to force a shutdown if he cannot secure money for the wall. As a candidate, he promised to force Mexico to fund the barrier.

Still, Trump himself has not weighed in Tuesday on how much money he would accept. As always, a comment or tweet from the president could trample on the message administration officials try to send. On Tuesday afternoon, he told reporters it is “too early to say” if parts of the government will shut down.

Later Tuesday, Sanders put the burden on Congress to find a solution, even though GOP lawmakers have said they do not know what Trump would accept. The White House wants to “see what the Senate can pass” and then the administration will “make a determination” on whether to sign it, she said. She added that Trump has directed agencies to see if they have money to put toward border security, though Schumer flatly said Tuesday afternoon that such an effort would not get congressional approval.

Schumer met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. The Kentucky Republican proposed an appropriations bill that includes money for border security fencing, as well as what a Senate Democratic aide described as a $1 billion “slush fund” that Trump could use on his immigration policies. Democrats rejected the deal.

A McConnell spokesman later told NBC News that the “hypothetical slush fund” would not go toward a wall. Speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon, McConnell said he offered a plan to Schumer that he “thought was reasonable to both sides.” He later heard back from the Democratic leader “that the offer was not acceptable,” he said.

On Tuesday afternoon, Schumer told reporters that he thought the “Republican offer today would not pass either chamber.” However, he said Democrats would “very seriously consider” a short-term measure to keep the government open if McConnell offered it.

Despite the lack of a deal, the Senate GOP leader said he is confident the government will not shut down. McConnell said is consulting the White House on how to move forward, and he hopes to hear more later Tuesday about what the president would support. He called the Trump administration “extremely flexible” on the issue.

In proposing $1.6 billion in border security funding, Schumer has said it would go to building new or repairing existing fences, rather than the wall as Trump has proposed it. The White House appears to want to claim that funding as “wall” money to promote a victory.

Trump has also claimed his administration has built large portions of the wall. But Congress has only authorized money to build fencing similar to existing structures. The president has also contended that the military could build the wall — though the Pentagon has said it has no plans to do so, yet.

On Tuesday, Pelosi told reporters that “we’ll see” if negotiations with the White House make any progress. She said the wall “is not about money,” but rather “about morality.”

“It’s the wrong thing to do. It doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It’s the wrong thing to do and it’s a waste of money,” the California Democrat said, according to NBC News.

The president has already signed spending bills for five government agencies, including the massive Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, into law. Lawmakers still have not passed spending bills for five agencies. Trump’s push for wall money as part of Department of Homeland Security funding has snagged talks to dodge a shutdown.

Schumer said Tuesday morning that he and Pelosi had not heard from the White House on two offers it made to avoid a shutdown. One includes appropriations bills for six agencies and a year-long continuing resolution to fund DHS. The other would pass a continuing resolution to keep all seven departments running.

Schumer again urged Republicans to support one of those plans on Tuesday afternoon.

Leaving McConnell’s office Tuesday, the New York Democrat said he had not heard a “peep” from the White House, according to NBC News.

As only about a quarter of the government would shut down this weekend, it would have only limited effects. Along with Homeland Security, the unfunded agencies are the departments of Transportation, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development and Justice.

While some functions like national parks would close down, some employees and law enforcement officers at those agencies would continue working without getting paid temporarily. Those would include employees such as FBI, border patrol and Transportation Security Administration agents.

WATCH: Controversial walls in history

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/white-house-suggests-it-will-back-down-on-5-billion-border-wall-demand.html

The Chicago Police Department is in mourning Tuesday after two officers were fatally struck by a train while chasing a suspect on the South Side Monday.

Shortly after 6 p.m. Monday, the officers responded to a call of shots fired in the Rosemoore neighborhood. Police said one of the body camera videos which they may never release shows the officers exit their patrol car, go up a hill to the Metra tracks at 103rd and Cottage Grove Avenue and talk about where the offender could have gone.

In the distance, the officers can see a train approaching heading north making noise. Police said it possibly masked the sound of another high-speed train South Shore Line train full of commuters that was only feet behind them and then the camera fades to black. Police said it happened fast and the officers died instantly.

VIDEO: Procession to Cook Co. Medical Examiner’s Office for fallen officers

Police identified the officers who were killed as 31-year-old Conrad Gary and 36-year-old Eduardo Marmolejo. Gary is a married father of an infant who has only been on the force for 18 months and graduated from Oak Lawn Community High Schools. Marmolejo is a married father of three young children and has been on the force for two-and-a-half years.

EMBED >More News Videos

VIDEOS: 2 Chicago police officers fatally struck by South Shore Line train (1 of 5)

Body camera video recovered after 2 police officers killed by train

Investigators have recovered body camera video from one of the officers fatally struck by a South Shore LIne train Monday.

“Shock. I mean here we are again. It highlights again just how dangerous this job can be. I often say the most dangerous thing a police officer can do is take a weapon off of an armed individual, and that’s what they were doing, with no regard for their own safety,” said Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson

Early Tuesday morning, two ambulances carried the bodies of the officers from the scene. With full police honors, the 15-mile procession wound past the 5th Police District where they were stationed, then onto the medical examiner’s office where officers saluted as a sign of respect.

VIDEO: Bodies of fallen CPD officers arrive at Cook Co, Medical Examiner’s Office

“We’ve lost two young men, both fathers, young families,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “This holiday will never be the same for those two families. While our hearts are with them we lost people who answered the call to try and make Chicago a better place.”

Johnson said 2018 has been an “immensely difficult” year for the Chicago Police Department in terms of officers killed in the line of duty, as well as an uptick in officer suicides. He noted it’s been a particularly difficult year for the 5th District.

“Pray for the families of these two heroic young men, pray for the 5th District who, even tonight, will stop at nothing to safeguard the community,” he said.

In a tweet, Governor Bruce Rauner said, “Deeply saddened to learn of the tragic deaths of officers Conrad Gary and Eduardo Marmolejo. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and the entire @Chicago_Police Department.”

It’s been a particularly tragic year for Chicago’s 5th Police District. Officers at the district told ABC7 that counselors will be on site to help officers and staff grieve.

In addition to losing these two officers, the 5th District has lost at least two others to suicides.

5th District mourning fallen officers

Commander Paul Bauer and Officer Samuel Jimenez were both members of the department that lost their lives in the line of duty.

Tuesday, two crosses were placed in front of the department offering both comfort and a grim reminder of the two officers that will no longer be walking through those doors. Police hanged memorial bunting at the entrance of Chicago Police Headquarters at 35th and Michigan.

Police said a suspect was taken into custody and a gun was recovered at the scene. Police believe he was possibly test firing a gun but he never fired shots at the officers.

Meanwhile, the South Shore Line experienced some delays to during the morning rush hours Tuesday,.

Passengers were held on the train for about two and a half hours Monday night before they were placed on buses.

Source Article from https://abc7chicago.com/watch-live-police-hang-memorial-bunting-at-cpd-5th-district-to-honor-fallen-officers/4921383/

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said Tuesday that local restrictions, including bans on indoor vaping, are needed to reduce youth e-cigarette use.

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said Tuesday that local restrictions, including bans on indoor vaping, are needed to reduce youth e-cigarette use.

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

Vaping by U.S. teenagers has reached epidemic levels, threatening to hook a new generation of young people on nicotine.

That’s according to an unusual advisory issued Tuesday U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams about the the dangers of electronic cigarette use among U.S. teenagers.

“I am officially declaring e-cigarette use among youth an epidemic in the United States,” Adams said at a news conference. “Now is the time to take action. We need to protect our young people from all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.”

The surgeon general’s advisory called on parents and teachers to educate themselves about the variety of e-cigarettes and to talk with children about their dangers. Health professionals should ask about e-cigarettes when screening patients for tobacco use, the advisory said. And local authorities should use strategies, such as bans on indoor vaping and retail restrictions, to discourage vaping by young people.

The advisory was prompted by the latest statistics on vaping among youth, which found e-cigarette use among high school students has increased dramatically in the past year.

“We have never seen use of any substance by America’s young people rise this rapidly,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said at the briefing. “This is an unprecedented challenge.”

Federal officials singled out JUUL electronic cigarettes for fueling the epidemic, noting that the sleek devices are by far the most popular electronic cigarettes among young people.

The company defended its products, saying it has taken steps to prevent young people from using them. For example, the company has stopped distributing some flavorings to retail stores and has taken other steps to make sure young people don’t buy the devices online.

“JUUL Labs shares a common goal with the Surgeon General and other federal health regulators – preventing youth from initiating on nicotine,” according to a statement from Victoria Davis, a JUUL spokesperson. “We are committed to preventing youth access of JUUL products.”

The company’s move came after the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to restrict the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to young people.

Officials say they are especially alarmed by the proportion of young people who don’t realize that electronic cigarettes contain nicotine, which is a highly addictive drug. A single JUUL cartridge contains as much nicotine as a pack of 20 tobacco cigarettes.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/18/677755266/surgeon-general-warns-youth-vaping-is-now-an-epidemic

A disastrous year for Facebook has left a major dent in the wealth of its CEO and cofounder, Mark Zuckerberg, who has lost billions of dollars in net worth.

Zuckerberg began the year with about $75 billion, but, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, he was worth about $56 billion on Monday. That’s a $19 billion drop.

Zuckerberg’s net worth has declined dramatically this year.
Bloomberg

Zuckerberg owns a 13% stake in Facebook, which this year has been beset by crises including the Cambridge Analytica scandal, accusations of mismanagement, a shareholder revolt, and questions over inappropriate content.

On July 25, Facebook’s stock price plummeted more than 20% after the company revealed disappointing second-quarter earnings. This is reflected in the sharp drop in Zuckerberg’s net worth.

Read more: Special counsel Robert Mueller was a target of Russia’s disinformation campaign, according to a report prepared for the Senate

At the stock’s lowest point, on November 24, Zuckerberg’s net worth was roughly $52 billion. Facebook’s share price has recovered slightly, and Time magazine’s Money predicts he is ultimately set to lose about $15 billion this year.

Facebook share price.
Markets Insider

The publication said that if that came to pass, Zuckerberg would lose the most money in 2018 of any of the world’s 500 richest people. This includes the likes of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who has also had billions wiped off his net worth in recent weeks as part of a wider downturn in tech stocks.

Source Article from https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-lost-more-money-in-2018-than-worlds-richest-people-2018-12

President Trump on Tuesday retreated from his demand that Congress give him $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, backing down amid acrimonious GOP infighting that left him with few options four days ahead of a partial government shutdown.

The news, delivered by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders in an interview on Fox News, represented a major shift from Trump’s declaration last week that he would be “proud” to shut down the government to get the money he wanted for his border wall.

Democrats, who will reclaim the majority in the House just weeks from now, have consistently refused to give Trump anywhere near the $5 billion he wants.

But Sanders told Fox News Channel: “We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion.”

“At the end of the day we don’t want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border,” Sanders said.

Sanders said the White House was exploring other funding sources and believed it could be legally done.

“There are certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use, that we can couple with money that would be given through congressional appropriations that would help us get to that $5 billion that the president needs in order to protect our border,” she said.

There was no immediate reaction from congressional Democrats to Sanders’ comments.

Funding for the Homeland Security Department, Justice, Interior, Agriculture and other agencies — comprising a quarter of the federal government — runs out Friday at midnight absent action by Congress and Trump. The funding is all hung up over Trump’s demands for the wall and Democrats and Republicans have been in a stand-off over how to resolve the dispute.

Sanders’ comments come after a series of miscalculations by the White House and Republicans in recent days over how to try and get Democrats to sign onto $5 billion to pay for the construction of Trump’s long-promised wall along the Mexico border.

Last week, in a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Trump said he would be “proud” to shut down the government over the issue, a statement that congressional Republicans openly said muddied their messaging that Democrats should be blamed for a shutdown.

Schumer and Pelosi, the likely incoming House speaker, have made clear to the White House they would not support giving the White House $5 billion to build a wall, and Democrats have largely closed ranks around them.

Republicans didn’t have a way to proceed because they lacked 60 votes in the Senate to proceed to a vote on a spending bill.

House and Senate Republicans have been in talks with the White House in recent days looking at other ways to try and secure funding, outside of the traditional appropriations process. They have looked at redirecting already approved money, among other things, according to a person briefed on the talks who requested anonymity to discuss deliberations.

Trump has threatened to shut down the entire border if Democrats don’t agree to give him the $5 billion, a threat that didn’t appear to force capitulation.

Then on Monday evening, Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he was anticipating a proposal from the White House, perhaps at 5 p.m., that never materialized. But the White House never promised a 5 p.m. proposal, and then Senate Republicans signaled they planned to move ahead on an overhaul of the criminal justice system this week, giving them very little time to negotiate a budget bill.

Meanwhile, the stock market has fallen precipitously in recent weeks, creating economic angst over Trump’s agenda. Trump has attacked the Federal Reserve, among others, for the stock market’s tumble, but it has rattled him, according to people who have spoken with him both inside and outside the White House.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose the internal White House sentiment.

“We’ll continue to have these conversations with both Senate and House Republicans and Democrats. Our team has been in constant communication,” Sanders said. “We’re going to continue to do that. I’m not going to negotiate here, but we’ve been talking to them just as recently as this morning.”

Sanders’ referenced a $1.6 billion border security bill that was agreed to in the Senate earlier this year on a bipartisan basis. However, in recent weeks Democrats have said they would support only $1.3 billion for fencing, and that the $1.6 billion package would not pass the House. That left it unclear how and whether the contours of the deal being described by the White House could take shape.

Congressional Republicans promised Trump several months ago that if he would delay a fight over the border wall until after the midterm elections, they would help him obtain the money in December. But those efforts never materialized, and he was under heavy pressure to avoid a partial government shutdown just a few days before Christmas.

“The advice he’s getting is to not do this, to just sign the bill, get this over with, and get into 2019 and then have this fight,” said Steve Moore, who was an adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-signals-its-backing-down-in-shutdown-dispute-will-find-other-ways-to-fund-border-wall/2018/12/18/159994dc-02d9-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html