Cleveland Sports Forum

<1



Midwest cities scramble to keep homeless from dangerous cold

By BLAKE NICHOLSON an hour ago 1.29.19

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Winter’s sharpest bite in years moved past painful into life-threatening territory Tuesday, prompting officials throughout the Midwest to take extraordinary measures to protect the homeless and other vulnerable people from the bitter cold, including turning some city buses into mobile warming shelters in Chicago.

Temperatures plunged as low as minus 26 (negative 32 degrees Celsius) in North Dakota with wind chills as low as minus 62 (negative 52 degrees Celsius) in Minnesota. It was nearly that cold in Wisconsin and Illinois. Governors in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan declared emergencies as the worst of the cold threatened on Wednesday.

The U.S. Postal Service said it will not deliver mail in parts of the Midwest Wednesday because of the cold.

The bitter cold is the result of a split in the polar vortex that allowed temperatures to plunge much further south in North America than normal.

The National Weather Service forecast for Wednesday night called for temperatures in Chicago as low as minus 28 (negative 33 degrees Celsius), with wind chills to minus 50 (negative 46 degrees Celsius). Detroit’s outlook was for Wednesday overnight lows around minus 15 (negative 26 degrees Celsius), with wind chills dropping to minus 40 (negative 40 degrees Celsius).

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday. “They are life-threatening conditions and temperatures.”

A wind chill of minus 25 (negative 32 degrees Celsius) can freeze skin within 15 minutes, according to the National Weather Service.

At least four deaths were linked to the weather system, including a man struck and killed by a snow plow in the Chicago area, a young couple whose SUV struck another on a snowy road in northern Indiana and a Milwaukee man found frozen to death in a garage.

Officials in large Midwestern cities including Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit were desperately trying to get the homeless off the streets.

Minneapolis charitable groups that operate warming places and shelters expanded hours and capacity, and ambulance crews handled all outside calls as being potentially life-threatening, according to Hennepin County Emergency Management Director Eric Waage. MetroTransit said it wouldn’t remove people from buses if they were riding them simply to stay warm, and weren’t being disruptive.

Emanuel said Chicago was turning five buses into makeshift warming centers moving around the city, some with nurses aboard, to encourage the homeless to come in from the cold.

“We’re bringing the warming shelters to them, so they can stay near all of their stuff and still warm up,” said Cristina Villarreal, spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Family and Support Services.

Shelters, churches and city departments in Detroit worked together to help get vulnerable people out of the cold, offering the message to those who refused help that “you’re going to freeze or lose a limb,” said Terra DeFoe, a senior adviser to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan.

Nineteen-year-old Deontai Jordan and dozens of others found refuge from the cold in the basement of a church in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“You come here, you can take a nap, you can snack, you can use the bathroom, you might even be able to shower,” he said. “And then they’re feeding you well. Not to mention they give out clothes, they give out shoes, they give out socks.”

Hundreds of public schools from North Dakota to Missouri to Michigan canceled classes Tuesday, and some on Wednesday as well. So did several large universities.

Closing schools for an extended stretch isn’t an easy decision, even though most school districts build potential makeup days into their schedules, said Josh Collins, spokesman for the Minnesota Department of Education.

“Many students, they might have two working parents, so staying home might mean they’re not supervised,” he said. “For some low-income students, the lunch they receive at school might be their most nutritious meal of the day.”

American Indian tribes in the Upper Midwest were doing what they could to help members in need with heating supplies.

Many people on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in the Dakotas live in housing that’s decades old and in disrepair, or in emergency government housing left over from southern disasters such as hurricanes.

“They aren’t made for this (northern) country. The cold just goes right through them,” said Elliott Ward, the tribe’s emergency response manager.

The extreme cold was “a scary situation” for the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, said Chris Fairbanks, manager of the northern Minnesota tribe’s energy assistance program.

“We have many, many calls coming in. We’re just swamped trying to get everybody what they need,” she said.

The cold was even shutting down typical outdoor activities. A ski hill in the Minneapolis area said it would close through Wednesday. So did an ice castle attraction.

The cold weather was even affecting beer deliveries, with a pair of western Wisconsin distributors saying they would delay or suspend shipments for fear that beer would freeze in their trucks.

The unusually frigid weather is attributed to a sudden warming far above the North Pole. A blast of warm air from misplaced Moroccan heat last month made the normally super chilly air temperatures above the North Pole rapidly increase. That split the polar vortex into pieces, which then started to wander, said Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research.

One of those polar vortex pieces is responsible for the subzero temperatures across the Midwest this week.

[ CRAZY! DAYTIME TEMPS -20'S NIGHTTIME TEMPS -40'S TO -60'S THROUGH THURSDAY - SATURDAY ABOUT A 1/2" OF RAIN. ]

https://www.apnews.com/0a971200e68142e5bfbaf81154ffdd08

<2



Stacey Abrams to deliver Democratic response to State of the Union

Shannon Vavra 6 hours ago 1.29.19

Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the Georgia gubernatorial election during the 2018 midterms, will deliver the Democrats’ response to President Trump’s State of the Union address on Feb. 5, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday.

---"[Abrams] is a great spokesperson. She's an incredible leader. She has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else."

— Schumer

The big picture:

While in some years past there have been no rebuttals, all State of the Union responses to date have been delivered by sitting officials. Abrams, who does not currently hold elected office, will join the ranks of high profile politicians like then-Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio, then-Gov. Tim Kaine and then-Gov. Nikki Haley who have delivered the rebuttal. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra will give the Spanish-language response to the State of the Union.

https://www.axios.com/stacey-abrams-del ... a7f32.html

<3



WORLD NEWS

U.N. says 41 killed in Venezuela protests, as new demonstrations planned

By Renzo Pipoli JAN. 29, 2019 / 12:20 PM

Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The United Nations Human Rights Office said Tuesday 41 people have been killed and 850 detained in Venezuela amid a power struggle between President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido.

Pro-Maduro security forces cracked down last week on protesters who favored Guaido, who has called for new demonstrations.

"At least 26 people died after being shot by security forces during the demonstrations," out of a total of 41 killed last week, OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville told UPI Tuesday by phone from Switzerland.

The 26 were killed by bullets from security forces backing Maduro, who was sworn in for a second term Jan. 10 after a controversial election process last year. Opponents, several countries and multinational organizations do not recognize Maduro's presidency as legitimate.

The National Assembly earlier this month declared Maduro an usurper of the presidency and appointed Guaido interim president. The protests last week were called by Guaido to force Maduro to step down and call new elections. Maduro, though, remains adamant and has the backing of the top military leadership.

The dead count includes five killed in house raids in poor neighborhoods by the security forces, all immediately after the protests. There was also one member of the Bolivarian guard killed by an unidentified attacker in the state of Monagas.

A total of 11 people were killed in looting incidents, Colville added. Looting normally occurs in the same areas of protests, he said.

Venezuelan security detained 850 people between Jan. 21-26. Of these, 696 were detained on Jan. 23, the main day of the protest, when Guaido was sworn in as interim president and promised to work to restore democracy.

The National Assembly had scheduled a Tuesday session to condemn the killings and detentions, and to ready a new "free" electoral process. The opposition-led assembly has been competing against the Constituent Assembly, which was elected in 2017 and supports Maduro.

The election of the Constituent Assembly was called by Maduro after the opposition secured control of the National Assembly through a national vote in December 2015. The Constituent Assembly, elected to write a new constitution, has powers that supersedes those of other powers of the state.

The election of the Constituent Assembly was disputed by the opposition and has not been recognized by several countries, who see it as a maneuver to eliminate the powers of the legitimate parliament.

Tarek William Saab, appointed prosecutor general by the Constituent Assembly in August 2017, asked the Venezuelan Supreme Court Tuesday to bar Guaido from leaving the country and embargoes for his properties and bank accounts, El Nacional reported.

Guaido has announced a two-hour new protest for Wednesday afternoon.

"Wherever you are, go to the street to: 1. continue carrying the message of amnesty and guarantees to the Armed National Forces. 2. Demand the armed forces to adhere to the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," he said in a tweet Monday.

Tuesday, Guaido tweeted to condemn the detentions of minors and crimes against humanity.

Venezuela's El Nacional newspaper reported another two-hour protest has been scheduled for Saturday at noon.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... 548778094/

<4



The Latest: Venezuela high court restricts opposition leader

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — The latest on the political and economic crisis in Venezuela (all times local):

2 hours ago 1.29.19

Venezuela’s Supreme Court has barred opposition leader Juan Guaido from leaving the country as international pressure mounts against the government led by President Nicolas Maduro.

The move comes hours after chief prosecutor Tarek William Saab asked the government-stacked high court to restrict Guaido’s movements and freeze any assets.

Saab said a criminal probe into Guaido’s anti-government activities has been launched but did not announce any specific charges against him.

Both Saab and the Supreme Court are aligned with the embattled Maduro.

Guaido is head of the opposition-controlled congress and declared himself the nation’s rightful president under the constitution last week, hurling the nation into a new chapter of uncertainty.

Two dozen nations, including the U.S. and some of Latin America’s biggest countries, have recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president, while China and Russia are backing Maduro.

6:55 p.m.

The Venezuelan opposition’s new envoy in Washington is calling for the international community to ramp up pressure on President Nicolas Maduro and his socialist government.

Carlos Vecchio was appointed by opposition leader Juan Guaido and he met with Vice President Mike Pence at the White House on Tuesday. He emerged saying that Venezuelans are in a fight “between democracy and dictatorship” and that “we cannot do this alone.”

Maduro broke diplomatic ties with the U.S. last week after the Trump administration recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s rightful president. Guaido is head of Venezuela’s opposition-controlled congress.

Vecchio says the opposition is focused on ending Maduro’s dictatorship and forming a transitional government that moves “to stop the suffering of the Venezuelans.” The opposition is calling for free elections as soon as possible.

Venezuela is suffering from an economic collapse that has led to severe shortages of food and medicine and caused millions to flee the country.

3:55 p.m.

Venezuela’s embattled President Nicolas Maduro is seeking to beef up his nation’s defense in response to growing tensions with the United States.

Maduro spoke before a gathering of troops Tuesday and set a new goal of expanding Venezuela’s civilian armed militia to 2 million members by mid-April.

The reserve force was created by the late Hugo Chavez to train civilians to assist the armed forces and defend the socialist revolution from attacks.

The move comes as U.S.-Venezuela relations grow increasingly hostile, with the U.S. withdrawing recognition of Maduro’s government.

Most analysts believe a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela is unlikely but President Donald Trump has said “all options are on the table.”

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan on Tuesday wouldn’t rule out sending U.S. military forces to Colombia or the region in connection with the political upheaval.

3:25 p.m.

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton is reiterating his warning that there will be “serious consequences” for anyone who attempts to harm Venezuela opposition leader Juan Guaido.

In a tweet Tuesday, Bolton denounced what he called “threats” to Guaido made earlier in the day by Venezuela’s chief prosecutor.

He added that those who “attempt to subvert democracy” or hurt Guaido will face consequences but did not specify what those may be.

The U.S. and several other countries recognize the National Assembly leader as the interim president of Venezuela, arguing that last year’s re-election of President Nicolas Maduro was a sham.

Attorney General Tarek William Saab asked the government-stacked Supreme Court Tuesday to ban Guaido from leaving the country and freeze his bank accounts.

Tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela are at an all-time high as the Trump administration moves to consolidate support for Guaido.

3:15 p.m.

Vice President Mike Pence will meet Tuesday afternoon with Carlos Vecchio, a new Venezuelan envoy in Washington appointed by opposition leader Juan Guaido.

The meeting will take place one day after the Trump administration sanctioned Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, ratcheting up pressure on President Nicolas Maduro to cede power to the U.S.-backed opposition in the oil-rich South American nation.

Guaido, head of Venezuela’s opposition-controlled congress, proclaimed himself interim president last week in opposition to socialist President Nicolas Maduro, and his legitimacy has been backed by the U.S. and two dozen other nations.

2:45 p.m.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido is pressing forward with efforts to form a transitional government by naming a new slate of diplomats.

Venezuela’s legislature has approved nearly a dozen new mission chiefs in countries that recognize Guaido as interim president.

The National Assembly is led by Guaido and is the only branch of Venezuela’s government recognized by the U.S. and several other nations.

Nicolas Maduro broke diplomatic ties with the U.S. last week after the Trump administration recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s rightful president.

Guaido has urged all Venezuelan consulate staff in the U.S. to back him and remain in their posts — a call that at least a few appeared to be heeding.

Tuesday’s new appointees to countries like the United States and to the regional Lima Group bloc include longtime opposition leaders like Julio Borges, at least some of whom had already left the country to avoid possible arrest.

12:30 p.m.

The U.S. State Department says Americans shouldn’t travel to Venezuela and it warns of unrest and the threat of arbitrary arrest and detention.

Tuesday’s announcement raises the travel advisory to its highest level.

Venezuela is gripped by raising political instability as U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido presses to oust socialist President Nicolas Maduro.

Officials have cleared the U.S. embassy in Caracas of everybody but essential staff.

The travel advisory warns of the threat of kidnapping, robberies and mass demonstrations occurring with little notice.

Opposition leaders have called for anti-government demonstrations this week.

12:15 p.m.

Venezuela’s chief prosecutor is seeking to ban opposition leader Juan Guaido from leaving the country as part of a criminal probe into his anti-government activities.

Tarek William Saab made the request to the government-stacked Supreme Court on Tuesday.

He also asked the high court to block Guaido’s financial accounts.

Saab didn’t specify what crimes Guaido is being investigated for. He only said it was tied to the unrest sparked by his decision to declare himself interim president last week in a direct challenge to President Nicolas Maduro’s authority.

Guaido heads the nation’s congress and he has been recognized as the nation’s rightful leader by two dozen nations that contend the re-election of socialist President Nicolas Maduro was a sham, in part because his strongest opponents were barred from running.

10:50 a.m.

International challenges to the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s government are starting to bite harder. The United States is handing control over Venezuela’s U.S. bank accounts to opposition challenger Juan Guaido and Russia says it expects Venezuela to have problems paying its debts.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday certified that Guaido has authority to take control of bank accounts that Venezuela’s government has in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or any other U.S.-insured banks.

Guaido has been recognized as the nation’s rightful leader by two dozen nations that contend the re-election of socialist President Nicolas Maduro was a sham, in part because his strongest opponents were barred from running.

https://www.apnews.com/ef6d650b2e494dd5bca3adc6208c3a7a

<5



WORLD

VENEZUELAN MILITARY 'READY TO DIE' IN FIGHT AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM, DEFENSE MINISTER WARNS

BY DAVID BRENNAN ON 1/29/19 AT 4:47 AM

Venezuela’s minister of defense has vowed that his troops are ready to die in the battle for control of their beleaguered South American nation, and urged the country’s soldiers to stand up to imperialism and fight for independence.

Vladimir Padrino made the remarks while addressing soldiers on Monday at a show of military strength at an army base in Caracas. Dressed in full battle uniform with a rifle slung over his shoulder, Padrino denounced the movement to depose President Nicolás Maduro and urged his troops to stand firm in the face of foreign interference.

Padrino is supporting Maduro, who has served as president since replacing revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez in 2013, amid the president's power struggle with opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who declared himself interim president last week. Guaidó is leader of the country's parliament and has said he is constitutionally bound to take power if there is no legitimate president in the country.

Multiple nations, led by President Donald Trump in the United States, have officially recognized Guaidó as the country’s leader. They include the United Kingdom, Canada and most of Venezuela's neighbors. Though Maduro won a presidential election in 2018, the domestic opposition and international critics have declared the result illegitimate, citing voter fraud, opposition repression and other irregularities.

The country’s strong military has thus far remained loyal to Maduro, who has used his forces to suppress dissent and prop up his embattled regime.

Guaidó has attempted to rally support within the armed forces and offered a legal amnesty for any troops who defect to his parallel administration. But his efforts appear to have failed so far with Padrino, who has served as defense minister since 2014.

“It is time for revolutionary, Bolivarian, patriotic activism,” Padrino told assembled troops in footage posted to Twitter by the official Defense Ministry account and retweeted by the minister himself. “This is the activism that today empowers us in this new phase of defending our homeland. We are not going to hand it over! We are ready to die for it!”

The minister also praised the military establishment for standing up against “the constant attacks of American imperialism.” Maduro has argued that U.S. interference in Venezuela constitutes an attempted coup.

“We would be unworthy of wearing this uniform and these patriotic symbols, if we did not face in this difficult moment of certain threat against the fatherland,” Padrino added. “In the face of any aggression, of any nature and intensity, we will defend Venezuela, as it belongs to us.”

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and National Security Adviser John Bolton announced on Monday new Trump-approved sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. In a statement to reporters, the two men accused the PDVSA of corruption, embezzlement and looting the nation’s assets. The sanctions are an attempt to deprive Maduro's government of cash and undermine his support from the military.

Maduro has repeatedly accused the U.S. of leading an “economic war” against his country. Venezuela has been crippled by low oil prices, hyperinflation, unemployment and chronic food and medicine shortages.

Last week, Maduro’s government suffered its first senior military defection. The country’s top military attaché to the U.S.—Colonel José Luis Silva—came out in support of Guaidó. Announcing his decision in a video posted to social media, Silva urged his colleagues, “Please, brothers, don’t attack our people. The state gave us arms to protect our country, not to touch our equals.”

https://www.newsweek.com/venezuela-mili ... ld-1308871

<6



US officials in contrast to Trump warn of stark threat posed by ISIS

BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 01/29/19 11:55 AM EST

Intelligence officials on Tuesday offered stark warnings of the threats posed by the terrorist organization ISIS, a message in contrast with President Trump's declarations that the group has been defeated.

While Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel said the U.S. had made significant gains against ISIS, the report they oversaw argues that any lifting of pressure on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) could allow it to regroup.

“The group will exploit any reduction in [counterterrorism] pressure to strengthen its clandestine presence and accelerate rebuilding key capabilities, such as media production and external operations,” the report states.

The report also warned that ISIS is still likely to try to attack the United States.

“ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States,” it said.

President Trump last year announced he was removing all U.S. troops from Syria because ISIS had been defeated. The decision led to the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis and other officials, as well as criticism from GOP lawmakers.

American forces in Syria have fought with Kurdish troops against ISIS. Many fear that a U.S. withdrawal could leave the Kurds open to attack from Turkey, who label those forces as terrorists.

A suicide bombing in a Syrian town killed four Americans shortly after Trump made his announcement, and ISIS claimed credit for the action. Experts have pointed to the attack as showing that ISIS remains a persistent threat in the region.

Coats and Haspel painted the picture of an adversary that has been weakened, but notably did not describe ISIS as having been defeated.

Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee that ISIS "still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria” and “thousands of dispersed supporters around the world, despite significant leadership and territorial losses.”

Haspel said the U.S. is “going to work very hard to finish that mission," referring to the fight against ISIS.

Coats said the U.S. “should not underestimate the ability of terrorist groups particularly ISIS and affiliated groups,” as well as al Qaeda tied groups.

“ISIS will continue to be a threat to the United States, and we’re going to have to continue to keep our eyes on that … as the realization that this terrorism threat is going to continue for some time,” Coats said.

The intelligence assessment found that ISIS is “perpetrating attacks in Iraq and Syria to undermine stabilization efforts and retaliate against its enemies” and that the intelligence community believes that ISIS will “seek to exploit Sunni grievances, societal instability, and stretched security forces to regain territory in Iraq and Syria in the long term.”

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... withdrawal

<7



FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. intelligence chief breaks with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS

Dan Coats says North Korea is not likely to give up its nukes and that ISIS is far from defeated.

By REBECCA MORIN and NAHAL TOOSI 01/29/2019 10:53 AM EST Updated 01/29/2019 02:17 PM EST

America's top intelligence official on Tuesday publicly broke with President Donald Trump on several critical foreign policy fronts, saying North Korea is not likely to give up its nuclear weapons, Iran is not yet seeking a nuclear weapon and the Islamic State terrorist group remains a forceful presence in Iraq and Syria.

The remarks by Dan Coats, the U.S. director of national intelligence, underscored how out of step Trump's pronouncements on major national security issues often are with the rest of the government he leads, including intelligence agencies that he has long scorned.

The divergence on Tuesday was perhaps most notable in the case of North Korea, which Trump has said no longer poses a nuclear threat to the United States.

"We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival," Coats said during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump is due to hold a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in late February. Just last week, the president maintained that the two sides are making progress in efforts to fully denuclearize the Korean peninsula, tweeting that "this is more than has ever been accomplished with North Korea" and that he expects "much progress" when the two leaders next meet.

But analysts and former U.S. officials have long cast doubt on Trump's optimistic assessments. A report from a think tank, Beyond Parallel, released last week revealed another undeclared North Korean missile site.

Coats also offered views on Iran's nuclear capabilities that appeared at odds with the president.

Trump and his top aides have taken a hard line on Iran, implying that the Islamist-led country still poses a nuclear threat despite its adherence to a 2015 accord that put curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that nuclear deal, and has reimposed sanctions, although other international allies have stayed committed to the pact.

During the hearing, Coats said Iran isn't taking any steps to make a nuclear weapon. “We do not believe Iran is currently undertaking the key activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device," he said.

CIA Director Gina Haspel, who also spoke at the hearing, said Tehran, "at the moment, technically they're in compliance" with the deal.

But Coats also noted that Iranian officials have “publicly threatened to push the boundaries” of the nuclear deal if it did not see any benefits from it. He also alleged that Iran has sponsored terrorism in both Europe and the Middle East, while also backing proxy militias such as the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite armed groups in Iraq.

Coats' remarks on the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, were also glaringly out of sync with some of Trump's claims about the status of the terrorist group.

Late last year, Trump announced that he was going to pull U.S. troops from Syria because the U.S. had "won against ISIS" and that "we have beaten them and we have beaten them badly."

The president and some in his administration have since said that the troop withdrawal process won't be immediate, but they've continued to insist that the group has been defeated on the ground.

Critics, while acknowledging the Islamic State's near-total territorial losses, warn that the group still lives as an insurgent force, and that withdrawing American troops will give them a vacuum to regain land.

Coats appeared to agree with those critics. He told senators that the Islamic State "very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States."

"ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria," Coats said, adding that the terror group "will seek to exploit Sunni grievances, societal instability, and stretched security forces to regain territory in Iraq and Syria in the long term."

Separately on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would propose legislation that acknowledges "the plain fact that Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to our nation" and which would "recognize the danger of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict."

Coats' comments on Tuesday aren't entirely surprising given publicly available information and analyses by non-government organizations about the status of the situation everywhere from North Korea to Syria. But his dissonance with Trump could, nonetheless, annoy the president, who has at times dismissed the intelligence community's assessments, including its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

On North Korea, a country some view as the gravest external threat to the United States, Coats had some good news that echoed some of Trump's public comments.

Coats pointed out that Kim's regime has "halted some provocative behavior" related to its nuclear program and that the country has not conducted any nuclear tests in more than a year. He also said Kim "continues to demonstrate openness" to denuclearizing the area.

Still, he said assessments show that some of North Korea's activity is "inconsistent with full denuclearization."

He also said North Korea is trying to mitigate the effects of U.S. sanctions through diplomatic engagement with other parties. That is likely a reference to China and Russia, which have expressed discomfort with America's sanctions on Pyongyang.

When asked about the current state of the threat from North Korea by California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, who is running for president, Haspel warned that Pyongyang is still developing a long-range missile.

"The regime is committed to developing a long-range nuclear armed missile that would pose a direct threat to the United States," Haspel said.

Trump, who held a summit with Kim in Singapore last June, insists that his one-on-one approach has improved the relationship between the two countries and will ultimately lead to de-nuclearization. At one point, Trump said that he and Kim "fell in love" and can work well together.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ns-1133969

<8



Trump war strategy takes one-two punch

BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN AND REBECCA KHEEL - 01/29/19 06:44 PM EST

President Trump’s strategy in Syria and Afghanistan took a one-two punch on Tuesday, first from his own intelligence officials and then from the Senate’s top Republican.

The top intelligence officials offered a contradictory assessment of Trump’s statement that ISIS has been defeated, warning that thousands of the terrorist organization’s fighters remain in Iraq and Syria and that the group is “intent on resurging.”

The warning was delivered by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel in a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee and an accompanying report on worldwide threats.

While Trump last month ordered the withdrawal of 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria and declared the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been “defeated,” intelligence officials warned Tuesday that the group “will exploit any reduction in [counterterrorism] pressure to strengthen its clandestine presence and accelerate rebuilding key capabilities, such as media production and external operations.”

Separately on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced he will introduce an amendment warning against a “precipitous” withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

In one of his sharpest breaks yet with Trump, McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor that the measure would “acknowledge the plain fact” that al Qaeda, ISIS and their subsidiaries “pose a serious threat to us here at home.”

Since Trump’s initial announcement in December, administration officials have walked back Trump’s declaration of the defeat of ISIS, saying instead the terrorist group has lost nearly all of its territory.

But Trump has continued to downplay the threat posed by ISIS, saying U.S. forces have “knocked them out.”

The threat assessment on ISIS was just one of the areas where intelligence officials did not align with Trump.

Coats testified that North Korea is “unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons,” despite Trump’s continued negotiations with Pyongyang.

Coats and Haspel also testified that Tehran continues to abide by the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated under the Obama administration, statements they previously made before Trump withdrew from the deal.

“Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device,” the report reads.

Lawmakers attending Tuesday’s hearing said they stood by the intelligence leaders’ findings. But they also said they weren’t necessarily surprised by the apparent refutation of the president’s claims.

While other high-ranking members of the Trump administration will make statements in line with the president’s agenda, intelligence officials tend to avoid making political comments. And their assessments will occasionally stand in contrast to the arguments put forward by the White House.

“It’s very clear that they’re politely saying that up there at the White House with the president is kind of a fact-free zone,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

“Obviously the president is commander in chief but it’s not helpful, this difference of opinion,” he added.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) pushed back on the idea that Tuesday’s testimony contradicted Trump.

“The president said that they have dismantled the caliphate, and I think that’s in fact what the witnesses said today,” Burr said. “The president’s ISIS comments have been toward Syria and then numbers in Syria. We were talking about a global ISIS presence today.”

Other lawmakers sitting on the panel noted that this wasn’t the first time the chiefs have butted heads with the administration’s statements.

“What part of that was surprising?” asked Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

“Those folks have been generally — in almost all the presentations — they’ve generally been very truthful,” he continued.

And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said it “wouldn’t be the first time an administration, for policy reasons that are broader than just that assessment, have made decisions.”

Still, Rubio, who has been an outspoken opponent of the president’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, noted that it was the same assessments “that have led me to most of the policy positions I’ve taken.”

“I think it’s clear to everyone the president overstated the case when he said that ISIS has been defeated,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said.

“They don’t control territory but they’re still a grave danger to the region,” he added.

Defense and intelligence officials have long warned that ISIS would continue to pose a serious threat even after it loses all of its territory and that it would return to its roots as a guerilla insurgency.

But officials have taken care not to directly contradict Trump since he announced the Syria withdrawal last month.

While Coats and Haspel were testifying before the Senate on Tuesday, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters at the Pentagon that ISIS has lost “99.5 percent” of its territory.

“Within a couple of weeks it’ll be 100 percent,” he added.

Shanahan also said the withdrawal will be done in a “deliberate, coordinated, disciplined” manner, the latest indication that Trump’s initial desire for a speedy withdrawal is being slowed.

Coats, meanwhile, acknowledged the U.S. has “defeated the caliphate with a couple of little villages” remaining.

Still, he said that Americans “should not underestimate the ability of terrorist groups, particularly ISIS and affiliated groups with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

“ISIS will continue to be a threat to the United States, and we’re going to have to continue to keep our eyes on that … as the realization that this terrorism threat is going to continue for some time,” Coats told the committee.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... two-punch.

<9



In rebuke to Trump, Mitch McConnell unveils proposal urging troops stay in Syria, Afghanistan

By Ted Barrett, CNN Updated 3:32 PM ET, Tue January 29, 2019

(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing an amendment to a Middle East policy bill that would acknowledge "al Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home," a move seen as a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump's push to withdraw US troops from Syria.

"It would recognize the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict and highlight the need for diplomatic engagement and political solutions to the underlying conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan," McConnell said Tuesday from the Senate floor, announcing the amendment to the bill, which is currently being debated.

Exact timing for the final vote on the bill, which at this point enjoys bipartisan support, has not yet been determined.
McConnell added that, "while it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and security of our own shores, there is still a great deal of work to be done.....we're not the world's policemen, but we are the leaders of the free world."

Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of troops from Syria on December 19, a move that was widely criticized by lawmakers from both parties.

Since that initial announcement, Trump earlier this month extended his original 30-day timeline to withdraw the troops to four months and told reporters, "I never said we're doing it quickly, but we're decimating ISIS." National security adviser John Bolton said earlier this month that the US will pull out of Syria only with assurances Turkey will not attack Kurdish allies there.

Col. Sean Ryan, spokesman for the US-led coalition, said in a statement January 11 that the coalition "has begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria," but did not provide additional details.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly 74 to 19 Monday to advance to open debate on a Middle East policy bill that includes fresh sanctions on Syria. The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act wraps together five bills into one package. It includes new sanctions against Syria's central bank and individuals providing support for the Syrian government. It boosts military support for Israel and Jordan, two US allies that are Syria's neighbors. And makes it easier for states and localities to approve laws to combat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier Tuesday that ISIS "has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide."

But he also clearly stated that the group maintains a presence in Iraq and Syria.

"ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria," he said.

Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters at that same hearing that ISIS has lost "99.5% plus" of the territory it once held in Syria and Iraq, adding "within a couple of weeks it will be 100%."

"ISIS is no longer able to govern in Syria, ISIS no longer has freedom to mass forces, Syria is no longer a safe haven," Shanahan said.

Shanahan made the remarks as the US intelligence community released their Worldwide Threat Assessment that found "ISIS very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics ... index.html

<10



McConnell calls for releasing as much of Mueller's report as possible

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 01/29/19 07:34 PM EST

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he wants special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation to be as "open" as possible.

"Obviously I would like for as much as possible of the Mueller report to be open. I don't know enough about Justice Department regulations to know what part of that, you know, might make sense not to be disclosed," McConnell told reporters.

"I think it ought to be as fully open and transparent, whatever the recommendation is, as possible," he added.

A bipartisan pair of lawmakers, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), introduced legislation on Monday that would require Mueller, or any other Justice Department special counsel, to turn over a report to Congress once the investigation ends or if they are removed or fired. An unclassified version of the report would also be publicly released.

McConnell was asked about the Grassley-Blumenthal bill but didn't indicate whether or not he supported it.

Currently under Justice Department guidelines, a special counsel sends a confidential report to the attorney general “explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached” during an investigation.

But the Justice Department would likely face intense pressure from both parties to make at least part of Mueller's report public. The Russia probe has been a years-long drama and source of intrigue that has dominated much of the Trump administration.

Trump's attorney general nominee William Barr told members of the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing earlier this month that it was his “intent” to release as much about Mueller’s findings as he can consistent with the law. But he stopped short of pledging to release the report in its entirety.

“My goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can, consistent with the law,” Barr told lawmakers. “I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and I will not let personal, political or other improper interests influence my decision.”

Democrats have raised concerns that Barr, or Trump, could try to block the report from being released.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the Judiciary Committee chairman, said during a hearing on Tuesday that Barr, if confirmed, would have "discretion" about how Mueller's report is released but said he would "just trust the guy to make good judgements."

[ WHAT'S UP BETWEEN MITCH & TRUMP ]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/427 ... s-possible

<11



GOP leaders signal no taste for renewing shutdown over wall

By ALAN FRAM and ANDREW TAYLOR today 1.29.19

Republicans, congressional GOP leaders signaled Tuesday that they want to de-escalate the battle over President Donald Trump’s border wall and suggested they could be flexible as bargainers seek a bipartisan agreement.

In what seemed a message aimed at the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the two confrontational tactics that Trump has threatened to employ if negotiators can’t craft a border security accord to his liking. The president has said he’d trigger a fresh shutdown or declare a national emergency on the Southwest boundary, a disputed move that could let him redirect budget funds to building segments of the wall.

The remarks by McConnell, R-Ky., were noteworthy because the guarded lawmaker seldom volunteers his opinions and reporters had not specifically asked him about a shutdown or a possible emergency declaration. The comments underscored his party’s eagerness to put the 35-day partial federal shutdown behind them and avoid additional jarring clashes, and suggested possible divisions between GOP lawmakers and the White House.

“I’m for whatever works that would prevent the level of dysfunction we’ve seen on full display here the last month and also doesn’t bring about a view on the president’s part that he needs to declare a national emergency,” McConnell said when asked to describe a border security agreement he’d support.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he would not insist that any deal include the word “wall.” The comment signaled the GOP’s latest rhetorical retreat from a battle cry — “Build the wall!” — that Trump made a keystone of his presidential campaign.

The longest shutdown ever was initiated by Trump after Democrats refused his demand for $5.7 billion to build segments of his long-sought border wall. Polls show people chiefly blame Trump and Republicans for the shutdown and widely dislike the wall.

The president surrendered last Friday and agreed to reopen government for three weeks so negotiators can seek a border security deal, but with no commitments for wall funds.

House-Senate bargainers plan their first negotiating session Wednesday.

Some lawmakers have suggested broadening whatever package emerges, perhaps adding protections from deportation for young “Dreamer” immigrants in the U.S. illegally or making it harder for future shutdowns to occur. Disagreements over those issues make their inclusion unlikely, most lawmakers say.

McCarthy told reporters Tuesday that the wording of an agreement “could be barrier. It doesn’t have to be a wall.”

Trump has retreated increasingly from “wall” as it became apparent that he lacked the votes in Congress to win taxpayer financing for the project, which he initially said would be financed by Mexico.

“They can name it ‘Peaches,’” Trump said earlier this month. “I don’t care what they name it. But we need money for that barrier.” He’s also recently tweeted a new mantra, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

McCarthy said wall and barrier mean the same thing to him and Trump.

“Inside the meetings we’ve had, he’s said it could be a barrier, it could be a wall,” said McCarthy. “Because what a barrier does, it’s still the same thing. It’s the 30-foot steel slat, that’s a barrier.”

White House spokeswoman Mercedes Schlapp said, “The president has perfectly set this table for the negotiations with Congress. He wants to give Congress one more chance.”

Democrats have repeatedly said they wouldn’t finance the wall, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has called “immoral.” In recent weeks, they’ve expressed support for fencing or physical barriers but have left ambiguous exactly what they would back. They’ve said they want to spend money on more border patrol agents and technology like scanning devices and drones.

“There are many kinds of walls, and so I think that we’re going to try to find common ground,” said No. 3 House Democratic leader James Clyburn of South Carolina.

McConnell and many GOP lawmakers have long sought to avoid government shutdowns, aware of the tactic’s long and consistent history of backfiring badly on whoever sparks one. In the one that just ended, 800,000 federal workers went unpaid for five weeks, countless Americans were denied federal services and mushrooming problems included slowed air travel and delayed IRS refunds.

“There certainly would be no education in the third kick of a mule,” said McConnell, adding an additional kick to the homily he frequently cites about how shutdowns don’t work.

Members of both parties have opposed Trump declaring an emergency on the Mexican border. They say it would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents who might use the strategy to push their own agendas that stall in Congress. If he issued the declaration, it would trigger near-immediate lawsuits that might block the money anyway.

“There’s no appetite for government shutdowns and there’s not much appetite for an emergency declaration. For a lot of reasons, our members are very wary of that,” said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Thune of South Dakota.

Interviews with numerous Republican lawmakers showed little taste for a new shutdown.

“Most members, whatever faction in the Republican caucus, would be opposed to a shutdown and would do everything they can to work some kind of deal,” said Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina, a member of House GOP leadership.

https://www.apnews.com/d7e3ba47093f486380e185856732b83b

<12



1. UH OH

Dems Raise Concerns Over Mnuchin's Russia Investor Connection

3 HOURS AGO 1.29.19

Two Congressional Democrats have reportedly raised concerns about whether Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's ties to a major shareholder in Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s companies played a role in the decision to lift sanctions. According to The New York Times, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) both sent letters to Mnuchin on Tuesday about his connection to Len Blavatnik—an entertainment industry figure who also is a “major investor” in one of Deripaska’s companies, Rusal. Blavatnik and Mnuchin are reportedly connected through a 2017 acquisition between Blavatnik’s Access Industries and a company that had a deal involving Dune Entertainment—where Mnuchin served as chairman joining the Trump administration. Blavatnik reportedly founded SUAL Partners Limited with Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, which is a major shareholder in Rusal.

Once U.S. sanctions against Deripaska’s companies were lifted, SUAL’s holdings in Rusal reportedly saw an $800 million value raise compared to last year’s numbers. Tony Sayegh, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, told the Times Mnuchin had “no business relationship” and a conflict of interest assertion was “absurd.” Sayegh also said that Mnuchin and Blavatnik only knew each other “personally” through Blavatnik’s GOP donor activity while Mnuchin served in the Trump campaign.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dems-rais ... connection

<13



Steven Mnuchin Draws Claims of Conflict of Interest in Decision on Russian Oligarch

By Kenneth P. Vogel

Jan. 29, 2019

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress raised ethical concerns on Tuesday about connections between Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and a billionaire Republican donor who stands to benefit financially from the Trump administration’s decision to lift sanctions on the Russian oligarch Oleg V. Deripaska’s companies.

In a letter to Mr. Mnuchin, two senior Democratic lawmakers said the Treasury secretary’s connection to an entertainment business owned in part by the donor, Len Blavatnik, a major investor in Mr. Deripaska’s giant aluminum company, Rusal, was a potential conflict of interest.

“We are seeking an explanation as to how you managed your own potential conflicts of interest arising from your personal and professional relationships with major Rusal shareholder Len Blavatnik, a key beneficiary from your decision to delist Rusal,” the lawmakers, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in the letter.

The questions about Mr. Mnuchin’s possible conflicts came as Democrats put new pressure on the Trump administration over the terms of its deal to lift the sanctions on Rusal, its parent company and another associated company.

A confidential document disclosed last week by The New York Times showed that the terms of the agreement may have been less punitive toward Mr. Deripaska than advertised, leaving family members and allies with substantial stakes in the company and potentially freeing him from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.

Tony Sayegh, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, said that Mr. Mnuchin had “no business relationship” with Mr. Blavatnik and that any implication of a conflict of interest or ethical problem was “absurd.” A spokesman for Mr. Blavatnik said he had never done business directly with Mr. Mnuchin.

Mr. Sayegh said Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Blavatnik “did know each other personally,” adding that “Mr. Blavatnik is a well-known Republican donor,” and was when Mr. Mnuchin served as finance chairman for President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The administration had announced the sanctions in April 2018 on seven Russian oligarchs and their companies, including Mr. Deripaska, his giant aluminum company, Rusal, and two linked companies in retaliation for “a range of malign activity around the globe” by Russia, Mr. Mnuchin said at the time.

The Treasury Department repeatedly postponed implementing the sanctions against Mr. Deripaska’s companies, citing the risk of collateral economic damage from the disruption of global markets. The department ultimately moved to lift them entirely after striking a deal to restructure the companies that it said forced major concessions by Mr. Deripaska. The process of lifting the sanctions was concluded on Sunday.

One of Rusal’s major shareholders, SUAL Partners Limited, was founded by Mr. Blavatnik and the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Mr. Blavatnik, a dual American-British citizen who was born in Soviet-era Ukraine, has not had sanctions placed on him. But Mr. Vekselberg, like Mr. Deripaska, came under sanctions from the Treasury Department last year and also has drawn the interest of the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The administration’s decision to delay and ultimately lift the sanctions on Mr. Deripaska’s companies sparked outrage on the part of Democrats and Russia hawks while also leading to a surge in the stock price of Rusal.

The document outlining the terms of the deal to lift the sanctions showed that SUAL will own 22.5 percent of Rusal after the restructuring of Mr. Deripaska’s holdings. The rise in Rusal’s stock price has increased the value of SUAL Partners’ holding in the company by about $800 million relative to the value last year shortly after the sanctions were announced.

In a separate letter to Mr. Mnuchin on Monday, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concern about the influence that could be exerted on Rusal under the Treasury deal by SUAL and a Russian bank under sanctions, VTB, as well as by Mr. Deripaska, his family and entities connected to them.

On Tuesday, the Democrats who lead the House Ways and Means, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Financial Services Committees said in a statement that they were “considering additional legislative actions to ensure that Treasury and these companies comply with the agreement in letter and in spirit, and to prevent something like this from happening again in the future.”

And in a letter sent to Mr. Mnuchin last week, Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, asked if the secretary had “ever influenced deliberations on sanctions applications when they involved an entity in which you had a financial interest or with which you had a relationship.”

While Mr. Blavatnik had given mostly to Democrats through the end of 2014, his giving has escalated drastically and shifted sharply right since then. He did not donate to Mr. Trump’s campaign or the “super PACs” that supported it, but family members gave $243,000 to the Republican National Committee during the campaign. And two of Mr. Blavatnik’s companies, including his main United States-based company, Access Industries, donated $2.5 million to the super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates in 2016, plus another $1 million in 2017, according to Federal Election Commission records.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

After Election Day, Access Industries donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, and Mr. Blavatnik attended inaugural events.

The questions from Democrats about a possible conflict of interest stem from an acquisition, announced in April 2017, by an arm of Access Industries, of a stake in a movie production company called RatPac Entertainment. The deal gave Access “a piece of” a joint film deal venture that RatPac had formed in 2013 with one of Mr. Mnuchin’s companies, Dune Entertainment, to finance Warner Bros. films, according to an article by the Hollywood Reporter posted on Access’s website.

By the time Mr. Blavatnik’s acquisition was announced, Mr. Mnuchin had been serving as Treasury secretary for more than two months. He had stepped down as chairman of Dune Entertainment before his confirmation, at which time Louise Linton, who was then his fiancée and is now his wife, was named “interim C.E.O. in an uncompensated capacity,” while Mr. Mnuchin worked to divest from the company, according to a letter sent by the Treasury Department last year to Mr. Wyden, whose 2016 re-election campaign received nearly $11,000 from Mr. Blavatnik and his wife.

Mr. Mnuchin has fully divested from Dune Entertainment and RatPac-Dune, Mr. Sayegh said. Mr. Mnuchin valued the RatPac-Dune partnership with Warner Bros. at between $5 million and $25 million, according to his personal financial disclosure filings, one of which showed that he sold entities associated with the venture in May 2017.

The statement did not list buyers for the entities, but Mr. Sayegh said they were not sold to Mr. Blavatnik or Access.

Mr. Sayegh also said that neither Mr. Mnuchin nor Ms. Linton were aware of or involved in Mr. Blavatnik’s purchase until it was publicly announced, so it was “not necessary” for Mr. Mnuchin to seek ethics guidance or to recuse himself from the decision-making process on the sanctions.

Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who pressed Mr. Mnuchin on his relationship with Mr. Blavatnik this month, said it was “very troubling” that he did not seek ethics guidance or recuse himself from the sanctions deliberations. Mr. Blavatnik’s spokesman said “there was never at any point any contact between Mr. Blavatnik and Mr. Mnuchin in connection with the sale or operations of RatPac-Dune.”

In their letter, Mr. Cummings and Mr. Wyden sought details on Mr. Mnuchin’s sale of Dune Entertainment, including the identity of the buyer. They also asked about reports that Mr. Mnuchin had “frequented” Mr. Blavatnik’s yacht before becoming Treasury secretary, and that Mr. Mnuchin’s brother, Alan Mnuchin, a financial adviser, had represented RatPac-Dune in a deal to sell its film library to Warner Bros., which was finalized this year.

The Treasury Department said that Mr. Mnuchin attended only one party on Mr. Blavatnik’s yacht, but would not provide details about the circumstances.

Alan Mnuchin rejected any suggestion that he had been brought into the deal by Mr. Blavatnik or that Mr. Blavatnik might have purchased the stake in RatPac to try to curry favor with his brother.

In mid-January 2018, Ms. Linton attended an exclusive 50-person charity dinner in London that was also attended by Mr. Deripaska.

At the time of the dinner, which was for the anti-poaching organization Space for Giants, the Treasury Department had been directed to put together a report on oligarchs on which it might place sanctions, which would come to include Mr. Deripaska.

A spokesman for Space for Giants said that the guests — including Prince William, the former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the Russian-British newspaper owner Evgeny Lebedev and a member of the Saudi royal family — were not provided one another’s names before or after the event.

Mr. Sayegh said that Ms. Linton, who donated $50,000 to Space for Giants in 2017, according to its annual report, “was unaware” that Mr. Deripaska was at the dinner that she “never interacted with” the oligarch.

“She recalls sitting next to Prince William at the dinner,” Mr. Sayegh said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/p ... tions.html

<14



House Dems want Treasury records on Russian sanctions move

By RICHARD LARDNER today 1.29.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three senior House Democrats have demanded Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin turn over documents that would show how his department decided to lift financial sanctions on three companies connected to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Reps. Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Eliot Engel told Mnuchin in a letter Tuesday they want a broad array of material that may range from secret intelligence reporting to other records such as meeting minutes and agendas, emails and texts, and calendar invitations.

The letter comes two days after Treasury announced the sanctions were being lifted on the grounds that Derapaska’s direct and indirect shareholding stake in the three companies had been reduced to the point that he no longer has control over them. The lifting of the sanctions was opposed by members of both parties on Capitol Hill over concerns that the Trump administration was not being tough enough on Russian President Vladimir Putin and his allies, including Deripaska.

Schiff chairs the Intelligence Committee, Waters leads the Financial Services Committee and Engel runs the Foreign Affairs Committee.

They wrote that under the terms of Deripaska’s removal, his “ownership stake, as well as benefits afforded to his associates, family members, and related entities, appears designed to allow him to retain significant influence, if not de facto control,” over the companies.

The three Democrats noted Deripaska’s ties to Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, who was convicted of eight financial crimes as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“At one point, Mr. Manafort owed Mr. Deripaska close to $20 million and may have leveraged his position as campaign chairman to attempt to negotiate that debt in exchange for providing briefings to Deripaska related to the campaign,” according to the lawmakers.

The companies released from the financial sanctions were the Russian aluminum manufacturing giant Rusal, EN+ Group and the Russian power company JSC EuroSibEnergo. EN+ Group is a holding company that owns nearly 50 percent of Rusal. Deripaska will remain blacklisted as part of sanctions announced last April that targeted tycoons with close ties to the Kremlin.

Treasury’s announcement followed a failed attempt by Congress earlier this month to block the sanctions removal. Despite coming up short, the votes demonstrated the breadth of concern on Capitol Hill over Treasury’s decision, with many Republicans joining Democrats to oppose the sanctions deal.

The votes in the House and Senate represented a crack in the solid GOP backing Trump has enjoyed in his first two years as president, signaling that congressional Republicans are willing to split with the White House on national security matters.

https://www.apnews.com/58ce56d511d8420891b7983d6e04eab1

<15



The White House quietly rolled back workplace safety rules during the shutdown

Public health groups are suing the Trump administration for blocking a rule requiring employers to report details of workplace injuries.

By Alexia Fernández Campbell@AlexiaCampbellalexia@vox.com Jan 29, 2019, 2:00pm EST

The partial government shutdown may have disrupted air travel and triggered financial hardship, but it didn’t stop the White House from continuing to dismantle regulations meant to protect US workers.

On Friday, the Trump administration gutted a 2016 rule that required most employers to electronically submit detailed reports of all workplace injuries to the Department of Labor each year — reports they’ve long been required to keep, but never required to submit.

The Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses rule would have allowed the government, for the first time, to get more complete data on how many US workers are injured on the job and how those injuries happened. Enacted under the Obama administration, it was supposed to help inspectors identify dangerous work conditions, and in turn pressure businesses to comply with workplace safety laws.

But in 2017, the Trump administration put the electronic reporting rule on hold, then amended it this summer to let employers off the hook. Employers would no longer have to submit the detailed injury reports — just a summary report.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which reviews regulations before they are published, then rushed the amendment through the three-month review process in just six weeks — even though the office was closed during the shutdown and two-thirds of the office’s employees were furloughed. By Friday, the changes were finalized and published.

The move caught labor leaders off-guard and drew sharp criticism from public health researchers, who rely on injury data to analyze health risks and develop prevention programs. Public Citizen, a nonprofit group that promotes research-based policies to improve occupational health, immediately filed a lawsuit with two other public health groups to block the changes. The AFL-CIO labor federation accused the department of ramming through the controversial changes as a favor to big business groups, who oppose the rule.

“The process was totally opaque, not transparent, and clearly rushed,” Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO’s safety and health director, told me. “The only reason this was rushed through was because the Trump administration wanted to relieve employers of having to report their injury data.”

A spokesperson for OMB did not respond to a request for comment from Vox. The Department of Labor referred Vox’s request to the Department of Justice, which represents federal agencies in litigation. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.

The Trump administration’s rollback of the injury reporting rule is the latest example of the president’s anti-worker economic agenda. Since taking office, the Department of Labor has systematically tried to weaken regulations meant to protect workers’ pay, retirement, and safety. For example, the agency tried to change pay rules to allow employers to pocket workers’ tips, and delayed a rule to extend overtime pay to millions of workers. These moves clash with Trump’s populist campaign promises, and hurt many of the blue-collar workers who voted him into office.

Researchers say they don’t have enough data to protect workers
Public health researchers have long tried to get accurate data on how often workers are injured each year. But the only data available comes from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workplace inspections, which do not cover every job site every year, and from an annual survey of 80,000 employers.

That survey has shown a steady decline in overall injury rates, but the survey only covers a sample of businesses in certain hazardous industries — so it’s impossible to know how often restaurant cooks or hotel housekeeper are injured, for example. And the injury data that is available in the survey has few details anyway, making it hard for government inspectors, labor groups, and healthcare researchers to identify workplaces with dangerous working conditions.

Until 2017, employers were required to keep detailed logs for OSHA, but didn’t have to submit them each year. Only the most serious injuries and deaths had to be immediately reported. But even a third-degree burn that ends with a trip to the emergency room doesn’t count as serious if it doesn’t lead to in-patient hospitalization, according to OSHA guidelines.

Employers liked it that way. So they were unhappy when the Obama administration finalized the electronic reporting rule in 2016, which required them to electronically send detailed reports each year, starting in 2017. Two months after the rule was finalized, a group of steel, construction and manufacturing companies sued the Department of Labor, calling the rule “arbitrary” and “capricious.” The lawsuit is still tied up in a Texas federal court.

A coalition of industry groups has been trying to get Trump’s Labor Department to scrap this rule, saying that the injury data would “not provide insight into the effectiveness or lack thereof of safety programs and instituted safety practices in the workplace.” The US Chamber of Commerce, which also opposed the detailed reporting rule, said the data would expose businesses to “frivolous lawsuits.”

In the end, OSHA decided to repeal the requirement to report detailed injury data, but for a different stated reason: to protect workers’ privacy. The agency said in its final rule, published Friday, that the change would prevent “routine government collection of information that may be quite sensitive, including descriptions of workers’ injuries and the body parts affected, and thereby avoiding the risk that such information might be publicly disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”

After the changes were proposed in June during the amendment process, the agency was flooded with thousands of comments (most in opposition, some in support). Hundreds of workers and labor groups were calling BS. But it didn’t seem to matter.

Labor union leaders said the workers they represent aren’t actually concerned about the privacy issue. Seminario of the AFL-CIO points out that other agencies collect similar information, and there’s no privacy risk because the government isn’t allowed to share confidential information anyway under FOIA.

Hundreds of individual workers also lashed out at the administration for weakening the reporting rules.

“It’s shocking to me that our president cares so little about the working people like me who voted for him,” wrote Karl Mantyla, a Trump voter from Farmington Hills, Michigan. “Does he truly want to gut OSHA health and safety rules, putting workers in danger — merely to fatten the wallets of already rich employers and CEOs?”

But the Trump administration sided with business groups, and OSHA gutted the rule anyway. In December, Seminario said she was shocked to find out that the rule had been sent to OMB for a final review. She said she requested a meeting, but never heard back, and assumed the shutdown had put the rule review process on hold. But it hadn’t.

On January 17, OMB finished the review and signaled that changes would soon be published— a process that usually takes three months. Once again, Seminario sent an email, urging OMB to delay the rollback until they can have a meeting.

“I was surprised and disturbed to see that review of deregulatory actions is apparently considered an essential function, but involving the public in this process is not,” Seminario wrote in an email to OMB, a copy of which was shared with Vox. “I am renewing my earlier request for a meeting and would ask that OMB recall the draft OSHA rule until this meeting occurs.”

Once again, no response.

By the time the rule was finalized on Friday, a group of public health organizations was ready with a lawsuit, arguing that the Labor Department was violating the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the rule-making process:

The Rollback Rule should be declared unlawful and set aside because OSHA has failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in position, failed to adequately consider comments submitted in opposition to the change, and relied on considerations that have no sound basis in law. OSHA’s action, findings, and conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.

Public Citizen, the nonprofit group that promotes research-based policies to improve occupational health, is among the groups suing. It wants to use the detailed data to improve workplace safety training programs, and in turn, prevent more job-related deaths and disabilities.

But the backlash over the changes was drowned out Friday by familiar White House chaos: the arrest of a Trump campaign adviser in connection to the Russia investigation, and the president’s decision to temporarily reopen the government after grinding it to a halt.

Once again, dysfunction at the White House overshadowed the administration’s methodical effort to weaken rules meant to protect American workers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rting-rule

<16



U.S.

TRUMP’S AMERICA IS BECOMING MORE CORRUPT, REPORT SAYS: ‘EROSION OF ETHICAL NORMS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF POWER’

BY SHANE CROUCHER ON 1/29/19 AT 5:39 AM

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has received its worst score on a global corruption index in seven years, according to a new report.

The United States scored 71 on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2018, a fall of four points since 2017 and the nation's lowest score since 2011. Transparency International is an anti-corruption watchdog that tracks interactions between money and politics worldwide and ranks countries based on perceived corruption in the public sector.

Ranked 22nd in the world, the United States is no longer within the top 20 countries deemed the least corrupt.

“This decline comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power,” the report states, listing the United States as a country to watch.

The less corrupt a country’s public sector is, the closer its index figure is to 100. The index uses a number of surveys and assessments of corruption by other reputable researchers to reach its figures.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Though Trump came to power on a promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., accusing his political opponents of corruption, his critics say he and his family are abusing the presidency for their own gain.

On January 20, his daughter Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser, won trademarks in China for her currently defunct business while Trump's administration is locked in a trade dispute with the Asian country. The conflict of interest was highlighted by the campaign group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The president, meanwhile, is accused by his opponents of undermining the rule of law by attempting to influence and interfere with an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into his presidential campaign.

One strand of Mueller’s sprawling investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is looking into whether Trump obstructed justice by making attempts to thwart the probe, such as by firing the former FBI Director James Comey.

According to the Transparency International index, the world’s least corrupt country in 2018 was Denmark, which scored 88.

In second place is New Zealand at 87, and in joint third place with 85 are Finland, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland.

The United States hit its best score in recent years during the Obama administration, when it measured at 76 in 2015 and was ranked in 16th place.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-corrupti ... 18-1308983


<

<1



Foxconn factory jobs touted by Trump will not come to pass

By SCOTT BAUER an hour ago 1.30.19

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Electronics giant Foxconn reversed course and announced Wednesday that the huge Wisconsin plant that was supposed to bring a bounty of blue-collar factory jobs back to the Midwest — and was lured with billions in tax incentives — will instead be primarily a research and development center staffed by scientists and engineers.

The move was decried in some quarters as a case of bait-and-switch by the Taiwan-based company, which originally planned to build high-tech liquid crystal display screens in a project President Donald Trump had proudly pointed to as a sign of a resurgence in American manufacturing.

In a statement, Foxconn said it remains committed to Wisconsin and the creation of 13,000 jobs as promised. But because the global market environment that existed when the $10 billion project was announced in 2017 has shifted, “this has necessitated the adjustment of plans for all projects.”

“This news is devastating for the taxpayers of Wisconsin,” said Wisconsin Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, a Democrat. “We were promised manufacturing jobs. We were promised state-of-the-art LCD production. ... And now, it appears Foxconn is living up to their failed track record in the U.S. — leaving another state and community high and dry.”

Economic development officials and other supporters of the project urged patience, saying Foxconn still plans to invest what it promised. The White House had no immediate comment.

Foxconn, a major supplier to Apple, is the world’s largest contract maker of electronics.

Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn’s CEO, was quoted as telling Reuters that it is scaling back and possibly shelving plans to build display screens in Wisconsin because “we can’t compete.”

Woo said that instead of a factory, Foxconn wants to create a “technology hub,” with about three-quarters of the jobs in research and development and design. Those jobs typically go to college graduates. The plant is under construction and scheduled to open in 2020.

Marc Levine, senior fellow and founding director of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Center of Economic Development, called it “one enormous bait-and-switch.” And he scoffed at the idea that Foxconn, known for manufacturing, could transform into a research and development giant.

“That’s simply not what Foxconn is,” Levine said in an email. “So the notion that there will be 13,000 research jobs at Foxconn is highly, highly unlikely.”

The company initially billed the massive 20 million-square-foot (1.86 million-square-meter) Wisconsin complex as its first North American manufacturing site for the next generation of display panels to be used in a wide variety of products, including large-screen TVs, self-driving cars, notebooks and other monitors.

Wisconsin state and local governments promised roughly $4 billion to Foxconn, the richest incentive package in state history and the biggest pledged by a state to a foreign corporation in U.S. history. Foxconn was required to invest $10 billion and create 13,000 jobs to get the full incentives.

It had already fallen short last year, hiring 178 full-time employees rather than the 260 targeted, and failed to earn a state tax credit worth up to $9.5 million.

Former Gov. Scott Walker, the Republican who brokered the deal, emphasized in a tweet Wednesday that Foxconn earns tax credits only for actual investment and job creation. “No jobs/investment? No credits. Period,” Walker tweeted.

Republican legislative leaders who pushed the project blamed new Democratic Gov. Tony Evers for Foxconn’s change in plans. They said he had created an air of economic uncertainty by supporting elimination of a manufacturing tax credit program.

Evers was critical of Foxconn in the campaign against Walker but did not pledge to undo the deal. His top aide Joel Brennan said that the administration was surprised by the news from Foxconn. He did not address the accusations Evers was to blame.

Democratic critics said the incentives promised to Foxconn were too rich, and they questioned whether the company would ever fulfill its promises.

The president of Wisconsin’s Technology Council, Tom Still, said he is not surprised Foxconn wants to change course since televisions are becoming less expensive and iPhone sales are declining.

Still, whose group nurtures technology in Wisconsin, said Foxconn can succeed if the plant becomes more research-oriented because its areas of interest match up with Wisconsin’s strengths, such as robotics, medical imaging and industrial imaging.

Last summer, Trump highlighted his economic policies at a groundbreaking event for the Foxconn complex.

“Made in the USA: It’s all happening and it’s happening very, very quickly,” the president said in June after visiting the Foxconn site. “Today we’re seeing the results of the pro-America agenda.”

[ Trump calls Foxconn "8th wonder of the world" despite its cost.

Speaking at a ceremonial groundbreaker for a new Foxconn plant in Wisconsin, President Trump called the new facility "the 8th wonder of the world," despite the fact that Foxconn has cost the state at least $3.5 billion in tax breaks and grants, according to calculations from Wisconsin's nonpartisan legislative fiscal bureau.

At that rate it would take the state 25 years to break even on its investment, the bureau calculated. In other words, each job Foxconn has promised to create costs the taxpayers $263,000. The company has said at least 13,000 direct jobs would be created, paying an average of $53,000 a year.

"As Foxconn has discovered there is no better place to build, hire, and grow than right here in the United States," Mr. Trump said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-give ... ve-stream/ ]

https://www.apnews.com/c07c42179511472c970cca2a6f876fbf

<2



News

Labor Secretary’s Role in Abuse Deal Could Get DOJ Scrutiny (2)

Posted Jan. 29, 2019, 3:46 PM Updated Jan. 29, 2019, 4:42 PM

The Justice Department’s inspector general wants lawmakers to give him the authority to investigate a decade-old plea deal in which Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta allegedly allowed an accused sex offender to skirt the harshest punishment for crimes against teens.

“Your letter raises important questions about the resolution of this case by department attorneys,” DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in a Jan. 29 letter to lawmakers. “However, the OIG does not currently have jurisdiction over matters involving allegations of misconduct relating to DOJ attorneys’ handling of litigation or legal decisions.”

The department’s watchdog responded to lawmakers’ calls to look into an agreement that Acosta—then a federal prosecutor in South Florida—reached with lawyers for Miami hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein, which allowed Epstein to avoid federal sex trafficking charges. Epstein was sentenced to 13 months in prison on lesser charges.

Horowitz called on the Senate to take up a bill (H.R. 202) recently passed by the House. He said that legislation would give him the authority to investigate alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

A November Miami Herald report on the Epstein case has renewed public attention to the allegations against Epstein, who was accused of running a teen sex ring out of his Florida home. It’s also brought new criticism to Acosta, who as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is said to have helped orchestrate the agreement.

Epstein’s all star legal defense team included Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz, former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, and famed criminal defense attorney Roy Black.

The Labor Department declined Bloomberg Law’s request for comment. A DOL spokeswoman on Jan. 15 told Bloomberg Law that Acosta acted appropriately.

“For more than a decade, this prosecution has been reviewed in great detail by newspaper articles, television reports, books, and Congressional testimony,” the spokeswoman said. “Department of Justice leadership, likewise, reviewed the matter at the time, and the Department has continued to defend the Southern District of Florida’s actions across three administrations and several attorneys general on the grounds that the actions taken were in accordance with Department practices, procedures, and the law.”

Acosta was rumored to be on a short list of potential replacements for Jeff Sessions as the U.S. Attorney General before the Herald story was published. The former Justice Department civil rights chief and National Labor Relations Board member is also widely believed to be interested in a federal judge seat.

The renewed attention to the Epstein case and possible DOJ investigation may put that goal on the back burner.

Acosta in a 2011 letter obtained by the Daily Beast said he was brought into the case because local police officers were concerned that state prosecutors would let Epstein off easy. He said the deal was reached after Epstein’s lawyers launched “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” that was “more aggressive than which I, or any of the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered.”

The House Jan. 15 passed by voice vote the Inspector General Access Act, which would move DOJ prosecutor misconduct probes to the inspector general from the Office of Professional Responsibility. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose panel would likely get first crack at the bill, recently joined Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) in urging Attorney general nominee William Barr to conduct a “full and thorough” investigation of the Epstein case if confirmed for the post.

A Graham spokesman didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.

[ Ridiculously lenient Acosta/Epstein plea deal demands a federal investigation

1. At least 80 young girls identified as victims of Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse.

2. The eccentric hedge fund manager, whose friends included former President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew, was also suspected of trafficking minor girls, often from overseas, for sex parties at his other homes in Manhattan, New Mexico and the Caribbean, FBI and court records show.

3. Epstein goes to jail (county jail where he was given liberties and weekend passes + jail house amenities) for just over a year — on two prostitution charges, instead of, possibly, for the rest of his life.

4. And the young girls are kept in the dark, never told that Epstein got a slap on the wrist and denied a chance to challenge it in court. The girls, who now are young women in their 20s and 30s? For them, “closure” is just a word. Justice, real justice, is elusive at best, and a joke at the worst.

5. The sweetheart deal puts an end to a federal investigation likely to end in an indictment for Epstein for international sex-trafficking.

6. A decade later, Epstein is a global jet-setter who calls a private tropical island home.

7. Acosta is embattled, but so far sitting pretty, as U.S. labor secretary.

8. How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 97825.html

9. Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break

But Acosta and Epstein’s armada of attorneys — Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, Guy Lewis and former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr — reached a consensus: Epstein would never serve time in a federal or state prison.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 10674.html ]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-lab ... scrutiny-2

<3



THE SYRIA SYNDROME

Venezuela Is Becoming a Putin-Trump Proxy Battleground

In Russia, many see parallels between Putin's support of Assad in Damascus and Maduro in Caracas, not least because they're fights he can't afford to lose.

Anna Nemtsova 01.30.19 5:22 AM ET

MOSCOW—In Russian eyes, Venezuela is becoming a proxy battleground between Moscow and Washington.

For the moment the fight is political, financial, and diplomatic. World War III headlines like one that ran in the British tabloid The Daily Express are way overblown. But there are disturbing hints of potential military escalation, with reports of Russian military contractors on the ground and Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, weirdly flashing a yellow legal pad at a press briefing that bore the scrawled note “5,000 troops to Colombia,” Venezuela’s neighbor.

With President Trump repeating the mantra that “all options are on the table,” and Putin’s spokesman being coy about whether Russia’s notorious Wagner mercenaries have been dispatched to Venezuela, a lack of clarification on both sides only makes the situation more volatile.

The scenario of most concern to Moscow at the moment is one in which the government of self-declared President Juan Guaidó, backed by the United States and most of Latin America, moves against Russian personnel in Venezuela. Meanwhile, the United States warns against measures against U.S. diplomats by the Kremlin-backed government of Nicolás Maduro, who has occupied the presidential palace for almost six troubled years.

The Kremlin is calling for the Guaidó faction not to become “pawns in a dirty criminal game of strangers,” when Moscow supposedly is the real friend of the Venezuelan people. Trump’s intervention in support of Guaidó is “destructive,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday.

To reinforce its statements, Russia teamed up with Iran—another Trump target—warning Washington to keep hands off and offering to mediate: an alliance and a proposition that is all too familiar from the recent history of the Middle East.

Conceivably, Russian President Vladimir Putin could play a game with Trump in Venezuela similar to the one he played with the Obama administration in Syria, first offering help to solve a crisis, then moving (together with Iran) to support an infamous ally in a campaign to crush his enemies.

Any way you cut it, Putin has a lot at stake in Venezuela. Independent polls show public support for him in Russia has dropped to a record low of 33.4 percent. For his old friend and partner Maduro to lose power would be a huge loss of face.

And then there’s the matter of money.

Russia owns substantial shares of five major oil fields and a huge stake in Venezuelan natural gas. Maduro also cut a deal with Moscow that gives it effective control of 49.9 percent of Citgo, which operates three large refineries on the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Last month, Maduro visited Moscow for three days and firmed up several deals. “We have signed contracts to guarantee investments of more than $5 billion with our Russian partners in joint ventures to raise oil production,” he told Venezuelan state television. “We are also guaranteeing an investment of $1 billion for mining mostly in gold.”

Note that Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, Iran ranks No 4, and Russia No 8. Working together, their potential power in the market is enormous.

Add to all that the matter of arms sales. Between 2001 and 2013, under Maduro’s predecessor and mentor Hugo Chávez, Venezuela imported Russian weapons worth $14 billion. The country’s military is equipped with Russian artillery and armored vehicles. In 2008, Rosvooruzheniye, Russia’s state owned arms exporter, supplied Venezuela with 24 Sukhoi strike fighters.

The Russian defense ministry sees Venezuela as a perfect base to influence Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, which also are clients of Rosvooruzheniye and and Rosoboronexport.

Russian military experts have been debating for years whether Moscow should have a permanent base in Venezuela, although many thought such a project too expensive, needlessly provocative, and superfluous.

Now, the Kremlin may be recalculating.

Sergei Markov, a political analyst close to the Kremlin administration, confirmed to The Daily Beast that Moscow has sent private security contractors to boost the security for its own people and for some of Maduro’s strategic installations.

“We have an airport for emergency landing for the Russia military in Venezuela, [a country] where we have invested about $17 billion,” said Markov. “Of course Russian private units provide security for the gas fields, where [Russian state oil company] Rosneft experts work, and for our military experts, who’ve been training the local army.”

Such are the public ties between Maduro and Putin that last week, when crowds of protesters flooded the streets of the Venezuelan capital, debates erupted on the Russian social network Vkontakte about whether, if Maduro falls, Putin will be the next to go.

“America’s march of death, which ousts elected leaders, is a serious threat for Russia, where the fifth and sixth columns in the political elite are deliberately strangling Putin’s popularity to bring a pro-American leader to power,” Markov told The Daily Beast.

“Trump is Putin’s enemy in Venezuela, where we have been investing billions of dollars, trading weapons, exploring gas fields, training local military and buying oil,” said Markov, adding significantly, “Our experts working there are veterans of the war in Syria.”

Another analogy quickly comes to mind for many in Russia, who are comparing the situation in Venezuela to the events in Ukraine in 2014. Half-joking, perhaps, they suggest the Kremlin will wind up rescuing Maduro the way Russian spetsnaz forces evacuated Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed leader of Ukraine, after the Maidan uprising.

In the past, Moscow’s efforts to shore up Maduro have not met with great success. Last year a delegation of experts from Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development worked in Venezuela as Maduro’s advisers trying to help combat hyperinflation by creating a cryptocurrency called the “Petro.” It flopped.

“It’s hard to imagine a worse situation, with total corruption and crime, than in Venezuela,” Georgy Bovy, editor-in-chief of Russkiymir.ru magazine, told The Daily Beast. “One would think that it would be in the Kremlin’s interests to establish close ties with the opposition; but our guys are always late, they come to the political scene, when all strong positions have been taken over by pro-Western powers.”

Perhaps, but if Syria is the model, that’s when the real fighting begins.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/venezuela ... ref=scroll

<4



Venezuelans take to streets in walkout to push Maduro out

By SCOTT SMITH and CHRISTINE ARMARIO an hour ago 1.30.19

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Doctors in scrubs, businessmen in suits and construction workers in jeans gathered on the streets of Venezuela’s capital Wednesday, waving their nation’s flag and demanding Nicolas Maduro step down from power in a walkout organized by the nation’s reinvigorated opposition to ratchet up pressure on the embattled president.

Protesters said they were heeding the opposition’s call for another mass demonstration despite the heavy-handed response by security forces over the last week to quell anti-government protests.

“I’m going out now more than ever,” said Sobeia Gonzalez, 63. “We have a lot more faith that this government has very little time left.”

The latest walkout comes one week exactly after opposition leader Juan Guaido proclaimed himself the nation’s rightful president amid a sea of supporters, hurling the nation into a new chapter of political tumult as the anti-Maduro movement tries to establish a transitional government and the socialist leader clings to power.

“We are staying in the streets,” Guaido told students at a surprise appearance at the Central University of Venezuela. “Not just in protest of the crisis we are living in all of Venezuela, not just because of how bad things are, but also for the future.”

The 35-year-lawmaker has transformed from a little-known opposition figure into a commanding force in the nation’s politics with the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump and two dozen other nations recognizing him as Venezuela’s interim president.

The turmoil has morphed into a larger geopolitical standoff as Maduro accuses the U.S. of orchestrating a coup by backing Guaido and enacting punishing oil sanctions while powerful Venezuela allies China and Russia continue to stand by the president.

On Tuesday, the government-stacked Supreme Court barred Guaido from leaving the country and froze his bank accounts as a probe into his anti-government activities led by Maduro-ally and chief prosecutor Tarek William Saab advances. U.S. national security adviser John Bolton warned that if Guaido is harmed Venezuela will face “serious consequences.”

Guaido has thus far managed to avoid arrest and the Supreme Court did not strip him of his legislative immunity, though the new investigation could signal that Maduro’s administration is moving to take a more punitive approach in the days ahead.

Speaking at the walkout, Guaido said he wasn’t losing any sleep over the probe. “We don’t want to leave the country,” he said. “We want people to return.”

Maduro huddled Wednesday with military troops, prayed with evangelical supporters and released a video urging the American people to rise up against Trump and support him as Venezuela’s rightful leader. He said Trump has his eyes on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and warned against any U.S. military intervention.

“We won’t allow a Vietnam in Latin America,” Maduro said. “If the aim of the United States is to invade, they’ll have a Vietnam worse than can be imagined.”

Maduro has been overseeing military training exercises broadcast on state television on a near-daily basis over the past week in an apparent attempt to show he still has the backing of the armed forces, whose support is key to either man’s claim to the presidency.

In an interview with Russia’s state-owned RIA Novosti news agency, Maduro said he was “willing to sit down for talks with the opposition for the sake of Venezuela’s peace and its future,” an offer he has repeated often but that the opposition is reluctant to accept. He also accused Trump of ordering a hit on him from Colombia but offered no proof.

The already distressed nation is likely to face even tougher times soon after the U.S. imposed sanctions Monday on Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, potentially depriving the Maduro government of $11 billion in export revenues over the next year.

Maduro called the sanctions “criminal” and vowed to challenge the U.S. in court.

Violent street demonstrations erupted last week after Guaido declared during a huge opposition rally in Caracas that he had assumed presidential powers under the constitution and planned to hold fresh elections to end Maduro’s “dictatorship.”

Under Venezuela’s constitution, the head of the National Assembly is empowered to take on the duties of the chief executive under a range of circumstances in which the presidency is vacated. The opposition contends that Maduro’s reelection was a sham because, among other things, top opposition candidates were barred from running and that his new second term is therefore illegitimate.

The U.N. human rights office says security forces in Venezuela detained nearly 700 people in just one day of anti-government protests last week — the highest such tally in a single day in the country in at least 20 years — and that more than 40 people were killed.

Maduro’s allies blame the opposition for the violence and deny the high death toll as well as reports that minors were among those arrested.

Guaido called on Venezuelans to take to the streets Wednesday holding signs stating “your reasons for fighting” and urging the armed forces to join them.

“I want a free Venezuela,” several protesters in the Chacao district of the capital wrote on their signs as passing cars and trucks honked their horns in support. Others chanted, “Maduro is a delinquent, not a president!”

A row of National Guardsmen blocked off one street in Caracas to stop protesters from going through but there weren’t any reports of violent confrontations as happened last week.

The walkout drew a cross-section of Venezuelan society ranging from professionals to blue-collar workers, though participation appeared to be lower in some of the poorer enclaves that are traditional government strongholds.

A few of demonstrators from the Catia neighborhood, where protesters set barricades on fire last week, said they didn’t feel safe protesting there and joined the walkout from wealthier districts instead.

Among the protesters was Dr. Hugo Rosillo, who stood outside a children’s hospital just blocks from Maduro’s presidential palace. He said he and others were fed up with not being able to treat their patients facing life-threatening illnesses like cancer because of shortages of medical supplies.

The hospital has turned into just “a storeroom for cadavers,” he said.

https://www.apnews.com/615a3dcedbeb49b8824d567fa77ca7cd

<5



U.S. spy chiefs break with Trump on many threats to the U.S.

Patricia Zengerle, Doina Chiacu

DAVOS JANUARY 29, 2019 / 8:45 AM / UPDATED 8 HOURS AGO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China and Russia pose the biggest risks to the United States, and are more aligned than they have been in decades as they target the 2020 presidential election and American institutions to expand their global reach, U.S. intelligence officials told senators on Tuesday.

The spy chiefs broke with President Donald Trump in their assessments of the threats posed by North Korea, Iran and Syria. But they outlined a clear and imminent danger from China, whose practices in trade and technology anger the U.S. president.

While China and Russia strengthen their alliance, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said some American allies are pulling away from Washington in reaction to changing U.S. policies on security and trade.

The directors of the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies flanked Coats at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. They described an array of economic, military and intelligence threats, from highly organized efforts by China to scattered disruptions by terrorists, hacktivists and transnational criminals.

“China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasingly use cyber operations to threaten both minds and machines in an expanding number of ways - to steal information, to influence our citizens, or to disrupt critical infrastructure,” Coats said.

“Moscow’s relationship with Beijing is closer than it’s been in many decades,” he told the panel.

The intelligence officials said they had protected the 2018 U.S. congressional elections from outside interference, but expected renewed and likely more sophisticated attacks on the 2020 presidential contest.

U.S. adversaries will “use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes,” Coats said.

The intelligence chiefs’ assessments broke with some past assertions by Trump, including on the threat posed by Russia to U.S. elections and democratic institutions, the threat Islamic State poses in Syria, and North Korea’s commitment to denuclearize.

Coats said North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons. Trump has said the country no longer poses a threat.

Coats also said Islamic State would continue to pursue attacks from Syria, as well as Iraq, against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States. Trump, who plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, has said the militant group is defeated.

The intelligence officials also said Iran was not developing nuclear weapons in violation of the 2015 nuclear agreement, even though Tehran has threatened to reverse some commitments after Trump pulled out of the deal.

Senators expressed deep concern about current threats.

“Increased cooperation between Russia and China - for a generation that hasn’t been the case - that could be a very big deal on the horizon in terms of the United States,” said Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

The officials painted a multifaceted picture of the threat posed by China, as they were questioned repeatedly by senators about the No. 2 world economy’s business practices as well as its growing international influence.

“The Chinese counterintelligence threat is more deep, more diverse, more vexing, more challenging, more comprehensive and more concerning than any counterintelligence threat I can think of,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said.

He said almost all the economic espionage cases in the FBI’s 56 field offices “lead back to China.”

Coats said intelligence officials have been traveling around the United States and meeting with corporate executives to discuss espionage threats from China.

He said China has had a meteoric rise in the past decade, adding, “A lot of that was achieved by stealing information from our companies.”

Speaking in Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said he hoped the United States would abandon its zero-sum thinking and work with China, Russia and the rest of the international community to ensure global security.

Tuesday’s testimony came just a day after the United States announced criminal charges against China’s Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL], escalating a fight with the world’s biggest telecommunications equipment maker and coming days before trade talks between Washington and Beijing.

Coats also said Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing politicians perceived to be anti-Russia.

Senator Mark Warner, the panel’s top Democrat, said he was particularly concerned about Russia’s use of social media “to amplify divisions in our society and to influence our democratic processes” and the threat from China in the technology arena.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of several congressional panels, along with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, investigating whether there were any connections between Trump’s 2016 and Russian efforts to influence the election.

Russia denies attempting to influence U.S. elections, while Trump has denied his campaign cooperated with Moscow.

Coats declined to respond when Democratic Senator Ron Wyden asked whether Trump’s not releasing records of his discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin put U.S. intelligence agencies at a disadvantage.

“To me from an intelligence perspective, it’s just Intel 101 that it would help our country to know what Vladimir Putin discussed with Donald Trump,” Wyden said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1PN1U3

<6



US intel report warns of growing Russia, China alignment

BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 01/29/19 12:24 PM EST

U.S. intelligence leaders warned Tuesday that Russia and China are becoming increasingly aligned as the two nations seek to compete against the U.S. and its allies.

"Moscow's relationship with Beijing is closer than it has been in many decades," Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee durning the panel's "Worldwide Threat" hearing.

Coats helped unveil the latest U.S. Worldwide Threat Assessment, a U.S. intelligence report warning that while Moscow and Beijing are growing closer, some U.S. allies are beginning to build stronger relationships elsewhere.

"At the same time, some US allies and partners are seeking greater independence from Washington in response to their perceptions of changing US policies on security and trade and are becoming more open to new bilateral and multilateral partnerships," the report states.

The intelligence assessment says Russia and China are seeking to assert their dominance over the international system by growing stronger "across all domains," including racing for "technological and military superiority."

"China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s, and the relationship is likely to strengthen in the coming year as some of their interests and threat perceptions converge, particularly regarding perceived U.S. unilateralism and interventionism and Western promotion of democratic values and human rights," the assessment reads.

"Russia and China seek to shape the international system and regional security dynamics and exert influence over the politics and economies of states in all regions of the world and especially in their respective backyards," it adds.

The assessment also warns that the Kremlin is becoming more involved in the Middle East and East Asia in an attempt to expand its reach globally, "eroding once well-established security norms and increasing the risk of regional conflicts."

While intelligence officials have warned about Russia's and China's efforts to gain power abroad, they also said the two countries will likely seek to target U.S. elections in 2020.

Coats, speaking on behalf of other intelligence officials, told the Senate panel that U.S. adversaries like Russia and China “probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests.”

“U.S. adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in the United States and elsewhere,” Coats said.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... nment-amid

<7



OPINION

Donald Trump and his Republican minions are playing with nuclear fire on NATO and Russia

Tom Nichols, Opinion columnist Published 11:13 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2019 | Updated 11:35 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2019

NATO opponents are like the anti-vaccine movement. They see no need for something that has kept them safe in ways they do not understand. It's madness.

At least once this year, the House of Representatives agreed on something important. In a massive and lopsided vote, Democrats and most Republicans joined to vote 357-22 to make it harder for President Donald Trump to pull the United States from NATO.

The 22 opponents, however, were all Republicans, mostly from the ironically-named “Freedom Caucus.” Meanwhile, over in the Senate, a Republican majority chose to support Trump’s efforts to lift sanctions on a Russian oligarch, with only 11 GOP senators objecting.

This is what the party of Ronald Reagan, the party that so often claims to have won the Cold War, has been reduced to in the name of defending Donald Trump. In the mirror-world of American politics, Democrats are now the party willing to oppose the Kremlin, with a liberal speaker of the House from San Francisco more likely to stare down Moscow than a Republican president.

This is all madness. NATO prevented the Cold War from becoming World War III, one of the great diplomatic achievements of any age. Nuclear war, a fear that was the daily companion of multiple generations of North Americans and Europeans, seems now to be a distant threat from a bygone era.

All signs point the same way: Putin has compromising information on Donald Trump

Russia isn't out to decide our elections, they want to divide us and damage our country

House Democrats might need to impeach Donald Trump whether they want to or not

Today, the Russians are testing the limits of the post-Cold War order, seeking to dominate their neighbors, redrawing the boundaries of Europe by force, and trying to drive a wedge between the North Americans and the European family of which we have been a part since our founding as a republic. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats — contradicting Trump's more benign view of the Russians — told the Senate this week that every NATO member feels under threat from Russian interference. NATO’s mission is now more relevant than at any time since the 1980s.

Why, then, are Trump and his Republican minions so hostile to NATO?

Bashing NATO wins points with Putin, GOP

For President Trump, the answer probably lies in his nearly obsessive fear of the Kremlin, and particularly of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s knowledge of foreign affairs is minuscule and his curiosity about it is even smaller. And yet, the president seems to have internalized the Russian narrative on an array of complex issues; he even has thoughts, amazingly enough, on Montenegro.

We cannot know what Putin has said to Trump, but we must assume it has never involved kind words for NATO, which Putin hates with all the vodka-and-sausages Soviet nostalgia one expects from an aging KGB officer. Much of the president’s animus toward NATO is part of his overall disdain for international institutions whose functions he does not comprehend. But we must also assume that his specific targeting of the Alliance is part of his overall attempt to court the goodwill of the current master of the Kremlin.

There is also political hay to be made in the GOP by trashing NATO. Like Trump himself, Americans who oppose membership in NATO have become the political equivalent of the anti-vaccine movement. They see no need for something that has kept them safe in ways they do not understand, and revel in their obstinacy as a reflexive and childish assertion of autonomy.

Trump's base believes Russia is their friend

This is particularly strong among the most ignorant strata of Trump’s base who stubbornly believe that Russia is a defender of traditional (read: white and Christian) values, and who see Russia as the enemy of the people they hate the most, notably Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Recall that Trump won the Republican nomination while exhorting Russia to conduct espionage against his opponent, without a peep from a fair number of the Republican faithful who to this day think Russian spying is less of a problem than FBI investigations into Russian spying.

Republicans in Congress are harder to explain, because they’re supposed to know better. It is possible that there are members of Congress who do not understand NATO, what it did, or what it does, or the threat posed by Russia. But that cannot possibly include Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2012 warning of Russia as our top geopolitical foe, yet as a senator caved to Trump’s demand to lift sanctions.

In the House, Republicans from the most GOP-heavy districts are likely playing NATO as just another plot by the “elites” to steal cash from hard-working Americans and give it to lazy Danes and Greeks and Poles.

There is a more alarming possibility, however. Some Republicans might be dismissing any talk about the Russians in order to shore up support among the GOP base who will be needed to weather the storm likely to break when Special Counsel Robert Mueller issues his final report — which is coming soon, according to Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.

Trump and GOP are playing with nuclear fire

Along with their footmen in the conservative media, the goal could be to soften the view of the Russians, smear organizations like NATO as a waste of time and money, and then dismiss all criticism of collusion and Kremlin espionage as just another Deep State plot meant to keep working-class Americans under the thumb of U.S. and European elites who exercise their control of global events through fronts like alliances and treaties.

This is playing with fire — nuclear fire, even. What holds an alliance together is willpower and commitment. Money buys weapons, but it cannot buy resolve. If America’s enemies think that we and our allies have walked away from each other, and that we will not come to our mutual defense, we will be challenged not only by the Russians, but by anyone else who thinks that we can be defeated in pieces. Even talking about it the way the president and the Republicans are doing is already inflicting serious damage and risk on global security.

And for what? For the political fortunes of one man who surrounded himself with a grimy coterie of operators and charlatans who got in over their heads in a game that was more serious than they realized?

The next president will have to put the salvaging and restoration of the Alliance at the top of his or her agenda for immediate repair, before disaster strikes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 705436002/

<8



Trump chastises intel chiefs after they contradict him on Iran and claims of foreign policy success

By Eli Watkins, CNN

Updated 11:53 AM ET, Wed January 30, 2019

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump chastised his own intelligence officials Wednesday morning for being soft on Iran a day after they contradicted numerous administration claims of foreign policy success.

On Tuesday, the nation's top intelligence official, who was appointed by Trump, told Senate lawmakers that the US intelligence community does not believe Iran is currently undertaking "key activities" needed to produce a nuclear bomb -- an assessment at odds with longtime administration claims that Iran is an immediate nuclear threat.

Trump, in a remarkable rebuke that was reminiscent of his past criticisms of law enforcement officials, said the intel chiefs were "extremely passive and naive" on the matter.

"The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!" Trump tweeted. "When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
....a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!

64.8K
7:56 AM - Jan 30, 2019

In a series of tweets, Trump also touted "tremendous progress" against ISIS, a recently announced framework for talks with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan and his attempt at a rapprochement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Notably, Trump said Wednesday there was a "decent chance of denuclearization" on the Korean Peninsula, a step back from his previous demands that the longtime US foe end its nuclear program.

Trump made no mention of Russia, which was specifically mentioned by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats on Tuesday as likely to target 2020 elections. Also left unmentioned was a response to intelligence officials' warnings about the threat of climate change.

Trump was scheduled to receive an intelligence briefing later Wednesday morning.

In announcing last May that the US would withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump argued that remaining in the 2015 pact would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

But more than eight months later, US intelligence officials testified that there is no indication Iran is currently attempting to develop a nuclear weapon and told lawmakers that Tehran remains in compliance with the agreement despite the US withdrawal.

"While we do not believe Iran is currently undertaking the key activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device, Iranian officials have publicly threatened to push the boundaries of JCPOA restrictions if Iran does not gain the tangible financial benefits it expected from the deal," Coats said Tuesday.'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics ... index.html

<9



Trump just admitted North Korea might keep its nuclear weapons

Trump lowers expectations on North Korea after his intelligence chiefs contradicted his rosy outlook.

By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Jan 30, 2019, 11:20am EST

For months, President Donald Trump and top administration officials have maintained that they struck an agreement with North Korea last June to end its nuclear program.

But after US intelligence officials on Tuesday openly contradicted that, stating that North Korea likely won’t give up its arsenal, Trump seems to be walking that back just a bit.

“Decent chance of denuclearization,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “Time will tell what will happen with North Korea.”

A “decent chance.” That, folks, is what people in the political world call “moving the goalposts.”

That’s a far cry from the comments Trump made in June — just hours after meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for the first time — in which the president stated that there was “no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

Now he’s admitting not only that the threat remains, but also that it’s not guaranteed to go away anytime soon.

There’s a good reason for Trump’s backtrack

The Trump administration is currently in the midst of months-long negotiations with North Korea in pursuit of a deal that would see the country give up its nuclear weapons and dismantle its nuclear and missile production facilities.

Those negotiations are entirely predicated on the belief that Kim is at least open to the idea of giving up his nuclear weapons. And indeed, Trump and top administration officials like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continue to insist that North Korea has agreed to give up its missiles and nukes.

Yet the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment report — released Tuesday by the heads of the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI, and many other federal agencies — clearly states that Pyongyang “is unlikely to give up all of its [nuclear] stockpiles, delivery systems, and production capabilities,” and adds that “North Korean leaders view nuclear arms as critical to regime survival.”

That fits with the publicly available evidence experts and researchers have found showing that North Korea has continued to improve its weapons programs throughout the negotiations and is hiding military sites from the US. Those certainly don’t seem like the actions of a country planning to give its weapons up anytime soon.

So now Trump, after seeing progress with North Korea stall and US intelligence pushing back on his views, has downgraded his own optimism.

“From ‘veni, vidi, vici’ to ‘maybe,’” Sung-Yoon Lee, a North Korea expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, told me, referencing the famous Latin declaration attributed to Julius Caesar: “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Lee added that the president is now in “an elaborate trap from which he cannot easily break free” and that at this point, he “can only keep lowering the bar” in order to get out of it.

Trump keeps changing the metric of success with North Korea

Joshua Pollack, a North Korea expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, cited two specific instances where Trump previously moved the goalposts during the nuclear talks.

Remember: Trump said soon after his Kim meeting that there was no nuclear threat from North Korea anymore. But he has made other claims to demonstrate things are going well — even if they’re not.

First, Trump cites North Korea’s lack of missile or nuclear tests as a sign of progress. He has a point there: Despite testing weapons at breakneck speed since 2013, Pyongyang hasn’t detonated a nuclear device since September 2017 or tested a missile since that November.

But not testing his arsenal is not the same as Kim giving up the weapons altogether. North Korea’s decision definitely helps lower tensions, but it doesn’t remove or end the threat — not by a long shot.

Second, Pompeo — who leads the North Korea negotiations for the Trump administration — in September set a deadline to conclude nuclear talks by 2021. But in the months since, Trump has repeatedly insisted that “we’re in no rush” to strike a deal, once again moving the goalposts.

On the one hand, experts say, that’s a good thing: Sensitive negotiations take time, and dismantling North Korea’s program is among the most intricate. But on the other hand, it gives Kim ample time to improve his arsenal.

Still, Trump’s Wednesday backtrack is his biggest yet. The semi-admission of failure — or at least recognition that he overpromised — in retrospect isn’t so surprising.

Asked after his June 2018 summit with Kim if the North Korean leader would dismantle his nuclear arsenal, Trump said, “I think he will do these things. I may be wrong. I may stand before you in six months and say, hey, I was wrong. I don’t know I’ll ever admit that. I’ll find some excuse.”

It’s been just over six months — and he found an excuse. “A flash of self-awareness, perhaps,” Pollack told me.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/30/18203569/ ... uclear-kim

<10



POLITICS

Michael Cohen Is Ready to Talk Russia to Congress

He once felt he owed Trump his loyalty. Now he owes Congress an explanation.

NATASHA BERTRAND 12:17 PM ET 1.30.19

President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen lied to Congress about issues central to the Russia investigation out of “blind loyalty” to his longtime boss. But now the man who once said he would take a bullet for Trump plans to correct the record before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees—perhaps giving lawmakers more insight than they’ve ever had into the president’s dealings with Russia before and during the election.

Cohen’s much-hyped public testimony before a separate panel, the House Oversight Committee, was expected to be highly restricted to avoid interfering with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, with which Cohen has been cooperating for several months. (Cohen postponed that hearing following attacks from the president and the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on his wife and father-in-law.) But the intelligence-committee hearings will be conducted behind closed doors, giving Cohen the opportunity to have a freer exchange with the members.

Cohen is willing to answer questions about what he’s told Mueller and other issues related to the ongoing investigation, according to two people familiar with his plans. (They, like other people I spoke with, requested anonymity to discuss the private deliberations.) However, his legal team is also in talks with Mueller’s office to determine whether there are any parameters for his testimony. The House Intelligence Committee is also “in consultation with the special counsel’s office to ascertain any concerns that they might have and to deconflict,” according to a committee aide.

“The reason that he agreed to testify privately for the intelligence committees is, first and foremost, because he owes them,” one of the people familiar with Cohen’s plans said. “He pleaded guilty to lying to them and owes them an apology.” Cohen admitted in court late last year that he lied to Congress when he told them that negotiations to build a Trump Tower Moscow ended in January 2016, and that he hadn’t discussed it much with Trump. In fact, Cohen testified, he agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow project and took steps to prepare for Trump’s possible trip there after he clinched the Republican nomination.

Cohen is “more open to answering questions” about these and other Russia-related issues than he would have been in a public setting, according to this source, as long as he remains “secure in the knowledge that both committees will protect his testimony and prevent leaks.”

The Senate panel, which subpoenaed Cohen earlier this month, and its House counterpart declined to preview what questions they intend to ask. But the central purpose of the interviews is for Cohen to correct the record on his previous false statements to the committees about the timing of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations—and, crucially, whether Trump or anyone in the White House directed him to lie in the first place. BuzzFeed News reported earlier this month that Mueller had evidence that Trump had asked Cohen to lie about the timing of the real-estate deal, prompting the special counsel’s office to release a rare statement contradicting aspects of the story. But House Democrats made it clear that, if it were confirmed that the president had tried to obstruct justice in order to hide his involvement in business negotiations with the Kremlin during the election—while Russia waged a hacking and disinformation campaign to undermine Trump’s opponent—it would be cause for impeachment.

Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC on Wednesday morning that the panel expects Cohen to address the Moscow real-estate deal, which was also a potential source of leverage for Russia throughout 2016 as Trump—and his family—kept the negotiations a secret from voters. Cohen admitted late last year to discussing the Moscow deal with Trump’s family members “within” the Trump Organization.

Donald Trump Jr., an executive vice president of the Trump Organization, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was only “peripherally aware” of the Moscow deal in 2016. It is not clear what he told the House Intelligence Committee, which has not yet released the transcripts of the closed-door interview. But Cohen’s corrected testimony could illuminate whether other witnesses have been honest during congressional testimony about their role in, or knowledge of, the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations in 2016, and Russia’s interference more broadly.

“I think this common thread of lying to Congress and particularly to congressional committees may ensnare a number of other potential targets in the special counsel’s investigation,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Monday. “And it could become a matter of criminal action.” On Friday, the longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone was indicted by Mueller for lying to the House Intelligence Committee about WikiLeaks, prompting Schiff to reiterate that the Intelligence Committee’s “first order of business” once it is constituted—which has been delayed by Republicans—will be a vote to send the official witness transcripts to Mueller. “We will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead,” he said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... es/581668/

<11



Trump blocked pay raises for 2 million workers. The House just voted to restore them.

Trump said the government couldn’t afford cost-of-living increases for civilian federal employees.

By Alexia Fernández Campbell@AlexiaCampbellalexia@vox.com Jan 30, 2019, 3:10pm EST

President Donald Trump canceled annual pay raises for federal employees last year — and now members of Congress are trying to restore them.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill that would give civilian workers a 2.6 percent cost-of-living increase for 2019. They were supposed to receive an automatic 2.1 percent pay bump starting in January, but Trump canceled it in December — just days after he shut down the government and withheld paychecks for nearly 800,000 employees.

Furloughed employees are now back at work, waiting for their first paycheck of the year and back pay to cover the ones they missed during the 35-day shutdown. But Trump’s decision to reopen the government for three weeks — without funding for a border wall— did not include a raise.

That means roughly 2 million people won’t get an annual pay raise this year, including Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Members of Congress, though, think they can still make it happen. Senate Democrats introduced another bill on Tuesday calling for the 2.6 percent raise, which would match the increase given to military service members. So far, the bill has no Republican support, but GOP Senate leaders had previously been willing to give employees a 1.9 percent raise.

“Congress can override, and Congress should override this executive order,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who represents a district with thousands of federal workers.

Whether or not they can make a deal with the Senate is up in the air, and the raise may end up as part of the negotiations over the next government spending bill, which Congress must pass by February 15 to keep the government open. The main barrier to a deal, however, is the president, who has shown little to no concern for the impact his decision would have on the livelihoods of American workers.

Trump says there is no money for raises

The president first announced the across-the-board pay freeze in August, saying the federal government couldn’t afford the annual 2.1 percent increase, which allows workers’ salaries keep up with the cost of living.

Trump’s decision was swiftly met with widespread outcry from labor unions that represent federal workers, calling it “a slap in the face.”

The president is allowed to cancel raises in the event of a “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” and past presidents have eased up on scheduled raises for federal workers. President Barack Obama issued a two-year federal pay freeze in 2010 in response to the financial crash. And in 2012 and 2013, House Republicans stepped in to freeze pay for both federal workers and congressional staff.

But with today’s expanding economy, it’s hard to justify withholding raises from 2 million government workers, most of whom live outside of the nation’s capital. But Trump tried anyway.

In a letter to Congress, Trump said the raises were “inappropriate” in light of the government’s fiscal crisis. He said employees should only get raises based on performance and merit, disregarding increases in cost of living or other factors.

“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” Trump wrote in a letter he sent to Congress over the summer. The letter made no mention of the 2016 Republican tax bill, which slashed corporate tax rates and blew a hole in the federal budget.

Congress could override Trump’s decision, but it depends how many Republicans would be willing to break with him. On Wednesday, 29 House Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the raise.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... al-workers

<12



POLITICS

Why Democrats Picked Stacey Abrams to Deliver Their Trump Counterpunch

The decision to tap Abrams for their State of the Union response reflects the importance of this year’s address to the party.

VANN R. NEWKIRK II 1:28 PM ET 1.30.19

Usually, the only things that most Americans can remember about the annual response to the president’s State of the Union address are the memes: the extremely awkward sips of water; the shiny lips and weirdly prominent sports car; the stilted, staged setup. The speaker’s actual remarks, which represent the messaging of the president’s opposition party, are usually secondary—earnest, perfunctory, and then, mercifully, over. The real function of these televised speeches, sandwiched between hours of nitpicking commentary, is to signal that a party has identified its chosen speaker as a rising star.

That’s why the Democrats’ selection of Stacey Abrams to deliver this year’s response is so intriguing. Abrams, who narrowly lost the Georgia governor’s race to the Republican Brian Kemp in November, has perhaps become more prominent and integral to the party since her defeat. The speech will likely function less as an acknowledgment of her potential, and more as a genuine rebuttal to President Donald Trump—one delivered by a politician who’s already become an avatar of effective anti-Trumpism messaging, thanks to her campaign against Kemp, and at a time, days after the government shutdown, when the president is newly vulnerable.

“At a moment when our nation needs to hear from leaders who can unite for a common purpose, I am honored to be delivering the Democratic State of the Union response,” Abrams said in a statement Tuesday, after her speech was announced. “I plan to deliver a vision for prosperity and equality, where everyone in our nation has a voice and where each of those voices is heard.”

Those themes are core pieces of Abrams’s message. On the campaign trail last year, her stump speech was notable for the way it outlined policies in terms of how they’d practically affect voters’ lives and pockets, whether it was connecting a proposed Medicaid expansion to black infant and maternal deaths, or identifying climate change as a culprit in natural disasters in southern Georgia.

Abrams also focused on several issues that are critical to the national political conversation right now, a record she could lean on in trying to create an effective counter to Trump. According to a recent Gallup poll, immigration, health care, and race relations are among voters’ most urgent concerns. In 2018, Abrams became one of the most prominent politicians to promote Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and she backed that expansion as a “starting point” for achieving universal health-care coverage. Her immigration platform included opposition to law-enforcement crackdowns on sanctuary cities and undocumented immigrants. And she is—after losing a race haunted by allegations of voter suppression—undoubtedly the national face of the Democrats’ pro-voting-rights movement; her focus on expanding the electorate undergirded the racial-justice platform that was central to her campaign. “Stacey Abrams reflects our party’s shared values of equality and inclusion,” Alabama Representative Terri Sewell, who is leading the House Democrats’ voting-rights efforts on Capitol Hill, said in response to Abrams’s selection.

The invitation to Abrams comes at a critical time for Democrats. The longest government shutdown in history ended just last week, but not before it exposed new weaknesses in Trump’s public support, as well as deep faults in the American economy. Describing why Abrams was chosen to give the Democrats’ address, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer identified a “lack of leadership” from the administration “as American families are still feeling the impacts of [Trump’s] self-imposed shutdown.” While Americans do largely blame the president for the closures, according to public polling, the shutdown has sharply lowered their opinion of government as a whole and their faith in the economy.

Democrats, at this precarious moment, will be trying to deliver a strong, coherent alternative to the chaos emanating from the White House. And they evidently think Abrams can achieve that: She’s functioning as a sort of political leader in exile, commanding influence among Democrats and being tapped to represent the party despite not holding an office or being officially involved in national-committee leadership. And she is considering running for office again; she told me in a recent interview that she’s weighing her options for either a Senate run in 2020 or a gubernatorial rematch in 2022.

Abrams is far different from the past two speakers whom the Democrats have chosen to rebut Trump. Last year, Massachusetts Representative Joe Kennedy III was tapped to deliver the counter-speech, but he wasn’t as publicly well known: Though Kennedy was and is a rising star, Abrams has already managed to turn a statewide race into a national profile. In 2017, former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear rebutted Trump’s first address to Congress. In a speech staged at a diner in coal country, he delivered a symbolic, heavy-handed appeal to white heartland voters that was once thought to be the most viable path forward for Democrats. In contrast to Beshear, Abrams represents a new electoral strategy for the party, rooted in expanding the Democrats’ voting base and deemphasizing the voters who flipped to Trump.

And unlike the previous two speakers, Abrams is also, noticeably, a black woman. She will be the first black woman to ever deliver such an address, and the first black politician since former Representative J. C. Watts in 1997. Her selection suggests that the Democratic Party wants to keep up with its changing coalition. The elected officials in the national Democratic Party are more racially representative than they’ve ever been, more women are in Congress than ever before, and the field of 2020 Democratic contenders already looks to be the most diverse in any major-party presidential primary. But beyond matters of representation, Abrams’s selection signals that the party views her message as the best encapsulation of its vision in the era of Donald Trump—and as the best counterpunch to a president who’s fighting to remain in control.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/581674/

<13



Monarch population up 144 pct at Mexico wintering grounds

CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN

today 1.29.19

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The population of monarch butterflies wintering in central Mexico is up 144 percent over last year, experts said Wednesday.

The data presented by Andrew Rhodes, Mexico’s national commissioner for protected natural areas, was cheered but scientists quickly warned that it does not mean the butterflies that migrate from Canada and the United States are out of danger.

This winter, researchers found the butterflies occupying 14.95 acres (6.05 hectares) of pine and fir forests in the mountains of Michoacan and Mexico states. That’s an increase from 6.12 acres (2.48 hectares) a year ago.

They arrive in such numbers that their population is measured by how much surface area they cover.

This year’s is the biggest measurement since the 2006-2007 period, Rhodes said. A low of just 1.66 acres (0.67 hectares) was recorded in 2013-2014.

Jorge Rickards, director of World Wildlife Fund in Mexico which participates in the monitoring, cautioned that the butterflies like other insects see their annual populations rise and fall and the monarchs have had a declining trend. This year’s number was positive, but there is no guarantee it will continue.

The first monarchs crossed into Mexico more than a week later than usual on Oct. 20 owing to rain and cold along the Texas-Mexico border, Rhodes said.

“Once in Mexican territory, the butterflies occupied an area that gives us a lot of hope for the future,” Rhodes said.

Scientists said the approximately 15-acres (6 hectares) coverage should be seen as a minimum for the viability of the migrating monarchs in the future.

Ryan Norris, an ecology professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada said it would be dangerous to think the improved coverage in their wintering grounds meant the butterflies were out of the woods.

“It buys us time, but that’s the best it does,” said Norris, who was in Mexico City for scientific meetings about monarchs.

Norris saw little connection between this year’s increase and the concerted conservation efforts along the butterflies’ migration route, especially in Mexico where the government, with the help of local communities, has nearly eliminated illegal logging inside the butterflies’ protected area west of Mexico City.

“It was a Goldilocks year this year,” he said. “Not too hot, not too cold, it was perfect.”

Chip Taylor, director of Monarch Watch and an ecology professor at the University of Kansas, who runs a monarch tagging program, echoed that caution.

“It’s not going to be replicated next year, not even close,” Taylor said.

Above average temperatures in Texas next year will cause problems for the monarch production, Taylor said. Last spring, cold temperatures north of Texas kept the butterflies there to lay their eggs, but when it’s warmer they wander farther north too soon and the population does not grow as well, he said.

Loss of habitat, especially the milkweed where the monarchs lay their eggs, pesticide and herbicide use, as well climate change will continue to pose threats to the species.

https://www.apnews.com/217a8d01ef384fa3847fd63baa96c201

<14



SCIENCE

A Starfish-Killing Disease Is Remaking the Oceans

The voracious sunflower starfish was once as common as a robin, but a new disease has almost wiped it out—with wide-ranging consequences.

ED YONG 2:00 PM ET 1.29.19

“There were arms everywhere,” Drew Harvell recalls. “It looked like a blast zone.”

It was 2013, eight days before Christmas. Harvell and her colleagues were walking along Seattle’s Alki Beach, sweeping their headlamps over wet gravel exposed by a receding tide. Wherever they looked, they saw dead and dying sea stars. Some had disintegrated into white mush. Others were still alive, their body riddled with sores and their arms twisting at grotesque angles. Yet others seemed to be pulling themselves apart. “There were arms separating from sea stars, arms walking off by themselves,” says Harvell, an ecologist at Cornell University who studies marine diseases. “That was my first experience of the magnitude of it.”

Similar omens had been accumulating all fall. Harvell had received emails about a mysterious disease outbreak afflicting sea stars in British Columbia. She had read blog posts about “a huge mortality event” that was littering the seafloor with disintegrating arms. She had heard reports that even captive sea stars in the Vancouver Aquarium were dying. This unprecedented phenomenon, known as sea star wasting disease (SSWD), ultimately affected more than 20 species. Similar die-offs had occurred before, but never at this scale. All along the western coast of North America, from Alaska to Mexico, the stars were blinking out.

Harvell and her colleagues considered a laundry list of possible causes, including storms, pollutants, and radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But the syndrome always looked like an infection, and in 2014 the team identified a possible culprit—a virus that it called sea-star-associated densovirus, or SSaDV. The virus doesn’t cause SSWD in every affected species, though, so there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the syndrome’s cause (or causes). Its impact, however, is undeniable.

In a new analysis, Harvell collated data from more than 10,000 surveys carried out by trained citizen scientists diving off the Pacific Coast. Their observations showed that SSWD has brought one especially susceptible species—the mighty sunflower star—to near-total ruin.

The sunflower star is the starfish equivalent of a Tyrannosaurus—a huge, voracious, unmistakable alpha predator. With a three-foot diameter, up to 26 arms, and hundreds of tubular feet, it runs down clams, sea urchins, and snails at a top speed of six inches a second. “This thing was as common as a robin,” Harvell says. “You would go on a dive and always see sunflower stars.” But since 2013, the sunflower star has largely vanished from most of its former 2,000-mile range; only in Alaska do appreciable populations still remain. In just a few years, an emerging disease has caused the continental-scale collapse of a once-common species, and has started to remake the underwater world.

“Some people have said that maybe they migrated to deeper water and they’re down there somewhere,” Harvell says. But data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have snuffed out that hope. They show that from 2013 to 2015, the sunflowers completely disappeared from the deep waters off of California and Oregon, and declined by 99.2 percent near Washington. In 2016, NOAA researchers couldn’t find a single individual in almost 700 trawls. This past summer, they saw just one. “That shocked everyone, including me,” Harvell says.

The loss of any species is a tragedy. But the loss of the sunflower is especially devastating because it’s a keystone predator—a creature that has a disproportionately large influence on the world. The legendary ecologist Bob Paine coined the keystone concept in 1963, after yanking starfish from a Washington beach and hurling them into the sea. A year later, the mussels that the starfish would have eaten had overrun the shoreline, displaced the creatures that had formerly lived there, and remodeled the landscape.

SSWD is effectively carrying out the same experiment, but on an epic scale. In the absence of the sunflowers, the sea urchins they hunt are running amok, eating their way through the Pacific’s kelp forests. Kelp is a tagliatelle-like seaweed whose meter-tall fronds shelter vast communities of marine life. If the kelp forests fall, an entire ecosystem will fall too, including several commercially important species such as abalone, crab, and countless fish.

Such changes have already begun, and particularly in places where the other major predator of sea urchins—the sea otter—has also declined. Once-lush worlds of green and yellow foliage are now “urchin barrens”—desolate domains of purple spines and chewed stumps. “Kelp forests along the West Coast have been hit hard, and are likely to diminish further as these sunflower-star predators become extremely rare,” says Carol Blanchette from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

“Things are currently not looking great,” says Melissa Miner from the University of California at Santa Cruz. “But from talking to researchers and divers, my understanding is that [the sunflowers] are still present throughout their entire range; you just need to look harder for them now. My hunch is that this is a fast-growing species, which might have the potential to recover quickly if whatever is causing SSWD subsides. I think there is hope.”

But disease is only part of the story. Harvell’s team found that the sunflower’s decline coincided with abnormally strong heat waves, and the higher temperatures rose above their usual levels, the more likely the stars were to disappear. Harvell suspects that warm waters could have either boosted the growth of whatever microbe is behind SSWD or stressed the sunflowers, making them more susceptible to infections. “The warming didn’t necessarily trigger the outbreak, but I think it increased the impact of the disease,” Harvell says.

This may be the norm in the future. In Harvell’s upcoming book, Ocean Outbreak, she documents several cases in which infections have wreaked havoc on coral, abalone, salmon, and other marine creatures. In some cases, the changing climate has worsened these contagions.

Land-living animals face the same double whammy. While the sea stars were disintegrating, on the other side of the world two-thirds of the world’s population of saiga—a bulbous-nosed Asian antelope—dropped dead. They died without warning, in a few days, over an area the size of Florida. And they seem to have been killed by a normally harmless nasal bacterium that, thanks to an unprecedented spell of heat and humidity, infiltrated their bloodstream and poisoned them. Climate change plus contagion equals mass mortality: It’s a chilling equation for a changing world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ns/581632/

<15



Elephant seals take over California beach during shutdown

43 minutes ago 1.29.19

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A colony of elephant seals took over a beach in Northern California during the government shutdown when there was no staff to discourage the animals from congregating in the popular tourist area, an official said.

Now they’re not going anywhere.

About 60 adult seals that gave birth to 35 pups took over a beach in Point Reyes National Seashore, knocking down a fence and moving into the parking lot, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday.

The park north of San Francisco is home to a colony of about 1,500 elephant seals that tend to frequent another beach with 100-foot-tall (30 meter) cliffs that keep the animals protected and mostly hidden from the public, said park spokesman John Dell’Osso.

Dell’Osso said it’s likely recent storms and high tides inundated the animal’s normal habitat with water and so they sought a wider swath of dry land around the corner.

“Sometimes you go out with tarps and you shake the tarps and it annoys them and they move the other direction,” he said.

But since nobody was at work to address the seal migration, the animals took over. One seal even ventured under a picnic table near a cafe, the newspaper reported.

The elephant seals were lounging in the sand after the park reopened Sunday, leading staff to temporarily close the road to the beach.

Officials have no plans to move the animals while some of them nurse their pups.

Staff is considering offering guided tours of the elephant colony, Dell’Osso said.

https://www.apnews.com/a41e90be45fe4bac967bab0dfe588dfa

<15



McConnell blasts House bill that makes Election Day a federal holiday

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 01/30/19 02:07 PM EST

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday blasted a key House Democratic proposal over a provision that would make Election Day a federal holiday.

“This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? A brand-new week of paid vacation for every federal employee who would like to hover around while you cast your ballot?” McConnell asked from the Senate floor.

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume ... our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns,” McConnell added.

McConnell has repeatedly lashed out at House Democrats' anti-corruption bill, known as H.R. 1, as a “political power grab” and has pledged that it will go nowhere in the GOP-controlled Senate.

McConnell, on Wednesday, criticized the bill as the “Democratic political protection act” and that it would create a “Washington-based taxpayer-subsidized clearinghouse for political campaign funding.”

The package, which is considered a signature issue for House Democrats, includes legislation that makes Election Day a holiday for federal employees. It also encourages private business to give employees the day off.

“Their bill would make Election Day a new paid holiday for government workers, and create an additional brand new paid leave benefit for up to six days for any federal bureaucrats who decides they’d like to hang out at the polls during an election,” McConnell added on Wednesday.

[ DEAR MR. MITCH! ELIMINATE GERRYMANDERING! END YOUR WAR ON MINORITY VOTERS! STOP VOTER SUPPRESSION POLICIES! DON'T PENALIZE VOTERS THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET TIME OFF FROM WORK! YOU FORCED THE HOLIDAY WITH YOUR SUPPRESSION TACTICS! ]

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ ... al-holiday

<1



Job growth in January was phenomenal. Wage growth was pathetic.

The US economy added 304,000 jobs in January, but workers only got a 3-cent average hourly raise.

By Alexia Fernández Campbell@AlexiaCampbellalexia@vox.com Feb 1, 2019, 10:20am EST

Employers added 304,000 new jobs to the US economy in January — once again surpassing economic forecasts, according to the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economists had expected only about 180,000 new positions in January.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate ticked up again, moving from 3.9 percent to 4 percent, in part because of the partial government shutdown, the report states. About 175,000 unemployed workers said they were temporarily laid off. The unemployment rate has been creeping up since November, when it was 3.7 percent.

Both figures are a sign that the US economy remains strong despite recent stock market volatility over economic growth worries and a prolonged US trade war with China. The continued hiring boom also suggests that fears of a looming economic recession are largely overblown.

The latest jobs report is (mostly) good news for workers. Such a low unemployment rate means that nearly every American who wants to and is able to work has snagged a job by now. And those who lose their jobs, or decide to leave, probably won’t have a hard time finding another position. The data also suggests employers may have a hard time filling positions in the future as the labor pool continues to shrink — which could require businesses to raise wages to keep and attract workers.

However, the latest jobs report once again shows little wage growth, which remains the biggest weakness in the American economy. The average US worker hasn’t seen their paycheck get much bigger since the Great Recession, which ended around 2009.

In January, private sector workers (excluding farmworkers) got an average 3-cent hourly raise, adding up to an average hourly pay of $27.56. In the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have only increased 85 cents, or 3.2 percent, and that doesn’t even take inflation into account.

The jobs report does point to a steadily growing economy, though, with the most new jobs created in the restaurant, construction, and health care industries. In fact, US jobs gains in the past two months are far higher than usual. But wages are barely outpacing inflation.

Paychecks hardly grew in January

Slow income growth has been the most persistent problem afflicting the US economy in its recovery from the Great Recession. Wages have barely kept up with the cost of living, even as the unemployment rate dropped and the economy expanded.

January’s 3-cent average hourly wage hike suggests that the trend has not really shifted.

Over the past year, prices rose, so paychecks had to stretch further. When the 1.9 percent inflation rate is taken into account (based on the Consumer Price Index), workers’ wages only grew about 1.3 percent within the past year — a pathetic amount compared to the sky-high payouts to corporate CEOs.

Frustration over stagnant wages is also the major underlying factor behind widespread worker strikes across the country in places like California, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Congressional Republicans had promised that their massive corporate tax cuts would help the average worker, but the gains have been meager.

Voters in some states have forced businesses to give low-paid employees a raise in response.

In November’s midterm elections, voters in Missouri and Arkansas overwhelmingly approved ballot measures that will raise the minimum wage for nearly 1 million workers across both states. And as a result of the minimum wage laws, low-wage workers in 19 states got pay raises on January 1.

Next month’s jobs report will show whether those raises are enough to boost overall wage growth — and whether that growth is enough to ease frustration among workers who still struggle to pay their bills.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18206649/j ... employment

<2



1. AND WE’RE BACK

Foxconn Says It's Building Wisconsin Facility After Talks With White House

2.1.19

Foxconn announced in a statement Friday that it will move forward with the construction of its $10 billion Wisconsin facility after talks with White House, the company said in a statement Friday. “After productive discussions between the White House and the company, and after a personal conversation between President Donald J. Trump and Chairman Terry Gou, Foxconn is moving forward with our planned construction of a Gen 6 fab facility,” the statement read. “This campus will serve both as an advanced manufacturing facility as well as a hub of high technology innovation for the region.” Earlier this week, Foxconn CEO Terry Gou told Reuters the company would offer mostly researcher and engineering jobs in Wisconsin, as opposed to the blue-collar manufacturing jobs that were originally promised. President Trump had touted the plant as an example of bringing jobs back to blue-collar workers in poorer regions. It’s unclear what kinds of jobs the $10 billion facility will now provide.

“Our decision is also based on a recent comprehensive and systematic evaluation to help determine the best fit for our Wisconsin project among TFT technologies,” the company wrote. “We look forward to continuing to expand our investment in American talent in Wisconsin and the US.” The plant will be the largest foreign greenfield investment in U.S. history.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/foxconn-s ... hite-house

<3



The US is withdrawing from a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. An arms race might be next.

RIP, INF.

By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Feb 1, 2019, 9:15am EST

The Trump administration just announced it will officially withdraw from an aging nuclear missile treaty with Russia, a move that could kick-start an arms race and threaten the European continent — but also allow the US to better prepare for a war against China.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump issued a statement that put the final nail in the coffin of the Cold War-era agreement, finalizing a decision that many experts — both happily and nervously — expected for months.

“Tomorrow, the United States will suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty and begin the process of withdrawing from the INF Treaty,” Trump said. “For arms control to effectively contribute to national security, all parties must faithfully implement their obligations.”

In a press conference around the same time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “Russia has jeopardized United States security interests, and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it.”

This is a big deal. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987. The agreement prohibited Washington and Moscow from fielding ground-launched cruise missiles that could fly between 310 and 3,420 miles.

Both countries signed the agreement as a way to improve relations toward the end of the Cold War. However, both sides still could — and since have — built up cruise missiles that can be fired from the air or sea.

The problem is that Russia has clearly violated that agreement in recent years. In 2014, the Obama administration blamed the Kremlin for testing a ground-based cruise missile in direct violation of the accord. (Russia says the US has violated the agreement too, a charge the US denies.) NATO, the US-led military alliance formed to thwart the Soviet threat, said last December that Russia violated the treaty’s terms.

And partly after seeing Russia announce the construction of hypersonic cruise missiles last year, the Trump administration took the final step: It would leave the deal Moscow wouldn’t stick to.

So last October, Trump proclaimed the United States would leave the treaty, adding that he would give Russia 60 days — until February 2 — to come back into compliance. That led to months of hurried negotiations between Washington and Moscow to compel Russia into compliance again, but neither side caved. Now the US will officially leave the deal in six months, giving Russia a short amount of time to adhere to the agreement once more and change America’s mind.

That’s unlikely to happen, though. Which means that in only a few months, the Trump administration will have ended a decades-long pact that softened the rough edges in the US-Russia struggle for military superiority — and could reignite Cold War tensions once more.

Why it was a good idea to leave the INF Treaty — and why it wasn’t
Experts I spoke with last October about the prospects of the INF Treaty’s demise unanimously agreed that Russia has violated the agreement and that the US needed to do something about it. Where they differed, though, was over how to do that.

The answers fell into two camps: those who felt the US should try to coerce Russia into compliance with what they say is a historic and useful treaty, and those who said the US should leave the treaty entirely because it’s hurting America’s security.

Let’s take each in turn.

Why the US should have stayed in the INF Treaty

Having the treaty in place reduces tensions between the US and Moscow, some experts say, mostly because both countries destroyed about 2,600 ground-based cruise missiles in total, along with their corresponding launchers, as a result of the treaty.

That was particularly important for Washington’s allies in Europe, who were directly threatened by Russia’s stockpile. “Living in Europe, they care about INF more than anyone because they are within INF ranges,” Heather Williams, an arms control expert at King’s College in London, told me.

But it seems Trump made the announcement that he would be pulling the US out of the treaty before consulting with America’s European friends — and they’re not happy about the decision. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas last October called it a “regrettable” move, saying that the treaty is “an important pillar of our European security architecture” and that the US decision “raises difficult questions for us and Europe.”

Experts also point out that leaving the agreement will do little to make Russia want to abide by it. “Punching out isn’t going to bring them into compliance, and now lets them justify a buildup even more while painting us as the bad guys,” said Vipin Narang, a nuclear expert at MIT.

These are legitimate worries. It’s possible Russia could have been even more brazen in its development of ground-based cruise missiles, and that remaining a signatory in the agreement somewhat curbed Moscow’s ambitions. But if the US tears up the deal, Russia could openly and more quickly build up its arsenal — all while claiming the US made it okay to do so.

That could kick-start a new arms race between the two countries, where each side would try to one-up the other with better weaponry. Washington and Moscow would grow their arsenals of ground-launched cruise missiles. That, along with other issues in the relationship, could potentially put both countries on the path to war, many worry.

There are ways to pressure Russia to comply with the agreement, experts told me. Here’s one idea from James Miller, the top Pentagon policy official from 2012 to 2014: The US should develop cruise missiles that carry nuclear weapons and can be launched at sea.

Remember: The INF treaty doesn’t prohibit the US from fielding and testing cruise missiles that can be shot from planes, ships, or submarines — only land. Increasing America’s stockpile of those other weapons, then, might pressure Moscow financially and militarily to come to the table to discuss a way to improve the accord for both sides.

But if Trump leaves the deal, the US will lose any and all leverage with Russia on this issue.

Why the US was right to leave the INF Treaty

Other experts are equally passionate that leaving the agreement was long overdue. The main reason, they say, is that America should have these weapons if other countries won’t stop building them.

“[T]here was no hope of getting Moscow to return to compliance,” Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear expert at the Atlantic Council think tank, said in an October 2018 interview with his organization. “It doesn’t make sense for the United States to be unilaterally constrained by limits that don’t affect any other country.”

Having ground-launched cruise missiles may not actually be all that useful for combating Russia nowadays, these experts say, but they are necessary to fight off the growing military threat from China. That’s an argument that John Bolton, who became Trump’s national security adviser in April, made for years when he was a pundit outside of government.

The case has merit. According to a 2018 Pentagon report, Beijing has vastly improved its cruise-missile arsenal, which would likely make it harder for US warships to approach the country’s coast during a fight. Experts say that puts the US at a massive disadvantage and should be promptly reversed.

Eric Sayers, a defense expert at the Center for a New American Security, told me it wouldn’t be too hard to place cruise missiles on the ground near China — like in Japan or the Philippines — as long as those countries agree to it. The US could also deploy longer-range cruise missiles along China’s periphery to fend off Beijing’s ships.

What’s more, he continued, those weapons are cheaper overall than their air or sea variants because they are usually launched from trucks. Planes, ships, and submarines are complex to build and very expensive to maintain, making land-based cruise missiles a good option.

In effect, those who applaud the US for leaving the INF Treaty say the US has missed out on a vital weapon to safeguard the country. “There’s a reason China and others have them and there’s a reason Russia is developing them,” said Rebeccah Heinrichs, a nuclear expert at the Hudson Institute. “Those who confidently insist we don’t need them are spitballing.”

John Bolton is dismantling global arms control

The Trump administration’s dismantlement of decades of arms control work just so happens to correlate with Bolton’s time at the White House.

Bolton has been very open about his dislike of arms control agreements for years. In his 2007 book, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, he spends dozens of pages railing against what he calls the “arms control theology” that “had been painstakingly developed during the Cold War, and kept on life support during the Clinton presidency by devotion and prayer rather than hard reality.”

It’s therefore no real surprise that the Trump administration has withdrawn from multiple arms control agreements during Bolton’s six months as national security adviser. For example, in May 2018, the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, which the Obama administration put in place to constrain Tehran’s path to a nuclear weapon. But Bolton — and Trump — felt that it didn’t go far enough, and ultimately decided to pull out of the deal.

Bolton is currently in Moscow to meet with top Russian leaders, and this issue will certainly come up. Arms control came up when Bolton was in Russia four months ago, when he and his counterparts discussed extending the New START nuclear treaty between the United States and Russia for another five years. That agreement came into effect on February 5, 2011, with the goal of limiting the size of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals, the two largest in the world.

At the time, three sources familiar with Bolton’s thinking told me that he was “very upset” he had to discuss extending the agreement when he spoke to Putin about it. Before joining the administration, Bolton called the accord “unilateral disarmament” by the United States.

Some experts worry that Trump’s announcement about the INF Treaty means New START may soon die. Bolton, however, would likely celebrate that move.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18206619/i ... mpeo-trump

<4



1. YIKES

Trump: ‘Good Chance’ I’ll Declare National Emergency for Border Wall

2.1.19

President Donald Trump told reporters Friday there is a “good chance” that he will declare a national emergency in order to build his $5.7 billion wall along the southern border. “We’re getting ready to give out some really big contracts with money that we have on-hand and money that comes in. But we will be looking at a national emergency, because I don’t think anything’s going to happen,” Trump said at the White House. “I think the Democrats don’t want border security and then I hear them talking about the fact that walls are immoral and walls don’t work. They know they work.” He also hinted to reporters that he will announce a development related to the border wall at his upcoming State of the Union address. “I don’t want to say, you’ll hear the State of the Union and then you’ll see what happens right after the State of the Union,” Trump said.

Trump also addressed the political crisis involving Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido, saying that no options were off the table for potential American intervention. “I don’t want to say that, but it’s always an option. Everything’s an option, I take no options off the table,” he said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-goo ... order-wall

<5



Cyber Threat: Russia and China Poised to Cripple US Power Grid, Gas Pipelines at a Moment's Notice

01-30-2019 Crystal Woodall

Russia and China are capable of launching cyberattacks that could disrupt electric grids and gas pipelines in the US, according to a new government report the intelligence community delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday.

The yearly Worldwide Threat Assessment report shows that the two nations pose the greatest threat for espionage and cyberattacks.

According to one warning in the report, "China has the ability to launch cyberattacks that cause localized, temporary disruptive effects on critical infrastructure — such as disruption of a natural gas pipeline for days to weeks — in the United States."

The report also says that Moscow is staging cyberattack assets to disrupt or damage US civilian and military infrastructure during a crisis.

In addition, intelligence officials say Russia has its eye on the 2020 US presidential election and will likely try once again to influence the process using social media and other means.

"Our adversaries and strategic competitors probably already are looking to the 2020 US elections as an opportunity to advance their interests," the report read. "Russia's social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians."

In those same hearings, National Intelligence Director Dan Coats said North Korea and the Islamic State are still viable threats to the nation as well.

The intelligence chief said despite the North's promises to get rid of its nuclear weapons, the rogue nation is unlikely to dismantle its arsenal.

"Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization," he told lawmakers, noting the regime views "nuclear weapons as critical" to its survival.

And regarding the Middle East, he said ISIS is still a deadly terrorist threat.

"While ISIS is nearing territorial defeat in Iraq and Syria, the group has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide," he said.

The news comes as the US plans to pull troops out of Syria. With that in mind, the report notes that Bashar al Assad's government is much less prone to prioritize removing the jihadist army from its territory.

"The regime is unlikely to immediately focus on clearing ISIS from remote areas that do not threaten key military, economic, and transportation infrastructure, judging from previous regime counter-ISIS efforts," the report reads.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/201 ... ght-terror

<6



Schumer: Past time for intel leaders to 'stage an intervention' with Trump

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 01/30/19 09:45 PM EST

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is urging top intelligence officials to meet with President Trump after the commander in chief lashed out at the intelligence community earlier Wednesday.

Schumer sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats on Wednesday, saying that it was "incumbent" that the former senator, CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray "insist on an immediate meeting" with Trump in the wake of his remarks.

"You cannot allow the President’s ill-advised and unwarranted comments today to stand. … He is putting you and your colleagues in an untenable position and hurting the national interest in the process. You must find a way to make that clear to him," Schumer wrote in the letter.

In a separate tweet on Wednesday night, Schumer added that it's "past time for U.S. Intelligence Community leaders to stage an intervention" with the president.

Schumer said he wants Coats, Haspel and Wray to use a meeting with Trump to "educate" the president about "the facts and raw intelligence underlying the Intelligence Community assessments."

"Impress upon him how critically important it is for him to join you and the leadership of our intelligence community in speaking with a unified and accurate voice about national security threats," he added.

Trump sparked bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill Wednesday when he lashed out at top intelligence community officials after Coats contradicted comments the president has made about Iran.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Trump is "undermining" the intelligence community; meanwhile, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that he would "prefer the president would stay off Twitter."

Schumer, in his letter, called Trump's criticism "extraordinarily inappropriate."

"I applaud you and your colleagues in the Intelligence Community for being clear-eyed about the threats we face, but you cannot allow the President’s ill-advised and unwarranted comments today to stand," the Senate Democratic leader wrote.

Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community found that Iran is not seeking to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities, basing his remarks on an intelligence assessment.

Trump reiterated in his tweet on Wednesday morning that Iran is "testing Rockets (last week) and more." He also appeared to mock officials within his own administration saying "perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!"

"The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!" Trump added in his tweet.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ ... ntion-with

<7



In reversal, Trump says he and intel chiefs on ‘same page’

By MATTHEW DALY yesterday 1.30.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — A day after he lashed out at U.S. intelligence agency chiefs over their assessments of global threats, President Donald Trump abruptly reversed course Thursday and said that he and the intelligence community “are all on the same page.”

Trump met with his director of national intelligence and other top security officials in the Oval Office and said afterward that they told him their testimony at a Senate hearing had been “mischaracterized” by the news media.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats had slammed the president for his comments disparaging Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, CIA Director Gina Haspel and other top security officials.

The officials told Congress on Tuesday that North Korea is unlikely to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and that the Iran nuclear deal is working, contrary to what Trump has claimed.

The intelligence agency chiefs “said that they were totally misquoted and ... it was taken out of context,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “They said it was fake news.”

Coats and other officials presented an update to the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday on their annual assessment of global threats. In a public report and testimony broadcast on C-SPAN, they warned of an increasingly diverse range of security dangers around the globe, from North Korean nuclear weapons to Chinese cyberespionage to Russian campaigns to undermine Western democracies.

Trump tweeted Thursday that he and the intelligence leaders “are very much in agreement on Iran, ISIS, North Korea, etc.” and that he values their service.

“Happily, we had a very good meeting, and we are all on the same page!” he wrote.

Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters that the intelligence officials were “courageous” in speaking “truth to power” by publicly contradicting Trump.

“One dismaying factor of it all is that the president just doesn’t seem to have the attention span or the desire to hear what the intelligence community has been telling him,” Pelosi said Thursday, calling Trump’s comments attacking the intelligence leaders “cause for concern.”

Trump said earlier that intelligence officials were wrong about North Korea, Iran and the Islamic State, which they said remains a terrorist and insurgent threat.

“Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” Trump tweeted Wednesday.

Pelosi said Trump’s comments were “stunning.”

“It’s important for the Republicans in Congress to recognize they have to weigh in with the president to say, ‘You can’t act without knowledge,’” Pelosi said.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said it was “past time” for U.S. intelligence officials to stage an intervention with Trump.

In a letter to Coats, Schumer called Trump’s criticism of intelligence agencies “extraordinarily inappropriate” and said it could undermine public confidence in the government’s ability to protect Americans.

Schumer urged Coats and other officials to “educate” Trump about the facts and raw intelligence underlying threat assessments so the administration can speak “with a unified and accurate voice about national security threats.”

Asked about his tweets earlier Thursday, Trump did not back away from questioning the assessment by Coats and Haspel.

“I disagree with certain things that they said. I think I’m right, but time will prove that, time will prove me right probably,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “I think Iran is a threat. I think I did a great thing when I terminated the ridiculous Iran nuclear deal. It was a horrible one-sided deal.”

Speaking about intelligence agencies generally, Trump added: “I have great respect for a lot people but I don’t always agree with everybody.”

At a hearing Tuesday, Coats said intelligence information does not support the idea that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will eliminate his nuclear weapons.

Trump later insisted on Twitter that the U.S. relationship with North Korea “is the best it has ever been.” He pointed to the North’s halt in nuclear and missile tests, the return of some U.S. service members’ remains and the release of detained Americans as signs of progress.

U.S. intelligence agencies also said Iran continues to work with other parties to the nuclear deal it reached with the U.S. and other world powers. In doing so, they said, Iran has at least temporarily lessened the nuclear threat. In May 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from that accord, which he said would not deter Iran.

“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran,” Trump tweeted. “They are wrong!”

https://www.apnews.com/b7139576d8dc48ed8a2aa791f150585f

<8



Belarusian model: I gave info on Trump to Russian tycoon

By NATALIYA VASILYEVA

today 2.1.19

MOSCOW (AP) — A Belarusian model who claims to have information on ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s election campaign told The Associated Press on Friday that she has turned that material over to Russian billionaire businessman Oleg Deripaska.

Anastasia Vashukevich fueled speculation around possible ties between Trump and the Kremlin last year when she posted a video from a police van, saying she had 16 hours of audio and video proving ties between Russian officials and the Trump campaign that influenced the 2016 U.S. elections.

Deripaska denied the allegations and even went to court to seek to remove the video Vashukevich posted in which he discusses U.S.-Russia ties with a senior Russian government official.

Vashukevich, who is also known as Nastya Rybka, returned to Russia last month almost a year after she was detained in Thailand on charges of soliciting sex, in what some believe was an attempt to silence her.

Vashukevich, 28, told the AP in an interview Friday that, contrary to earlier reports that she had destroyed the recordings, she had given them to Deripaska because it “relates to him” and that she “did not want any more trouble.”

Vashukevich rose to prominence in February last year when Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny published an investigation detailing dealings between Deripaska and Sergei Prikhodko, then-Russian deputy prime minister who played a prominent role in shaping Russia’s foreign policy.

Navalny drew on Vashukevich’s video from summer 2016 when Deripaska was hosting Prikhodko on his yacht and was caught on tape saying that relations between Russia and the U.S. were bad because of then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

Deripaska is close to Putin and also had a working relationship with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. Manafort was investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the probe into the 2016 election and was convicted last year of tax and bank fraud.

Deripaska’s representative at the time dismissed the reports as “scandalous and mendacious assumptions.” He promptly filed and won a lawsuit against Vashukevich for breach of privacy and secured a court ruling to delete the videos of him and Prikhodko.

Vashukevich and her teacher, self-styled sex guru Alexander Kirillov, were in Thailand shortly after Navalny’s investigation came out, conducting a sex training seminar when they were arrested for working without a permit. Vashukevich, Kirillov and several others ended up being charged with soliciting sex and spent 11 months in a Thai jail.

In January, Vashukevich and others were sentenced by the court in Pattaya to three-year prison terms before a new ruling gave them suspended 18-month prison terms and deported them to Russia.

In the early stages of their detention, the sex training group sent a note to the U.S. Embassy via an intermediary seeking help and political asylum. Vashukevich indicated she would turn over the recordings she claimed to have if the U.S. could help secure her release, but later withdrew the offer, suggesting that she and Deripaska had reached an agreement.

Vashukevich and Kirillov initially blamed Russia for their incarceration and said they were fearful for their lives. In April, however, Vashukevich changed her tune and said it was the U.S. government that was persecuting her, not Russia.

Vashukevich later told reporters outside a Thai courtroom that she had promised Deripaska not to speak about the U.S. election interference anymore.

Vashukevich and Kirillov were briefly detained upon their arrival in Moscow late last month on suspicion of soliciting sex in Russia but were promptly released.

When pressed Friday by the AP about her previous claims, Vashukevich said she had emailed “everything I had” to Deripaska and dodged a question of whether she kept a copy for herself.

“Oleg (Deripaska) has it all. If he wants to make any of it public, if he thinks that it’s a good idea, he can do it himself,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Deripaska had no immediate comment Friday on Vashukevich’s new allegations.

The Belarusian native who penned two books about seducing rich, powerful men explained to the AP how she changed her mind about who was to blame for her plight in Thailand.

She said he received multiple visits from Americans with FBI IDs who were seeking information about her claims of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. She said they offered her safety in the U.S. or threatened her with a lengthy prison term if she refused to cooperate.

Around the time when she first publicly supported Russia, Vashukevich received a visit from Vladimir Pronin, Russia’s newly appointed consul in Pattaya, who she said helped to improve prison conditions for her and the other inmates. She credited Pronin for securing her release from the Thai prison and her deportation in January.

Russian publications The Bell and Proyekt last year pointed to another high-profile visitor who Vashukevich caught on tape spending time with Deripaska.

One video posted on her YouTube account showed a meeting between Deripaska and Adam Waldman, a U.S. lobbyist who has been working for Deripaska and who has had repeated meetings with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The reported January 2017 meeting was several days before Waldman’s visit to Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The Democratic National Committee last year sued Trump’s campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks, saying they conspired to cheat Democrats in the 2016 election.

When asked Friday if the reports proving the Russian interference in the U.S. elections included recordings of Waldman, Prikhodko and Deripaska, the Belarusian woman said: “I didn’t tell you that.”

Vashukevich has kept a low profile since her release, a stark contrast to the racy photos that she used to post on Instagram.

On Friday, she would not respond to a question on whether she was currently collaborating with Russian authorities. Her remarks, however, indicated that she may have traded her silence for security.

“Things are so good right now, I don’t want this to change,” she said. “I don’t want to have to have to compare the Russian prison to the Thai prison. I don’t want any more trouble.”

In her old Instagram posts, Vashukevich used to take pride in manipulating rich, powerful men.

Asked Friday if she was now the one being manipulated, she swore in English and asked “What do you do?”

https://www.apnews.com/22e38b86bd9f43df801d9abe822b0d42

<9



SCIENCE

The Feeding Frenzy That Got Sea Lions Into Deep Trouble

When the hungry animals started swimming 100 miles upriver to feast on salmon, humans decided that they had to be killed.

SARAH ZHANG JAN 31, 2019

Let us first establish that sea lions are supposed to live in the sea.

Since the 1990s, however, male sea lions—a handful at first, now dozens—have been captivated by the attractions of the Willamette River. They travel all the way from Southern California to Oregon and then swim up 100 miles of river to arrive at an expansive waterfall, the largest in the region. Here, salmon returning to spawn have to make an exhausting journey up the fish ladders of the Willamette Falls. And here, the sea lions have found a veritable feast.

“They’re kind of sitting ducks,” the wildlife biologist Sheanna Steingass told me, describing the salmon. She paused to consider the metaphor. “Or sitting fish.” Every sea lion eats three to five fish a day.

In another world, this could just be a story about the intelligence of sea lions and their adaptability to river life. But in this world—where salmon populations throughout North America have plummeted, and where the winter steelhead run at Willamette Falls has fallen from 25,000 fish in the 1970s to just hundreds in 2018—it’s a dire story for the fish. After spending years trying and failing to deter the sea lions by nonlethal means, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, where Steingass leads the marine-mammal program, started “lethal removal” of sea lions in December. As of mid-January, they have trapped and euthanized five sea lions at Willamette Falls.

Killing animals to save other animals is always controversial. Animal-rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States denounced the sea-lion killings, calling them a distraction from the salmon’s real problems. And it’s true that a long chain of human actions—overfishing, destruction of salmon habitats, dams blocking their migration, hatchery mistakes—have led to what everyone can admit is this nonoptimal situation.

“In a perfect world, in an unaltered world, this wasn’t a problem, because historically there were 16 million salmon in the Columbia River,” says Doug Hatch, a senior fisheries scientist at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. The sea lion’s appetites would have barely made a dent. It’s only because humans have so unbalanced the natural world that as drastic an action as culling sea lions could appear to be the fix.

It’s not the first time this has happened, though. In the 1980s, a sea lion who earned the nickname Herschel began hanging out at the entrance to the Ballard Locks in Seattle. The locks forced all fish through a narrow channel, which was great for Herschel. He would linger by this stream of food, picking off steelheads at his leisure. (Steelheads are technically a type of rainbow trout, but they are similar enough to salmon to have been grouped with them in the past.) Soon, other sea lions started joining in.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 protects sea lions from killing, capture, and harassment. But the sea lions at Ballard Locks were eating so many salmon and steelhead—whose own populations were falling—that in 1995 wildlife managers applied for a federal exemption to remove the three most problematic animals, Hondo, Big Frank, and Bob. (Herschel had stopped coming to the locks by then, either because he died or because he found other hunting grounds.) The three fish eaters were taken to SeaWorld, and wildlife managers deemed the problem solved.

In the early 2000s, sea lions started showing up en masse at the Bonneville Dam, which, like Willamette Falls, is in Oregon and more than 100 miles upriver. And as at Ballard Locks, the fish have to funnel through one of about 16 entrances to the fish ladders, making them easy pickings for sea lions. Watch the dam for just 15 minutes, says Hatch, and you might witness three to 10 fish kills.

Here too, it was just a few sea lions at first. Perhaps the first one chased a salmon upriver and—what luck!—stumbled upon a buffet. Then he returned with his buddies, and they with their buddies. One hundred to 200 sea lions now hunt at Bonneville Dam. Scientists have actually studied how this specific learned behavior spread through the male sea lions. They compared the diffusion of information through sea-lion social networks to the spread of a disease and recommended intervening early, before an outbreak becomes an epidemic.

This is why, said Steingass, it’s important to address the situation at Willamette Falls quickly. If more sea lions find out about the easy hunting grounds, the fish-and-wildlife department might end up with hundreds of sea lions they have to kill, rather than the 40-odd creatures that currently hunt there. “We’re going to have a better outcome for the salmon but also for the sea lions,” she says. It’s a justification grounded in cold, hard math, but it’s also grounded in the recognition that sea lions are intelligent and social creatures.

And also persistent ones. At Willamette Falls and Bonneville Dam, the wildlife managers tried a number of ways to scare the sea lions off. They set off “seal bombs”—basically firecrackers that sink and go off underwater. They chased sea lions in a boat. Hatch says they have even trapped sea lions at Bonneville Dam and dropped them off in the ocean as far as 500 miles away. The same sea lions were back to gorging on salmon within days. “The truth is that the positive incentive to eat these fish is so great, it’s very difficult to think of a negative conditioning that would be great enough,” Steingass said.

In December, Congress passed a bipartisan bill that streamlines the lethal removal of sea lions. It hasn’t completely gone into effect yet, but once it does, fisheries managers will no longer need to observe an individual sea lion hunting salmon five times before euthanizing it. Both state and tribal fisheries managers in the Pacific Northwest will be able to apply for the lethal-removal permits. The culling of the sea lions had been one of the most visible and controversial parts of salmon conservation, but Steingass and Hatch both said they see it as one small part of the larger effort that also includes habitat remediation and dam removals. If sea lions are gobbling up all the salmon, it negates everything else.

Sea-lion populations were once declining, too, but they have rebounded under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Such is the challenge for humans trying to manage vast, interconnected ecosystems. Put a thumb on one part of the scale, and something somewhere else goes out of whack. Try to correct that, and you create another problem. Eventually, you end up with a policy of fisheries managers killing sea lions.

The sea lions feasting on salmon had found a clever way to thrive in the human-altered world—until the rules changed and they were on the wrong side.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... on/581740/

<10



The hypocrisy of Trump’s jobs claims, in one chart

Trump used to say jobs numbers were fake. Now he says the news is.

By Emily Stewart Updated Feb 1, 2019, 12:08pm EST

The way President Donald Trump talks about the health of the American jobs market has undergone a pretty dramatic shift in recent years, and not because of a major change in economic trends. It’s because Trump loves moving the goalposts on his measures of success.

The US economy has been steadily adding jobs since the Great Recession. Under President Barack Obama, the economy averaged an additional 109,000 jobs per month, and the administration oversaw 75 consecutive months of growth, the longest streak of total job growth on record.

Under Trump, the trend has continued: The economy has kept adding jobs, and the unemployment rate is now at 4 percent, nearing historically low levels.

But the way Trump talks about it, you wouldn’t know it. Aaron Sojourner, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a former labor economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under Obama and Trump, charted out the shift in Trump’s talking points — compared with how the US jobs market is actually doing — on Twitter recently.

“The talking points changed,” he wrote, “not the growth trend.”


Before Trump was president, he consistently lamented that the US economy was flailing and claimed that jobs numbers were made up. But now that he’s in the Oval Office, he’s decided that the jobs numbers are indeed very real and the economy is doing phenomenally.

Under Obama, the jobs numbers were fake. Now the news is.
When Obama was president, Trump often trashed the state of the US economy and jobs market.

He called the April 2012 jobs report “terrible” for adding just 72,000 jobs. (During his presidency, he’s seen a month of 73,000 jobs added, and another of 14,000.) Trump often derided the Affordable Care Act for cutting into the labor market and claimed the country was losing thousands of jobs to outsourcing. On the campaign trail, he pledged to bring jobs back to America and make the economy “sing” again.

And when there was good news about jobs and the economy, Trump often claimed it was fake.

In 2017, Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post outlined at least 19 times Trump claimed US jobs numbers were made up — before, of course, he was at the helm of the US economy.

He often claimed that the unemployment rate was secretly much higher than was reported, as much as 20, 30, even 40 percent. The jobs report that came out just before the 2016 election, in which 172,000 jobs were added, he said was “terrible” and contained “phony numbers.” Even as president-elect, he said the unemployment number was “totally fiction.”

Now that Trump is in the White House, he’s decided the jobs numbers aren’t phony after all. He consistently celebrates the US jobs market, including upon the release of the January jobs report, which showed the economy added 304,000 jobs last month.

Whereas before the jobs report was fake, Trump now says it’s the news that is — or rather, what he calls the “fake news” for not giving him credit where he believes it’s due.

Presumably, the Bureau of Labor Statistics hasn’t changed its methodology for calculating job growth. What’s different is what’s convenient for Trump, who has often demonstrated he has no problem bending the truth or lying in order to shape a certain narrative. When he wasn’t president, he wanted to paint the economy as disastrous. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, he wants voters to think everything’s just fine.

As Vox’s Ezra Klein laid out last year, there’s been an ongoing debate between conservatives and progressives about whether the Trump economy is a continuation of the Obama economy or whether Trump has pulled off some sort of economic miracle. Jobs growth and GDP growth under the two presidents has been pretty steady. Per Klein:

---It’s hard to look at this data and argue that the Trump economy represents a sharp break with the Obama economy.

But that argument cuts both directions. Trump hasn’t unleashed an economic miracle, but he hasn’t caused a crisis either. Plenty of liberals believed a Trump victory would be devastating for the economy, tanking stock markets amid fears of trade wars, nuclear wars, and political chaos. That Trump has managed to keep growth going might be a less impressive record than he claims, but it’s a more impressive record than many of his critics expected.

To be sure, the president isn’t the end-all, be-all when it comes to the performance of the economy. In fact, in a lot of ways, who’s in the White House doesn’t matter. (Except, for example, if the president orchestrates a five-week government shutdown.) For Trump, who is president does matter — not in terms of what is actually happening, but instead in terms of spin.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ma-economy

<11



[ US marks 100 straight months of job gains

(24 months under Trump) ]

POLITICS

Under pressure to recalibrate, defiant Trump tackles big speech

FEBRUARY 1, 2019 / 2:11 PM / UPDATED 42 MINUTES AGO

Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under pressure from fellow Republicans to reset his contentious presidency, Donald Trump plans to offer Democrats a choice in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday: Work together to make progress, or fight each other and get nothing done.

He signaled on Friday that the address, an annual rite of American politics, will include extensive remarks about his standoff with Democrats over building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the subject of an intense partisan battle that prompted a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended a week ago.

Dwelling at length on this could undermine any attempt by Trump to strike a compromising tone, which many Republicans, including some close to the White House, are urging him to offer in an effort to temper his rhetoric and move past the shutdown fight.

Beyond the wall, a senior White House official told Reuters that Trump will outline what he sees as areas where Republicans and Democrats may be able to find agreement. These include a plan to fund infrastructure improvements across the country, lower the cost of prescription drugs and work to resolve long-standing differences over healthcare.

An excerpt of the speech released by the White House on Friday made clear Trump would strike a compromising tone in at least part of his address.

“Together we can break decades of political stalemate, we can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions and unlock the extraordinary promise of America’s future. The decision is ours to make,” Trump will say.

Whether the two sides are prepared to work together in any significant way is far from clear, with tensions still high over the shutdown fight and another deadline approaching on Feb. 15.

“He will offer a choice of either working together and doing great things or fighting each other and doing nothing,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The speech comes as Trump begins the second two years of his first term facing major challenges: a long-running probe into whether his 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia; investigations by House Democrats of his presidency and his business ventures; and difficult trade negotiations with China, among many others.

He and his advisers do not believe the shutdown fight will give him lasting scars. Many Republicans are urging him to focus on the U.S. economy in his speech and beyond, to try to broaden his appeal beyond a hard-core conservative base of voters that make up about a third of the electorate.

“I would hope he would choose the pathway of broadening his appeal to voters who might want to consider voting for him in the next couple of years,” said Lanhee Chen, a Hoover Institution fellow who advised the presidential campaigns of Republicans Marco Rubio in 2016 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

Presidential aides said Trump would still talk about immigration and his demand for a border wall in his speech. “Some of it will be border-related,” said one.

Nancy Pelosi, who took over as speaker of the House of Representatives after Democrats won big in November elections, has vowed not to support funding for a border wall, and the issue has increased partisan tensions across the board.

Trump’s speech was delayed from January after a fight with Pelosi that stemmed from the dispute on border wall funding.

Republicans anxious about the 2020 election - not just holding the White House, but also control of the Senate - are urging him not to get bogged down in immigration in his speech.

“Trump really needs to change the subject. This is an opportunity to get back on offense on his terms. As opposed to being reactive to the Democrats in the House. I really see the State of the Union for Trump as a potential reset, because like it or not the government shutdown was a political loser and it hurt a lot of people,” said Republican strategist Scott Reed.

Trump is also expected to cover foreign policy. He said on Thursday he will likely announce the site of his late-February summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the speech, with Hanoi a leading candidate.

He may also cite progress in peace talks between the government in Afghanistan and Taliban rebels. Trump has signaled that a peace deal would allow the United States to withdraw troops from Afghanistan after 17 years of war triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He and his advisers have been discussing withdrawing half of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, officials have said, a steep drop that could prompt criticism that Trump is putting U.S. gains in the volatile country in jeopardy.

Trump is expected to declare in his speech that the fight against Islamic State militants in Syria is largely complete, reinforcing his decision to pull 2,000 troops out of Syria, another abrupt move that angered many in his own party.

Trump, along with chief speechwriter Stephen Miller, plans to work on the address during a trip this weekend to his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, Florida, aides said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1PQ5PY

<12



Till debt do us part: Russia and China continue dumping US Treasuries

Published time: 1 Feb, 2019 09:36

The latest US Treasury Department data shows that foreign investors slashed their holdings of American debt in November by $105 billion, from a year earlier, to $6.2 trillion.

China, the largest foreign holder of US debt, slashed its holdings for a sixth straight month in November. Beijing had $1.12 trillion in US Treasuries, down from $1.138 trillion in October. The decline brought China’s Treasury holdings to the lowest level since May 2017, the data showed.

The two largest foreign creditors of the US — China and Japan — have both been unloading US Treasury securities. China’s holdings fell by $55 billion from a year earlier, Japan’s by $47 billion to $1.04 trillion. Tokyo has now reduced its stash by 16 percent since the peak of $1.24 trillion at the end of 2014.

Russia, which is no longer a leading creditor of the United States after an unprecedented dumping of the US Treasury bonds in April and May, has slashed its stockpile by $1.815 billion in November to $12.814 billion.

Since last year, Russia has slashed around 85 percent of its US Treasury holdings, from $96.9 billion in January 2018 to $12.8 billion in November.

Over the past 12 months, the US gross national debt has ballooned by $1.5 trillion to $22 trillion as of January 30, according to the Treasury.

https://www.rt.com/business/450305-russ ... reasuries/

<13



Russia leads global gold purchases to reduce reliance on US dollar

Published time: 1 Feb, 2019 07:39

The amount of gold bought by global central banks in 2018 reached the second highest annual total on record, according to the World Gold Council (WGC). The report noted that Russia bought the most gold last year.

The industry research firm said that central banks bought the most gold by volume since 1967. It was the largest amount since former US President Richard Nixon’s decision to end the dollar's peg to bullion in 1971.

According to the WGC, central bank net purchases reached 651.5 metric tons in 2018, 74 percent higher than in the previous year when 375 tons were bought. It has estimated that they now hold nearly 34,000 tons of gold.

“Heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty throughout the year increasingly drove central banks to diversify their reserves and re-focus their attention on the principal objective of investing in safe and liquid assets,” said the report.

It noted that Russia was leading the way as it looks to reduce reliance on dollar reserves. The Russian central bank (CBR) sold almost all of its US Treasury stock to buy 274.3 tons of gold in 2018, the WGC said.

Other big central bank buyers were Turkey, Kazakhstan, India, Iraq, Poland and Hungary.

Earlier this month, the CBR reported purchasing 8.5 million troy ounces of gold in the period January-November 2018. With its 67.6 million ounces of gold Russia became the world's fifth largest holder behind the US, Germany, France and Italy.

It also said that Russia has cut the share of the US dollar in the country’s foreign reserves to a historic low, transferring nearly $100 billion into the euro, the Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan. The step came as a part of a broader state policy on eliminating reliance on the greenback.

https://www.rt.com/business/450297-russ ... ng-dollar/

<

<1



LOL OKAY

Fox News Analyst to Northam: ‘Dig In’ Because Republicans Will Eventually Defend You From the ‘Lynch Mob’

‘Republicans are highly conscious about the lynch mob,’ Stirewalt said.

Justin Baragona

02.04.19 12:07 PM ET

With embattled Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam facing calls from his own party to step down after his yearbook blackface/KKK photo surfaced, Fox News politics editor Chris Stirewalt on Monday gave the embattled governor some advice: Dig in because Republicans will eventually come to your defense.

During an America’s Newsroom panel discussion on the pressure Northam faces to resign, Stirewalt at first poked fun at the governor for his widely mocked Saturday afternoon presser in which the governor almost moonwalked.

“I have to reach back to Mark Sanford to find a gubernatorial press conference as uniquely awful and terrible as that press conference,” Stirewalt observed, referencing the former South Carolina governor’s 2009 presser addressing his extramarital affair.

After joking that it was “deeply regretful” that he missed out on Northam performing Michael Jackson’s signature dance move, Stirewalt went on to provide the governor some twisted political counsel.

“If I was Ralph Northam, I wouldn't be going anywhere,” the Fox News analyst said. “ I would be, as a matter of fact, I would be digging in and waiting. And you know what I’d be waiting for? I’d be waiting for Republicans.”

He continued: “Because it will be Republicans in the end. Even though this is the guy—Dr. Death—this is the guy who, in the grimmest possible terms, talked about what Republicans and pro-life people say is infanticide, they will come around on this issue for him because of Covington Catholic and all these other things. Republicans are highly conscious about the lynch mob. The online, the internet mob.”

Stirewalt concluded his point by reiterating that if he were Northam he would “dig in.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news- ... b?ref=home

<2



Ocasio-Cortez starts to fill in details of 'Green New Deal'

BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 02/04/19 08:20 PM EST

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to fill in details on her proposed Green New Deal in a Monday email to colleagues obtained by Bloomberg.

The contents of bill, which is soon to be introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in the House and by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate, have remained a mystery, though the idea of addressing climate change while creating new jobs has widespread support.

“Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the letter to her colleagues. “In it, we call for a national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.”

The letter set reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs” while ensuring prosperity and economic security for all; and investment in infrastructure and industry as goals of the policy.

The bill will include calls for clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature and “a sustainable environment for all for generations to come,” according to Bloomberg.

The Green New Deal will also “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”

Ocasio-Cortez said the goals will be accomplished through a 10-year plan of industrial and infrastructure projects.

Top Democrats including 2020 White House contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) have shown support for the initiative.

Over 40 other progressive lawmakers back it as well.

Republicans have opposed the Green New Deal for its cost, which some estimates put at as high as $7 trillion.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... en-new-deal

<3



The Memo: After rough January, Trump seeks rebound with big speech

BY NIALL STANAGE - 02/04/19 07:53 PM EST

President Trump will deliver the State of the Union address Tuesday at one of the most vulnerable moments of his presidency — and supporters and detractors alike are skeptical he can turn things around.

The problem, they say, is that opinions of Trump have become even more deeply entrenched, both for and against, since the partial government shutdown. It will be very tough to shift them, even amid the pomp and circumstance of the annual event.

“Voter opinions of Trump are locked in, and there is very little room for movement there,” said Doug Heye, a former communications director of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

The nation’s polarized atmosphere will also drive responses to the speech.

“He could give a Franklin Delano Roosevelt-type inspirational speech, and the Democrats would say it was horrible and the Republicans would say it was wonderful,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. “The response is baked in before he even gets up there.”

But if the State of the Union ends up not nudging the political dynamics in any meaningful way, that will be bad news for Trump.

The president suffered a serious political setback — a self-inflicted wound, in the eyes of his critics — during the 35-day shutdown in December and January. The episode raised questions even in the minds of his loyal base as to whether he will ever build the wall that he promised at almost every stop of his 2016 campaign.

The president, whose political appeal rests in part on his assertions of machismo and deal-making prowess, also found himself bested by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The shutdown has pushed Trump’s job approval ratings down. In the RealClearPolitics polling average on Monday afternoon, he was at 41.2 percent approval and 55.5 percent disapproval. The differential — negative 14.3 points — is the largest it has been in almost a year.

Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University, contended that the shutdown had damaged Trump, though he also noted that the president’s poll numbers move within an unusually narrow range.

“It’s made it much more difficult for him to reach out beyond his core base,” Lichtman said. “Forget about Democrats — they are never going to come around — but he has taken a hit among independents.”

Even the timing of this year’s address is testament to Trump’s troubles. Originally scheduled for Jan. 29, it was put back after Pelosi pushed the president to postpone it until the shutdown was resolved. She will be sitting behind him as Speaker for the first time as he delivers the speech, a potent visual reminder of the realities of the divided government which make it hard for Trump to accomplish any of his legislative goals.

“Now that we have a Democratic House, their goal is to elect someone to take President Trump’s place,” said GOP consultant Ron Bonjean. “It’s not in the Democrats’ best interests to have Trump’s legislation signed into law.”

The White House has indicated that Trump will nonetheless seek to make some overtures to Democrats — and will issue a broader call to compromise — in this year’s address. A senior administration official on Friday told reporters that Trump would “encourage Congress to reject the politics of resistance and retribution, and instead adopt a spirit of cooperation and compromise so we can achieve it.”
The same official also shared one line of Trump’s speech draft which is to see him assert, “Together, we can break decades of political stalemate. We can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions.”

Whether that will actually happen is a very different matter. But some observers believe Trump might get some measure of credit for at least appearing to try.

“What I think he needs to do is show that he is being reasonable with his requests,” said Berkovitz. “Show that he is thinking about this, and saying, ‘Yes, this is what I want and here are calm reasons why.’ That is not going to change anyone’s mind right there and then, but at least it would have the aura of sensible.”

In terms of the substance, administration officials have said that Trump’s speech will focus on five areas: immigration, trade, infrastructure, health care and drug pricing, and foreign policy.

As ever with Trump, there will be the potential for surprises on the night.

Among the points of interest are how vigorously he will lambaste Democrats; whether he will address the controversy swirling around Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D); and how seriously he will threaten a second government shutdown if no deal is worked out before Feb. 15, when the current stopgap spending measure runs out.

Some Republicans argue that it is important not to count Trump out prematurely, as has happened so many times before.

Referring to his 2020 reelection hopes, Heye, the former RNC communications director, said, “The country is obviously very polarized, and I think, certainly, his map looks narrower this time than last time. But if you look at President Reagan’s numbers, they were worse than Trump’s, and he did fine.”

On the other side of the political divide, however, the assertions that Trump is increasingly politically impotent are growing louder.

“There will be no wall. There will be no national emergency — or, if there is, he will be in front of the Supreme Court,” said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. “He has no capacity to do anything he is talking about.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/4 ... big-speech

<4



Senate Dems introduce bill to block Trump from using military funds to build wall

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 02/04/19 02:52 PM EST

Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Monday to prevent President Trump from using military and disaster relief funds to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall should he declare a national emergency.

The legislation would prevent Trump from using funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works funds and military construction funding "for the construction of barriers, land acquisition, or any other associated activities on the southern border without specific statutory authorization from Congress" if he declared a national emergency.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said that while an emergency declaration to construct the U.S.-Mexico border wall would be challenged in court, "Congress should not wait for the courts to act."

"We must stand up and assert our role as a co-equal branch of government, and we must prevent the president from going around Congress to raid critical funds … for a politically-motivated, unjustified national emergency declaration that isn’t based in reality," he said.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) added that the bill would "prevent funds designated for critical military construction and disaster response" from being used to build the wall in the event Trump declares a national emergency.

Democrats estimate that approximately $35 billion from the fiscal 2018 funding cycle is "subject to raiding"—being repurposed for constructing the border wall — including money for disaster relief and military construction projects.

More than a dozen Democrats, including Udall and Heinrich, introduced the Restrictions Against Illegitimate Declarations for Emergency Re-appropriations Act. Among the RAIDER Act's supporters are Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who are both running for the party's 2020 nomination.

Trump has kept the option of declaring a national emergency to construct the wall on the table despite pushback from Congress.

He hinted last week that he could tip his hand during Tuesday night's State of the Union address about his plans, telling reporters to "listen closely."

“I think there’s a good chance we’ll have to do that,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday.

If Trump declared a national emergency, Congress could try to pass a resolution of disapproval to block the action. Lawmakers in both parties have also predicted a lengthy court battle that would almost immediately delay action on the border wall.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/428 ... s-to-build

<5



Global warming could melt one-third of the planet's "Third Pole" by 2100

Andrew Freedman 9 hours ago 2.4.19

Climate change is likely to melt at least one-third of the glaciers located in the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region, where Mount Everest is located, imperiling the water supply of more than 1 billion people in the area.

Why it matters: The mountainous 2,000-mile region, known to climate scientists as the planet's vast "Third Pole," is a major water source for 10 of the world’s most important river systems, including the Ganges, Indus, Yellow, Mekong and Irrawaddy. The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment found that even if the world were to meet the Paris climate agreement's most stringent global warming target, one-third of the glaciers in the mountainous region would still melt by the end of the century.

Details: If emissions were to continue virtually unchecked, the report finds that two-thirds of the region's glaciers would disappear by 2100 — as average temperatures in the region spike by 5°C, or 9°F, compared to preindustrial levels.

This could be accompanied at first by catastrophic floods, followed by far lower contributions from glaciers to these major river systems.

The report was put together by more than 350 researchers and policy scholars from 22 countries and 185 organizations, and it was peer reviewed prior to publication.

What they're saying: "This is the climate crisis you haven’t heard of," said Philippus Wester of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), who spearheaded the report, in a press release.

"Global warming is on track to transform the frigid, glacier-covered mountain peaks of the HKH cutting across eight countries to bare rocks in a little less than a century."

"It’s not just occupants of the world’s islands that are suffering," Dasho Rinzin Dorji, a board member of ICIMOD from Bhutan, in a press release. "We need to start thinking of mountain regions as climate hotspots worthy of urgent attention, investments and solutions."

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-hi ... f700e.html

<6



Thousands of GM workers at soon-to-be closed U.S. plants face 'a lot of uncertainty'

"It’s emotionally devastating,” one worker at a Michigan plant said of watching some co-workers leave to transfer to other plants, some as far as Tennessee.

Feb. 4, 2019, 5:43 PM CST

By Corky Siemaszko

In the nine years they worked side-by-side installing lithium ion batteries into Chevy Volts, Evetta Osborne and daughter Monique Watson developed an assembly-line choreography.

“Watching them work is like watching ballet,” an internal GM story said.

Now, mass layoffs underway at GM threaten to break up the mother-daughter autoworker duo by shuttering the Michigan manufacturing plant where they work — the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly facility, which employs roughly 1,500 workers.

In total, GM is planning to send pink slips to lay off more than 14,000 workers and close three assembly plants and two component factories in North America by the end of 2019. It began the layoffs of some of its salaried workers on Monday.

The sweeping plan approved by GM chief Mary Barra is expected to save the automaker billions of dollars — and provide a cushion ahead of a forecast slowdown of the U.S. automotive market in the next few years.

But for thousands of American workers like Osborne and Watson, when the last car rolls down the line at their plant on June 1, they will likely be faced with two choices, both bad — accept a transfer to another plant far from their families and homes in Detroit, or start over in a new profession.

“I can’t see me going nowhere else,” Osborne, 52, who has worked for GM since 2000, told NBC News. “This is my home. I’m going to wait and pray that GM will give us a new product to build and our jobs will be saved.”

Watson, 33, who started working at the plant in 2007, said she’s been putting off having the “relocation conversation” with her husband and their four children.

“My youngest is on the autism spectrum and my entire support system is here,” Watson said. “There’s a lot of people at the plant like us who have children to take care of, who have elderly parents.”

Plus, both mother and daughter said, their roots in Detroit are deep.

“My grandparents came to Detroit from the South to work for the auto industry,” Watson said. “My mother’s father retired from GM. Basically, a lot of family members worked for the Big Three (automakers).”

Osborne said her son worked at the plant, and he left in August for a job at a GM plant in Tennessee. “He likes it so far, but it’s eight hours away from me,” she said.

“We just had a group of workers leave to go to jobs in Flint [Michigan] and Tennessee,” Watson said. “There were a lot of tears shed. You can’t work with people every day for five, ten, 20 years and not get close. It’s emotionally devastating.”

In recent weeks, President Donald Trump — under pressure from many blue-collar workers whose votes propelled him into the White House —has criticized Barra for the plant closings.

But nobody at the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly is counting on Trump to save their jobs, said Celso Duque, president of Local Union 22 of the United Auto Workers, which represents workers at the plant.

“I keep thinking about Carrier, about how he kept saying during that campaign that he was going to save those jobs and how it turned out he just got them to delay laying off people until after the election,” Duque said, referring to Trump. “There’s quite a few people here who remember that.”

Not so long ago, union workers assembled cars like the Chevrolet Impala, the Cadillac CT6, and the Buick LaCrosse at the plant in addition to Volts, said Duque, who has worked for GM for nearly 22 years.

“Now there’s a lot of uncertainty on the floor,” he said. “”Right now, all we can do is put transfers in for people to other facilities.”

Even with transfers, workers' lives can be upended.

“I heard of a situation of a husband and wife who asked for transfers,” he said. “One got accepted at a plant in Flint, Michigan. The other got a transfer to a plant in Tonawanda, New York.”

NBC News sent in a request to GM for information on how many Detroit-Hamtramck workers have been offered positions at other plants and what steps the company has taken to ensure that married couples can continue working together. There was no immediate response from a representative.

Duque, who is 41, said his future is also uncertain. He said he’s not married, but he’s got elderly parents nearby whom he helps care for.

“I’m hoping to stay in Michigan,” he said. “Personally, the biggest issue I would have is that I bought my house at the height of the housing bubble. My house is now almost paid off. If I had to sell it now, I’d be losing $120,000.”

The targeted GM plant straddles the border between Detroit and Hamtramck, a small city completely surrounded by Motown. Its first vehicle — a Cadillac Eldorado — rolled off the line in February 1985.

But the plant had a bitter birth.

Much of the 362-acre site was built on what used to be a Polish immigrant neighborhood called Poletown, whose residents fought a fierce but losing battle against then-Detroit Mayor Coleman Young to avoid being evicted from their homes.

Young, however, was unable to evict the more than 1,000 Jews buried at the Beth Olam Cemetery, which is located in the northwest corner of the property and is completely surrounded by the auto plant. It’s open to the public just two days a year on the Sundays before Rosh Hashannah and Passover.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/th ... ce-n966801

<7



POLITICS WHITE HOUSE 'WILLFUL IGNORANCE.' INSIDE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TROUBLED INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS

'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings

By JOHN WALCOTT February 2, 2019

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

Citing multiple in-person episodes, these intelligence officials say Trump displays what one called “willful ignorance” when presented with analyses generated by America’s $81 billion-a-year intelligence services. The officials, who include analysts who prepare Trump’s briefs and the briefers themselves, describe futile attempts to keep his attention by using visual aids, confining some briefing points to two or three sentences, and repeating his name and title as frequently as possible.

What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes, are Trump’s angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances he has taken in public.

That reaction was on display this week. At a Congressional hearing on national security threats, the leaders of all the major intelligence agencies, including the Directors of National Intelligence, the CIA and the FBI contradicted Trump on issues relating to North Korea, Russia, the Islamic State, and Iran. In response, Trump said the intelligence chiefs were “passive and naïve” and suggested they “should go back to school.”

The intelligence officials criticizing Trump requested anonymity because the briefings they described, including the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, are classified. The PDB is one of the most highly restricted products produced by U.S. intelligence analysts. A select group of intelligence officials is involved in preparing these briefings. A small number of senior officials, often including the Director of Central Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence or the heads of other agencies depending on the topic, usually deliver it.

The reporting for this story is based on interviews with multiple officials who have first hand knowledge of the episodes they describe, and multiple others who have been briefed on them. Asked in detail about the officials’ concerns, senior White House and National Security Council officials declined to comment.

The problem has existed since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, the intelligence officials say, and for a time they tried to respond to the President’s behavior in briefings with dark humor. After a briefing in preparation for a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May, for example, the subject turned to the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia. The island is home to an important airbase and a U.S. Naval Support Facility that are central to America’s ability to project power in the region, including in the war in Afghanistan.

The President, officials familiar with the briefing said, asked two questions: Are the people nice, and are the beaches good? “Some of us wondered if he was thinking about our alliance with the Brits and the security issues in an important area where the Chinese have been increasingly active, or whether he was thinking like a real estate developer,” one of the officials said wryly.

In another briefing on South Asia, Trump’s advisors brought a map of the region from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, according to intelligence officers with knowledge of the meeting and congressional officials who were briefed on it. Trump, they said, pointed at the map and said he knew that Nepal was part of India, only to be told that it is an independent nation. When said he was familiar with Bhutan and knew it, too, was part of India, his briefers told him that Bhutan was an independent kingdom. Last August, Politico reported on president’s mispronunciation of the names of the two countries during the same briefing.

But the disconnect between Trump and his intelligence briefers is no joke, the officials say. Several pointed to concerns regarding Trump’s assessment of the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. After Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un last summer, the North claimed to have destroyed its major underground nuclear testing facility at Punggye-ri, and Trump has gone out of his way to credit the claim.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGIA), which oversees the spy satellites that map and photograph key areas, had tried to impress upon Trump the size and complexity of the North Korean site. In preparing one briefing for the President on the issue early in his administration, the NGIA built a model of the facility with a removable roof, according to two officials. To help Trump grasp the size of the facility, the NGIA briefers built a miniature version New York’s Statue of Liberty to scale and put it inside the model.

Intelligence officials from multiple agencies later warned Trump that entrances at the facility that had been closed after the summit could still be reopened. But the president has ignored the agencies’ warnings and has exaggerated the steps North Korea has taken to shutter the facility, those officials and two others say. That is a particular concern now, ahead of a possible second summit with the Kim Jong-Un later this month.

The briefers’ concerns are spread across multiple areas of expertise. Two briefers worry that a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping could produce a trade agreement that the President can trumpet but that fails to address China’s espionage, its theft of intellectual property that ranges from circuit boards to soybean hybrids, its military buildup, and its geopolitical ambition.

Three other officials worry about what one of them calls “precipitous troop withdrawals” from Syria and Afghanistan and a peace deal with the Taliban that in time would leave the extremist Islamic group back in charge and wipe out the gains made in education, women’s rights and governance since the U.S. invaded the country more than 17 years ago.

For now, the briefers are heartened by the intelligence community leaders who risked Trump’s ire by contradicting him in public testimony this week.

The danger, one former intelligence official said, is that those leaders and other intelligence briefers may eventually stop taking such risks in laying out the facts for the President.

http://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-in ... -security/

<8



Scoop: Insider leaks Trump's "Executive Time"-filled private schedules

Alexi McCammond, Jonathan Swan Feb 3

A White House source has leaked nearly every day of President Trump's private schedule for the past three months.

Why it matters: This unusually voluminous leak gives us unprecedented visibility into how this president spends his days. The schedules, which cover nearly every working day since the midterms, show that Trump has spent around 60% of his scheduled time over the past 3 months in unstructured "Executive Time."

We've published every page of the leaked schedules in a piece that accompanies this item. To protect our source, we retyped the schedules in the same format that West Wing staff receives them.

What the schedules show: Trump, an early riser, usually spends the first 5 hours of the day in Executive Time. Each day's schedule places Trump in "Location: Oval Office" from 8 to 11 a.m.

But Trump, who often wakes before 6 a.m., is never in the Oval during those hours, according to six sources with direct knowledge.

Instead, he spends his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials and informal advisers.

Trump's first meeting of the day — usually around 11 or 11:30 a.m. — is often an intelligence briefing or a 30-minute meeting with the chief of staff.

Since Nov. 7, the day after the midterm elections, Trump has spent around 297 hours in Executive Time, according to the 51 private schedules we've obtained.

For those same schedules, Trump has had about 77 hours scheduled for meetings that include policy planning, legislative strategy and video recordings.

Some days, Executive Time totally predominates. For instance, he had 1 hour of scheduled meetings on Jan. 18 (with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin) and 7 hours of Executive Time.

The day after the midterms, Trump's schedule had 30 minutes for a chief of staff meeting and more than 7 hours for Executive Time.

Former chief of staff John Kelly introduced the concept of Executive Time because the president hated being locked into a regular schedule.

"He's always calling people, talking to people," a senior White House official told us. "He's always up to something; it's just not what you would consider typical structure."

How president trump's Official Schedule Breaks Down (SEE AXIOS LINK FOR SPREADSHEET BREAKDOWN)

Between the lines: The private schedules we published below do not list all Trump's meetings over the past three months.

That's because many of his meetings are spur of the moment, according to senior White House officials with direct knowledge of his daily habits.

It's also because a more detailed schedule — kept within a very small, tight circle — typically has 1 or 2 extra meetings per day that aren't listed on private schedules sent to staff.

The president sometimes has meetings during Executive Time that he doesn't want most West Wing staff to know about for fear of leaks. And his mornings sometimes include calls with heads of state, political meetings and meetings with counsel in the residence, which aren't captured on these schedules.

For example, the private schedule we obtained said Trump had a "media engagement" at 4:30 p.m. this past Wednesday. The more detailed schedule revealed it was an interview with the right-wing Daily Caller, according to a source with direct knowledge.

Wednesday's more detailed schedule also listed Trump's meeting with former presidential candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain, whom he is considering for a Federal Reserve governorship, per Bloomberg. (The private schedule obscured that meeting with Executive Time.)

The longer view: Chris Whipple, a student of presidential schedules who wrote the book 'The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency," told us that "there's almost no [historical] parallel" for how this president spends his days.

"The most important asset in any presidency is the president's time," Whipple said. "And Trump is a guy who gives new meaning to the notion of an unstructured presidency."

Responding to Axios' reporting, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders emailed this statement: "President Trump has a different leadership style than his predecessors and the results speak for themselves."

"While he spends much of his average day in scheduled meetings, events, and calls, there is time to allow for a more creative environment that has helped make him the most productive President in modern history."

"President Trump has ignited a booming economy with lower taxes and higher wages, established the USA as the #1 producer of oil and gas in the world, remade our judiciary, rebuilt our military, and renegotiated better trade deals. It’s indisputable that our country has never been stronger than it is today under the leadership of President Trump."

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-priv ... 34255.html

<

<1



AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s speech exaggerates border peril

By CALVIN WOODWARD, CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and COLLEEN LONG

today 2.6.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump exaggerated perils at the border, flubbed food stamp numbers and the length of wars and told partial truths on drug prices in his State of the Union speech. Trump also celebrated a couple of workforce measures that have little to do with him and almost everything to do with a growing population.

In her Democratic response to the speech, Stacey Abrams reflected a recent and misleading talking point by her party when she slammed the Trump administration for choosing to “cage children” at the border, ignoring a practice also employed by the Obama administration to hold migrant children in facilities with chain-link fencing.

Here’s a look at some of the statements from State of the Union night :

LABOR FORCE

TRUMP: “All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before.”

TRUMP: “More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country. One hundred fifty-seven million people at work.”

THE FACTS: Yes, but that’s because the population has grown. It’s more than doubled since 1950 and, in recent months, it’s been increasing by 150,000 to nearly 200,000 per month.

Births are the primary driver of population growth, with immigration also contributing. In 2030, that’s expected to change, with immigration overtaking the natural increase from births exceeding deaths.

As for women, the big question is whether greater percentages of them are working or searching for a job than at any point in history. And on this count, women have enjoyed better times.

Women’s labor force participation rate right now is 57.5 percent, according to the Labor Department. The rate has ticked up recently, but it was higher in 2012 and peaked in 2000 at roughly 60 percent.

Overall, 63.2 percent of Americans are working or looking for work. That’s a few ticks higher than when Trump was inaugurated, when it was 62.9 percent, but far below the 2000 peak of 67.3 percent. The rate has declined partly because of aging, as a wave of baby boomers retire, but even among younger workers it’s below where it was nearly two decades ago.

BORDER-EL PASO

TRUMP: “The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of the highest in the entire country and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country. Simply put, walls work and walls save lives.”

THE FACTS: That’s a distorted picture of El Paso, where Trump is going to showcase his push for a border wall.

El Paso has never been considered one of the nation’s most dangerous cities. In fact, its murder rate was less than half the national average in 2005, the year before the start of its border fence. The city has experienced ebbs and flows in violent crime but they have largely mirrored national trends and been under national averages for decades.

BORDER SECURITY

TRUMP: “The lawless state of our southern border is a threat to the safety and security and financial well-being of all America.”

THE FACTS: Whether the border is sufficiently secure or not cuts to the core of a heated national debate, but it’s far from lawless. The number of people arrested for crossing illegally has plunged in the last decade and is near its lowest level since the mid-1990s, illustrating a substantial downward trend in the number of migrants trying to sneak in. Border Patrol personnel, detection technology and physical barriers have increased in that time.

DO WALLS WORK?

TRUMP: “These (border) agents will tell you where walls go up, illegal crossings go way, way down ... San Diego used to have the most illegal border crossings in our country. In response, a strong security wall was put in place. This powerful barrier almost completely ended illegal crossings ... Simply put, walls work and walls save lives.”

THE FACTS: It’s a lot more complicated than that.

Yes, Border Patrol arrests in the San Diego sector plummeted 96 percent from nearly 630,000 in 1986 to barely 26,000 in 2017, a period during which walls were built. But the crackdown pushed illegal crossings to less-patrolled and more remote Arizona deserts, where thousands died in the heat. Arrests in Tucson in 2000 nearly matched San Diego’s peak.


Critics say the “water-balloon effect” — build a wall in one spot and migrants will find an opening elsewhere — undermines Trump’s argument, though proponents say it only demonstrates that walls should be extended.

The Government Accountability Office reported in 2017 that the U.S. has not developed metrics that demonstrate how barriers have contributed to border security.


LEGAL IMMIGRATION

TRUMP: “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever but they have to come in legally.”

THE FACTS: His policy recommendations to date do not reflect this wish.

The plan he proposed upon taking office would have sharply limited the ability of citizens and permanent residents to bring in family, which he derisively called “chain migration.” The Cato Institute, which favors more open immigration policies, estimated his plan would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent, the largest cut to legal immigration since the 1920s.

According to data from the Homeland Security Department, about 750,000 of more than 1.1 million people who obtained green cards in 2017 — or two-thirds — did so through family relations. Trump’s plan called for limiting family-based green cards to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and green card holders, a dramatic cut. He’s also slashed the number of refugees the U.S. will accept for two straight years and he wants to eliminate diversity visas.

He’s talked about switching to merit-based, instead of family-based, immigration and said at times that he wants to make it easier for temporary workers to work and graduates from top colleges to stay in the country. But researchers have said the net effect of his proposals would be fewer legal immigrants.

MIDDLE EAST WARS

TRUMP: “Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years.”

THE FACTS: Trump exaggerated the length of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan began in October 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was in March 2003. The U.S. has been at war for a bit more than 17 years.

Also, he refers to fighting in the Middle East. Iraq is in the Middle East, but Afghanistan is in central Asia.

FOOD STAMPS

TRUMP, describing progress over the last two years: “Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.”

THE FACTS: The number of people receiving food stamps actually hasn’t declined that much.

Government data show there were 44.2 million people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program in 2016, before Trump took office. In 2018, there were 40.3 million people participating in SNAP. That’s a decline of 3.9 million, not the 5 million that Trump talked about.

The number of people participating in the SNAP program peaked in 2013 and has been going down since that time.

Trump’s last budget proposed cutting SNAP by $213 billion over 10 years. The administration also has been pushing to give states more flexibility in implementing the program, including tightening work requirements for recipients.

ABRAMS-ECONOMY

ABRAMS: “The Republican tax bill rigged the system against working people. Rather than bringing back jobs, plants are closing, layoffs are looming and wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living.

THE FACTS: The economy is doing better after the introduction of Trump administration’s tax cuts than Abrams suggests. The number of people seeking unemployment benefits, a proxy for layoffs, briefly fell to a five-decade low last month. And average hourly pay is running ahead of inflation.

TARIFFS

TRUMP: “We recently imposed tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods — and now our treasury is receiving billions of dollars.”


THE FACTS: This is misleading. Yes, money from tariffs is going into the federal treasury, but it’s largely coming from U.S. businesses and consumers. It’s not foreign countries that are paying these import taxes by cutting a check to the government.

His reference to money coming into the treasury “now” belies the fact that tariffs go back to the founding of the country. This revenue did not start with his increased tariffs on some goods from China.

Tariffs did produce $41.3 billion in tax revenues in the last budget year, according to the Treasury Department. But that is a small fraction of a federal budget that exceeds $4.1 trillion.

The tariffs paid by U.S. companies also tend to result in higher prices for consumers, which is what happened for washing machines after the Trump administration imposed import taxes.

TRADE-NAFTA

TRUMP: “Our new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — or USMCA — will replace NAFTA and deliver for American workers: bringing back our manufacturing jobs, expanding American agriculture, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that more cars are proudly stamped with the four beautiful words: MADE IN THE USA.”

THE FACTS: It’s unlikely to do all those things, since the new agreement largely preserves the structure and substance of NAFTA. In addition, the deal has not been ratified and its chances in Congress are uncertain.

In one new feature, the deal requires that 40 percent of cars’ contents eventually be made in countries that pay autoworkers at least $16 an hour — that is, in the United States, or Canada, but not in Mexico. It also requires Mexico to pursue an overhaul of labor law to encourage independent unions that will bargain for higher wages and better working conditions for Mexicans.

Still, just before the agreement was signed, General Motors announced that it would lay off 14,000 workers and close five plants in the United States and Canada.

Philip Levy, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a trade official in Republican President George W. Bush’s White House, says: “President Trump has seriously overhyped this agreement.”

DRUG PRICING

TRUMP: “Already, as a result of my administration’s efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.”

THE FACTS: Trump is selectively citing statistics to exaggerate what seems to be a slowdown in prices. A broader look at the data shows that drug prices are still rising, but more moderately. Some independent experts say criticism from Trump and congressional Democrats may be causing pharmaceutical companies to show restraint.

The Consumer Price Index for prescription drugs shows a O.6 percent reduction in prices in December 2018 when compared with December 2017, the biggest drop in nearly 50 years. The government index tracks a set of medications including brand drugs and generics.

However, that same index showed a 1.6 percent increase when comparing the full 12 months of 2018 with the entire previous year.

“The annualized number gives you a better picture,” said economist Paul Hughes-Cromwick of Altarum, a nonprofit research organization. “It could be that something quirky happened in December.”

Separately, an analysis of brand-name drug prices by The Associated Press shows there were 2,712 price increases in the first half of this January, as compared with 3,327 increases during the same period last year.

The size of this year’s increases was not as pronounced. Both this year and last, the number of price cuts was minuscule. The information for the analysis was provided by the health data firm Elsevier.

WAGES

TRUMP: “Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, they’re growing faster than anyone else thought possible.”


THE FACTS: This is an unsupported statement because the data on hourly wages for private workers only go back to 2006, not decades.

But data on wages for production workers date back to 1939 — and Trump’s claim appears to be unfounded.

Average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers are up 3.4 percent over the past year, according to the Labor Department. Those wage gains were higher as recently as early 2009. And they were averaging roughly 4 percent before the start of the Great Recession in late 2007.

There are other ways to track wage gains — and those don’t work in Trump’s favor, either.

Adjusted for inflation, median weekly wages rose just 0.6 percent in 2018. The gains in weekly wages were 2.1 percent in 2015.

ABRAMS-MIGRANT CHILDREN

ABRAMS, in the Democratic response: “We know bipartisanship could craft a 21st century immigration plan but this administration chooses to cage children and tear families apart.”

THE FACTS: The cages that Abrams mentions are actually chain-link fences and the Obama administration used them, too.

Children are held behind them, inside holding Border Patrol facilities, under the Trump administration. As well, Obama’s administration detained large numbers of unaccompanied children inside chain link fences in 2014. Images that circulated online of children in cages during the height of Trump’s family separations controversy were actually from 2014 when President Barack Obama was in office.

Children are placed in such areas by age and sex for safety reasons and are held for up to 72 hours by the Border Patrol.

The Department of Homeland Security inspector general visited five detention facilities for unaccompanied children on the Texas border with Mexico in late June, during the height of the furor over family separations, and found they appeared to comply with detention standards. The government watchdog reported that cleanliness was inconsistent but that the children had access to toilets, food, drinks, clean bedding and hygiene items.

At the height of the family separations, about 2,400 children were separated. Since then, 118 children were separated. Immigration officials are allowed to take a child from a parent in certain cases — serious criminal charges against a parent, concerns over the health and welfare of a child or medical concerns.

That policy has long been in place and is separate from the now-suspended zero-tolerance Trump administration policy that saw children separated from parents only because they had crossed illegally.

MINORITY UNEMPLOYMENT

TRUMP: “African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.”

THE FACTS: What he’s not saying is that the unemployment rates for all three groups have gone up since reaching record low levels.

Black unemployment reached a record low, 5.9 percent, in May, but rose to 6.8 percent in January.

Latino unemployment fell to 4.4 percent, its lowest ever, last October, and Asian unemployment fell to a record low of 2.2 percent in May. But Latino and Asian unemployment also have increased, in part because of the government shutdown, which elevated unemployment last month.

The African-American rate is still nearly double the jobless rate for whites, at 3.5 percent.

The most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017.


HUMAN TRAFFICKING

TRUMP: “Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery.”

THE FACTS: His administration has not supplied evidence that women and girls are smuggled by the “thousands” across remote areas of the border for these purposes. What has been established is nearly 80 percent of international trafficking victims cross through legal ports of entry, a flow that would not be stopped by a border wall.

Trump distorts how often trafficking victims come from the southern border, according the Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative, a global hub for trafficking statistics with data contributed by organizations from around the world.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline, a venture supported by federal money and operated by the anti-trafficking group Polaris, began tracking individual victim records in 2015. From January through June 31, 2018, it tracked 35,000 potential victims. Of those, there was a near equal distribution between foreigners on one hand and U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents on the other.

Most of the labor trafficking victims were foreign, and most of the sex trafficking victims were U.S. citizens. Of foreign nationals, Mexico had the most frequently trafficked.

ECONOMY

TRUMP: “In just over two years since the election, we have launched an unprecedented economic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before. There’s been nothing like it. ... An economic miracle is taking place in the United States.”

THE FACTS: The president is vastly exaggerating what has been a mild improvement in growth and hiring. The economy is healthy but not nearly one of the best in U.S. history.

The economy expanded at an annual rate of 3.8 percent last spring and summer, a solid pace. But it was just the fastest in four years. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for four straight years, a level it has not yet reached under Trump. And growth even reached 7.2 percent in 1984.

Almost all independent economists expect slower growth this year as the effect of the Trump administration’s tax cuts fade, trade tensions and slower global growth hold back exports, and higher interest rates make it more expensive to borrow to buy cars and homes.


ENERGY

TRUMP: “We have unleashed a revolution in American energy - the United States is now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas in the world.”

THE FACTS: True, if “we” means Trump and his recent predecessors. It’s not all to Trump’s credit. The government says the U.S. became the world’s top natural gas producer in 2013, under the Obama administration.

The U.S. now leads the world in oil production, too, under Trump. That’s largely because of a boom in production from shale oil, which also began under Obama.

https://www.apnews.com/403cd4b711704c7caf1e0d337a2d390b

<2



Senate buzz grows for Abrams after speech electrifies Dems

BY LISA HAGEN AND MAX GREENWOOD - 02/06/19 07:43 PM EST

Democrats are clamoring for Stacey Abrams to enter Georgia’s Senate race after her response to President Trump’s State of the Union address became one of the best-received rebuttals in years.

Many see Abrams as a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate and believe the sky is the limit, but she appears to have closed the door on a 2020 run.

If she runs against Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), Democrats think they’d have a chance to win a Senate seat in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the chamber in nearly two decades and loosen Republicans’ tight grip on the South.

“I hope she will get into that race,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm in the 2018 cycle, told The Hill. “She really showed what a strong leader she was in her very close race for governor, and I think this evening she again showed her mettle and her spirit.”

Abrams’s State of the Union response gave her the largest national platform since narrowly losing Georgia’s hotly contested gubernatorial race in November.

In her speech, Abrams made appeals for unity and bipartisanship in what she described as “a time of division and crisis.”

She also took aim at Trump for sowing those divisions and orchestrating a partial government shutdown that left hundreds of thousands of federal employees without paychecks for weeks.

Trump shot back on Wednesday in his first public comments about Abrams since her rebuttal, calling her potential Senate bid against Perdue a “mistake.”

“I don’t think she can win,” Trump told regional reporters in an Oval Office interview on Wednesday, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

But the calls for Abrams, 45, to run for Senate have only amplified in recent weeks as Democrats see a path to taking back the upper chamber in 2020. Republicans have a 53-47 majority, and Democrats see their path to victory running through Georgia.

Abrams would almost certainly enter the Senate race as a front-runner among Democrats. Her 2018 campaign for governor elevated her to national prominence and helped boost her name recognition in Georgia.

What’s more, she has already proven herself to be an adept fundraiser, having raked in more than $27 million for her gubernatorial bid. That fundraising ability will be vital to take on Perdue, who ended 2018 with roughly $1.7 million in his campaign coffers, according to his most recent federal filings.

Abrams made history last year as the first African-American woman to win a gubernatorial nomination for either major party. Her candidacy energized the increasingly diverse Democratic electorate that helped propel dozens of the party’s candidates to victories last year.

Despite her narrow loss to now-Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in November, Abrams has maintained a presence in politics. Shortly after as she ended her gubernatorial bid, she launched a new organization, Fair Fight Georgia, focused on fighting voter suppression. And last month, she announced a statewide “Thank You” tour.

Abrams and her allies accused Kemp, who oversaw the state’s elections as Georgia’s secretary of state while he was running for governor, of engaging in voter suppression. The Republican has vehemently denied that. And in her speech, Abrams addressed voter suppression head on, calling it the “next battle for our democracy.”

Abrams is expected to make a decision on her political future by the end of March — a decision eagerly awaited by many Democrats.

“It’s all anyone is talking about here: What is she going to do next?” Rebecca DeHart, the executive director of the Georgia Democratic Party, said. “I think the world is her oyster.”

“Will she run for governor? Will she run for Senate? Hell, I’d be happy if she ran for president,” DeHart added. “She’s got a heck of a decision in front of her.”

A few months ago, some Georgia Democrats believed Abrams was leaning in the direction of a gubernatorial rematch with Kemp in 2022.

But lately, they believe a Senate run is becoming more of a possibility.

“I think the things she wants to manage you do by being governor,” said DuBose Porter, a former chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party who was with Abrams Tuesday night in Atlanta for her rebuttal.

“I think as things have evolved, she certainly has the momentum. Every option is very much on the table now.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who tapped Abrams to respond to the State of the Union, previously met with the Georgia Democrat last month about the Senate race in 2020.

She also separately met with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Hours before Abrams’s rebuttal on Tuesday, Sarah Riggs Amico, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Georgia last year, launched a fundraising campaign on the website Crowdpac to raise money for a potential bid for higher office by Abrams.

“There’s no better time to let her know that we’ll support her if she runs again,” Riggs Amico wrote on the Crowdpac page. “That’s why I’m launching a campaign to draft Stacey Abrams to run for federal office in 2020. For what? I’ll leave that decision up to her.”

Changing demographics and an influx of new residents from the northeast and Midwest, especially in Atlanta and its suburbs, have nudged Georgia into more favorable territory for Democrats in recent years and fueled the party’s hopes of turning the state into a political battleground.

While Abrams fell short in the governor’s race, Democrats flipped one House seat in the Atlanta suburbs and came close to winning another in a neighboring district, highlighting how the evolving demographics and frustration for Trump in the suburbs has swayed traditionally Republican-leaning areas.

“Georgia is now a battleground state. With Abrams giving the response, that creates the possibility for a Senate run and shows that Georgia is in the pathway equation to 270,” said Tharon Johnson, a Democratic strategist based in Georgia.

Still, Georgia has a red streak and hasn’t sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 2000, when Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat, won election to finish the term of the late Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.). Two years later, Sen. Max Cleland (D) lost his seat to Perdue’s predecessor, Republican Saxby Chambliss.

Perdue, 69, won a crowded GOP primary as a political outsider and was able to self-fund. The general election in 2014 captured national attention, but he defeated one of Democrats’ top recruits, nonprofit CEO Michelle Nunn, by an 8-point margin. Two years later, Trump went on to win Georgia by an even narrower 6-point margin.

Perdue, a businessman before his time in politics, has been a close ally of the president. Following Trump’s address, Perdue lauded his work over the past two years while also calling for “bipartisan solutions” to address health care, immigration and infrastructure.

“While we heard a positive message from President Trump, Democrats sat on their hands. There is a stark contrast between the positive results we’ve seen under President Trump and Democrats’ radical policies that have been proven to fail,” Perdue said in a Tuesday night statement.

Perdue has confirmed that he’s running for reelection in 2020 and said in a December interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he sees himself as “the outsider in the belly of the beast.”

Democrats have acknowledged that Perdue, whose cousin, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, is a former governor of Georgia, is an adept campaigner. And while Abrams will be able to win over base voters with a progressive record, she could risk alienating more moderate voters and independents who will be a crucial voter bloc in a general
election.

But local Democrats, like Rome City Commissioner Wendy Davis, argue that Abrams put together an unprecedented field program during her 2018 gubernatorial run.

Republicans blasted Abrams, arguing that she’s “trying to stay relevant” and is out of step with most Georgia voters.

“What Stacey Abrams fails to recognize is her radical views are in stark contrast to what the people of Georgia want, and getting the seal of approval from national Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will only drive her even further from Georgians,” said a GOP strategist familiar with the Perdue campaign.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... ifies-dems

<3



Trump: 'It's a mistake' for Stacey Abrams to run for Senate

BY MAX GREENWOOD - 02/06/19 03:37 PM EST

President Trump waded into the 2020 Georgia Senate race on Wednesday, casting doubt on Democrat Stacey Abrams’s chances of beating Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) if she mounts a campaign for his seat.

In an interview with a group of reporters, Trump said it would be a “mistake” for Abrams to enter the 2020 Senate race, because Perdue “will be very hard to beat.”

“I think it’s a mistake for her to run against him because I don’t think she can win,” Trump said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which was among the news outlets included in the interview.

The rebuke came a day after Abrams, the Democratic Party’s 2018 gubernatorial nominee in Georgia, delivered the Democratic rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union address in which she accused the president of sowing divisions and engineering a partial government shutdown as a political “stunt.”

Since her narrow defeat in Georgia’s gubernatorial race in November, Abrams has been floated as a potential challenger to Perdue, a wealthy former Reebok and Dollar General CEO who is up for reelection in 2020.

Perdue, who was first elected in 2014, is among nearly two dozen GOP senators facing reelection next year.

Democrats hope that shifting demographics in Georgia and an influx of new residents will help them make headway in a state that has been controlled largely by Republicans for more than a decade.

Abrams has been courted aggressively in recent months by Democrats who see her as a top-tier contender to challenge Perdue. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) approached her about delivering the Democratic State of the Union rebuttal last month.

Abrams also met separately with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

In his interview Wednesday, Trump raised the notion of Abrams mounting a 2020 White House campaign, saying that he would “love for her to run for president.”

“Why? Because so far I’m liking the candidates and she’d be another one I’d like,” he said. “To run for president you’re supposed to have won, unless you’re a nonpolitician like me. I’d never ran. I’m 1 for 1.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... for-senate

<4



LEGAL

House Intel votes to send witness transcripts to Mueller for possible perjury charges

By ANDREW DESIDERIO 02/06/2019 11:15 AM EST Updated 02/06/2019 02:39 PM EST

The House Intelligence Committee voted on Wednesday to send dozens of witness interview transcripts from its Russia investigation to special counsel Robert Mueller, who could use them to prosecute potential instances of perjury.

It’s the first act of the intelligence panel under the leadership of Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has vowed to revive the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller has already prosecuted some Trump associates for lying to Congress.

“The special counsel’s office, the Justice Department and its elements will now have access to those transcripts for any purpose which will facilitate justice,” Schiff told reporters after the committee’s vote, adding that the transcripts will be sent to Mueller’s investigators immediately.

The panel’s Democrats have long suggested that Donald Trump Jr. and other witnesses might have lied to the committee during its investigation and they’ve encouraged Mueller to examine whether perjury or obstruction of justice charges are warranted against them.

Federal investigators have already used some of the committee’s transcripts to prosecute at least two longtime Trump associates for perjury.

Last month, Mueller charged Roger Stone, a former top Trump adviser, with lying to the House Intelligence Committee. Those charges were announced a month after Mueller asked the committee for Stone’s interview transcripts, a request that was granted. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty to making false statements to the House and Senate intelligence panels about the failed Trump Tower Moscow project.

Before the vote, the GOP side of the committee released a statement calling for transparency with the interview transcripts.

“Republicans are happy the Democrats are joining us in reiterating what the Republican-led committee already voted to do in September 2018 — make all the transcripts available to the executive branch, including the Special Counsel’s office, as part of the process of publishing them for the American people to see,” the members said.

They also called on the committee to “immediately publish all the unclassified transcripts that we previously sent to the executive branch” and “subpoena numerous witnesses.” But a Republican motion to release the unclassified transcripts was denied. Schiff said the classification reviews for many of those transcripts were ongoing, suggesting it would be premature to publish the unclassified tranche. Republicans also tried to force subpoenas for 12 witnesses, but Democrats blocked that measure, too.

“A motion that we heard from the minority today that we compel people to come in without even seeing if they’re willing to come in was not something that we could entertain,” Schiff said. With some of the requested witnesses, he added, “we’re not even sure why they think their testimony would be relevant.”

Democrats wanted to give the transcripts to Mueller sooner. They accused House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of waiting too long to name the panel’s Republican members in order to slow down that process.

Cohen was slated to testify before the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors on Friday, but Schiff said on Wednesday the appearance would be postponed until Feb. 28 “in the interests of the investigation.”

Trump and his allies have tried to downplay the charges against Stone and Cohen, claiming they don’t prove any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Stone has pleaded not guilty and vowed to fight the charges against him, while Cohen has been cooperating with federal investigators and said he regrets lying out of loyalty to Trump.

When Republicans controlled the committee last year, then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) ended the panel’s Russia investigation and concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

But Democrats said they would press on with the probe, arguing that key witnesses had not been interviewed. Schiff is reviving the investigation, placing a focus on potential money laundering and pledging to dive into the Trump Organization’s finances, among other issues.

On Wednesday, the committee announced the parameters of its investigation, which Schiff said will “go beyond Russia” and “will allow us to investigate any credible allegation that financial interests or other interests are driving the decision-making of the president or anyone in the administration.”

In a statement, Schiff said House investigators will broaden the scope of the Russia probe by looking into whether Trump or his associates “have sought to influence U.S. government policy in service of foreign interests” and “whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates.”

In response, Trump lashed out at Schiff, accusing the chairman of unfairly singling him out.

“Under what basis would he do that? He has no basis to do that. He’s just a political hack,” Trump said Wednesday from the White House. “He’s trying to build a name for himself. And I think that’s fine because that’s what they do. But there would be no reason to do that. No other politician has to go through that. It’s called presidential harassment. And it’s unfortunate. And it really does hurt our country.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... on-1152048

<5



Trump, Democrats clash over probes

BY MORGAN CHALFANT AND JORDAN FABIAN - 02/06/19 07:55 PM EST

President Trump and House Democrats on Wednesday opened up a pitched battle over an intensifying set of investigations, the latest sign partisan warfare may extinguish chances of bipartisan cooperation on major issues under divided government.

The public clash came one day after Trump slammed Democrats for “ridiculous partisan investigations” in his State of the Union address. Undeterred, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee charged ahead with plans for a sweeping investigation into Russia’s election interference and Trump’s finances.

Trump responded by blasting Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as a “political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself” and as having “no basis” for launching the probe. “It’s just presidential harassment, and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country,” Trump told reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Schiff shot back that he “won’t be distracted or intimidated by threats or attacks” by Trump. “I can understand why the idea of meaningful oversight terrifies the president,” the California Democrat tweeted. “Several of his close associates are going to jail, others await trial, and criminal investigations continue.”

The Intelligence panel’s investigation is one of several House Democrats are launching using their newfound majority, all of which promise to dog the president well into his 2020 reelection campaign.

Trump is also grappling with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether members of his 2016 presidential campaign coordinated with Moscow, in addition to a federal probe into payments made during the race by then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to women who claimed to have had affairs with the former business mogul.

The president’s comments on Wednesday stood in stark contrast to the measured tone Trump used in portions of his State of the Union address the night before.

Well aware House Democrats are eager to pursue him after spending eight years in the minority, Trump warned them during his annual address that partisan probes could end the “economic miracle” happening under his watch.

“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” he said.

But Trump also dangled the possibility of bipartisan compromise on issues such as infrastructure, drug pricing and trade if Democrats heed his warnings.

Party leaders appeared uninterested in playing along. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday called Trump’s remarks a “threat” to the legislative branch and its oversight authorities.

“The president should not bring threats to the floor of the House,” Pelosi told reporters following a Democratic caucus meeting.

Trump isn’t without his defenders on Capitol Hill. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday suggested investigations into the president “should come to a close.”

“Look, we will never give up our oversight role, but this country is too great for a small vision of just investigations,” McCarthy said. “There are challenges out there that we have to get done. And to be fair, we have been investigating for the last two years.”

But there is little Republicans can do to thwart the blizzard of Democrat-led probes, a stark disadvantage of being shuffled to the minority.

The salvos between the White House and House Democrats also highlight arguably the biggest decision Pelosi and her lieutenants will face in this Congress: whether to start impeachment proceedings against Trump. While Pelosi and other leaders have said they will need to review Mueller’s final report, Trump last month said, “You can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job.” Last year, he said “people would revolt” if Democrats pursued impeachment.

Schiff on Wednesday outlined the parameters of the committee’s expanded Russia investigation, which he revived as one of his first orders of business as chairman — months after Republicans on the committee abruptly ended it last spring.

In addition to probing potential coordination between the Russians and other foreign entities and the Trump campaign, Schiff said the panel would focus on Trump’s business interests and whether he, his family or his associates were ever at “heightened risk” for foreign exploitation or coercion.

The committee’s first major witness is expected to be Cohen, who is facing a three-year prison sentence for campaign finance violations and other crimes, and who has been a key cooperator in Mueller’s investigation.

Cohen has admitted to lying to the House and Senate Intelligence panels about plans to build a Trump property in Moscow —doing so in order to minimize links between the project and then-candidate Trump at a key moment in the 2016 campaign.

The committee was supposed to grill Cohen behind closed doors on Friday, but Schiff on Wednesday postponed his testimony until Feb. 28, days before he is supposed to report to prison. Trump has slammed Cohen as a “rat” lying to investigators in order to reduce his jail sentence.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee is separately negotiating an appearance by Cohen, after he abruptly canceled public testimony, citing threats from Trump and the president’s lawyer in the Russia probe, Rudy Giuliani.

The White House has beefed up its legal and communications teams to prepare for the coming onslaught from Democrats.

Last week, it was officially announced that attorneys Michael Purpura, Patrick Philbin and Kate Comerford Todd would be joining White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s office as deputies. Cipollone is expected to bring in roughly 17 lawyers to help with the effort.

Steven Groves, who formerly worked in the counsel’s office, was moved into the press shop to respond to investigations.

Other probes on a wide variety of topics are sure to produce more headaches for the president.

The Oversight panel has also launched a wide-ranging probe into the White House security clearance process, requesting a trove of documents from the administration on current and former officials who were cleared to view classified information.

Various Democrats are also targeting Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over the administration’s decision to lift sanctions on firms tied to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

“What we’re going to do is we are going to get Mr. Mnuchin into the committee and ask him real pointed questions about delisting [Deripaska’s companies],” House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday.

And Friday, the House Judiciary Committee will publicly question acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, a political ally the president installed atop the Justice Department following Jeff Sessions’s ouster, about his oversight of the special counsel’s investigation.

Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is planning to authorize a subpoena to compel Whitaker to testify — just in case he tries to avoid appearing or relies on executive privilege to sidestep questions about his communications with the White House.

“My understanding is that you will provide full and complete answers to these questions when they are asked at your hearing this Friday,” Nadler wrote in a letter to Whitaker Wednesday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ver-probes

<6



ABOUT TIME

Justice Department Opens Investigation Into Jeffrey Epstein’s Controversial Plea Deal

The probe will examine whether federal prosecutors “may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved.”

Pilar Melendez 02.06.19 5:51 PM ET

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into convicted sex offender and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal, and whether department lawyers may have “committed professional misconduct” during his prosecution.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd revealed that the agency’s Office of Personal Responsibility (OPR) is conducting the probe in a letter to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), who raised “significant concerns” after a bombshell investigative report by The Miami Herald unearthed new details about Epstein’s lenient plea agreement.

“OPR has now opened an investigation into allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved,’’ Boyd said, noting that the results of the investigation will be shared with Sasse, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Miami Herald report detailed how Epstein—who has been accused of molesting more than 100 underage girls in Palm Beach, Florida—was granted a plea deal by now Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta and other DOJ attorneys.

Sasse’s demand for an investigation was echoed by 14 lawmakers from across the aisle, who wrote a similar letter in December urging the DOJ inspector general to open a probe.

“Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist and there’s not a single mom or dad in America who shouldn’t be horrified by the fact that he received a pathetically soft sentence,” Sasse said in a press release Wednesday. “The victims of Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring deserve this investigation—and so do the American people and the members of law enforcement who work to put these kinds of monsters behind bars.”

After pressure by Epstein’s defense lawyers, including Sexgate prosecutor Ken Starr and celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz, the 2008 plea deal was secretly constructed by Acosta, then Miami’s top federal prosecutor, and other attorneys unbeknownst to the billionaire’s alleged victims, the Herald investigation found.

The non-prosecution deal effectively buried dozens of allegations of sexual abuse at his Palm Beach mansion, and dismissed claims that Epstein ran a sex pyramid scheme from his home.

Instead of facing life in prison for the sex-trafficking charges, Epstein, 66, only pleaded guilty to two minor charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution.

The politically connected billionaire, who has counted Donald Trump and Bill Clinton among his famous friends, ultimately served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the private wing of a Palm Beach county jail and was permitted to leave six days a week, for 16 hours each day, for “work release,” as previously reported by The Daily Beast.

The Labor Department did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

Virginia Roberts, who was a 16-year-old working at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort when she was allegedly approached by Epstein, told The Daily Beast Wednesday the probe is “wonderful but a little too late.”

“I’m glad that people are finally listening and taking action to the horrible things Jeffrey Epstein did,” Roberts, who alleges Epstein began instructing her on how to perform oral sex before sending her to a private island to have sex with his associates.

“Unfortunately, until we finally get our day in court, the victims have not received justice. We just want to be able to tell our story and find closure.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/justice-d ... ref=scroll

<7



TRADE

Farmers nearing crisis push back on Trump trade policies

By RYAN MCCRIMMON 02/06/2019 12:34 PM EST Updated 02/06/2019 05:28 PM EST

President Donald Trump’s trade war is magnifying some of the toughest farm conditions since the crisis that bankrupted thousands of farmers in the 1980s — and threatening a constituency crucial to his reelection hopes.

The president’s trade policies have sent U.S. agricultural exports plunging, exacerbating already difficult economic conditions facing farmers. Average farm income has fallen to near 15-year lows under Trump, and in some areas of the country, farm bankruptcies are soaring.

The fate of the farm economy and rural America is fused to Trump’s political future. Farmers and ranchers make up the heart of his base, and their support in battleground Midwestern states like Iowa and Wisconsin could help determine the 2020 presidential election. Although Trump’s standing with those groups generally remains strong, cracks are starting to show.

Hundreds of farmers and business representatives are in Washington this week to pressure lawmakers and the Trump administration to end the trade war by describing the hardships they are facing.

“A lot of farmers are going to give the president the benefit of the doubt, and have to date. But the longer the trade war goes on, the more that dynamic changes,” said Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, one of the groups organizing the fly-in.

There are signs that agriculture’s compounding challenges are already pushing some producers over the edge — at least in certain regions and sectors.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis warned in November of rising Chapter 12 bankruptcies, used by family farmers to restructure debt. The Fed said that the strain of low commodity prices “is starting to show up not just in bottom-line profitability, but in simple viability.” The increase was driven by woes in Wisconsin’s dairy sector, which shrunk by about 1,200 operations, or 13 percent, from 2016 to October 2018.

“The farm economy’s in pretty tough shape,” said John Newton, chief economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “When you look out on the horizon of things to come, you start to see some cracks.”

To be sure, most experts don’t think the conditions will get back to the devastation of the 1980s when interest rates soared and farmland values plummeted. That drove thousands of farms into foreclosure, shuttered dozens of agricultural banks and transformed some rural communities into ghost towns.

But as the 2019 planting season nears, the continuing trade war, higher interest rates and glut of various commodities could require farmers to lean on the government for relief.

Right now, the Agriculture Department isn’t planning any more trade aid programs like the payments that helped farmers like Billy Rochelle get close to breaking even for 2018.

“We’ve seen better years,” said Rochelle, who raises corn, soybeans, wheat and beef cattle near Centerville, Tenn. “We’re adjusting accordingly, trying to survive just like everybody else.”

At the annual American Farm Bureau convention last month in New Orleans, Trump delivered a speech to the largely supportive audience in which he boasted about “setting records together for farmers and for agriculture.” But outside the auditorium, farmers and ranchers described numerous concerns — especially the uncertainty around Trump’s trade agenda.

“I don’t see it getting any better until we get something resolved with China,” Rochelle said.

The administration wrapped up another round of negotiations with China last week, but a deal has yet to emerge. Trump’s three-way agreement with Canada and Mexico also faces a difficult road ahead in Congress.

In the meantime, retaliatory tariffs from those countries continue to weigh on crop prices — one of the biggest factors dragging down farm profitability.

“You’ve had farms that have gone out of business, that have gone bankrupt because of this trade war,” said Kuehl of Farmers for Free Trade. “There’s a lot of farmers going through tough conversations right now with their lenders.”

House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has raised the possibility of Congress providing additional aid for farmers in the next year or two. He told POLITICO recently that he was “worried” about agriculture in 2019. Even with a new farm bill signed into law, H.R. 2 , the farm safety net “is not good enough.”

“With the low-price situation already and the trade stuff, I think we’re going to have people not get financed this winter, and next winter is going to be worse if this doesn’t change,” Peterson said.

Farm Credit System bankers said last month they expect producers to weather another difficult year. But so far, they haven’t yet seen a dire number of loan delinquencies or farmers leaving the business, other than the struggling dairy sector. That means it’s not too late for the government to intervene — either on trade policies or farm subsidies — to help farmers.

It’s “clear that we are at a tipping point for a growing number of producers,” said Marc Knisely, CEO of Fargo-based AgCountry Farm Credit Services.

“You can only lose money for so long,” Knisely added. “We’re at a vulnerable stage.”

Some of the same pieces from the 1980s are now falling into place. Headwinds like Trump’s trade feuds, rising operating costs and higher interest rates are converging. And if a recession in the broader economy strikes, which some economists expect in the near term, it could dump agriculture into a full-blown disaster.

The recent five-week shutdown froze government programs to assist producers with financing, planting decisions and much more. If another shutdown comes after Feb. 15, it will seriously interfere with the spring planting season, further complicating the picture for farmers.

“I think there will be a lot of financial stress this year,” said Brent Gloy, an agricultural economist and founder of Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture. “However, I don’t think it will resemble the problems of the 1980s unless another big external shock comes,” like further deterioration in trade relations or a faster rise in interest rates.

Interest rates in the 1980s hit all-time highs as the Federal Reserve moved to tamp down inflation. That made business more expensive for farmers and ranchers reliant on certain types of loans to finance their operations. Farm income had dropped to a meager $8.2 billion by 1983 — compared with $92.1 billion a decade earlier, according to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation report.

“In the ’80s, the interest rates got out of control — 13 percent, 14 percent operating loans. Right now we’re at 5, 6 percent,” said Illinois Farm Bureau board member Randy Poskin, a corn and soybean grower who started farming in the early 1980s.

But there are other parallels. Farm debt is nearing the record levels set in the ‘80s, accounting for inflation, according to USDA statistics, and farm expenses are rising. Fertilizer and equipment have become costlier, due partly to Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and certain chemicals made in China.

“It’s similar in that input costs have really gotten a big percentage of our profits,” Poskin said at the farmers’ conference. “Prices are not enough to cover sometimes if you have poor yields.”

The next few weeks could be critical in shaping how 2019 will turn out for U.S. agriculture: U.S. and Chinese officials have until March 1 to reach a trade deal before Trump ratchets up tariffs and Beijing retaliates.

The outcome of the trade talks could help ease the economic pressure on farmers and ranchers — or push the industry closer to a full-blown farm crisis. Either result is likely to have consequences for the 2020 election.

“If the farm economy continues to get worse in the run-up to 2020, my sense is that this will be devastating to Trump,” said Gregory Wawro, political science professor at Columbia University. “Although it is difficult to defeat a sitting president, it is hard to see how Trump wins a second term if things play out that way.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... es-1147987

<8



Arizona city officials decry new razor wire on border wall

[ ISN'T THAT A THING OF BEAUTY - PENNY FOR THEIR THOUGHTS ]

today 2.6.19

NOGALES, Ariz. (AP) — Officials in a small Arizona border city are decrying the installation of new razor wire that now covers the entirety of a tall border wall through downtown.

The city council in Nogales, which sits on the border with Nogales, Mexico, is set to consider a resolution Wednesday night condemning the use of concertina wire. It follows reports that U.S. troops installed more horizontal layers of the wire along the border fence over the weekend.

The vote also comes one day after President Donald Trump made his case to the American people about the need for a border wall to protect the nation and how he has ordered 3,750 troops to prepare for what he called a “tremendous onslaught.”

Concertina wire has become the most visible sign of Trump’s deployment amid anxieties about a Central American caravan around the time of the midterm elections.

Soldiers have installed concertina at or near several official crossings at the border. In late November, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the military had sent 36 miles (58 kilometers) of concertina for use in California, Arizona, and Texas.

At the start of November, soldiers in Texas installed lines of wire coils below a major bridge near McAllen.

Photos published by the Nogales International newspaper show six rows of concertina wire stacked along the approximately two-story wall.

Nogales, a city of about 20,000 people, is a fraction of the size of its Mexican counterpart, but its economy is largely reliant on Mexican shoppers and cross-border trade. Illegal crossings in that area have dropped steeply in the past several years.

Mayor Arturo Garino told the paper that he asked U.S. Sen. Martha McSally to help the city have the wire removed during a visit to the border last month.

A spokeswoman for McSally said the senator was working on a response to an inquiry from The Associated Press.

The mayor said authorities didn’t tell him why more wire was installed.

He said he was most concerned that children and others could be injured now that it reaches the ground. The downtown area is also residential, and there are homes that stand a few feet from the border fence.

“Aesthetically pleasing — it’s not. It’s very bad. It’s not good for business, it’s not good for what we’re trying to create, a business-friendly community here in Nogales,” Garino told the AP.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Defense did not respond to inquiries about why additional wire was installed last weekend.

City leaders were critical of military exercises at the border during the holiday season, saying they believed it scared shoppers.

The resolution the city council is scheduled to vote on says concertina wire is typically something found in battlefields, and that placing it along the border fence is “not only irresponsible but inhuman.”

In a tweet, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called its placement a stunt by the Trump administration, which he said is “trying to create the perception of rampant lawlessness and crime.”

The Nogales measure would be one of the more direct swipes against one of Trump’s signature initiatives. In September 2017, the San Diego City Council adopted a resolution that said Trump’s walls would be “damaging symbols of fear and division that will increase tensions with Mexico, one of the United States’ largest trading partners and a neighbor with which communities such as San Diego in the border region are inextricably linked culturally, physically, and economically.”

It said Trump’s proposal “could destroy the vitality of U.S.- Mexico relations and act as a separation to our unique, diverse, and beautiful region.”

The San Diego resolution passed 5-3, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. Kevin Faulconer, the city’s Republican mayor didn’t back the statement but didn’t veto it either. The mayor often says the U.S. should focus on building bridges instead of walls.

Other border mayors have also been critical.

“We have a fence here. The fence is fine. It does what it’s supposed to do,” Dee Margo, the Republican mayor of El Paso, Texas, said last year. “I hear the term wall, I think of the Berlin Wall. I think it’s pretty detrimental to the relationships that have lasted more than 400 years.”

The number of arrests by the Border Patrol is the lowest since the early 1970s, while the number of agents has more than doubled.

Over 1.6 million arrests were made by just about 9,200 agents nationwide in the 2000. But those figures tapered off as the government dramatically increased staffing and resources like more surveillance technology and tall, steel fencing.

By last fiscal year, about 19,000 Border Patrol agents made 310,000 arrests.

https://www.apnews.com/363883965e2e4014ae89eabfd8d7905a

<9



2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA report

Last year was also one of the most expensive in disaster damages in the United States.

By Umair Irfan Feb 6, 2019, 6:30pm EST

NASA and NOAA released their analysis of the global climate in 2018 on Wednesday, revealing that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record. The other four in the top five all happened in the past five years, a reminder that we’ve seen a lot of rapid warming lately. And the planet will warm further, especially since greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise.

Some of that heat came in the form of heat waves that took hundreds of lives. The heat also helped fuel record-breaking disasters, like the Camp Fire in California, that wiped out cities and left thousands homeless.

Wednesday’s reports (which were delayed by the government shutdown) also contained a striking animation showing how multiple research groups using different methods have come to very similar conclusions about the planet’s warming.


The more pressing question is how much these temperatures will continue to rise as we keep spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And the biggest uncertainty there is just what humanity ends up doing to mitigate its emissions.

In the short term, scientists expect the world to get hotter. This year, a simmering El Niño cycle threatens to bring more scorching weather. “We do anticipate the next El Niño will bring record or near-record temperatures,” said NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt during a conference call with reporters.

Already, Australia was baked in its hottest January on record, followed by massive flooding. So another record-setting year will likely lead to more heat waves around the world, along with drought and drying vegetation, contributing to massive wildfires. That in turn will cost jobs, homes, and lives.

Climate change continues to cost us dearly

There were a couple other interesting points in these reports worth flagging. The first is that the economic damage from disasters is skewing toward a handful of massive individual events like hurricanes and wildfires rather than more frequent, smaller events.

Out of the climate and weather disasters that struck the United States in 2018, 14 carried damage tallies of more than $1 billion. The total economic hit was $91 billion, making it the fourth most-expensive year.

“These billion-dollar disaster events are becoming an increasingly larger percentage of the cumulative damage from the full distribution of weather-related events at all scales and loss levels,” NOAA’s Adam Smith wrote in a blog post about the findings.


Climate change is certainly playing a major role in the growing devastation from extreme weather: Sea level rise from melting ice is expanding the reach of storm surges. More frequent hot, dry weather is fueling fires in the western United States.

But the fact that these events are getting more expensive is more a signal that the economy is growing and populations are increasing, so costlier real estate is in harm’s way. For example, the largest sources of these damages are hurricanes. About 40 percent of the US population already lives in coastal counties, so as the number of people in those regions goes up, so do the economic risks from severe weather.

It’s an important thing to keep in mind as we aim to reduce our risks from the changes in the climate that are baked in right now and whether we will rebuild or retreat in the wake of a disaster.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18214188/2 ... -nasa-noaa

<10



Michigan's GOP House moves to void Dem governor's decision on environmental panels

BY AVERY ANAPOL - 02/06/19 07:34 PM EST

The Republican-controlled Michigan state House voted to reject newly-elected Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s sweeping environmental executive action.

Whitmer earlier in the week used an executive order to abolish industry-backed panels put in place by her Republican predecessor to review environmental regulations, according to the Detroit Free Press. Environmentalists had praised the move, while business groups such as the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Farm Bureau urged lawmakers to reject it.

Those panels, dubbed “polluter panels” by environmental activists, are comprised of both government-appointed members and business representatives and have the power to review proposed environmental regulations and permits.

In moving to abolish them, Whitmer said that the committees “created more bureaucracy.”

“Their goal I think is not a bad goal ... to ensure that everyone has the ability to have input,” she said, according to the Associated Press. “But we think that this makes a lot more sense, to have people who truly are accountable to the public making the decision.”

She also suggested that the panels established may be in violation of the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Lawmakers told the Detroit Free Press that they did not object to other parts of Whitmer’s order that restructured the state’s top environmental agency, and said they would accept the order if Whitmer removed the part abolishing the panels.

The governor criticized the House’s vote, saying: "For the House Republicans to vote against clean drinking water ... I think is terribly short-sighted and and dangerous,” according to the Free Press.

Critics of the panels, including environmentalists and some government officials, argued that the commissions undermined the governor and gave too much power to business interests.

Supporters said that the review panels ensured that everyone has a “seat at the table” and improved transparency on important environmental laws.

The Michigan state Senate is expected to vote on the resolution as soon as Thursday, according to the Detroit Free Press. If the Republican-controlled body also rejects the order, it will kill the governor's order.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... order-over

<

<1



The 'Green New Deal' Was Unveiled Thursday. But Parts of It Are Already Underway

By JUSTIN WORLAND February 7, 2019

Workers in Oregon paid by the federal government to make homes more energy efficient. Union members in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey teaching “green skills” to workers. A city in Colorado working toward powering itself with 100% clean energy to attract jobs.

These are the kinds of projects that progressive backers of a Green New Deal promise to create to fight climate change.

But while the sweeping first draft of the plan unveiled Thursday included ambitious goals like eliminating the U.S. carbon footprint by 2030, some of the smaller ideas that backers would say would help it achieve those goals are already being implemented around the country.

Environmentalists say that the resolution put forward by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and veteran Sen. Ed Markey is a high-level view of the goals they’re setting, but they note that many of the individual ideas in it can be achieved on their own by mayors, governors and the stroke of a future Democratic president’s pen. Some ideas might even pass the current Congress, they argue.

“We’re trying to define a future, a society and a country that we want to create,” says Greg Carlock, a researcher who authored a report on the Green New Deal for the progressive group Data for Progress. “That is a lot of legislative work. That is a lot of new promulgation of regulation. And that is also a lot of work at the state and local level.”

In recent months, the Green New Deal has gone from a slogan to an idea rapidly gaining currency on the left. Backers hope that by putting concrete ideas forward now, they can get the growing Democratic field of presidential candidates to throw its support behind it, building momentum for a big legislative push if Trump loses re-election.

The scale of this proposed Green New Deal is new, but some of the ideas in it have a long and surprisingly bipartisan history. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Green Jobs Act, funding a slew of green jobs training programs across the country as part of big energy package. On the campaign trail the following year, both John McCain and Barack Obama expressed their support for green jobs. And when the recession hit, the federal government deployed billions more to invest in everything from clean energy research and development to rapidly creating green jobs.

Officials at the state and local level have taken similar action. A cap-and-trade program in California has provided billions in funding for everything from high-speed rail to green infrastructure, helping make the state a green leader. And more than 100 mayors across the country have expressed support for local versions of the zero-emissions targets embedded in the resolution unveiled Thursday.

Still, even with the past successes, skepticism over that proposal — more of an agenda-setting document than a comprehensive plan — remains deep on both sides of the aisle.

The Green New Deal resolution put forward on Thursday includes a wide range of planks from big-picture goals like net-zero carbon emissions in the U.S. by 2030, fixing the country’s infrastructure and providing all Americans with access to health care, and it’s hard to imagine Congress agreeing to all of its provisions. Indeed, Republicans have branded the Green New Deal as radical while many mainstream Democrats have praised the enthusiasm while dismissing it as naive. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Thursday.

Supporters say they are optimistic not naive and hope that a big and splashy legislative package will become law in the early days of a new president’s term. Still, some say, some of the more palatable legislative proposals may make their way through Congress in separate legislation, perhaps even before a new president takes office.

“There’s going to be different members who are going to grab a small piece of that and push out a bill,” says Carlock. “It’s going to be good common- sense drinking water infrastructure, or zero-waste stuff, or sustainable farming to make farming affordable.”

That’s a step toward meeting some of the ambitions of a Green New Deal, but it leaves a gap, particularly when it comes to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and fixing some of society’s most pressing social ills. To do that, piecemeal efforts will not be enough.

“Policies have to be introduced immediately at the federal level,” says Vien Truong, the president of Green for All, a progressive group that supports a Green New Deal. “We have to start calling people to the mat — are they in or are they out? Are they going to be for actually beginning to address this with the level of urgency that we need or are they going to stand there on the sidelines and literally watch the tides roll in?”

The Green New Deal still has a ways to go, legislatively. But even as it began those first steps, parts of it are already in place.

http://time.com/5524167/green-new-deal- ... -congress/

<2



Nancy Pelosi embraces the “enthusiasm” behind the Green New Deal

Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both want to tackle climate change. But they don’t have the same vision for how to do it.

By Ella Nilsenella.nilsen@vox.com Feb 7, 2019, 5:30pm EST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered up measured, careful praise of the newly released Green New Deal on Thursday.

“Frankly, I haven’t seen it, but I do know it’s enthusiastic, and I welcome all the enthusiasm,” Pelosi told reporters, just hours before Green New Deal sponsors Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) held their own press conference.

The resolution, which has skyrocketed to the top of the progressive agenda, outlines an all-encompassing plan that prioritizes climate change alongside economic justice and calls for federal investment into green infrastructure on a massive scale.

It’s already become a progressive rallying cry and litmus test in the 2020 presidential race, but its future in the House is less certain. Pelosi is correct that there is “enthusiasm” on the left for this idea, but this isn’t the first time she has tried to tackle climate change with legislation, and failed. She knows binding the entire Democratic Party around one idea is tricky — especially an idea that’s so bold.

It’s clear Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez both think climate change should be a top priority for Democrats to tackle if they take back the White House and Senate in 2020, but they may well differ on how to go about it. While the speaker is excited about the newfound public push to stop climate change, she is also clear-eyed about the difficult trade-offs ahead.

What Pelosi has said about the Green New Deal so far
Activists have been scrutinizing Pelosi’s statements around the Green New Deal closely. Some thought she appeared to snub the resolution before it had even appeared during an interview with Politico released Thursday morning.

“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

But Ocasio-Cortez, determined to project unity around her resolution, was not about to start a fight with the speaker of the House over her signature issue. Asked if she believed Pelosi’s comments were derogatory, Ocasio-Cortez pushed back.

“No, I think it is a green dream. I don’t consider to be that a dismissive term,” she said. “Nancy Pelosi is a leader on climate, has always been a leader on climate, and I will not allow our caucus to be divided up by silly notions of whatever narrative. We are in this together.”

The important context for all this is that the push for the Green New Deal was originally a campaign calling on Pelosi to form a select committee to tackle climate change. Ocasio-Cortez made headlines by joining climate activists for a sit-in in Pelosi’s office to demand one before she was even sworn in as a member of Congress.

Pelosi granted at least part of their wish, offering up the Select Committee on Climate Change, led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL). But the negotiation over the committee’s formation was contentious — activists wanted it to be a powerful committee with subpoena power, something Pelosi did not grant.

Pelosi released the names of the Democrats who would make up that committee on Thursday, and Ocasio-Cortez’s name was conspicuously absent. Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi separately told reporters that the speaker had invited Ocasio-Cortez to join, but she had declined because she had other committee commitments. She also suggested she was more interested in working on legislative solutions to climate change, rather than the investigative work Castor’s committee will be tasked with.

Pelosi knows the current political reality won’t let a Green New Deal happen in the next two years, or perhaps ever. But she doesn’t seem to think giving the issue more attention is a bad thing.

“Public sentiment will help us pass the most bold common denominator,” she said on Thursday. “I’m very excited about all of it, and I welcome a Green New Deal and any other proposals people have out there.”

Pelosi has been here before
The House speaker knows the challenge of pushing through climate change legislation; she personally drove a 2009 cap-and-trade bill to pass the House, despite its more conservative caucus. Still, the bill ultimately failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“My flagship issue under President Bush was climate, addressing the climate crisis, and increasing energy independence for our country,” Pelosi told reporters on Thursday.

Some of the same players are involved in the new effort. Before he was the main Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, Markey was one of the House members behind the very same cap-and-trade bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act but also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

The bill, which leaned into market-based solutions and was much narrower in scope than the Green New Deal, would have capped the amount of carbon the United States was able to produce by mandating that companies that emitted carbon would have to buy or sell permits to do so. By putting a price on carbon, the thinking was, it would incentivize industry, manufacturing, and energy companies to produce less or look for renewable sources.

Pelosi whipped enough votes for it to pass in the House, despite the protests of moderate Democrats who feared that voting for a seemingly liberal bill would make them lose their seats (indeed, Republicans swept into power during the 2010 midterms).

“It could not have passed without Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House of Representatives,” Markey said. “There’s no question Nancy Pelosi was the champion and will continue to be the champion to put together the team on every legislative committee to produce the legislation to solve this problem.”

The current Green New Deal proposal pans the idea of cap and trade, saying that it may be “a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal.” That 2009 bill tried to provide incentives for private industry to self-correct, while the Green New Deal plan envisions a much broader role for the federal government to implement a massive overhaul of infrastructure, manufacturing, and business.

“Cap and trade assumes the existing market will solve the problem for us, and that’s simply not true,” a frequently asked questions list accompanying the resolution states.

The Green New Deal is a mission statement. It still needs Pelosi’s support.
Pelosi has a lot of power to decide what bills make it to the floor. She’ll have a large hand in determining whether that climate bill is something more like a cap-and-trade 2.0 or a Green New Deal.

Pelosi has fiercely defended the 2009 bill, calling it one of the House’s “proudest boasts.” And she has vowed to resurrect some sort of climate bill in the next two years, now that she has resumed her leadership as speaker.

“We couldn’t pass in the Senate our climate bill, and we’ll be returning to that,” Pelosi said last month.

Pelosi said she welcomes other ideas on Thursday, and many of the chairs of her committees are working on some. Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) recently told Vox he intends to hold multiple subcommittee hearings on the best way to get the nation’s infrastructure to be less dependent on fossil fuels.

“In surface transportation, it’s probably electrification, we’ve got to basically rebuild the highway system that came from the Eisenhower plan and when we rebuild it, we should put in the backbone for electrification,” DeFazio said. “There’s another possibility we can go to fuel cells if we can figure out how to make green hydrogen.”

While he says he supports the idea of the Green New Deal, he’s expressed doubt at the political feasibility of the plan.

“The idea that in five years or 10 years we’re not going to consume any more fossil fuels is technologically impossible,” he recently told Politico.

It remains to be seen whether Pelosi sides with those like Ocasio-Cortez or those like DeFazio. But she knows compromise is necessary.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18215571/n ... sio-cortez

<3



Democrats and GOP square off over Trump’s tax returns

By MARCY GORDON 49 minutes ago 2.7.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Democrats now controlling the House and holding the legal key to seeking President Donald Trump’s tax returns, Republican lawmakers are invoking privacy in defending Trump’s flank.

At an oversight hearing Thursday, lawmakers examined proposals to compel presidents and presidential candidates to make years of their tax returns public. And they discussed the authority under current law for the head of the House Ways and Means Committee — now Democratic Rep. Richard Neal — to make a written request for any tax returns to the Treasury secretary.

The law says the Treasury chief “shall furnish” the requested information to members of the committee for them to examine behind closed doors.

Republicans accused the Democrats of using powers in the tax law to mount a political witch hunt for Trump’s tax returns.

“In reality, this is all about weaponizing our tax laws to attack a political foe,” Rep. Jackie Walorski of Indiana said at the hearing by the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee.

Getting Trump’s returns has been high on the Democrats’ list of priorities since they won control of the House in November’s midterm elections, but asking for them will probably set off a huge legal battle with his administration.

The Democrats tried and failed several times to obtain Trump’s returns as the minority party in Congress, seeking to shed light on his complex financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest. Their newly energized leftward wing is pushing Neal to set the quest in motion, and fast.

Thursday’s hearing appeared to set the table for the move by examining the legal foundations.

“A strong case is being built,” William Tranghese, an aide to Neal, told The Associated Press this week. He said Neal is consulting with lawyers for the House “to determine the appropriate legal steps to go forward with this unprecedented request.”

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of the oversight subcommittee, said the American public is intensely interested in the subject. “We ask the question: Does the public have a need to know that a person seeking or holding the highest office in our country obeys the tax laws?”

George Yin, a professor of law and taxation at University of Virginia Law School, testified to the panel that he doesn’t see any “wiggle room” in the law for the Treasury secretary to refuse Neal’s request for Trump’s returns.

If the Trump administration refused the request, “We would be in uncharted territory,” Yin said.

The legal battle that could ensue over Trump’s tax filings would be unprecedented. It could take years to resolve, possibly stretching beyond the 2020 presidential election.

Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, the subcommittee’s senior Republican, accused the Democrats of gearing up to obtain the president’s returns — and release them.

“Congress is prohibited by law from examining and making public the private tax returns of Americans for political purposes,” said Kelly. “Such an abuse of power would open a Pandora’s box. It would set a very dangerous precedent.”

The tax returns of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, other lawmakers or federal employees could be in jeopardy, he warned.

But Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., insisted that no one, including the president, is above the law. “The law is on our side,” he said.

At a news conference Thursday, Pelosi said the public “overwhelmingly” wants to see Trump’s tax returns, but the move cannot be made in haste.

“It’s not just a question of sending a letter; you have to do it in a very careful way. And the chairman of the committee (Neal) will be doing that,” the Democrats’ leader said.

The hearing came two days after Trump faced a divided Congress in his State of the Union address, imploring the Democrats to step away from “ridiculous partisan investigations.”

The subcommittee also examined a proposal that would require all presidents, vice presidents and candidates for those offices to make public 10 years of tax returns. It’s part of House Democrats’ comprehensive election and ethics reform package — their first major bill for the new Congress this year. The legislation also would make it easier for citizens to register and vote, and ban executive-branch officials from lobbying their old agency for two years after they leave government.

While the ethics bill includes a range of reforms, some Democrats have made clear that one of their chief targets is Trump. Some elements of the bill have bipartisan support, but the overall package is unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled Senate.

If the administration mounted a legal challenge over Trump’s returns, “I assume that there would be a court case that would go on for a period of time,” Neal, D-Mass., said just after the November election.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin “will review any request with the Treasury general counsel for legality,” the department has said. Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani has suggested the Democrats could have a hard time proving their demand was intended for pursuing legitimate congressional oversight and was not a political scavenger hunt.

Trump broke with decades of tradition for presidential candidates by refusing to release his income tax filings during his 2016 campaign. He has said he won’t release them because he is being audited, even though IRS officials have said taxpayers under audit are free to release their returns. Trump claimed at a news conference following the November elections that the filings are too complex for people to understand.

Democrats want to dive in and explore numerous questions about Trump’s personal financial webs. Among them: whether there are conflicts of interest between his companies and his presidential actions; what are the sources of his income and to whom he might be beholden as a result; whether he’s properly paid taxes; and whether he benefited from the sweeping Republican-written tax law enacted in late 2017.

https://www.apnews.com/40eda9dedcda4aadb71597015dec6cbc

<4



Trump goes off on sweeping House investigation into Russia, his finances

"The Republicans never did this to President Obama," Trump wrote, "there would be no time left to run government."

Feb. 7, 2019, 6:51 AM CST / Updated Feb. 7, 2019, 12:21 PM CST

By Allan Smith

President Donald Trump on Thursday morning escalated his complaints about the myriad of investigations he is facing, tweeting that there was "no reason" for the House Intelligence Committee to open a sweeping probe into whether his decision-making as president is motivated by financial gain.

Trump on Wednesday complained that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff had "no basis to" expand his committee's Russia investigation, calling the California Democrat a "political hack."

“It’s just presidential harassment and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country,” Trump told reporters of the new probe.

On Wednesday, Schiff announced that his committee would examine connections between the Trump campaign and Russia to determine whether any presidential decisions have been influenced by financial gain.

Schiff said the probe would extend beyond Russian electoral interference and any possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, and would examine the president's business and finances.

“The president’s actions and posture towards Russia during the campaign, transition and administration have only heightened fears of foreign financial or other leverage over President Trump and underscore the need to determine whether he or those in his administration have acted in service of foreign interests since taking office,” Schiff said in a statement, adding that his new probe would examine "whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates."

The chairman responded to Trump calling him a "political hack," saying that it was understandable that congressional oversight "terrifies" the president.

"Several of his close associates are going to jail, others await trial, and criminal investigations continue," he added on Twitter. "We’re going to do our job and won’t be distracted or intimidated by threats or attacks."

The back-and-forth comes after Trump, in Nixon-esque fashion, attacked the ongoing investigations he faces during his State of the Union address.

"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," he said. "It just doesn't work that way!"

In his last State of the Union address, in 1974, President Richard Nixon called for an end to the Watergate probe. He would resign as a result of it later that year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after a Democratic Caucus meeting on Wednesday that Trump's comment "was a threat."

"The president should not bring threats to the floor of the House," she said, adding, "He said he wasn’t going to cooperate unless we didn’t exercise our constitutional responsibility to oversight."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday that, to him, the line showed "that the president's scared."

"The bottom line is that we are as a country, we've always had Congress do oversight over the executive branch," Schumer said. "That's how the Founding Fathers set it up."

On CNN, Schumer compared Trump's position on congressional oversight of him to the recent partial government shutdown, which was the longest in U.S. history.

"And the president says if you investigate me I'm not going to make progress," he said. "That's already doing what he did with the shutdown. Holding the American people hostage. He's got something to hide. Because if he had nothing to hide, he'd just shrug his shoulders and let these investigations go forward. He's afraid of them."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... es-n968701

<5



U.S.

NANCY PELOSI SAYS AMERICANS ‘WANT THE TRUTH’ ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS, BUT URGES CAUTION ON HOW TO OBTAIN THEM

BY RAMSEY TOUCHBERRY ON 2/7/19 AT 5:02 PM

Democrats have been longing for the moment they can start the process of obtaining the president’s tax returns, and that time has come. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing back at critics who have said the party is not moving fast enough, urging caution to Democratic colleagues with powerful committee positions who want to pursue such information.

“I think overwhelmingly, the public wants to see the president’s tax returns. They want to know the truth, they want to know the facts and [that] he has nothing to hide,” Pelosi said Thursday. But she added: “You have to be very, very careful as you go forward.”

The warning comes as an oversight panel under the House Ways and Means Committee has begun hearings about obtaining Trump’s tax returns, something he has refused to make public since becoming a candidate and taking office. His decision to withhold such information breaks with the norms of every modern presidential candidate. Trump has justifed the refusal by saying he’s under an Internal Revenue Service audit, despite the fact that an audit does not legally prevent someone from releasing their tax returns.

“I’m not releasing the tax returns because, as you know, they’re under audit,” Trump told reporters in January 2017. "You know, the only one that cares about my tax returns are the reporters, okay? They’re the only ones. I won; I mean, I became president. No, I don’t think [the American people] care at all."

On the heels of Pelosi's warning at their Thursday afternoon hearing, Democrats reiterated their pursuit for the president's tax information. Due to the president's conflicts of interest through his various businesses and properties, which he still owns, Democrats have said his tax returns could shine light on possible ethical and legal wrongdoing.

“We will examine a topic of great interest to the American people. We will review whether a president, vice president or any candidate for these offices should be required by law to make their tax returns available to the public,” said Democrat John Lewis, chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee under Ways and Means. “In other words, we will ask the question: Does the public have a need to know that a person seeking to hold the highest office in our country obeys the tax laws?”

Democrats’ new signature bill, pushed since their regaining the House majority, known as H.R. 1, focuses on establishing new ethics and nepotism laws for members of Congress. The sweeping reform bill would also require presidents and vice presidents, as well as candidates for those offices, to release 10 years of their income taxes.

As written, the total reform package would almost certainly be dead on arrival in the GOP-controlled Senate and vetoed by the president. But it’s not Democrats’ only route to Trump’s taxes.

Long before they even won back control of the House, Democrats indicated they would seek to obtain Trump’s tax filings without his permission through an obscure, 100-year-old statute. The little-known provision was created in 1924 under the Internal Revenue Code. It states the U.S. Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, among others, for lawmakers to review.

“As I’ve said, we are in our first months,” Pelosi said. “The committees...are prioritizing their work.”

It wasn’t as simple as “just sending a letter,” she continued. After all, the tax information provided to members of Congress by the Treasury Department would not immediately be made public. It would be up to those lawmakers to determine what portions, if any, are publicly released.

“You have to do it in a very careful way and the chairman of the committee will be doing that," Pelosi said. "I know that there’s impatience because people want to know, but we have to do it in a very careful way."

Still, Republicans oppose such an action, arguing it would invite excessive scrutiny.

"Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested using this committee as an avenue to obtain and release the president's tax returns in the name of transparency," GOP Congressman Mike Kelly, the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee, said at Thursday's hearing.

"I don’t believe we have to choose between protecting privacy and promoting transparency among public officials," he said. "Such an abuse of power would open a Pandora's box that would be tough to get a lid back on. It would set a very dangerous precedent."

https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-c ... es-1323023

<6



WORLD

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STILL HASN’T EXPLAINED DECISION TO EASE RUSSIA SANCTIONS TARGETING VLADIMIR PUTIN ALLY

BY JASON LEMON ON 2/7/19 AT 4:44 PM

Democrats in the House of Representatives want answers after President Donald Trump’s administration allegedly misled Congress about its move to ease sanctions on a Russian oligarch with close links to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

Democratic Representative Maxine Waters, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee and hails from California, is in discussions with Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin about setting a time for him to testify before her congressional panel, Politico reported. A Treasury Department spokesperson told the news site that Waters and Mnuchin spoke by phone on Wednesday and were trying to determine a “mutually agreeable date.” So far, Mnuchin has declined to testify next week.

Waters, along with many other Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has expressed significant concern about the Trump administration’s decision to ease sanctions targeting Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska last month. A report from The New York Times revealed a document, which was reportedly not disclosed to Congress, showing Deripaska actually was relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while his family and close associates were allowed to maintain control of his most important company. Lawmakers have accused Mnuchin of misleading them about the sanctions relief measure, as he said the move came in exchange for the oligarch “significantly” diminishing his “ownership” and “control” of his company.

“What we’re going to do is we’re going to get Mr. Mnuchin into the committee and ask him real pointed questions about de-listing,” Waters told Poltico. She said that the committee wants to hear a direct explanation from Mnuchin about why the administration pushed through the sanctions relief for Deripaska.

In January, Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly against the Treasury Department’s plan to end the sanctions on three companies connected to the Russian oligarch. But in the Senate, despite some Republicans joining Democratic opposition, a vote failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to overturn the measure.

The vote occurred prior to the article from The New York Times however, leading even Republican senators to admit that they may not have been aware of the full details. Republican Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota told CNN last month that lawmakers were going to “take another look” following the newspaper’s report.

The House Financial Services Committee had also asked the Treasury Department to hand over all documents related to the decision for review by Tuesday of this week, however it failed to meet that deadline. Democratic Representative Jim Himes from Connecticut told Politico, “They stiff-armed us.”

Meanwhile, Trump and his administration have become more resistant to ongoing investigations into his alleged ties to Russia. A probe into alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign led by special counsel Robert Mueller has thus far led to the indictment of six former close associates of the president. Several have pleaded guilty or have been criminally convicted. Trump has written off the investigation as a “witch hunt.”

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administ ... ly-1322905

<7



Senators reintroduce bill to punish Saudis for Khashoggi killing

BY REBECCA KHEEL - 02/07/19 04:49 PM EST

A bipartisan group of senators is renewing a push to punish Saudi officials for the death of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, reintroducing Thursday a bill that would require sanctions on those responsible for the killing.

In addition to responding to the Khashoggi killing, the bill also seeks to address support for the Yemen civil war by prohibiting some weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and U.S. military refueling of Saudi coalition planes.

“Seeing as the Trump administration has no intention of insisting on full accountability for Mr. Khashoggi’s murderers, it is time for Congress to step in and impose real consequences to fundamentally reexamine our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and with the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen,” Senate Foreign Relations committee ranking member Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement Thursday.

Menendez introduced the bill with Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

The bill was first introduced in November while an outraged Congress raced to respond to Khashoggi’s death, though it was not one of the measures that advanced.

Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist, was killed in October while at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

The Trump administration levied sanctions on some Saudi officials after the murder, but Congress demanded a stronger response. President Trump has emphasized the strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia and denied that there is proof Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was behind the killing.

In December, the Senate approved a resolution naming bin Salman “responsible” for the slaying, as well as a separate resolution to cut off U.S. military support for the Saudi coalition in Yemen’s civil war.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also sent a letter to Trump in October invoking the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, requiring him to determine who is responsible for the killing and whether sanctions should be imposed on that person or people.

The 120-day deadline for the sanctions determination is nearing, and the reintroduction of the sanctions bill is meant to coincide with that deadline.

Graham, a Trump ally who has been one of the most vocal senators on the Khashoggi issue, said Thursday it is not in the national security interest to “look the other way when it comes to the brutal murder” of Khashoggi.

“While Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of the crown prince – in multiple ways – has shown disrespect for the relationship and made him, in my view, beyond toxic,” Graham said in a statement. “I fully realize we have to deal with bad actors and imperfect situations on the international stage. However, when we lose our moral voice, we lose our strongest asset.”

In addition to sanctions on those responsible for Khashoggi’s death, the bill would also require a report on human rights in Saudi Arabia.

For the Yemen civil war, on top of stopping arms sales and refueling, the bill would require sanctions on those blocking humanitarian access in Yemen and those supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

It would also require the administration deliver Congress a strategy to end the war and a report on violations of international law in the war. It would further require the Government Accountability Office to report on U.S. military support for the Saudi coalition.

“Beyond preventing President Trump from sweeping Mr. Khashoggi’s murder under the rug, this comprehensive legislation is based on the idea that America’s leadership on the global stage must always be driven by a sense of purpose and moral clarity,” Menendez said. “As I warned the administration last year, we will not accept the killings of more civilians and journalists with impunity and without consequence.”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4290 ... gi-killing

<8



Parkland attack fueled big shift in America’s gun politics

By LISA MARIE PANE an hour ago 1.7.19

Last year’s shooting at a Florida high school sparked a movement among a younger generation angered by gun violence and set the stage for a significant shift in America’s gun politics.

Thousands of student protesters took to the streets and inspired hashtags such as #NeverAgain and #Enough. They also mobilized to register a new generation of voters.

Candidates were emboldened too. Many of them confronted the issue in the midterm elections and were rewarded with victory over incumbents supported by the National Rifle Association. That helped Democrats take back control of the House.

As the one-year anniversary of the shooting approaches, the legacy of the massacre remains an ever-present force in the nation’s politics and gun laws.

“What we’ve seen here is a tectonic shift in our politics on the guns issue,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords, the gun violence prevention group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. These people “didn’t get elected despite their advocacy for safer gun laws. They got elected because of their advocacy for safer gun laws. They made that a core part of their message to the American people.”

The political landscape began to change just days after a former student shot and killed 17 students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

At the state level, a surge of gun-control measures were enacted, including increasing the minimum age for purchasing a firearm and requiring waiting periods. The number of states with so-called “red flag” laws — which allow temporary confiscation of weapons from people deemed a safety risk — doubled.

At the federal level, for the first time in modern history, gun-control groups outspent the powerful NRA on the 2018 midterm elections. The new Democratic majority in the House this week held its first hearing on gun control in a decade.

Even under GOP-control of both chambers during President Donald Trump’s first two years in office, some of the gun industry’s top priorities — easing restrictions on firearm suppressors and making it easier to carry concealed firearms over state borders — stalled.

Still, with one of the most gun-friendly presidents in the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who are viewed as ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, a shift that is likely to have a lasting effect on gun rights.

The most prominent shift occurred in Florida, a state that has long welcomed guns and has a strong NRA presence. Lawmakers raised the gun-purchasing age and imposed a three-day waiting period.

The Parkland attack came just a few months after two other gun tragedies: the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history that killed 59 people at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas and the slayings of 26 churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

In the wake of those massacres, the NRA’s influence waned. Trump directed the Justice Department to ban bump stocks, the device used by the Las Vegas gunman that allowed his rifles to mimic fully automatic weaponry.

The NRA also faced boycotts from corporate America, with some financial firms refusing to do business with gunmakers and some retailers pulling firearms and ammunition off shelves. A federal investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election widened to include suspicions that agents sought to court NRA officials and funnel money through the group.

The NRA has cast itself as being in financial distress because of deep-pocketed liberal opposition to guns and what it calls “toxic lies” in news reports. Last summer, the organization raised its annual dues for the second time in two years.

Parkland “definitely marked a turning point,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and gun rights expert. “There is no doubt that the energy, the enthusiasm, the mobilization of these students was very influential. It did affect a lot of people across the country.”

But, he said, the NRA “remains a powerhouse,” and it’s too early to suggest that gun groups’ troubles are insurmountable.

“No one ever made a lot of money betting against the NRA,” he said.

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker questioned whether the influence of gun-rights advocates has waned, noting that Florida elected a governor backed by the NRA and a majority of the organization’s legislative candidates won last year.

Despite the Democratic gains in Washington, proposals for gun restrictions still face long odds. Any action taken by the House will fail to gain traction in the Senate or be signed into law by the president, she said.

“They exploit these high-profile tragedies to sensationalize. They exploit them to play on people’s emotions instead of doing their jobs to address the underlying issues that are really causing these” shootings, Baker said.

Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the industry is accustomed to people believing the latest shooting will bring the gun industry to its knees.

“They said that in 2013 after the Sandy Hook shooting, and they absolutely said that again last year,” Pratt said. With the exception of Florida, the blue states got bluer and the red states got redder and expanded gun rights, he said.

Polls show that gun control is not a top priority for Americans, he said.

“I don’t think the needle has moved at all,” Pratt said.

https://www.apnews.com/7d124912b2ff43ce8952009e4c326aea

<9



Arizona city officials want border wall's razor wire removed

A Nogales City Council resolution says the barbed wire "is only found in a war, prison or battle setting" and should not be downtown.

Feb. 6, 2019, 11:32 PM CST / Updated Feb. 7, 2019, 9:03 AM CST

By Associated Press

NOGALES, Ariz. — Officials in a small Arizona border city passed a resolution Wednesday night condemning the installation of new razor wire that now covers the entirety of a tall border wall through downtown.

The City Council in Nogales, which sits on the border with Nogales, Mexico, wants the federal government to remove all concertina wire installed within the city limits.

Otherwise, Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino said the city will sue.

City officials say Army troops installed more horizontal layers of the wire along the border wall last weekend.

The council's resolution says the razor wire would harm or kill anyone who scales the wall and "is only found in a war, prison or battle setting" and should not be in downtown Nogales.

In a statement, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the wire was added after a request "for additional support in high-risk urban areas commonly exploited by criminal smuggling organizations." It did not say who made the request.

The new wire is being added to sections outside city limits, according to a CBP spokeswoman. In locations where there is high pedestrian activity, the concertina wire is limited to only the upper portion of the wall, she wrote.

"Signage in Spanish and English has been put in place warning individuals of these dangers and prohibiting access," the statement said.

Garino said he was most concerned that children and others could be injured now that it reaches the ground. The downtown area is also residential, and there are homes that stand a few feet from the border fence.

"Aesthetically pleasing — it's not. It's very bad. It's not good for business, it's not good for what we're trying to create, a business-friendly community here in Nogales," Garino told the AP.

Photos published by the Nogales International newspaper show six rows of concertina wire stacked along the approximately two-story wall.

The Nogales City Council's action came one day after President Donald Trump made his case to the American people about the need for a border wall and how he has ordered 3,750 troops to prepare for what he called a "tremendous onslaught."

Nogales, a city of about 20,000 people, is a fraction of the size of its Mexican counterpart, but its economy is largely reliant on Mexican shoppers and cross-border trade. Illegal crossings in that area have dropped steeply in the past several years.

Garino told the newspaper that he asked U.S. Sen. Martha McSally to help the city have the wire removed during a visit to the border last month.

A spokeswoman for McSally said the senator was working on a response to an inquiry from The Associated Press.

In a tweet, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, called its placement a stunt by the Trump administration, which he said is "trying to create the perception of rampant lawlessness and crime."

Soldiers have installed concertina wire at or near several official crossings at the border. In late November, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the military had sent 36 miles of concertina for use in California, Arizona and Texas.

At the start of November, soldiers in Texas installed lines of wire coils below a major bridge near McAllen.

City leaders were critical of military exercises at the border during the holiday season, saying they believed it scared shoppers.

The city resolution says concertina wire is typically something found in battlefields, and that placing it along the border fence is "not only irresponsible but inhuman."

The Nogales measure would be one of the more direct swipes against one of Trump's signature initiatives. In September 2017, the San Diego City Council adopted a resolution that said Trump's walls would be "damaging symbols of fear and division that will increase tensions with Mexico, one of the United States' largest trading partners and a neighbor with which communities such as San Diego in the border region are inextricably linked culturally, physically, and economically."

It said Trump's proposal "could destroy the vitality of U.S.- Mexico relations and act as a separation to our unique, diverse, and beautiful region."

The San Diego resolution passed 5-3, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. Kevin Faulconer, the city's Republican mayor didn't back the statement but didn't veto it either. The mayor often says the U.S. should focus on building bridges instead of walls.

Other border mayors have also been critical.

"We have a fence here. The fence is fine. It does what it's supposed to do," Dee Margo, the Republican mayor of El Paso, Texas, said last year. "I hear the term wall, I think of the Berlin Wall. I think it's pretty detrimental to the relationships that have lasted more than 400 years."

The number of arrests by the Border Patrol is the lowest since the early 1970s, while the number of agents has more than doubled.

Over 1.6 million arrests were made by nearly 9,200 agents nationwide in 2000. But those figures tapered off as the government dramatically increased staffing and resources, such as more surveillance technology and tall, steel fencing.

By last fiscal year, about 19,000 Border Patrol agents made 310,000 arrests.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... ed-n968651

<

<1



Trump's El Paso rally will spotlight his border wall demand, and false claims about city’s crime

Tom Benning, Washington Bureau

Updated at 1:30 p.m.: Revised to include comment from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and state Rep. Cesar Blanco, D-El Paso, along with fresh comment from Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will return to Texas' border with Mexico next week to hold a "Make America Great Again" rally in El Paso — a town he has cited, using a false historical timeline, to make the case for his "big, beautiful" border wall.

The event will be Monday at the El Paso County Coliseum, which is located less than a half-mile from the Texas-Mexico line.

"There's no better place to demonstrate that walls work than in El Paso," Trump campaign spokesman Michael Glassner said in a news release.

Trump's presidential visit will come just weeks after he visited McAllen — again to tout the need for a border wall — and just days before the Feb. 15 deadline that Congress set for itself to reach a deal on the funding fight over security at America's southern border.

The trip is loaded with 2020 implications, in part because El Paso is home to potential presidential contender Beto O'Rourke. The visit is also likely to further stoke the partisan divide, since Trump keeps using a debunked narrative to suggest that border walls are the reason why El Paso is safe.

The president said in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that El Paso "used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country." Now, he continued, "with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities."

"Simply put, walls work and walls save lives," he said.

But that's not what happened.

Fact checks by the El Paso Times and factcheck.org have pointed out that the city was never among America's most dangerous. While El Paso saw its crime rates spike in the early 1990s — as was the case all over the U.S. — those issues began to subside by the turn of the century.

Indeed, El Paso already had the third-lowest violent crime rate among America's 35 largest cities by the mid-2000s. That was before construction of a 57-mile fence there began in the middle of 2008.

Rep. Veronica Escobar, a freshman Democrat from El Paso, on Wednesday cited what she called the president's "misinformation campaign" to say that Trump needs to use his upcoming visit to "apologize to the community for his lies."

"Those kind of lies are very hurtful and very harmful," said Escobar, who plans to invite Trump to join her in touring the border, visiting a port of entry and meeting with local activists. "El Paso is a very vibrant and safe community."

State Rep. Cesar Blanco, D-El Paso, was just as blunt, saying that Trump's "fearmongering and lies have hurt our border economy and community."

"He lied in his national address from the Oval Office, he lied on his visit to McAllen, and he lied in the State of the Union," he said. "We should not be rolling out the red carpet, so he can come lie in our backyard."

The primary focus of Trump's trip to El Paso will no doubt be about his demand for border wall funding, a request that has once already stalemated Washington and led to the longest federal government shutdown in American history.

But there could be a secondary purpose, particularly since the visit is for a campaign event rather than official White House business.

El Paso also happens to be home to O'Rourke, the former Democratic congressman who said Tuesday that he will decide by the end of the month if he will run for president in 2020. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, O'Rourke appeared to be leaning in the direction of making a bid.

"I'm increasingly excited about doing something," the Texan said.

O'Rourke would be among the Democratic front-runners for the White House after giving Sen. Ted Cruz a tough re-election challenge last year. He has made clear his disgust for Trump's wall, calling the idea "[expletive] ludicrous," according to the Texas Tribune.

So Trump's trip could send a message to a potential rival, whom the president has previously called a "flake."

"President Trump looks forward to visiting with the patriots of Texas who are on the front lines of the struggle against open border Democrats who allow drugs, crime, and sex trafficking all along our border every day," Glassner, Trump's campaign spokesman, said in the news release.

Getting a deal with Congress

The more immediate challenge is in Washington.

A bipartisan, bicameral committee of lawmakers is currently trying to hash out a deal on border security funding as the prospect of another government shutdown moves closer by the day. The panel features two Texans: Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

It remains unclear how the group will bridge the divide between Trump and his allies, who see the wall as essential security element, and Democrats, who see the wall as a monumental waste of money.

The pressure is on. Trump has threatened to declare a national emergency to build his border wall if Congress doesn't fulfill his request, even though Texas Sen. John Cornyn and other prominent Republicans have warned him against pursuing that course.

Much of the attention over the potential wall has centered on Texas' Rio Grande Valley and other portions of South Texas. That's where Trump is beginning construction on new sections of border barriers. That's where most illegal border crossings occur.

"We have a daily caravan happening right now in the Rio Grande Valley, all of which enriches the Gulf Cartel and increases their operational control of our border," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, wrote on Twitter after a recent trip to that region.

Democrats like Cuellar have countered that a physical barrier isn't the solution, instead suggesting a "smart" wall that relies more on technology and boots on the ground. Republicans aren't opposed to those sort of improvements, but instead see them as complementary to physical infrastructure.

In any case, the Rio Grande Valley is a whole different scenario than El Paso, which is several hours away by car.

Cornyn said Wednesday that he was surprised Trump is going to El Paso, in part because it's "not exactly ... a hotbed of Trumpism." He couldn't explain Trump's depiction of the city, suggesting that the president perhaps meant to refer to Juarez, the dangerous city just across the border from El Paso.

"El Paso, to my knowledge, for quite awhile now has been one of the safest places in the state and in the country," said Cornyn, who said he wouldn't be able to attend Trump's rally.

Many business and political leaders in El Paso are making much the same point.

The "president's message about El Paso is a lie," said Jon Barela, CEO of The Borderplex Alliance, an economic development coalition. "The president is living in an alternative universe based on a false narrative and offensive comments about our way of life."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald- ... walls-work

<2



Trump rally: Groups to protest Monday in El Paso, GoFundMe set up for 'Baby Trump' balloon

Staff report, El Paso Times Published 4:05 p.m. MT Feb. 7, 2019 | Updated 6:50 a.m. MT Feb. 8, 2019

Hundreds of borderland residents marched Saturday in protest of the border wall. The march was hosted by the Border Network for Human Rights. Mark R Lambie, El Paso Times

A number of protests are anticipated for Monday in response to President Donald Trump's planned rally at the El Paso County Coliseum.

Trump is expected to make a campaign stop in El Paso at 7 p.m. Monday at the El Paso County Coliseum. Earlier this week, Trump said El Paso used to be "one of our nation's most dangerous cities" that saw its crime rates decline after the construction of a border fence. Local, state and federal data show that this is not the case.

City leaders have denounced Trump's comments on El Paso ahead of his visit Monday. It's unclear how many people will turn out at both the rally and the protests.

Truth Against Trump

Several El Paso groups are partnering to organize a protest in front of the El Paso County Coliseum on Monday from 5 to 8:30 p.m. About 750 people had signed up for the event on Facebook as of Wednesday afternoon.

The Women's March of El Paso, Unity Campaign, El Paso County Democratic Party, ACLU Border Rights Center, Borderland Immigration Council, Hope Border Institute and Detained Migrant Solidarity Committee are working to organize the protest.

The group is inviting people to join a "peaceful and vocal protest." The details and location could change, according to the group's Facebook page.

No Border Wall, No Lies

The Border Network for Human Rights is organizing a protest Monday from 5-8 p.m. Monday. The protest will be held on San Marcial Street in front of Bowie High School in South El Paso.

The protest is described on the group's Facebook page as a "massive demonstration around Trump's visit to El Paso and his hate narrative, racism and lies about the reality of the border."

FACT CHECK STATE OF THE UNION: Trump says El Paso among most dangerous cities until fence

"El Paso is a strong and safe community because of its people and its values," representatives said in a news release. "Border communities are a place of opportunity and hope. Trump’s fixation on a border wall and his distortions of life in El Paso and along the border are unacceptable. Our communities will always stand to include immigrants, oppose racism, and defend the truth. All of us must make a choice about whether we stand up for the truth or allow Trump to degrade our dignity and rights."

About 150 people had signed up for the event on Facebook as of Thursday afternoon.

Baby Trump Balloon

A Gofundme account has been set up to raise money to bring a "Baby Trump" balloon to El Paso. The $3,500 cost would cover transporting the balloon from California to El Paso and filling it up. As of Thursday afternoon, $75 had been raised.

Trump MAGA Rally

As of Thursday, there were no known organized pro-Trump rallies reported besides the actual Make America Great Again rally, but the El Paso Republican Party is encouraging supporters to sign up for tickets to the event on its Facebook page.

Those interested in attending Trump's rally can get two tickets on his website. Those attending will need a text-capable cellphone for confirmation. They are also encouraging local Republicans to volunteer at the event by visiting DonaldJTrump.com.

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/ ... 804201002/

<3



O'Rourke rips Trump's 'lies' ahead of El Paso visit

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 02/09/19 02:45 PM EST

Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D) slammed President Trump's "lies" on border security and immigration reform Saturday ahead of the president's visit to El Paso, where O'Rourke previously represented.

In a lengthy Medium post post Saturday, the Texas Democrat and potential 2020 White House contender accused the president of "racist, inflammatory rhetoric" on immigration as the Trump administration supposedly tries "to take kids from their parents, to deploy the United States Army on American soil, to continue mass deportations and to end the protection for Dreamers."

"Not only will it lead to thousands of Americans losing their farms and ranches and homes through eminent domain to build a wall despite the fact that we have the lowest level of northbound apprehensions in my lifetime; it will lead to greater suffering and death for immigrants who are pushed to more dangerous points of crossing," O'Rourke wrote in his essay.

"We can decide that we’ll get past the lies and fear, focus on the facts and human lives in our midst, and do the right thing," he continued. "The end goal is a stronger, safer, more successful country. Critical to achieving that goal is having immigration, security and bilateral policies that match reality and our values."

O'Rourke's post comes ahead of Trump's planned rally in El Paso Monday as the president continues his push for congressional action on funding for his plans to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a plan strongly opposed by Democrats including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pledged to provide nothing for construction of a physical barrier.

Democrats are pushing for increased investment in technological defenses and surveillance measures along the border, as well as a legislative fix for the thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients, who were thrown into legal limbo when the Trump administration declared an end to the program.

The former Texas lawmaker, who ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in November, plans to hold a counter-rally in El Paso on Monday in response to Trump's visit.

“Beto O’Rourke will join with his city on Monday evening to show the country the reality of the border -- a vibrant, safe, binational community that proudly celebrates its culture, history, diversity and status as a city of immigrants,” a statement from his office read.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... paso-visit

<4



Trump, Beto to face off Monday in El Paso in dueling rallies near the border

Doug Stanglin, Madlin Mekelburg and John C Moritz, USA TODAY

Published 12:04 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2019 | Updated 2:24 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2019

EL PASO — If American politics has turned into a three-ring circus, this city in west Texas will hoist the Big Top on Monday, with President Donald Trump coming to rally for a border wall, Democratic wunderkind Beto O'Rourke leading a protest march and even the Trump Baby blimp putting in an appearance.

The Trump rally at the El Paso County Coliseum will come only four days before the possibility of either another government shutdown or a declaration of national emergency over what the president deems a national security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

It also follows Trump's State of the Union comments in which he tried to use El Paso as an example of why the United States needs to construct a wall along the border.

Perched on the U.S.-Mexico border, the city has become the focal point for the contentious issue of immigration and the president's relentless push for a barrier.

O’Rourke, fresh off an interview with Oprah Winfrey, said he sees Trump’s campaign rally as an opportunity for the city to take control of the narrative.

“I think the president’s decision to focus on El Paso and his horrible demonization and vilification of immigrants, specifically Mexican immigrants, and his desire to make us afraid of the border can work to our advantage,” he tells the El Paso Times. “In other words, as he comes down here and as he referred to El Paso in his State of the Union speech, the eyes of the country are literally on us and will be even more so on Monday.”

O'Rourke, whose skillful use of social media has made him a national figure and prolific fundraiser, plans to join a one-mile march past Trump's rally on Monday and speak across the street from the president at about the same time Monday evening.

“He’s offering us a chance to tell our story and we’re going to take that chance, all of us,” O'Rourke told the El Paso Times.

O'Rourke's camp described Monday's protest march as an effort to "show the country the reality of the border — a vibrant, safe, bi-national community that proudly celebrates its culture, history, diversity and status as a city of immigrants."

The president triggered local anger by alleging in his State of the Union address that El Paso "used to have extremely high" crime rate before a border fence was constructed and that the rate of crime dropped substantially after it was completed.

The statement quickly prompted blowback from local politicians and law enforcement figures. Even Mayor Dee Margo, a Republican, insisted that El Paso was "never" among the nation's most dangerous cities.

Today’s fencing was largely constructed after the Secure Fence Act was adopted in 2006 under President George W. Bush.

Using Uniform Crime Reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the rate of violent crime in El Paso can be calculated by combining data reported by the El Paso County Sheriff's Office and the El Paso Police Department.

The rate of violent crime reached its peak in 1993, when more than 6,500 violent crimes were recorded.

Between 1996 and 2006, the number of violent crimes reported by law enforcement fell by more than 34 percent.

From 2006 to 2011 — two years before the fence was built to two years after — the number of violent crimes recorded in El Paso increased by 17 percent.

The issue also sparked a flood of memes on social media ridiculing the portrayal of El Paso as a once crime-infested border town.

One photo, posted on Twitter by local TV anchor Shelton Dodson, features a Mexican food dish from a popular local restaurant chain, Chico's Tacos, with the caption. "The Only violence in El Paso was when Chico's changed its cheese." Dodson posted the photo with its own headline: "Well, that was a very frightening time in our city's history."

O'Rourke, a local political rock star who represented El Paso in Congress before narrowly losing a bid to replace Republican Ted Cruz in the Senate, hammered Trump during his campaign over the wall in particular, and immigration.

Now, that he is on the verge of possibly entering a race for the White House, O'Rourke enters the fray with the same message.

The march, organized by Women's March El Paso, is being billed as a "March for Truth: Stop the Wall, Stop the Lies."

O'Rourke also planned to join Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar, who succeeded him in Congress, and other activists on a conference call to denounce Trump's insistence on a border wall.

In an interview in New York this week with Oprah Winfrey, O'Rourke called Trump's push for a border wall a "racist response to a problem we don't have. It seeks emotionally to connect with us, with voters — to stoke anxiety and paranoia, to win power over 'the other' on the basis of lies that vilify people."

The Baby Trump blimp, meanwhile, will join the festivities by flying above the city depicting the president as an infant wearing a diaper.

Funding for the blimp, which was first set aloft in London during a Trump visit and has made several appearances since in the United States, was quickly raised this week.

The GofundMe goal of $3,500 was met within 14 hours, with some 190 individuals chipping in.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 822324002/

<5



O'Rourke to headline counter-Trump rally at border

BY TAL AXELROD - 02/08/19 08:33 PM EST

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) will headline a rally on Monday in El Paso at the same time that President Trump is set to hold a rally there.

O'Rourke will join rally-goers in El Paso to "show the country the reality of the border," according to a statement released by his office Friday.

“Beto O’Rourke will join with his city on Monday evening to show the country the reality of the border -- a vibrant, safe, binational community that proudly celebrates its culture, history, diversity and status as a city of immigrants,” the statement said.

“While some try to stoke fear and paranoia, to spread lies and a false narrative about the U.S.-Mexico border and to demand a 2,000 mile wall along it at a time of record safety and security, El Paso will come together for a march and celebration that highlights the truth,” the statement continues.

O’Rourke, who is reportedly mulling a 2020 run for the White House, is a native of El Paso and outspoken Trump critic. He previously represented the district that encompasses the city.

Trump's trip to El Paso will mark his first rally of the 2020 campaign cycle as he continues his push for a wall along the southern border.

The president has repeatedly held up the border city as an example solidifying his argument for a wall's effectiveness. Trump has cited El Paso crime statistics that he claims represent a drop in violent crimes since the wall was constructed.

O'Rourke, in an interview with The Washington Post this week, condemned Trump's characterization of El Paso.

“Some people have used code words, some have come at it obliquely. He just full on, in the most racist terms, completely divorced from the truth or facts or reality or our experience here in El Paso, uses this to incite fear and paranoia and turn that to political gain,” O’Rourke told the Post, referring to Trump.

O’Rourke sparked 2020 speculation after his Senate campaign last year to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) electrified small, individual donors and brought him within three points of winning the typically solidly red Lone Star State.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... -at-border

<6



‘UTTER DISDAIN’

MSNBC Analyst Frank Figliuzzi: I’ve Interviewed Terrorists More Cooperative Than Whitaker

The former FBI official said the acting AG treated lawmakers ‘with utter disdain,’ like he was ‘thumbing his nose’ at the American people.

Justin Baragona 02.08.19 5:25 PM ET

Reacting to Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker’s highly combative and confrontational House Judiciary Committee hearing Friday, an MSNBC national-security analyst knocked Whitaker for treating the American public with “utter disdain.”

While recapping the oversight hearing, Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace turned to Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, to get his take on the acting attorney general’s performance. Figliuzzi almost immediately charged that the nation’s top cop was less cooperative than some terrorists he dealt with while working at the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

“I’m not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who are more cooperative and respectful than Matt Whitaker was today,” Figliuzzi deadpanned while Wallace broke out in laughter. “I gotta tell you, I say that with sadness, because the attorney general's role is America's lawyer.”

Figliuzzi went on to argue that Congress represents the American people and, thus, Whitaker’s behavior demonstrated “utter disdain” for the public.

“This is basically thumbing your nose at oversight by the people,” the MSNBC analyst declared. “And the way he conducted himself today is an indication that he’s not America's attorney; he’s essentially seeing himself as [President] Trump’s attorney.”

Wallace added that she believes that Whitaker—who will soon be replaced by attorney general nominee William Barr following confirmation by the Senate—was auditioning for another job in the Trump administration and was performing for “an audience of one, and that was Donald Trump.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/msnbc-ana ... ref=scroll

<7



POLITICS

Matthew Whitaker Plays to an Audience of One

Throughout a contentious oversight hearing, the acting attorney general seemed to be auditioning for his next job in the Trump administration.

NATASHA BERTRAND 6:00 AM ET 2.9.19

It took about five minutes of questioning for the acting attorney general to provoke gasps and jeers in the congressional hearing room. “Your five minutes is up,” Matthew Whitaker, an ex–U.S. attorney turned toilet salesman, told the House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic chairman, Jerry Nadler. Nadler cracked a smile, but from that point on, the rules of engagement seemed clear: Whitaker, with just days remaining in his legally dubious role as the interim head of the Justice Department, appeared to be playing to an audience of one.

President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker late last year to replace Jeff Sessions, whose recusal from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation in early 2017 was viewed by the president as an unforgivable betrayal. But Whitaker was not the obvious replacement—he served for a few years as a U.S. attorney in Iowa, but spent far longer in private practice and partisan politics. He also served as a paid advisory-board member of a fraudulent invention-promotion firm. Later, he was the executive director of a conservative nonprofit funded by dark money. And then came his stint as a CNN commentator in 2017, during which he blasted Mueller and opined that his probe had “gone too far.” All of this received heavy scrutiny as the constitutional basis of his appointment was challenged in the courts.

But Friday marked his first oversight hearing on Capitol Hill.

“I’m confused, I really am,” Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries told Whitaker at one point. “We’re all trying figure out: Who are you, where did you come from, and how the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice?”

Despite the lingering questions about his resume and suspicions about why he was appointed over Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who would have been Sessions’s natural replacement, Whitaker presented himself to Nadler, a 13-term congressman, with the same aloofness and disdain for tradition that often seems typical of the Trump White House. And that may have been on purpose. Whitaker, whose tenure ends when Bill Barr is confirmed as attorney general next week, will need a new job. He has reportedly been considered for the role of Trump’s chief of staff. And though he testified under oath that he had “not interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation,” he repeatedly declined to contradict Trump’s claims that Mueller is on a “witch hunt.”

Chuck Rosenberg, a former senior Justice Department official who resigned in 2017, said it would have been “easy” for Whitaker to say that Mueller’s investigation is legitimate, as Barr did during his recent confirmation hearings. “I don’t know how somebody could be that cowardly,” he added. But doing so would have undermined what is arguably his boss’s most important talking point—and that would not have been a good move for Whitaker if he was, in fact, auditioning for his next position.

Instead, Whitaker had a boilerplate response prepared for the myriad questions posed by Democrats about the Mueller probe: “It would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation,” he said. Democrats, though, found that disingenuous—Whitaker had discussed the probe publicly earlier this month, going as far as to speculate that it would be wrapping up soon. During Friday’s highly contentious oversight hearing, he entertained a Republican’s inquiry about the way Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone had been arrested last month in Florida by the FBI—and why a reporter was staked out there in advance of the raid. “I share your concern with the possibility that a media outlet was tipped off to Mr. Stone’s either indictments or arrest before it was made,” Whitaker told Representative Doug Collins, acknowledging later that he had no inside information to suggest that the media outlet, CNN, had advance word of Stone’s arrest.

Trump has yet to comment on Whitaker’s performance. But there seemed to be little for him to complain about. Whitaker told lawmakers that despite a CNN report to the contrary, Trump had not “lashed out” about the investigation into his longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen. And in contrast to his testimony that he had not discussed the Mueller investigation with Trump, Whitaker dodged questions about whether he had discussed the Cohen probe with the president. “As I’ve mentioned several times today, I’m not going to discuss my private conversations with the president,” he told Democratic Representative Val Demings.

The acting attorney general’s obfuscation when asked simple yes-or-no questions seemed reminiscent of Trump’s own tendency to filibuster his way out of uncomfortable confrontations. “You have not yet appeared for an oversight hearing: Yes or no?” Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee asked Whitaker. “I am the acting attorney general of the United States,” Whitaker responded evasively. Pressed repeatedly by Lee to answer the question, Whitaker said that he wasn’t sure how much time she had left. “Mr. Attorney General, we’re not joking here,” she said. “And your humor is not acceptable. Now, you’re here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the Congress has a right to establish government rules. The rules are that you are here.”

Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, seemed shocked by Whitaker’s demeanor: “I am not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who were more cooperative and respectful than Matt Whitaker was today,” Figliuzzi told MSNBC. “The attorney general’s role is America’s lawyer; we are his client.”

Unfortunately, at Friday’s hearing, Figliuzzi said, “he treated us with utter disdain.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ng/582454/

<8



The battle is on between Trump and his Democratic foes

Stephen Collinson Profile

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN

Updated 10:19 AM ET, Sat February 9, 2019

(CNN)A clarifying week in Washington showed how ugly the war of oversight between President Donald Trump and House Democrats will become and dug new battle lines in the most intense exchanges yet of the 2020 campaign.

House Democrats swung their investigative machinery into action in the most searching examination of the Trump White House so far, showing that the special counsel's probe is only one of the President's concerns.

The administration and its allies made clear they will do everything possible to frustrate Democratic oversight efforts, in a way that will test the constitutional infrastructure designed to hold the executive branch to account.

The President is already warning that the Democrats' use of Congress's constitutional prerogative to review and monitor his administration's activity adds up to an illegitimate attempt to oust him from office in the 2020 election.

"The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see. When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!" Trump tweeted on Saturday.

Trump also pivoted toward 2020 in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, laying out his clearest thematic blueprint yet for his re-election bid. The President proclaimed that an economic "miracle" was underway and mixed scalding rhetoric on immigration with claims that Democrats are marching left toward socialism.

And Democrats are blitzing early-voting states this weekend, reflecting their belief that a President under a legal and political siege could be vulnerable next year, despite his ruthless campaigning style.

The most serious potential development for Trump came with the expansion of the House Intelligence Committee investigation beyond Russia, which likely means special counsel Robert Mueller's report will not end the President's political exposure.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff announced that he would also look at whether any business ties between Trump and Saudi Arabia or any other nation were creating leverage over the administration's foreign policy.

The move added another layer of peril for a President who is seeing his campaign, inauguration, transition, presidency and past business career under the scrutiny of civil, political and criminal investigations.

Trump is not enjoying the new Washington

It quickly became clear during the week that the commander in chief, who experienced only the most cursory oversight when Republicans ran both sides of Capitol Hill, is not enjoying his first taste of the new Democratic-led House.

Trump sought to paint Schiff's move as the kind of "ridiculous, partisan investigations" he had decried in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. He charged in a tweet that the California Democrat was poring through "every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so ... Unlimited Presidential Harassment."

Other Republicans are beginning to adopt the line that Democrats are motivated not by fulfilling their constitutional duties to hold an administration to account but instead by their personal animosity toward the President.

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, told acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker on Friday he was simply a pawn in a Democratic circus as he showed up to testify.

"No, we want to damage the President. We want to talk about your private conversations," Collins said, paraphrasing what he said was the Democratic strategy.

"I'm thinking about maybe we should just set up a popcorn machine in the back, because that's what this is becoming. It's becoming a show," Collins said.

The Whitaker appearance was in doubt up until Thursday night after Democrats voted to give Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, the power to subpoena Whitaker if he did not answer questions or show up. The standoff was defused only when Nadler said he would not present the subpoena to Whitaker on Friday.

But reflecting the deep animosity between the Democratic-led House and the executive branch, he threatened to haul Whitaker back to the committee for a closed-door deposition -- even though Whitaker is likely to be out of a job within days, with William Barr expected to be confirmed as attorney general next week.

The acting attorney general's performance appeared to exemplify an apparent contempt for oversight in the executive branch.

Whitaker often looked like he was performing for a President who checks up on his appointees on television, rather than seriously trying to answer questions. At one point, in an intervention by a witness rarely seen before, he reminded Nadler that his time for questions had expired -- risking the ire of the all-powerful chairman, who laughed off the impertinence.

Despite prompting from Democrats on the panel, Whitaker refused to say the Mueller probe is not a "witch hunt" -- Trump's favorite phrase -- though he insisted he had not interfered with the special counsel.

In another front of the House Democrats' investigations on Trump, another committee started the process of trying to force the President to reveal his tax returns, after he defied tradition in the 2016 campaign by refusing to do so.

Rep. Michael Waltz, a Florida Republican, complained on CNN that the probe was a symptom of "runaway investigations on the President."

But Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis of Georgia said Democrats were infused with a sense of mission.

"We have to do the right thing. We are called to do the right thing, we have been selected, we have been chosen," Lewis said.

Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York told CNN's Erica Hill that Democrats had to walk "a very delicate line" between genuine congressional oversight and over-exuberance.

"You're on a nice edge of balance," said Suozzi.

"You can't go all the way over here and you ignore your responsibilities of oversight. And you can't go all the way over here that you become political and you're going after the President because he's from a different party."

In Washington, the focus is on the bitter fights about to unfold.

2020 fight heats up

Outside the capital, Democratic activists are looking ahead to what they hope is a different future, as their party's prospective presidential nominees conduct the most intense campaigning this weekend of their nascent race to date.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey was in Iowa on Friday, while his colleague Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand of New York headed to South Carolina. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg was also in Iowa, while Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is mulling a run, headed to the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts hopes to shrug off fresh controversy over her claimed Native American heritage when she officially kicks off her campaign in her home state on Saturday.

On Sunday, in Minneapolis, the crowded Democratic field could get another contender with Sen. Amy Klobuchar set to announce her intentions from her home state.

Whoever emerges from the pack, Trump is already waiting.

His State of the Union address was a response to a political moment when he is under siege on many fronts -- not least of them a duel over his border wall and government funding ahead of a deadline next Friday.

But it was also a bold statement of his 2020 campaign strategy.

The President indicated that his re-election race, like his 2016 strategy, would be rooted in inflammatory rhetoric over immigration aimed at his base.

"No issue better illustrates the divide between America's working class and political class than illegal immigration," Trump said in an appeal to his blue-collar voters in the South and industrial Midwest.

The President signaled that he will mix his populist rhetoric with a claim to have pulled off the most impressive economic renaissance in decades.

He also sought to position Democrats as heading to a left-wing extreme: "Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country."

The President's attack on Democrats for embracing "socialism" was a sign that the GOP will seize on government programs on climate change, higher education and health care, advocated by rising stars like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, to try to scare swing state voters.

Conservative media and opinion pages were full this week of critiques of the Green New Deal cosponsored by Ocasio-Cortez, which would require a fundamental remodeling of the economy to eliminate fossil fuels.

In his State of the Union speech, Trump was also careful to take care of another sector of his 2016 coalition, evangelical voters, on another issue the GOP hopes to use to portray Democrats as marching away from the American mainstream.

He accused New York Democrats of passing state legislation that would allow "a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth."

He was referring to a new law that eases restrictions on late-term abortions if the woman's life or health is at risk.
The State of the Union was a fresh indication that after refusing again to broaden his base, as many presidents do in office, Trump will seek to route a road back to the White House similar to that he forged in 2016, which defied pundits who believed it could not be done.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/politics ... index.html

<9



EROSION

Kavanaugh Just Showed How He’d Roll Back Abortion — Without Overturning Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court freezes Louisiana law, but the newest justice would let it take effect by finding a bizarre way around a case decided two years ago.

Jay Michaelson 02.08.19 10:37 AM ET

On Thursday night, in a closely watched abortion case— the first since Justice Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court—the court halted the implementation of a Louisiana law that would require doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital.

The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the court’s liberals, and Justice Kavanaugh writing a dissent.

In immediate terms, that means that the law will not go into effect until the legal challenges to it are resolved. That’s a temporary victory for the women of Louisiana, and for reproductive rights more broadly.

But the action is more significant as an indicator of how the newly configured Supreme Court will preserve or erode the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions. And in that regard, the signals are decidedly mixed.

The most important thing about the Louisiana law is that it is virtually identical to a Texas law struck down by the court in 2016. Then, as now, there is no health, safety, or medical reason for this requirement; every major medical association has said so. But what both laws would do is make it harder for women to get abortions by shrinking the number of abortion providers. That, the court said in 2016, places an “undue burden” on women and is unconstitutional.

The only thing that’s changed since then, of course, is that now Brett Kavanaugh sits on the court instead of Anthony Kennedy. From the law’s inception, it was intended to be a trial balloon.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent is perplexing. He notes that there are only four doctors who perform abortions in Louisiana (which itself is quite remarkable), one of whom already has admitting privileges at a hospital. Since the law has a 45-day grace period, Justice Kavanaugh writes, the three others could try to get admitting privileges during that period. If they get them, then, problem solved, there’s no “undue burden.” And if they don’t, the doctors can file suit at that time, and even enjoin the law at that time, now that they know they’re being harmed by it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh ... e?ref=home

<10



Leader of new climate panel talks of need for ‘bold action’

By MATTHEW DALY today 2.9.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — It does not yet have office space, staff or even Republican members, but Florida Rep. Kathy Castor is confident that a special House committee on climate change will play a leading role on one of the most daunting challenges facing the planet.

Castor, who chairs the new panel, says those early obstacles can be overcome as lawmakers move to reduce carbon pollution and create clean-energy jobs.

“The Democratic caucus is unified under the belief we have to take bold action on the climate crisis,” Castor said in an interview.

While that can take many forms, the transition to renewable energy such as wind and solar power is “job one,” she said.

Castor, who’s in her seventh term representing the Tampa Bay area, said Congress has a “moral obligation” to protect future generations from the costly effects of climate change, including more severe hurricanes, a longer wildfire season and a dangerous sea-level rise.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named Castor to lead the panel in December, saying she brings experience, energy and urgency to what Pelosi called “the existential threat of the climate crisis” facing the United States and the world.

The climate panel is similar to one Pelosi created when Democrats last controlled the House from 2007 to 2010. The panel was eliminated when Republicans took the majority in 2011.

While the previous panel played a key role in House approval of a landmark 2009 bill to address global warming, Castor said the new panel is likely to focus on a variety of actions rather than a single piece of legislation.

She and the eight other Democrats named to the panel “are ready to stand up to corporate polluters and special interests” as they press for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a clean-energy economy, Castor said.

“Climate deniers, fossil fuel companies and other special interests have had an outsized influence” in Congress in recent years, she said, promising to “stand up” to those forces to protect the environment and create green jobs.

The climate panel is separate from an effort by Democrats to launch a Green New Deal to transform the U.S. economy and create thousands of jobs in renewable energy.

Castor dismissed the idea that the Green New Deal — put forth by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and veteran Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts — will conflict with the climate panel.

“My job and the committee’s job is to take the general concepts (of the Green New Deal) and turn them into a real policy framework and legislative language and eventually law,” she said.

Pelosi agreed, saying in a statement that the climate panel will “spearhead Democrats’ work to develop innovative, effective solutions to prevent and reverse the climate crisis.”

Pelosi invited Ocasio-Cortez, a social media star and the best-known member of the large class of freshman Democrats, to join the climate panel, but she declined, saying she wants to focus on the Green New Deal and other committee assignments.

Three freshmen — Sean Casten of Illinois, Mike Levin of California and Joe Neguse of Colorado — serve on the panel, along with veteran lawmakers such as Rep. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Californians Julia Brownley and Jared Huffman, both close Pelosi allies.

“We need their passion and energy, and we need support from all corners all across the country,” Castor said of the freshmen members. “It’s all hands on deck right now.”

Republicans have not named anyone to the climate committee, but six GOP members are expected to join the panel this month.

While she would have preferred that the committee be given subpoena power and legislative authority to draft their own bills, the panel’s more limited power “is not going to hamper us,” Castor said. Most invited witnesses will be eager to testify, she said, and those who resist — including members of the Trump administration — can be compelled to appear by other committees such as Energy and Commerce or Natural Resources.

While the earlier climate panel focused on establishing the threat posed by climate change, Castor said the time to debate climate science is long past.

“People understand the problems,” she said. “They see the effects of sea rise and more dangerous storms. They understand it. They look at Washington and kind of throw up their hands and say, ‘Why don’t you guys do something?’ ”

The committee’s challenge, she added, will be “to restore the faith of people and show them Washington can do some things.”

https://www.apnews.com/45278da3ab344cf7a715dc7672fe31b7

<11



Saudi crown prince reportedly threatened to use “a bullet” on Jamal Khashoggi

Trump still refuses to hold Mohammed bin Salman accountable.

By Amanda Sakuma Feb 9, 2019, 1:56pm EST

The crown prince of Saudi Arabia once reportedly said he hoped to put “a bullet” in Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi — threats that came just one year before Khashoggi was brutally murdered.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, is widely believed to have been pulling the strings behind Khashoggi’s death in October after the journalist wrote critically of the Saudi government. And now US intelligence agencies reportedly have concrete evidence to suggest the crown prince had a personal vendetta against the journalist after they transcribed his intercepted conversations. The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti has the story:

---The conversation between Prince Mohammed and the aide, Turki Aldakhil, took place in September 2017, as officials in the kingdom were growing increasingly alarmed about Mr. Khashoggi’s criticisms of the Saudi government. That same month, Mr. Khashoggi began writing opinion columns for The Washington Post, and top Saudi officials discussed ways to lure him back to Saudi Arabia.

In the conversation, Prince Mohammed said that if Mr. Khashoggi could not be enticed back to Saudi Arabia, then he should be returned by force. If neither of those methods worked, the crown prince said, then he would go after Mr. Khashoggi “with a bullet,” according to the officials familiar with one of the intelligence reports, which was produced in early December.

Khashoggi, a columnist with the Washington Post, was brutally strangled in October at the Saudi consulate in Turkey. His body is believed to have been dismembered and allegedly carried through the airport by members of MBS’s team, though his remains have not yet been publicly recovered.

Riyadh, meanwhile, denies the Saudi royal family’s involvement, telling The Times that they have already “indicted a number of officials linked to the crime.” Saudi officials have said previously that killing was carried out by a “rogue” team of agents.

The White House is defying demands from Congress to get to the bottom of the murder

After an initially slow response to the killing, the US government has walked a fine line between responding to an incident condemned by world leaders (and one that President Donald Trump called “the worst coverup ever,”) and maintaining close ties to Riyadh.

Bipartisan efforts in Congress began in October to get answers on who perpetrated the vicious attack — even if it led to the top of the Saudi government. Top US intelligence officials have already come forward anonymously in media reports with conclusions that the attack was premeditated and ordered by the crown prince.

Trump, however, has continuously refused to hold the crown prince accountable for Khashoggi’s death. This week he blew past the Friday deadline set by senators to release a report investigating the identity of the journalist’s killer(s). Trump officials say he has the power to refuse their request.

“Consistent with the previous administration’s position and the constitutional separation of powers, the president maintains his discretion to decline to act on congressional committee requests when appropriate,” the Trump administration said in a statement.

But Trump has made a habit out of siding with the Saudi royal family, even when his statements directly contradict findings of his own intelligence agencies. Last year he did issue sanctions in relation to Khashoggi’s murder, but at every opportunity given to him, the president has stopped short of blaming the crown prince outright. Indeed, the US has maintained its contentious and complicated alliance with Saudi Arabia for decades. But Trump is once again putting the interests of arms deals, oil, and strategic foothold in the Middle East ahead of human rights and the rule of law — even when the victim of a brutal murder is a US resident.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/9/18218308/s ... -khashoggi

<12



Trump skips deadline for decision on Khashoggi killing

U.S. NEWS FEB. 9, 2019 / 12:38 PM

By Sommer Brokaw

Feb. 9 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump declined to meet senators' deadline for him to identify who is behind Jamal Khashoggi's death and decide if there should be U.S. sanctions.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and former Sen. Bob Corker, R.-Tenn., ordered the president in a letter last October to meet the deadline within 120 days, Politico reported.

The Global Magnitsky Act authorizes the president to impose sanctions against a foreign person or entity responsible for killings, torture or other gross violation of human rights against an individual in a foreign country seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by government. Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, had been living in the United States fearing arrest for criticizing Saudi leadership, before he was killed after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 to obtain paperwork for a wedding.

A National Security Council source told CNN Friday the administration has "no legal obligation" to respond.

The Global Magnitsky Act authorizes the president to impose sanctions against a foreign person or entity responsible for killings, torture or other gross violation of human rights against an individual in a foreign country seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by government. Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, had been living in the United States fearing arrest for criticizing Saudi leadership, before he was killed after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 to obtain paperwork for a wedding.

A National Security Council source told CNN Friday the administration has "no legal obligation" to respond.

"I anticipate a more detailed briefing from the administration on this issue and look forward to working with them and the members of my committee in our ongoing effort to address the killing of Jamal Khashoggi," Risch said. "Legislation has been introduced on this issue in both the House and Senate, with more to come."

However, Menendez painted a bleak picture.

"I am very disappointed that the response from Secretary Pompeo doesn't come close to fulfilling the statutory mandate and demonstrates what the administration has wanted all along -- the Khashoggi murder to be forgotten," Menendez said. "I will continue to push for the President to fully hold accountable those responsible for the death of Mr. Khashoggi and to uphold United States laws."

The deadline was missed despite CIA intelligence indicating last year that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved in Khashoggi's killing in Turkey.

The intelligence officials convinced lawmakers that the crown prince was responsible, but not Trump, who said in a statement, "maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"

A day before the White House missed the deadline, more evidence surfaced as The New York Times reported that the crown prince also threatened two years ago to use "a bullet" on Khashoggi if he didn't return to the kingdom and stop criticizing the government.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/02 ... 549729111/

<13



The U.S. Cut Taxes. Why Will Fewer Folks Get Refunds?

February 9, 2019, 1:00 AM CST

By Laura Davison

U.S. taxpayers are filing their first returns under the 2017 tax code overhaul that lowered rates for most people. What makes the paperwork headaches tolerable for many is the promise of a tax refund at the finish line. Yet more taxpayers will end up with no refund, or a smaller one, compared with a year ago, before the lower rates fully took effect. How could that be? The explanation rests with the many other changes that made it into the revised tax code. Some Americans are venting their surprise and anger.

1. What were the other changes?

The overhaul pushed through by President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress did much more than lower rates for individuals and companies. It also eliminated some valuable tax breaks used by taxpayers to trim their bills, enhanced a tax credit bestowed on families with children and created brand-new benefits for certain taxpayers, such as business owners. Many people who live in high tax states, such as New York, New Jersey and California, will be able to write off only a fraction of what they pay in state and local taxes. Someone who travels frequently for work, but doesn’t have mileage covered, could owe more in taxes because there’s no longer a deduction for non-reimbursed business expenses. Everything considered, though, a clear majority of Americans -- four out of five, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington -- were supposed to see a reduction in taxes.

2. Then why aren’t there lots more refunds?

The Internal Revenue Service offers ongoing guidance to help employees and employers decide how much money to withhold from paychecks so that most income taxes are paid automatically and gradually throughout the year. The shifting tax brackets -- they now start at 10 percent and top out at 37 percent for income about $500,000 -- plus changes to exemptions, deductions and credits meant that many taxpayers needed to adjust their withholding. But most taxpayers were confused how to do so, according to tax adviser H&R Block Inc. (The IRS reworked its calculations, but the updated tables didn’t translate precisely from the old law.) Home Depot Inc. found that only 1 percent of its employees had altered their withholding.

3. What’s the outlook for tax refunds?

The IRS expects to issue 105.8 million refunds this year, down 2 percent from last year’s 108.3 million. According to Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department economist who analyzed the topic for research firm Evercore ISI, many taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 will get their tax cut in the form of a bigger refund, while those with higher incomes got the tax cut in the form of higher paychecks throughout 2018 -- and therefore might be expecting refunds that aren’t coming. Analysts anticipate the total dollar amount refunded to be slightly higher, meaning some people will get bigger refunds than in the past. Among them are couples with children, since the standard deductions for filing as a couple, as well as the child tax credit, both almost doubled in the revised tax code.

4. Who won’t be getting a refund at all?

More than 30 million Americans -- 21 percent of taxpayers -- didn’t have enough taken out of their paychecks throughout the year, meaning they will owe the IRS will they file their returns this year, according to a study from the Government Accountability Office. That’s an increase from 18 percent of taxpayers who were under-withheld last year. That means about 5 million people who got a refund last year won’t be getting one this year.

5. Who’s angry?

Some taxpayers have turned to Twitter to vent their unhappiness after completing their tax returns and seeing the bottom line. A representative sample: "I filed my 2018 tax return today as a substitute teacher. My refund will be 40% less than the refund I got last year."

6. What does this mean for consumer spending?

Despite fewer tax refunds overall, Wall Street analysts are expecting to see a boost in spending from the lower-income consumers who will benefit from the expansion of the child tax credit. Middle-income households, those earning from $55,000 to $75,000 a year, will also see benefits, with as much as half of their tax-cut bounty showing up in refunds, Wells Fargo said. The tax-cut sugar high could be short lived, however, the Congressional Budget Office said the effects of the tax cuts are set to wane in the coming quarters.

7. What are the political ramifications of this?

Fewer people getting refunds will give U.S. Democrats, who now hold a majority in the House of Representatives, an opening to question how much the tax law benefited the middle class. Only about 45 percent of voters approve of the tax cut, according to recent polls, and many Republicans in high-tax states already lost their seats in the 2018 midterm elections due to the changes in the deductibility of state and local taxes. Looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, dissatisfaction with the tax law gives Democrats an opening to promise tax changes of their own, ones that favor the middle class at the expense of the wealthy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

<14



AP FACT CHECK: Trump swipes progress from Obama era

By CALVIN WOODWARD, HOPE YEN and CHRISTOPHER RUGABER

today 2.9.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Donald Trump’s estimation, the good times began to roll for the country on the night he was elected. So he doesn’t hesitate to swipe job growth from the twilight of the Obama administration and claim it as his own.

That overreach, seen in his State of the Union speech and other forums, extends to his boast about the shrinking numbers of people on food stamps, where he’s helped himself even more heartily to Obama-era progress. Likewise, a surge in energy production under President Barack Obama ended up on Trump’s ledger of achievement.

Trump’s speech to Congress made for a bountiful week of exaggeration, partial truth and outright error. Some highlights:

JOBS

TRUMP: “We have created 5.3 million new jobs and, importantly, added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almost everyone said was impossible to do.” — State of the Union speech.

THE FACTS: That’s not what he’s done. He’s measuring from Election Day in November 2016 rather than when he took office on Jan. 20, 2017.

Since January 2017, the U.S. has added 4.9 million jobs, not 5.3 million. Of them, 454,000 were in manufacturing, not 600,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Trump apparently reasons that employers and investors were so encouraged by his victory that they stepped up their hiring and investing right after the Nov. 8 election. But the economy simply does not turn on a dime like that, and Trump did not inherit a mess.

Here’s what history will record: More jobs were created in Obama’s last two years (5.1 million) than in Trump’s first two years (4.9 million).

Growth in manufacturing employment began in Obama’s second term, when 386,000 jobs were added, and accelerated under Trump.

FOOD STAMPS

TRUMP: “Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: The number of people receiving food stamps actually hasn’t declined nearly that much since Trump took office or even since he was elected.

In January 2017, 42.7 million people were using food stamps. That declined to 38.6 million in September 2018, a drop of 4.1 million, not nearly 5 million.

Monthly comparisons don’t mean much because the numbers go up and down over the short term. A more meaningful measure is how many people were using food stamps, on average, over the course of a year.

By that measure, the food stamp rolls declined by only 1.8 million in the 2017 and 2018 budget years. Even that period, which began in October 2016, includes a substantial drop that happened under Obama. Go back to October 2015, the start of the 2016 budget year, and the drop is 3.9 million.

ENERGY

TRUMP: “We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas in the world.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: That depends on what the definition of “we” is. His claim is true in the unlikely event he was also crediting Obama and other recent presidents who were aggressive about energy production. The government says the U.S. became the world’s top natural gas producer in 2013, under the Obama administration.

The U.S. now leads the world in oil production, too, under Trump. That’s largely because of a boom in production from shale oil, which also began under Obama.

ECONOMY

TRUMP: “In just over two years since the election, we have launched an unprecedented economic boom — a boom that has rarely been seen before. There’s been nothing like it. ... An economic miracle is taking place in the United States.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: The president is vastly exaggerating what has been a mild improvement in growth and hiring. The economy is healthy but not nearly one of the best in U.S. history.

The economy expanded at an annual rate of 3.8 percent last spring and summer, a solid pace. But it was just the fastest in four years. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for four straight years, a level it has not yet reached under Trump. In 1984, growth even reached 7.2 percent.

Almost all independent economists expect slower growth this year as the effect of the Trump administration’s tax cuts fade, trade tensions and slower global growth hold back exports, and higher interest rates make it more expensive to borrow to buy cars and homes.

TRUMP: “The U.S. economy is growing almost twice as fast today as when I took office.” —State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: This may be true. We don’t know the exact growth figure for 2018 because the 35-day partial government shutdown has delayed the release of fourth-quarter data. If it turns out to be roughly 3 percent as expected, that would be close to double the 1.6 percent growth of 2016, a slow year surrounded by better ones. Growth in 2015 was 2.9 percent, for example.

HEALTH CARE

TRUMP: “The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs, and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: His rhetoric is at odds with his actions when it comes to protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions. In reality, his administration is seeking in a lawsuit to eliminate such coverage. His Justice Department is arguing in court that those protections in the Obama-era health law should fall. The short-term health plans Trump often promotes as a bargain alternative offer no guarantee of covering pre-existing conditions.

Government lawyers said in legal filings last June that they will no longer defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act, including provisions that guarantee access to health insurance regardless of any medical conditions. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in a letter to Congress that Trump approved the legal strategy.

A federal judge in Texas in December ruled the entire Obama-era law, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, was unconstitutional because Congress repealed its fines on uninsured people. The suit has moved to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. In the meantime, the law’s provisions remain in effect. Trump has hailed the initial court ruling as “great” and predicted that it would go to the Supreme Court and be upheld.

Obama’s health care law requires insurers to take all applicants, regardless of medical history, and patients with health problems pay the same standard premiums as healthy ones. Bills supported in 2017 by Trump and congressional Republicans to repeal the law could have pushed up costs for people with pre-existing conditions.

IMMIGRANTS-JOBS

TRUMP: “Working-class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal migration: reduced jobs ...” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: Employment data suggest that the influx of immigrants helps increase overall hiring for the U.S. economy rather than erode job growth. The trend is clear in the government’s monthly jobs report. The statistics don’t distinguish between immigrants who are in the U.S. legally and illegally.

Nearly 64 percent of immigrants hold jobs, compared with roughly 60 percent of workers born in the United States, according to the Labor Department. Last year, immigrants accounted for roughly 40 percent of the 2.4 million jobs added.

Because a steady growth in the workforce helps the economy expand, economists say fewer immigrants would equal slower growth and fewer jobs. Falling birth rates and the retirement of the vast generation of baby boomers mean fewer people will flow into the workforce in the coming years — a drag on economic growth, which will, in turn, probably limit hiring.

Many economists have noted that adding immigrants would help maintain the flow of workers into the economy and support growth.

IMMIGRANTS-WAGES

TRUMP: “Working-class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal migration: ... lower wages ....” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: The weight of research suggests that immigrants have not suppressed wages.

David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley first studied the issue in 1990 by reviewing the arrival of Cuban migrants in Miami during the 1980 “Mariel boat lift.” This historical rush of immigrants created a natural experiment to measure what then happened to incomes in the local area. He concluded: “The influx appears to have had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers.”

Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis studied immigration into California between 1960 and 2005. He wrote in a 2010 paper that it had “essentially” no effect on wages or employment of native-born workers.

But many people seeking to reduce immigration rely on research from George Borjas, a Harvard economist. His research found that the arrival of Cubans in the Mariel boat lift caused wages to fall for native-born high school dropouts in Miami. Other economists have questioned his methodology.

In addition, Borjas’ findings would apply to a small fraction of U.S. jobholders today, only about 6.2 percent of whom lack a high school degree.

Other explanations for sluggish wage growth go beyond immigration. They include the decline in unionization, an intensified push to maximize corporate profits, growing health insurance costs that supplant wages and the rise of a lower-wage global labor force that in an intertwined worldwide economy can hinder pay growth for Americans.

LABOR FORCE

TRUMP: “All Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before.” — State of the Union address.

TRUMP: “More people are working now than at any time in the history of our country. One hundred fifty-seven million people at work.”

THE FACTS: Yes, but that’s because the population has grown. It’s more than doubled since 1950 and, in recent months, it’s been increasing by 150,000 to nearly 200,000 per month.

Births are the primary driver of population growth, with immigration also contributing. In 2030, that’s expected to change, with immigration overtaking the natural increase from births exceeding deaths.

As for women, the big question is whether greater percentages of them are working or searching for a job than at any point in history. And on this count, women have enjoyed better times.

Women’s labor force participation rate right now is 57.5 percent, according to the Labor Department. The rate has ticked up recently, but it was higher in 2012 and peaked in 2000 at roughly 60 percent.

Overall, 63.2 percent of Americans are working or looking for work. That’s a few ticks higher than when Trump was inaugurated, when it was 62.9 percent, but far below the 2000 peak of 67.3 percent. The rate has declined partly because of aging, as a wave of baby boomers retire, but even among younger workers it’s below where it was nearly two decades ago.

BORDER-EL PASO

TRUMP: “The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of the highest in the entire country and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country. Simply put, walls work and walls save lives.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: That’s a distorted picture of El Paso, where Trump is going Monday to showcase his push for a border wall.

El Paso has never been considered one of the nation’s most dangerous cities. In fact, its murder rate was less than half the national average in 2005, the year before the start of its border fence. The city has experienced ebbs and flows in violent crime but they have largely mirrored national trends and been under national averages for decades.

BORDER SECURITY

TRUMP: “The lawless state of our southern border is a threat to the safety and security and financial well-being of all America.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: Whether the border is sufficiently secure or not cuts to the core of a heated national debate, but it’s far from lawless. The number of people arrested for crossing illegally has plunged in the past decade and is near its lowest level since the mid-1990s, illustrating a substantial downward trend in the number of migrants trying to sneak in. Border Patrol personnel, detection technology and physical barriers have increased in that time.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION

TRUMP: “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever but they have to come in legally.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: His policy recommendations to date do not reflect this wish.

The plan he proposed upon taking office would have sharply limited the ability of citizens and permanent residents to bring in family, which he derisively called “chain migration.” The Cato Institute, which favors more open immigration policies, estimated his plan would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent, the largest cut to legal immigration since the 1920s.

According to data from the Homeland Security Department, about 750,000 of more than 1.1 million people who obtained green cards in 2017 — or two-thirds — did so through family relations. Trump’s plan called for limiting family-based green cards to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and green card holders, a dramatic cut. He’s also slashed the number of refugees the U.S. will accept for two straight years and he wants to eliminate diversity visas.

He’s talked about switching to merit-based, instead of family-based, immigration and said at times that he wants to make it easier for temporary workers to work and graduates from top colleges to stay in the country. But researchers have said the net effect of his proposals would be fewer legal immigrants.

MIDDLE EAST WARS

TRUMP: “Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: Trump exaggerated the length of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan began in October 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was in March 2003. The U.S. has been at war for a bit more than 17 years.

Also, he refers to fighting in the Middle East. Iraq is in the Middle East, but Afghanistan is in Central Asia.

STACEY ABRAMS-ECONOMY

ABRAMS, former candidate for Georgia governor, in the Democratic response to Trump’s speech: “The Republican tax bill rigged the system against working people. Rather than bringing back jobs, plants are closing, layoffs are looming and wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living.

THE FACTS: The economy is doing better after the introduction of the Trump administration’s tax cuts than Abrams suggests. The number of people seeking unemployment benefits, a proxy for layoffs, briefly fell to a five-decade low last month. And average hourly pay is running ahead of inflation.

TARIFFS

TRUMP: “We recently imposed tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods — and now our treasury is receiving billions of dollars.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: This is misleading. Yes, money from tariffs is going into the federal treasury, but it’s largely coming from U.S. businesses and consumers. It’s not foreign countries that are paying these import taxes by cutting a check to the government.

His reference to money coming into the treasury “now” belies the fact that tariffs go back to the founding of the country. This revenue did not start with his increased tariffs on some goods from China.

Tariffs did produce $41.3 billion in tax revenues in the last budget year, according to the Treasury Department. But that is a small fraction of a federal budget that exceeds $4.1 trillion.

The tariffs paid by U.S. companies also tend to result in higher prices for consumers, which is what happened for washing machines after the Trump administration imposed import taxes.

TRADE-NAFTA

TRUMP: “Our new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — or USMCA — will replace NAFTA and deliver for American workers: bringing back our manufacturing jobs, expanding American agriculture, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that more cars are proudly stamped with the four beautiful words: MADE IN THE USA.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: It’s unlikely to do all those things because the new agreement largely preserves the structure and substance of NAFTA. In addition, the deal has not been ratified and its chances in Congress are uncertain.

In one new feature, the deal requires that 40 percent of cars’ contents eventually be made in countries that pay autoworkers at least $16 an hour — that is, in the United States, or Canada, but not in Mexico. It also requires Mexico to pursue an overhaul of labor law to encourage independent unions that will bargain for higher wages and better working conditions for Mexicans.

Still, just before the agreement was signed, General Motors announced that it would lay off 14,000 workers and close five plants in the United States and Canada.

Philip Levy, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and a trade official in Republican President George W. Bush’s White House, says: “President Trump has seriously overhyped this agreement.”

DRUG PRICING

TRUMP: “Already, as a result of my administration’s efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: Trump is selectively citing statistics to exaggerate what seems to be a slowdown in prices. A broader look at the data shows that drug prices are still rising, but more moderately. Some independent experts say criticism from Trump and congressional Democrats may be causing pharmaceutical companies to show restraint.

The Consumer Price Index for prescription drugs shows a O.6 percent reduction in prices in December 2018 when compared with December 2017, the biggest drop in nearly 50 years. The government index tracks a set of medications including brand drugs and generics.

However, that same index showed a 1.6 percent increase when comparing the full 12 months of 2018 with the entire previous year.

“The annualized number gives you a better picture,” said economist Paul Hughes-Cromwick of Altarum, a nonprofit research organization. “It could be that something quirky happened in December.”

Separately, an analysis of brand-name drug prices by The Associated Press shows there were 2,712 price increases in the first half of this January, as compared with 3,327 increases during the same period last year.

The size of this year’s increases was not as pronounced. Both this year and last, the number of price cuts was minuscule. The information for the analysis was provided by the health data firm Elsevier.

WAGES

TRUMP: “Wages are rising at the fastest pace in decades, and growing for blue collar workers, who I promised to fight for, they’re growing faster than anyone else thought possible.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: This is an unsupported statement because the data on hourly wages for private workers only go back to 2006, not decades.

But data on wages for production workers date back to 1939 — and Trump’s claim appears to be unfounded.

Average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers are up 3.4 percent over the past year, according to the Labor Department. Those wage gains were higher as recently as early 2009. And they were averaging roughly 4 percent before the start of the Great Recession in late 2007.

There are other ways to track wage gains — and those don’t work in Trump’s favor, either.

Adjusted for inflation, median weekly wages rose just 0.6 percent in 2018. The gains in weekly wages were 2.1 percent in 2015.

ABRAMS-MIGRANT CHILDREN

ABRAMS, in the Democratic response: “We know bipartisanship could craft a 21st century immigration plan but this administration chooses to cage children and tear families apart.”

THE FACTS: The cages that Abrams mentions are actually chain-link fences and the Obama administration used them, too.

Children are held behind them, inside holding Border Patrol facilities, under the Trump administration. As well, Obama’s administration detained large numbers of unaccompanied children inside chain link fences in 2014. Images that circulated online of children in cages during the height of Trump’s family separations controversy were actually from 2014 when Obama was in office.

Children are placed in such areas by age and sex for safety reasons and are held for up to 72 hours by the Border Patrol.

The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general visited five detention facilities for unaccompanied children on the Texas border with Mexico in late June, during the height of the furor over family separations, and found they appeared to comply with detention standards. The government watchdog reported that cleanliness was inconsistent but that the children had access to toilets, food, drinks, clean bedding and hygiene items.

At the height of the family separations, about 2,400 children were separated. Since then, 118 children were separated. Immigration officials are allowed to take a child from a parent in certain cases — serious criminal charges against a parent, concerns over the health and welfare of a child or medical concerns.

That policy has long been in place and is separate from the now-suspended zero-tolerance Trump administration policy that saw children separated from parents only because they had crossed illegally.

MINORITY UNEMPLOYMENT

TRUMP: “African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: What he’s not saying is that the unemployment rates for all three groups have gone up since reaching record low levels.

Black unemployment reached a record low, 5.9 percent, in May, but rose to 6.8 percent in January.

Latino unemployment fell to 4.4 percent, its lowest ever, last October, and Asian unemployment fell to a record low of 2.2 percent in May. But Latino and Asian unemployment also have increased, in part because of the government shutdown, which elevated unemployment last month.

The African-American rate is still nearly double the jobless rate for whites, at 3.5 percent.

The most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017.

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

TRUMP: “Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery.” — State of the Union address.

THE FACTS: His administration has not supplied evidence that women and girls are smuggled by the “thousands” across remote areas of the border for these purposes. What has been established is nearly 80 percent of international trafficking victims cross through legal ports of entry, a flow that would not be stopped by a border wall.

Trump distorts how often trafficking victims come from the southern border, according the Counter-Trafficking Data Collaborative, a global hub for trafficking statistics with data contributed by organizations from around the world.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline, a venture supported by federal money and operated by the anti-trafficking group Polaris, began tracking individual victim records in 2015. From January through June 31, 2018, it tracked 35,000 potential victims. Of those, there was a near equal distribution between foreigners on one hand and U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents on the other.

Most of the labor trafficking victims were foreign, and most of the sex trafficking victims were U.S. citizens. Of foreign nationals, Mexico had the most frequently trafficked.

Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Juliet Linderman, Colleen Long, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Ellen Knickmeyer, Jill Colvin and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington, and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

https://www.apnews.com/3e265c4138d04e22886e6e1818789734

<

<1



1. SHOW ME THE MONEY

Average Tax Refund Down Eight Percent

17 HOURS AGO 1.10.19

Early tax filers are seeing smaller average refunds this tax season, with the average refund down about eight percent from last year. The slow start marks the first full year of the Republican-led overhauled tax code. According to data released by the IRS on Friday, refunds averaged about $1,865 compared to $2,035 for tax year 2017. This tax season is being watched closely to gauge the impact of the tax overhaul in 2017 that brought in the most sweeping changes to the tax code in 30 years. The legislation lowered most individual rates and nearly doubled the standard deduction, but also included sweeping tax cuts for companies, lowering the corporate rate to 21 percent from the previous 35. Experts have said people could see their tax burden increase because the revised code eliminated some popular deductions.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/average-t ... ht-percent

<2



Tax code changes leave Americans asking, 'What happened to my refund?'

"If I were to estimate, two-thirds will pay more than they thought and one-third will get more than they thought,” said one tax preparer.

Feb. 8, 2019, 10:41 AM CST

By Martha C. White

With filing season officially under way, a growing number of taxpayers are realizing that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act might be a double-edged sword.

The White House said in October 2017 that the average family “would get a $4,000 raise” when it was pushing for passage of the law. Now that the new filing season has begun, some taxpayers are finding out that the tax man giveth — but also taketh away, especially as it pertains to their annual refund.

“Americans are obsessed with their refunds. What really matters is whether your taxes went up or down, not whether your refund went down,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center. “It’s really important that people don’t confuse their refund with the taxes they pay,” he said.

But even as Gleckman pointed out that some people’s overall tax burdens might be smaller this year, he acknowledged that many people come to expect and even rely on that refund.

“The people who file early are the people who generally count on these refunds. They may have an expectation of higher refunds,” he said. These taxpayers, especially those who hold down multiple jobs, could be in for a rude awakening.

This was what happened to Jason Marques, a postal worker, pizza delivery driver and student in Massachusetts who said that, since his income didn’t change, he was expecting a similar refund to the roughly $6,000 he got last year — money he said would go towards his student loans or paying off credit card debt.

Marques said he was hurt by the cap on student loan interest deduction and the elimination of non-reimbursed business expenses, which he used to deduct the out-of-pocket costs he incurred as a delivery driver. “My jaw hit the floor,” he said, when he learned his 2018 refund would be under $500.

“I just started paying back my student loans. If I’d gotten the $6,000, I’d have paid off all my credit cards,” he said. “I could’ve really used that money to eliminate it all.”

Marques is not alone in his frustration. Early filers have been taking to social media to express their ire at finding that their refunds were a fraction of what they anticipated or — worse yet — that they would owe an unexpected bill to the IRS.

“That campaign promise was one of the only two reasons I voted for you,” wrote Twitter user Dee Nelson. “Rethinking that decision now.”

@realDonaldTrump just did my taxes and thanks for increasing mine!! No change in income and got back $400 less than last year. That campaign promise was one of the only two reasons I voted for you. Rethinking that decision now.

— Dee Nelson (@deeebeeezz) January 27, 2019

Facebook user Erin Boyd told of a similar unpleasant surprise in a comment on the social media platform. “I got screwed. Widow with two young children and I try to owe $100 or less, because who likes loaning money to the government. And this year I owe $1,000,” she said.

A top culprit for the confusion is the fact that the IRS made changes to withholding tables about a year ago. “People have fewer withholdings in most cases than they did last year, and they don’t realize it,” said Bob Charron, partner and head of the tax department at Friedman LLP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/ ... nd-n969366

<3



How the new tax law will affect your 2018 return

Here’s everything you need to know to successfully file your 2018 taxes.

Feb. 9, 2019, 4:30 AM CST

By Jean Chatzky

For the first time in her life, Gina Ednie, 45, has hired an accountant to prepare her taxes. Not only is she concerned about the $18,500 property tax bill on her home in Wantagh, New York, she’s also unsure what it means to lose the exemptions she’s come to depend on for her four children.

“The new tax law has thrown our entire household into disarray,” Ednie told NBC News BETTER via phone, after reaching out to share her concerns in our HerMoney Facebook group, a forum where thousands of women have gathered to support one another and discuss their money stories. “I wish my husband and I had adjusted our withholdings on our W4s, but I just never thought it would be this bad. We’ve survived multiple tax law changes over the years, and none of them ever impacted us like this.”

Ednie is still unsure exactly how much her family may owe this year, and she’s not alone. Less than half of all taxpayers — 48 percent — understand how the new law affects their tax bracket, and only 51 percent of Americans are even aware there is a new tax law, according to a study from NerdWallet. If you’re unclear exactly how you’ll fare this year once you run your numbers past Uncle Sam, don’t freak out. Check out this breakdown on all the changes, and what you can expect.

WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST CHANGES THIS YEAR?

New standard deductions. By far the biggest change is a new, higher standard deduction. It’s $12,000 for single filers, $18,000 for heads of household and $24,000 for people married filing jointly. Taxpayers have always had a choice between taking the standard deduction and itemizing — taking individual write-offs for things like mortgage interest and charitable contributions — but because the standard deduction has gone up, itemizing will make sense for fewer people. According to estimates from TurboTax, nearly 90 percent of taxpayers will now take the standard deduction, up from about 70 percent in previous years. (If you’re unsure which camp you’ll fall into, there’s an interactive calculator here.)

New limits on State and Local Income Tax (SALT) deductions. Per the new law, deductions are limited to just $10,000. (If you’re keeping up, you’ll note that’s $8,500 shy of where Ednie’s family would like it to be.) While this change won’t be a burden to all homeowners, it will hit folks hardest in states with the highest property taxes, which include New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Illinois and California.

New rules around medical expense deductions. In years past, your medical expenses had to exceed 10 percent of your annual income before you could deduct them, but now if they exceed 7.5 percent you can enjoy that deduction — if you itemize.
Dependent exemptions have been eliminated, but child tax credits have been increased. The $4,050 exemptions that millions of parents (including Ednie) had grown accustomed to taking for their children are no longer allowed, but the child tax credit was raised from $1,000 to $2,000, for children under 17, and families earning up to $400,000 can take advantage of the credit. The law also introduced a $500 credit for non-child dependents, which could include elderly parents or children over the age of 17, explains Lisa Greene-Lewis, CPA and TurboTax expert.

Moving expenses are no longer deductible. Even if you complete a necessary cross-country move for a new job, you’re no longer allowed to deduct those expenses under the new law. This does not include active duty military personnel, or companies that move. (So small business owners can still claim moving expenses on their business taxes.) One bright spot here, though: if your company is reimbursing you for your moving expenses, you no longer get taxed on that reimbursement as if it were income, explains Kathy Pickering, Executive Director of The Tax Institute at H&R Block.

529 accounts aren’t just for college anymore. In the past, funds from 529 educational savings plans could only be used for college, but under the new law, families can use them for tuition expenses for grades K-12 as well as for university studies. “This can be really beneficial for parents paying for private school or religious schools who have those kinds of expenses,” Pickering says.

IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO TO REDUCE MY TAX BURDEN BEFORE APRIL 15?

Yes. You can still get a tax deduction of up to $5,500 (or $6,500 for individuals 50 and over) and lower your 2018 taxable income by making a 2018 IRA contribution up until April 15, Greene-Lewis explains.

WILL THE NEW TAX LAW AFFECT MY REFUND?

Whether you see a bigger refund this year really comes down to your personal tax situation and whether or not you adjusted your W-4 withholdings, Greene-Lewis says. To know for sure, you’ll need to look at your total tax picture, not just your refund. “The majority of taxpayers who usually take the standard deduction may see more money in their pocket this year, but this does not necessarily mean it will show up in their refund; it can show up in their refund, paycheck or as a lower tax balance due.”

If you’re worried about getting your refund in a timely manner — the government shutdown didn’t do any of us any favors — Pickering says the most important thing tax filers can do is to make sure they file electronically, and ask for their refund to be direct deposited right into their bank account. “You really maximize the opportunity for things sailing through smoothly when you file electronically. Anytime people have to open mail and sort mail, that’s going to add lag time to the process,” she says.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I END UP OWING MORE MONEY THAN I WAS EXPECTING?

Talk to your employer about adjusting your withholdings on your W4 form, Pickering says. “If you didn’t get the outcome you wanted in 2018, with this year, you can start over, and the sooner the better. Now’s a good time to update because you have all of the information in front of you.” If you’re unsure exactly how much you’ll need to have withheld, the IRS has a handy withholding calculator you can use to see where you stack up, and ensure that next year is smooth sailing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyl ... ncna969496

<

<1



Utah Republicans have officially blocked their state’s voter-approved Medicaid expansion

The GOP’s crusade to scale back Utah’s Medicaid expansion puts coverage for thousands of people at risk.

[ SO MUCH FOR OUR VOTING RIGHTS ]

By Dylan Scott@dylanlscottdylan.scott@vox.com Feb 11, 2019, 3:20pm EST

Utah voters decided to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in November. But the Republican legislature is scaling back the voter-approved plan.

The Republican legislature has passed legislation that would, in effect, replace the voter-approved Medicaid expansion with a more limited version that would actually cover fewer people while spending more money in the first few years. The bill passed both chambers with a two-thirds majority. It now heads to Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, who is expected to sign it.

GOP lawmakers are making a big bet:

that they will be the first state to receive approval from the Trump administration for a partial Medicaid expansion. Originally, the Senate-passed legislation stipulated the entire expansion would have been repealed if the feds rejected Utah’s plan, reversing the will of the voters completely. But the state House, facing intense pressure, changed the bill at the last minute so if the Trump administration does reject partial expansion, the full Medicaid expansion as originally approved by voters would take effect instead.

Expansion supporters have still condemned Republicans for needlessly interceding to institute a scaled-back version of expansion, one will come at a higher initial cost to the state, after Utahns voted decisively just three months ago to expand Medicaid and extend health coverage to tens of thousands of vulnerable people.

“The legislature is trampling on the clear will of voters,” Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which helped push the ballot referendum, said in a statement.

Voters approved full Medicaid expansion. Republicans only want to go partway.

The ballot measure approved by the voters by a 53-47 margin was unambiguous: The state would expand Medicaid to 138 percent of the federal poverty level — about $16,800 for an individual or $29,700 for a family of three — as prescribed in the health care law. It would cover 150,000 of Utah’s poorest people. The state’s share of Medicaid expansion spending (about 10 percent, with the feds picking up the other 90) was to be paid for by an increase in the sales tax.

The legislation approved by Republicans would repeal the ballot referendum and replace it with new provisions to extend Medicaid eligibility up to only 100 percent of the poverty level and the state would have to initially pick up 30 percent of the cost. About 60,000 fewer people would be covered, and Utah would spend $72 million over the next two years. The bill is very similar to a plan Utah Republicans approved last year for a partial Medicaid expansion that did not actually take effect.

Full Medicaid expansion was to be covered entirely by the sales tax increase that was already passed as part of the ballot referendum. That tax was pegged to an earlier estimate of the full expansion’s costs over the first two years, but the state government has since released a new projection that forecasts a $10.4 million shortfall in year three, which Republican leaders have then used to justify pursuing their partial expansion, saying it’s more fiscally responsible. Still, even with that updated estimate, their plan will come with a higher price tag at first.

The only way the Republican plan would save the state money is if they received federal approval to get a 90-10 match, something that hasn’t ever happened before, may not be legally permissible, and is the subject of fierce debate in the Trump administration.

Without such approval, the expansion would have been automatically repealed under the Senate-approved iteration of this plan. The House revised the plan so that, if the Trump administration rejects their partial expansion plan, the full Medicaid expansion that the voters had approved in the first place would go into effect instead.

Utah Republicans are betting that they can get Trump’s sign-off on their plan

Two states, Arkansas and Massachusetts, have already asked the Trump administration to let them shift to a partial Medicaid expansion, covering people up to 100 percent of the poverty line. People above that threshold would have to buy coverage through the private insurance marketplaces set up under the health care law.

But those states haven’t received federal approval, with Trump’s health department remaining silent on this question. As the New York Times’s Robert Pear reported last summer, administration officials have hotly debated the expansion question, with some arguing in its favor (to head off states like Utah deciding to fully expand Medicaid) while others refuse to do anything proactive that would help expand Obamacare’s coverage to more people.

Utah Republicans have nevertheless sounded confident about their plan’s prospects in Washington, stating outright that they have assurances from anonymous Trump officials that the waiver to get the 90 percent federal match would be approved. As UtahPolicy.com, a local news outlet, reported this week:

One Republican lawmaker involved in the planning for SB96 tells UtahPolicy.com that they met with a top official from CMS (The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Service) two days before the start of this year’s session. During the meeting, they were told CMS is developing a “special waiver” for states to give them the 90/10 cost split if they implement limited Medicaid expansion, even if the plan includes caps or work requirements as Utah’s plan does. The lawmaker asked that we withhold their name.

Republicans say privately they’re extremely confident that Utah, and other states, will be awarded this new waiver sometime in the 12 months following implementation of their Medicaid expansion, allowing the 90/10 cost breakdown while giving health care to fewer people than the full expansion under Prop. 3. That means SB96 is essentially a “bridge” program to fund expansion until that happens.

Based on the Utah bill text, GOP lawmakers seem to think they’ve found a loophole: By accepting spending caps (the long-rumored goal of top Trump health officials) for their Medicaid expansion, they can get federal approval where Arkansas and Massachusetts, which actually sought to scale back from full to partial expansion, have not.

But Eliot Fishman, who worked on Medicaid waivers under President Barack Obama and now works at Families USA, said this provision is a fundamental misreading of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ discretion under federal law. If Utah can get a federal waiver to cover somebody in poverty and receive a 90 percent match, then Massachusetts must be able to receive the deal.

“What they definitely cannot do is say: We are exercising state-by-state discretion based on other criteria,” he told me, “which is what Utah seems to be assuming.”

Massachusetts could then sue if Utah’s waiver is approved. Litigation was likely to follow anyway from supporters of the ballot referendum if Utah Republicans move ahead with their plan. The state could be walking into a legal landmine — all in the name of extending health insurance to fewer people than the plan already approved by the state’s voters, and at a higher initial cost.

But the Republican legislature still pushed onward in the hope of beating back Obamacare’s unlikely victory last fall in this conservative state. Health insurance for thousands of the state’s most vulnerable residents hangs in the balance.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rop-3-sb96

<2



Border Towns ‘Safer Than Any City Trump Has Lived In,’ Says Texas Congressman

People “need to look at FBI stats and reality,” and the “fallacy” about border crime needs to end, Rep. Vincente Gonzalez said

POLITICS 02/10/2019 01:47 am ET Updated 1 day ago

Rep. Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas) tore into President Donald Trump’s fake narrative that U.S. border towns are lawless frontiers, declaring that they’re “safer than any city the president has ever lived in.”

The border town of McAllen, Texas ― population 145,000 ― in Gonzalez’s district didn’t have a single homicide last year, the congressman pointed out in an interview Saturday on MSNBC.

“The reality is McAllen is one of the safest cities in America,” Gonzalez said. “In fact, we’re the seventh safest city in America. We had zero murders the year of 2018.”

He added: “I can assure you McAllen is safer than any city the president has ever lived in. It’s much safer than New York City, it’s much safer than Washington, D.C. I could walk around the middle of the night in the city of McAllen without a single threat. ... This campaign rhetoric that has continued for two years really needs to stop. People need to look at FBI stats and reality.”

Gonzalez encouraged Trump to visit cities that actually have high crime rates, naming Detroit and Little Rock, Arkansas, and to focus “spending efforts to ... lower crime rates in areas that really need it.”

A major report on crime in Texas Monthly in 2015 deemed the border towns of the Rio Grande Valley as “extremely safe.”

Border counties, regardless of population, have lower rates for homicides, violent crime and property crimes than non-border counties in the nation, according to FBI crime statistics for 2017.

Gonzalez first elected to the House in 2016, said Trump’s rhetoric” is based on fallacy that he’s fed to his right-wing base that seem to eat it up.”

The congressman’s comments are part of a rising tide of criticism of Trump from those living along the U.S. southern border from residents angered by the president’s characterization of their communities as dangerous.

In his State of the Union address on Feb. 5, Trump called El Paso, Texas, one of the nation’s “most dangerous” cities — until a border barrier was built.

El Paso has actually been one of America’s safest cities over three decades, according to crime statistics. The border barrier was built in 2008. El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles called Trump’s statements “falsehoods” that he’s using in an “attempt to build a 2,000-mile wall.”

Trump travels to El Paso on Monday for a rally to highlight his push for a border wall. A major protest headlined by the area’s former Democratic congressman, Beto O’Rourke, and featuring the Trump baby blimp is planned for the same time.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vi ... c79b24089a

<3



El Paso mayor: I will 'absolutely' call out Trump if he repeats false crime info again

BY JUSTIN WISE - 02/10/19 05:38 PM EST

El Paso, Texas, Mayor Dee Margo (R) said Saturday that he would "absolutely" correct President Trump if he repeats a false line about crime in the border city during a campaign rally.

Margo said on CNN's "SE Cupp Unfiltered" that he's been unafraid to call out Trump over the comments he made about El Paso last week during the State of the Union address.

"I’ve been stating it publicly since last Tuesday night," Margo said, adding that the "the fence" along the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso "serves a useful purpose, but that "it’s not the total panacea."

"It can’t be," he said.

His comments came just days after Trump in his State of the Union address used the border city as an example for why walls reduced crime.

"[El Paso] used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities," Trump said. "Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities," he said.

Margo condemned Trump's comments shortly after the speech, tweeting that “El Paso was never one of the most dangerous cities in the US.”

“We’ve had a fence for 10 years and it has impacted illegal immigration and curbed criminal activity,” Margo wrote. “It is NOT the sole deterrent. Law enforcement in our community continues to keep us safe.”

He said Saturday that he believes Trump may have been given misinformation from the Texas attorney general about crime statistics during his previous trip to McAllen, Texas.

El Paso sits just across the border from the Mexican city of Ciudad Juárez and is divided by the Rio Grande and a stretch of fence that was constructed more than 10 years ago.

Margo said that the "geography of Texas won’t allow a fence from El Paso to Brownsville, Texas, even if you wanted to do it."

"So it's got to be part and parcel to technology and manpower," he added.

Trump has repeatedly demanded a wall along the southern border since his 2016 presidential campaign. His insistence to build one helped spark a government shutdown that lasted 35 days.

He is set to travel to El Paso on Monday in what will mark his first rally of the 2020 campaign cycle.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... false-info

<4



9 states have adopted "red flag" gun laws since Parkland shooting

Nine states have adopted "red flag" gun laws, which allow the temporary seizure of weapons owned by individuals deemed threatening by family members or police, since last year's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., reports the AP.

The big picture: Nikolas Cruz, the accused Parkland shooter, had a long history of mental illness but still had access to weapons, prompting the push. Florida passed its own "red flag" law shortly after the shooting, and the total number of states with similar statutes stands at 14 with more expected in the months to come. An AP analysis found that at least 1,700 gun seizure orders were issued nationwide in 2018 — and stated the actual number was likely much higher as their data was both incomplete and did not include California.

https://www.axios.com/gun-laws-red-flag ... e0d26.html

<5



CONGRESS

Rep. Cheney dodges Trump jokes about Native American tragedies

[ JUST WHEN YOU THINK TRUMP CAN GET ANY LOWER - HE FINDS WAYS TO DIG A DEEPER HOLE - THIS GUY IS TRULY CONFLICTED ]

By ZACHARY WARMBRODT 02/10/2019 12:33 PM EST Updated 02/10/2019 03:33 PM EST

Rep. Liz Cheney in a televised interview Sunday dodged questions about President Donald Trump's comments making light of Native American tragedies, despite representing thousands of Native Americans in her home state of Wyoming.

As part of an attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren's past claims of Native American heritage, Trump on Jan. 13 made light of the Wounded Knee massacre.

And Saturday, following the announcement of the Massachusetts Democrat's presidential campaign, Trump tweeted, "See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!"— seen as a reference to the Trail of Tears. The president has also repeatedly called Warren “Pocahontas.“

Asked about Trump's comments on CNN's "State of the Union," Cheney, the No. 3 Republican in the House, acknowledged her Native American constituents but refused to respond to Trump's remarks and instead attacked Warren for misrepresenting her heritage.

Host Jake Tapper tried repeatedly to get her to respond to Trump's language and "joking references to genocide against Native Americans.”

"Look, Elizabeth Warren has made herself a laughingstock," Cheney said. "And I don't think anybody should be surprised that that's been the reaction to her and to her continued claims."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... ns-1162552

<6



Insects Are Dying En Masse, Risking ‘Catastrophic’ Collapse Of Earth’s Ecosystems

The insect apocalypse is indeed upon us, according to the first global scientific review of insect population decline.

02/11/2019 09:22 am ET Updated 1 hour ago

By Dominique Mosbergen

There have been warning signs for years about plummeting insect populations worldwide, but the extent of the potentially “catastrophic” crisis had not been well-understood — until now.

The first global scientific review of insect population decline was published this week in the journal Biological Conservation and the findings are “shocking,” its authors said.

More than 40 percent of insect species are dwindling globally and a third of species are endangered, concluded the peer-reviewed study, which analyzed 73 historical reports on insect population declines.

Chillingly, the total mass of insects is falling by 2.5 percent annually, the review’s authors said. If the decline continues at this rate, insects could be wiped off the face of the Earth within a century.

“It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none,” study co-author Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, an environmental biologist at the University of Sydney, Australia, told The Guardian.

“If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” Sánchez-Bayo added.

Scientists have warned that a human-caused sixth mass extinction is now underway on Earth. Vertebrate species, both on land and under the sea, are threatened at a global scale because of human activities.

But according to the new review, the proportion of insects in decline is currently twice as high as that of vertebrates and the insect extinction rate is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles.

Insects play a profoundly important role in Earth’s ecosystems. They are a food source for many animals, are critical pollinators and recycle nutrients back into the soil.

In a November New York Times report about a possible “insect apocalypse,” scientists were asked to imagine a world with no insects.

They found “words like chaos, collapse, Armageddon,” the Times wrote. ”[One entomologist] describes a flowerless world with silent forests, a world of dung and old leaves and rotting carcasses accumulating in cities and roadsides, a world of ‘collapse or decay and erosion and loss that would spread through ecosystems.’”

According to the new scientific review, habitat loss because of intensive agriculture is the top driver of insect population declines. The heavy use of pesticides, climate change and invasive species were also pinpointed as significant causes.

“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades,” the review’s co-authors wrote. “The repercussions this will have for the planet’s ecosystems are catastrophic to say the least.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in ... e1b17f097d

<7



California governor rebukes Trump in border troop withdrawal

By KATHLEEN RONAYNE 23 minutes ago 2.11.19

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday he’s withdrawing most of the state’s National Guard troops on the Mexico border because he won’t participate in the Trump administration’s “absurd theatrics” on border security.

Still, he acknowledged some troops were doing good work fighting drug crime and said he plans to allow 100 of the roughly 360 state troops now deployed to keep working with the federal government.

“I’m trying to acknowledge there are some legitimate concerns but I’m not going to play into the hype and the politics,” he told reporters before signing an executive order changing the troops’ mission.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown agreed in April to deploy up to 400 troops to the border in response to a request from the Trump administration made to four border states. Brown made it clear then that California troops couldn’t aid in immigration enforcement, but Newsom said there’s been a “gray area” in their duties.

Maj. Gen. David Baldwin of the California National Guard said the troops have not participated in immigration detention but some are conducting camera surveillance that could inadvertently aid in immigration enforcement.

Newsom’s rebuke of Republican President Donald Trump’s administration came on the eve of Newsom’s first state of the state address as governor of the nation’s most populous state and frequent foil to Washington. In announcing his decision to withdraw troops, the governor ratcheted up his rhetoric against the president.

“This whole thing is the theater of the absurd and California has had enough,” he said.

The Trump administration hasn’t commented. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence held a meeting Monday on border security with sheriffs from around the country. Sheriff Donny Youngblood of California’s Kern County was in attendance, according to the White House.

The drawdown of California’s troops will begin immediately but may not be completed until March 31, when the state’s current agreement with the federal government is set to end.

Newsom has reassigned about 110 of the troops to beef up California’s fire preparation efforts ahead of the next wildfire season and to expand the guard’s counterdrug task force program. The expansion requires approval from the U.S. Department of Defense.

Newsom made clear during his campaign that he did not support the use of California Guard troops at the border. He took action about a month into his governorship because he wanted to responsibly review the issue, he said.

He initially wanted to pull all of California’s troops back but said he was convinced by Guard officials that good work is being done related to combating drug trafficking.

If the Trump administration does not agree to Newsom’s new terms “we’ll bring the rest back,” he said.

Newsom’s move came on the heels of a decision by New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, also a Democrat, to pull back her state’s troops from the border.

Newsom’s Monday order said the increase in Central American migrants crossing the border is the result of a desire to escape violence and repression fueled in part by the activities of transnational crime organizations. The California Guard’s resources are best spent tackling those activities, he argued.

Texas and Arizona still have troops on the border.

The 360 troops are a fraction of the roughly 14,000 that have been deployed throughout California for various operations since 2016, according to Newsom’s office.

https://www.apnews.com/9e90428669a74ca0a50c0a2acde3ec58

<1



Trump floats new 'tradition:' 4th of July parade that already exists

[ WHAT ??! ]

By Maegan Vazquez, CNN

Updated 6:32 PM ET, Tue February 12, 2019

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump wasn't able to cut a deal for a grandiose Veterans Day military parade, but this year, he says he aims to start a new 4th of July tradition.

The only hitch? The "tradition" he says he wants to start in the nation's capital already exists.

Trump offered few concrete details Tuesday when he mused to reporters that it could take place in Washington and it could include a parade.

"We're thinking about doing, on the 4th of July or thereabouts, a parade, a 'Salute to America' parade. I guess it'd be really more of a gathering than a parade. Perhaps at the Lincoln Memorial. We're looking at sites. But we're thinking about doing something that would, perhaps, become a tradition," Trump said.

Unlike the hefty price tag the administration rejected for the planned but never executed Veterans Day parade, Trump said this time the fireworks would be free.

"The fireworks (are) there anyway, so we just saved on fireworks. We get free fireworks because it's already being done. So, that's very good," Trump said, referring to the stash launched annually on Independence Day in downtown Washington.

Speaking at a midday Cabinet meeting, the President said acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt would take charge of the event. But despite the holiday being less than six months away, the agency offered few new details.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department told CNN: "Salute to America is a great idea. We are working diligently to present the best options to the White House."


<


<


<


Washington, of course, already hosts major 4th of July parade. Called America's National Independence Day Parade, it goes through the heart of downtown Washington, consisting "of invited bands, fife and drum corps, floats, military and specialty units, giant balloons, equestrian, drill teams, VIP's, national dignitaries and celebrity participants," according to the parade's website. Other smaller parades take place across Washington's neighborhoods.

It's also unclear exactly how the "Salute to America" event would work alongside -- or in place of? -- Washington's annually televised Fourth of July concert and fireworks near the Capitol building.

Inspired after attending a Bastille Day parade in France, Trump said last year that a military parade in Washington would be "great for the spirit of the country," but that it would need to come at a "reasonable cost."

In response to the President's request, the Defense Department began planning for what would have been a costly military parade marking the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I.

The Defense Department eventually postponed the parade and a spokesman saying the agency "agreed to explore opportunities in 2019."

Trump blamed local Washington politicians for the parade's hefty price tag.

"The local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly) know a windfall when they see it. When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up!" Trump tweeted.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/politics ... index.html

<2



A 2017 exhibition on the Trail of Tears at the Cherokee Heritage Center in Tahlequah, Okla. Some 15,000 Native people died during the journey from exposure, malnutrition, exhaustion and disease. CreditCreditRuth Fremson/The New York Times

Trump Mocks Warren With Apparent Reference to Trail of Tears, Which Killed Thousands

By Sarah Mervosh

Feb. 10, 2019

When Senator Elizabeth Warren formally announced her 2020 presidential bid this weekend, President Trump responded with a familiar line of attack.

He mocked Ms. Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, for her claims to Native American ancestry, again calling her by the slur “Pocahontas.” Mr. Trump then appeared to refer to the Trail of Tears, the infamously cruel forced relocation of Native Americans in the 19th century that caused thousands of deaths.

“Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?” Mr. Trump tweeted. “See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!”

The comments drew immediate blowback on social media, with accusations that the president was making light of one of the worst tragedies Native Americans have experienced. Mr. Trump previously invoked the Wounded Knee massacre, one of the deadliest attacks on Native American people by the United States military, in another jab at Ms. Warren.

“He actually is condoning a narrative that supports a genocide and a forced removal,” said Betsy Theobald Richards, who works on changing cultural narratives for the Opportunity Agenda, a social justice organization.

Ms. Richards, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, said most people have been taught only the “dominant narrative” of history in the United States, which she said has long devalued the experiences and voices of Native American people.

“People don’t really realize these are real people who live among you,” she said. “These are their ancestors that are survivors, or carry on the memory of the people who were massacred or removed.”

For those who need a refresher, here is a brief history of the Trail of Tears:

What is the Trail of Tears?

In the 1830s, federal and state officials forced thousands of Native Americans from their land in the southeastern United States, including Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee. The forced relocation affected thousands of Cherokees, as well as the Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole tribes, among others.

The Native people were forced out of their homes and put in internment camps before they were pushed westward to designated Indian Territory, in present-day Oklahoma, according to the Trail of Tears Association, a nonprofit that works to preserve the historic trail and promote awareness.

Some 15,000 Native people died during the journey from exposure, malnutrition, exhaustion and disease, including about 4,000 Cherokees.

“It’s a terribly tragic event in Cherokee history and looms large,” said Jace Weaver, the director of the Institute of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia, who has studied the Cherokee removal.

What led to the forced relocation?

In the early 1800s, the federal government made an agreement with Georgia to remove all Native Americans from the state. But little was done to enforce it immediately, according to Dr. Weaver.

Then, in 1829, gold was discovered on Cherokee land in northern Georgia, which ramped up efforts to dislodge the Cherokees, according to the Trail of Tears Association. Around the same time, Andrew Jackson became president and began to “aggressively” pursue a policy of relocating Native populations, the association said.

Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the government to relocate Indian tribes in exchange for unsettled territory in the west.

Most Native Americans opposed the policy, and the Cherokee Nation brought a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court. In one ruling, in 1832, the court sided with the Cherokees, Dr. Weaver said.

“They have this victory, but President Jackson refuses to enforce it,” he said. So, he said, “a group of Cherokees come to the view that removal is inevitable and they need to negotiate the best deal they can.”

In 1835, a faction of Cherokees signed a treaty with the federal government agreeing to move west to Indian Territory. The agreement, the Treaty of New Echota, “was illegal under the laws of the Cherokee Nation,” Dr. Weaver said, but it went into effect anyway.

“The Senate ratified the treaty despite knowledge that only a minority of Cherokees had accepted it,” the Trail of Tears Association said on its website.

On the journey west, the association said, a harsh winter and illnesses made death “a daily occurrence.”


Part of the Trail of Tears in Pea Ridge National Military Park in Arkansas.CreditTerry Smith/Alamy
What is the legacy of the Trail of Tears?

In 1987, Congress designated the Trail of Tears a national historic trail. It covers nine states and thousands of miles.

Because of what is taught in school, many people have limited knowledge of events like the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee, Ms. Richards said. “They’ve heard these terms, but they really don’t understand,” she said.

But citizens of tribal nations, Ms. Richards said, know the history intimately: “These are genocides that we remember, that are part of our family memories, that are part of our blood memory.”

She advocated more Native American voices in Hollywood, the news media and the education system.

“It’s time for the United States to step up and integrate Native history and Native culture into curriculums,” she said. “Ignorance is no longer acceptable.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/us/t ... tears.html

<3



Trump calls on Omar to resign over remarks condemned as anti-Semitic

[ WHAT ? WHAT ? WHAT A HYPOCRITE ! ]

BY JORDAN FABIAN AND BRETT SAMUELS - 02/12/19 12:29 PM EST

President Trump on Tuesday called on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to resign or be barred from serving on congressional committees as punishment for her remarks on Israel that were criticized as anti-Semitic.

“Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. “And I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

[ OH MY GAWD ]

Omar apologized on Monday for comments the previous day suggesting that U.S. support for the Jewish state is the result of money flowing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential pro-Israel lobbying group. In her apology she said her “intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole.”

The president said Omar’s comments are “deep seated in her heart” and called her apology “lame.”

[ REALLY ! DON ! WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU APOLOGIZED.................FOR ANYTHING !! ]

Trump’s decision to weigh in comes at a time when Democrats are grappling with competing views on Israel within their party. Those divisions were recently highlighted by comments from Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) -- the first Muslim women elected to Congress -- who have both criticized the U.S.-Israel relationship.

But the president’s comments also shined a light on his past responses to religious and racial controversies that were criticized as insensitive, drawing accusations of hypocrisy from Democrats.

Omar’s comments were quickly condemned by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who said on Monday the freshman lawmaker used “anti-Semitic tropes” that are “deeply offensive.”

Republicans called on Democrats to strip Omar of her seat on the Foreign Affairs panel. After she apologized, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Roll Call that she would not lose her assignment.

The Minnesota Democrat prompted swift criticism from members on both sides of the aisle when she retweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald's response to a story about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promising “action” against Tlaib and herself over their alleged anti-Semitism.

She captioned that retweet with the message, “It's all about the Benjamins baby,” referring to money.

When asked on Twitter who she “thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel,” Omar replied “AIPAC!”

AIPAC is a Washington group that promotes close ties between the U.S. and Israel. It does not donate directly to political candidates, but many of its members do.

Republican lawmakers have seized on Omar's tweets, with McCarthy and others urging Democrats to marginalize the freshman lawmaker.

Conservatives have touted GOP leaders’ decision last month to strip Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) of his committee assignments after he questioned why the terms “white supremacist” and “white nationalist” are offensive, contrasting it to Democrats’ response to Omar.

But some Democrats have called Republicans’ punishment for King too little too late, arguing that the Iowa lawmaker has made inflammatory comments about Hispanic immigrants for years.

When Trump was asked last month about King’s comments, he said he had not been following the story.

Trump also faced condemnation from Jewish groups and civil-rights organizations in 2017 over his assertion that there were good people on “both sides” of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., where a counter-protester was killed by one of the rally attendees.

The president did not apologize for those comments.

“Unlike this President, Rep. @IlhanMN demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize, use the opportunity to learn abt history of antisemitism,+grow from it while clarifying her stance,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Omar’s fellow freshman, tweeted on Tuesday.

Trump’s past remarks have not stopped him from being critical of Omar.

“I think she should be ashamed of herself,” Trump told reporters on Monday aboard Air Force One.

Asked what an appropriate response would be for Omar, he said, “She knows what to say.”

Omar, a Somali-born refugee who resettled in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, has long faced charges of anti-Semitism.

“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,” she tweeted in 2012, before she was a member of Congress.

She recently apologized for that tweet.

In a recent Yahoo News interview, Omar said the notion that Israel is a democracy makes her “almost chuckle.”

“When I see Israel institute laws that recognize it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East, I almost chuckle,” she said. “If … we see that in any other society, we would criticize it.”

She likened Israel’s government to Islamic theocracies in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

“We would call it out,” Omar added. “We do that to Iran, to any other place that sort of upholds its religion. And I see that now in Saudi Arabia and so I am aggravated truly in those contradictions.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ti-semitic

<4



National debt hits new milestone, topping $22 trillion

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER 38 minutes ago 2.12.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — The national debt has passed a new milestone, topping $22 trillion for the first time.

The Treasury Department’s daily statement showed Tuesday that total outstanding public debt stands at $22.01 trillion. It stood at $19.95 trillion when President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017.

The debt figure has been accelerating since the passage of Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut in December 2017 and action by Congress last year to increase spending on domestic and military programs.

The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year’s deficit will be $897 billion — a 15.1 percent increase over last year’s imbalance of $779 billion. In the coming years, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will keep rising, top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 and never drop below $1 trillion through 2029. Much of the increase will come from mounting costs to fund Social Security and Medicare as the vast generation of baby boomers continue to retire.

The Trump administration contends that its tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves by generating faster economic growth. That projection is disputed by many economists.

Despite the rising levels of federal debt, many economists say they think the risks remain slight and point to current interest rates, which remain unusually low by historical standards. Still, some budget experts warn that ever-rising federal debt poses substantial risks for the government because it could make it harder to respond to a financial crisis through tax cuts or spending increases.

Michael Peterson, head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, says “our growing national debt matters because it threatens the economic future of every American.”

https://www.apnews.com/91b54fd7207c45eb93523567152e43dc

<5



Polar bear invasion: Parents scared to send children to school in remote Russian archipelago

By Alex Stambaugh, CNN

Updated 8:14 PM ET, Mon February 11, 2019

(CNN)Parents in a remote Russian archipelago are scared to send their children to school after a "mass invasion" of polar bears into residential areas, state news agency TASS reported.

Novaya Zemlya, located off Russia's northeastern arctic coast, has been swarmed by dozens of polar bears since December. The region's largest settlement, Belushya Guba, with a population of about 2,500 people, has reported more than 50 sightings.

Local administrator Alexander Minayev said bears had attacked people and entered buildings. A state of emergency was announced on Saturday, with up to 10 polar bears reportedly on the settlement's territory at any given time.

"People are scared. They are frightened to leave homes, and their daily routines are broken," Minayev said. "Parents are afraid to let the children go to school or kindergarten."


Climate change effects

Polar bears are increasingly coming into contact with humans as climate change reduces their sea-ice habitats, forcing them on land for longer periods of time.

"Polar bears are reliant on seals for food and seals rely on sea ice. Global warming is melting the ice so it has a chain reaction on how polar bears can survive," Liz Greengrass, a director at UK animal conservation charity Born Free Foundation told CNN in 2018.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has helped set up patrols in some arctic communities to prevent potentially fatal encounters, introducing deterrence tools such as noise making machines, brighter lighting in public spaces, bear-proof food storage containers and safety protocols for when bears do enter communities. Rubber bullets can also be used.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/asia/pol ... /index.html

<6



Wisconsin becomes 20th state to join climate alliance designed to uphold Paris accord

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 02/12/19 06:22 PM EST

Wisconsin on Tuesday became the 20th state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of states working to uphold the Paris climate accord.

“It’s time to lead our state in a new direction where we embrace science, where we discuss the very real implications of climate change, where we work to find solutions, and where we invest in renewable energy," Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) said in a news release. By joining the U.S. Climate Alliance, we will have support in demonstrating that we can take climate action while growing our economy at the same time.”

States that join the alliance commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reporting their progress to the global community and promoting clean energy.

They aim to reduce their emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

In addition to the 20 states, Puerto Rico is also a member of the alliance.

"We look forward to working with the Governor on his priorities to invest in the state’s transportation infrastructure, increase locally-produced renewable energy, and protect natural and working lands across Wisconsin,” said U.S. Climate Alliance Executive Director Julie Cerqueira in the news release.

Evers also tweeted about his decision to join the group of governors.

"This isn’t radical stuff, folks," he wrote. "It’s time for Wisconsin to lead the way in combatting climate change and investing in renewable energy."

President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement in 2017. According to the United Nations, 174 countries and the European Union had signed the agreement as of April 2016.

https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/ene ... -to-uphold

<7



Trump dismisses FBI data, asks followers to trust him when he says border fence made El Paso safer

The president takes gaslighting to new levels.

By Aaron Rupar@atrupar Feb 12, 2019, 12:40pm EST

During his rally in El Paso, Texas, on Monday night, President Donald Trump asked his supporters to disregard federal government data showing that a border fence didn’t make El Paso safer, and instead believe his assertion that the construction of fencing along the southern border was responsible for a dramatic decrease in violent crime in the city.

Trump’s comments indicated he won’t let facts get in the way of selling his followers what he wants to sell them — and judging by the uproarious reaction he received, they’re willing to buy it.

“I spoke to people who have been here a long time,” Trump said, contrasting anecdotes with actual crime date. “They said when the wall went up — it’s a whole different ballgame. Is that a correct statement? Whole different ballgame.”

Trump went on to dismiss crime data presented by “the fake news” — even though the relevant numbers in fact come from the FBI — with an inscrutable rant about “past crimes”:

---I heard the same thing from the fake news. They said, “Oh, crime actually stayed the same.” It didn’t stay the same. It went way down. And look at what they did to their past crimes, and look at how they recorded those past crimes. It went way, way down.

These people — you know, you’d think they’d want to get to the bottom of a problem, and solve a problem, not try and pull the wool over everybody’s eyes. So for those few people that are out there on television saying, “Oh, it didn’t make too much of a difference” — it made a tremend— people from El Paso, am I right? It’s fake news. I’m telling ya, it’s just fake news. And you know what? You wouldn’t even have to know, you can say that automatically without even knowing. It’s obvious, it’s common sense.

The reality is it’sTrump who is trying to “pull the wool over everybody’s eyes.”

The facts about El Paso’s border barrier and violent crime
Trump’s comments on Monday night echoed what he said about El Paso during his State of the Union speech last week — that fencing along its border with Ciudad Juárez installed during 2008 and 2009 directly reduced violent crime, even though data from the FBI says otherwise.

El Paso “used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities,” Trump said during SOTU. “Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities.”

There’s just one problem: Trump’s claim is false. Like many other American cities, violent crime in El Paso has been falling steadily for about 25 years, and actually went up slightly after border fencing was installed.

CNN put together a draft depicting the negligible impact border fencing actually had on crime rates in El Paso.


According to crime data compiled by the El Paso Times, from 2006 to 2011, the violent crime rate in the city went up 17 percent.

So despite Trump would have his supporters believe, El Paso is not actually a case study of “walls” working.

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening”
Trump — who also blatantly lied about how many people attended the rally in El Paso — attacked the media throughout his speech. He didn’t even stop after a BBC camera operator was attacked by a man wearing a Trump hat.

Notably, Trump dissed fact-checkers, the journalists who regularly point out that he’s wrong about things like a border barrier’s impact on crime rates in El Paso, as “some of the most dishonest people in media.”

His goal, at least in part, seems to be to sow doubt that anything other than what he says is true.

Recall what Trump advised his supporters during a speech last July.

“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Trump said. “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Along those lines, during his speech on Monday, Trump was flanked by huge “Finish the Wall” banners. But in reality, he has received no money from Congress to even start construction of the wall.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/12/18221827/ ... ce-el-paso

<8



WORLD

CHINA SAYS SPACE IS NOT U.S. ‘PRIVATE PROPERTY’ AS DONALD TRUMP PLANS TO BUILD NEW MISSILE DEFENSE THERE

BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 2/12/19 AT 5:47 PM

Beijing has criticized a recent U.S. report accusing China and Russia of attempting to militarize outer space, the apparent justification for President Donald Trump's ambitious global missile defense plan.

In a report published Monday, the Defense Intelligence Agency found that "China and Russia, in particular, have taken steps to challenge the United States" in space, including through the development of weaponized satellites, energy weapons and surveillance networks. Such accusations previously appeared in Trump's 2019 Missile Defense Review, which, among other things, called for the installation of space-based missile interceptors.

Reacting to the report, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said Tuesday: "First of all, I want to make it clear that outer space belongs to all mankind. It is not exclusively owned by any one country and especially not the private property of the U.S."

"The DIA report made unwarranted and utterly baseless comments on the space policies of relevant countries including China," she added. "China upholds the peaceful use of outer space and opposes weaponizing outer space or an arms race there. For many years, China, Russia and other countries have been working hard and trying to reach an international legal instrument to fundamentally prevent the weaponization of or an arms race in outer space."


Chinese air force pilot Zhu Chengcheng captured the Flame Nebula (NGC 2024) (L) and Horsehead Nebula (IC434) in there photos, which were shared by the country’s armed forces on January 31.
ZHU CHENGCHENG/CHINESE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY

Hua also noted recent "negative moves relating to the security of outer space," such as Trump's declaration of space as a "new war-fighting domain," something that inspired him to push forward a plan to develop a sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces known as the Space Force. She said such developments were "more likely to turn into reality the risks of weaponizing outer space and making it a battlefield."

"Despite all these, the U.S. has been playing up the so-called 'outer space security threats' posed by others," she added. "In fact, it is using self-deceiving tricks to justify its own military building in outer space and R&D in advanced weapons. If the U.S. side truly cares about the security of outer space, it should work with China and actively participate in the arms control process of outer space. It should make its due contributions to maintaining outer space security, instead of doing the opposite."

With his missile plan, Trump has vowed to "ensure we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States anywhere, anytime." China and Russia, however, have warned of an "arms race" potentially set off by the new Pentagon project.

Russia and China introduced a proposal to ban the placement of weapons to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament over a decade ago in 2008. The proposal—entitled the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects—was immediately shot down by the U.S., which labeled it "a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage," according to Nuclear Threat Initiative.

Eight days later, the U.S. shot down a failed spy satellite with a ballistic missile, something China had done the year before.

Beijing and Moscow have sought closer ties in recent years, having more closely aligned their policies in the face of what they have considered to be hostile moves by Washington. They have also set out on widespread military reforms, looking to modernize their armed forces in moves deemed by the U.S. to be challenging to its global posture.

https://www.newsweek.com/china-space-pr ... se-1329295

<

<1



1. PUSHBACK

Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Trump: ‘You Have Trafficked in Hate Your Whole Life’

10 HOURS AGO 2.13.19

Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has fired back at President Trump after he criticized her apology over her anti-Semitic tweets as “lame” and called for her to resign. The drama began Sunday night, when Omar implied on Twitter that the nonprofit AIPAC was paying politicians to back pro-Israel stances. After facing pushback from both sides of the aisle, the new rep apologized—but that apparently wasn’t enough for Trump, who, no stranger to offending people, said that she should resign from Congress, or at least the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On Wednesday morning, Omar shot back: “You have trafficked in hate your whole life—against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more. I learned from people impacted by my words. When will you?”

---
Ilhan Omar

@IlhanMN
Hi @realDonaldTrump-

You have trafficked in hate your whole life—against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more. I learned from people impacted by my words. When will you?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ilhan-oma ... whole-life

<2



WORLD

TRUMP OFFICIAL REFUSES TO ANSWER WHEN ILHAN OMAR ASKS IF HE’D SUPPORT GENOCIDE IN VENEZUELA

BY JASON LEMON ON 2/13/19 AT 4:02 PM

Minnesota Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar lit into United States special envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams over his record of dismissing and supporting human rights violations in Latin America, asking him pointedly if he’d support “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” in Venezuela.

The fiery line of questioning took place Wednesday, during a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Referencing Abrams's record of lying to Congress, to which he pleaded guilty and was later pardoned by former President George H. W. Bush, Omar started her questioning by saying, "I don’t understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.”

Visibly angry, Abrams tried to cut her off by classifying the comments as “an attack.” But Omar shut him down, continuing with her questioning. She highlighted how he’d supported and spoken favorably of U.S. efforts to affect regime change in El Salvador during the 1980s, despite rampant war crimes and human rights violations by American-trained militants.


“More than 800 civilians, including children as young as 2 years old, were brutally murdered,” Omar reminded those at the hearing. “During that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping a 12-year-old girl before they killed her. You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a ‘fabulous achievement.’ Do you still think so?”

Obviously frustrated by the question, Abrams replied by saying that it was a “fabulous achievement” that El Salvador had become a functioning democracy. Omar then highlighted how Abrams had backed a government that committed war crimes in Guatemala because it had supported U.S. interests.

“Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, if you believed they were serving U.S. interests, as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua?” she asked.

“I’m not going to respond to that question, I’m sorry,” Abrams said. “I don’t think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions.”

After Omar pressed further, Abrams finally said that it is “always the position of the United States” to protect people against war crimes and genocide.

The civil war in El Salvador of the 1980s led to the deaths of an estimated 75,000 people, the majority of whom died at the hands of the government and its kill squads, according to The Intercept. Under former President Ronald Reagan, Abrams spearheaded the U.S. effort to support the El Salvadoran government, despite its blatant human rights violations and extrajudicial killings.

As Guatemala suffered through a bloody civil war in the 1980s, Abrams urged the U.S. to lift an arms embargo to the country’s government. Efraín Ríos Montt, the Guatemalan president at the time, was later convicted of genocide by his country’s own judicial system. A United Nations report also estimated that the Guatemalan government was responsible for more than 90 percent of the human rights violations carried out during the conflict.

In Venezuela, the Trump administration officially supported the political opposition leader Juan Guaido, who has declared himself interim-president and pushed for new elections. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has called the move a “coup,” accusing the U.S. of attempting to destabilize his country and steal its resources. Abrams currently leads U.S. policy efforts toward the South American nation. Trump has maintained that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Venezuela, suggesting that a military invasion to remove Maduro is possible.

The Wednesday hearing with Abrams was also disrupted by CODEPINK protestors who heckled the special envoy over his past actions toward Latin America. One demonstrator held a sign calling Abrams a "war criminal," while others wore shirts that said "hands off Venezuela."

"Look at the history of Eliot Abrams throughout Central America and the Middle East, creating wars, chaos and mayhem on behalf of U.S. corporations," Kei Pritsker, one of the activists, said in a statement emailed to Newsweek. "He should be tried for war crimes, not testifying in the U.S. Congress.”

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-genocide ... ms-1330824

<3



1. COLLISION COURSE?

House Votes to End U.S. Aid for Saudi’s Yemen War

4 HOURS AGO 1.13.19

The House voted to end U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen in a 248-177 vote on Wednesday, The New York Times reports. Eighteen Republicans reportedly voted with Democrats to “curtail presidential war powers” after Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in Istanbul’s Saudi Arabian consulate late last year. The Senate will now have to respond, and Senate aides told the newspaper they were “optimistic” a resolution would pass. The previous Senate also passed a very similar resolution last year in a 56 to 41 vote. Over the weekend, the White House reportedly threatened to block such a resolution if it ended up on the president’s desk—claiming that the “the premise of the joint resolution is flawed” because the U.S. offered “limited support to member countries of the Saudi-led coalition” in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has denied having anything to do with Khashoggi’s death, but U.S. intelligence reportedly concluded Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the October 2018 murder.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-vot ... -yemen-war

<4



POLITICS

Brock Long Steps Down As FEMA Administrator

During his tenure, Long came under fire for improperly using government resources and mishandling the Hurricane Maria response.

By Lydia O’Connor 02/13/2019 03:55 pm ET

Brock Long, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, will step down, he announced Wednesday.

Long, who has come under intense scrutiny for his response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and personal use of government funds, said in his announcement that he was leaving to focus on his family.

“While this has been the opportunity of the lifetime, it is time for me to go home to my family – my beautiful wife and two incredible boys. As a career emergency management professional, I could not be prouder to have worked alongside the devoted, hardworking men and women of FEMA for the past two years.”

Deputy FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor will take over for Long as the acting head of the agency.

Last September, news broke that Homeland Security Department watchdogs had been investigating Long’s spending for months and found he improperly used government resources at least 40 times during his tenure, costing taxpayers more than $150,000.

Though DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Long would not lose his job over the spending, she was rumored to be seeking a replacement in light of the embarrassment to the agency.

Prominent Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have continued to call for an investigation into FEMA’s handling of the Hurricane Maria disaster in 2017 and why thousands died in the wake of the storm.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brock-lo ... 4c78e27f76

<5



Bipartisan Senators reintroduce legislation to slap new sanctions on Russia

BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 02/13/19 03:44 PM EST

A bipartisan group of senators is renewing their effort to slap new sanctions on Russia over its 2016 election interference and activities in Ukraine and Syria.

The bill, spearheaded by Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), includes a wide array of new financial penalties targeting Russia's energy sectors, financial institutions and "political figures, oligarchs, and family members and other persons that facilitate illicit and corrupt activities, directly or indirectly, on behalf of Vladimir Putin."

In addition to sanctions, it would also require a two-thirds vote for the United States to leave NATO and force the State Department to determine if Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Menendez said the sanctions bill comes as Congress is reaching a "boiling point" on Trump's "willful paralysis in the face of Kremlin aggression."

"We are introducing a proposal to actually address the realities of the Kremlin threat in a holistic way, all while sending a crystal clear message to our adversaries that the U.S Congress will protect our institutions, allies and values even if the President chooses not to do so," Menendez said.

Graham added that the sanctions included in the bill, which he previously termed the "sanctions bill from hell," will be "the most hard-hitting ever imposed."

In addition to Graham and Menendez, Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) have signed onto the bill.

Trump's warmer rhetoric toward Russia has sparked years of heartburn for lawmakers, who have repeatedly and publicly broken with the administration's policy toward Moscow.

Senators initially introduced the legislation in August 2018 as lawmakers grew increasingly concerned that Russia would try to interfere in the 2018 elections.

But talk of passing new sanctions immediately ran into roadblocks with some Republicans questioning if new penalties were needed after lawmakers passed a Russia sanctions bill in 2017 over the opposition of the White House.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/429 ... -on-russia

<6



POLITICS

Science Marks Its Return To The House Science Committee

The panel’s longtime chair, Rep. Lamar Smith, had repeatedly attacked scientists and pushed climate misinformation. Those days are over.

By Chris D’Angelo 02/13/2019 05:32 pm ET

A congressional committee that for years served as a platform for one of Washington’s most stalwart climate change deniers to peddle his own anti-science views held a hearing Wednesday to discuss the urgent threat of climate change.

“It is clear that we are responsible for our planet warming at an alarming rate,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the new chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said in her opening statement announcing the first of many such hearings. ”And we’re already feeling the impact of this warming today.”

Johnson takes over the chair from now-retired Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the 14th-longest-serving member of the U.S. House, who led the committee for the last six years. The San Antonio native left behind a long history of harassing federal climate scientists, dismissing the threat of climate change and stacking hearings with industry lobbyists and like-minded skeptics. He promoted a fake scandal about climate scientists manipulating data, subpoenaed those who investigated oil giant Exxon Mobil’s suppression of climate change research and, toward the end of his tenure, went as far as to claim that pumping Earth’s atmosphere full of carbon dioxide is “beneficial” to crop production and overall planetary lushness.

In a December editorial in the Austin American-Statesman, Smith appeared to defend himself against negative media coverage of his tenure: “Headlines claiming that Congress is making a ‘return to science’ are ignoring years of progress on policies advancing research, STEM education, and space exploration,” he wrote.

But for anyone who has followed the committee over the last several years, Wednesday was ― aside from a few moments ― a clear return to science.

The event was “the most serious & most constructive congressional hearing I’ve seen in a decade (at least),” Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said on Twitter.

Not a single skeptic of climate science testified ― a grand departure from Smith’s time as chair. The committee’s Republican minority invited Joseph Majkut, an atmospheric scientist and director of climate policy at the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center, as its witness.

“Climate change is real and global emissions of greenhouse gases are driving latter day global warming,” Majkut said “As climate change continues, more severe and perverse effects will manifest themselves, causing economic harms and damages to individuals, ecosystems and other things that we tend to be concerned about.”

The discussion largely focused on a pair of sobering recent climate assessments. In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, published a report warning world governments that they must cut global emissions in half over the next 12 years to avoid catastrophic warming that would bring $54 trillion in damages. The following month, the federal government’s National Climate Assessment concluded that without drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, warming in the United States “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century.”

The Earth “is running a fever” that is already driving heat waves, extreme rainfall events and coastal flooding, Dr. Robert Kopp, director of Rutgers University’s Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences and a lead author of the National Climate Assessment, told the panel.

“To stabilize the global climate, net global carbon dioxide emissions must be brought to zero,” Kopp said. “The faster we reduce our emissions, the less severe the effects and the lower the risk of unwelcome surprises.”

In 2017, more than a dozen major climate- and weather-related disasters in the U.S. caused a record $306.2 billion in damages and killed more than 300 people. Last year’s hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters caused an additional $91 billion in damages, according to an annual federal analysis.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill. ) thanked the Republican minority for inviting Majkut, someone whose views align with mainstream science. For years, the committee found itself “wasting time arguing with non-technical witnesses” about, for example, whether it would be a positive thing if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, Foster said.

“The climate challenges facing humanity are large,” he said. “Unfortunately, serious debate about the best path forward has often been stifled by the politicization of this issue, at least in this committee.”

The event was not without Republicans trying to downplay and dismiss the all-but-irrefutable body of scientific research that shows human carbon emissions are driving climate change. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who famously claimed that falling rocks were responsible for rising sea levels, pointed to previous warming periods in Earth’s history in an attempt to prove that humans are not to blame for today’s rising seas.

Republicans also used the hearing to further their attack on Democrats’ push for a so-called Green New Deal. The non-binding climate resolution, introduced last week by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), outlines lofty goals of slashing global greenhouse gas emissions 40 to 60 percent by 2030, building climate-resilient infrastructure and reversing income inequality by creating high-wage green jobs.

“We won’t succeed with pie-in-the-sky policies that demand 100 renewable energy at the expense of reliable power from nuclear and fossil fuels, and raise energy prices for businesses and consumers,” Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) said. Instead, he argued the solution lies in innovations in technologies like carbon capture and advanced nuclear energy.

But the scientific community has stressed that the world is rapidly running out of time to stave off potentially irreversible global warming. And the Green New Deal, as ambitious as it is, is the only proposal floated by lawmakers that is on par with the extent of that threat.

“I think it’s important that it puts attention on the dangers to our planet at this time and the urgency of our actions,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a co-sponsor of the resolution, said.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-sc ... 4c78e27f7c

<7



Over 1,800 dairy cows killed in freak blizzard in Washington state, hurting struggling farmers

“It’s been four years of thin margins and losses. We’ve been struggling financially for four years and now Mother Nature is throwing another twist," said one farmer who lost 200 cows.

Feb. 13, 2019, 7:07 PM CST

By Phil McCausland

A surprise blizzard in Washington State caused the death of more than 1,800 dairy cows across a little more than a dozen farms, leaving farmers to find a way to dispose of cattle that were a key source of their livelihood.

An arid region of the state, Yakima Valley is host to a number of dairy farms that use open lots for their cows, meaning their buildings are without walls. That’s typically not a problem because the area only gets six to eight inches of rain per year.

But on Saturday farmers said that a storm forecast to bring three to five inches of snow, already a large snowfall by their standards, suddenly dropped 18 to 24 inches with winds of 40 to 50 mph and gusts of up to 80 mph.

Jason Sheehan, 44, has run a dairy farm of 5,000 cattle for 17 years in the valley. On Saturday, more than 200 of his cows were killed in the storm. He has never seen anything like it, he said, adding it is only the latest challenge for struggling dairy producers.

“It’s been four years of thin margins and losses,” said Sheehan, who employs 35 people on his dairy farm. “We’ve been struggling financially for four years, and now Mother Nature is throwing another twist. It’s a tough time to take this on.”

Most of the farms in the area are medium to large dairies that milk 3,000 to 5,000 cows apiece, according to Stuart Turner, an agronomy consultant for farms in the region.

Turner said that farmers weren’t prepared for a storm of this magnitude, but did what they could to protect their herds. Some went so far as to build walls out of hay bales to provide the cows some shelter.

But to stay warm in the dropping temperatures, the cows clustered together and some were trampled or crushed in the process. Farmers couldn’t get the animals, which each weigh around 1,200 pounds on average, to move.

“It’s just brutal” for dairy farmers, which is already "the toughest corner in agriculture," Stuart said. "Compared to 2013, total farm income on average is down 40 percent. Name an industry that has to maintain the same cost base and take a 40 percent hit and keep going.”

The cows themselves are worth on average $2,000 each, meaning that the farms collectively lost millions of dollars as well as their animals.

Sheehan said that during the storm his farm had to stop milking for the first time since it opened in 1978. It was also the first time he ever remembers milk trucks not making the rounds to pick up milk, as the area usually is spared such extreme weather.

"There were a whole bunch of dairymen working in that storm, trying to do whatever they could for all these animals,” Sheehan said. “We have a really great team of people around here, and all these employees put their heart and soul in this and there are a lot of tears around here.”

But farmers did not have time to mourn their losses, as many had to go right back to work as well as figure out what to do with the cows that died.

“What people are hearing about right now is the devastation caused by the storm, but what they don’t realize is that these farms have to keep running,” said Kimmi Devaney, director of community relations for the Dairy Farmers of Washington, who pointed out that cows have to be milked two to three times a day.

“It really showcases the spirit of the dairy community that farmers who weren’t heaviest hit have come out to help those who are in hard times,” she said.

While no definite plans had been made as of Wednesday, Steven George, the issue management coordinator for the Washington State Dairy Federation, said farmers are attempting to compost the bodies in lieu of a mass grave, which could negatively impact groundwater.

“There is on-farm compositing of mortalities,” George said. “That is an accepted practice, but this is probably going to overwhelm that. They are used to doing a couple a day. We are looking at some other potential options.”

George said possibilities include composting the carcasses at a pork facility in Sunnyside, Washington, or at a landfill across the state border in Oregon.

Shaheen, meanwhile, said he and his employees are remaining focused on the cows they still have.

“We have to take care of what’s living and make sure they’re comfortable and watered and milked and everything,” he said. “We’ve tried to focus on what‘s left instead of getting down about what didn’t make it through the storm.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ov ... te-n971371

<8



Judge finds Manafort lied to investigators in Russia probe

By CHAD DAY 53 minutes ago 1.13.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators and a federal grand jury in the special counsel’s Russia probe, a judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision was another loss for Manafort, a once-wealthy political consultant who rose to lead Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and now faces years in prison in two criminal cases brought in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The four-page ruling hurts Manafort’s chance of receiving a reduced sentence, though Jackson said she would decide the exact impact during his sentencing next month. It also resolves a dispute that had provided new insight into how Mueller views Manafort’s actions as part of the broader probe of Russian election interference and any possible coordination with Trump associates.

Prosecutors have made clear that they remain deeply interested in Manafort’s interactions with a man the FBI says has ties to Russian intelligence. But it’s unclear exactly what has drawn their attention and whether it relates to election interference because much of the dispute has played out in secret court hearings and blacked out court filings.

In her ruling Wednesday, Jackson provided few new details as she found there was sufficient evidence to say Manafort broke the terms of his plea agreement by lying about three of five matters that prosecutors had singled out. The ruling was largely a rejection of Manafort’s attorneys’ argument that he hadn’t intentionally misled investigators but rather forgot some details until his memory was refreshed.

The judge found that Manafort did mislead the FBI, prosecutors and a federal grand jury about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, the co-defendant who the FBI says has ties to Russian intelligence. Prosecutors had accused Manafort of lying about several discussions the two men had including about a possible peace plan to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict in Crimea.

During a sealed hearing last week, Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said one of the discussions— an Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Club cigar bar in New York— went to the “larger view of what we think is going on” and what “we think the motive here is.”

“This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the Special Counsel’s Office is investigating,” Weissmann said, according to a redacted transcript of the hearing. He added: “That meeting and what happened at that meeting is of significance to the special counsel.”

The meeting occurred while Manafort was still in a high-ranking role in the Trump campaign. Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime deputy and also a Trump campaign aide, attended. And prosecutors say the three men left separately so as not to draw attention to their meeting.

Weissmann said investigators were also interested in several other meetings between Kilimnik and Manafort including when Kilimnik traveled to Washington for Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. And Manafort’s attorneys accidentally revealed weeks ago that prosecutors believe Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnik during the 2016 presidential campaign.

On Wednesday, Jackson found that in addition to his interactions with Kilimnik, there was sufficient evidence that Manafort had lied about a payment to a law firm representing him and about an undisclosed Justice Department investigation.

But she found there wasn’t enough evidence to back up two other allegations. The judge said prosecutors failed to show Manafort intentionally lied about Kilimnik’s role in witness tampering or about Manafort’s contacts with the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018.

Kilimnik, who lives in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He has yet to appear in a U.S. court to face the charges.

Manafort’s sentencing is set for March 13. He faces up to five years in prison on two felony charges stemming from illegal lobbying he performed on behalf of Ukrainian political interests.

Separately, he faces the possibility of a decade in prison in a federal case in Virginia where he was convicted last year of tax and bank fraud crimes. Sentencing in that case was delayed pending Jackson’s ruling in the plea-deal dispute.

https://www.apnews.com/7950884c7ef24fdf9defc6238b492708

<9



TRUMP IS REFUSING TO PAY CONTRACTORS FOR WORK DURING THE SHUTDOWN

The president has a long history of stiffing people who work for him.

BY TINA NGUYEN

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 6:19 PM

So far, despite all the hurried negotiations over the details of border-security funding, Congress seems to be in agreement that the government will not shut down again on Friday, and has agreed to backpay some 800,000 federal workers the salaries they missed during the previous 35-day shutdown. But when it comes to the federal contractors who also went unpaid during that period—up to 580,000 people, according to one estimate—it gets trickier. “I’ve been told the president won’t sign” anything that guarantees them backpay, Senator Roy Blunt told reporters on Wednesday. “I guess federal contractors are different in his view than federal employees.”

On the 2016 campaign trail, it was a well-known (but ultimately overlooked) fact that Trump routinely refused to pay contractors during his career as a businessman. But the idea of paying these contractors reportedly had bipartisan support, until Mitch McConnell shot it down. A legislative source told the Hill that the administrative cost alone to pay back the contractors would be as high as the backpay itself, and that previous shutdown negotiations did not include this provision. “That was not initially part of our deal,” Senator Richard Shelby explained. “I personally would rather keep it narrow in scope.”

Other Republicans, such as John Cornyn, seemed to take joy in turning contractor pain to political gain. “[Nancy] Pelosi and [Chuck] Schumer should have thought about this and other collateral damage when they initially refused to negotiate on border security, something they are apparently now willing to do,” he told NBC News. “Thousands of federal contractors have not been reimbursed from the 35-day shutdown,” Schumer said in response to these reports. “This issue is hanging in the balance. . . . It’s just not fair.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02 ... wn-backpay

<

And to repeat, every time there has been major tax cuts federal tax income has actually gone up. Every. Time.

Remember that while you listen to the morons on capital hill call for higher taxes.

- - - -

The federal government collected a record $1,665,484,000,000 in individual income taxes in calendar year 2018, according to the Monthly Treasury Statements for the year, which the Treasury finished publishing today with the belated release of the December statement.

Calendar year 2018 was the first full tax year after President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on Dec. 22, 2017.

...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te ... s-calendar

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports ... rrent.html

- - - -

Despite this our national debt actually rose 1.4 trillion and just recently reached 22 trillion for the first time. And nobody, not even our great president, is talking about cutting spending. Unbelievable.

<1



Trump tests presidential power, declares emergency at border

By JONATHAN LEMIRE, COLLEEN LONG and ALAN FRAM

1.15.19

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defiant in the wake of a stinging budget defeat, President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, moving to secure more money for his long-promised wall by exercising a broad interpretation of his presidential powers that is certain to draw stiff legal challenges.

In his emergency proclamation, Trump painted a dark picture of the border as “a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics” and one that threatens “core national security interests.” Overall, though, illegal border crossings are down from a high of 1.6 million in 2000.

His declaration instantly transformed a contentious policy fight into a foundational dispute over the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, spurring talk of a congressional vote to block Trump and ensuring that the president and Democrats will continue fighting over the border wall in Congress, the courts and on the campaign trail.

It triggered outrage from Democrats, unease among some Republicans and flew in the face of years of GOP complaints that President Barack Obama had over-reached in his use of executive authority.

Trump signed the declaration to justify diverting billions of federal dollars from military construction and other purposes after Congress approved only a fraction of the money he had demanded. The standoff over border funding had led to the longest government shutdown in history. To avoid another shutdown, Trump reluctantly signed a funding bill Friday that included just $1.4 billion of the $5.7 billion he had demanded for the wall.

Trump announced the declaration in a free-wheeling, 50-minute Rose Garden news conference that included a long preamble about his administration’s accomplishments. He jousted with reporters and delivered a sing-song prediction about the fate of the order as it winds its way through the legal system before potentially ending up at the Supreme Court.

“Sadly, we’ll be sued and sadly it will go through a process and happily we’ll win, I think,” said Trump.

Within hours of Trump’s statement, the American Civil Liberties Union announced it would file suit challenging his emergency powers declaration.

“By the president’s very own admission in the Rose Garden, there is no national emergency. He just grew impatient and frustrated with Congress, and decided to move along his promise for a border wall ‘faster,’” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. Some Democratic state attorneys general have also threatened to go to court over the decision.

The text of Trump’s proclamation cited an increase in families coming across the border and an inability to detain families during deportation proceedings — not drugs or violence as the president outlined in his press conference. The top two Democrats in Congress said they’d use “every remedy available” to oppose what they cast as an unlawful measure.

“The President’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said in a joint statement.

Trump defended his use of an emergency declaration, saying other presidents had done the same. Other presidents have used emergency powers, but not to pay for projects that Congress wouldn’t support.

And Trump himself sent mixed messages as to its necessity. He wrote in the official proclamation that “Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.”

But he seemed to tip his hand at a political motive when he said during the news conference, “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” an admission certain to be cited during legal challenges.

Republicans had opposed Trump declaring a national emergency, repeatedly warning that it would set a bad precedent and divide the party when Democrats put it up for a vote. While many in the GOP on Friday fell in line behind Trump’s decision, others remain opposed.

“I don’t believe a national emergency declaration is the solution,” Sen Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said in a statement. “It wouldn’t provide enough funding to adequately secure our borders, it would likely get tied up in litigation, and most concerning is that it would create a new precedent that a left-wing president would undoubtedly utilize to implement their radical policy agenda while bypassing the authority of Congress.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler called for a hearing on the “serious constitutional and statutory issues” the declaration raises,

Congressional votes in coming weeks on a resolution blocking the emergency declaration were highly likely, but the timing was uncertain. Once a resolution is introduced, leaders by law cannot prevent votes on such a measure, which would need a simple majority to pass each chamber.

A resolution would all but certainly pass the Democratic-controlled House and may also pass the Republican-run Senate, if a few GOP senators break with Trump. Congress seemed unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities needed in each chamber to override a certain Trump veto. But forcing him to cast his first veto on the issue would underscore internal divisions GOP leaders would rather avoid highlighting.

The money in the spending bill Trump signed would finance just a quarter of the more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) of barrier he wanted this year.

To bridge the gap, Trump announced that he will be spending roughly $8 billion on border barriers — combining the money approved by Congress with funding he plans to repurpose through executive actions, including the national emergency. Money for hundreds of military construction projects around the country was potentially targeted, and Democratic congressional aides were wary that projects sponsored by Democratic lawmakers might be disproportionately hit.

For all of Trump’s talk of a crisis, illegal border crossings are down from a high of 1.6 million in 2000, but those were mostly single men from Mexico. What’s on the rise now is the number of Central American families who come to claim asylum and can’t be easily returned to their countries. Some 50,000 families are crossing the border illegally each month — straining the U.S. asylum system and border facilities, which are not set up to manage the crush.

A number of Trump’s potential 2020 challengers condemned the national emergency, including Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who said, “We should do something about the actual emergencies that plague our nation — like climate change or health care access — not playing politics in order to build a wasteful border wall.”

https://www.apnews.com/5b22a4a54ba046c4815c31bca2c92ae7

<2



Every day, 100 Americans are killed with guns and hundreds more are shot and injured. The effects of gun violence extend far beyond these casualties—gun violence shapes the lives of millions of Americans who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting.


TODAY FRIDAY 1.15.19

Laid-Off Worker Gary Martin Kills 5 in Aurora, Illinois
Ex-employee of Henry Pratt Company opened fire on Friday, killing multiple people and wounding several police officers before he died.

<

In order to illustrate the magnitude of everyday gun violence, Everytown has gathered the most comprehensive, publicly available data. Still, significant data gaps remain—a result of underfunded, incomplete data collection at the state and federal level. Filling these gaps is necessary to truly understand the full impact of gun violence in the United States.

GUN DEATHS & INJURIES BY INTENT

GUN DEATHS BY INTENT

Average Deaths per Year
Total 36,383

GUN INJURIES BY INTENT

Average Injuries per Year
Total 100,120

GUN SUICIDE

Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides.5 The U.S. gun suicide rate is eight times that of other high-income countries.

Access to a gun increases the risk of death by suicide by three times.7 Gun suicides are concentrated in states with high rates of gun ownership.

Most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, less than five percent will result in death.9 But for gun suicides, those statistics are flipped: approximately 85 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death.

White men represent 74 percent of firearm suicide victims in America.

GUN HOMICIDE

One-third of gun deaths are homicides.

The U.S. gun homicide rate is 25 times that of other high-income countries.

Access to a gun increases the risk of death by homicide by two times.

Gun homicides are concentrated in cities—half of all gun homicides took place in just 127 cities, which represented nearly a quarter of the U.S. population.15 Within these cities, gun homicides are most prevalent in racially segregated neighborhoods with high rates of poverty.

Black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims.17 In fact, Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.

GUN ASSAULTS

Three-quarters of nonfatal gun injuries are caused by assaults.

Black males are 15 times more likely than white males to be shot and injured in assaults involving guns.

CHILDREN AND TEENS

Firearms are the second leading cause of death for American children and teens and the first leading cause of death for Black children and teens.

Nearly 1,700 children and teens die by gun homicide every year.

For children under the age of 13, these gun homicides most frequently occur in the home and are often connected to domestic or family violence.

Black children and teens are 14 times more likely than white children and teens of the same age to die by gun homicide.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Women in the U.S. are 16 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in other high-income countries.

In an average month, 52 American women are shot to death by an intimate partner, and many more are injured.

Nearly one million women alive today have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner.27 Approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

Access to a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed.29
Black women are twice as likely to be fatally shot by an intimate partner compared to white women.

IMPACT ON AMERICANS

Approximately 44 percent of American adults report knowing someone who has been shot and nearly 25 percent report that they or someone in their family have been threatened or intimidated by someone using a gun.

Approximately three million American children witness gun violence every year.

SHARE

Download these graphics to share on social media. (See web site link)

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

<3

SO! I ASK! WHERE IS THE REAL NATIONAL EMERGENCY ?????

WHAT ??? TRUMP DECLARES A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON THE BORDER, HOPS A PLANE, GOES TO MAR A LAGO FOR A WEEKEND OF VACATION TIME AFTER AVERAGING 60% OF HIS DAY AT "EXECUTIVE" TIME.

WHAT? WHAT?

“I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,”

Trump said.

( Did Trump Just Put His Own Emergency Declaration in Legal Jeopardy ?? )

AIN'T IT GREAT?? WHAT A GUY! YOU GOT WHAT YOU WISHED FOR!

<1



U.S.

CONSERVATIVES RAIL AGAINST TRUMP’S BALLOONING BUDGET DEFICIT

BY ALEXANDRA HUTZLER ON 2/16/19 AT 10:51 AM

The nation’s total public debt grew to a record high of $22 trillion this week as Donald Trump struggles to keep his 2016 campaign promise to lower the federal government’s budget deficit.

According to data recently released by the Treasury Department, the budget deficit totaled about $319 billion in the first quarter of 2019. That’s nearly a 42 percent increase from the same period as last year as debt continues to pile up under the Trump administration.

On Friday, while declaring a national emergency at the southern border over wall funding, Trump told reporters that he is going to focus on strengthening the military before he can focus on lowering the deficit.

"If we don't have a strong military, you don't have to worry about debt, you have bigger problems," he said at the press conference.

The Trump administration has argued that the country’s economic growth , which would result from the president’s tax plan, less government regulation and more spending on infrastructure, would eventually counteract the deficit.

But the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the budget deficit will continue to grow in the coming years. The office projects that this year the deficit will jump to $897 billion, which is an $100 billion increase from 2018’s deficit. Last year’s deficit had been the biggest since 2012.

Last month, the CBO estimated that annual deficits are heading toward the $1 trillion mark starting in 2022.

Conservatives are slamming the growing budget deficit and Republican lawmakers for going silent on the issue.

Daniel Horowitz, a senior editor at the Conservative Review, wrote on Friday that the “GOP platform on debt and spending is a lie from top to bottom, as Republicans plan to pass more budget bills allowing us to blow through the budget caps without any effort to systemically reform the way we budget.”

Horowitz added that this “bipartisan era of debt is worse than anything we’ve seen this generation, and it is all happening with record revenue and a booming economy.”

The American Conservative also published a story this week criticizing the government’s handling of the budget deficit, writing that “Congress has stared into the abyss of debt, and the abyss has stared back. The national debt just topped $22 trillion for the first time ever, yet barely a peep was heard in the halls of the Capitol.”

Republican congressman Justin Amash criticized Trump for not discussing growing debt during his State of the Union address earlier this month.

“Finally, it’s unfortunate but not surprising that the president didn’t mention the massive national debt—overwhelmingly the result of reckless spending. He signed several of these disastrous bills into law. This spending is unsustainable and threatens the prosperity of Americans,” he wrote on Twitter.

Republicans have traditionally railed against their rival Democratic party, who they have blamed for being irresponsible. But under Trump the administration and party have been spending with abandon. The President has declared bankruptcy six times during his business career.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives- ... it-1333853

<2





POLITICS

Tax Refund Fiasco Is Political Payback For Republicans

They stepped on this rake last year and now it’s hitting them in the face.

By Arthur Delaney

02/15/2019 04:11 pm ET Updated 21 hours ago 2.15.19

Republicans boasted all last year that their new tax law boosted paychecks and showered bonuses on several million workers.

But now that tax season is upon us, several million Americans are getting a nasty surprise: a bill from the Internal Revenue Service that they never expected.

Beth Callori of Long Island, New York, said she was thrilled to receive about $90 more in each paycheck last year. Thanks to the new lower federal income tax rates, Callori’s employer, a financial services firm, was withholding less from her paycheck for federal tax purposes.

“I thought, ‘Wow, Trump is great, I love him,’” Callori said.

But last week Callori heard from her tax preparer that she owes the federal government more than $5,000 ― almost five times as much as she had to pay in previous years.

“I almost fell out of my chair. I could not believe it,” she said. “I voted for Trump. I thought he was going to be good for this country, but when I got that phone call, that’s it, I’m done.”

Callori’s tax bill went up for two reasons. One is that the law directly disadvantaged her by limiting deductions for state and local taxes, which increased the amount of Callori’s income subject to tax and added an extra grand to her bill.

The bigger reason is that her employer withheld too little from her paycheck. The extra $90 she received should have been added to the amount that gets automatically socked away to cover the federal income tax. Like most people, however, Callori did not fill out a worksheet and submit a new Form W-4 to her employer at the beginning of last year.

After all, at that time Republicans kept bragging about the bigger paychecks they had given the American people.

“I thought because I was getting that, I’m entitled to it,” Callori said.

Bigger Paychecks, Lower Refunds

The vast majority of Americans got lower taxes from the new law, while only 5 percent or so should have seen a tax increase. Most people should have seen the changes in their paychecks last February.

But the way the Trump administration implemented the law has caused a separate problem ― one that the administration knew would result in something like 5 million fewer households receiving tax refunds this year. It’s still early in tax filing season, which opened at the end of January, but the average refund is down 8.7 percent so far.

The Treasury Department suggested tax refunds are bad anyway because they result from people overpaying the government.

“Smaller refunds mean that people are withholding appropriately based on their tax liability, which is positive news for taxpayers,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The problem is, it’s not just smaller refunds ― it’s that paycheck withholding for this tax season is less accurate in general.

Treasury has said it expected the percentage of people withholding too much tax in their paychecks to decline from 76 to 73 percent, but the percentage withholding accurately is not increasing at all. Instead, Treasury expected the rate of under-withholding to go from 18 to 21 percent. Those people all owe the IRS.

The households most at risk are ones with higher incomes, two earners and slightly more complicated taxes ― especially households that used to itemize their deductions. Instead of taking the standard deduction, which reduces taxable income by a set value, itemizers would add up what they spent on state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable giving, and deduct that sum instead. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act greatly reduced the advantage of itemizing and limited the deduction for state and local tax.

Politics Over Planning

But the Trump administration decided not to make major changes to the withholding tables that employers are required to use to make sure everybody is paying the right amount of tax. The value of “allowances” that workers can choose on Form W-4 to adjust their withholding has been pegged for years to something called the personal exemption ― which the new tax law eliminated. So they set the value of allowances to last year’s personal exemption and adjusted for inflation.

Coming up with new forms would have taken at least half a year, and would have been a chore for everyone.

“There’s this tension … You’d like to get all the information needed to calculate withholding as accurately as possible, but that gets very complicated for taxpayers,” said Joe Rosenberg, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center.

The administration could have let people withhold too much rather than surprise them with bills at tax time, Democrats have said.

“It looks like the Trump Treasury Department spent 2018, an election year, goosing people’s paychecks by under-withholding, and it should have been obvious that the bill would come due eventually,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement Friday.

The IRS did try to warn people to check their withholding. The agency told the Government Accountability Office that it put out press releases and sent emails to listservs with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. It promoted a “paycheck checkup” campaign on Twitter and Facebook, and officials talked to the media.

The “make sure you’re not underwithheld” messaging may have been drowned out by congressional Republicans bragging that their law had turbocharged the economy and directly benefited millions of workers. They kept a running tally of the hundreds of firms that had announced bonuses for their employees, trumpeting each announcement in a series of press releases. Fox News worked overtime to remind people that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously called the bonuses “crumbs,” as though that weren’t a perfectly accurate description.

Another problem, which is not Republicans’ fault, is that even though everyone pays taxes, not everyone understands them very well. Less than half of Americans said they knew they could update their W-4 forms at any time and only 19 percent had actually done so, according to a November survey by the tax prep company H&R Block. Twice as many survey respondents said they updated their W-2, which is actually a document prepared by employers, not workers.

Also, some filers are surprised by tax bills simply because they didn’t realize some of the money they earned needed to be taxed. “They’ll have some side job where there’s no withholding and that’s creating this new tax liability,” H&R Block’s Nathan Rigney said, pointing to the rise of non-employee gigs like Uber and Taskrabbit.

Crunching Numbers

By capping deductions for state and local taxes, Republicans knew the tax hikes in their law would be concentrated on states with high taxes ― which tend to be led by Democrats, who use the taxes to provide more social services.

But it’s not just wealthy New Yorkers who’ve wound up paying more.

Kurt Kromm is an electrician in Kenosha, Wisconsin ― an area that used to be represented by former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Kromm knew he and his wife would pay higher taxes because of the limit on deductions for state and local taxes, but he didn’t think they would owe more than $4,000 this spring.

Kromm had already indicated on the Form W-4 documents he’d previously submitted to his employer that he was married and wanted zero allowances, which means he was withholding as much as he could without specifying an additional dollar amount.

“I figured married and zero would probably be appropriate,” Kromm said. “They spent no time trying to really put out a decent withholding table.”

Kromm’s case shows the two-earner household pitfall. After he realized how much he owes, he went to the withholding calculator on IRS.gov and realized he could have either told his employer to take an additional $80 per week or just chosen to withhold at a single rate on his W-4, since single people face higher rates and therefore higher withholding. If he had done so last year, he could have had less money in each paycheck but saved himself the aggravation of making a large payment.

But not even the administration expected people to go to such lengths ― in its simulations of how people would be affected, the IRS assumed nobody would adjust their W-4s.

“It’s unreasonable to expect working people with busy lives to start the year out by crunching the numbers on their tax withholding with the rigor of a workaholic [certified public accountant],” Wyden said.

Beth Callori, for her part, said she had also previously chosen zero allowances ― plus she had an extra $130 withheld from each paycheck. It wasn’t enough.

She said she used to love Donald Trump. Not anymore.

“I really liked things he was doing, until this, and now I hate him,” she said.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-refu ... a799429900

<3



U.S.

MORE THAN A DOZEN MICHIGAN WATER SYSTEMS FAILED FEDERAL LEAD TESTS

BY ML NESTEL ON 2/16/19 AT 10:57 AM

Many of Michigan’s drinking water systems are loaded with lead.

That’s the concerning conclusion in an MLive-The Flint Journal report that counted 13 of the state’s water systems being put through Lead and Copper Rule tests during the latter half of 2018, and each came up short in meeting federal standards.

The publication cited a drastic stat: that 27 water providers “registered 90th percentile lead levels” and therefore marked 13 ppb (parts per billion) — that ultimately surpasses the 12 ppb lead threshold set in place last year.

This means that 10% of the “high-risk” homes in systems such as Maple Knoll in Eaton County and Lakeview Chalet Condominiums in Oakland County, returned readings of 15 ppb lead or more, according to the publication.

The report noted U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA uses the 90th percentile level formula “to measure the prevalence of lead in water sampled by the more than 1,200 public water systems in the state.

The EPA set limits on led to 15 ppb and, according to the agency’s Lead and Copper Monitoring Guidance report, “no more than 10 percent of your samples can be above either action level.”

If they do, the agency suggests conducting a series of steps including corrosion control treatment, water quality parameter monitoring, source water monitoring (which could include treating the source water) public education to explain health effects and exposure reduction, to the extreme of switching out service lines if the levels remain high.

Some are questioning the high lead level readings.

“We think it’s just a fluke thing because we’ve never had the problem,” Walter Breidenstein, manager of the Melrose-Chandler Water system in Charlevoix County which serves hundreds of people told M-Live.

It may have indeed been a “fluke” because Bredenstein claimed the samples were marginal from July until December of last year while the first half the results were 2 ppb.

He also pointed to subsequent tests that have been found to clear the 15 ppb threshold.

Thomas Saeli, president of the Hills of Walloon Association (overseeing water to less than 100 homes), where Live cited its lead levels rose to 48 ppb — claimed that result was sourced from a single neglected faucet in a home.

“The system was tested again in September” and came back in compliance, he told the publication. “Our water system doesn’t have lead (pipe) in it. It had an improper test (that) was done."

https://www.newsweek.com/lead-michigan- ... ty-1333799

<4



It's official: Trump's policies deter EPA staff from enforcing the law

BY JOEL A. MINTZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/16/19 03:00 PM EST

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an annual report Feb. 8 on its enforcement activities in fiscal 2018. After wading through a bushel full of cherry-picked case studies and a basket of bureaucratic happy talk, the report paints a dismal picture of decline in a crucially important EPA program.

EPA’s data indicate that it initiated and concluded approximately 1,800 civil judicial enforcement cases in 2018 — fewer than half the number it handled in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration. The agency required violators to invest $3.95 billion to control their excessive pollution last year, a far cry from the $21.3 billion in pollution control expenditures that resulted from EPA enforcement in 2011. Similarly, the total amount of administrative and civil penalties that EPA extracted from environmental violators was at its lowest level in the past decade, thus reducing the disincentive for companies to break the law. The same was true with regard to the number of criminal cases opened by the agency in 2018 and the number of defendants charged with federal pollution crimes — all were down to the lowest levels in ten years.

Contributing to those dismal numbers was a dramatic decline in EPA’s facility inspections and plant evaluations. Those activities fell to 10,600 in 2018 — less than 50 percent of the number of plant visits conducted by the agency in 2010.

Inspections are particularly important for their deterrent effect. In addition to uncovering unreported violations, EPA plant visits are supposed to send a message to would-be violators that an environmental “cop is on the beat.” The more inspections decline, the more likely it is that some companies will attempt to cut their operating costs by cutting corners on pollution controls.

As troubling as these numbers are, they do not fully portray the extent to which EPA’s enforcement efforts have been suppressed in the first two years of the Trump administration.

Against a backdrop of numerous proposals that ignore legitimate scientific findings and eliminate or water down safeguards designed to mitigate climate change and protect the nation’s air and water, many among the agency’s career staff now perceive that EPA's political leadership frowns upon meaningful enforcement of pollution control standards. This perception stems, in part, from policy directives from the agency’s enforcement chief, Susan Bodine, and from the Trump administration’s proposals to significantly cut the budget for EPA’s enforcement and compliance programs. In addition, some politically appointed regional administrators have been meeting behind closed doors with top company executives who want to weaken regulatory requirements that affect their firms.

Taken together, these developments devastated EPA staff morale at all levels. A number of experienced enforcement personnel have left the agency over the past two years, taking with them experience and expertise vital to effective environmental enforcement. Among the groups most affected has been the EPA’s Senior Executive Service (SES), the agency’s top rung of permanent career staff. The agency's political leadership can legally subject SES staff to duty changes and relocations to another part of the country with little notice. Such sudden reassignments have already happened to some SES staff, while others are fearful of suffering the same fate if they disappoint political appointees.

Not surprisingly, these circumstances have deterred some within EPA’s SES from pursuing vigorous enforcement of agency regulations, protecting the nation’s air and water and requiring the cleanup of toxins.

Beyond this, EPA oversight of state enforcement work has been all but eliminated in the past two years. Even though a number of state environmental agencies lack the resources, expertise and political will to enforce pollution control requirements, EPA regional officials have been encouraged to defer to state preferences in enforcement matters — which in many cases means standing back and allowing pollution to continue unabated. Thus, even in circumstances of extreme violations, where a state fails to pursue needed and appropriate enforcement measures in a given case, EPA personnel are largely precluded from stepping in and enforcing the law.

While EPA enforcement is not completely moribund, it now appears to be limping along at far lower levels, and with less overall impact, than was true prior to the Trump administration. Given these ongoing failings, now is the time for Congress to conduct thorough and vigorous oversight of the agency’s steeply declining enforcement efforts.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... orcing-the

<5



Special counsel Robert Mueller calls for ex-Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort to be imprisoned for up to 24 years, slapped with huge fines

Special counsel Robert Mueller in Friday night said federal guidelines suggest a sentence ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort to between about 19 years to 24 years in prison in his Virginia case.

Mueller, in a court filing, also said guidelines suggest a fine Manafort between $50,000 to $24 million, an order the longtime Republican operative pay restitution of more than $24 million, and forfeit more than $4 million.

Manafort was convicted last year of multiple crimes connected to his work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. That work predated his tenure with Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016.

[ NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO REDUCE SENTENCE; PLENTY OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD ADD TO THE SENTENCE ! ]

[ WHAT'S MANAFORT HIDING ? RATHER DIE IN PRISON THAN COME CLEAN ? MANAFORT, COHEN, STONE, ETC ALL LYING ABOUT RUSSIA ! ]

Kevin Breuninger | Dan Mangan

Published 23 Hours Ago Updated 7 Hours Ago 2.15.19

Special counsel Robert Mueller said Friday that federal sentencing guidelines suggest that a judge in Virginia to send ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort to prison for between about 19 years to 24 years for crimes that include tax fraud and bank fraud.

Mueller, in a court filing, also revealed that the guidelines suggest that Judge T.S. Ellis fine Manafort between $50,000 to $24 million, order the longtime Republican operative to pay restitution of more than $24 million, and make him forfeit more than $4 million.

The special counsel's filing says that Mueller agrees with how the guidelines for Manafort's sentence were calculated for a pre-sentence investigation report prepared by federal probation officials.

But Mueller added that "the government does not take a position as to the specific sentence to be imposed here" in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

However, the special counsel also said that "Manafort acted for more than a decade as if he were above the law, and deprived the federal government and various financial institutions of millions of dollars. The sentence here should reflect the seriousness of these crimes, and serve to both deter Manafort and others from engaging in such conduct."

Federal sentencing guidelines are calculated by formulas that take into account the seriousness of a defendant's crimes, the amount of money involved in the crimes, their acceptance of responsibility, criminal history and other factors. The guidelines are not binding on a judge, but are often used as a reference point for determining a criminal sentence.

Mueller's filing came hours after he asked Ellis, to set a sentencing date for Manafort"as soon as practicable."

Manafort was convicted at trial last Aug. 21 in the Virginia court of eight felony counts, which included tax fraud, failure to file a report of a foreign bank and financial accounts, and bank fraud. A jury deadlocked on 10 other counts.

The case was related to income Manafort earned while doing consulting work for pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine. That work predated his tenure of leading the Trump campaign for several months in 2016.

Manafort already is due to be sentenced March 13 in a related criminal case in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. He pleaded guilty in that court in September, days before a scheduled trial, to two counts of conspiracy.

Mueller's filing says, "Neither the Probation Department nor the government is aware of any mitigating factors" in Manafort's case.

"Manafort did not commit these crimes out of necessity or hardship. He was well educated, professionally successful, and financially well off. He nonetheless cheated the United States Treasury and the public out of more than $6 million in taxes at a time when he had substantial resources," Mueller said.

"Manafort committed bank fraud to supplement his liquidity because his lavish spending exhausted his substantial cash resources when his overseas income dwindled."

"Manafort chose to do this for no other reason than greed, evidencing his belief that the law does not apply to him," the special counsel said.

As part of his guilty plea in Washington, Manafort agreed to cooperate with Mueller's ongoing probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and possible efforts by members of Trump's campaign to aid that interference.

However, in November, Mueller accused Manafort of breaking that plea deal by lying to federal authorities about multiple subjects.

Earlier this week, the judge in the Washington case, Amy Berman Jackson, said that Manafort had lied several times to the FBI, the special counsel's office and a grand jury. But she also said Mueller had failed to provide enough evidence to prove Manafort had lied about several other issues.

Jackson's finding means that the special counsel is no longer bound to recommend any leniency for Manafort when he is sentenced.

Manafort's legal team had disputed Mueller's claim that he broke the plea deal.

Earlier Friday, Trump's spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said she has been interviewed by Mueller's team.

Manafort, 69, has been in jail without bail since last June, when Mueller asked him and a former business associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, of trying to tamper with witnesses in what was at the time his upcoming criminal trials.

Mueller has accused Kilimnik of being a Russian spy. Kiliminik has denied that claim, but he remains abroad, and out of reach of American authorities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/special ... years.html

<6



Trump says he expects the Supreme Court to uphold his national emergency declaration after presumptive losses in lower courts

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he anticipated his national emergency declaration would be rejected by multiple federal courts but ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"They will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court," Trump said.

Good-governance groups have already promised litigation over the president's declaration, which he has said is necessary on national security grounds.

Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins

Published 12:45 PM ET Fri, 15 Feb 2019 Updated 1:23 PM ET Fri, 15 Feb 2019

President Donald Trump said Friday that he anticipated his national emergency declaration would be rejected by multiple federal courts but ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In blunt remarks, delivered in the White House Rose Garden, Trump outlined a legal strategy based on the playbook his administration used to successfully defend its travel ban.

"We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court," Trump said, his voice animated by an annoyed lilt.

Good-governance groups have already promised litigation over the president's emergency declaration, which the White House has said is necessary on humanitarian and national security grounds. Trump seemed to downplay that reasoning Friday by saying he "didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

"Hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we will win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban."

-President Donald Trump

The president's comment is likely to emerge in litigation challenging his reasoning for the ban, just as comments he made about his administration's travel ban — as well as a number of inaccurate and inflammatory anti-Muslim posts on Twitter — were cited in those challenges. Importantly, though, Chief Justice John Roberts brushed aside the significance of Trump's comments in his opinion upholding the travel ban, noting that the "text says nothing about religion."

That ban, a signature aspect of the president's foreign policy, blocked visitors from a number of majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States and was challenged on the grounds that it was motivated by religious discrimination. A version was upheld by the justices over the summer in a 5-4 ruling that fell along party lines.

Trump cited the decision Friday when he declared a national emergency over illegal immigration.

"Hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we will win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban," Trump said. "They sued us in the 9th Circuit, and we lost, and then we lost in the appellate division, and then we went to the Supreme Court, and we won."

Trump vs. the 9th Circuit

Trump has often accused the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, of having partisan bias. Sixteen of the court's 23 judges were appointed by Democrats, according to the court website.

The court has struck down a number of Trump policies, including his travel ban and a plan to withhold federal funds from so-called "sanctuary cities."

The president's criticism of the judiciary led to a striking pushback last year from Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, who rejected the idea of partisan bias among judges. He praised what he called America's "extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

If the Supreme Court does hear a case regarding the president's emergency declaration, it could potentially do so in its term beginning in October. A ruling would likely come down around the end of the term in June 2020, months before the presidential election.

Debate over separation of powers

Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit, and the Niskanen Center, a nonpartisan think tank, released a statement Thursday night announcing their intent to file a lawsuit.

"America is governed by the rule of law and the separation of powers," Kristie De Pena, director of immigration and senior counsel for the Niskanen Center, said in the statement. "President Trump's threat to declare a national emergency would violate both of these. Our lawsuit would aim to stop the dangerous precedent this would establish for the presidency and the immediate harm it would inflict on communities along the border."

Experts have said that there does not exist any precedent for a legal challenge contesting a president's determination that a situation amounts to a national emergency. Over the years, Congress has delegated a host of powers to the president if he or she declares a national emergency, although the constitutionality of those emergency powers remains subject to vigorous debate.

Bipartisan alarm

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that the Trump administration had rebuffed his requests to review "complete copies of intelligence assessments, intelligence, and data justifying the President's statements that terrorists were streaming through the Southern border and there was a national emergency."

"The Department of Homeland Security has refused to respond. Now we know why — there is no such intelligence," Schiff said.

Republicans in Congress remain divided on the wisdom of Trump's plan. Some influential senators, including vocal Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, pressed the president to declare an emergency if he could not otherwise obtain funding for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Other members of the GOP caucus, including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Marco Rubio of Florida and John Cornyn of Texas, have warned against setting a precedent that could be used by future Democratic presidents.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/trump-s ... ation.html

<7





HIGH NOON

It’s Up to Chief Justice John Roberts to Stop Trump’s Border Wall

The national emergency order is headed to the highest court, one way or the other. This will put American democratic institutions to their greatest test of the 21st century.

Jay Michaelson

02.15.19 11:57 AM ET

President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border to build a wall there is nearly unprecedented in American history and will end in a showdown at the Supreme Court. A lawsuit will certainly be filed to stay Trump’s order and it will quickly work its way to the highest court in the land.

And then it could go either way.

If the court’s four liberals and four conservatives vote as expected, the case will depend on Chief Justice John Roberts. And his record on executive power and the rule of law is decidedly mixed.

Just last year, Roberts wrote the controversial 5-4 decision allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” (rebranded as a “travel ban”) to go into full effect. Despite Trump’s numerous promises of a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” Roberts took the State Department at its word when it said the ban was about national security, not religion.

In many ways, the border wall is similar. Yes, the president spending money in a way Congress expressly refused to do is a clear violation of Article I of the Constitution. But the president has broad power when it comes to national security; if he can ban Muslims from visiting America, he can build a wall in Texas to stop Central Americans.

(Trump’s offhand remark that “I didn't need to do this” doesn't mean there isn’t an emergency. The case for an emergency will be based on a long, factual record, not a single ambiguous phrase.)

On the other hand, Roberts took the nearly unprecedented step of publicly rebuking Trump for criticizing “Obama judges” when the president lost in court, declaring “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

In addition, Roberts has, in numerous cases, sought to re-establish the Court’s legitimacy in the wake of a string of horrible, political, and legitimacy-reducing decisions, most importantly Bush v. Gore, in which conservative justices junked both federalism and originalism to interpret Florida’s constitution in favor of George W. Bush.

Most famously, Roberts twice saved the Affordable Care Act from Republican-led lawsuits against it, establishing his own independence as well as that of the Supreme Court.

So, which Roberts will it be? The one who defers to the president and defies common sense, or the one who stands up for the rule of law against a president with no respect for it?

As a matter of law, Trump is clearly on the losing side of Supreme Court precedent.

The president’s constitutional powers in the case of emergencies are very limited; they extend only to suspending writs of habeas corpus. The National Emergencies Act, passed in 1976, provides very broad authority to declare a national emergency and act in the case of one.

Since its passage, 58 such emergencies have been declared, and 31 of them are still in effect today. Three were declared, uncontroversially, by Trump himself.

However, most emergency actions have been economic (boycotts of Syria, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and numerous other countries) or seizures of individual property. None is of the scale of the border wall.

More importantly, none of those actions has gone against the express will of Congress, which was the subject of one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in legal history, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

In 1952, after President Truman used emergency powers during the Korean War to seize steel mills in the face of a strike, fearing that national security would be at risk if they closed. In Youngstown, which came to be known as the “Steel Seizure Case,” a divided Supreme Court—there were eight separate opinions—held that when Congress had specifically refused to take a specific action, as they had in the steel seizure case, the president lacked authority to do so.

The border wall is an even stronger case than Youngstown. In Youngstown, Congress had merely failed to act. Here, Congress has expressly refused to do so.

Congress has had many years to build such a barrier, and it has built 658 miles of one. But it has declined, again and again, to build a 1,000-mile barrier or to appropriate almost any money for the Trump administration to do so. The recent government shutdown, of course, was precisely about that disagreement.

In other words, this is not a case in which Congress has been silent, as in Youngstown. This is a case in which Congress has clearly said “no” and the president says “yes” anyway.

Thus, the National Emergency Act, as applied in this case, would seem to violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress didn’t write into the law the power to defy it at will; on the contrary, it was written to limit presidential power in the wake of Watergate.

Not only are Trump’s actions unconstitutional under Youngstown; arguably, Trump’s defiance of Congress is at the essence of constitutional democracy itself. It is the difference between a republic and fascism.

These are the questions for the Supreme Court to decide.

In the meantime, the immediate future of the wall is not yet clear. A lawsuit will certainly include a request for an injunction barring construction while the litigation unfolds. That request may or may not be granted; the standard for an injunction is higher than the standard for deciding the case itself. The bulldozers could start building Trump’s wall before the Supreme Court rules on its legality.

At the end of the day, however, this will be the Supreme Court’s decision to make. The Trump-Roberts showdown is here, and at stake is the Constitution itself.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-up-to ... l?ref=home

<8



Here's where the money for Trump's border wall will come from

President Donald Trump has access to roughly $8 billion in government funds to use for the long-promised border wall.

The money will come from a mix of congressional appropriations and several departments' pre-existing programs.

Amanda Macias | John W. Schoen

Published 11:43 AM ET Fri, 15 Feb 2019 Updated 5:39 PM ET Fri, 15 Feb 2019

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency to gain access to roughly $8 billion to fund a border wall.

Before Trump's announcement in the Rose Garden, a senior administration official explained that the money will be pulled from the following areas:

$1.375 billion from the Homeland Security appropriations bill

$600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund

$2.5 billion from the Department of Defense's drug interdiction program

$3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction account

The $1.375 billion, which is part of a spending bill passed by Congress, is short of the $5.7 billion that Trump had asked for late last year but didn't get. A fight over the barrier money led to a record-long partial government shutdown that was resolved after 35 days. What's more, the $1.375 billion would specifically not allow construction of new wall prototypes proposed by Trump, and would instead put money toward 55 miles of bollard fencing.

"They say walls don't work. Walls work 100 percent," Trump said Friday from the Rose Garden.

"We fight wars that are 6,000 miles away, wars that we never should have been in. But we don't control our own border. So we are going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we're going to do it one way or the other. We have to do it," Trump said.

Trump also said that if there was a physical barrier at the southern border, "we'd save tremendous, just a tremendous amount on, would be sending the military. If we had a wall we don't need the military, cause we'd have a wall!"

The Pentagon announced earlier this month that it would send a deployment of about 3,750 troops to the U.S. border with Mexico. The additional troops will bring the total number of forces supporting the border mission to approximately 4,350, according to estimates provided by the Department of Defense.

The troop deployment, which was approved by acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on Jan. 11, will last for 90 days. The border mission includes mobile surveillance capability as well as the emplacement of approximately 150 miles of concertina wire between ports of entry.

A congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Trump can divert roughly $21 billion in military construction funds that aren't already obligated for use on border projects. Some of the $21 billion will be taken from the "wartime funds" account, which is known as the overseas contingency operations, or OCO.

"[The president] is free to spend without a vote from Congress," the aide said of the immediately available $21 billion. "He has to notify Congress of what he's done but he doesn't have to come to Congress to do it."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/heres-w ... e-from.html

<9



Pence met with silence after mentioning Trump in Munich speech

BY TAL AXELROD - 02/16/19 11:23 AM EST

Vice President Pence was met with silence on Friday when he mentioned President Trump at a security conference in Munich.

“I bring greetings from the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald Trump,” Pence said, before being met with a lengthy silence.

Pence traveled to Germany this week for the annual Munich Security Conference along with a bipartisan delegation, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

The vice president spoke at an award ceremony on Friday for the first recipients of a scholarship commemorating the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who attended the conference numerous times.

In remarks on Friday, Pence knocked NATO allies who he said "still need to do more."

"The United States expects every NATO member to put in place a credible plan to meet the 2 percent threshold. And, by 2024, we expect all our allies to invest 20 percent of defense spending on procurement," he said.

NATO members agreed in 2014 to move toward spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense by 2024.

The Trump administration has been openly critical of NATO, arguing that the U.S. contributes disproportionately to fund the group and, subsequently, protecting other countries that pay less. Members contribute toward defense spending in their respective budgets to fund NATO.

The New York Times reported last month that Trump indicated multiple times last year that he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from NATO.

Pence on Friday also blasted China and Russia in front of delegations from both countries

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States has also made it clear that China must address the longstanding issues of intellectual-property theft, forced technology transfer, and other structural issues in China that have placed a burden on our economy and on economies around the world,” he said.

Pence later noted the U.S.'s move to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The decision to withdraw has triggered questions about the potential impact on European security and the global strategic environment amid weakened U.S.–Russia relations.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ich-speech

<10





POLITICS

Ann Coulter Slams Back At Trump: The Only Emergency Is Our ‘Idiot’ President

“Thank God he has relieved me of any responsibility for what he’s been doing,” said the right-wing scold.

By Mary Papenfuss

02/16/2019 01:00 am ET

Ann Coulter cranked up her battle with Donald Trump again Friday with another broadside about his border wall tactics. The conservative commentator declared that the “only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Trump scrambled earlier Friday to distance himself from her and her vitriolic comments about him, claiming in a Rose Garden address Friday, to everyone’s surprise: “Ann Coulter, I don’t know her. I hardly know her. I haven’t spoken to her in way over a year.”

In the announcement of his national emergency declaration to divert funding for the wall, he added that Coulter had “gone off the reservation” in her increasingly harsh criticism of him.

“Thank God [Trump has] relieved me of any responsibility for what he’s been doing,” Coulter said on KABC-AM’s “Morning Drive” program in Los Angeles on Friday, just minutes after Trump’s comments. “That was the biggest favor anyone could do me today.”

The Mexican border wall was “the promise he made every single day at every single speech. Forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave,” she added. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Coulter, a onetime major Trump backer who wrote the book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome, is convinced the president’s declaration of a national emergency is a “scam,” and that he’ll never build the cement wall he vowed to erect.

Trump also tried to distance himself from Fox News host Sean Hannity and from criticism that he is Trump’s shadow president. Hannity had been urging Trump to declare a national emergency to begin building the border wall.

“Sean Hannity has been a terrific, terrific supporter of what I do,” Trump said, but he insisted that right-wing pundits “don’t decide policy.”

As for Coulter’s apparently former influence, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said just last month that Trump wouldn’t budge on his commitment to the border wall because right-wing pundits like Coulter would rile up his base.

He doesn’t want to be called a “fraud and a weenie” by Coulter, Ruhle declared.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coulter- ... a79942d002

<11



NATIONAL

Americans Who Were Detained After Speaking Spanish In Montana Sue U.S. Border Agency

[ THE TRUMP EFFECT ??? ]

February 15, 20192:32 PM ET

BILL CHAPPELL

Two women who were detained and asked to show identification after speaking Spanish in a convenience store in Montana are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection, saying the CBP agent violated their constitutional rights when he detained them and asked to see their identification.

Ana Suda and Martha "Mimi" Hernandez — American citizens who were born in Texas and California, respectively — were questioned as they attempted to buy groceries in Havre, Mont., last May. They captured video of the encounter, which began inside the Town Pump gas station and convenience store. In all, they were detained for some 40 minutes.

In the footage, CBP Agent Paul O'Neal is seen telling one of the women, "Ma'am, the reason I asked you for your ID is because I came in here and I saw that you guys are speaking Spanish, which is very unheard of up here."

When it was posted last spring, the video raised new questions about the Trump administration's methods for carrying out a crackdown on people who have entered the U.S. illegally from the Southern border. Suda and Hernandez say the agent had no cause to detain them; they accuse the CBP of violating their rights against unreasonable seizure and equal protection under the law.

Suda and Hernandez filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, along with its chapter in Montana and a local law firm.

The lawsuit asks a federal district court to order the CBP not to stop or detain anyone "on the basis of race, accent and/or speaking Spanish," unless those characteristics are tied to a specific and reliable suspect description. They also want the court to declare that someone's race or language isn't enough on its own to create suspicion to justify a seizure or detention. The suit also seeks unspecified compensation and punitive damages.

The two friends have lived in Havre for several years, working as certified nurse assistants at a local medical center and raising their children, according to their lawsuit. They say they had left work, gone to the gym and were waiting to pay for their milk and eggs when Hernandez said hello to O'Neal in the checkout line — and that he replied by saying she had a strong accent.

He then asked the pair where they had been born — leading Suda to ask, "Are you serious?"

"Dead serious," O'Neal responded, according to the suit.

Suda told the agent she had been born in El Paso, Texas; Hernandez said she was born in El Centro, Calif. But that didn't satisfy O'Neal, who "demanded that the two provide him with identification and refused to let them pay for their groceries" until they complied, the suit states.

O'Neal then took the women outside by his CBP jeep. At that point, the women started using their phones to film what was happening. As they did that, O'Neal radioed in their names and dates of birth.

When one of the women asked whether they were being detained "because of our profiles," O'Neal replied, "No, it has nothing to do with that. It's the fact that it has to do with you guys speaking Spanish in the store, in a state where it's predominantly English-speaking, OK?"

The women say they were detained for a total of around 40 minutes — spending much of it standing by the CBP car.

"So it is illegal to speak Spanish in Montana?" Suda asked O'Neal.

"Well, ma'am it's not illegal, it's just very unheard of up here," the agent said.

"The United States has no official language," the suit states, adding, "Many United States citizens, and many non-citizens who are in this country lawfully, are not fluent in English."

After O'Neal's supervisor arrived at the scene, Suda asked whether they would have been detained if they had been speaking French in the store. For reference, Havre is only about 20 miles from the U.S.-Canada border.

"No, we don't do that," the supervisor replied, according to the court document.

Suda and Hernandez's lawsuit describes the experience as one of humiliation that has inflicted emotional and psychological harm — and has stoked fears of speaking Spanish in public.

Alex Rate, one of the women's lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, tells member station MTPR that the plaintiffs have felt repercussions both from the incident and their decision to go public.

"This is a small town and so there have been confrontations around town amongst other people," Rate said, according to MTPR. "There have been issues at Ana and Mimi's (Martha's) place of employment. So it's just fair to say that folks know that this is out there, and they don't like the fact that Ana and Mimi are standing up for their rights."

The lawsuit also alleges that Suda and Hernandez had narrowly missed being detained earlier in 2018, when a CBP agent who saw them dancing one night took photos of them that he shared with other agents, along with a message: "There are two Mexicans at the bar."

The incident might have resulted in the pair being detained, the suit says, if another agent hadn't replied that he recognized the women — and that they were friends with his wife.

Contrary to the CBP agent's statement that Spanish isn't spoken often in Havre, the lawsuit states that a local radio station broadcasts in the language and that despite having a population of fewer than 10,000 people, the town is home to "a strong and vibrant Latinx community."

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/69518455 ... border-pat

<12



1. BYE, BEZOS5

Ocasio-Cortez: We Don't Have to Settle for Amazon’s ‘Scraps’

HOURS AGO 2.15.19

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took aim at Amazon during her inauguration speech on Saturday, blasting the company after its botched plan to build a second headquarters in her district of Queens. “We need to create dignified jobs in New York City,” Ocasio-Cortez said to applause. “We do not have to settle for scraps in the greatest city in the world. We deserve for more and can ask for more, and if they don’t want to negotiate, that’s their problem not ours.” Amazon planned to construct its New York City HQ2 with more than $3 billion in state and city tax breaks. The discount drew significant opposition from local activists and politicians, including Ocasio-Cortez. On Thursday, Amazon announced that it would not build the new center in New York City.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ocasio-co ... ons-scraps

<13



U.S.

FOX NEWS REJECTS ADVERTISEMENT CONDEMNING FACISM, CNN AND MSNBC TO AIR EDITED VERSION OF COMMERCIAL

BY ALEXANDRA HUTZLER ON 2/16/19 AT 4:36 PM

CNN and MSNBC have agreed to air an advertisement that warns viewers about the dangers of American fascism —- a clip that Fox News declined to broadcast.

The advertisement doubles as a promotion for the Oscar-nominated documentary A Night at the Garden. The short film features a 1939 Nazi rally held in New York City using archival footage of the event.

The half-minute ad includes depicts men and women gesturing the Nazi salute and several instances of violence during the event. At the end of the ad, the phrase “it can happen here” appears in capital letters.

The film’s director, Marshall Curry, told The Washington Post on Friday they “decided to dig deep and pay for television ads we weren’t planning to buy because we wanted to make the point that Fox News is out the mainstream.”

Curry added that the network’s rejection of the ad “says something that some news channels trust their audience to interpret American history while Fox distrusts its audience and doesn’t think it can do that.”

A spokesman for NBCUniversal told The Post that the media network originally rejected the ad because it’s content was “too provocative.” But the company sent the filmmakers notes on changes that would make the clip fit its standards. The filmmakers added a caption explaining that the videos were part of an Oscar-nominated film and the change resulted in the ad’s acceptance.

The edited advertisement will air on CNN and MSNBC during primetime coverage on Monday during The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and The Rachel Maddow Show. The original ad was scheduled to air during Sean Hannity's show on Monday, but it is unclear if Fox News has or will accept the edited version for broadcast.

A Night at the Garden is only about seven minutes long and showcases footage of American Nazis gathered at Madison Square Garden during Adolf Hitler’s height of power. At the stadium, there is a giant painting of George Washington and roughly 20,000 assembled Nazi sympathizers.

The filmmakers say the feature is intended to be a warning about demagoguery in the age of Donald Trump and our current state of politics.

Marshall, the director, has said that the point of the film “is less an indictment of bad things that Americans have done in the past, than it is a cautionary tale about the bad things that we might do in the future."

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-msnbc-air- ... ws-1333922

<