In one government facility for immigrant youths, a 20-year-old woman who had lied that she was 17 sneaked a needle out of a sewing class and used it to cut herself.

In another, cameras captured a boy repeatedly kicking a child in the head after they got into an argument on the soccer field.

One 6-year-old tried to run away from the same facility after another boy threw his shoes into the toilet. Three employees had to pull the boy off a fence and carry him back into a building.

​14,000 children detained

Records obtained by The Associated Press highlight some of the problems that plague government facilities for immigrant youths at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration has been making moves in recent weeks that could send even more migrant children into detention.

About 14,000 immigrant children are detained in more than 100 facilities nationally, with about 5,900 in Texas. Many crossed the border without their parents and are having to wait longer in detention to be placed with relatives or sponsors, who are being dissuaded to come forward out of fear they’ll be arrested and deported.

Hundreds of children who were separated from their parents earlier this year were also detained in these facilities, but most of them have since been released to their parents.

Overtaxed system

Amid the global uproar over family separation, the Trump administration presented the facilities as caring, safe places for immigrant children.

But as records obtained by the AP show, the child detention system is overtaxed. Children are acting out, sometimes hitting each other and trying to escape, and staff members struggle to deal with escalating problems.

Doctors have warned for months about the consequences of detaining children for long periods of time, particularly after most of them had fled violence and poverty in Central America and undertaken the dangerous journey to the U.S.

“Being in detention can be a form of trauma,” said Dr. Alan Shapiro, a pediatrician who works directly with immigrant children. “We can’t treat children for trauma while we’re traumatizing them at the same time.”

Sexual abuse in Arizona

Southwest Key Programs, a Texas-based nonprofit, operates the facilities where the three incidents occurred. In Arizona, the organization agreed in October to close two facilities and stop accepting more children at others as part of a settlement with the state, which was investigating whether the organization conducted adequate background checks of staff. One former employee was convicted this year of sexually abusing multiple boys.

Meanwhile, in Texas, Southwest Key is pushing to expand. It has sued Houston after local officials tried to stop the opening of a facility.

In a statement, Southwest Key said it reported all three incidents on its own and that it was committed to correcting any problems.

“As long as immigrant children are forced to leave their homes due to violence and poverty, we want to provide them with compassionate care and help reunify them with family safely and quickly,” the group said.

Southwest Key’s facilities are licensed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which inspects child detention centers and released inspection records to the AP.

The U.S. government has also set up a temporary facility in Tornillo, Texas, that isn’t licensed by the state because it’s located on federal property. There, roughly 1,800 children are housed in large tents at much higher costs than the licensed facilities. That’s up from 320 in June, at the height of the family separation crisis.

Repeated investigations

One facility that was repeatedly flagged was Casa El Presidente in Brownsville, Texas, operated by Southwest Key.

As parents were being arrested and separated from their infants and young children, Casa El Presidente became one of three Texas “tender age” facilities that took in their kids. A group of congressmen who visited in June said the facility had an infant room with high chairs and toys, where staff members were caring for babies.

Casa El Presidente multiplied in size during the family separation crisis. According to the state’s monthly head counts, the facility went from 56 children in June to 367 in the most recent count taken Nov. 15.

A shift supervisor told a state inspector June 26 that more staff were quitting and that workers “struggle with implementing healthy boundaries for children of this age.”

“He admitted staff are afraid to touch the children,” the inspector wrote in a report.

The supervisor said Casa El Presidente had to change its policy on restraining young children who were misbehaving, because holding them for too short a time was “escalating instead of de-escalating.” Southwest Key said an example of a typical restraint would be holding a child’s arm or shoulder, and that it doesn’t use mechanical restraints.

The facility was cited for improperly restraining a 6-year-old boy who tried in July to climb a playground fence and run away.

The boy was identified in an inspection report by his first name, Osman. Staff members told an inspector that two days before Osman ran to the fence, two other boys had placed his shoes in a toilet. Osman “also expressed frustration about being in the shelter away from his family,” the report said.

Three staff members eventually carried Osman away from the fence and back into the building.

The same month, two boys named Luis and Franklin got into a fight after Luis apparently kicked a soccer ball that Franklin said belonged to him. An inspector who viewed the facility’s video wrote that Franklin chased Luis and punched him, causing Luis to fall.

“Franklin starts to kick him, once again making contact and kicking Luis in the face,” the inspector wrote. Employees “never make efforts to move Franklin away from Luis; the staff just hold him.”

The inspector cited the facility for not properly intervening to stop the kicks.

At Casa Rio Grande in San Benito, Texas, one of the people living there was a 20-year-old who told the staff she was 17. An investigation report identified her as Julia.

Julia told an inspector that she took a needle from a sewing class and used it to cut herself because “she felt alone.” She hid her wrist for around two weeks under a sweater, but when she forgot to wear her sweater one day, a staff member spotted the marks.

In each case, inspectors interviewed other minors detained at the facility. According to the reports, the other youths said they were treated well, had enough food, and felt respected by the staff.

Jeff Eller, a spokesman for Southwest Key, acknowledged that staff morale has suffered this year because of the unprecedented demands.

“We are against family separations at the border,” Eller said. “Keeping families together is better for the children, parents, and communities.”
…

Mark Robbins gets to work at 8:15 each morning and unlocks the door to his office suite. He switches on the lights and the TV news, brews a pot of coffee and pulls out the first files of the day to review.

For the next eight hours or so, he reads through federal workplace disputes, analyzes the cases, marks them with notes and logs his legal opinions. When he’s finished, he slips the files into a cardboard box and carries them into an empty room where they will sit and wait. For nobody.

He’s at 1,520 files and counting.

Such is the lot of the last man standing in this forgotten corner of Donald Trump’s Washington. For nearly two years, while Congress has argued and the White House has delayed, Robbins has waited to be sent some colleagues to read his work and rule on the cases. No one has arrived. So he toils in vain, writing memos into the void.

Robbins is a one-man microcosm of a current strand of government dysfunction. His office isn’t a high-profile political target. No politician has publicly pledged to slash his budget. But his agency’s work has effectively been neutered through neglect. Promising to shrink the size of government, the president has been slow to fill posts and the Republican-led Congress has struggled to win approval for nominees. The combined effect isn’t always dramatic, but it’s strikingly clear when examined up close.

“It’s a series of unfortunate events,” says Robbins, who has had plenty of time to contemplate the absurdity of his situation. Still, he doesn’t blame Trump or the government for his predicament. “There’s no one thing that created this problem that could have been fixed. It was a series of things randomly thrown together to create where we are.”

Robbins is a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a quasi-judicial federal body designed to determine whether civil servants have been mistreated by their employers. The three members are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed for staggered seven-year terms. After one member termed out in 2015 and a second did so in January 2017, both without replacements lined up, Robbins became the sole member and acting chairman. The board needs at least two members to decide cases.

That’s a problem for the federal workers and whistleblowers whose 1,000-plus grievances hang in the balance, stalled by the board’s inability to settle them. When Robbins’ term ends on March 1, the board probably will sit empty for the first time in its 40-year history.

It’s also a problem for Robbins. A new board, whenever it’s appointed and approved, will start from scratch. That means while new members can read Robbins’ notes, his thousand-plus decisions will simply vanish.

“There is zero chance, zero chance my votes will count,” the 59-year-old lawyer says, running his fingers over the spines leather-bound volumes lined up neatly on a shelf. Inside are the board’s published rulings. None of the opinions he’s working on will make it into one of them.

“Imagine having the last year and half of your work just … disappear,” he said.

Despite the choke of files piled up everywhere else, Robbins’ office is remarkably orderly. Three paperweights rest on stacks of papers on his desk: a stone from Babel province, a memento from his time working for the State Department in Iraq; a model of the White House, to commemorate his tenure under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush; and a medallion bearing the merit board’s seal. This job, which pays about $155,000 a year, “has been the honor of my life,” he says.

In the corner, a potted plant he rescued from a trash can outside his condo six years ago is now so tall that it’s bumping up against the ceiling, growing in circles.

He swears it’s not a metaphor.

Robbins, a Republican, was excited when Trump won the election. The president chooses two board members of his or her own party, and the Senate minority leader picks a third. Robbins assumed he’d finally be in the majority after years of serving alongside Democrats, soon able to write opinions rather than just logging dissent.

No such luck.

Trump was in office a year before he nominated two board members, a pair of Republicans, including Robbins’ replacement. A third nominee, a Democrat, was named three months later, in June.

Assuming they’d be swiftly confirmed, Robbins quickly began preparing for their arrival, leaving customized notes with comments and suggestions for the nominees based on their distinct personalities and experience on each case.

He’d at least impart a little wisdom, he thought.

But months went by and still no vote. Robbins said he was told the Democrats were refusing to confirm the two Republicans by unanimous consent, insisting instead on a full debate for each. In late September, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee that screens nominees told Robbins it probably would not be able to confirm the appointees before the end of the current Congress. That meant that the entire process, which typically takes several months when there are no complications, will begin again come January, with no guarantee the nominees will be the same.

Now his pile of personalized sticky notes is bound for the trash, too.

Tall, slim and bald, Robbins is an eternal optimist. He sees the futility of the piles of paper and empty offices. But he’s determined to keep the trains running, even if he’s the only one on the ride.

“It’s not like I’m sitting around on the sofa watching soap operas and eating bonbons. I’m still doing my job,” he said. “It’s only when the agency stops working that people realize what we do and the value we bring.”

“Maybe someday they’ll say, `Good old Robbins, he just kept plugging along.”’

Frustrating? Yes. But at least it makes for a good story at parties.

“When I say to people, And then my votes just disappear,' the crowd usually goesOh, no!”’ he said. “And there’s empathy, there’s real empathy.”

The board, established in 1978, is responsible for protecting 2.1 million federal employees from bias and unfair treatment in the workplace. The board handles appeals from whistleblowers and other civil servants who say they were mistreated or wrongly fired, and want to challenge an initial ruling by an administrative judge. The board also conducts independent research and writes policy papers destined for the president’s desk.

Or it used to.

Robbins is quick to point out the staffing crisis began under President Barack Obama, back when Robbins’ first colleague termed out without a replacement.

Others say it’s the Trump administration’s fault.

Trump has lagged slightly behind his predecessors in nominating political appointees. As of Nov. 19, he had nominated people for 929 positions, compared with Obama’s 984 and Bush’s 1,128 at the same point in their presidencies. Congress has acted on just 69 percent of those nominations, according to data provided by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization promoting government efficiency.

Max Stier, the partnership’s CEO, blames the administration, the Senate and a dysfunctional system of appointing and confirming political nominees.

“There are many different flavors of the same problem,” he said. He cited several other vacancies, including assistant secretary for South Asian affairs at the State Department, deputy secretary and undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the deputy secretary at the Homeland Security Department, among others. “There is so much going on, but the underlying reality is that our basic government is suffering.”

John Palguta, former director of policy and evaluation for the merit board, called the delay “outrageous.”

“We’re setting a new standard, and it’s particularly severe and unfortunate at MSPB because of the structure of the agency. It just can’t operate. And to let it go for this long, that’s really unconscionable,” Palguta said. “The administration simply hasn’t done its job.”

Sen. James Lankford, who chairs the Senate Home Security and Government Affairs’ Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management said in a statement he understands the urgency in filling these positions.

“There are over 1,500 individuals waiting for their cases to be heard, but there are not board members in place which means the backlog cannot be addressed,” said Lankford, R-Okla.

Robbins keeps plugging away and the cases keep piling up.

“We are running out of space,” he said, shimmying between towers of boxes in a storage closet close to 6 feet tall. More boxes are stacked against the hallway wall and piled up in the clerk’s office.

“Any additional cases I work from now on are just, grains of sand on a beach.”
…

Mark Robbins gets to work at 8:15 each morning and unlocks the door to his office suite. He switches on the lights and the TV news, brews a pot of coffee and pulls out the first files of the day to review.

For the next eight hours or so, he reads through federal workplace disputes, analyzes the cases, marks them with notes and logs his legal opinions. When he’s finished, he slips the files into a cardboard box and carries them into an empty room where they will sit and wait. For nobody.

He’s at 1,520 files and counting.

Such is the lot of the last man standing in this forgotten corner of Donald Trump’s Washington. For nearly two years, while Congress has argued and the White House has delayed, Robbins has waited to be sent some colleagues to read his work and rule on the cases. No one has arrived. So he toils in vain, writing memos into the void.

Robbins is a one-man microcosm of a current strand of government dysfunction. His office isn’t a high-profile political target. No politician has publicly pledged to slash his budget. But his agency’s work has effectively been neutered through neglect. Promising to shrink the size of government, the president has been slow to fill posts and the Republican-led Congress has struggled to win approval for nominees. The combined effect isn’t always dramatic, but it’s strikingly clear when examined up close.

“It’s a series of unfortunate events,” says Robbins, who has had plenty of time to contemplate the absurdity of his situation. Still, he doesn’t blame Trump or the government for his predicament. “There’s no one thing that created this problem that could have been fixed. It was a series of things randomly thrown together to create where we are.”

Robbins is a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a quasi-judicial federal body designed to determine whether civil servants have been mistreated by their employers. The three members are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed for staggered seven-year terms. After one member termed out in 2015 and a second did so in January 2017, both without replacements lined up, Robbins became the sole member and acting chairman. The board needs at least two members to decide cases.

That’s a problem for the federal workers and whistleblowers whose 1,000-plus grievances hang in the balance, stalled by the board’s inability to settle them. When Robbins’ term ends on March 1, the board probably will sit empty for the first time in its 40-year history.

It’s also a problem for Robbins. A new board, whenever it’s appointed and approved, will start from scratch. That means while new members can read Robbins’ notes, his thousand-plus decisions will simply vanish.

“There is zero chance, zero chance my votes will count,” the 59-year-old lawyer says, running his fingers over the spines leather-bound volumes lined up neatly on a shelf. Inside are the board’s published rulings. None of the opinions he’s working on will make it into one of them.

“Imagine having the last year and half of your work just … disappear,” he said.

Despite the choke of files piled up everywhere else, Robbins’ office is remarkably orderly. Three paperweights rest on stacks of papers on his desk: a stone from Babel province, a memento from his time working for the State Department in Iraq; a model of the White House, to commemorate his tenure under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush; and a medallion bearing the merit board’s seal. This job, which pays about $155,000 a year, “has been the honor of my life,” he says.

In the corner, a potted plant he rescued from a trash can outside his condo six years ago is now so tall that it’s bumping up against the ceiling, growing in circles.

He swears it’s not a metaphor.

Robbins, a Republican, was excited when Trump won the election. The president chooses two board members of his or her own party, and the Senate minority leader picks a third. Robbins assumed he’d finally be in the majority after years of serving alongside Democrats, soon able to write opinions rather than just logging dissent.

No such luck.

Trump was in office a year before he nominated two board members, a pair of Republicans, including Robbins’ replacement. A third nominee, a Democrat, was named three months later, in June.

Assuming they’d be swiftly confirmed, Robbins quickly began preparing for their arrival, leaving customized notes with comments and suggestions for the nominees based on their distinct personalities and experience on each case.

He’d at least impart a little wisdom, he thought.

But months went by and still no vote. Robbins said he was told the Democrats were refusing to confirm the two Republicans by unanimous consent, insisting instead on a full debate for each. In late September, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee that screens nominees told Robbins it probably would not be able to confirm the appointees before the end of the current Congress. That meant that the entire process, which typically takes several months when there are no complications, will begin again come January, with no guarantee the nominees will be the same.

Now his pile of personalized sticky notes is bound for the trash, too.

Tall, slim and bald, Robbins is an eternal optimist. He sees the futility of the piles of paper and empty offices. But he’s determined to keep the trains running, even if he’s the only one on the ride.

“It’s not like I’m sitting around on the sofa watching soap operas and eating bonbons. I’m still doing my job,” he said. “It’s only when the agency stops working that people realize what we do and the value we bring.”

“Maybe someday they’ll say, `Good old Robbins, he just kept plugging along.”’

Frustrating? Yes. But at least it makes for a good story at parties.

“When I say to people, And then my votes just disappear,' the crowd usually goesOh, no!”’ he said. “And there’s empathy, there’s real empathy.”

The board, established in 1978, is responsible for protecting 2.1 million federal employees from bias and unfair treatment in the workplace. The board handles appeals from whistleblowers and other civil servants who say they were mistreated or wrongly fired, and want to challenge an initial ruling by an administrative judge. The board also conducts independent research and writes policy papers destined for the president’s desk.

Or it used to.

Robbins is quick to point out the staffing crisis began under President Barack Obama, back when Robbins’ first colleague termed out without a replacement.

Others say it’s the Trump administration’s fault.

Trump has lagged slightly behind his predecessors in nominating political appointees. As of Nov. 19, he had nominated people for 929 positions, compared with Obama’s 984 and Bush’s 1,128 at the same point in their presidencies. Congress has acted on just 69 percent of those nominations, according to data provided by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization promoting government efficiency.

Max Stier, the partnership’s CEO, blames the administration, the Senate and a dysfunctional system of appointing and confirming political nominees.

“There are many different flavors of the same problem,” he said. He cited several other vacancies, including assistant secretary for South Asian affairs at the State Department, deputy secretary and undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the deputy secretary at the Homeland Security Department, among others. “There is so much going on, but the underlying reality is that our basic government is suffering.”

John Palguta, former director of policy and evaluation for the merit board, called the delay “outrageous.”

“We’re setting a new standard, and it’s particularly severe and unfortunate at MSPB because of the structure of the agency. It just can’t operate. And to let it go for this long, that’s really unconscionable,” Palguta said. “The administration simply hasn’t done its job.”

Sen. James Lankford, who chairs the Senate Home Security and Government Affairs’ Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management said in a statement he understands the urgency in filling these positions.

“There are over 1,500 individuals waiting for their cases to be heard, but there are not board members in place which means the backlog cannot be addressed,” said Lankford, R-Okla.

Robbins keeps plugging away and the cases keep piling up.

“We are running out of space,” he said, shimmying between towers of boxes in a storage closet close to 6 feet tall. More boxes are stacked against the hallway wall and piled up in the clerk’s office.

“Any additional cases I work from now on are just, grains of sand on a beach.”
…

The Trump administration is downplaying the significance of a report issued Friday that included dire predictions about the impact of climate change in the U.S. The White House said the study was largely based on “the most extreme scenario” and doesn’t account for new technology and other innovations that could diminish carbon emissions and the effects of climate change.

The National Climate Assessment, the fourth edition of a congressionally mandated report on climate change, noted that disasters caused by weather are becoming more common.  The report, prepared by more than 300 researchers in 13 U.S. government departments and agencies, predicts that those events will become more common and more severe if steps aren’t taken “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters noted that work on the assessment began under the administration of former U.S. president Barack Obama and uses multiple modeling scenarios to assess the effects of climate change.  But the report issued Friday, according to Walters, relies too heavily on the worst-case-scenario.

“The report is largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that, despite strong economic growth that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population,” Walters said in a statement.

She said the next climate assessment, which will be prepared over the next four years, will “provide for a more transparent and data-driven process that includes fuller information on the range of potential scenarios and outcomes.”

Walters also pointed out that, since 2005, carbon dioxide emissions related to energy production in the U.S. have declined 14 percent, while global emissions continue to rise.  

While that’s true, the U.S. remains the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind only China.

The Trump administration has rolled back several environmental regulations put in place during the Obama administration and has promoted the production of fossil fuels.

Last year, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been signed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change. He argued the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy and said there is little evidence in its environmental benefit.

Trump, as well as several members of his Cabinet, have also cast doubt on the science of climate change, saying the causes of global warming are not yet settled.

White House Bureau Chief Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

The Trump administration is downplaying the significance of a report issued Friday that included dire predictions about the impact of climate change in the U.S. The White House said the study was largely based on “the most extreme scenario” and doesn’t account for new technology and other innovations that could diminish carbon emissions and the effects of climate change.

The National Climate Assessment, the fourth edition of a congressionally mandated report on climate change, noted that disasters caused by weather are becoming more common.  The report, prepared by more than 300 researchers in 13 U.S. government departments and agencies, predicts that those events will become more common and more severe if steps aren’t taken “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters noted that work on the assessment began under the administration of former U.S. president Barack Obama and uses multiple modeling scenarios to assess the effects of climate change.  But the report issued Friday, according to Walters, relies too heavily on the worst-case-scenario.

“The report is largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that, despite strong economic growth that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population,” Walters said in a statement.

She said the next climate assessment, which will be prepared over the next four years, will “provide for a more transparent and data-driven process that includes fuller information on the range of potential scenarios and outcomes.”

Walters also pointed out that, since 2005, carbon dioxide emissions related to energy production in the U.S. have declined 14 percent, while global emissions continue to rise.  

While that’s true, the U.S. remains the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind only China.

The Trump administration has rolled back several environmental regulations put in place during the Obama administration and has promoted the production of fossil fuels.

Last year, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been signed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change. He argued the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy and said there is little evidence in its environmental benefit.

Trump, as well as several members of his Cabinet, have also cast doubt on the science of climate change, saying the causes of global warming are not yet settled.

White House Bureau Chief Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an unusually quick ruling into the military’s policy of restricting military service by transgender people.

The administration Friday asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings blocking the military’s policy, seeking to bypass a federal appeals court currently considering the issue.

Except in rare cases, the Supreme Court usually waits to get involved in cases until both a trial and appeals court have ruled on the matter.

The Trump administration argued Friday that the Supreme Court should get involved in this case early because it “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”

Administration officials say they want to ensure that the Supreme Court would be able to review the dispute before its term ends in June 2019.

Pentagon policy

The Pentagon changed its policy regarding transgender people in 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, allowing them serve openly in the military. But when President Donald Trump was elected, his administration reversed the policy and reinstated a ban on transgender troops.

Several courts ruled against that ban, leading the Trump administration to modify its policy, which now states that most transgender troops are banned from serving in the military except under limited circumstances.

Ruled unconstitutional twice

Lower courts have since ruled that the new administration policy is essentially the same as the original ban and is unconstitutional.

One of the lawsuits against the Pentagon policy has made its way to an appeals court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is a frequent target of criticism by Trump who tweeted just this week “the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result.”
…

The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an unusually quick ruling into the military’s policy of restricting military service by transgender people.

The administration Friday asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings blocking the military’s policy, seeking to bypass a federal appeals court currently considering the issue.

Except in rare cases, the Supreme Court usually waits to get involved in cases until both a trial and appeals court have ruled on the matter.

The Trump administration argued Friday that the Supreme Court should get involved in this case early because it “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”

Administration officials say they want to ensure that the Supreme Court would be able to review the dispute before its term ends in June 2019.

Pentagon policy

The Pentagon changed its policy regarding transgender people in 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, allowing them serve openly in the military. But when President Donald Trump was elected, his administration reversed the policy and reinstated a ban on transgender troops.

Several courts ruled against that ban, leading the Trump administration to modify its policy, which now states that most transgender troops are banned from serving in the military except under limited circumstances.

Ruled unconstitutional twice

Lower courts have since ruled that the new administration policy is essentially the same as the original ban and is unconstitutional.

One of the lawsuits against the Pentagon policy has made its way to an appeals court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is a frequent target of criticism by Trump who tweeted just this week “the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result.”
…

A conservative writer and conspiracy theorist who is an associate of U.S. President Donald Trump and Trump confidant Roger Stone said Friday that he was in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.  

Jerome Corsi declined to comment further on his talks with Mueller’s team, which is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But Corsi said on a YouTube program last week that expected to be charged with lying to federal investigators. 

Mueller’s team questioned Corsi about Stone’s links to WikiLeaks. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia provided to WikiLeaks hacked material aimed at hindering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

The talks with Corsi could help Mueller’s office determine whether Stone and other associates of Trump were aware of WikiLeaks’ plans to release the material. 

Corsi is a former Washington bureau chief of the conspiracy theory website InfoWars. He reportedly cooperated with investigators for about two months, giving them computers and a cellphone. He also gave the FBI access to his email and Twitter accounts. 

Stone has denied acting as a conduit for WikiLeaks, which was founded by Julian Assange and published thousands of emails allegedly stolen from the computer of Clinton’s campaign chairman weeks before the election. Stone has also said he expects to be indicted. 

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller and an attorney for the president. 
…

A conservative writer and conspiracy theorist who is an associate of U.S. President Donald Trump and Trump confidant Roger Stone said Friday that he was in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.  

Jerome Corsi declined to comment further on his talks with Mueller’s team, which is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But Corsi said on a YouTube program last week that expected to be charged with lying to federal investigators. 

Mueller’s team questioned Corsi about Stone’s links to WikiLeaks. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia provided to WikiLeaks hacked material aimed at hindering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

The talks with Corsi could help Mueller’s office determine whether Stone and other associates of Trump were aware of WikiLeaks’ plans to release the material. 

Corsi is a former Washington bureau chief of the conspiracy theory website InfoWars. He reportedly cooperated with investigators for about two months, giving them computers and a cellphone. He also gave the FBI access to his email and Twitter accounts. 

Stone has denied acting as a conduit for WikiLeaks, which was founded by Julian Assange and published thousands of emails allegedly stolen from the computer of Clinton’s campaign chairman weeks before the election. Stone has also said he expects to be indicted. 

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller and an attorney for the president. 
…

A conservative writer and conspiracy theorist who is an associate of U.S. President Donald Trump and Trump confidant Roger Stone said Friday that he was in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.  

Jerome Corsi declined to comment further on his talks with Mueller’s team, which is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But Corsi said on a YouTube program last week that expected to be charged with lying to federal investigators. 

Mueller’s team questioned Corsi about Stone’s links to WikiLeaks. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia provided to WikiLeaks hacked material aimed at hindering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

The talks with Corsi could help Mueller’s office determine whether Stone and other associates of Trump were aware of WikiLeaks’ plans to release the material. 

Corsi is a former Washington bureau chief of the conspiracy theory website InfoWars. He reportedly cooperated with investigators for about two months, giving them computers and a cellphone. He also gave the FBI access to his email and Twitter accounts. 

Stone has denied acting as a conduit for WikiLeaks, which was founded by Julian Assange and published thousands of emails allegedly stolen from the computer of Clinton’s campaign chairman weeks before the election. Stone has also said he expects to be indicted. 

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller and an attorney for the president. 
…

Emboldened by a referendum voters approved this month, North Carolina’s soon-dwindling Republican majorities at the legislature will scramble to approve their preferred voter identification law before Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper can stop it.

The GOP-dominated General Assembly returns to work Tuesday to decide how a new amendment to the state constitution requiring photo ID to vote in person will be carried out. The amendment passed with more than 55 percent of the vote, giving Republicans confidence to move ahead despite years of controversy in the state over such a mandate.

Meeting now is strategic. Democrats won enough legislative seats Election Day to end the Republicans’ veto-proof control come January. So Cooper, a longtime opponent of voter photo ID laws, won’t be able to stop any lame-duck session bills as long as Republicans remain united.

New restrictions, on which courts probably will weigh in, would affect over 7 million voters in the anticipated 2020 presidential battleground state, which will also feature races for governor and U.S. Senate that year.

“We will pass a law that improves the real and perceived integrity of the election system,” said Rep. David Lewis, a Harnett County Republican expected to shepherd a bill through the legislature.

Republicans have passed voter ID legislation twice, but they’ve been derailed both times. Federal judges struck down a wide-ranging 2013 elections law, which contained several voting restrictions, writing it was passed with “racially discriminatory intent” by targeting black residents with “almost surgical precision.”

Undeterred and rejecting the ruling as political hyperbole, GOP lawmakers decided to submit the voter ID question directly to voters. More than 30 other states require some form of identification to vote. Along with a successful November referendum in Arkansas, four states now have constitutional provisions addressing photo ID.

The state chapter of the NAACP, which sued over the 2013 law, tried unsuccessfully to get judges to keep the referendum off the ballot and is still asking them to cancel the referendum results.

The state NAACP “has led the fight against the anti-democracy, racist photo voter ID even before it was improperly placed on the ballot this time, and we will continue to fight it and any effort to suppress the sacred right to vote,” said the Rev. T. Anthony Spearman, the state chapter president.

Voter ID backers say it bolsters the public’s confidence in elections — even as statistics show voter impersonation charges are extremely rare. Republicans cite stories from constituents who say they have seen fraud as credible proof.

The 2013 requirement was used for the state’s two 2016 primaries before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law. The U.S. Supreme Court let that decision stand.

The upcoming proposal is likely to expand on the 2013 ID provisions. Draft legislation released by Republicans this week envisions additional methods to qualify.

In addition to eight forms of approved IDs in 2013 — driver’s licenses, military and tribal IDs among them — there would, for the first time, be free voter photo identification cards issued by county election boards, the draft says. Student IDs at University of North Carolina system schools — left out of the 2013 law — would work as well. And more qualifying IDs are possible.

People with hardships to obtain IDs could get them for free or still vote without one if they signed a “reasonable impediment” form. The constitutional amendment allows for exceptions.

More than 80 percent of the 1,050 people who filled out the form during the March 2016 primary had their ballot count, according to the state elections board. But Democracy North Carolina, a voting rights group, calculated more than 1,400 people who lacked acceptable photo ID didn’t have their ballots counted, with black residents disproportionately affected. More than 2.3 million people voted in that election.

Democracy North Carolina Executive Director Tomas Lopez, whose group opposed the amendment, said the draft wouldn’t resolve all concerns that it would create voting barriers for otherwise eligible voters. He said lawmakers shouldn’t rush through a law this year.

Activists also hope exceptions will be broadened by telling legislators the stories of people like Janice Franklin of Charlotte, a disabled woman who says her vote didn’t count in the 2016 primary despite showing a Social Security card at the polls and filling out forms.

“We need other options and at the same time we need these options to matter. They need to be in the law because people … will know ‘you bring this and it’s going to count,’” Franklin, 60, said in a phone interview this week. The former preschool teacher now has a state ID card that qualified under the 2013 law.

Lewis said he wants input from critics to improve any measure.

Sen. Floyd McKissick, a Durham County Democrat who voted against the 2013 law, is skeptical Republicans will incorporate Democrats’ suggestions. GOP leaders haven’t wanted to include Democrats in hammering out other key legislation, he said.

Despite strong opposition to the voter ID amendment in urban counties, a majority of the state’s voters were in favor of requiring photo ID.

“It has to be done,” McKissick said. “We’re beyond the point of saying whether it is something that can be enacted.”

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed members of all military branches deployed overseas to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving and thank them for their service. But when asked when he will visit any of them in person, he did not have a clear answer. The president paid a holiday visit to the Coast Guard near his home in Palm Beach, Florida, Thursday. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed members of all military branches deployed overseas to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving and thank them for their service. But when asked when he will visit any of them in person, he did not have a clear answer. The president paid a holiday visit to the Coast Guard near his home in Palm Beach, Florida, Thursday. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify about investigations into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia and Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Comey and Lynch have been ordered to appear before the House Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform committees on December 3 and 4. They have been ordered to participate in closed-door interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled the two investigations.

The subpoenas, issued Wednesday but made public Thursday, made good on threats by Republican Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte earlier in the week.

Both Comey and Lynch have previously testified before congressional panels investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election campaign and have expressed willingness to appear before the two committees.

Comey, though, has raised objections to the format of the interview and suggested in a Thanksgiving Day tweet he may not appear if the interview is not conducted in a public setting.

“I’m still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a ‘closed door’ thing because I’ve seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion.” Comey added: “Let’s have a hearing and invite everyone to see.”

Republican lawmakers have been investigating the decision-making by the FBI and the Justice Department in 2016 and 2017. They maintain that anti-Trump bias among senior officials resulted in the FBI focusing more on its probe into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia and less on its investigation into Democratic candidate Clinton’s private email server.

Trump has repeatedly called the Russia probe a “witch hunt” and has accused Comey and his close colleagues of being corrupt.

Democrats complain Republicans are simply trying to fuel a conspiracy theory to protect Trump from the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Democrats say they will scrutinize Trump’s attacks on the FBI and the Justice Department when they assume control of the House in January. They have also urged their Republican counterparts to shield Mueller from any attempts by Trump or his newly-appointed acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, to impede the investigation.
…

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify about investigations into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia and Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Comey and Lynch have been ordered to appear before the House Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform committees on December 3 and 4. They have been ordered to participate in closed-door interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled the two investigations.

The subpoenas, issued Wednesday but made public Thursday, made good on threats by Republican Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte earlier in the week.

Both Comey and Lynch have previously testified before congressional panels investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election campaign and have expressed willingness to appear before the two committees.

Comey, though, has raised objections to the format of the interview and suggested in a Thanksgiving Day tweet he may not appear if the interview is not conducted in a public setting.

“I’m still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a ‘closed door’ thing because I’ve seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion.” Comey added: “Let’s have a hearing and invite everyone to see.”

Republican lawmakers have been investigating the decision-making by the FBI and the Justice Department in 2016 and 2017. They maintain that anti-Trump bias among senior officials resulted in the FBI focusing more on its probe into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia and less on its investigation into Democratic candidate Clinton’s private email server.

Trump has repeatedly called the Russia probe a “witch hunt” and has accused Comey and his close colleagues of being corrupt.

Democrats complain Republicans are simply trying to fuel a conspiracy theory to protect Trump from the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Democrats say they will scrutinize Trump’s attacks on the FBI and the Justice Department when they assume control of the House in January. They have also urged their Republican counterparts to shield Mueller from any attempts by Trump or his newly-appointed acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, to impede the investigation.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump started his Thanksgiving holiday by renewed his public debate over the independence of the country’s judicial system.

In a teleconference Thursday with American troops overseas, Trump said a federal appeals court in California has become “a big thorn in our side.”

The president’s remarks came one day after he and U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in an extraordinary exchange over the independence of the federal judiciary, with Roberts berating Trump for criticizing a judge who ruled against his administration as an “Obama judge.”

Roberts responded with a rare public rebuke of the president, saying Trump’s comments reflect his misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a bluntly worded statement.  “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.  That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Although it is very unusual for a president to personally criticize judges, Trump quickly responded by questioning the independence of federal judges appointed by his predecessor and confirmed by the Senate.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.  It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ Trump said via Twitter from his Mar-a-lago resort in Florida. 

While Trump cited the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling that drew his ire came from a district judge in California.

Trump has been particularly critical of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and much of the U.S. west coast.  Trump tweeted Wednesday the court, considered by many as the country’s most liberal, has become a “terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace.”

The president has maintained the Supreme Court has overruled the 9th Circuit more than other courts, but studies conducted during the past five years show three others have a higher percentage of their rulings overturned.

The controversy began Tuesday when Trump attacked U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who ruled against his migrant asylum order.  The ruling prompted Trump to claim again Thursday, as he has in the past, that the 9th Circuit was biased against him.

“It’s a terrible thing when judges take over your protective services, when they tell you how to protect your border.  It’s a disgrace” he said.

Roberts had refrained from commenting on Trump’s previous attacks on judges.  But after a query Wednesday from Associated Press, Roberts defended the independence of the federal judiciary and dismissed the notion that judges are beholden to presidents who appoint them.

Roberts, who has often expressed concern about attacks on the judiciary’s impartiality, has previously been the target of criticism from Trump.  Trump often belittled Roberts during the 2016 presidential campaign, at one point calling Roberts an “absolute disaster” after Roberts voted along with liberals in 2012 to uphold President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Roberts was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush and has compiled a firmly conservative voting record during his 13 years on the Supreme Court.

The chief justice’s statement came as he adjusts to changes on the Supreme Court.  The arrival last month of Trump’s second appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, pushed Roberts to the court’s ideological center, a position that was held by Justice Anthony Kennedy until he retired in July.

Former special assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings, told CNN Thursday the ideological shift on the court may have compelled Roberts to defend the courts.

“I think what Chief Justice Roberts feels like his job is now is to look out for the integrity of and the reputation of the entire judiciary.  I mean in a world where a lot of people view most of government as being polarized, as being partisan for you or partisan against you, I think he believes it’s his job to make sure that folks view the judiciary as independent.”

Inside Elections publisher Nathan Gonzales said on CNN that Trump’s criticism of Roberts could further endear him to his conservative base, “There are some Republicans and conservatives who have already turned their back on Chief Justice Roberts because of his involvement in the decision with the Affordable Care Act.”

Gonzales added, “We have to remember that the Republican Party has become all about President Trump and whatever he does or the enemies he chooses are going to be with him and I think that remains the case in this situation.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump started his Thanksgiving holiday by renewed his public debate over the independence of the country’s judicial system.

In a teleconference Thursday with American troops overseas, Trump said a federal appeals court in California has become “a big thorn in our side.”

The president’s remarks came one day after he and U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in an extraordinary exchange over the independence of the federal judiciary, with Roberts berating Trump for criticizing a judge who ruled against his administration as an “Obama judge.”

Roberts responded with a rare public rebuke of the president, saying Trump’s comments reflect his misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a bluntly worded statement.  “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.  That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Although it is very unusual for a president to personally criticize judges, Trump quickly responded by questioning the independence of federal judges appointed by his predecessor and confirmed by the Senate.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.  It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ Trump said via Twitter from his Mar-a-lago resort in Florida. 

While Trump cited the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling that drew his ire came from a district judge in California.

Trump has been particularly critical of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and much of the U.S. west coast.  Trump tweeted Wednesday the court, considered by many as the country’s most liberal, has become a “terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace.”

The president has maintained the Supreme Court has overruled the 9th Circuit more than other courts, but studies conducted during the past five years show three others have a higher percentage of their rulings overturned.

The controversy began Tuesday when Trump attacked U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who ruled against his migrant asylum order.  The ruling prompted Trump to claim again Thursday, as he has in the past, that the 9th Circuit was biased against him.

“It’s a terrible thing when judges take over your protective services, when they tell you how to protect your border.  It’s a disgrace” he said.

Roberts had refrained from commenting on Trump’s previous attacks on judges.  But after a query Wednesday from Associated Press, Roberts defended the independence of the federal judiciary and dismissed the notion that judges are beholden to presidents who appoint them.

Roberts, who has often expressed concern about attacks on the judiciary’s impartiality, has previously been the target of criticism from Trump.  Trump often belittled Roberts during the 2016 presidential campaign, at one point calling Roberts an “absolute disaster” after Roberts voted along with liberals in 2012 to uphold President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Roberts was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush and has compiled a firmly conservative voting record during his 13 years on the Supreme Court.

The chief justice’s statement came as he adjusts to changes on the Supreme Court.  The arrival last month of Trump’s second appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, pushed Roberts to the court’s ideological center, a position that was held by Justice Anthony Kennedy until he retired in July.

Former special assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings, told CNN Thursday the ideological shift on the court may have compelled Roberts to defend the courts.

“I think what Chief Justice Roberts feels like his job is now is to look out for the integrity of and the reputation of the entire judiciary.  I mean in a world where a lot of people view most of government as being polarized, as being partisan for you or partisan against you, I think he believes it’s his job to make sure that folks view the judiciary as independent.”

Inside Elections publisher Nathan Gonzales said on CNN that Trump’s criticism of Roberts could further endear him to his conservative base, “There are some Republicans and conservatives who have already turned their back on Chief Justice Roberts because of his involvement in the decision with the Affordable Care Act.”

Gonzales added, “We have to remember that the Republican Party has become all about President Trump and whatever he does or the enemies he chooses are going to be with him and I think that remains the case in this situation.”
…

Senate Republicans are working to soon fill the nation’s longest judicial vacancy with a North Carolina lawyer whose nomination has raised objections from black lawmakers and civil rights groups concerned about his work defending state laws found to have discriminated against African-Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has helped push 84 of President Donald Trump’s nominees over the finish line and is itching for more. With just a few more weeks to go before Congress adjourns for the year, he has teed up a vote on the nomination of Thomas Farr, 64, to serve as a district court judge in North Carolina.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Farr’s confirmation with a party-line vote back in January, meaning McConnell has waited about 10 months and until after the midterm elections to hold a vote on the floor.

Senators tend to save their biggest fights in the judicial arena for Supreme Court and appeals court nominees, but Farr’s nomination has proved an exception.

“It’s hard to believe President Trump nominated him, and it’s even harder to believe the Senate Republicans are considering it again,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York in one of about 20 tweets he has sent out in recent days concerning Farr.

Farr has the backing of home-state Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans. They have noted that Farr was also nominated to the same position by former President George W. Bush and has a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. They have protested the implication that Farr is racially insensitive or biased.

“I think absolutely destroying a good man’s reputation is inappropriate,” Tillis said before the committee advanced Farr’s nomination.

In introducing Farr last year, Burr said the judiciary needs good people and he “fills every piece of the word good.”

But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., described Farr as “probably the worst of the litter” when it comes to Trump’s judicial nominees.

“Could this administration have picked an individual who is more hostile to the rights of minorities than this man? It is hard to imagine,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in the same committee hearing.

GOP leaders in charge of the North Carolina Legislature hired Farr and others at his firm to defend congressional and legislative boundaries that the Legislature approved in 2011. A federal court eventually struck some boundaries down as racial gerrymanders and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

Farr also helped defend a 2013 law that required photo identification to vote, reduced the number of early voting days and eliminated same-day registration during that period.

North Carolina Republicans said that requiring voter ID would increase the integrity of elections. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state provided no evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the ID mandate would address. The Richmond, Virginia-based court said the law targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision.”

Farr told lawmakers that, as an advocate, he vehemently disagreed with the argument that the North Carolina Legislature sought to curtail the voting rights of people of color or any other voter. But, said, “I am obligated to follow the decision by the 4th Circuit and pledge that I will do so.”

The history of the particular judicial opening Farr would fill has also contributed to the acrimony.

President Barack Obama nominated two African-American women to serve on the court, but neither was granted a hearing and their nominations stalled. If confirmed, they would have been the first blacks to serve in that particular district, which is about 27 percent black.

Farr also served as a lawyer for the re-election campaign of Republican Sen. Jesse Helms in 1990. The Justice Department alleged that about 120,000 postcards sent overwhelmingly to black voters before that election was intended to intimidate them from voting.

Farr said he was not consulted about the postcards and did not have any role in drafting or sending them. He said that after he had been asked to review the card, “I was appalled to read the incorrect language printed on the card and to then discover it had been sent to African Americans.”

The explanation has failed to win over the NAACP.

“The courts are supposed to be where we can find and seek justice. But Farr’s lifetime crusade is to disenfranchise African Americans and deprive them of their rights,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “He belongs nowhere near a bench of justice.”

Democratic lawmakers called on the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to schedule Farr for another round of testimony about his role in the Helms’ campaign, but Grassley declined.

With a 51-49 majority, Republicans will have little margin for error in confirming Farr.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has already pledged to oppose all judicial nominees until he gets a vote on legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.
…

Senate Republicans are working to soon fill the nation’s longest judicial vacancy with a North Carolina lawyer whose nomination has raised objections from black lawmakers and civil rights groups concerned about his work defending state laws found to have discriminated against African-Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has helped push 84 of President Donald Trump’s nominees over the finish line and is itching for more. With just a few more weeks to go before Congress adjourns for the year, he has teed up a vote on the nomination of Thomas Farr, 64, to serve as a district court judge in North Carolina.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Farr’s confirmation with a party-line vote back in January, meaning McConnell has waited about 10 months and until after the midterm elections to hold a vote on the floor.

Senators tend to save their biggest fights in the judicial arena for Supreme Court and appeals court nominees, but Farr’s nomination has proved an exception.

“It’s hard to believe President Trump nominated him, and it’s even harder to believe the Senate Republicans are considering it again,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York in one of about 20 tweets he has sent out in recent days concerning Farr.

Farr has the backing of home-state Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans. They have noted that Farr was also nominated to the same position by former President George W. Bush and has a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. They have protested the implication that Farr is racially insensitive or biased.

“I think absolutely destroying a good man’s reputation is inappropriate,” Tillis said before the committee advanced Farr’s nomination.

In introducing Farr last year, Burr said the judiciary needs good people and he “fills every piece of the word good.”

But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., described Farr as “probably the worst of the litter” when it comes to Trump’s judicial nominees.

“Could this administration have picked an individual who is more hostile to the rights of minorities than this man? It is hard to imagine,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in the same committee hearing.

GOP leaders in charge of the North Carolina Legislature hired Farr and others at his firm to defend congressional and legislative boundaries that the Legislature approved in 2011. A federal court eventually struck some boundaries down as racial gerrymanders and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

Farr also helped defend a 2013 law that required photo identification to vote, reduced the number of early voting days and eliminated same-day registration during that period.

North Carolina Republicans said that requiring voter ID would increase the integrity of elections. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state provided no evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the ID mandate would address. The Richmond, Virginia-based court said the law targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision.”

Farr told lawmakers that, as an advocate, he vehemently disagreed with the argument that the North Carolina Legislature sought to curtail the voting rights of people of color or any other voter. But, said, “I am obligated to follow the decision by the 4th Circuit and pledge that I will do so.”

The history of the particular judicial opening Farr would fill has also contributed to the acrimony.

President Barack Obama nominated two African-American women to serve on the court, but neither was granted a hearing and their nominations stalled. If confirmed, they would have been the first blacks to serve in that particular district, which is about 27 percent black.

Farr also served as a lawyer for the re-election campaign of Republican Sen. Jesse Helms in 1990. The Justice Department alleged that about 120,000 postcards sent overwhelmingly to black voters before that election was intended to intimidate them from voting.

Farr said he was not consulted about the postcards and did not have any role in drafting or sending them. He said that after he had been asked to review the card, “I was appalled to read the incorrect language printed on the card and to then discover it had been sent to African Americans.”

The explanation has failed to win over the NAACP.

“The courts are supposed to be where we can find and seek justice. But Farr’s lifetime crusade is to disenfranchise African Americans and deprive them of their rights,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “He belongs nowhere near a bench of justice.”

Democratic lawmakers called on the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to schedule Farr for another round of testimony about his role in the Helms’ campaign, but Grassley declined.

With a 51-49 majority, Republicans will have little margin for error in confirming Farr.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has already pledged to oppose all judicial nominees until he gets a vote on legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.
…

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has warned Central American migrants seeking political asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico that the Trump administration will not tolerate “frivolous asylum claims” or illegal entry. Her warning came Tuesday as a U.S. federal judge temporarily prevented the administration from blocking asylum status for people who do not enter at a designated port of entry. VOA’s Celia Mendoza is in Tijuana, Mexico, where she spoke to some of the migrants.
…

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has warned Central American migrants seeking political asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico that the Trump administration will not tolerate “frivolous asylum claims” or illegal entry. Her warning came Tuesday as a U.S. federal judge temporarily prevented the administration from blocking asylum status for people who do not enter at a designated port of entry. VOA’s Celia Mendoza is in Tijuana, Mexico, where she spoke to some of the migrants.
…

For congressional Republicans, this month’s elections ushered in the year of the woman — literally. 

West Virginia’s Carol Miller will be the only Republican woman entering the 435-member House as a newcomer in January. She’ll join what may be the chamber’s smallest group of female GOP lawmakers since the early 1990s — as few as 13 of at least 199 Republicans. Democrats will have at least 89. 

Numbers like those have Republicans searching for answers to the glaring gender disparity in their ranks — and fast. The concern is that Democrats’ lopsided edge among female voters could carry over to 2020, when President Donald Trump will be seeking a second term and House and Senate control will be in play. If the current trend continues, Republicans risk being branded the party of men. 

“You will see a very significant recruiting effort occur” for female candidates, said David Winston, a pollster who advises GOP congressional leaders. “It’s a natural conclusion. An environment has got to be created where that can be a success.” 

Evidence of the GOP gender gap was just as clear in the 100-member Senate, where Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be the only Republican freshman. If Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wins a runoff later this month there will be record-setting seven GOP women in the Republican-run Senate. But even that record is less than half the class of 17 Democratic women, which includes two freshmen. 

The search for answers leads to some familiar places. Trump’s fraught history with women, combined with the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, helped motivate Democratic women to seek office but did not appear to have the same effect with GOP women, politicians and analysts say. More broadly, the president’s brash style doesn’t sit well many female voters or potential candidates.  

“Women don’t like the tweets,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a moderate GOP group. “I don’t know how to tone down the rhetoric. If I could have a fantasy, one wish, that would be my one wish.” 

Women backed Democratic candidates over Republicans on Election Day by a telling 57 percent to 41 percent, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate conducted by The Associated Press. Women broke by similar margins in the crucial suburbs, where Democratic victories in swing districts helped power the gains they needed to win House control. Men supported Republicans over Democrats, 51 percent to 46 percent. 

Strategists note the issue isn’t just about current personalities; it’s about party infrastructure. 

“We as a party have to make recruiting women candidates who can win a high priority,” said Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for Winning for Women, a fledging GOP group that tries bolstering female Republican candidates. She added, “Unless people in leadership really make it a priority, I don’t think it will happen.” 

A record number of women ran for the House as major-party candidates this year. But Democrats outnumbered Republicans by nearly 3 to 1, according to AP data, and Democratic women were more likely to win their primaries. 

Of those contenders who ran in November, 183 were Democrats, the most ever, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Fifty-two were Republicans, a near-record but far smaller than the number of  female Democrats running. 

That partisan imbalance was made greater by Democrats’ superior campaign infrastructure for helping female candidates. 

Winning for Women, created in early 2017, says it spent more than $1 million helping female candidates for the recent election. That and other GOP groups assisting female candidates couldn’t match Democrats’ 33-year-old Emily’s List, a well-financed organization that poured tens of millions into primaries and general elections and provided recruiting, training and other services to female candidates. 

“Democrats have been doing a much better job of getting women elected,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics. 

Asked to explain her success against other female candidates’ defeats, West Virginia’s Miller sent an email lauding Trump and other Republicans and GOP women’s groups and saying “liberal special interests” had spent heavily to defeat Republican women. Officials at the White House and the GOP did not provide answers to requests for comment. 

Republicans have displayed a sensitivity this year to their overwhelmingly male numbers. That includes hiring a female prosecutor to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and its all-male Republicans about her allegations of sexual misconduct against him. 

Within days of the elections, Republicans vaulted women into congressional leadership positions. 

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, will be No. 3 House GOP leader next year, that chamber’s highest-ranking Republican woman ever. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will be vice chairwoman of the Senate GOP conference, a lower-tier post, making her the first Republican woman in a Senate leadership job in eight years. 

Cheney said Republicans must better communicate that their policies on national security, the economy and health care are best for men and women. She called it “fundamentally offensive and paternalistic” to think women’s votes are driven by their gender. 

Asked on CBS’s Face the Nation last week whether Trump’s rhetoric alienated women, Ernst said, “We could do a better job of communicating clearly that we support women.”  
…

For congressional Republicans, this month’s elections ushered in the year of the woman — literally. 

West Virginia’s Carol Miller will be the only Republican woman entering the 435-member House as a newcomer in January. She’ll join what may be the chamber’s smallest group of female GOP lawmakers since the early 1990s — as few as 13 of at least 199 Republicans. Democrats will have at least 89. 

Numbers like those have Republicans searching for answers to the glaring gender disparity in their ranks — and fast. The concern is that Democrats’ lopsided edge among female voters could carry over to 2020, when President Donald Trump will be seeking a second term and House and Senate control will be in play. If the current trend continues, Republicans risk being branded the party of men. 

“You will see a very significant recruiting effort occur” for female candidates, said David Winston, a pollster who advises GOP congressional leaders. “It’s a natural conclusion. An environment has got to be created where that can be a success.” 

Evidence of the GOP gender gap was just as clear in the 100-member Senate, where Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be the only Republican freshman. If Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wins a runoff later this month there will be record-setting seven GOP women in the Republican-run Senate. But even that record is less than half the class of 17 Democratic women, which includes two freshmen. 

The search for answers leads to some familiar places. Trump’s fraught history with women, combined with the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, helped motivate Democratic women to seek office but did not appear to have the same effect with GOP women, politicians and analysts say. More broadly, the president’s brash style doesn’t sit well many female voters or potential candidates.  

“Women don’t like the tweets,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a moderate GOP group. “I don’t know how to tone down the rhetoric. If I could have a fantasy, one wish, that would be my one wish.” 

Women backed Democratic candidates over Republicans on Election Day by a telling 57 percent to 41 percent, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate conducted by The Associated Press. Women broke by similar margins in the crucial suburbs, where Democratic victories in swing districts helped power the gains they needed to win House control. Men supported Republicans over Democrats, 51 percent to 46 percent. 

Strategists note the issue isn’t just about current personalities; it’s about party infrastructure. 

“We as a party have to make recruiting women candidates who can win a high priority,” said Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for Winning for Women, a fledging GOP group that tries bolstering female Republican candidates. She added, “Unless people in leadership really make it a priority, I don’t think it will happen.” 

A record number of women ran for the House as major-party candidates this year. But Democrats outnumbered Republicans by nearly 3 to 1, according to AP data, and Democratic women were more likely to win their primaries. 

Of those contenders who ran in November, 183 were Democrats, the most ever, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Fifty-two were Republicans, a near-record but far smaller than the number of  female Democrats running. 

That partisan imbalance was made greater by Democrats’ superior campaign infrastructure for helping female candidates. 

Winning for Women, created in early 2017, says it spent more than $1 million helping female candidates for the recent election. That and other GOP groups assisting female candidates couldn’t match Democrats’ 33-year-old Emily’s List, a well-financed organization that poured tens of millions into primaries and general elections and provided recruiting, training and other services to female candidates. 

“Democrats have been doing a much better job of getting women elected,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics. 

Asked to explain her success against other female candidates’ defeats, West Virginia’s Miller sent an email lauding Trump and other Republicans and GOP women’s groups and saying “liberal special interests” had spent heavily to defeat Republican women. Officials at the White House and the GOP did not provide answers to requests for comment. 

Republicans have displayed a sensitivity this year to their overwhelmingly male numbers. That includes hiring a female prosecutor to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and its all-male Republicans about her allegations of sexual misconduct against him. 

Within days of the elections, Republicans vaulted women into congressional leadership positions. 

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, will be No. 3 House GOP leader next year, that chamber’s highest-ranking Republican woman ever. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will be vice chairwoman of the Senate GOP conference, a lower-tier post, making her the first Republican woman in a Senate leadership job in eight years. 

Cheney said Republicans must better communicate that their policies on national security, the economy and health care are best for men and women. She called it “fundamentally offensive and paternalistic” to think women’s votes are driven by their gender. 

Asked on CBS’s Face the Nation last week whether Trump’s rhetoric alienated women, Ernst said, “We could do a better job of communicating clearly that we support women.”  
…

Before joining the Justice Department, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker earned more than $1.2 million from a right-leaning nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings. Whitaker’s earnings represented a sizable chunk of the charity’s revenue.

Financial disclosure forms released Tuesday show Whitaker received $904,000 in income from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust from 2016 through nearly the end of 2017. He also received $15,000 from CNN as a legal commentator, according to the documents released by the Justice Department.

The nonprofit group, known as FACT, styles itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog promoting ethics and transparency. The tax-exempt group is supposed to serve the public interest without supporting or opposing specific candidates for office. However, its challenges and its website have focused largely, though not exclusively, on Democrats and their party.

Whitaker used his role as president and executive director of FACT in 2016 as a platform to question the ethics of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

From 2014 through 2016, FACT paid out nearly 30 percent of its total revenue to Whitaker. In 2015 alone, Whitaker’s $252,000 salary made up half of what the group brought in. Whitaker’s salary also grew each year from $63,000 in 2014 to as much as $502,000 in 2017, according to the tax filings and public financial disclosures released by the Justice Department.

Separately, Whitaker is also facing criticism about whether he violated federal law because a campaign committee set up for his failed 2014 U.S. Senate bid accepted $8,800 in donations this year, while Whitaker was serving as a top Justice Department lawyer.

On Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., called for an investigation into whether Whitaker violated the Hatch Act, a statute that generally prohibits executive branch employees from accepting or soliciting campaign donations.

Whitaker’s campaign committee, which still carries about $49,000 in debt, hadn’t received any contributions between 2015 through 2017, according to Federal Election Commission data.

The campaign committee, Whitaker for U.S. Senate Inc., also reported paying $500 to Whitaker’s old law firm, Whitaker, Hagenow & Gustoff, for space rental on Febraury 2. The campaign paid a $228 reimbursement to Christopher Hagenow — an Iowa legislator and founding partner of the law firm — for data services that same day.

Several news outlets, including The Associated Press, and outside groups had requested Whitaker’s financial disclosure forms from the Justice Department after President Donald Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and elevated Whitaker to the agency’s top post on Nov. 7.

Those documents show Whitaker began revising his public disclosures the day he was appointed acting attorney general. He revised the forms four more times, including on Tuesday.

In a disclosure form Whitaker completed when he joined the Justice Department in September 2017, he reported receiving $1,875 in legal fees from a company called World Patent Marketing. Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his involvement with the company, which was accused of misleading consumers and is under investigation by the FBI.

Whitaker also disclosed his partial interest in a family farm in Ely, Iowa, that he valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. The forms also included disclosures of $20,000 to $30,000 in credit card debt in 2017.

FACT drew its funds from 2014-2016 mainly from Donor’s Trust, another nonprofit designed to provide anonymity to conservative and libertarian donors. Though such tax-exempt groups can legally withhold the identity of their contributors and generally do so, there may be a distinct irony when a group dedicated to transparency keeps its funding sources in the shadows.

Whitaker’s appointment has been criticized by Democrats who have challenged its constitutionality and are concerned that he will interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

On Tuesday, the Senate’s top Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate communications between Whitaker and the White House and to look into whether Whitaker had access to confidential grand jury information in Mueller’s probe.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the second-ranking Justice Department official, had been overseeing the special counsel’s Russia investigation until Whitaker’s appointment. Whitaker is now overseeing the investigation.

Schumer and other Democrats have said they are concerned about Whitaker’s past criticism of the Mueller probe, which is looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and ties to Trump’s campaign.

Whitaker’s past public statements have included an op-ed article in which he said Mueller would be straying outside his mandate if he investigated Trump’s family finances. In a talk radio interview he maintained there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
…