Attorney General William Barr will not testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday evening.

Barr testified for hours before a Senate committee Wednesday about his no-obstruction decision and his oversight of the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

But hours later, the Justice Department said Barr would not appear before the House panel to answer questions about his handling of the release of Mueller’s report. In the days before his planned testimony, Barr had balked at who would be questioning him Thursday during the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York had planned to give the 41 committee members five minutes each to ask Barr questions and then another 30 minutes for both Democratic and Republican lawyers for the committee to make more inquiries of Barr.

Barr agreed to be questioned by the House lawmakers, but rejected further questioning by the lawyers.

‘Very clear’

Nadler said Barr has no choice.

“We’ve been very clear. Barr has to come. He has to testify. It’s none of the business of a witness to try to dictate to a congressional committee what the procedures for questioning him are,” Nadler said Monday.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement Wednesday that Nadler’s plan to have committee staff question Barr was “inappropriate,” adding that the attorney general remained “happy to engage directly with members on their questions” about the Mueller report.

Nadler said the committee would take “whatever action we have to take” if Barr skipped the hearing.

“He is terrified at having to face a skilled attorney,” Nadler said Wednesday, according to the French news agency AFP. He said Barr had also failed to provide to the committee a copy of the unredacted report.

Mueller cited 11 instances of possible obstruction of the investigation by President Donald Trump, saying that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

With Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction question, Barr said he concluded no criminal charges against Trump were warranted.

Democrats said they wanted to question Barr about how he reached his no-obstruction decision.
…

Congressional budget experts said Wednesday that moving to a government-run health care system like “Medicare for All” could be complicated and potentially disruptive for Americans. 

The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was a high-level look at the pros and cons of changing the current mix of public and private health care financing to a system paid for entirely by the government. It did not include cost estimates of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation or its House counterpart, but listed dozens of trade-offs lawmakers would confront. 

The transition toward a single-payer system could be complicated, challenging and potentially disruptive,'' the report said.Policymakers would need to consider how quickly people with private insurance would switch their coverage to a new public plan, what would happen to workers in the health insurance industry if private insurance was banned or its role was limited, and how quickly provider payment rates under the single-payer system would be phased in from current levels.” 

Longer waits, less access

One unintended consequence could be increased wait times and reduced access to care if there are not enough medical providers to meet an expected increased demand for services as 29 million currently uninsured people get coverage and as deductibles and copayments are reduced or eliminated for everyone else.  

“An expansion of insurance coverage under a single-payer system would increase the demand for care and put pressure on the available supply of care,” the report said. 

Employers now cover more than 160 million people, roughly half the U.S. population. Medicare covers seniors and disabled people. Medicaid covers low-income people and many nursing home residents. Other government programs serve children or military veterans.

Wasteful, costly

Proponents of Medicare for All say the complexity of the U.S. system wastes billions in administrative costs and enables hospitals and drugmakers to charge much higher prices than providers get in other economically advanced countries. Critics acknowledge the U.S. has a serious cost problem, but they point out that patients don’t usually have to wait for treatment and that new drugs are generally available much more rapidly than in other countries. 

While a government-run system could improve the overall health profile of the U.S., pressure on providers to curb costs could reduce the quality of care by “by causing providers to supply less care to patients covered by the public plan.”  

Private payments from employers and individuals currently cover close to half of the nation’s annual $3.5 trillion health care bill. A government-run system would entail new taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes or consumption taxes. Or lawmakers could borrow, adding to the overhang of national debt. 

Single-payer health care doesn’t have a path to advance in Congress for now.

It has zero chances in the Republican-led Senate. In the Democratic-controlled House, key committees that would put such legislation together have not scheduled hearings. They’re instead crafting bills to lower prescription drug costs and stabilize and expand coverage under the Affordable Care Act. 

The CBO report was prepared for the House Budget Committee, which is expected to hold hearings but does not write health care legislation. 

Coalition in opposition

Within the health care industry, groups including hospitals, insurers, drugmakers and doctors have formed a coalition to battle a government-run system. Major employers are likely allies. 

Polls show that Americans are open to single-payer, but it’s far from a clamor. Support is concentrated mostly among Democrats, with many of them indicating similarly high levels of approval for less ambitious changes such as allowing people to buy into a public insurance plan modeled on Medicare. 

A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 42% of Americans support a single-payer plan, while 31% were opposed and one-quarter said they were neither in favor nor opposed. 

By a comparison, a buy-in option got support from 53%, including more than 4 in 10 Republicans. Overall, 17% opposed a Medicare buy-in while 29% were neutral.
…

The former head of White House security clearances spoke with U.S. congressional investigators on Wednesday, after a dispute about his appearance on an issue that sources have said involves President Donald Trump’s daughter and son-in-law. 

After days of conflict over whether he would appear, Carl Kline talked with investigators from the House of Representatives Oversight Committee, chaired by Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland. Details of the discussion were not immediately known. 

The committee is looking into the issuance of high-level security clearances to some staffers in the Trump White House, despite recommendations from career officials that those officials should not receive them. Two congressional sources familiar with the matter said Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, were among the two dozen or so staffers who got those clearances. 

Kline was in charge of White House clearances at the time. He has since left the White House and is now a Defense Department employee. 

‘Fighting all the subpoenas’

The committee voted on April 2 to subpoena Kline for testimony on the matter. The Trump administration initially told Kline to ignore the subpoena. Last week, Trump told reporters, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.” 

After Republican committee member Jim Jordan of Ohio intervened, Cummings three days ago said he was putting off holding Kline in contempt of Congress after an agreement was reached permitting him to meet with investigators. 

The clearances investigation was triggered earlier this year by a whistle-blower. It is one of multiple probes being pursued by House Democrats into Trump, his presidency and his businesses. Some of the inquiries are expected to run into the 2020 presidential election season. 

Before the Wednesday meeting, in a letter to Cummings, White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Kline had agreed to appear for a closed-door committee interview, despite the subpoena. 

Cipollone indicated in the letter that Kline would most likely decline to answer questions from the Democratic-controlled House panel about clearances issued to specific individuals. 

“No employee of the executive branch is or has been authorized to disclose to the committee information about individual security clearance files or background investigations,” Cipollone said in the letter. 

Cummings sought testimony from Kline after Tricia Newbold, a career White House security official, alleged that clearances initially were denied to at least two dozen Trump administration officials over concerns about possible foreign influence, conflicts of interest, questionable or criminal conduct, 

financial problems or drug abuse. 

In a letter to the White House last month, Cummings referred to three unnamed “senior White House officials” whose clearance histories were addressed in some detail by Newbold. Information obtained by the committee said two of those three senior officials were Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. 

The White House has declined to comment on issues related to the couple’s clearances. 

Different views

Cipollone said there are no legitimate grounds or precedents for sharing individual security clearance records with Congress. 

“It has long been recognized on both sides of the political aisle that there is no legitimate need for access to such sensitive information about individuals,” he told Cummings. 

Cummings condemned the White House’s stance, saying Cipollone’s letter “ignores past precedent when the committee obtained security clearance documents, it disregards previous testimony … from White House officials in the past, and it makes the startling and false claim that Congress has no right to obtain information from whistle-blowers.” 
…

Media mogul Oprah Winfrey, whose opinions can get millions of fans to try a new diet or turn a book into an international best-seller, is figuring out which Democratic candidate she will endorse in the crowded 2020 U.S. presidential race.

Winfrey, who has ruled out running for the White House, told the Hollywood Reporter in an extensive interview released on Tuesday that she was “quietly figuring out where I’m going to use my voice in support.”

“I’m sitting back, waiting to see. It’ll be very clear who I’m supporting,” she said of the 2020 election campaign.

Winfrey campaigned heavily for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but adopted a lower profile in her support of Hillary Clinton, who lost in 2016 to current Republican President Donald Trump.

Some 20 Democrats are running for president in 2020.

Winfrey said among the Democrats she is researching are South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and California Senator Kamala Harris.

She said she already knows New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

Winfrey, a billionaire movie producer, television network owner, magazine publisher and philanthropist, was urged by her supporters to run for the White House herself after delivering a rousing speech at the 2018 Golden Globe awards ceremony. She has repeatedly ruled out the idea.

Winfrey is also an actress who was Oscar-nominated for her supporting role in the 1985 film “The Color Purple.” She also had a major role in the 2018 film “A Wrinkle in Time,” and appeared in “Selma” and “The Butler” as well as the series “Greenleaf” on OWN TV, the Oprah Winfrey Network.

But with a series of documentaries and interview shows lined up for the upcoming Apple TV+ streaming service, Winfrey said she was no longer interested in acting.

“I think to be really, really good at it, you’ve got to do it a lot. You’ve got to work at it. And it’s got to be something that you have true passion about. I don’t think it’s something you can dabble in,” she said. “It doesn’t feed my soul anymore.”
…

Media mogul Oprah Winfrey, whose opinions can get millions of fans to try a new diet or turn a book into an international best-seller, is figuring out which Democratic candidate she will endorse in the crowded 2020 U.S. presidential race.

Winfrey, who has ruled out running for the White House, told the Hollywood Reporter in an extensive interview released on Tuesday that she was “quietly figuring out where I’m going to use my voice in support.”

“I’m sitting back, waiting to see. It’ll be very clear who I’m supporting,” she said of the 2020 election campaign.

Winfrey campaigned heavily for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but adopted a lower profile in her support of Hillary Clinton, who lost in 2016 to current Republican President Donald Trump.

Some 20 Democrats are running for president in 2020.

Winfrey said among the Democrats she is researching are South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and California Senator Kamala Harris.

She said she already knows New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

Winfrey, a billionaire movie producer, television network owner, magazine publisher and philanthropist, was urged by her supporters to run for the White House herself after delivering a rousing speech at the 2018 Golden Globe awards ceremony. She has repeatedly ruled out the idea.

Winfrey is also an actress who was Oscar-nominated for her supporting role in the 1985 film “The Color Purple.” She also had a major role in the 2018 film “A Wrinkle in Time,” and appeared in “Selma” and “The Butler” as well as the series “Greenleaf” on OWN TV, the Oprah Winfrey Network.

But with a series of documentaries and interview shows lined up for the upcoming Apple TV+ streaming service, Winfrey said she was no longer interested in acting.

“I think to be really, really good at it, you’ve got to do it a lot. You’ve got to work at it. And it’s got to be something that you have true passion about. I don’t think it’s something you can dabble in,” she said. “It doesn’t feed my soul anymore.”
…

Early scenes in Rachel Lears’ documentary “Knock Down the House” take place far away from the halls of power. At a New York taco and tequila bar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is filling ice buckets in the basement. 

It’s six months before the primary that turned Ocasio-Cortez into a liberal phenomenon. Then trailing far behind in the polls, few expected her to win the race for New York’s 14th district and unseat incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, who had served for two decades and hadn’t faced a primary challenger in 14 years. 

“If I were, like, a normal, rational person, I would have dropped out of this race a long time ago,” she says riding an elevator with sanitary gloves on her hands. 

“Knock Down the House,” which premieres on Netflix on Wednesday, is, in movie lingo, an origin story. But while it has come to be known as “the AOC documentary,” it captures a wider political movement. Shot over two years in the lead-up to the 2018 elections, it follows four progressive insurgent candidates, all women, running grassroots campaigns: the Bronx-born Ocasio-Cortez, Amy Vilela of Nevada, Cori Bush of Missouri and Paula Jean Swearengin of West Virginia. 

One of them – you might have heard – won. 

“They were all considered long shots. We were looking for people that would be very compelling to watch, no matter what happened,” Lears said in an interview. “We were very interested in races that would involve political machines and very entrenched power structures. We were interested in exploring the nature of power in the United States.”

The attention surrounding Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, has raised the profile of “Knock Down the House.” It won the audience award at the Sundance Film Festival, where Netflix acquired it for $10 million – the biggest documentary sale ever at the festival. 

And given the intense partisan divisions around Ocasio-Cortez, “Knock Down the House” has also been used against the congresswoman by some. The filmmakers have had to combat falsehoods that Ocasio-Cortez profited from the Netflix sale (documentary subjects generally aren’t paid). Still, Ocasio-Cortez has said she’s been approached on the House floor about how much she made from the film. 

​On Monday, Kellyanne Conway criticized Ocasio-Cortez on Fox News’ “Hannity” for promoting “Knock Down the House” on Twitter the day after the Sri Lanka Easter bombings. (Ocasio-Cortez responded that Conway was “using this as an excuse to stoke suspicion around my Christianity.”)

“There is a lot of speculation about what the film is,” said Lears. “I look forward to it being out there and people can decide for themselves.”

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to comment for this article, was unable to attend the film’s Sundance premiere in January, citing complications due to the government shutdown. 

“Some might be assuming that this is her personal project, and that’s not true at all,” said Lears. “We had complete editorial independence.”

Those expecting a glossy political advertisement may be surprised to find something far more personal in “Knock Down the House.” The main thrust of the film is capturing the struggles of working-class women challenging the establishment, navigating the often painful process of stepping into public life and battling far larger, and far better bankrolled political machines.

The candidates are backed by the political action committees Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, groups that were Lears’ gateway to the four candidates. But the candidates are inexperienced political outsiders motivated to run by personal experience. Bush is a nurse and ordained pastor. Swearengin comes from a long line of coal miners, several of whom died from black lung disease.

​Swearengin unsuccessfully ran against Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat and defender of the coal industry in West Virginia. In the documentary Swearengin summarizes her opposition: “If another country came in here, blew up our mountains and poisoned our water, we’d go to war. But industry can.” 

Vilela, a Nevada businesswoman, entered politics after the death of her daughter, Shalynne. She died at age 22 of a massive pulmonary embolism weeks after being turned away from an ER for lacking insurance. Running on a platform of universal health care, Vilela lost to Democrat Steven Horsford. 

“People right now don’t understand the basis of the film, or the basis of why we ran,” said Vilela. “This movie is about what is to go against the system and it’s not just a Democrat thing. It’s across party lines. It’s money in politics.”

One of the film’s most vivid moments comes when a devastated Vilela, faced with election day tallies that eliminate her long-odds bid, falls to her knees and bursts into tears.

“I was like: And now more people will die,” said Vilela. “And I couldn’t save them like I couldn’t save my daughter.” 

Vilela said she will run for office again. And she guarantees Republicans will watch “Knock Down the House.” 

“People are going to secretly go and watch this movie. They’re ranting about it online. They’re not going to be able to resist,” she said. “I think it will humanize what we’re doing. Hopefully, we won’t be so scary to them, and they’ll understand where we’re coming from.”

Lears was there to document a happier election night for Ocasio-Cortez, and the documentary’s final moments track the Congresswoman’s giddy arrival in Washington D.C. But, to her, “Knock Down the House” isn’t about winning. 

“It’s a testament to the value of trying to be part of the democratic process,” said Lears, “no matter what the outcome.” 
…

Early scenes in Rachel Lears’ documentary “Knock Down the House” take place far away from the halls of power. At a New York taco and tequila bar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is filling ice buckets in the basement. 

It’s six months before the primary that turned Ocasio-Cortez into a liberal phenomenon. Then trailing far behind in the polls, few expected her to win the race for New York’s 14th district and unseat incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, who had served for two decades and hadn’t faced a primary challenger in 14 years. 

“If I were, like, a normal, rational person, I would have dropped out of this race a long time ago,” she says riding an elevator with sanitary gloves on her hands. 

“Knock Down the House,” which premieres on Netflix on Wednesday, is, in movie lingo, an origin story. But while it has come to be known as “the AOC documentary,” it captures a wider political movement. Shot over two years in the lead-up to the 2018 elections, it follows four progressive insurgent candidates, all women, running grassroots campaigns: the Bronx-born Ocasio-Cortez, Amy Vilela of Nevada, Cori Bush of Missouri and Paula Jean Swearengin of West Virginia. 

One of them – you might have heard – won. 

“They were all considered long shots. We were looking for people that would be very compelling to watch, no matter what happened,” Lears said in an interview. “We were very interested in races that would involve political machines and very entrenched power structures. We were interested in exploring the nature of power in the United States.”

The attention surrounding Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, has raised the profile of “Knock Down the House.” It won the audience award at the Sundance Film Festival, where Netflix acquired it for $10 million – the biggest documentary sale ever at the festival. 

And given the intense partisan divisions around Ocasio-Cortez, “Knock Down the House” has also been used against the congresswoman by some. The filmmakers have had to combat falsehoods that Ocasio-Cortez profited from the Netflix sale (documentary subjects generally aren’t paid). Still, Ocasio-Cortez has said she’s been approached on the House floor about how much she made from the film. 

​On Monday, Kellyanne Conway criticized Ocasio-Cortez on Fox News’ “Hannity” for promoting “Knock Down the House” on Twitter the day after the Sri Lanka Easter bombings. (Ocasio-Cortez responded that Conway was “using this as an excuse to stoke suspicion around my Christianity.”)

“There is a lot of speculation about what the film is,” said Lears. “I look forward to it being out there and people can decide for themselves.”

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to comment for this article, was unable to attend the film’s Sundance premiere in January, citing complications due to the government shutdown. 

“Some might be assuming that this is her personal project, and that’s not true at all,” said Lears. “We had complete editorial independence.”

Those expecting a glossy political advertisement may be surprised to find something far more personal in “Knock Down the House.” The main thrust of the film is capturing the struggles of working-class women challenging the establishment, navigating the often painful process of stepping into public life and battling far larger, and far better bankrolled political machines.

The candidates are backed by the political action committees Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, groups that were Lears’ gateway to the four candidates. But the candidates are inexperienced political outsiders motivated to run by personal experience. Bush is a nurse and ordained pastor. Swearengin comes from a long line of coal miners, several of whom died from black lung disease.

​Swearengin unsuccessfully ran against Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat and defender of the coal industry in West Virginia. In the documentary Swearengin summarizes her opposition: “If another country came in here, blew up our mountains and poisoned our water, we’d go to war. But industry can.” 

Vilela, a Nevada businesswoman, entered politics after the death of her daughter, Shalynne. She died at age 22 of a massive pulmonary embolism weeks after being turned away from an ER for lacking insurance. Running on a platform of universal health care, Vilela lost to Democrat Steven Horsford. 

“People right now don’t understand the basis of the film, or the basis of why we ran,” said Vilela. “This movie is about what is to go against the system and it’s not just a Democrat thing. It’s across party lines. It’s money in politics.”

One of the film’s most vivid moments comes when a devastated Vilela, faced with election day tallies that eliminate her long-odds bid, falls to her knees and bursts into tears.

“I was like: And now more people will die,” said Vilela. “And I couldn’t save them like I couldn’t save my daughter.” 

Vilela said she will run for office again. And she guarantees Republicans will watch “Knock Down the House.” 

“People are going to secretly go and watch this movie. They’re ranting about it online. They’re not going to be able to resist,” she said. “I think it will humanize what we’re doing. Hopefully, we won’t be so scary to them, and they’ll understand where we’re coming from.”

Lears was there to document a happier election night for Ocasio-Cortez, and the documentary’s final moments track the Congresswoman’s giddy arrival in Washington D.C. But, to her, “Knock Down the House” isn’t about winning. 

“It’s a testament to the value of trying to be part of the democratic process,” said Lears, “no matter what the outcome.” 
…

Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday will face lawmakers’ questions for the first time since releasing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report, in what promises to be a dramatic showdown as he defends his actions before Democrats who accuse him of spinning the investigation’s findings in President Donald Trump’s favor.

Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to highlight the partisan schism around Mueller’s report and the Justice Department’s handling of it. It will give the attorney general his most extensive opportunity to explain the department’s actions, including a press conference held before the report’s release, and for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he’s the president’s protector.

A major focus of the hearing is likely to be the Tuesday night revelation that Mueller expressed frustration to Barr, in a letter to the Justice Department and in a phone call, with how the conclusions of his investigation were being portrayed.

Barr is also invited to appear Thursday before the Democratic-led House Judiciary panel, but the Justice Department said he would not testify if the committee insisted on having its lawyers question the attorney general.

His appearance Wednesday will be before a Republican-led committee chaired by a close ally of the president, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is expected to focus on concerns that the early days of the FBI’s Russia investigation were tainted by law enforcement bias against Trump.

Democrats are likely to press Barr on statements and actions in the last six weeks that have unnerved them. The tense relations are notable given how Barr breezed through his confirmation process, picking up support from a few Democrats and offering reassuring words about the Justice Department’s independence and the importance of protecting the special counsel’s investigation.

The first hint of discontent surfaced last month when Barr issued a four-page statement that summarized what he said were the main conclusions of the Mueller report. In the letter, Barr revealed that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had cleared Trump of obstruction of justice after Mueller and his team found evidence on both sides of the question but didn’t reach a conclusion.

Barr is likely to defend himself by noting how he released the report on his own even though he didn’t have to under the special counsel regulations, and that doing so fulfilled a pledge he made at to be as transparent as the law allowed. Barr may say that he wanted to move quickly to give the public a summary of Mueller’s main findings as the Justice Department spent weeks redacting more sensitive information from the report.

After the letter’s release, Barr raised eyebrows anew when he told a congressional committee that he believed the Trump campaign had been spied on, a common talking point of the president and his supporters. A person familiar with Barr’s thinking has said Barr, a former CIA employee, did not mean spying in a necessarily inappropriate way and was simply referring to intelligence collection activities.

He also equivocated on a question of whether Mueller’s investigation was a witch hunt, saying someone who feels wrongly accused would reasonably view an investigation that way. That was a stark turnabout from his confirmation hearing, when he said he didn’t believe Mueller would ever be on a witch hunt.

Then came Barr’s April 18 press conference to announce the release of the Mueller report later that morning.

He repeated about a half dozen times that Mueller’s investigation had found no evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia, though the special counsel took pains to note in his report that “collusion” was not a legal term and also pointed out the multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia.

In remarks that resembled some of Trump’s own claims, he praised the White House for giving Mueller’s team “unfettered access” to documents and witnesses. He suggested the president had the right to be upset by the investigation, given his “sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”

It remained unclear Tuesday whether Barr would appear before the House committee. That panel’s Democratic chairman, Rep, Jerrold Nadler of New York, said witnesses could too easily filibuster when questioned by lawmakers restricted by five-minute time limits. Having lawyers do the questioning enables the committee “to dig down on an issue and pursue an issue.”

“And it’s not up to anybody from the executive branch to tell the legislative branch how to conduct our business,” Nadler said.

The committee will vote on allowing staff to question Barr at a separate meeting Wednesday, at the same time Barr takes questions from the Senate.

The top Republican on the House Judiciary panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, sharply criticized the plan. Nadler “has taken a voluntary hearing and turned it into a sideshow,” Collins said.

The Justice Department’s stance appears consistent with the Trump administration’s broader strategy of “undermining Congress as an institution,” said Elliot Williams, who previously served as deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s legislative affairs office in the Obama administration.

He said that if he were still advising an attorney general, he would resist the idea of staff questioning a Cabinet official. “It’s a rational response to not want them questioning the attorney general,” Williams said.

That said, Williams added, “It’s an incredibly common practice in the House of Representatives and was a practice long before President trump or William Barr took their offices and will be a practice long after they’re gone.”
…

Whatever happens next, don’t call it impeachment.

House Democrats have been careful not to rush to impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in the aftermath of Robert Mueller’s report, despite calls to do so by high-profile lawmakers and 2020 presidential contenders. But as Congress resumes Monday, the Democratic oversight and investigations agenda is starting to look a lot like the groundwork that would be needed to launch an impeachment inquiry. At some point, it’s a political difference rather than a practical one.

“I don’t think there’s a magical moment at which proceedings become ‘really’ impeachment proceedings,” said Cornell Law School professor Josh Chafetz.

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from Attorney General William Barr on Thursday, despite resistance from the administration. The Oversight Committee has reached an agreement with the White House for testimony this week on security clearances. The Intelligence Committee is probing Trump’s financial dealings. And the Ways & Means Committee is pursuing Trump’s tax returns.

“The House has such broad oversight powers that it really doesn’t matter whether they’re geared toward impeachment, toward legislating, toward overseeing the functioning of the executive branch, etc.,” Chafetz said. “At the end of the day, for the purposes of the powers available to the House, I don’t think it makes much of a difference whether they use the word ‘impeachment’ or not.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted the door is neither open nor closed to impeachment. Instead, she says, Congress is taking a step-by-step approach in exerting its role as a check on the executive branch. It will lead wherever it leads, and the public can decide.

While Republicans and others in Washington are ready to move on from the report from special counsel Robert Mueller, Democrats in Congress are still fighting to see it. The Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., subpoenaed for a full and un-redacted copy of the 400-page report, and its underlying materials. He also wants Mueller to testify before the panel by May 21.

Pelosi suggests that Congress will have more to say on impeachment after lawmakers – and the American public – digests the findings of the two-year probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction by Trump.

“In every way he is unfit to be the president of the United States,” Pelosi said in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month. “Does that make it – is that an impeachable offense? Well it depends on what we see in the report.”

Pelosi says she sets a “very high bar for impeachment because I think it’s very divisive in the country.”

In many ways, House Democrats are trying to have it both ways – pursuing the investigations that could serve as a prelude to impeachment proceedings without taking the politically fraught step of calling it impeachment.

The balancing act reflects recent polling that shows Americans are interested in getting more information, but also split. A poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research ahead of the report’s release this month showed that even with the Mueller probe complete, 53% said Congress should continue to investigate Trump’s ties with Russia, while 45% said Congress should not. A similar percentage, 53%, said Congress should take steps to impeach Trump if he is found to have obstructed justice, even if he did not have inappropriate contacts with Russia.

While high-profile Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rouke, have called for the House to begin impeachment proceedings, others have not.

​For many House Democrats, particularly newly-elected freshmen representing districts Trump won in 2018, putting their names to a floor vote to launch an impeachment inquiry would likely become politically fraught.

Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University, said as long as those cross currents exist within the House Democratic caucus, “it’s in Pelosi’s interest to slow down the impeachment train, but hold the administration accountable for Trump’s first two year in office.”

At this stage, whether Congress is conducting oversight or holding impeachment proceedings, the tools are mostly the same _ subpoenas, hearings, investigations.

But that could change, as Trump is refusing to comply with subpoenas for administration officials to testify and blocking Congress from obtaining more information.

Barr, who is set to appear Wednesday before Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have the majority, has informed the House that he may not appear Thursday if Democrats insist on having committee staff from both sides question him after lawmakers do. Unbowed, Democrats scheduled a committee vote for Wednesday to allow the staff questions.

Pelosi, in a brief interview Monday, said Barr would be “obstructing Congress” if he decided not to testify. Witnesses, she said, can’t “tell the committee how to conduct its interviews.”

Those tensions set up a legal battle that will test the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and could become a defining one for this Congress and this administration.

The outcome remains uncertain. It’s not at all clear that the House will ever fully broach the topic of impeachment, and such proceedings have been rare in Congress. The House has impeached just 19 people, mostly federal judges, and fewer than half ended up being convicted by the Senate, according the Congressional Research Service.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said she’s focused on the investigations. She said she thinks it’s better at this point not to label them impeachment hearings but just to show voters what they find.

“You can’t win the political process unless you convince the people that there’s something there,” she said.
…

The 22-month Mueller probe that investigated possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election has ended. But the battle continues as the Trump administration tries to block House Democrats’ inquiries by ignoring subpoenas and other information requests from lawmakers. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has the story.
…

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden officially kicked off his White House campaign on Monday by hosting a union event in Pittsburgh just hours after securing his first labor endorsement.

Biden told Teamsters members who attended his first event as a 2020 contender that restoring a vibrant middle class would be the theme of his campaign.

“I make no apologies. I am a union man. Period,” Biden told the packed union hall. “The country wasn’t built by Wall Street bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers, it was built by you.”

Among those who introduced Biden was Harold Schaitberger, the president of the International Association of Firefighters, a 300,000-member union that endorsed him ahead of the Pittsburgh event.

In a Twitter fusillade, Trump said that while leaders of the firefighters and other unions would endorse Democrats in the 2020 race, “the members love Trump.”

Biden soon fired back on Twitter. “I’m sick of this president badmouthing unions,” he said.

Biden, who joined the 2020 Democratic race last week, has long styled himself as a champion of blue-collar workers. He is counting on organized labor to comprise a significant part of his support.

In endorsing Biden, IAFF’s Schaitberger called him “one of the staunchest advocates for working families.”

In Pittsburgh, Biden, 76, laid out his vision for bolstering the nation’s middle class. He will next head to the early voting state of Iowa.

The Democratic field now features 20 contenders, many of whom are making bids for backing by labor. Six other Democratic candidates on Saturday addressed union members at an event in Las Vegas, pledging support for policies such as a $15 federal minimum wage.

“This may be the most pro-union group of candidates we’ve seen in decades, making it tougher for any one candidate to line up significant union support,” said Steve Rosenthal, a former political director for the AFL-CIO who is advising unions on their 2020 strategies.

Biden’s record as a U.S. senator and his two terms serving as former President Barack Obama’s No. 2 could complicate his efforts to draw union voters.

As a senator from Delaware, Biden supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has become a sore point with unions that blame it for jobs going overseas.

As vice president, he was part of an administration that promulgated labor-friendly regulatory policies, but also pushed through trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea over the objections of several unions and many other Democrats.

A massive 12-nation trade deal backed by Obama and Biden, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, was opposed by labor and became an issue in the 2016 presidential race, when Donald Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee, used it to criticize Democratic policies.

Once Trump became president, he pulled the United States out of the TPP, which went into effect last year. His administration currently is advocating for Congress to pass a negotiated replacement for NAFTA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump, too, has a solid claim on union support. In beating Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, he turned in the best performance by a Republican candidate among union households since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

No Rush to Endorse

Labor unions have indicated that, with the sprawling Democratic field, they have the luxury to choose candidates who tailor policies to their specific goals.

“Working people are heading into this election with a high bar,” said John Weber, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO in Washington. “Your trade policy shouldn’t be about reducing the collateral damage of harmful corporate trade deals. It should be about replacing them with agreements that actually strengthen working families.”

While organized labor has lost political clout with the decline of industrial jobs in America, it remains a key Democratic constituency, valued for its capacity to mobilize voters.

At this juncture, Biden may have to worry most about U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who, along with Biden, sits atop public opinion polls of the 2020 Democratic field.

Sanders, a progressive who consistently has railed against free-trade agreements, showed surprising strength among rank-and-file union members during his 2016 presidential primary challenge to Clinton even though she received the formal endorsement of most national unions.

That divide within unions between Clinton and Sanders is one reason, Rosenthal said, why some unions this time may wait deep into the primary process before endorsing a candidate — or may not endorse one at all.

“Because so many unions rushed to endorse Secretary Clinton in 2016, there will likely be a much more thorough process, including more rank-and-file input from some unions this cycle,” he said.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and the White House fired new taunts Monday at opposition Democrats in the ongoing fight to shape the narrative of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and report on Russian meddling in the the 2016 presidential election.

In a Twitter comment, the U.S. leader said, “Bob Mueller was a great HERO to the Radical Left Democrats” while his 22-month investigation was underway.

But Trump said that when Mueller concluded two weeks ago that he did not collude with Russia to help him win the White House and that “our highly respected” Attorney General William Barr decided criminal charges were not warranted against Trump for trying to obstruct the investigation, “the Dems are going around saying, “Bob who, sorry, don’t know the man.”

Barr, the country’s top law enforcement official, is set to testify before a Senate committee on Wednesday about his no-obstruction decision and his oversight of the end of the Mueller probe.But Barr’s planned appearance before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Thursday is in doubt in a dispute over who will question him.

The House panel’s chairman, Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, wants to give the committee’s 41 members five minutes apiece to ask Barr questions and then another 30 minutes for both Democratic and Republican lawyers for the committee to make more inquiries of Barr.

Barr has agreed to questioning by the House lawmakers, but balked at the further questioning by the Democratic and Republican counsels for the committee.Barr’s agency, the Justice Department, has told the House committee he may not show up if Nadler insists on the extended questioning beyond that by lawmakers.

Nadler told CNN on Sunday, “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period.”He threatened to subpoena Barr if the attorney general fails to appear for Thursday’s hearing.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the Trump administration cooperated with Mueller’s investigation, but derided the House panel’s demand for questioning of Barr by committee lawyers.

“You have to look at the outrageous behavior, particularly of the House Democrats, who are asking for things they know they can’t have, that they know they have no legal authority to have, and frankly they’re just acting really childish,” Sanders said.”It’s almost embarrassing to the House Democrats the way that they’re behaving.The way the process should work, look at the side on the Senate.Attorney General Barr will go there … The counter side to that is the House wanting to have staff and others interview Attorney General Barr.It really is outrageous the way that they’re behaving, and hopefully you’ll see that stop.”

Mueller cited 11 instances of possible obstruction of the investigation by Trump, saying that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

With Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction question, Barr said he concluded no criminal charges against Trump were warranted.

Democrats say they want to question Barr how he reached his no-obstruction decision.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and the White House fired new taunts Monday at opposition Democrats in the ongoing fight to shape the narrative of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and report on Russian meddling in the the 2016 presidential election.

In a Twitter comment, the U.S. leader said, “Bob Mueller was a great HERO to the Radical Left Democrats” while his 22-month investigation was underway.

But Trump said that when Mueller concluded two weeks ago that he did not collude with Russia to help him win the White House and that “our highly respected” Attorney General William Barr decided criminal charges were not warranted against Trump for trying to obstruct the investigation, “the Dems are going around saying, “Bob who, sorry, don’t know the man.”

Barr, the country’s top law enforcement official, is set to testify before a Senate committee on Wednesday about his no-obstruction decision and his oversight of the end of the Mueller probe.But Barr’s planned appearance before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Thursday is in doubt in a dispute over who will question him.

The House panel’s chairman, Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, wants to give the committee’s 41 members five minutes apiece to ask Barr questions and then another 30 minutes for both Democratic and Republican lawyers for the committee to make more inquiries of Barr.

Barr has agreed to questioning by the House lawmakers, but balked at the further questioning by the Democratic and Republican counsels for the committee.Barr’s agency, the Justice Department, has told the House committee he may not show up if Nadler insists on the extended questioning beyond that by lawmakers.

Nadler told CNN on Sunday, “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period.”He threatened to subpoena Barr if the attorney general fails to appear for Thursday’s hearing.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the Trump administration cooperated with Mueller’s investigation, but derided the House panel’s demand for questioning of Barr by committee lawyers.

“You have to look at the outrageous behavior, particularly of the House Democrats, who are asking for things they know they can’t have, that they know they have no legal authority to have, and frankly they’re just acting really childish,” Sanders said.”It’s almost embarrassing to the House Democrats the way that they’re behaving.The way the process should work, look at the side on the Senate.Attorney General Barr will go there … The counter side to that is the House wanting to have staff and others interview Attorney General Barr.It really is outrageous the way that they’re behaving, and hopefully you’ll see that stop.”

Mueller cited 11 instances of possible obstruction of the investigation by Trump, saying that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

With Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction question, Barr said he concluded no criminal charges against Trump were warranted.

Democrats say they want to question Barr how he reached his no-obstruction decision.
…

Mohamud Mascade contributed this report from Minneapolis; Katherine Gypson and Carla Babb contributed from Washington.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota / WASHINGTON – The California synagogue shooting that left one dead Saturday has revived a simmering debate over U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and U.S. lawmakers’ relationship with lobbyists for Israel.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and conservative commentator Meghan McCain suggested Sunday that Omar’s recent comments are part of rising anti-Semitism on the left and that all sides of the U.S. political spectrum have contributed to an extremist dialogue that targets Jews.

Omar – the first Somali-American member of Congress – pushed back against those claims, retweeting a post by journalist Peter Beinart on Sunday saying: “Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin. Let us stand together as Americans in rejecting hate.”

In an interview Friday with VOA’s Somali service, Omar said criticism of her outspoken comments was the “product of hate and ignorance mainly driven by President Donald Trump and his far right supporters.”

“The controversy is just there only because the U.S. president and his supporters are not happy with that a Muslim, a refugee, and a minority woman of color has her say on his leadership misbehaviors and wrongdoings,” the Minnesota Democrat said.

“We have a president who believes we are not here, who has been attacking us – the minority Americans and people of color. Now, when we get an opportunity and platform to speak out, he wants to silence our legitimate voices,” added Ilhan, one of two Muslim women in Congress. “I believe I am in a legitimate fight and I hope I will win it.”

Controversy details

Omar ignited a controversy earlier this year with a tweet insinuating that U.S. lawmakers’ support for Israel was swayed by money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobbying group.

Shortly after apologizing for that tweet, Omar suggested in a public statement that some lawmakers held a dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel.

Omar’s comments were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans and triggered two congressional resolutions condemning hate speech. Jewish leaders in Omar’s diverse Minneapolis district have met with the congresswoman to discuss ways of furthering an open dialogue.

In a speech in March to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar spoke out against discrimination against and suspicions of Muslims.

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

Trump and other critics lashed out at Omar over the “some people did something” line, accusing her of trivializing the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

In one tweet, Trump included that one line from Omar’s speech, followed by more than 40 seconds of video footage from September 11 and a large graphic repeating the words “somebody did something.”

Omar said she has received an increase of death threats since that tweet. Earlier this month, a New York man was arrested for allegedly threatening to assault and murder Omar.

Will not be ‘quiet’

On Friday, Omar met in her home state with prominent figures from the Somali-American community. Asked why she has chosen to engage in this heated political controversy while new to Congress, when she could keep a low profile, Omar said she was not elected to be “quiet” or “invisible.”

“I was not elected to remain still like a self-portrait and think I am protecting my seat. I have to use my seat and leverage to represent the voices of those who elected me, those who have been crying and demonstrating in the streets to get an opportunity to have representatives at the U.S. Capitol, who can say no to the president’s wrong policies,” she told VOA.

Omar told participants in the meeting she has discussed many things of concern with the Somali community.

“We have discussed about the prevention and the reduction of our Minnesota youth incarceration, how we can address public housing problems facing our community in Minnesota, the future withdrawal of African Union peacekeepers in Somalia and U.S drone attacks in Somalia,” she said. “We are working on how we can get a bill that would help prevent civilian casualties by the counterterrorism drone strikes in Somalia, ensuring the civilian protection and how the families of the victims would get compensation.”

The U.S. military has stepped up its campaign of airstrikes in Somalia against al-Shabab and IS militants since Trump took office.

U.S military commanders in the region said the strikes have killed more than 800 militants in two years. Earlier this month, the U.S. Africa Command said a woman and a child were killed last year in a U.S. strike in Somalia, the first civilian casualties acknowledged in the U.S. military’s war against Islamist militants there.
…

Mohamud Mascade contributed this report from Minneapolis; Katherine Gypson and Carla Babb contributed from Washington.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota / WASHINGTON – The California synagogue shooting that left one dead Saturday has revived a simmering debate over U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and U.S. lawmakers’ relationship with lobbyists for Israel.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and conservative commentator Meghan McCain suggested Sunday that Omar’s recent comments are part of rising anti-Semitism on the left and that all sides of the U.S. political spectrum have contributed to an extremist dialogue that targets Jews.

Omar – the first Somali-American member of Congress – pushed back against those claims, retweeting a post by journalist Peter Beinart on Sunday saying: “Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin. Let us stand together as Americans in rejecting hate.”

In an interview Friday with VOA’s Somali service, Omar said criticism of her outspoken comments was the “product of hate and ignorance mainly driven by President Donald Trump and his far right supporters.”

“The controversy is just there only because the U.S. president and his supporters are not happy with that a Muslim, a refugee, and a minority woman of color has her say on his leadership misbehaviors and wrongdoings,” the Minnesota Democrat said.

“We have a president who believes we are not here, who has been attacking us – the minority Americans and people of color. Now, when we get an opportunity and platform to speak out, he wants to silence our legitimate voices,” added Ilhan, one of two Muslim women in Congress. “I believe I am in a legitimate fight and I hope I will win it.”

Controversy details

Omar ignited a controversy earlier this year with a tweet insinuating that U.S. lawmakers’ support for Israel was swayed by money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobbying group.

Shortly after apologizing for that tweet, Omar suggested in a public statement that some lawmakers held a dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel.

Omar’s comments were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans and triggered two congressional resolutions condemning hate speech. Jewish leaders in Omar’s diverse Minneapolis district have met with the congresswoman to discuss ways of furthering an open dialogue.

In a speech in March to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar spoke out against discrimination against and suspicions of Muslims.

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

Trump and other critics lashed out at Omar over the “some people did something” line, accusing her of trivializing the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

In one tweet, Trump included that one line from Omar’s speech, followed by more than 40 seconds of video footage from September 11 and a large graphic repeating the words “somebody did something.”

Omar said she has received an increase of death threats since that tweet. Earlier this month, a New York man was arrested for allegedly threatening to assault and murder Omar.

Will not be ‘quiet’

On Friday, Omar met in her home state with prominent figures from the Somali-American community. Asked why she has chosen to engage in this heated political controversy while new to Congress, when she could keep a low profile, Omar said she was not elected to be “quiet” or “invisible.”

“I was not elected to remain still like a self-portrait and think I am protecting my seat. I have to use my seat and leverage to represent the voices of those who elected me, those who have been crying and demonstrating in the streets to get an opportunity to have representatives at the U.S. Capitol, who can say no to the president’s wrong policies,” she told VOA.

Omar told participants in the meeting she has discussed many things of concern with the Somali community.

“We have discussed about the prevention and the reduction of our Minnesota youth incarceration, how we can address public housing problems facing our community in Minnesota, the future withdrawal of African Union peacekeepers in Somalia and U.S drone attacks in Somalia,” she said. “We are working on how we can get a bill that would help prevent civilian casualties by the counterterrorism drone strikes in Somalia, ensuring the civilian protection and how the families of the victims would get compensation.”

The U.S. military has stepped up its campaign of airstrikes in Somalia against al-Shabab and IS militants since Trump took office.

U.S military commanders in the region said the strikes have killed more than 800 militants in two years. Earlier this month, the U.S. Africa Command said a woman and a child were killed last year in a U.S. strike in Somalia, the first civilian casualties acknowledged in the U.S. military’s war against Islamist militants there.
…

A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments Monday on a request by state election officials to toss a lawsuit challenging how Georgia elections are run.

The lawsuit was filed weeks after Republican Brian Kemp narrowly beat Democrat Stacey Abrams in the governor’s race in November.

Fair Fight Action, a group founded by Abrams, accuses state election officials of mismanaging the election. The lawsuit seeks substantial reforms and asks that Georgia be required to get federal judge’s approval before changing voting rules.

Lawyers for the state officials argue they’re not responsible for any alleged harm since elections are run by local officials. They also say Fair Fight Action lacks the standing to sue, and they say a new law addresses many of the issues raised.
…

A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments Monday on a request by state election officials to toss a lawsuit challenging how Georgia elections are run.

The lawsuit was filed weeks after Republican Brian Kemp narrowly beat Democrat Stacey Abrams in the governor’s race in November.

Fair Fight Action, a group founded by Abrams, accuses state election officials of mismanaging the election. The lawsuit seeks substantial reforms and asks that Georgia be required to get federal judge’s approval before changing voting rules.

Lawyers for the state officials argue they’re not responsible for any alleged harm since elections are run by local officials. They also say Fair Fight Action lacks the standing to sue, and they say a new law addresses many of the issues raised.
…

After releasing a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation, U.S. Attorney General William Barr takes center stage once again this week with two scheduled appearances before legislative committees on Capitol Hill. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, Democrats are demanding the full, un-redacted Mueller report and are determined to continue investigating President Donald Trump, while Republicans are eager to turn the page and focus on other matters.
…

After releasing a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation, U.S. Attorney General William Barr takes center stage once again this week with two scheduled appearances before legislative committees on Capitol Hill. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, Democrats are demanding the full, un-redacted Mueller report and are determined to continue investigating President Donald Trump, while Republicans are eager to turn the page and focus on other matters.
…

President Donald Trump stretched the truth on various fronts at his Wisconsin rally and in weekend remarks, asserting that an immigration plan to send migrants illegally in the country to sanctuary cities had begun when it hadn’t.

He also claimed credit for jobs he didn’t create, exaggerated his record on health care and spread untruths about the Russia investigation.

A look at the rhetoric and the reality:

IMMIGRATION

TRUMP: “Last month alone, 100,000 illegal immigrants arrived in our borders, placing a massive strain on communities and schools and hospitals and public resources, like nobody’s ever seen before. Now we’re sending many of them to sanctuary cities. Thank you very much. … I’m proud to tell you that was my sick idea.” — Green Bay, Wisconsin, rally Saturday.

THE FACTS: There’s no evidence that the Trump administration has begun to send the migrants to sanctuary cities en masse . He proposed the idea in part to punish Democratic congressional foes for inaction on the border, but Homeland Security officials rejected the plan as unworkable.

Trump said this month he was “strongly considering” the proposal, hours after White House and Homeland Security officials had insisted the idea had been eschewed twice.

“Sanctuary cities” are places where local authorities do not cooperate with immigration officials, denying information or resources that would help them round up for deportation people living in the country illegally.

There were no indications federal officials were taking any steps to move forward with the idea or considered the president’s words anything more than bluster. His words to the Wisconsin crowd, suggesting his “sick idea” was in motion, appeared to be no more than that.

People with knowledge of the discussions say White House staff discussed the idea with the Department of Homeland Security in November and February but it was judged too costly and a misuse of money. The people were not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Sanctuary cities include New York City and San Francisco, home city of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

TRUMP on U.S. population: “We need people to come in.” — rally.

TRUMP: “We have companies pouring in. The problem is we need workers.” — Fox Business interview Sunday.

THE FACTS: His position is a flip from earlier this month, when he declared the U.S. to be “full” in light of the overwhelmed southern border.

His April 7 tweet threatened to shut down the border unless Mexico apprehended all immigrants who crossed illegally. But it turns out the U.S. is only “full” in terms of the people Trump doesn’t want.

Immigrants as a whole make up a greater percentage of the total U.S. population than they did back in 1970, having grown from less than 5 percent of the population to more than 13 percent now. In 2030, it’s projected that immigrants will become the primary driver for U.S. population growth, overtaking U.S. births.

HEALTH CARE

TRUMP: “The Republicans are always going to protect pre-existing conditions.” — Wisconsin rally.

THE FACTS: He’s not protecting health coverage for patients with pre-existing medical conditions. The Trump administration instead is pressing in court for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act — including provisions that protect people with pre-existing conditions from health insurance discrimination.

Trump and other Republicans say they’ll have a plan to preserve those safeguards, but the White House has provided no details.

Former President Barack 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 undermine protections by pushing up costs for people with pre-existing conditions.

A recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Democrats enjoy a 17 percentage point advantage over Republicans in Americans’ assessments of whom they trust more to handle health care, 40% to 23%. That compares with a public more evenly divided over which party would better handle several other major areas of national policy, including the economy, immigration and foreign affairs.

Watch: US Lawmakers Await Barr Testimony on Mueller Report

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

TRUMP, calling special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe a “witchhunt”: It’s “the greatest political hoax in American history.” — Wisconsin rally.

THE FACTS: A two-year investigation that produced guilty pleas, convictions and criminal charges against Russian intelligence officers and others with ties to the Kremlin, as well as Trump associates, is demonstrably not a hoax.

All told, Mueller charged 34 people, including the president’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn; and three Russian companies. Twenty-five Russians were indicted on charges related to election interference, accused either of hacking Democratic email accounts during the campaign or of orchestrating a social media campaign that spread disinformation on the internet.

Five Trump aides pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with Mueller and a sixth, longtime confidant Roger Stone, is awaiting trial on charges that he lied to Congress and engaged in witness tampering.

Mueller’s report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was “sweeping and systematic.” Ultimately, it cleared Trump of criminal conspiracy with the Russians but did not render judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice, saying his investigators found evidence on both sides.

ECONOMY

TRUMP: “Since the election, we have created more than 6 million new jobs. Nobody would have believed that. … 600,000 manufacturing jobs.” — Wisconsin rally.

THE FACTS: The record is not all his, and it’s not remarkable.

The economy created about 6 million jobs in the roughly two years before the election, then again in the roughly two years after.

By counting since the election, he’s taking credit for jobs created in the last months of the Obama administration. The country has added 453,000 manufacturing jobs, not 600,000, since Trump took office.
…

The U.S. signed a document agreeing to pay North Korea $2 million for the medical care of American Otto Warmbier who had been detained by Pyongyang, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said Sunday, but then ignored the bill and never paid it.

“It is very clear to me from my looking into it in the past few days that nobody was paid,” Bolton told Fox News Sunday. “That is clear.”

Bolton was confirming news accounts in recent days that North Korea demanded the money when it released Warmbier, a comatose college student, to U.S. authorities nearly two years ago so he could be returned to the United States. He died days later.

Warmbier was a University of Virginia student visiting North Korea when he was jailed in January 2016, sentenced to 15 years for trying to steal a propaganda banner from his hotel.

The mainland China travel company that arranged Warmbier’s trip, Young Pioneer Tours, specializes in “destinations your mother would rather you stay away from,” according to its website. It describes itself as “safe and fun.” Photos from the company’s website and Facebook page show selfies of happy, smiling, young Westerners in Pyongyang.

North Korean officials said Warmbier fell into a coma the night he was sentenced in March 2016, The Washington Post reported. Doctors have not identified the cause of his brain damage, and say they did not see evidence of him being beaten.

At their last meeting in Hanoi in February, President Donald Trump said he accepted North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s claim not to have known what had happened to Warmbier in prison, despite the case being extraordinarily sensitive.

“I will take him at his word,” Trump said.

Following Warmbier’s sentencing, the North Koreans did not tell U.S. officials until June 2017 that he had been unconscious for 15 months. The Washington Post said news of Warmbier’s condition sparked a frantic effort to get him home. The effort was led by the State Department’s point man on North Korea at the time, Joseph Yun, who signed the agreement to pay the money.

Trump has sought to get Kim to agree to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program, but talks between the two leaders collapsed in Hanoi after Kim agreed at a summit in Singapore a year ago to move toward denuclearization. Bolton said Trump is willing to meet a third time with Kim.
…

Shelley Berkley spent 14 years in Congress representing the western swing state of Nevada. The lifelong Democrat is worried about her party’s ability in next year’s presidential election to maintain the traditional support of her fellow Jews.

“Growing up, I didn’t know anybody that was Jewish who wasn’t a Democrat. The two went hand in hand. If you’re Jewish, you’re a Democrat. Things have changed dramatically,” according to Berkley.   

The party’s rising left wing is less inclined to reflexively support Israel, while President Donald Trump has decisively aligned with Israel’s right-wing president, Benjamin Netanyahu.  

“There’s a lot of folks like Congresswoman Berkeley increasingly concerned about the direction and tone the Democratic Party is taking as it relates to the Jewish community and Israel,” says Matthew Brooks, national executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Staunch democratic

Throughout most of the 20th century, Jews were staunch Democrats, traditionally allied with the labor movement and religiously coming out to vote in force.

As important, according to American University professor of history Alan Kraut, “is the influence that Jews wield as opinion leaders, journalists, contributors and activists – as a people basically who are never afraid to raise their voices one way or another.”

Pollster Mark Mellman contends data show that has not changed, with the Jewish community remaining “strongly Democratic to this day, and certainly anti-Trump, even though some are appreciative of some of the things that Trump has done vis-a-vis Israel.”

Both Berkley and Mellman say most Jewish voters detest Trump’s policies in general, as well as his behavior and lack of intellectual curiosity.   

But Trump is trying hard to woo them, portraying the Democratic Party as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

“The reality is, the American Jewish community is not going to be voting for Donald Trump. … And for him to invest so much time, effort, energy, in trying to create a wedge between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party isn’t really a very good use of his time,” says Mellman, who heads one of the most prominent Democratic marketing research and polling firms. But he acknowledges “there are some increasing doubts and concern.”  

Berkley says her children remain strong Democrats but are concerned about whether they can continue to support their own party.

“Now that doesn’t mean they are embracing the Trump revolution. Hardly. But people like us, pro-Israel moderate Democrats, where do we go?” she asks.

At the RJC, Brooks is looking to lure those disaffected Democrats. He contends the rival party is overconfident about the Jewish vote.   

“It’s going to be very hard for any of the Democratic candidates to have, like President Trump, an unvarnished pro-Israel agenda, because the grassroots in the base of the Democratic Party won’t allow it,” Brooks predicts.  

Battleground states

“If we move 5% of the Jewish vote in Los Angeles or New York, it’s not going to make a difference,” Brooks says. “There’s no chance we’re winning New York state or California. So, our focus is very strategic and very targeted in the battleground states.”

At the forefront are Ohio and Florida, both with significant Jewish populations. Also seen in play: Arizona and Nevada out West, as well as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the Midwest.

“Since Trump has been in office, has he been able to attract and to peel away Jewish support from the Democratic Party? I believe the answer to that is yes,” says Brooks.

The head of the Republican Jewish Coalition says American Jews look not just at a candidate’s stance on Israel, but also at economic issues.   

“I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve been able to make these incremental gains,” Brooks tells VOA.

Mellman says Brooks and other Republicans are overly optimistic “when you have a community that has consistently voted Democratic for many years. And right now, even after all these things, hates Donald Trump. Now, could that turn around in 17 months? It’s possible. But there’s never been that kind of wholesale turnaround in public opinion.”      

Kraut sees the best opportunity for Republicans with “older Jewish voters, men and women, who lean toward Trump because of Israel. And because he does seem to them to fly in the face of what they regard as the left wing of the Democratic Party that’s taking shape” around congressional first-termers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, according to Kraut.

“They don’t like these people. They don’t trust these people,” says Kraut of the older Jewish voters.

Berkley agrees.

“I’m apoplectic about my party’s response to the comments Omar and others have made,” she tells VOA. “Members of the Democratic caucus have made anti-Semitic statements that were no accident. They actually believe what they’re saying.”

Jewish populations

This sentiment likely will be more of a factor prior to the general election as Jews could have an outsized role in selecting the Democratic Party’s nominee.

While early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have negligible Jewish populations, the big and solid Democrat states – New York and California – do.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is viewed by much of the Jewish bloc as stable and predictable with foreign policy, respected around the world, and representing their core social and moral values, according to Kraut.

“If I were a betting man, I would say that if Biden is the candidate of the Democratic Party, the Jews are going to flock to him” in the general election against Trump, Kraut says.

He sees Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as struggling for Jewish votes, despite him being the only Jew running for president.

Some may find that ironic.

“It’s worse than ironic. It’s very unfortunate, actually,” laments Berkley, who says she opposes Sanders’ candidacy “because of his lack of support for Israel.”

Mellman says Sanders has stated he is “100% pro-Israel, that he believes Israel has every right to exist in peace and security without being subject to terrorism.”

Jewish leaders acknowledge Trump’s embrace of Israel may also be motivated by his desire to retain the support of Christian evangelicals (who believe that Israel must continue to exist as a harbinger for the return of Christ as the Messiah).

“Being good to Israel has many, many political advantages in the United States,” notes Kraut. “The Jewish vote alone isn’t going to put Trump over the top.”

 
…

Shelley Berkley spent 14 years in Congress representing the western swing state of Nevada. The lifelong Democrat is worried about her party’s ability in next year’s presidential election to maintain the traditional support of her fellow Jews.

“Growing up, I didn’t know anybody that was Jewish who wasn’t a Democrat. The two went hand in hand. If you’re Jewish, you’re a Democrat. Things have changed dramatically,” according to Berkley.   

The party’s rising left wing is less inclined to reflexively support Israel, while President Donald Trump has decisively aligned with Israel’s right-wing president, Benjamin Netanyahu.  

“There’s a lot of folks like Congresswoman Berkeley increasingly concerned about the direction and tone the Democratic Party is taking as it relates to the Jewish community and Israel,” says Matthew Brooks, national executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Staunch democratic

Throughout most of the 20th century, Jews were staunch Democrats, traditionally allied with the labor movement and religiously coming out to vote in force.

As important, according to American University professor of history Alan Kraut, “is the influence that Jews wield as opinion leaders, journalists, contributors and activists – as a people basically who are never afraid to raise their voices one way or another.”

Pollster Mark Mellman contends data show that has not changed, with the Jewish community remaining “strongly Democratic to this day, and certainly anti-Trump, even though some are appreciative of some of the things that Trump has done vis-a-vis Israel.”

Both Berkley and Mellman say most Jewish voters detest Trump’s policies in general, as well as his behavior and lack of intellectual curiosity.   

But Trump is trying hard to woo them, portraying the Democratic Party as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

“The reality is, the American Jewish community is not going to be voting for Donald Trump. … And for him to invest so much time, effort, energy, in trying to create a wedge between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party isn’t really a very good use of his time,” says Mellman, who heads one of the most prominent Democratic marketing research and polling firms. But he acknowledges “there are some increasing doubts and concern.”  

Berkley says her children remain strong Democrats but are concerned about whether they can continue to support their own party.

“Now that doesn’t mean they are embracing the Trump revolution. Hardly. But people like us, pro-Israel moderate Democrats, where do we go?” she asks.

At the RJC, Brooks is looking to lure those disaffected Democrats. He contends the rival party is overconfident about the Jewish vote.   

“It’s going to be very hard for any of the Democratic candidates to have, like President Trump, an unvarnished pro-Israel agenda, because the grassroots in the base of the Democratic Party won’t allow it,” Brooks predicts.  

Battleground states

“If we move 5% of the Jewish vote in Los Angeles or New York, it’s not going to make a difference,” Brooks says. “There’s no chance we’re winning New York state or California. So, our focus is very strategic and very targeted in the battleground states.”

At the forefront are Ohio and Florida, both with significant Jewish populations. Also seen in play: Arizona and Nevada out West, as well as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the Midwest.

“Since Trump has been in office, has he been able to attract and to peel away Jewish support from the Democratic Party? I believe the answer to that is yes,” says Brooks.

The head of the Republican Jewish Coalition says American Jews look not just at a candidate’s stance on Israel, but also at economic issues.   

“I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve been able to make these incremental gains,” Brooks tells VOA.

Mellman says Brooks and other Republicans are overly optimistic “when you have a community that has consistently voted Democratic for many years. And right now, even after all these things, hates Donald Trump. Now, could that turn around in 17 months? It’s possible. But there’s never been that kind of wholesale turnaround in public opinion.”      

Kraut sees the best opportunity for Republicans with “older Jewish voters, men and women, who lean toward Trump because of Israel. And because he does seem to them to fly in the face of what they regard as the left wing of the Democratic Party that’s taking shape” around congressional first-termers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, according to Kraut.

“They don’t like these people. They don’t trust these people,” says Kraut of the older Jewish voters.

Berkley agrees.

“I’m apoplectic about my party’s response to the comments Omar and others have made,” she tells VOA. “Members of the Democratic caucus have made anti-Semitic statements that were no accident. They actually believe what they’re saying.”

Jewish populations

This sentiment likely will be more of a factor prior to the general election as Jews could have an outsized role in selecting the Democratic Party’s nominee.

While early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire have negligible Jewish populations, the big and solid Democrat states – New York and California – do.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is viewed by much of the Jewish bloc as stable and predictable with foreign policy, respected around the world, and representing their core social and moral values, according to Kraut.

“If I were a betting man, I would say that if Biden is the candidate of the Democratic Party, the Jews are going to flock to him” in the general election against Trump, Kraut says.

He sees Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as struggling for Jewish votes, despite him being the only Jew running for president.

Some may find that ironic.

“It’s worse than ironic. It’s very unfortunate, actually,” laments Berkley, who says she opposes Sanders’ candidacy “because of his lack of support for Israel.”

Mellman says Sanders has stated he is “100% pro-Israel, that he believes Israel has every right to exist in peace and security without being subject to terrorism.”

Jewish leaders acknowledge Trump’s embrace of Israel may also be motivated by his desire to retain the support of Christian evangelicals (who believe that Israel must continue to exist as a harbinger for the return of Christ as the Messiah).

“Being good to Israel has many, many political advantages in the United States,” notes Kraut. “The Jewish vote alone isn’t going to put Trump over the top.”

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Fox News that Attorney General William Barr was reviewing allegations that Ukrainian agents provided Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign with damaging information about Trump’s then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. 

After calling the network Thursday night for a lengthy impromptu interview, Trump told host Sean Hannity that the allegations of collusion between Ukraine and Clinton’s campaign were “big and incredible.” 

The 45-minute interview was the latest attempt by the president and Fox News to promote the narrative that Ukrainian agents tried to sway the 2016 presidential election in Clinton’s favor.  

Hannity explored the issue on his show with a reporter from The Hill, a Washington publication, who interviewed Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.

Lutsenko told Hill Television on March 17 that he would launch an investigation into alleged efforts by Ukrainians to meddle in the presidential election. Three days later, Trump, a regular viewer of Hannity’s show, tweeted, “As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.” 

Lutsenko announced the probe after U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch criticized the country’s handling of corruption, citing a recent high court ruling to decriminalize illicit enrichment by public officials. Lutsenko said investigators would focus on so-called “black ledger” files that resulted in Manafort’s abrupt departure from Trump’s campaign.

Lutsenko’s probe was also prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian’s release of an audio recording that supposedly quotes a senior law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked Manafort’s financial records to help Clinton’s campaign. 

Manafort, 70, was sentenced on March 13 to 7½ years in federal prison after being convicted in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Manafort was convicted of conspiring to conceal tens of millions of dollars in payments for undisclosed lobbying for a Ukranian politician aligned with Russia. Manafort also conspired to influence witnesses and committed tax and bank fraud.
…