Lawyers for President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering attack on former FBI Director James Comey in a confidential memo last year to the special counsel, casting him as “Machiavellian,” dishonest and “unbounded by law and regulation” as they sought to undermine the credibility of a law enforcement leader they see as a critical witness against the president.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, underscores the intense effort by Trump’s legal team over the last year to tarnish Comey’s reputation and pit the president’s word against that of the former FBI director. Comey’s firing in May 2017 helped set in motion the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, and one-on-one conversations with Trump that Comey documented in a series of memos helped form the basis of Mueller’s inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

The June 27, 2017, letter was written by Marc Kasowitz, then the president’s lead lawyer, as Mueller and his team were in the early stages of their investigation into Trump associates and as they had begun examining whether the president, by firing Comey, had sought to stymie an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The White House initially pointed as justification for the firing to a Justice Department memo that faulted Comey for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, though Trump later said that “this Russia thing” was on his mind when he made the move.

Trump legal strategy

It’s not clear to what extent, if any, the attacks on Comey have resonated with Mueller’s team, which is broadly investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and continues to seek an interview with the president to assess whether he had a corrupt intent when he fired the FBI director. And even in the face of withering criticism, Comey has been largely consistent in his telling of his interactions with Trump in his memos, his book and numerous press interviews he’s given in recent months.

The 13-page document provides a window into the formation of a legal strategy that remains in use today by Trump’s lawyers — to discredit Comey’s value as a witness. It could have new relevance in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general report that criticized Comey for departing from established protocol in the Clinton investigation.

The letter aims to identify for Mueller what the lawyers believe are grievous errors both in how Comey handled the Clinton investigation and in his early, and limited, encounters with the president. In it, Kasowitz argues that Comey cannot be trusted as a witness because he repeatedly embellished his testimony before Congress, put his “own personal interests and emotions” above FBI protocol and left a cloud of undue suspicion above the president’s head.

“Over the last year, Mr. Comey has engaged in a pattern of calculated unilateral action unbounded by governing law, regulation and practice, and plainly motivated by personal and political self-interest,” wrote Kasowitz, who has since stepped aside as lead lawyer.

Lawyers for Comey declined to comment Saturday, as did Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller. Kasowitz and Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow did not immediately return messages, and former Trump attorney John Dowd declined to comment.

Lines of attack

The document, unlike other correspondence between Trump lawyers and Mueller’s team, does not dwell on questions of Trump’s guilt or innocence. Instead, it casts in a negative light actions that Comey has said he carefully reasoned and that he has vigorously defended in his book and interviews. Those include the decision to announce without Justice Department consultation the conclusion of the Clinton investigation, and the decision months later to brief Trump — then the president-elect — on salacious allegations about him in a dossier.

“Mr. Comey continued his Machiavellian behavior after President Trump was elected,” Kasowitz wrote.

Among the principal lines of attack are Comey’s acknowledgment that he provided his lawyers with contemporaneous memos about his interactions with Trump and authorized one of them to share details with the news media. In one such encounter, Comey said the president asked him at a private dinner for his loyalty and that Comey offered him “honest loyalty” instead.

“There is no ‘honest loyalty’ in an FBI director surreptitiously leaking to civilians his privileged and confidential conversations with the president, or misappropriating and disseminating his confidential FBI memos or their contents about those meetings,” Kasowitz wrote. “There is no ‘honest loyalty’ in using those civilians as surrogates to feed stolen information and memos to the press to achieve a personal, political, and retributive objective of harming a sitting president.”

Like Trump, the lawyer also complains about Comey’s refusal to state publicly to Congress that the president was not under investigation even though he said so privately.

“Despite his repeated assurances to the president over the prior three months that he was not under investigation, the president’s repeated pleas to make that fact public, and Mr. Comey’s testimony that he had DOJ (Department of Justice) approval to make this ‘extraordinary’ announcement, Mr. Comey not only declined to clarify that there was no investigation of the president, but he used broad language that only reinforced the inaccurate perception that the president was under investigation,” Kasowitz wrote.

​Two letters to Mueller

The New York Times earlier reported that Kasowitz had written two letters to Mueller in June 2017, and published one in which he rejected the idea that Comey’s firing could constitute obstruction of justice. The AP obtained a copy of the other document, along with a two-page memo from September in which Trump lawyers lament to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Mueller was “inexplicably” not investigating Comey’s “misconduct” they had earlier raised.

In the Kasowitz letter, he says Comey stonewalled the president’s request to clear his name in order to “sustain an investigative cloud” over his head that would make it hard for Trump to fire him. Comey has said he had already told congressional leaders who was and was not under investigation, and that he was reluctant to make public statements in case something changed and he needed to correct the record.

The letter also castigates Comey for usurping the authority of his Justice Department bosses by announcing the conclusion of the Clinton investigation without seeking their approval, a criticism echoed by the inspector general last month. Comey has said he made the announcement alone because of concern that Justice Department leadership was seen as politically compromised.

The letter says Comey “confronted” the president-elect in a January 2017 Trump Tower meeting “with phony but highly embarrassing allegations concerning his personal life” from a dossier compiled by a former British spy. It was the first in a series of conversations Comey documented in writing, something Trump lawyers say he did with the ultimate goal of undermining the president. Comey has said he told Trump about the dossier allegations because they were widely known in Washington, including by the media, and that he kept his memos because he was concerned that Trump might lie about their conversations.

In the September memo obtained by AP, Dowd, who left the legal team in March, expressed dismay to Rosenstein that there was no grand jury investigation into “the obviously corrupt conclusion” of the Clinton investigation, suggesting it was improper that Comey had begun drafting a statement closing the probe even before Clinton was interviewed.

“Today, you are faced with a terrible blight on our Department of Justice which must be addressed to restore and inspire confidence in the Department,” Dowd said in calling for the grand jury investigation.

Though the inspector general’s office faulted Comey for some of his decisions, it did not find that FBI or Justice Department actions in the case were tainted by political bias.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The announcement is likely to set off a major confirmation battle in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority and opposition Democrats say they are ready for a fight over Trump’s court pick.

In his weekly presidential address, Trump said his “greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written.” The president vowed to select someone with “impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution.”

During a campaign rally in Montana Thursday, Trump sought to build expectations among supporters for his nominee.

“As you know there is now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And if you tune in Monday at 9 o’clock I think you are going to be extremely happy with the selection. Right? And they are all great. They are all great,” Trump said to cheers at a rally in Great Falls, Montana.

 

WATCH: Trump to Unveil Court Pick Monday

Democrats mobilize

Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote in a number of high-profile cases, including same-sex marriage and upholding a woman’s right to an abortion.

Democrats have vowed to resist a nominee who could swing the high court further to the right.

“So it makes it all the more important that we get someone who is going to be a person of integrity and someone who is going to make a decision based on precedent, based on the rule of law, and not someone who is ideological,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

The Kennedy void

Legal analysts noted that Kennedy’s departure leaves a critical void on the high court.

“He leaves the court in a calcified state of a hardened left and right with nobody in that middle position,” said George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. 

Trump said he has narrowed his choice to three or four contenders. Among those believed to be on the short list are federal appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.

Kennedy was often a member of five-to-four majority decisions on the high court, and now conservatives see a chance to solidify their majority on the Supreme Court for years to come.

“I think many on the right feel in particular that Anthony Kennedy, while broadly on the conservative side, was not as consistent as he might have been, and that the nominee of Donald Trump will have the court be much more consistently five votes in the conservative direction,” said John Fortier with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Rightward shift

Analysts also predict that a firmly conservative nominee will spark a high stakes political battle in the Senate.

“I think that we probably have never seen an appointment process that will be as contentious as this one given the importance of Kennedy’s position on the court and the increasingly polarized state of the nation,” said George Washington University legal analyst Paul Schiff Berman via Skype.

A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that 31 percent of voters believe Trump’s nominee should make the high court more conservative. Twenty-nine percent want the pick to make the court more liberal and 35 percent said the appointment should keep the current balance on the court.

The survey also found that by a margin of 50 percent to 42 percent, Americans believe the Supreme Court is more motivated by politics than the law.

Trump’s nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow 51- to 49-seat majority. A handful of Senate Democrats running for re-election in states that Trump won handily in 2016 could face a difficult vote on the court nominee. They could provide Republicans with an additional buffer if they decide to support the president.
…

President Donald Trump will announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court on Monday. The announcement is likely to set off a major confirmation battle in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority and where opposition Democrats are planning to wage a fight over Trump’s court pick. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

Despite his low popularity overall with the American people, President Donald Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is at an all-time high. Beyond partisan lines, there is also an increasing gap of support between genders. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.
…

President Donald Trump said Thursday he has narrowed down — to two or three — the list of contenders he’s considering to fill the vacancy for the Supreme Court seat held by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I think I have it down to four people. And I think of the four people I have it down to three or two,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The president, who was traveling to a campaign rally in Montana, has wrapped up the interview process and is moving closer to picking his court nominee amid intense jockeying from various factions seeking to influence the choice.

Trump’s current top contenders are federal appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, said a person familiar with Trump’s thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly.

With customary fanfare, Trump plans to announce his selection Monday night. The administration is preparing roll-out plans for the leading contenders, and hopes to have a decision on the top one or two names in the next couple of days, so staff can conduct a deep-dive background ahead of the possible prime-time event, according to a senior administration official granted anonymity to discuss the plans.

But as the president builds suspense for his second court pick in two years — a nominee who could tip the balance toward conservatives and revisit landmark rulings on abortion access, gay marriage and other issues — momentum is also growing among GOP supporters and detractors of the top contenders.

Conservatives and some libertarian-leaning Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have raised concerns about Kavanaugh, warning he could disappoint Republicans if his past decisions are a guide.

Paul and another Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, are supporting fellow Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who is not said to be under serious consideration by the White House but is the only lawmaker Trump has considered for the position.

To counter that, Kavanaugh’s allies have begun pushing back, reaching out to influential Republicans to ward off potential criticisms, according to one conservative who was the recipient of such outreach and spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday to discuss the situation.

The senior administration official, though, said the administration is feeling less heat than earlier in this week over the choices, particularly Kavanaugh, and believes the jockeying in general has calmed somewhat.

With the Senate narrowly divided, 51-49, in favor of Republicans, Trump’s announcement will launch a contentious confirmation process as Republicans seek to shift the court to the right and Democrats strive to block the effort. Any GOP defections could begin to doom a nominee.

Tapping into Trump’s understanding of the importance of the choice, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told the president this week that nominating someone hostile to abortion access, or the 2010 health care law, would tarnish his legacy.

Schumer told Trump that such a choice would be “cataclysmic” and create more division than the country has seen in years, according to a person familiar with the conversation who said Trump called Schumer on Tuesday.

The senator also told the president he could unify the country by nominating Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court who was blocked by Republicans in 2016.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday at an event in Louisville that he, too, has been talking to the president about the search and believes “the president will make a very high-quality appointment.”

McConnell acknowledged that his fellow Kentuckian, Judge Amul Thapar, is a finalist, but noted, “The competition at this level is pretty intense.”

Working closely with a White House team and consulting with lawmakers and outside advisers, Trump has spent the week deliberating on the choice. He conducted interviews Monday and Tuesday. He could still consider others in the mix. He’s still taking input, making calls to Capitol Hill, the official said.

Vice President Mike Pence also met with some of Trump’s contenders in recent days, according to a person familiar with the search process. The person did not specify which candidates Pence met with and spoke on condition of anonymity Wednesday to describe the private search process.

Trump is choosing his nominee from a list of 25 candidates vetted by conservative groups. Earlier in the week, he spoke with seven of them.

The president also spoke by phone with Lee, the senator from Utah, on Monday. The White House did not characterize that call as an interview, and Lee is not viewed as a top prospect.

But Lee has consistent support among conservative and libertarian activists, including some Republicans who worry about a nominee not upholding their principles and who say the Utah senator could bring more certainty.

More than two dozen conservatives, including Paul, wealthy GOP donor Rebekah Mercer and several tea party leaders, signed a letter backing Lee as having a “proven record.”

Cruz advocated for Lee on Thursday in a Fox News op-ed warning Trump not to repeat “mistakes” of past Republican presidents by picking a Supreme Court nominee who turns out to be insufficiently conservative.

Cruz said President George H.W. Bush’s selection of liberal David Souter was “one of the most consequential errors of his presidency.” He also pointed to former justices William Brennan, John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun, the latter of whom wrote the Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman’s right to abortion. All three were nominated by Republican presidents.

Lee, he said, would be a “sure thing.”

Paul, the Kentucky senator, has told colleagues he may not vote for Kavanaugh if the judge is nominated, citing Kavanaugh’s role during President George W. Bush’s administration on cases involving executive privilege and the disclosure of documents to Congress, said a person familiar with Paul’s conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Some conservatives have pointed to Kethledge as a potential justice in the mold of Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee last year. Both Kethledge and Gorsuch once served Kennedy as law clerks, as did Kavanaugh. Kethledge, a Michigan Law graduate, would add academic diversity to a court steeped in the Ivy League.

Since Trump said his short list includes at least two women, speculation has focused on Barrett, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and a longtime Notre Dame Law School professor who serves on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Conservative groups rallied around Barrett after her confirmation hearing last year featured questioning from Democrats over how her Roman Catholic faith would affect her decisions.

Trump’s choice to replace Kennedy — a swing vote on the nine-member court — has the potential to remake the court for a generation as part of precedent-shattering decisions. Recognizing the stakes, many Democrats have lined up in opposition to any Trump pick.

One group aligned with Democrats began running ads Thursday in the home states of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, urging them to hold firm in their support of access to abortion services.
…

Some immigrant U.S. Army reservists and recruits who enlisted in the military with a promised path to citizenship are being abruptly discharged, the Associated Press has learned.

The AP was unable to quantify how many men and women who enlisted through the special recruitment program have been booted from the Army, but immigration attorneys say they know of more than 40 who have been discharged or whose status has become questionable, jeopardizing their futures.

“It was my dream to serve in the military,” said reservist Lucas Calixto, a Brazilian immigrant who filed a lawsuit against the Army last week. “Since this country has been so good to me, I thought it was the least I could do to give back to my adopted country and serve in the United States military.”

Some of the service members say they were not told why they were being discharged. Others said the Army told them they are security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them.

Spokespeople for the Pentagon and the Army said that, because of the pending litigation, they were unable to explain the discharges or respond to questions about whether there have been policy changes in any of the military branches.

Legal status required

Eligible recruits are required to have legal status in the U.S., such as a student visa, before enlisting. More than 5,000 immigrants were recruited into the program in 2016, and an estimated 10,000 are serving. Most go the Army, but some also go to the other military branches.

To become citizens, the service members need an honorable service designation, which can come after just a few days at boot camp. But the recently discharged service members said their basic training was delayed, so they can’t be naturalized.

Margaret Stock, an Alaska-based immigration attorney and a retired Army Reserve lieutenant colonel who helped create the immigrant recruitment program, said she’s been inundated by recruits who have been abruptly discharged.

All had signed enlistment contracts and taken an Army oath, Stock said. Many were reservists who had been attending unit drills, receiving pay and undergoing training, while others had been in a “delayed entry” program, she said.

“Immigrants have been serving in the Army since 1775,” Stock said. “We wouldn’t have won the revolution without immigrants. And we’re not going to win the global war on terrorism today without immigrants.”

Stock said the service members she’s heard from had been told the Defense Department had not put them through extensive background checks, which include CIA, FBI and National Intelligence Agency screenings and counterintelligence interviews. Therefore, by default, they do not meet the background check requirement.

Devastated by discharge

The AP interviewed Calixto and recruits from Pakistan and Iran, all of whom said they were devastated by their unexpected discharges.

In hopes of undoing the discharge, Calixto filed a lawsuit in Washington last week alleging the Defense Department hadn’t given him a chance to defend himself or appeal. He said he was given no specific grounds other than “personnel security.”

Calixto, who lives in Massachusetts and came to the U.S. when he was 12, said in an email interview arranged through his attorney that he joined the Army out of patriotism.

A Pakistani

The Pakistani service member who spoke to the AP said he learned in a phone call a few weeks ago that his military career was over.

“There were so many tears in my eyes that my hands couldn’t move fast enough to wipe them away,” he said. “I was devastated, because I love the U.S. and was so honored to be able to serve this great country.”

He asked that his name be withheld because he fears he might be forced to return to Pakistan, where he could face danger as a former U.S. Army enlistee.

Portions of the 22-year-old’s military file reviewed by the AP said he was so deeply loyal to the U.S. that his relationships with his family and fiancee in Pakistan would not make him a security threat. Nonetheless, the documents show the Army cited those foreign ties as a concern.

An Iranian

An Iranian citizen who came to the U.S. for a graduate degree in engineering told the AP that he enlisted in the program hoping to gain medical training. He said he had felt proud that he was “pursuing everything legally and living an honorable life.”

In recent weeks, he said, he learned that he’d been discharged.

“It’s terrible because I put my life in the line for this country, but I feel like I’m being treated like trash,” he said. “If I am not eligible to become a U.S. citizen, I am really scared to return to my country.”

He spoke on condition of anonymity because of those fears.

It’s unclear how the service members’ discharges could affect their status as legal immigrants.

In a statement, the Defense Department said: “All service members (i.e. contracted recruits, active duty, Guard and Reserve) and those with an honorable discharge are protected from deportation.”

However, immigration attorneys told the AP that many immigrants let go in recent weeks were an “uncharacterized discharge,” neither dishonorable nor honorable.

Special recruitment program

The service members affected by the recent discharges all enlisted in recent years under a special program aimed at bringing medical specialists and fluent speakers of 44 sought-after languages into the military. The idea, according to the Defense Department, was to “recognize their contribution and sacrifice.”

President George W. Bush ordered “expedited naturalization” for immigrant soldiers in 2002 in an effort to swell military ranks. Seven years later the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, known as MAVNI, became an official recruiting program.

Many service members recruited through the program have proven to be exemplary. In 2012, then-Sgt. Saral K. Shrestha, originally from Nepal, was named U.S. Army Soldier of the Year.

In general, the immigrant recruits have been more cost-effective, outperforming their fellow soldiers in the areas of attrition, performance, education and promotions, according to a recently released review by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution.
…

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was the target of numerous federal ethics investigations. Allegations included the eyebrow-raising — looking to obtain a used mattress from the Trump International Hotel — and graver ones, such as accounts that he used his office to try to drum up high-dollar business opportunities for his wife.

Some of the key allegations:

THE USED MATTRESS: Pruitt directed his then-aide, Millan Hupp, to call the Trump International Hotel in Washington about buying a used mattress, Hupp told staffers of a House oversight committee, which is investigating the EPA chief. Hupp also apartment-hunted for her then-boss. Staffers also reported being asked to pick up dry cleaning, find a particular lotion and help arrange personal travel for Pruitt and his family. Federal ethics codes bar staffers from conducting personal errands for bosses.

​CHICK-FIL-A: Pruitt directed Hupp’s sister, Sydney, who also worked for him at EPA, to reach out to a senior executive at Chick-fil-A about a “business opportunity” on Pruitt’s behalf. Pruitt was interested in acquiring a franchise for the chicken restaurant for his wife. Pruitt laughed off a reporter’s questions about the matter, saying, “We love Chick-fil-A.” Federal ethics codes prohibit officials from using their office for personal gain.

SECURITY: Pruitt and the EPA cited the risk of attacks by people opposed to his policies to explain unusual and costly security decisions, including premium-class flights for Pruitt and a bodyguard and a $43,000 soundproof booth for private phone calls. He also demanded 24-hour-a-day protection by armed officers, resulting in a swollen 20-member security detail that blew through overtime budgets and racked up expenses of more than $3 million.

DC CONDO: Pruitt’s job had appeared in jeopardy since the end of March, when ABC News first reported that he leased a Capitol Hill condo last year for just $50 a night. It was co-owned by the wife of a veteran fossil fuels lobbyist whose firm had sought regulatory rollbacks from EPA. Mocking, hand-made posters soon appeared taped to telephone poles around Washington, showing a picture of a grinning Pruitt offering housing at bargain rates.

TRAVEL: Pruitt’s tenure at EPA of less than two years included trips to Italy, France and Morocco, flying premium class and moving with an entourage of EPA staffers and guards. Repeated weekend trips home to Tulsa on taxpayer-bought flights earned Pruitt negative press coverage.
…

Key California lawmakers said Thursday they’ve reached an agreement on legislation to enshrine net neutrality provisions in state law after the Federal Communications Commission dumped rules requiring an equal playing field on the internet.

California’s bill is one of the nation’s most aggressive efforts to continue net neutrality, and the deal comes after a bitter fight among Democrats over how far the state should go.

Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, who repudiated his own legislation when major pieces were removed two weeks ago, said those provisions have been restored under his agreement with Democratic Assemblyman Miguel Santiago.

“We need to ensure the internet is an open field where everyone has access, the companies that are providing internet access are not picking winners and losers,” Wiener told reporters at a Capitol news conference.

Santiago came under fire from net neutrality advocates around the country when the Assembly committee he leads stripped key provisions from the legislation — a decision that drew rebukes from members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. 

Santiago became the subject of online memes and a flood of calls to his office accusing the Los Angeles lawmaker of selling out to internet providers, citing his contributions from AT&T.

Santiago portrayed net neutrality as crucial to the future of the progressive movement and called on other liberal states to follow suit.

“There’s a lot of blue states in the country,” Santiago said. “We expect them to stand up and join us in this fight and pass measures that are equally as strong.”

Internet companies say it’s not practical for them to comply with state-by-state internet regulations and warn that Wiener’s bill would discourage the rollout of new technology in California.

“For decades, California has benefited from American innovation and investment, but SB 822 is a flawed and consumer unfriendly approach,” CTIA, a wireless industry lobbying group, said in a statement. 

The FCC last year repealed Obama-era regulations that prevented internet companies from speeding up or slowing down the delivery of certain content. Net neutrality advocates worry that, without net neutrality rules, internet providers would be free to block political content, slow down websites from their competitors or drive consumers to their own content.

The debate in California is being closely watched by net neutrality advocates around the country, who are looking to the state to pass sweeping net neutrality provisions that could drive momentum in other states.

Wiener said the key provisions removed from his bill were restored. One would require data to be treated equally at the point where it enters an internet company’s network, not just within the company’s own infrastructure.

The other bans a practice known as “zero rating,” in which internet or cellphone providers exempt certain data from a monthly cap. Critics of the practice say zero rating encourages low monthly data caps and cuts off vast swaths of the internet for people who can’t afford higher data allotments. 

He declined to release the new bill language until lawmakers return in August from a summer break.

Under the agreement, Wiener’s bill will be linked to separate legislation by Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon to prohibit state contracting with companies that don’t abide by net neutrality provisions.
…

President Donald Trump says he has “no doubt” the new acting chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, will continue with “our great and lasting EPA agenda.”

But environmentalists and some Democrats are already saying they are afraid that’s exactly what he will do — keep Scott Pruitt’s policy of deregulation.

The Ohio-born Wheeler is a former lawyer and longtime coal industry lobbyist.

He is also a former chief of staff for Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe — one of the country’s most vocal deniers of climate change.

In addition, Wheeler is a critic of those who say human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer.

“We have to restore public trust in the EPA and let the agency fulfill its mission rather than gut the laws that keep our families safe,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said.

But a former Wheeler colleague turned oil and gas lobbyist, Matthew Dempsey, told The New York Times that Wheeler is well-qualified to at least temporarily take over the EPA.

“Andrew is one of the most well-known, well-respected policy professionals in Washington on energy and environment. He knows everybody,” Dempsey said.

Wheeler will officially take over the agency Monday as Trump considers whom he will nominate as his next EPA chief. The job is a Cabinet position, and the nominee must receive Senate approval.

Keith Gaby, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the desire for clean air and clean water transcends politics, and he told VOA that Trump might have a hard time filling the slot.

“I doubt that President Trump is going to get a new EPA administrator confirmed,” Gaby said. “His policies on the environment are among his least popular. He’s not a very popular president, but he’s less popular on environmental issues.”

Trump could nominate Wheeler, but he has said he would not be interested in running the department permanently. 
…

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross came in for an Oval Office tongue-lashing after he used a mundane soup can as a TV prop. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis got overruled by President Donald Trump’s announcement that a new “Space Force” is in the offing. Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, who resigned Thursday, caught a sharp admonition from Trump to “knock it off” after his ethics problems dominated cable television.

Welcome to the Trump Cabinet, where broad opportunities to reshape the government and advance a conservative agenda come with everyday doses of presidential adulation, humiliation, perks and pestering. Sometimes all at roughly the same time. 

Members of the president’s Cabinet have a measure of prestige and power. They can streak across the skies in Air Force One with Trump, act unilaterally to roll back regulations not to their liking and set policies with far-reaching implications for millions of Americans. But they also can quickly find themselves in a harsh spotlight when an administration policy comes under question.

With the issue of migrant children separated from their families dominating headlines, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar was so determined to get a better handle on the 12,000 migrant children under his department’s care that he was up until 1 a.m. one night last week personally poring through cases in the operations center of the bunker-like HHS building at the foot of Capitol Hill.

The Cabinet members are lashed to a mercurial president who has been known to quickly sour on those working for him and who doesn’t shy from subjecting subordinates — many of them formerly powerful figures in their own rights — to withering public humiliation. Think Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a former senator who was labeled “beleaguered” early on by presidential tweet and who has since been repeatedly subjected to public criticism.

Trump’s Cabinet, a collection of corporate heavyweights, decorated generals and influential conservatives, has been beset by regular bouts of turnover and scandal. A Cabinet member’s standing with Trump — who’s up, who’s down; who’s relevant, who’s not — is closely tied to how that person or their issue is playing in the press, especially on cable TV.

Over the last 16 months, that dynamic has resulted in a Cabinet with varying tiers of influence with the president. Though all 24 Cabinet members, including the vice president, can have the president’s ear at times, some have been able to consistently influence Trump behind the scenes and mostly retained his respect. Others have fended off — so far — a swarm of accusations of ethical violations and moved steadily forward enacting the president’s agenda. A third group has largely flown under the radar, their names out of the headlines and their jobs seemingly secure.

Trump, like many modern presidents, has consolidated power in the West Wing and largely judges his Cabinet members by how well they reflect upon him, according to nearly two dozen administration officials, outside advisers and lawmakers. Most of those interviewed for this account spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about private discussions.

The powerful

One key measure of the effectiveness of Cabinet members has been their ability to manage up to the president — and manage their disappointment when he ignores their counsel.

Mike Pompeo, first as Trump’s CIA director and now as his secretary of state, has seemingly cracked that code.

During a classified briefing on economic assistance for one African nation, the then-CIA director whipped out an annotated map, pointing out where U.S. troops were located and showing how aid contributed to their counterterrorism mission. One official in the room said Pompeo presented the map as though he had worked it up the night before, rather than as something produced by his teams of analysts, earning brownie points and a sympathetic response from the president.

Pompeo’s stock with the president ran deep as an early supporter. But as CIA director, he worked with the national security team to try to steer the unconventional president toward more conventional approaches. Their personal relationship grew as Pompeo attended nearly every presidential daily intelligence briefing he could — always bringing visual aids.

His predecessor as secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, never clicked with the president and often voiced his objections in a passive-aggressive manner that infuriated the president, delivering retorts like “if you say so” and “you know best, sir,” according to the official. Tillerson was fired in March, months after word leaked that he had reportedly privately referred to Trump as “a moron.”

Other officials have also remained in close orbit around Trump, in part by lavishing frequent praise on the president both publicly and privately. Trump has remained fond of hard-charging Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, praising his combative briefings with the press. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Ross, despite his mocked TV appearance, also have largely remained in Trump’s good graces. The president attended Mnuchin’s Washington wedding last year and the treasury secretary has become a regular on the Sunday talk shows.

Administration officials believe the Cabinet member who has been most successful in managing Trump has been Mattis. The retired Marine general, thought of as a warrior monk for his academic mindset, is soft-spoken in his interactions with the president — often passing up the chance to speak in meetings — but his advice carries outsized weight.

Mattis is a frequent guest at White House lunches and dinners, a sign of his elevated status. He frames his suggestions to the president in terms of his expertise, and when Trump is leaning in a different direction calmly makes his case. White House officials have noticed that Trump sometimes later repeats historical military anecdotes that Mattis related to him — evidence the president was really listening.

But even Mattis has seen his influence wane in recent weeks — he opposed the Space Force plan before Trump announced it — as the president has grown less tolerant of dissenting viewpoints in the Oval Office.

The embattled

Winding down a presidential monologue extolling the EPA for rolling back regulations and shrinking staff, Trump turned to Pruitt across the Oval Office to discuss one other matter.

“Knock it off,” Trump said at the end of the April meeting.

With that terse yet mild reprimand, Pruitt retained his job despite the long run of bad headlines he’s generated for a series of questionable ethical moves. The incidents number more than a dozen, including renting a lobbyist’s Capitol Hill home at below-market rate, spending millions on security and travel, and using government staff to try to get his wife a fast-food chicken franchise.

Congressional Democrats, some influential Republicans and even much of the West Wing, including chief of staff John Kelly, urged Trump to fire Pruitt. The president refused, believing that Pruitt’s effectiveness on the job outweighed his personal transgressions. However, Trump on Thursday accepted Pruitt’s resignation.

Pruitt is far from alone in drawing scrutiny for possible ethical violations. Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, was accused of spending tens of thousands of dollars on office renovations and private flights. David Shulkin was fired from his post as veterans affairs secretary amid a mutiny from his own staff after an internal review found ethics violations related to his trip to Europe with his wife last summer.

Trump berated his first health and human services secretary, Tom Price, for a series of misstatements last year that the president felt was complicating the administration’s push to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to a former administration official. Price was later fired amid his own ethical scandal involving spending hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars on private travel.

All told, Trump has had more turnover of Cabinet-level positions than any president at this point in their tenure in the last 100 years.

But what has angered Trump more than the substance of the scandals are the bad images they produced, according to four White House officials and outside advisers. The president has complained to confidants that more members of his Cabinet “weren’t good on TV.” He fumed to one ally in the spring, at the height of the ethical questions surrounding Pruitt, Zinke and Housing and Urban Development head Ben Carson, that he was only seeing his Cabinet on TV for scandals and not for fulfilling campaign promises.

Trump has also complained that he wants to see more of them on cable television defending his administration and showcasing his accomplishments. In recent months, the White House has pushed Cabinet members to make more public shows of support: They were encouraged to tweet about Trump’s 500th day in office; were asked to stop by an opioid exhibit on the Mall; and were urged to show up at the annual congressional baseball game.

Zinke may have gone a bit overboard. He showcased his support for Trump by tweeting out a photo of himself in late June wearing socks with Trump’s face and the slogan “Make America Great Again.” He later deleted it after outside groups complained he was violating federal law by endorsing a political slogan.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, for her part, had an angry exchange with protesters outside a Washington restaurant while defending her husband — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — and the president’s policy of separating migrant families at the border.

“Why don’t you leave my husband alone?” she demanded.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders plays down reports of tension between Trump and his Cabinet, saying the president typically talks to at least one member a day and now has a better sense of “what he wants and what his expectations are” from them.

“The president likes to engage,” Sanders said. “He likes to talk to his team. He likes to get their feedback. He likes to throw out ideas.”

The quiet ones

Every Wednesday at 7 a.m., up to a dozen Cabinet members leave their staffs behind and quietly gather, often at the mammoth Department of Agriculture building just south of the National Mall.

There, they dive into Bible study. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Carson are among the regular attendees, and at times they are joined by Vice President Mike Pence and others.

The members rarely speak about the sessions, reflecting the low-key, keep-their-heads-down approach most have taken to their positions. Some have had boomlets of bad press — Carson over a $31,000 dining set ordered for his office, DeVos for a disastrous television interview in which she had trouble with basic facts about her department — but they have mostly avoided the devastating headlines and cable chyrons generated by the likes of Pruitt and Price.

Perry has told allies that he wants to stay in his lane and build relationships on Capitol Hill while frequently turning up in the West Wing — including popping up at key events, like Pompeo’s swearing-in — to get valuable face time with the president. The former Texas governor, who turned down a chance to succeed Shulkin at the VA, has taken pride in his lower profile, joking about how he doesn’t get bad press like some of his colleagues.

While many of the Cabinet members are collegial, there have been moments of strain between agencies. During the onslaught of heartbreaking images from the border as migrant families were separated, a quiet turf battle emerged among the Justice, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services departments. Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen, who had been on shaky ground with Trump for an increase of border crossings, later became the public face of the policy and was heckled at a Mexican restaurant.

Trump likes to take Cabinet secretaries along with him on Air Force One trips — in part to defray the costs for the White House, according to a former administration official. Past administrations, including Obama’s, used the same tactic.

The White House tries to hold Cabinet meetings every two weeks — the beginnings are open to the press — to foster better interaction, aides have said, but also to project the feel of a corporate boardroom with Trump presiding as America’s CEO and overseeing the nation’s business.

Those sessions, held more frequently than under Obama, have become a signature image of the Trump White House. Cabinet members, accomplished individuals in their own rights, take turns around a table praising the president in a manner reminiscent of “Dear Leader” sessions in authoritarian nations.

Chao in June 2017 said, “I want to thank you for getting this country moving again, and also working again.”

Price: “I can’t thank you enough for the privilege that you’ve given me, and the leadership you’ve shown.”

Mnuchin: “It’s been a great honor traveling with you around the country for the past year, and an even greater honor to be serving you on your Cabinet.”

Trump returned the favor last month at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, turning a meeting on the upcoming hurricane season into a storm of compliments.

To Chao: “All you do is produce. You do it in a very quiet way and so effective and so incredible.”

To Azar: “Alex, I’m very proud of what you’ve done. We’re going to have a great health care bill planned.”

To Carson: “What you’re doing is great, Ben. That’s really inspirational. More than just brick and mortar.”

On it went, as Trump went around the room to shower all of the present Cabinet members with praise. All but one, that is.

“Thank you, Jeff. Thank you very much,” is all Trump said to his attorney general.

The attorney general

About a half-dozen members of Trump’s inner circle, including then-chief of staff Reince Priebus, then-chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushner, were hurriedly summoned to the Oval Office on a chilly Friday afternoon in March 2017. Once they were inside, Trump erupted.

The day before, Sessions had announced his recusal from the Russia probe, blindsiding the president. Trump screamed at the staffers, according to one person with direct knowledge of the conversation, demanding to know how Sessions could be so “disloyal” while musing that he should fire the attorney general, who had been one of his earliest and most loyal supporters.

From that moment forward, Sessions became a singular figure in Trump’s Cabinet. No Cabinet member in recent memory has been the target of so many broadsides from his own boss yet has still managed to hang onto his job.

In an onslaught of tweets and interviews, Trump has tormented Sessions publicly, while in private often refusing even to speak his name, sometimes just referring to him simply as “one of my attorneys.” He unloads to confidants whenever Sessions appears on the TV in his private West Wing kitchen or his office on Air Force One. And he has accused the Justice Department of conspiring against him.

But to his deep frustration, Trump has been restrained from firing Sessions, for at least as long as special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe continues. The attorney general has support from conservatives and Republican senators, and Trump’s confidants, including attorney Rudy Giuliani, believe that dismissing Sessions would upend the special counsel’s investigation.

Sessions, for his part, has largely been silent in the face of Trump’s attacks, his defense limited to a statement defending the department’s “integrity and honor” and a highly visible dinner with his two top lieutenants in February that was interpreted by some as a sign of a solidarity pact in case the president moved to fire one, or all, of them.

The attorney general has told allies that the post is his dream job and he aims to keep pushing his agenda, including a hawkish immigration stance, even if it means coming under fire from the White House. Earlier this year, to mark the one-year anniversary of his confirmation, his senior aides gave him a gift: a bulletproof vest emblazoned with his name.
…

A prestigious Jewish organization gave its first lifetime achievement award Wednesday to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Genesis Prize Foundation cited what it calls Ginsburg’s “groundbreaking legal work in the field of civil liberties and women’s rights” when it announced late last year she would be the recipient.

“I am a judge, born and raised and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, for enlightenment runs thorough the entirety of Jewish tradition and Jewish history,” Ginsburg said in her acceptance speech in Tel Aviv. 

She said she hopes to have the “strength and courage to remain steadfast in service to that demand” as she continues serving on the United States’ highest court.

Former President Bill Clinton, who appointed Ginsburg in 1993, sent a congratulatory letter, saying he is proud to have named her to the court.

“Your groundbreaking legal work has pioneered civil liberties and women’s rights in the United States,” Clinton wrote.

A group of wealthy Russian-Jewish businessmen, working with the Israeli government, established the Genesis Foundation in 2013 to honor Jews who have made major contributions to humanity.

It comes with a $1 million prize.

Past recipients have been former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, actor Michael Douglas, classical violinist Itzhak Perlman, British sculptor Anish Kapoor and actress Natalie Portman.

Portman created a controversy last year when she refused to attend the ceremony, saying she did not want to look like she was endorsing the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ginsburg is the first recipient of the foundation’s lifetime achievement award.
…

A book about an alleged prophecy describing Donald Trump’s win as U.S. president is being produced as a movie by Liberty University, but students at the Christian college are pushing back on the film.

The production, in which Liberty University students are technicians, editors and set decorators for class credit, tells the story of Mark Taylor, a retired firefighter from Orlando, Florida. Taylor said in 2011 God told him Trump would become president of the United States. Trump won the election in 2016.

“This movie could reflect very poorly on all Liberty students and Liberty University as a whole,” states an online petition called “Cancel the Liberty University Film Programs Heretical Film Project,” created by Liberty students.

The author’s “claims to have received prophecies directly from God … do not align with the Bible’s message,” states the petition signed by more than 2,000 respondents.

Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, partnered with Christian filmmaker Rick Eldridge, owner of Reel Works Studio in Charlotte, N.C., to produce the book, which was published in July 2017. 

Liberty University staff contends that this has been an excellent learning experience for students in cinematic arts at the university.

“We think this feature-length work experience is unique to our department among film schools,” said Stephan Schultze, Liberty professor of cinematic arts and director of the film. “This distinction gives our students a skill set that makes them ready for the workforce upon graduating.”

Movie production experience

Students agree they have gained hands-on experience working on the movie production. But some said they object to the alleged prophecy and the message.

In their online petition, they cited a later interpretation of the Bible, 1 John 4:1, that suggests believers “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

“We should be very wary of modern-day prophets,” the petition says. “Mark Taylor has claimed God told him that electing Trump will save the world, which is unbiblical at best and heretical at worst.”

“Liberty’s mission statement and purpose is to be a light on a hill and to train champions for Christ,” the petition continues. “Openly supporting both a ‘modern-day prophet’ and Trump as a school does not convey this mission.”

Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. is an outspoken Trump supporter and was appointed to the Trump Task Force for Higher Education in 2017.

Schultze said the Liberty students who worked on the film served in positions that usually go to people with at least five years of experience in the film industry.

The Liberty students pushed back, saying they were “of the distasteful opinion that the producer had only come to Liberty to make his film because he could get free student labor that would significantly lower the cost of making the film,” according to a source who asked to remain anonymous. “Many of us felt used at times, which was another reason why we petitioned against the film in the first place.”

Students were given other options to working on the prophecy film, but those were of lesser experience, the source said. Well into the making of the film, students said, “it became clear … after the initial script reading and the many rewrites … the film did have a political agenda, which we were against.”

Biopic-style film

Schultze said the film is a biopic that “chronicles real-life events, following a fireman [Taylor] suffering from PTSD who believes he has heard a message from God, that Donald Trump will be the next president.” He did not respond directly to whether he thought the film was heretical but said he would “advise people to watch the movie first.”

“I think the film will be well-received, and people will be inspired to know that our students have created a narrative film whose quality is strong enough to warrant a national theatrical release on more than 1,200 screens,” he said.

“This is been a great experience for students, and I believe it will provide them with the edge they need for employment upon graduating,” Schultze added.

He said that Liberty University did not receive or pay any fees in exchange for the movie being produced there. He said there was a “cost benefit to student involvement,” but there was also “a risk to engage newly skilled labor still in a steep learning curve. It all evens out in the end because additional shooting days are required for the teaching process to take place on set. Our students’ education is a huge benefactor in the process.”

Students contested that the experience had enhanced their learning.

“Many do not want this movie on their resume and some are even considering … dropping out,” the student petition said.

Eldridge of Reel Works said he wants the film’s message to resonate with its viewers.

“We hope that they will be inspired by all that is great about our country,”  Eldridge said of the audience in an email to VOA. “All the while we hope that they will be entertained by the story and the many voices who will speak during our reflective conversations after the dramatic story.”
…

The Statue of Liberty, a powerful symbol of US freedom and long a beacon to immigrants, was shut down Wednesday on Independence Day as a woman refused to leave its base in a lengthy standoff with police.

New York police assisted U.S. Park Police in removing the woman from the monument.

Local media first reported that demonstrators opposed to President Donald Trump’s immigration policy protested there and that the woman was among the demonstrators.

But Rise and Resist NYC, which organized the protest, said the woman was not affiliated with the group.

At least seven people were arrested earlier for hanging a banner from the base of the statue that read “Abolish ICE,” referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency at the forefront of the immigration debate. 
…

The United States is celebrating its Independence Day on Wednesday.

Americans will mark the 242nd anniversary of the split from Britain with the customary day full of picnics, parades and fireworks displays across the country.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, are hosting a picnic for military families at the White House.

The July 4th holiday includes a traditional reading of the Declaration of Independence on the steps of the National Archives in Washington. Inside the building, the original document is prominently displayed along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the public to see.

Shortly after the reading, a parade attended by thousands of people begins in front of the building on Constitution Avenue and stretches 10 blocks to the west, ending just after passing between the White House and a monument to the first U.S. president, George Washington.

Washington D.C. will also feature a concert at the U.S. Capitol with performances from The Beach Boys, Chita Rivera, Andy Grammer, The Temptations, CeCe Winans and the National Symphony Orchestra, among others.

The celebration wraps up with a huge fireworks show after sunset.
…

The July 4 Independence Day holiday holds a special place in the hearts of Americans. Nationwide, citizens traditionally gather for picnics and fireworks to celebrate the country’s birth back in 1776 and reaffirm the vibrancy of U.S. democracy.

For one day at least, the nation comes together to catch its collective breath and reflect on the democratic ideals upon which it was founded.

In recent years, however, democracy has increasingly come under strain in a politically polarized country, where voices are often raised across the political spectrum and common ground is hard to find.

Protests in the streets

Those democratic ideals have turned to action in the streets in recent days, including immigration protests that drew thousands around the country.

It can also be seen in the coming battle to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

U.S. President Donald Trump is scheduled to announce his replacement for Kennedy on Monday, and activists in both political parties are gearing up for a Senate confirmation fight.

“People are rising up. Donald Trump is not king. No one makes it to the Supreme Court without going through the United States Senate,” said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, at a rally in front of the high court last week.

Backing Trump

Trump supporters have also been vocal of late, enthusiastically standing with a president who vowed to disrupt Washington and restore America’s greatness.

As often as he can, Trump touts the strong U.S. economy and tax cuts passed through Congress, due to Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

“We are bringing back our pride. We are bringing back our jobs. We are bringing back our wealth,” Trump told a White House gathering recently. “And for the citizens of this great land, we are bringing back our beautiful American dreams.”

Political differences have sharpened during Trump’s presidency and that includes scrutiny of the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Polls show most Americans support the investigation; but, an increasing number of Republicans, like Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, see it as divisive.

“Whatever you got, finish it the hell up, because this country is being torn apart,” Gowdy told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein during a House hearing last week.

Polls show concern

The strains in democracy are beginning to show up in public opinion polls. A recent bipartisan survey commissioned by the George W. Bush Institute, The University of Pennsylvania’s Biden Center and Freedom House found Americans increasingly concerned about the state of their democracy.

Fifty-five percent of those polled said democracy in the U.S. was “weak” at the current time. And eight in 10 said they were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the condition of U.S. democracy.

In addition, a new Quinnipiac University poll published Tuesday found that 91 percent of those surveyed believe that the lack of civility in politics is a major problem for the country, compared to just 7 percent who do not.

The political divisions are real and so, at times, is the fear of where it could all lead, according to American University presidential historian Allan Lichtman.

“People feel like they are being written out of America simply because of their political beliefs, their gender, their race, their religion, and really, we have not had that for quite some time in modern America,” Lichtman told VOA in a recent interview.

Widening divide

Analysts note that because of the intense loyalty and opposition that Trump generates, the president has come to symbolize the widening political divide, even though the polarized state of U.S. politics has been evolving for decades.

“Trump himself is very polarizing. The public is very polarized,” said Gallup pollster Frank Newport. “They are worried about government, worried about long-term economic strength and the change with artificial intelligence and everything that is going on. So his great economic success, on a relative basis, has not been translated into personal approval or overall satisfaction.”

WATCH: Strained Democracy

​Seeking common ground

Americans usually manage to set aside politics on the Fourth of July and celebrate democracy, but in recent decades that has become increasingly difficult, given the political change and tumult the country has experienced.

In the past 20 years, Americans have withstood a massive terrorist attack on the homeland, elected the first black president and then turned to a political novice with a conservative, nationalist agenda as his successor.

The polls show that many Americans are uneasy with the current state of political discourse. Many worry that the sharp political divisions displayed on an almost daily basis make it harder to come together and tackle some of the difficult issues that face the nation.

In short, American democracy, while still vibrant, is also under strain.
…

The July 4th Independence Day holiday holds a special place in the hearts of Americans. All across the country, citizens traditionally gather for picnics and fireworks on July 4th to celebrate the country’s birth in 1776 and to reaffirm the vibrancy of U.S. democracy. But in recent years, democracy has increasingly come under strain in a politically polarized country where voices are often raised in anger and common ground is hard to find. VOA National Correspondent Jim Malone has more.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is interviewing two or three more possible Supreme Court nominees this week after four on Monday before making his selection to fill a pivotal life-time appointment to the country’s highest tribunal.

Trump plans to announce his choice next Monday before heading to Europe for NATO meetings and later to London for face-to-face talks with British Prime Minister Theresa May and then Helsinki for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump described the four federal appellate court judges he met with Monday – reported to be Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar – as “very impressive… incredible people in so many different ways, academically and in every other way.”

Among other possibilities, Trump is expected to meet with another appellate court judge, Thomas Hardiman, who news reports say was among the president’s finalists last year when he ultimately selected Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appeals court judge who won Senate confirmation and has served on the court for more than a year.

Trump remains undecided on a new choice, White House aides say, and the selection process remains fluid. But some Republicans say that Kavanaugh, who worked in the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush, and Barrett, a former Notre Dame Law School professor, are possible favorites.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined Tuesday to say who else Trump would be interviewing, but said, “I can tell you that he’s got a great list and we’re excited about who he’s going to pick.”

Trump is choosing from a list of 25 conservative Supreme Court nominees he developed when he was running for the White House and during his presidency to assure his most ardent political supporters that he would pick someone to their liking. If confirmed by the Senate, Trump’s selection would become one of the nine justices, replacing long-time Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last week announced his retirement.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will oversee Republican efforts to win approval for Trump’s selection in the politically divided Senate, said Monday of the coming fight over the nomination, “I think there will be a big national, campaign rage. But in the end, I’m confident we’ll get the judge confirmed.”

Sanders said Trump met with each of the first four candidates for about 45 minutes on Monday. She said Trump is looking for someone who will uphold the U.S. Constitution and who has the “right intellect” and “right temperament.”

When asked if Trump is looking for a candidate who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, Sanders reiterated Trump’s stance that he is not asking the candidates their views on abortion rights.

“The president is pro-life, but in terms of the process of selecting a Supreme Court nominee, as the president said last week, he is not going to discuss specific cases with the nominees,” Sanders said.

Trump said Friday that he thinks the topic of Roe v. Wade is “inappropriate to discuss.”

Trump has also said that his final list of potential Supreme Court nominees includes two women.

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in an opinion column in The New York Times that people should pressure senators to oppose Supreme Court nominees who would overturn abortion rights. Schumer argued that while Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans in the Senate, 51-49, a majority of senators support abortion rights.

A new poll Monday shows that 63 percent of American voters agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. Thirty-one percent of Americans disagree with the ruling, according to the Quinnipiac University National Poll.

The survey also found that 50 percent of Americans think the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics, while 42 percent think it is primarily motivated by law. The survey was based on telephone answers from 1,020 voters nationwide from June 27-July 1.

 

The retirement of Kennedy, the key swing vote between four conservatives and four liberals on the court, gives Trump a coveted opportunity to make a second appointment to the nation’s highest court.

 

Trump nominated Gorsuch in January 2017. The president said last week that he is looking for another justice who closely models Gorsuch, saying he has been an “outstanding” justice for the Supreme Court.
…

What is July 4?

July 4, also known as Independence Day, is the day in 1776 that delegates from the 13 U.S. colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence, announcing the severing of ties with Britain.

The day has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1941 and is traditionally a day when Americans celebrate with firework displays, parades, concerts and cookouts.

Fireworks

July 4 is known around the country as a day of fireworks. Thousands of communities across the nation organize annual displays of fireworks with one of the most dazzling displays taking place in Washington, the nation’s capital.

Fireworks on July Fourth are not new. Congress authorized the use of pyrotechnics as part of Independence Day celebrations in 1777 in Philadelphia, and they have been a popular way to celebrate the holiday every since.

WATCH: Fireworks Safety 

Each U.S. state has its own laws governing the sale of fireworks, with many states allowing residents to buy and set off certain types of fireworks at their homes.

Security

As millions of Americans celebrate the holiday, local law enforcement and federal officials are working to ensure the celebrations remain safe.

Police will be out in force in New York City, where the largest firework display will take place. Last year, around 3 million people gathered in the city to celebrate the holiday. A large police presence is also expected in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people are set to gather to watch fireworks and listen to a concert at the Capitol.

This week, police in Ohio arrested a man they say was planning to detonate a bomb at Cleveland’s Fourth of July celebrations. Officials say Demetrius Pitts, an American-born citizen, had expressed allegiance to the al-Qaida militant group, and had also intended to target other locations in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

History

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of independence. Two days later, delegates from the 13 U.S. colonies adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

WATCH: Why does the U.S. celebrate July 4th?

Some constitutional scholars argue that Americans should actually celebrate on July 2 — not July 4 — because of the historic vote.

The U.S. rebellion against the British began a year earlier in 1775, and fighting continued until the United States and Britain signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which formally recognized the independence of the United States of America.
…

President Donald Trump’s opportunity to name a new Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy caps a reshaping of the U.S. federal judiciary that has already been long under way.

Well before Kennedy announced his retirement last week, Trump began quietly and methodically naming conservatives to federal courts, including a record number of jurists to the powerful courts of appeals that are just one rung below the Supreme Court.

The lifetime appointments of relatively young judges with solidly conservative records will all but ensure Trump’s mark on the federal judiciary — and on American society — for a generation to come. 

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said at the White House in May.

“But when you think about it,” he added, standing next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Mitch and I were saying, this has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Trump campaigned for the White House on the promise to name conservatives to the Supreme Court and other federal benches.

Federal judiciary

When he took office, Trump inherited more than 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary, thanks to Republican efforts block virtually all judicial nominations during the final two years of former President Barack Obama’s term.

Federal judges require Senate confirmation. Until recently, the minority party in the Senate — now the Democrats — could block judicial nominations through a parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster.  

But with the procedure abolished in recent years, first for federal judges and then for Supreme Court justices, the Republicans have been able to push through Trump’s judicial nominees even with their razor-thin majority in the Senate.

According to the Alliance for Justice, Trump has had 21 federal appeals judges confirmed by the Senate during his 17 months in office, far outpacing the rate held by former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush at this point in their first terms.  

But the president has had less success with appointments at the district level. Out of his 96 nominees for district courts, just 20 have been confirmed, fewer than Obama’s and Bush’s records. 

The power of federal judges has been on full display over the past year and a half. Federal judges temporarily blocked Trump’s so-called “travel ban” and his decision to end the program that protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Trump has denounced the court rulings by district judges, but in his judicial appointments he has prioritized nominating federal appeals judges. 

That is because federal appeals courts are the final arbiter in the overwhelming majority of federal cases, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank that advises the White House on judicial selections. (The Federalist Society is another conservative group that helps the White House select judicial candidates.) 

The Supreme Court takes up between 70 and 75 cases a year, compared with more than 50,000 cases filed in federal appeals courts.

“On a number of important constitutional and statutory cases, they’re often the last word,” Malcolm said. “So, the people who sit on those courts can have a very large impact on the direction of the law.”

Some controversial nominees

Trump’s judicial candidates have not been without controversy. One was forced to withdraw his candidacy after it was disclosed that he’d called transgender children part of “Satan’s plan.”

Liberals have been sounding the alarm about a “right-wing takeover” of the federal courts, pointing to the decisive votes Trump-nominated judges have cast in a string of court cases. 

“He has picked people who have been ideologically far to the right,” said Caroline Fredrickson, president of left-leaning American Constitution Society (ACS).

Trump allies defend the president’s selections as sound choices that will restore the judiciary’s role as the interpreter of laws.

White House Counsel Don McGahn, who spearheads judicial selections for Trump, said earlier this year that the president wants judges who have a “commitment to the notion of a rule of law” and who “read the law as written.”

“He ran on the idea of the judicial branch needing some help. He’s delivered on those promises,” McGahn said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February.

Currently, about 17 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. With more likely to open up over the next two years, Trump could end up appointing 15 percent to 20 percent of the judiciary by the end of his current term, said Fredrickson, of the ACS.

Republicans hope to keep control of the Senate after the November congressional elections, which would allow them to swell the ranks of the judiciary with Trump’ nominees.

McConnell, a key Trump ally on judicial selections, said in May that if Republicans keep their majority in the Senate, “we can do this for two more years, so that through the full four years of President Trump’s term, he will make a lasting generational contribution to the country, having strict constructionists on the court.”

On the other hand, a Democratic takeover of the Senate could effectively put an end to Trump’s judicial appointments, Fredrickson said.

“There will be no more judges confirmed unless they happen to be people recommended by Democratic senators,” she said.
…

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday denounced President Donald Trump’s handling of global trade disputes, issuing a report that argued tariffs imposed by Washington and retaliation by its partners would boomerang badly on the American economy.

The Chamber, the nation’s largest business lobbying group and a traditional ally of Trump’s Republican Party, said the White House is risking a global trade war with its push to protect U.S. industry and workers with tariffs.

The group’s analysis of the harm each U.S. state could suffer from retaliation by U.S. trading partners painted a gloomy picture that could bring pressure on the White House from Republicans ahead of congressional elections in November.

For example, nearly $4 billion worth of exports from Texas could be targeted by retaliatory tariffs, the Chamber said, including $321 million in meat the state sends to Mexico each year and $494 million in grain sorghum it exports to China.

Trump has slapped tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of steel and aluminum imports from China, the European Union, Canada and others, prompting retaliation against U.S. products.

He is considering extending the levies to the auto sector.

The Chamber, which says it represents the interests of three million companies, had praised Trump for slashing business taxes in December, but mounting trade tensions have opened a rift with the White House.

“The administration is threatening to undermine the economic progress it worked so hard to achieve,” Chamber President Tom Donohue said in a statement. “We should seek free and fair trade, but this is just not the way to do it.”

Asked at a briefing about the Chamber’s report, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters: “The president is focused on helping protect American workers and American industries and create a fair playing field.”

The Chamber is expected to spend millions of dollars ahead of the November elections to help candidates who back free trade, immigration and lower taxes. It has already backed candidates who share those goals in Republican primaries.

Retaliation

Perhaps most unsettling to businesses and investors, Washington and Beijing have engaged in tit-for-tat tariffs and threatened retaliation that has raised the prospect of a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The United States is set to impose tariffs on $34 billion worth of additional goods from China on July 6. China has threatened to retaliate in kind with its own tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and other goods.

Although Trump has previously been persuaded to back off trade threats based on the fact that they would hurt states that supported him in the 2016 presidential election, he has taken a more aggressive tack in recent months.

On Monday, he threatened to take action against the World Trade Organization after media reports said he wanted to withdraw from the global trade regulator. Trump says the WTO has allowed the United States to be taken advantage of in global trade.

Trump initially granted Canada, EU members and other nations exemptions on the metal tariffs — 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. But he lifted the exemptions the same week he met with Group of Seven leaders in Quebec last month.

Trump railed against his trading partners during the meeting, according to sources, and withdrew his support for a joint communique after leaving the summit, angering and bewildering some of Washington’s closest allies.

Retaliation for his tariffs came swiftly.

Early last month, Mexico imposed tariffs on U.S. products ranging from steel to pork and bourbon, while the EU levied duties of 25 percent on 2.8 billion euros of U.S. imports, including jeans and Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson, which dominates the heavyweight U.S. motorcycle market, subsequently announced it would shift some U.S. production overseas to avoid higher costs for EU customers.

Trump slammed the company’s move, saying it was tantamount to surrender, and threatened punitive taxes.

Canada, a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States and Mexico, on July 1 imposed retaliatory measures on C$16.6 billion ($12.63 billion) of American goods, including coffee, ketchup and whiskey.

Global equities fell Monday as investors worried about an escalation of the trade disputes.

The Chamber based its state-by-state analysis on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and government agencies in China, the EU, Mexico and Canada.
…

Hey, did my congressman really say that? Is that really President Donald Trump on that video, or am I being duped?

 

New technology on the internet lets anyone make videos of real people appearing to say things they’ve never said. Republicans and Democrats predict this high-tech way of putting words in someone’s mouth will become the latest weapon in disinformation wars against the United States and other Western democracies.

 

We’re not talking about lip-syncing videos. This technology uses facial mapping and artificial intelligence to produce videos that appear so genuine it’s hard to spot the phonies. Lawmakers and intelligence officials worry that the bogus videos — called deepfakes — could be used to threaten national security or interfere in elections.

 

So far, that hasn’t happened, but experts say it’s not a question of if, but when.

 

“I expect that here in the United States we will start to see this content in the upcoming midterms and national election two years from now,” said Hany Farid, a digital forensics expert at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. “The technology, of course, knows no borders, so I expect the impact to ripple around the globe.”

 

When an average person can create a realistic fake video of the president saying anything they want, Farid said, “we have entered a new world where it is going to be difficult to know how to believe what we see.” The reverse is a concern, too. People may dismiss as fake genuine footage, say of a real atrocity, to score political points.

 

Realizing the implications of the technology, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is already two years into a four-year program to develop technologies that can detect fake images and videos. Right now, it takes extensive analysis to identify phony videos. It’s unclear if new ways to authenticate images or detect fakes will keep pace with deepfake technology.

 

Deepfakes are so named because they utilize deep learning, a form of artificial intelligence. They are made by feeding a computer an algorithm, or set of instructions, lots of images and audio of a certain person. The computer program learns how to mimic the person’s facial expressions, mannerisms, voice and inflections. If you have enough video and audio of someone, you can combine a fake video of the person with a fake audio and get them to say anything you want.

 

So far, deepfakes have mostly been used to smear celebrities or as gags, but it’s easy to foresee a nation state using them for nefarious activities against the U.S., said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., one of several members of the Senate intelligence committee who are expressing concern about deepfakes.

 

A foreign intelligence agency could use the technology to produce a fake video of an American politician using a racial epithet or taking a bribe, Rubio says. They could use a fake video of a U.S. soldier massacring civilians overseas, or one of a U.S. official supposedly admitting a secret plan to carry out a conspiracy. Imagine a fake video of a U.S. leader — or an official from North Korea or Iran — warning the United States of an impending disaster.

 

“It’s a weapon that could be used — timed appropriately and placed appropriately — in the same way fake news is used, except in a video form, which could create real chaos and instability on the eve of an election or a major decision of any sort,” Rubio told The Associated Press.

 

Deepfake technology still has a few hitches. For instance, people’s blinking in fake videos may appear unnatural. But the technology is improving.

 

“Within a year or two, it’s going to be really hard for a person to distinguish between a real video and a fake video,” said Andrew Grotto, an international security fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University in California.

 

“This technology, I think, will be irresistible for nation states to use in disinformation campaigns to manipulate public opinion, deceive populations and undermine confidence in our institutions,” Grotto said. He called for government leaders and politicians to clearly say it has no place in civilized political debate.

 

Crude videos have been used for malicious political purposes for years, so there’s no reason to believe the higher-tech ones, which are more realistic, won’t become tools in future disinformation campaigns.

 

Rubio noted that in 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow complained to the Russian Foreign Ministry about a fake sex video it said was made to damage the reputation of a U.S. diplomat. The video showed the married diplomat, who was a liaison to Russian religious and human rights groups, making telephone calls on a dark street. The video then showed the diplomat in his hotel room, scenes that apparently were shot with a hidden camera. Later, the video appeared to show a man and a woman having sex in the same room with the lights off, although it was not at all clear that the man was the diplomat.

 

John Beyrle, who was the U.S. ambassador in Moscow at the time, blamed the Russian government for the video, which he said was clearly fabricated.

 

Michael McFaul, who was American ambassador in Russia between 2012 and 2014, said Russia has engaged in disinformation videos against various political actors for years and that he too had been a target. He has said that Russian state propaganda inserted his face into photographs and “spliced my speeches to make me say things I never uttered and even accused me of pedophilia.”
…

Abortion rights emerged as a major topic of discussion on Sunday among U.S. senators who will vote on President Donald Trump’s eventual Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of the month.

“My colleagues on both sides of the aisle [Democrats and Republicans] know that this could be one of the key votes of their entire career,” Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state said on NBC’s Meet the Press program. “If they vote for somebody who is going to change [legal] precedent, it could be a career-ending move.”

Abortion has been legal nationwide in America since a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe versus Wade. Subsequent court decisions have reinforced the rights of women to terminate pregnancies.

As a candidate in 2016, Trump signaled a clear intention to pave the way for overturning Roe versus Wade by nominating socially conservative jurists likely to believe the high court erred in its 1973 decision.

Watch related video by VOA’s Michael Bowman:

“That will happen, and that’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life [anti-abortion] justices on the court,” Trump said at a presidential debate against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

But in an interview broadcast on Sunday, Trump told Fox News that he “probably” will not ask his nominee how he or she would vote on Roe versus Wade, adding that he is putting “conservative people on” the court.

No guarantees

Some senators who oppose abortion rights said, regardless of whom Trump nominates and how far rightward the ultimate ideological composition of the Supreme Court shifts, there are no guarantees about future decisions on abortion or any other divisive topic.

“I’m pro-life,” South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Meet the Press. “[But] you don’t overturn precedent unless there is a good reason. And I would tell my pro-life friends, you can be pro-life and conservative, but you can also believe in stare decisis [letting legal precedent stand]. Roe versus Wade, in many ways, has been affirmed over the years.”

Democrats won’t be able to block Trump’s nominee on their own, but could be joined by moderate Republicans who back abortion rights.

“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade, because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy does not include a respect for established decisions.” Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine told CNN’s State of the Union.

Senate Republicans are promising a confirmation vote before the November midterm elections.

Senate Republicans are promising a confirmation vote before the November midterm elections.

“The Senate will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said. “The president’s nominee should be considered fairly.”

Last year, three Senate Democrats joined Republicans to confirm Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a staunch judicial conservative. Trump could have even more high court vacancies to fill, as Kennedy is one of four justices over the age of 70.

 
…

Washington is gearing up for a protracted battle over a looming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy as President Donald Trump considers a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of the month. VOA’s Michael Bowman has this report.
…

Guatemalan Yeni Gonzalez crossed the border into the United States illegally and was separated from her children. VOA is following her quest to overcome legal barriers and get her kids back from distant detention centers. This is one case among the 2,000 children of illegal migrants separated from their families.

After 43 days in the custody of the U.S. immigration authorities and having been separated on the southern border of the United States from her three children when trying to enter the country as an illegal immigrant, Yeni Gonzalez was released on bail.

The undocumented mother spoke with the Voice of America,

“I’m going to look for my children,” she said. … “It has been very difficult, very hard for me, I felt that my heart broke into a thousand pieces, they snatch my children from my arms.”

For five weeks Yeni Gonzalez was detained in this immigration center in Eloy Arizona, 3,800 kilometers from New York where her three children were taken, after they were separated when they tried to cross the border illegally

Yeni Gonzalez was distraught.

“I asked them to please give me a call, and they said no, there were no calls,” she said. “And I told them, please, I want to know from my children, that I already have days of not knowing about them and he said, ‘do you know something? You will be deported to Guatemala and your children,’ he told me, ‘will remain in the hands of this government.'”

In a VOA interview, Yeni says she was unaware of the “Zero Tolerance” policy that separated her from her children. She says if she had known, she would never have brought her children this way.

They are in New York, under the care of the Cayuga center. Donations made it possible for her to be released on bail.

“The bail was paid by some families, mothers who are in New York City. And thank God they sent me by text message, confirmation that was paid, that the bail of $7,500 dollars was paid,” said Yeni’s lawyer, Jose Orechena.

The departure of Yeni coincided with the visit to a migration processing center in Tucson Arizona, of the first lady of the United States, Melania Trump, who is closely following the situation of these undocumented families and the work of the authorities.

“I’m here to support you and give my help, whatever I can on behalf of children and the families,” she said.

The Trump administration says it will reunify families, according to the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar.

“They would be unified with either parents or other relatives under our policies, so of course if the parent remains in detention, unfortunately under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can’t be reunified while they’re in detention,” he said.

Yeni Gonzalez is looking forward to hugging her kids very soon.

 
…