Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg says President Donald Trump is “kind of like a Chinese finger trap — you know, the harder you pull, the more you get stuck” and warns that Democrats shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to “knock him flat with some zinger.” 

In Iowa for the first time since officially launching his campaign, Buttigieg discussed how to defeat Trump after drawing an audience of more than 1,600 people at a Des Moines rally Tuesday night.

“We’ve got to acknowledge — without giving an inch on the racism or xenophobia that played a role in that campaign — we’ve got to also pay attention to the things that make people susceptible to that message and make sure we’re addressing them,” said the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

The rally was one of the biggest campaign events yet for a 2020 contender in the Des Moines area, a particularly notable feat for a candidate who just over a month ago was barely registering in the polls. Buttigieg’s main task now is turning grass-roots energy into a real, sustainable movement.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Buttigieg said Iowa — its caucuses produce the first votes of the presidential nominating season — “will be really central to our strategy.”

“There’s a political style here that rhymes a lot with my home territory in Indiana,” he said. “I think that the mechanics of a caucus really favor a style that involves a lot of engagement, which is how I like to practice politics … of course there’s a simple logistical advantage of it being the one early state that’s within driving distance of my home.”

Asked whether Trump leaned on racial animus to win the White House, Buttigieg called the president out for playing “white guy identity politics.”

“By far the political movement that is most based on identity politics is Trumpism. It’s based on white guy identity politics. It uses race to divide the working and middle class,” he told the AP. “There are a lot of strategies to blame problems on people who look different or are of a different faith or even of a different sexuality or gender identity. … It’s a cynical political strategy that works in the short term but winds up weakening the whole country in the long term.”

White privilege

Buttigieg has argued that he’s uniquely positioned to take on Trump because he can appeal to the white working-class voters who left the Democratic Party for the Republican. But in recent days, he’s acknowledged he needs to address the lack of racial diversity among supporters at his events.

In the AP interview, Buttigieg said he plans to make sure that “our organization and our substance reflect our commitment to diversity.” He said he’ll do that by hiring a diverse staff and by addressing a range of policies that affect minorities, including but not limited to criminal justice reform, education, homeownership and entrepreneurship.

“I think any white candidate needs to show a level of consciousness around issues like white privilege,” he said. But when asked whether he had experienced white privilege, he said that “part of privilege is not being very conscious of it, right?” 

He added: “You’re much more conscious when you’re at a disadvantage than … when you are on the beneficial side of a bias. But there’s no question that that’s a factor that has impacted people in many different ways. And we need to be as alive to it as possible.”

Buttigieg said that to be able to create a diverse coalition without alienating white working-class voters, issues of racial justice need to be discussed in a unifying way. 

“I mean being pro-racial justice should not be skin off the back of any white voter,” he said. “I think there’s certainly an environment where sometimes these ideas are pitted against each other, where it’s suggested, for example, that connecting with white working-class voters somehow means that you have to walk away somehow from our commitment to racial justice — but our commitment to racial justice is part of the bedrock of the moral authority of the Democratic Party.”

Marriage equality

The South Bend mayor has surged from a relatively unknown candidate in the field to a media darling who’s gained support in nationwide polling and posted a stronger-than-expected fundraising number in the first quarter. He’s drawn attention for his plainspoken style, and the historic nature of his candidacy, as the first openly gay contender in a same-sex marriage.

During the Des Moines rally, an audience member asked what he should tell his friends who say America isn’t ready for a gay president. Buttigieg replied, “Tell your friends I said ‘hi.”‘

The impact of his personal life on the campaign was on striking display at both of his Iowa events Tuesday. During a town hall meeting in Fort Dodge, after Buttigieg spoke about the need for marriage equality, a protester stood up and shouted, “You betray your baptism!” He was escorted out.

Buttigieg joked to the crowd, “Coffee after church gets a little rowdy sometimes,” then added: “We’re so dug-in, in such passionate ways, and I respect that, too. That gentleman believes that what he is doing is in line with the will of the creator. I’d do it differently. We ought to be able to do it differently.”

In Des Moines, another protester shouted “Sodom and Gomorrah!” The crowd drowned him out with chants of “Pete! Pete! Pete!”

Asked by the AP how he would win over a protester like the one in Fort Dodge if he could sit down with him, Buttigieg said, “I’m not sure he would want to sit down with me,” but that he hoped others who have concerns about his candidacy would come to his events and ask a question, “so we could have a respectful exchange.”

“There are a lot of positions, there’s a wide range, with fringes, in our politics. That’s part of how politics works, and you shouldn’t be in this if you aren’t prepared to deal with that,” he said.

The turnout at the Des Moines event was unexpected, according to Polk County Democratic Party Chair Sean Bagniewski, who said Buttigieg’s team had predicted at most 200 people would show up. The campaign didn’t have any volunteers to take down information for enthusiastic supporters who wanted to be a part of the campaign.

“It’s a very narrow window to capture momentum and energy and attention, and if you miss the opportunity to match your staff and energy with the moment, you can miss your chance,” Bagniewski said.
…

From Ben Affleck and Susan Sarandon to Anna Wintour and Willie Nelson, celebrities lined up to give money — and a dash of star power — to their favorite Democratic presidential candidates ahead of this week’s first quarter fundraising deadline.

For months, candidates in the crowded field of more than a dozen contenders have aggressively courted key figures in music, television, publishing and film, who are one of the party’s most reliable sources of campaign cash. Although many donors remain on the sidelines, contributing to lackluster fundraising hauls, an early snapshot included in the campaign finance reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission this week offers a glimpse of who is drawing attention from entertainment industry in the early stages of the race.

“When you talk about Hollywood, yes, we are talking about movie stars and writers and directors, but we are also talking about people with decades of experience with presidential campaigns,” said Yusef Robb, a longtime California political strategist. “Earning support from somebody with a lot of connections in the political world couples with their star power, which people in the chattering classes notice.”

California Sen. Kamala Harris has long-standing relationships with major entertainment industry figures in her home state. But former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg are also among the candidates who count celebrities as donors.

So far, few donors are bundling large sums of money for candidates by asking their friends, family and colleagues to give, too. But many have given individually, which is limited under campaign finance law to a $2,800 contribution during the primary election, followed by another $2,800 earmarked for the general election campaign.

Last month, Harris was feted at the Pacific Palisades home of director J.J. Abrams and his wife, Katie McGrath, in a gathering attended by Hollywood powerbrokers, including TV hitmaker Shonda Rhimes. Harris also has received money from Affleck, who gave $2,800; actress Eva Longoria, who gave $5,400; composer Quincy Jones, who gave $2,800; and former “Mad Men” star Jon Hamm, who gave $1,000.

O’Rourke, a former punk rocker, received $2,800 from a fellow Texan, country music icon Nelson, as well as $1,850 from Grateful Dead bassist Phil Lesh and $2,800 from Dave Matthews Band violinist Boyd Tinsley. He also took in $5,600 from Vogue editor-in-chief Wintour, $1,500 from comedian and “Breaking Bad” actor Bob Odenkirk, $2,500 from Texas film director Richard Linklater and $350 from “Saturday Night Live” star Cecily Strong.

Sanders received $2,700 from actor and comedian Danny DeVito, $2,800 from actress Susan Sarandon, $2,500 from piano player Norah Jones and $1,000 from Foo Fighters guitarist Christopher Shiflett. Jonathan Fishman, drummer for the jam band Phish, which was formed in Sanders’ home state of Vermont, gave $1,000, while Thomas Middleditch from HBO’s “Silicon Valley” gave $500, records show.

Buttigieg, whose campaign raked in $7 million after emerging as an unexpected hit, has also started to draw celebrity attention. “West Wing” star Bradley Whitford gave $2,000, actor Ryan Reynolds donated $250, NFL network broadcaster Rich Eisen gave $500 and “Game of Thrones” executive producer Carolyn Strauss chipped in $250.

Buttigieg also drew at least one contribution from an unusual source. James Murdoch, the son of conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News is closely allied with President Donald Trump, cut Buttigieg a $2,800 donation, records show.
…

President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed a bill passed by Congress to end U.S. military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

In a break with the president, Congress voted for the first time earlier this month to invoke the War Powers Resolution to try to stop U.S. involvement in a foreign conflict.

The veto — the second in Trump’s presidency — was expected. Congress lacks the votes to override him.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump wrote in explaining his veto.

Congress has grown uneasy with Trump’s close relationship with Saudi Arabia as he tries to further isolate Iran, a regional rival.

Many lawmakers also criticized the president for not condemning Saudi Arabia for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi who lived in the United States and had written critically about the kingdom. Khashoggi went into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October and never came out. Intelligence agencies said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was complicit in the killing.

The U.S. provides billions of dollars of arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen. Members of Congress have expressed concern about the thousands of civilians killed in coalition airstrikes since the conflict began in 2014. The fighting in the Arab world’s poorest country also has left millions suffering from food and medical care shortages and has pushed the country to the brink of famine.

House approval of the resolution came earlier this month on a 247-175 vote. The Senate vote last month was 54-46.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, voted to end U.S. military assistance to the war, saying the humanitarian crisis in Yemen triggered “demands moral leadership.”

The top Republican on the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, acknowledged the dire situation in Yemen for civilians, but spoke out in opposition to the bill. McCaul said it was an abuse of the War Powers Resolution and predicted it could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries.

Trump issued his first veto last month on legislation related to immigration. Trump had declared a national emergency so he could use more money to construct a border wall. Congress voted to block the emergency declaration and Trump vetoed that measure.
…

The special counsel’s Trump-Russia report will be out on Thursday for all to see. But not all of it.

The Democrats’ demands for a full, unredacted version of Robert Mueller’s report are likely to prompt a political and legal battle that could last for months, if not much longer.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, has said he is prepared to issue subpoenas “very quickly” for the full report on Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign if it is released with blacked-out sections. And that would set the legal fight in motion.

Attorney General William Barr has said he is redacting four types of information from the report, which the Justice Department says will be released Thursday. Congressional Democrats cite precedent from previous investigations in saying they want to see it all. But some Republicans defending Barr are also citing precedent, saying it is appropriate to keep at least some of the information from Congress and the public.

A look at what types of material Barr is redacting, and why Democrats say it should be released:

Grand Jury Information

Barr has staked out his position on releasing secret grand jury information, saying last week that he would not go to court to request its release. He said Democrats are “free to go to court” themselves, and Nadler has said he is ready to do so.

Grand jury information, including witness interviews, is normally off limits but can be obtained in court. Some records were eventually released in the Whitewater investigation into former President Bill Clinton and an investigation into President Richard Nixon before he resigned.

Both of those cases were under somewhat different circumstances, including that the House Judiciary Committee had initiated impeachment proceedings. Federal court rules state that a court may order disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

But Democrats have said they are not interested in impeachment, for now, and are likely to argue in court that they don’t need to be in an official impeachment proceeding to receive the materials.

Classified Information

Congress frequently receives classified documents and briefings, and Democrats say there is no reason the Mueller report should be any different.

Many Republicans agree, including the top Republican on the intelligence committee, California Rep. Devin Nunes, who wrote a rare joint letter in March with House intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff asking for “all materials, regardless of form or classification.” In the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Schiff and Nunes also asked for a private briefing from Mueller and his team.

Democrat Schiff has argued that some of that information should be released to the public, as well, citing Mueller indictments that have already revealed granular detail about the Russian effort to influence the 2016 election.

“All of that information at one point was classified, but the decision must have been made the public interest outweighs that. And I think a similar analysis should be undertaken here,” Schiff said on CNN this month.

Ongoing Investigations

Barr said he will redact information related to investigations connected to the Mueller probe that are still underway. Those include cases handed off or referred to federal prosecutors in Washington, New York and Virginia.

Democrats have noted that the Justice Department has released such information before, including some related to Mueller’s own investigation while it was in progress. Republicans who were in the House majority last year, obtained documents related to the beginnings of the Russia investigation, arguing that officials were biased against then-candidate Trump.

Republicans argued at the time that it was necessary to obtain that information to maintain the integrity of the investigation.

Derogatory Information

The Justice Department regularly redacts information about people who were interviewed or scrutinized in investigations but not charged. Barr has said he will black out information from the report “that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., at a hearing last week if that meant he would redact information to protect the interests of Trump, Barr said it did not. “No, I’m talking about people in private life, not public officeholders,” Barr said.

That means that in addition to Trump, members of his family who work at the White House, such as his daughter Ivanka, could potentially be named if they were somehow entangled in Mueller’s investigation. But any information regarding his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., who run his businesses, could be more likely to be redacted.

The Justice Department did release information about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices more than two years ago, even though Clinton wasn’t charged. But that was after then-FBI Director James Comey made the much-questioned decision to publicly discuss that investigation. Barr signaled in his confirmation hearing in January that he would do things differently.

“If you’re not going to indict someone, then you don’t stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” Barr said. “That’s not the way the Department of Justice does business.”
…

Anti-LGBT+ biases dropped significantly as same-sex marriage was being legalized across the United States, according to new research looking at the link between attitudes and policy change.

Biases declined both in states that legalized gay marriage and in states that did not, said research by McGill University, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, followed by 34 others, before the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal nationwide in 2015.

The researchers looked at attitudes among one million Americans over that 12-year stretch, using methods of measuring bias among volunteer participants.

One method utilized positive and negative word association with gay and straight people and the other asked participants to rate their feelings toward gays and lesbians.

The research, published on Monday, found rates of decreasing anti-gay bias nearly doubled in states where same-sex marriage was approved.

“Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals’ attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched and socially and politically volatile,” said senior author Eric Hehman, psychology professor at Canada’s McGill University.

But because bias was decreasing or plateauing generally at the time, it is unclear whether less bias helped the legalization or if legalization led to less bias, researchers said.

“Probably what’s happening is a groundswell of movement leading to the law being changed in the first place,” Hehman told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“I speculate that if anti-gay bias was on the rise everywhere, lawmakers wouldn’t be compelled to implement these laws,” he said.

Research released in 2017 by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think tank, also showed a steady increase in approval of same-sex marriage to 63 percent in 2017 from 35 percent in 2001.

Bias spiked in states that had not approved same-sex marriage after the nation’s highest court handed down its 2015 ruling, the research found.

“When a law is imposed upon you from afar, there’s local resistance to that,” Hehman said.
…

Attorney General William Barr has provided only a glimpse of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the inquiry into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, with many details expected to emerge when the document is finally released.

Barr on March 24 sent a four-page letter to lawmakers detailing Mueller’s “principal conclusions” including that the 22-month probe did not establish that President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr said he found insufficient evidence in Mueller’s report to conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice, though the special counsel did not make a formal finding one way or the other on that.

The attorney general told Congress he hopes to release the nearly 400-page report this week, with portions blacked out to protect certain types of sensitive information.

Here are five things to look for when the report is issued.

Obstruction of Justice: Why No Exoneration?

Perhaps the biggest political risk for Trump is the special counsel’s supporting evidence behind Mueller’s assertion that while the report does not conclude the Republican president committed the crime of obstruction of justice it “also does not exonerate him” on that point.

According to Barr’s March 24 letter, Mueller has presented evidence on both sides of the question without concluding whether to prosecute. Barr filled that void by asserting there was no prosecutable case. But Barr’s statement in the letter that “most” of Trump’s actions that had raised questions about obstruction were “the subject of public reporting” suggested that some actions were not publicly known.

Democrats in Congress do not believe Barr, a Trump appointee, should have the final say on the matter. While the prospect that the Democratic-led House of Representatives would begin the impeachment process to try to remove Trump from office appears to have receded, the House Judiciary Committee will be looking for any evidence relevant to ongoing probes into obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power by the president or others in the administration.

Barr’s comment that most of what Mueller probed on obstruction has been publicly reported indicates that events like Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director in May 2017 when the agency was heading the Russia inquiry are likely to be the focus of this section of the report.

Russian ‘Information Warfare’ and Campaign Contacts

The report will detail indictments by Mueller of two Kremlin-backed operations to influence the 2016 election: one against a St. Petersburg-based troll farm called the Internet Research Agency accused of waging “information warfare” over social media; and the other charging Russian intelligence officers with hacking into Democratic Party servers and pilfering emails leaked to hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

With those two indictments already public and bearing no apparent link to the president, the focus may be on what Mueller concluded, if anything, about other incidents that involved contacts between Russians and people in Trump’s orbit. That could include the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York in which a Russian lawyer promised “dirt” on Clinton to senior campaign officials, as well as a secret January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles investigated as a possible attempt to set up a back channel between the incoming Trump administration and the Kremlin while Democrat Barack Obama was still president.

Any analysis of such contacts could shed light on why Mueller, according to Barr’s summary, “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Manafort, Ukraine Policy and Polling Data

In the weeks before Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced in March to 7-1/2 years in prison mostly for financial crimes related to millions of dollars he was paid by pro-Russia Ukrainian politicians, Mueller’s team provided hints about what their pursuit of him was really about.

Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told a judge in February that an Aug. 2, 2016 meeting between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, a consultant Mueller has said has ties to Russian intelligence, “went to the heart of” the special counsel’s investigation.

The meeting included a discussion about a proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in terms favorable to the Kremlin, an issue that has damaged Russia’s relations with the West. Prosecutors also said Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, although the significance of that act remains unclear.

One focus will be on what Mueller ultimately concluded about Manafort’s interactions with Kilimnik and whether a failed attempt to secure cooperation from Manafort, who was found by a judge to have lied to prosecutors in breach of a plea agreement, significantly impeded the special counsel’s work.

National Security Concerns

While Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy with Russia, according to Barr, there is a chance the report will detail behavior and financial entanglements that give fodder to critics who have said Trump has shown a pattern of deference to the Kremlin.

One example of such an entanglement was the proposal to build a Trump tower in Moscow, a deal potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars that never materialized. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, admitted to lying to Congress about the project to provide cover because Trump on the campaign trail had denied any dealings with Russia.

In the absence of criminal charges arising from Mueller’s inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has shifted his focus to whether Trump is “compromised” by such entanglements, influencing his policy decisions and posing a risk to national security.

Some legal experts have said the counterintelligence probe Mueller inherited from Comey may prove more significant than his criminal inquiry, though it is not clear to what degree counterintelligence findings will be included in the report.

Barr also has said he planned to redact material related to intelligence-gathering sources and methods.

Middle East Influence and Other Probes

Another focus is whether Mueller will disclose anything from his inquiries into Middle Eastern efforts to influence Trump.

One mystery is what, if anything, came of the special counsel’s questioning of George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman and consultant to the crown princes of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia who started cooperating with Mueller last year.

Nader attended the Seychelles meeting. He also was present at a Trump Tower meeting in August 2016, three months before the election, at which an Israeli social media specialist spoke with the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., about how his firm Psy-Group, which employed several former Israeli intelligence officers, could help the Trump campaign, according to the New York Times. Mueller’s interest in Nader suggested the special counsel looked into whether additional countries sought to influence the election and whether they did so in concert with Russia.

A lawyer for Nader did not respond to a request for comment. Barr has said he will redact from the Mueller report information on “other ongoing matters,” including inquiries referred to other offices in the Justice Department. That makes it unclear if any findings related to the Middle East will appear in the report.
…

Two U.S. House of Representatives committees have issued subpoenas to multiple financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank AG, for information on President Donald Trump’s finances, the panels’ Democratic leaders said Monday.

“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern. The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the president and his associates, as thoroughly as possible,” the committee’s chair, Maxine Waters, said in a statement.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement the subpoenas issued included a “friendly subpoena to Deutsche Bank.”

A 2018 financial disclosure form showed liabilities for Trump of at least $130 million to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, a unit of the German bank. They are for properties including the Trump International Hotel in a former post office in Washington.

Deutsche Bank said in January, shortly after Democrats took control of the House following the November elections, that it had received an inquiry from the two committees on its ties to the Republican president.

Schiff said Deutsche bank had been cooperative. “We look forward to their continued cooperation and compliance,” he said.

Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the bank was engaged in a “productive dialogue” with the two committees.

“We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations in a manner consistent with our legal obligations,” she said in an emailed statement.

The New York Times, which first reported the committees’ actions Monday, said Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America had also received subpoenas.

Trump lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
…

Two U.S. House of Representatives committees have issued subpoenas to multiple financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank AG, for information on President Donald Trump’s finances, the panels’ Democratic leaders said Monday.

“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern. The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the president and his associates, as thoroughly as possible,” the committee’s chair, Maxine Waters, said in a statement.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement the subpoenas issued included a “friendly subpoena to Deutsche Bank.”

A 2018 financial disclosure form showed liabilities for Trump of at least $130 million to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, a unit of the German bank. They are for properties including the Trump International Hotel in a former post office in Washington.

Deutsche Bank said in January, shortly after Democrats took control of the House following the November elections, that it had received an inquiry from the two committees on its ties to the Republican president.

Schiff said Deutsche bank had been cooperative. “We look forward to their continued cooperation and compliance,” he said.

Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the bank was engaged in a “productive dialogue” with the two committees.

“We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations in a manner consistent with our legal obligations,” she said in an emailed statement.

The New York Times, which first reported the committees’ actions Monday, said Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America had also received subpoenas.

Trump lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
…

U.S. Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders released 10 years of tax returns on Monday, providing details of his growing status as a millionaire fueled by a sharp jump in income from book royalties since his losing 2016 White House run.

Sanders, a U.S. senator who routinely rails against the “millionaires and billionaires” he says have rigged the system to protect their wealth and power, had an adjusted gross income of $561,293 in 2018, $1,131,925 in 2017 and $1,062,626 in 2016, the returns showed.

Sanders augmented his Senate salary with book royalties in each of those years, particularly in 2016 and 2017 when he made more than $800,000 each year in royalties. Sanders has published three books since the start of his first White House run, including bestsellers “Our Revolution” and “Where We Go From Here.”

In 2009, the first year of returns Sanders released on Monday, he had an adjusted gross income of $314,742.

Sanders had faced mounting pressure to release his taxes, with critics saying the democratic socialist’s millionaire status undercut his populist economic message. He made no apologies for his financial well-being, telling the New York Times recently that “if you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

On Monday, Sanders took a more measured tone in releasing his returns, making reference to his upbringing in a Brooklyn family of limited financial resources.

“These tax returns show that our family has been fortunate.

I am very grateful for that, as I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck and I know the stress of economic insecurity,” Sanders said in a statement accompanying the returns.

‘Transparency’

The interest in presidential contenders and their taxes has jumped since Republican President Donald Trump shattered decades of tradition during the 2016 campaign by refusing to release his returns – a stance he has continued since entering the White House.

Several in the growing field of Democratic 2020 contenders, including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, and Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, have released their 2018 returns in recent weeks.

Most other Democratic contenders have pledged to do the same soon.

But the question had become more pressing for Sanders, who only released one year of returns during his 2016 campaign, as he moved into a strong early position in polls and fundraising among Democrats seeking the 2020 nomination to challenge Trump.

“As a strong proponent of transparency, the senator hopes President Trump and all Democratic primary candidates will disclose their tax returns,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement.

Sanders faced criticism for only releasing his 2014 returns during his 2016 Democratic primary battle with Hillary Clinton, a millionaire whom he often derided for giving paid speeches to Wall Street.

The tax returns released on Monday showed Sanders paid a 26 percent effective tax rate on his adjusted gross income in 2018.

His effective tax rates in 2016 and 2017, his other high-earning years, were 35 percent and 30 percent, respectively.

As part of his policy agenda, Sanders has proposed a big expansion of the estate tax, lowering the threshold where it kicks in to $3.5 million from $11 million, and placing a 77 percent tax rate on the portion of estates worth more than $1 billion.
…

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar says she has experienced an increase in death threats in the days since President Donald Trump posted a video critical of her comments about the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

In a statement late Sunday, Omar said many of those threatening her life directly referenced Trump’s post. She also cited a rise in violence and acts of hate by right wing extremists in the United States and elsewhere in the world, saying “we can no longer ignore that they are being encouraged” by Trump.

“Violent rhetoric and all forms of hate speech have no place in our society, much less from our country’s commander in chief,” she wrote. “We are all Americans. This is endangering lives. It has to stop.”

Earlier in the day, the White House denied Trump is inciting violence and Islamophobia.

“Certainly the president is wishing no ill will and certainly not violence towards anyone,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Fox News Sunday. “But the president should be calling out the congresswoman for not only one time but a history of anti-Semitic comments,” she added, accusing Omar’s fellow Democrats of “looking the other way.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the memories of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York and Washington are “sacred ground and any discussion of it must be done with reverence.”

Pelosi called Trump’s video “disrespectful and dangerous” and said it must be removed.

​Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler said on CNN Sunday he had no problem with Omar’s comments.

“I have had some problems with some of her other remarks, but not with that one,” he said.

In an emotional speech last month to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar spoke out against discrimination against and suspicions of Muslims.

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

Trump’s Friday tweet included Omar’s brief line “somebody did something” followed by more than 40 seconds of September 11 terrorist attack news footage and a large graphic repeating the words “somebody did something.” 

Other Omar critics have focused solely on that one single line, accusing her of trivializing the inhumanity of September 11 but not mentioning the rest of her speech.

Some Democrats accuse Trump of stirring up the same kind of Islamophobia that Omar was decrying.

Nadler said Trump has “no moral authority” for talking about September 11. He accuses Trump of “stealing” a $150,000 grant meant for small-business owners to rebuild their destroyed businesses after the attack and using that money for his own real estate holding. 

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders noted that then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, went to a mosque after 9/11 to assure Muslim Americans that they are not criminals and terrorists. 
…

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar says she has experienced an increase in death threats in the days since President Donald Trump posted a video critical of her comments about the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

In a statement late Sunday, Omar said many of those threatening her life directly referenced Trump’s post. She also cited a rise in violence and acts of hate by right wing extremists in the United States and elsewhere in the world, saying “we can no longer ignore that they are being encouraged” by Trump.

“Violent rhetoric and all forms of hate speech have no place in our society, much less from our country’s commander in chief,” she wrote. “We are all Americans. This is endangering lives. It has to stop.”

Earlier in the day, the White House denied Trump is inciting violence and Islamophobia.

“Certainly the president is wishing no ill will and certainly not violence towards anyone,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Fox News Sunday. “But the president should be calling out the congresswoman for not only one time but a history of anti-Semitic comments,” she added, accusing Omar’s fellow Democrats of “looking the other way.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the memories of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York and Washington are “sacred ground and any discussion of it must be done with reverence.”

Pelosi called Trump’s video “disrespectful and dangerous” and said it must be removed.

​Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler said on CNN Sunday he had no problem with Omar’s comments.

“I have had some problems with some of her other remarks, but not with that one,” he said.

In an emotional speech last month to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar spoke out against discrimination against and suspicions of Muslims.

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

Trump’s Friday tweet included Omar’s brief line “somebody did something” followed by more than 40 seconds of September 11 terrorist attack news footage and a large graphic repeating the words “somebody did something.” 

Other Omar critics have focused solely on that one single line, accusing her of trivializing the inhumanity of September 11 but not mentioning the rest of her speech.

Some Democrats accuse Trump of stirring up the same kind of Islamophobia that Omar was decrying.

Nadler said Trump has “no moral authority” for talking about September 11. He accuses Trump of “stealing” a $150,000 grant meant for small-business owners to rebuild their destroyed businesses after the attack and using that money for his own real estate holding. 

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders noted that then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, went to a mosque after 9/11 to assure Muslim Americans that they are not criminals and terrorists. 
…

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is set to report that it raised more than $30 million in the first quarter of 2019, edging out his top two Democratic rivals combined, according to figures it provided to The Associated Press.

The haul brings the campaign’s cash on hand to $40.8 million, an unprecedented war chest for an incumbent president this early in a campaign.

The Trump campaign said nearly 99% of its donations were of $200 or less, with an average donation of $34.26.

Trump’s fundraising ability was matched by the Republican National Committee, which brought in $45.8 million in the first quarter — its best non-election year total. Combined, the pro-Trump effort is reporting $82 million in the bank, with $40.8 million belonging to the campaign alone.

Trump formally launched his reelection effort just hours after taking office in 2017, earlier than any incumbent has in prior years. By contrast, former President Barack Obama launched his 2012 effort in April 2011 and had under $2 million on hand at this point in the campaign.

Obama went on to raise more than $720 million for his reelection. Trump’s reelection effort has set a $1 billion target for 2020.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement that Trump “is in a vastly stronger position at this point than any previous incumbent president running for re-election, and only continues to build momentum.”

Trump’s fundraising with the RNC is divided between two entities: Trump Victory, the joint account used for high-dollar gifts, and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, the low-dollar digital fundraising operation known internally as “T-Magic.” The campaign is set to launch a traditional “bundling” program — which it lacked in 2016 — in the coming weeks. Bundlers are mid-tier donors who bring in contributions from their associates.

Together, the Trump entities have raised a combined $165.5 million since 2017.

Trump is benefiting from the advantages of incumbency, like universal name recognition and his unrivaled position atop the Republican Party.

Among Democrats, dollars are divided across a candidate field of well more than a dozen, while the Democratic National Committee remains in debt and has suffered from being dramatically outraised by the RNC in recent months.

Bernie Sanders topped the Democratic field in the first quarter, raising slightly more than $18 million, followed by Kamala Harris with $12 million and Beto O’Rourke with $9.4 million. Trump is reporting a haul of $30.3 million.

Republicans have trailed Democrats in online fundraising ever since the medium was invented roughly two decades ago. But Trump has closed the gap, driving small-dollar donors who make recurring donations to the GOP like the party has never seen before. According to RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump’s campaign has already had eight seven-figure fundraising days this year, and has taken in money from more than 1 million new online donors since Trump’s inauguration — including 100,000 this year.

The Republican committee said it is planning on spending $30 million on maintaining and growing Trump’s email list alone, recently expanded its headquarters space to an annex in Virginia and will soon invest in developing an app.

In 2015, Trump swore off outside money, declaring in his opening speech: “I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists’. I’m not using donors’. I don’t care. I’m really rich.”

He quickly reversed course on high-dollar donations after he won the GOP nomination, bowing to the financial pressures of running a general election campaign, and he’d already raised millions online through the sale of merchandise like his signature red Make America Great Again hats.

Trump gave or loaned $66 million to his 2016 campaign, but has yet to spend any of his own cash for his reelection effort. Aides don’t expect that to change.
…

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign is set to report that it raised more than $30 million in the first quarter of 2019, edging out his top two Democratic rivals combined, according to figures it provided to The Associated Press.

The haul brings the campaign’s cash on hand to $40.8 million, an unprecedented war chest for an incumbent president this early in a campaign.

The Trump campaign said nearly 99% of its donations were of $200 or less, with an average donation of $34.26.

Trump’s fundraising ability was matched by the Republican National Committee, which brought in $45.8 million in the first quarter — its best non-election year total. Combined, the pro-Trump effort is reporting $82 million in the bank, with $40.8 million belonging to the campaign alone.

Trump formally launched his reelection effort just hours after taking office in 2017, earlier than any incumbent has in prior years. By contrast, former President Barack Obama launched his 2012 effort in April 2011 and had under $2 million on hand at this point in the campaign.

Obama went on to raise more than $720 million for his reelection. Trump’s reelection effort has set a $1 billion target for 2020.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement that Trump “is in a vastly stronger position at this point than any previous incumbent president running for re-election, and only continues to build momentum.”

Trump’s fundraising with the RNC is divided between two entities: Trump Victory, the joint account used for high-dollar gifts, and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, the low-dollar digital fundraising operation known internally as “T-Magic.” The campaign is set to launch a traditional “bundling” program — which it lacked in 2016 — in the coming weeks. Bundlers are mid-tier donors who bring in contributions from their associates.

Together, the Trump entities have raised a combined $165.5 million since 2017.

Trump is benefiting from the advantages of incumbency, like universal name recognition and his unrivaled position atop the Republican Party.

Among Democrats, dollars are divided across a candidate field of well more than a dozen, while the Democratic National Committee remains in debt and has suffered from being dramatically outraised by the RNC in recent months.

Bernie Sanders topped the Democratic field in the first quarter, raising slightly more than $18 million, followed by Kamala Harris with $12 million and Beto O’Rourke with $9.4 million. Trump is reporting a haul of $30.3 million.

Republicans have trailed Democrats in online fundraising ever since the medium was invented roughly two decades ago. But Trump has closed the gap, driving small-dollar donors who make recurring donations to the GOP like the party has never seen before. According to RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump’s campaign has already had eight seven-figure fundraising days this year, and has taken in money from more than 1 million new online donors since Trump’s inauguration — including 100,000 this year.

The Republican committee said it is planning on spending $30 million on maintaining and growing Trump’s email list alone, recently expanded its headquarters space to an annex in Virginia and will soon invest in developing an app.

In 2015, Trump swore off outside money, declaring in his opening speech: “I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists’. I’m not using donors’. I don’t care. I’m really rich.”

He quickly reversed course on high-dollar donations after he won the GOP nomination, bowing to the financial pressures of running a general election campaign, and he’d already raised millions online through the sale of merchandise like his signature red Make America Great Again hats.

Trump gave or loaned $66 million to his 2016 campaign, but has yet to spend any of his own cash for his reelection effort. Aides don’t expect that to change.
…

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he does not think the Venezuelan people will tolerate the Maduro regime much longer.

“The devastation wrought by Nicolas Maruro, the tragedy of the humanitarian situation there bought out solely by Maduro making the choice to bring in the Cubans, to allow Russians to intervene in the country — those are things that are destroying the lives of young people in Venezuela,” Pompeo told Peru’s El Comercio newspaper Sunday.

Pompeo was on the last day of a four-nation tour of South America, where the economic and political calamity in Venezuela was among the top concerns during talks in Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Colombia.

“This is not something that has happened in the last weeks or months. This is devastation wrought by the Cubans, the Russians and Maduro over the last years. … I’m very hopeful that it’ll come to its conclusion quickly,” he said.

Watch: Pompeo Spoke to VOA About Venezuela, Iran, and Nicaragua:

Pompeo again said all options are on the table when it comes to U.S. involvement in Venezuela. But the Trump administration has not said under what circumstances it would use military action.

The U.S. has already imposed a number of sanctions against some Venezuelan officials and the country’s oil sector.

Pompeo’s stop in Colombia will include a visit to the border city of Cucuta, which is separated from Venezuela by a bridge.

Tons of U.S. food, medicine and other relief supplies are sitting in warehouses in Cucuta, waiting to be delivered. Maduro has refused to let U.S. aid into the country, calling it the vanguard of a U.S. invasion.

Pompeo said the Trump administration wants to be deeply engaged in Central and South America, noting that great democracies, free market economies and transparency have not always flourished in the region.

“There were many communist countries in Latin America for many years, but that’s the great thing that’s changed. This idea of the totalitarian Orwellian state of communism is being rejected by the people of South America. It’s glorious,” the secretary said.

But while Pompeo said the U.S. welcomes Chinese private enterprises bringing goods and services to Latin America, competing with what the U.S. has to offer, he said Latin countries must be aware that Chinese companies may come instead for “malign activities.”

“State-owned enterprises, companies deeply connected to the Chinese government that want to put infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure inside of your country … we want to make sure everyone has their eyes wide open,” Pompeo said.

The United States has accused Chinese computer and telecommunications firms, including Huawei, of installing spyware in its products – charges the companies deny.

Pompeo told the Peruvian newspaper that if the country uses Chinese technology, its information would be “in the hands of President Xi (Jinping) and the People’s Liberation Army.”
…

Kathleen Struck, Esha Sarai contributed to this report.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has become the latest Democrat to formally enter the crowded field of presidential candidates seeking to unseat Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

The 37-year-old, who announced a presidential exploratory committee in January, made it official at a rally in South Bend on Sunday.

The Harvard and Oxford graduate and Afghanistan war veteran has gone from being virtually unknown on the national political landscape to surging in recent polls, placing third behind behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. 

The son of an immigrant from Malta, Buttigieg attended Harvard College around the same time as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. He received a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, spent seven months in Afghanistan in the U.S. Navy Reserves as an intelligence analyst and driver and worked as a consultant for McKinsey & Company. Reportedly he speaks seven languages, some of them fluently, including Spanish and Norwegian.

And in 2011, he was elected mayor of his hometown, South Bend, population 100,000.

Buttigieg would be America’s first openly gay president. His husband, Chastain, has also won over many American voters.

“As for my husband, you know I’m pretty biased, because I love him, but it’s pretty great to see that the rest of America is falling in love with him too,” Buttigieg said at a recent appearance in New Hampshire.

The South Bend mayor has raised more than $7 million so far and assured himself a spot in the Democratic presidential debates that begin in June. Analysts say it remains to be seen if Buttigieg can maintain his recent momentum.

“Sometimes candidates have a few weeks or few months of stardom and then another ‘it candidate’ replaces them,” Leah Askarinam, a reporter and political analyst for Inside Elections, told VOA. “So I think we know he’s viable. I don’t think we know at this point that he’s going to be a star in the field.”

At least 18 Democrats are in the run to become the party’s nominee to face off against President Donald Trump in next year’s election.
…

Kathleen Struck, Esha Sarai contributed to this report.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has become the latest Democrat to formally enter the crowded field of presidential candidates seeking to unseat Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

The 37-year-old, who announced a presidential exploratory committee in January, made it official at a rally in South Bend on Sunday.

The Harvard and Oxford graduate and Afghanistan war veteran has gone from being virtually unknown on the national political landscape to surging in recent polls, placing third behind behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. 

The son of an immigrant from Malta, Buttigieg attended Harvard College around the same time as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. He received a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, spent seven months in Afghanistan in the U.S. Navy Reserves as an intelligence analyst and driver and worked as a consultant for McKinsey & Company. Reportedly he speaks seven languages, some of them fluently, including Spanish and Norwegian.

And in 2011, he was elected mayor of his hometown, South Bend, population 100,000.

Buttigieg would be America’s first openly gay president. His husband, Chastain, has also won over many American voters.

“As for my husband, you know I’m pretty biased, because I love him, but it’s pretty great to see that the rest of America is falling in love with him too,” Buttigieg said at a recent appearance in New Hampshire.

The South Bend mayor has raised more than $7 million so far and assured himself a spot in the Democratic presidential debates that begin in June. Analysts say it remains to be seen if Buttigieg can maintain his recent momentum.

“Sometimes candidates have a few weeks or few months of stardom and then another ‘it candidate’ replaces them,” Leah Askarinam, a reporter and political analyst for Inside Elections, told VOA. “So I think we know he’s viable. I don’t think we know at this point that he’s going to be a star in the field.”

At least 18 Democrats are in the run to become the party’s nominee to face off against President Donald Trump in next year’s election.
…

Washington continues to emit a cacophony of signals in response to a historic surge of migrant arrivals at America’s southern border with Mexico. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, President Donald Trump has floated a variety of proposals, from closing the border to transferring migrants to urban Democratic strongholds, as record numbers of Central Americans trek northwards.
…

Release appears imminent of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly 400-page report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but sparring over Mueller’s conclusions is already rampant.

Washington is expecting that Attorney General William Barr could disclose the report on Monday or Tuesday, much-awaited details from Mueller’s 22-month investigation of Donald Trump campaign contacts with Russia and whether Trump, as president, obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News Sunday, “I don’t think it is going to be damaging to the president.”

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that is probing the election, told CNN on Sunday that Barr should release the full report and underlying investigatory evidence to his panel, but Barr has balked.

“To deny the Judiciary Committee and the Congress the knowledge of what’s in parts of the Mueller report is not proper,” Nadler said.

No one other than Barr and key officials in the Justice Department, Mueller and his team of prosecutors appear to know what the report says about the extent of Trump campaign links with Russia during his 2016 campaign or whether he took any actions as the U.S. leader aimed at inhibiting the investigation.

Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller conclusions three weeks ago, saying the prosecutor had concluded that Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia to help him win but had reached no conclusion whether Trump obstructed justice. But with Mueller not reaching a decision on the obstruction issue, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided no obstruction charges against Trump were warranted.

Nadler said that even though Barr concluded no obstruction charges should be brought against Trump, his decision should not go without review. Nadler noted that Barr, before he became the country’s top law enforcement official, wrote that Trump could not obstruct justice because the president “is the boss of the Justice Department and could order it around to institute an investigation, to eliminate an investigation or could not be questioned about that.”

“In other words, (Barr) thinks as a matter of law a president can’t obstruct justice, which is a very wild theory to which most people do not agree,” Nadler said. “The fact of the matter is we should see and judge for ourselves and Congress should judge whether the president obstructed justice or not, and the public ultimately.”

Nadler said it “may be that Mueller decided not to prosecute obstruction of justice for various reasons that there wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt on some things. But there still may have been proof of some very bad deeds and very bad motives. And we need to see them and the public needs to see them.”

Since the release of Barr’s summary, Trump has claimed “total exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction.” Trump for months derided Mueller’s investigation, but said he believes Mueller acted honorably in clearing him of colluding with Russia.

Opposition Democrats like Nadler have launched new investigations of Trump, a Republican, but the president is objecting.

On Twitter, Trump said Saturday, “Why should Radical Left Democrats in Congress have a right to retry and examine the $35,000,000 (two years in the making) No Collusion Mueller Report, when the crime committed was by Crooked Hillary, the DNC and Dirty Cops? Attorney General Barr will make the decision!” He was referring to Hillary Clinton, his 2016 opponent, and the Democratic National Committee, which supported her candidacy.

Barr has said he will release as much of the Mueller report as possible, while excluding material Mueller included from secret grand jury testimony and confidential U.S. intelligence sources.
…

In a series of tweets Saturday night, President Donald Trump denied reports that he asked a border control official to close the U.S. border with Mexico, and that he offered to pardon the official if he faced legal problems for doing so.

On Friday, The New York Times and CNN reported that last week Trump asked Kevin McAleenan, then the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border to stop migrants from coming into the U.S. McAleenan has since been named the acting secretary of homeland security after the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen on April 10.

Both news organizations cited unnamed administration officials as sources in their reports. The Times report also suggested “it was possible Mr. Trump had intended the comments to Mr. McAleenan as a joke.”

On Friday, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying: “At no time has the president indicated, asked, directed or pressured the acting secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the acting secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.”

Saturday evening, Trump used social media to issue his own denial, tweeting that he “never offered Pardons to Homeland Security Officials, never ordered anyone to close our Southern Border (although I have the absolute right to do so, and may if Mexico does not apprehend the illegals coming to our Border), and am not ‘frustrated.’ ’’ 

In his tweets, the president took aim at the Times, saying the newspaper didn’t call the White House to verify its facts, and predicting the 167-year-old newspaper would be gone in six years.
…

In a series of tweets Saturday night, President Donald Trump denied reports that he asked a border control official to close the U.S. border with Mexico, and that he offered to pardon the official if he faced legal problems for doing so.

On Friday, The New York Times and CNN reported that last week Trump asked Kevin McAleenan, then the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border to stop migrants from coming into the U.S. McAleenan has since been named the acting secretary of homeland security after the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen on April 10.

Both news organizations cited unnamed administration officials as sources in their reports. The Times report also suggested “it was possible Mr. Trump had intended the comments to Mr. McAleenan as a joke.”

On Friday, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying: “At no time has the president indicated, asked, directed or pressured the acting secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the acting secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.”

Saturday evening, Trump used social media to issue his own denial, tweeting that he “never offered Pardons to Homeland Security Officials, never ordered anyone to close our Southern Border (although I have the absolute right to do so, and may if Mexico does not apprehend the illegals coming to our Border), and am not ‘frustrated.’ ’’ 

In his tweets, the president took aim at the Times, saying the newspaper didn’t call the White House to verify its facts, and predicting the 167-year-old newspaper would be gone in six years.
…

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, kicked off his campaign Saturday in Newark, calling for community building, criminal justice reform, gun control, Medicare for all and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. 

Booker told supporters that Saturday’s rally was the launch of a two-week tour of the United States as he tries to make himself more visible in a pack of more than a dozen competitors. The mostly Democratic campaigners are all vying to replace incumbent President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. 

“The president wants a race to the gutter and to fight us in the gutter,” Booker said to the crowd at Newark’s Military Park, a revitalized green space. But “to win, we have to fight from higher ground in order to bring this country to higher ground.” 

From New Jersey, Booker plans to make stops in states that hold caucuses and primaries early in the presidential race, including Iowa, Georgia and Nevada.

Newark is where Booker made his political reputation, serving as a member of the municipal council and then the mayor from 2006 to 2013. 
…

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, kicked off his campaign Saturday in Newark, calling for community building, criminal justice reform, gun control, Medicare for all and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. 

Booker told supporters that Saturday’s rally was the launch of a two-week tour of the United States as he tries to make himself more visible in a pack of more than a dozen competitors. The mostly Democratic campaigners are all vying to replace incumbent President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. 

“The president wants a race to the gutter and to fight us in the gutter,” Booker said to the crowd at Newark’s Military Park, a revitalized green space. But “to win, we have to fight from higher ground in order to bring this country to higher ground.” 

From New Jersey, Booker plans to make stops in states that hold caucuses and primaries early in the presidential race, including Iowa, Georgia and Nevada.

Newark is where Booker made his political reputation, serving as a member of the municipal council and then the mayor from 2006 to 2013. 
…

Eager to jump-start the stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline and other energy projects, President Donald Trump has acted to assert executive power over pipelines and such infrastructure. 

He issued a new permit for Keystone XL and insisted this exercise of presidential authority was not subject to judicial review. Then he signed an executive order clarifying that the president alone has the power to grant permits for cross-border projects such as pipelines. A separate order makes it harder for states to block pipelines and other energy projects on the basis of environmental concerns. 

Taken together, the actions amount to a broad assertion of power that reverses more than 50 years of precedent that delegated decision-making on energy projects to individual agencies. 

Trump has shown a willingness to override his own agencies to accomplish his aims. His actions, if upheld by the courts, could consolidate power over energy projects at the White House, increasing the influence of the president’s political advisers and potentially cutting out experts and career officials throughout the government. 

“Too often badly needed energy infrastructure is being held back by special interest groups, entrenched bureaucracies and radical activists,” Trump said Wednesday before signing the executive orders at an event in Texas. 

​’New decision-making structure’

Pipeline opponents say Trump acted illegally. They have asked a federal court to block the new Keystone permit, arguing that it is an effort to get around an earlier court ruling. 

But one legal expert said Trump’s approach might succeed. 

“He has now created a whole new decision-making structure” for cross-border pipelines, said Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University. 

If the courts follow a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, they may find that action taken by the State Department in approving or rejecting the pipeline “is nonreviewable, because it doesn’t qualify as final agency action,” Pierce said. Further, Trump’s decision would not be subject to review because of a separate law that declares the president is not an agency and therefore is not bound by rules that apply to agency actions. 

“That’s a very clever approach that might well work,” Pierce said. 

Trump’s actions are “typical of this presidency,” said Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at the University of California-Berkeley. She said Trump frequently seeks to stretch the limits of his power, and she cited Trump’s declaration of an emergency that he says allows him to shift more money to construction of a promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

In the case of Keystone, Trump appears to be arguing that the new presidential permit, issued March 29, gets around restrictions under the National Environmental Policy Act or other laws, because the statutes apply to executive-branch agencies but not to the president, Doremus said. 

“If the president is the only discretionary decision maker, NEPA simply does not apply,” she said. 

Who decides?

While Trump’s theory is plausible, it is unclear who is the ultimate decision-maker on Keystone XL, Doremus said. The pipeline would ship crude oil from the tar sands of western Canada to U.S. refineries along the Gulf of Mexico.  

Both a 2015 rejection of the project by the Obama administration and a 2017 approval by Trump were issued by the State Department under terms of a 2004 executive order that delegated presidential authority for cross-border projects to that agency. 

Trump’s executive order revokes the 2004 order, issued by President George W. Bush. Bush’s action extended an executive order first issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. 

“It’s surprising that the president would come in and single-handedly try to circumvent 50 years of precedent for these types of projects by just issuing a permit himself,” said Doug Hayes, a Sierra Club attorney who has sued to block the Keystone project in court. 

In November, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris in Montana ruled that the Trump administration did not fully consider potential oil spills and other impacts when it approved the pipeline in 2017. Morris ordered a new environmental review of the pipeline. 

The White House said the new permit issued by Trump “dispels any uncertainty” about the long-delayed project, which was first proposed a decade ago by Calgary-based TransCanada.  

Trump’s move on Keystone XL reinforces the idea that “the presidential permit is indeed an exercise of presidential authority that is not subject to judicial review,” according to the White House. 

Reviews by different agencies

Under the new order, federal officials still would conduct environmental reviews of the project, but they would be carried out by agencies other than the State Department, the White House said. 

TransCanada spokesman Matthew John said the administration’s action “clearly demonstrates to the courts that the permit is [the] product of presidential decision-making and should not be subject to additional environmental review.” 

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said it was “strange” that Trump issued the executive order after granting the new permit. 

The White House is making the argument supposedly that he has untrammeled authority and doesn't have to obey the laws of Congress'' in approving a cross-border pipeline, Tobias said.I’m dubious and I think a number of other people are, too.” 

Kathryn Watts, a law professor at the University of Washington, said it’s unclear what happens next. Trump’s permit wades into “uncharted, unsettled” legal territory, she said.
…

Eager to jump-start the stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline and other energy projects, President Donald Trump has acted to assert executive power over pipelines and such infrastructure. 

He issued a new permit for Keystone XL and insisted this exercise of presidential authority was not subject to judicial review. Then he signed an executive order clarifying that the president alone has the power to grant permits for cross-border projects such as pipelines. A separate order makes it harder for states to block pipelines and other energy projects on the basis of environmental concerns. 

Taken together, the actions amount to a broad assertion of power that reverses more than 50 years of precedent that delegated decision-making on energy projects to individual agencies. 

Trump has shown a willingness to override his own agencies to accomplish his aims. His actions, if upheld by the courts, could consolidate power over energy projects at the White House, increasing the influence of the president’s political advisers and potentially cutting out experts and career officials throughout the government. 

“Too often badly needed energy infrastructure is being held back by special interest groups, entrenched bureaucracies and radical activists,” Trump said Wednesday before signing the executive orders at an event in Texas. 

​’New decision-making structure’

Pipeline opponents say Trump acted illegally. They have asked a federal court to block the new Keystone permit, arguing that it is an effort to get around an earlier court ruling. 

But one legal expert said Trump’s approach might succeed. 

“He has now created a whole new decision-making structure” for cross-border pipelines, said Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University. 

If the courts follow a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, they may find that action taken by the State Department in approving or rejecting the pipeline “is nonreviewable, because it doesn’t qualify as final agency action,” Pierce said. Further, Trump’s decision would not be subject to review because of a separate law that declares the president is not an agency and therefore is not bound by rules that apply to agency actions. 

“That’s a very clever approach that might well work,” Pierce said. 

Trump’s actions are “typical of this presidency,” said Holly Doremus, an environmental law professor at the University of California-Berkeley. She said Trump frequently seeks to stretch the limits of his power, and she cited Trump’s declaration of an emergency that he says allows him to shift more money to construction of a promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

In the case of Keystone, Trump appears to be arguing that the new presidential permit, issued March 29, gets around restrictions under the National Environmental Policy Act or other laws, because the statutes apply to executive-branch agencies but not to the president, Doremus said. 

“If the president is the only discretionary decision maker, NEPA simply does not apply,” she said. 

Who decides?

While Trump’s theory is plausible, it is unclear who is the ultimate decision-maker on Keystone XL, Doremus said. The pipeline would ship crude oil from the tar sands of western Canada to U.S. refineries along the Gulf of Mexico.  

Both a 2015 rejection of the project by the Obama administration and a 2017 approval by Trump were issued by the State Department under terms of a 2004 executive order that delegated presidential authority for cross-border projects to that agency. 

Trump’s executive order revokes the 2004 order, issued by President George W. Bush. Bush’s action extended an executive order first issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. 

“It’s surprising that the president would come in and single-handedly try to circumvent 50 years of precedent for these types of projects by just issuing a permit himself,” said Doug Hayes, a Sierra Club attorney who has sued to block the Keystone project in court. 

In November, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris in Montana ruled that the Trump administration did not fully consider potential oil spills and other impacts when it approved the pipeline in 2017. Morris ordered a new environmental review of the pipeline. 

The White House said the new permit issued by Trump “dispels any uncertainty” about the long-delayed project, which was first proposed a decade ago by Calgary-based TransCanada.  

Trump’s move on Keystone XL reinforces the idea that “the presidential permit is indeed an exercise of presidential authority that is not subject to judicial review,” according to the White House. 

Reviews by different agencies

Under the new order, federal officials still would conduct environmental reviews of the project, but they would be carried out by agencies other than the State Department, the White House said. 

TransCanada spokesman Matthew John said the administration’s action “clearly demonstrates to the courts that the permit is [the] product of presidential decision-making and should not be subject to additional environmental review.” 

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said it was “strange” that Trump issued the executive order after granting the new permit. 

The White House is making the argument supposedly that he has untrammeled authority and doesn't have to obey the laws of Congress'' in approving a cross-border pipeline, Tobias said.I’m dubious and I think a number of other people are, too.” 

Kathryn Watts, a law professor at the University of Washington, said it’s unclear what happens next. Trump’s permit wades into “uncharted, unsettled” legal territory, she said.
…