U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on California Democrats to unite against Donald Trump, kicking the 2020 presidential campaign into high gear with jabs against the Republican president and a veiled swipe at Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Sanders called Trump “a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and a religious bigot” in a speech capping off a state Democratic convention that drew fourteen of the 24 candidates to make their case before 5,000 delegates, guests and press in the most populous – and most heavily Democratic – U.S. state.

“Together we are going to defeat a president who has the most corrupt administration in history,” Sanders said, “and a president who knows nothing about real American values.”

The San Francisco convention became a window into the forces at work in the Democratic Party as it seeks to recover from Trump’s populist-fueled victory in 2016.

The party’s left-leaning delegates greeted Sanders and liberal U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren like rock stars.

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper drew boos when he said socialist policies would not propel the party to victory, and other moderates were booed for rejecting the idea of a universal public health care system, or Medicare for All.

Former vice president Joe Biden, who leads Sanders in polls for the Democratic nomination in California and nationwide, did not attend the convention, drawing barely veiled criticism from Sanders.

Sanders noted that the fourteen candidates who addressed the convention, as well as some who had “chosen for whatever reason not to be in this room,” offer a variety of ways to approach a campaign against Trump. But Sanders rejected the centrist approach favored by Biden and some other candidates.

On issues like health care, pharmaceutical prices and climate change wracking the country, “there is no middle ground,” Sanders said.

Addressing concerns among some Democrats that a moderate would be more electable than a fiery progressive, Sanders said such an approach would not generate the enthusiasm needed to defeat Trump.

“We will not defeat Donald Trump unless we bring excitement and energy into the campaign and unless we give millions of working people and young people a reason to vote and a reason to believe that politics is relevant to their lives,” Sanders said.

California, which will send nearly 500 delegates to the party’s nominating convention next year, took on new heft for the 2020 campaign after moving its nominating election to March from June. Democrats hold all statewide elective offices in the state, and dominate both houses of the legislature.

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, a native daughter who has been eclipsed in early polling in California by Biden and Sanders, made clear she was not taking her home state for granted.

On Saturday, supporters with signs bearing her name and shouting “Kamala! Kamala!” formed a gauntlet that Sanders was forced to walk through on his way into a labor union breakfast.

“I am here to earn everyone’s support, and I’m going to fight to earn it,” Harris said at a breakfast held by the party’s women’s caucus.

 
…

President Donald Trump said Sunday that “America has had enough with Mexico,” contending that it is an “abuser” of the United States by not stopping the surge of Central American migrants headed north to seek asylum in the U.S.

Trump, who is threatening to impose a 5 percent tariff on Mexican exports sent to the U.S. unless it blocks the migrants short of the U.S. border, accused Mexico of “taking but never giving. It has been this way for decades.”

On Twitter, Trump said, “Either they stop the invasion of our Country by Drug Dealers, Cartels, Human Traffickers, Coyotes and Illegal Immigrants, which they can do very easily, or our many companies and jobs that have been foolishly allowed to move South of the Border, will be brought back into the United States through taxation (Tariffs).”

Trump’s attacks on Mexico came a day after Mexican President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador suggested his country could clamp down on migration. He said he thinks the United States is ready to discuss its threat to impose the tariff, effective June 10, as a means to combat illegal migration from Central America.

“There is willingness on the part of U.S. government officials to establish dialogue and reach agreement and compromises,” the Mexican leader said.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place on Wednesday in Washington.

“We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Lopez Obrador called for “dialogue” rather than “coercive measures” and said he expects “good results” from the Washington talks.

Trump set off the dispute last week, posting a policy statement on Twitter.

“On June 10, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, who crossed the southern U.S. border in recent months, many of them hoping to win asylum to stay in the U.S.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents.

The tariff dispute is occurring as Trump is seeking congressional approval for a new U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal. Some Washington analysts have suggested that if Trump imposes the tariff on imports from Mexico, it would imperil passage of the trade pact, but acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dismissed such concerns, saying the two issues are not connected.

“This is an immigration matter, not a trade issue,” Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday.

He said Trump threatened to impose the tariff “to put pressure on Mexico. Congress will not help us fix the border, so we turned to Mexico.”
…

The Pentagon has told the White House to keep the military out of politics, after someone from the White House directed the Navy to keep the warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“On Friday, May 31, Secretary Shanahan directed his Chief of Staff to speak with the White House Military Office and reaffirm his mandate that the Department of Defense will not be politicized,”  Shanahan’s spokesman Army Lt. Col. Joe Buccino said Sunday.

Eric Chewning, Shanahan’s chief of staff, told the defense secretary that he had reinforced this message to the White House, according to Buccino.

“There’s no room for politicizing the military,” Shanahan told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Seoul. “We take these things seriously, and my office and others will deal with it directly.”

The directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

An email seen by VOA showed discussions about the warship between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

Shanahan confirmed Sunday that the White House Military Office gave the directive that the warship should be hidden from view “directly” to the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, which manages naval operations in the Western Pacific.

“The directive was not carried out,” Shanahan added.

According to Shanahan, officials have told him that a white tarp was placed over the ship’s stern on the days preceding the visit, but the tarp was for “hull preservation” and was removed prior to the president’s visit.

A paint barge was moved the day prior to Trump’s visit “to support ongoing maintenance,” but the barge “did not obscure the view of the ship during the visit,” said Shanahan.

Sailors with the USS John S. McCain and the USS Stethem were on a 96-hour Memorial Day weekend liberty unrelated to the visit and did not participate in the Trump event, he confirmed.

VOA had previously reported these details provided by a U.S. Navy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Shanahan said he had called the late Senator John McCain’s wife “a couple days ago” after news of the incident broke, but declined to discuss the “private conversation.

On Thursday, Shanahan said he did not authorize and was not aware of the White House directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator [John] McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

The president later told reporters outside the White House that whoever was involved in the move was “well meaning” but that he was unaware of the decision to hide the warship.

“I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t involved. I would not have done that,” he said, adding, “I was not a big fan of John McCain in any way, shape or form.”

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will be on a state visit to the Britain June 3 to June 5.

What to know for the visit?

It’s not Trump’s first visit to Britain.

What’s so special this time?

Trump was in Britain in July 2018 on a working visit, which involved much less pomp and pageantry than a state visit. On a working visit, the visiting country and not the host country covers the bill.

A state visit is a formal visit by a head of state and is normally done at the invitation of the queen on the advice of her government. Queen Elizabeth II, as the current head of state, will act as Trump’s official host for the duration of the visit.

An invitation for a state visit was extended soon after Trump took office in 2017, but a number of concerns, including security have been hampering plans.

The White House said the upcoming trip would reaffirm the “steadfast and special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.”

Twelve U.S. presidents have visited Britain, though only two were there on state visits: George W. Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011.

What’s on the agenda?

In addition to a private lunch and a state banquet hosted by the queen, the president and the first lady also will attend cultural engagements with other members of the royal family.

They will participate in events to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion during World War II, including a visit to Portsmouth, a launch site for the offensive that led to the liberation of Europe. Other countries’ representatives are expected to attend.

Trump will hold a business round table at St. James’s Palace, and he’ll attend a bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street, the residence and home of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is resigning after failing to achieve an agreement on Britain’s departure from the European Union. May has said she will resign on June 7, two days after Trump is scheduled to leave.

Trump, who has supported Brexit since his 2016 presidential campaign, has criticized May’s handling of the issue. Responding to a reporter’s question on Thursday, Trump said he might meet with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage — pro-Brexit politicians who are seeking to replace May. Trump said they both were his friends, “very good guys, very interesting people.”

In an interview Friday with British tabloid The Sun, Trump said Boris Johnson would be an “excellent” choice for the Conservative Party leadership. “I think Boris would do a very good job,” he said, adding that his endorsement “could help anybody.”

After his three-day visit to Britain, Trump will fly to Shannon, Ireland, for a bilateral with Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. Trump said he will stay overnight in Doonbeg, the luxury golf resort in County Clare that he bought in 2014.

On June 6, Trump will head to France where he will observe the D-Day anniversary in Normandy, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

Who else is coming and who are they meeting?

Other than the president and the first lady, the White House has confirmed the president’s adult children also will be on the trip.

They will meet members of the royal family, including Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles; Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton; and Prince Harry. The Trumps will not be meeting Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan Markle, nor their new baby, Archie. Markle, who is American, is still on maternity leave.

Additionally, Trump will attend a reception at the U.S. Embassy to meet staff and their families.

Where are they staying?

State visitors usually stay with Queen Elizabeth at either Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. President George W. Bush and President Obama both stayed at Buckingham Palace. A spokesperson for the royal household said the Trumps will not be staying with the queen, however, due to renovation work that is being carried out at the royal residence.

Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing a 10-year, $477 million renovation, including major electrical and plumbing work.

Will there be protests?

During Trump’s visit last July, more than 100,000 people protested on the streets of London, according to police. This year, protest organizers say they expect similar numbers.

The main protest, “Together Against Trump,” will take place in London on Tuesday, June 4. Smaller protests are planned elsewhere in Britain.

The protests are organized in general opposition to Trump’s views and policies on issues such as immigration and climate change. The campaign group Stop Trump said, “We will make it clear to the British government that it’s not OK to normalize Trump’s agenda and fear it has sparked.”

The “Trump Baby” — a 6-meter balloon by artist Matt Bonner depicting the president as an infant in a diaper holding a cellphone — is expected to appear, as it did during Trump’s 2018 visit to Britain and during his visits to France and Argentina.
…

The vast majority of U.S. state voting legislation introduced this year was intended to expand voting access rather than impose restrictions.

Lawmakers in 45 states have been debating at least 647 bills that would expand voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. That’s compared with lawmakers in 28 states that have considered at least 82 bills to restrict access.

Voting-related topics under consideration in legislatures this year:

Early voting

Most states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to cast ballots in person before Election Day. This year, lawmakers in New York and Delaware approved early voting in those states. An effort to allow voters in Connecticut to decide whether that state should have early voting did not receive enough support from legislators to make the ballot next year.

Bills that would allow early voting or put the question before voters also were introduced in Maine, Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia.

No-excuse absentee voting

While absentee ballots are available in every state, 19 states require a voter to provide a reason for requesting one. This year, bills that would allow some form of no-excuse absentee voting or put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire and New York.

​Same-day and Election Day registration

A growing number of states allow people to register and vote on the same day. In most cases, this applies to the early voting period as well as Election Day. Proof of residency and identification are required. States check whether a voter has already cast a ballot and have criminal penalties to deter fraud. 

This year, bills that would allow for same-day voter registration or to put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and New York.

Automatic voter registration

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have started or have plans to implement a system in which residents are automatically registered to vote when they have contact with the state, typically at the state’s motor vehicle agency, unless they decline.

This year, bills that would implement automatic voter registration were introduced in Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and New Hampshire.

Registration assistance

Republicans in some states have expressed concerns about the actions of third-party voter registration groups, specifically pointing to the burden on local election officials when the groups submit forms that are incomplete or contain false information.

In Tennessee, this prompted a law signed recently by Republican Gov. Bill Lee that allows for fines for 100 or more incomplete registration forms in a year. A similar measure was introduced in Arizona.

​Voter identification

Seven states have what has been described as “strict” photo identification requirements, meaning a voter must show a photo ID prior to casting a ballot. In those states, people who do not have an acceptable form of photo ID are directed to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter visits the appropriate election office to present an ID within a certain number of days.

Ten other states have “non-strict” photo identification requirements. Depending on the state, some voters may have the option to sign an affidavit, or poll workers can vouch for their identity. In other cases, voters are directed to cast a provisional ballot, and then election officials determine eligibility without further action required of the voter.

Efforts to implement photo ID requirements in Montana and Wyoming failed this year.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law
…

Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has unveiled a comprehensive plan to protect the rights of LGBTQ people to mark the start of Pride Month.

If elected, the New York senator says she’d direct the Justice Department to consider gender identity and sexual orientation a protected class. She would also ban discrimination against transgender members of the military and federally recognize a third gender in identification documents, denoted by an “X” on ID cards.

In a platform announced Saturday, Gillibrand said she’d prohibit gay conversion therapy nationwide and direct public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms matching their identity.

Her proposal would further require health insurance plans to cover hormone therapy for transgender patients, and it would recognize U.S. asylum claims for LGBTQ people fleeing persecution in their home countries.

 
…

VOA Mandarin service’s Libo Lui contributed to this report

SINGAPORE – Since the first week acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan took the reins at the Pentagon, he’s said his top concern is “China, China, China.”

On Saturday, Shanahan told an audience at the annual Shangri-La defense forum that the U.S. would not ignore Chinese behavior, which he says has threatened prosperity in the region.

“It’s not about conflict. It’s not about building walls. This is about security,” Shanahan said.

China is infamous for its theft of other nations’ military and civilian technology, and the U.S. secretary said he took issue with Beijing’s cyber attacks and state-sponsored stealing of intellectual property.

Experts say China has used this theft to narrow the gap between some critical American and Chinese military abilities.

“The kind of advantage that we had against China and the western Pacific during the Cold War is gone for good,” Michael O’Hanlon, a senior defense expert with the Brookings Institution, told VOA.

China also has continued to project more military power beyond its borders, most notably by constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea and placing heavy weapons on them to support territorial claims not recognized under international law.

Speaking to reporters Friday, Shanahan called the moves “excessive,” saying that while the Chinese “argue that it’s defensive, it looks like it’s a bit overkill.”

Recently, the U.S. has pushed for more international patrols in the South China Sea, including one last month with Japan, India and the Philippines.

Bradley Bowman, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said working with allies to combat Chinese aggression in the region will bolster the U.S. position of protecting international waterways key to global trade.

“I think we need to characterize this conflict for what it is. It’s not a conflict between China and the US. It’s a conflict with China and the world,” he said.

Speaking to VOA at the conference, Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said China has to some extent “overplayed their hand.”

“They are seen as a bully in the region by a lot of people. They encroached on people’s territory in a variety of disputes…and in doing that, those countries have turned to the U.S.,” Smith said.

 In his speech Saturday, Shanahan stressed that the U.S. doesn’t want any nation in the region to have to choose positive relations with one partner over another, but, he said, the world deserved a fair playing field.

U.S. allies at the conference expressed anxiety over rising tensions between the two powers, and as one leader pointed out, many believe that if China and the U.S. won’t work together, they risk upending the global system.

 
…

On a trip to Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Britain, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is seeking common ground with European allies, despite fundamental differences over the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and doing business with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine has more from Washington, as talks between Pompeo and German Chancellor Angela Merkel wrapped Friday.
…

President Donald Trump says he’s imposing tariffs on all goods from Mexico until the country stops the flow of undocumented migrants from Central America who cross its territory and enter the United States. Trump tweeted Friday that Mexico “can easily fix this problem. Time for them to finally do what must be done!” Here’s a look at what Mexico has done so far: 

The problem 

In the first three months of 2019, as many as 300,000 migrants — mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — crossed through Mexico to reach the United States. Many were families with children, who cannot be detained for long in the United States.

​How did Mexico’s new president look at immigration?

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador took office on Dec. 1, intending to reduce migration by addressing its root causes: joblessness, poverty and violence in such countries as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. He proposed creating a plan to develop the economies of Central America and southern Mexico, while creating humanitarian and work visas so that Central American migrants could stay in Mexico instead of heading to the U.S.

Did that cause a spike in migration?

The biggest drivers of the migrant exodus were in place before Lopez Obrador took office, and the first massive caravan of migrants formed last year, months before he took office. The caravans came about after tens of thousands of poor Central Americans decided they were a safer option than paying smugglers. New immigration routes for Cubans, Haitians and people from Africa also had opened up through Central America. Lopez Obrador’s offers of visas may have made it easier or safer to cross Mexico, but probably didn’t play a key role in most people’s decision to leave their home countries. 

What changed in Mexico?

A first huge caravan of migrants crossed Mexico headed for the U.S. border in November, before Lopez Obrador took office. The arrival of over 10,000 migrants taxed border facilities and angered Mexicans living in border cities. In January, another caravan crossed Mexico. By the time the third formed in April, it was clear that Mexico could no longer maintain an open-door policy.

In April, the United States began slowing border crossings by reassigning border inspection personnel to deal with the influx of migrants already inside the United States. That started hurting Mexico’s economy, especially as time-sensitive shipments were held up at the border. Separately, migrants began forcing their way across the border with Guatemala, overwhelming border forces and sometimes refusing to register once they arrived. 

​Did U.S. pressure affect Mexican policy?

The border crossing slowdown in April and repeated threats by Trump to close the border or impose tariffs have played a role in changing Mexico’s policies. But Mexicans’ attitudes are also shifting. Increasingly, many Mexicans see large-scale movement of migrants across their country as a threat to their own safety and economy.

Has Mexico helped the U.S. at all?

Mexico is only bound to take in its own citizens when the U.S. expels people at border crossings, and has traditionally refused to take in people from other countries. But starting in late January, Mexico has allowed the United States to return over 6,748 Central Americans to Mexican border cities as they wait to hear about their U.S. asylum claims. The Remain in Mexico policy, as it is known, is meant to reduce the attractiveness of U.S. asylum requests that in the past had allowed claimants to remain in the United States for years as their cases wound their way through the courts.

Has Mexico done more to limit migration?

Mexico staged one of its first large-scale raids on a migrant caravan in April, detaining 371 people on a highway in the southern state of Chiapas. At the same time, Mexico announced that it would no longer grant humanitarian visas at the border with Guatemala after 15,000 people applied in the course of a few weeks. Instead, Mexico encouraged potential migrants to apply for such visas at Mexican consulates in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Humanitarian visas are still being issued for migrants already in Mexico, but at a very slow pace. Work visas are now limited to only a few southern border states in Mexico where wages are low and few migrants want to stay. When migrants began to hop freight trains toward the U.S. border, as they did in past decades, Mexico started police raids on the train. When Lopez Obrador took office, detentions of migrants were relatively low, with 5,884 migrants deported in January. By the end of May, the figure had risen to 15,654.

​Why don’t migrants ask for asylum in Mexico?

Some do. There have been over 18,000 requests for asylum filed in Mexico in the first four months of 2019, several times the levels of a few years ago. But many migrants say they either don’t feel safe in Mexico, or they want to join relatives already in the United States. Many want to earn more money than is possible in Mexico.

Has Mexico yielded to U.S. immigration pressure in the past?

During a previous surge in unaccompanied minors at the U.S. border in 2014, Mexico’s president at the time, Enrique Pena Nieto, tightened security at Mexico’s porous southern border, including immigration checkpoints and raids on freight trains used by the migrants. 
…

The Trump administration is creating a new position aimed at overhauling America’s immigration system amid an accelerating surge of Central American migrants and asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.  

The person most likely to hold the job: former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a conservative lawmaker known for hawkish immigration views.

Why a ‘czar’? 

“Usually, when the president creates a czar, it’s because he feels that there’s not enough interagency coordination going on. And it is true that in the area of dealing with people at the southwest border, while the Department of Homeland Security has the lead, there are other important actors at the border,” said Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at Washington-based think tank Brookings Institution. 

Previous “czars” appointed by the White House over the years have focused on coordinating policy across different agencies to combat illegal recreational drugs or domestic violence.  

Kamarck, an expert on the U.S. government, sees Cuccinelli’s role as helping the administration try to get past the legal challenges that have blocked some of its immigration policies.    

“As a [former] attorney general, he will be more sensitive to the legal problems,” she said.   

Though the White House has not explained what Cuccinelli would oversee, a senior White House official told VOA, “He is expected to take a senior position at DHS where he will work on issues involving immigration.” 

Cuccinelli is an outspoken immigration hardliner. Political observers interviewed by VOA said his views largely align with President Donald Trump’s outlook.  

Cuccinelli has supported denying citizenship to American-born children of parents living in the U.S. illegally. As attorney general he allowed American workers to file lawsuits when an employer knowingly hired someone living in the country illegally. He also restricted who qualifies for in-state tuition at public universities to citizens or legal residents. 

Administration role 

The Washington Post reported Trump would prefer to appoint Cuccinelli to the position of director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that administers the country’s legal immigration system. 

The current USCIS director, L. Francis Cissna, communicated to his staff he is expected to leave the post on June 1. 

Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy for the Center for Migration Studies and an outspoken critic of the administration’s hardline policies, said there is “real concern” about having Cuccinelli as USCIS director. 

“He thinks we have too many immigrants as it is,” Appleby said. As USCIS director, where he would have authority over who gets legal permanent resident status and who gets citizenship, he could “do a lot of damage to people who have followed the law.”  

Trump also supports drastically reducing the number of immigrants coming to the United States, telling his supporters at a rally in May, “The country is full. We don’t want people coming up here.” 

Appleby said Cuccinelli could try to further restrict immigration by extending the processing time it takes for immigrants to become citizens, effectively making it much more difficult for those who are waiting in legal limbo.  

“He could turn back immigrants, refugees, who may legally have a right to come to the country,” Appleby said.

The Trump administration has argued that many people who come to the United States and declare themselves refugees do not in fact qualify for such status.  

Virginia attorney general

As Virginia attorney general in 2010 under former Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell, Cuccinelli issued an opinion stating that Virginia law enforcement officials had the authority to question individuals about their immigration status during a stop or arrest. 

The American Civil Liberties Union at the time sent a letter to Virginia police chiefs and sheriffs urging them not to follow the opinion from Cuccinelli because it was “legally faulty and would lead to adverse public safety consequences.” 

“Because most police officers have not been trained to enforce immigration law, allowing them to question individuals about immigration status is an invitation for racial profiling and potential equal protection violations,” the letter said.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2012 and a settlement with plaintiffs in 2016 have since erased most of a law in Arizona that gave police similar authority.  

Kamarck said given Cuccinelli’s history as a “very tough and very conservative attorney general of the state of Virginia,” he might be able to help the president carry out his more restrictive immigration policies, despite the court challenges.  

Trump administration officials “really have had a hard time implementing the things that they say [they would do.] So I suspect Cuccinelli … has enough government experience and enough legal experience to be a help to them if, in fact, the president will listen to him,” Kamarck said.  

Cuccinelli’s position in the Trump administration is expected to be announced soon. 
…

VOA News Center Associate Producer Jesusemen Oni contributed reporting from Washington. 

WASHINGTON — Mexico’s foreign minister says he has starting negotiating with U.S. officials after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican products related to the migrant surge at the border.

Marcelo Ebrard said on Twitter Friday that he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place Wednesday in Washington.

“The summit to resolve the U.S. dispute with our country will be on Wednesday in Washington,” Ebrard said. “We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico.”

Earlier Friday, Mexico’s president responded to the U.S. tariff threats with caution urging “dialogue” over “coercive measures.”

“I want to reiterate that we are not going to fall into any provocation; but we are going to be prudent, and we are going to respect the authorities of the United States and President Donald Trump,” said Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

His statement Friday morning followed a two-page letter to Trump made public late Thursday, similar in tone, responding to Trump’s announcement on Twitter earlier in the day that the United States would begin imposing an escalating tax on imports from Mexico.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Central America, who crossed the southern U.S. border without authorization in recent months.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents, some of whom are seeking asylum.

In an indication of the pressing demands at the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection solicited bids for the purchase of tens of thousands of baby diapers, wipes and bottles this past week, according to documents reviewed by VOA on a government contracting website.

Mexico has the “absolute ability and authority to do a lot more than they’re doing,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday.

Reaction from Mexico

Lopez Obrador posted a letter to Twitter after Trump’s announcement that said, “Social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process of ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (US MCA) on trade.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous, expressing more alarm than the Mexican president.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

For one trade expert, who previously served as Mexico’s ambassador to China, a top trading partner for that country and the U.S., the timing of Trump’s tariff statement raises questions about the future of the US MCA.

“By mixing two things — immigration and now just lately drug flow with trade — I think it confuses the issue,” said Jorge Guajardo, a senior director at the Washington-based international trade consulting firm McLarty Associates.

The trade deal “was a triumph for all three countries, and now of course, that all comes into doubt,” Guajardo added.

Marking progress

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about White House plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in arrivals from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.

The U.S. system, however, is not infallible. While the country has increased its apprehension rate at the border in recent years, U.S. border agents stop an estimated 65% to 80% of people crossing into the country without authorization, according to a 2018 DHS report. 
…

A Republican redistricting expert advocated for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census to give an electoral edge to white people and Republicans, opponents of the move alleged in a court filing Thursday.

The filing in Manhattan federal court said a trove of newly discovered documents revealed that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican gerrymandering guru, played a key role in pushing the Trump administration to include a citizenship question on the census for the first time since 1950.

GOP strategist

Lawyers for opponents of adding the question said the files, found on Hofeller’s computer drives after he died last year, also showed that he contributed vital language to a Justice Department letter used to justify the question on the grounds that it was needed to protect minority voting rights.

In reality, the lawyers argued, the documents show the census change is part of a wider Republican effort to restrict the political power of Democrats and Latino communities.

“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, the longtime Republican redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that defendants obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” the filing said.

The change, announced in spring 2018, seems poised for approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to rule by July. It’s not yet clear if the Hofeller documents might affect the pending case, though the American Civil Liberties Union apprised the high court of the latest developments Thursday in a letter signed by Dale Ho, director of the group’s voting rights project and a lawyer who argued against adding the question before the top court.

States, cities and rights groups had sued in New York and elsewhere, arguing that the question would suppress the count of immigrants and strengthen congressional representation and funding for areas where mostly Republicans reside. States with large numbers of immigrants tend to vote Democratic.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the commerce secretary has wide discretion to design the census questionnaire.

On Thursday, lawyers for groups including the ACLU said that the files show that a Justice Department official and a transition official for President Donald Trump testified falsely by hiding Hofeller’s role in asking for the question. They asked U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman to issue sanctions or consider finding individuals in contempt.

Ho, of the ACLU, said documents found after Hofeller’s death last year revealed the administration’s “goal was to dilute the voting power of minority communities. That’s literally the diametric opposite of what the administration has been saying all along.”

Furman gave the Justice Department until Monday to respond. An official with the department declined to comment on the record.

Furman set a hearing in the case for June 5.

Daughter turns over documents

The Hofeller documents cited by lawyers were discovered when his estranged daughter found four external computer hard drives and 18 thumb drives in her father’s Raleigh, North Carolina, home after his death last summer.

The New York Times reported that she contacted Common Cause, which had recently sued in state court to challenge North Carolina’s legislative districts, which had been drawn by Hofeller.

Furman, the federal judge, ruled in January that the question could not be included on the census, saying fewer people would respond to the census and that the process used to add it was faulty. Federal judges in California and Maryland reached similar conclusions in separate lawsuits.

Besides the citizenship question, the Supreme Court also is expected to decide within weeks, in cases from North Carolina and Maryland, whether to set limits for the first time on drawing districts for partisan advantage.
…

A group of detained asylum-seekers sued the U.S. government Thursday claiming immigration officials in five Southern states are systematically denying them parole.

In the second lawsuit of its kind filed against the Trump administration, legal advocacy groups representing 12 plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of hundreds of asylum seekers being held in detention centers in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. In addition to Central American migrants, the plaintiffs include a member of a Cameroonian opposition party and Cuban and Venezuelan political dissidents.

Migrants who arrive at U.S. ports of entry and ask for refuge in the United States are not eligible for bond hearings in front of a judge, but they can be released from detention on parole for humanitarian reasons under a 2009 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy.

Denying parole

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, claims that in recent months there has been an “unwritten policy and practice of categorically denying parole to asylum-seekers” that violates the government’s “own directive and guidelines.”

According to ICE data cited in the complaint, the New Orleans Field Office, which oversees the five states, granted parole in 76% of cases in 2016, but just 22% in 2017. In 2018, parole was granted in just two of the 130 cases in which ICE made a determination, or less than 2%, the complaint said.

The Justice Department declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

​Administration centerpiece

President Donald Trump, who has made immigration a centerpiece of his administration, has said migrants are abusing the asylum system by making fraudulent claims to stay in the country for months or years as their cases work their way through a backlogged immigration court system.

He has pledged to end a practice of what he calls “catch and release” by detaining more asylum-seekers during their court proceedings.

U.S. officials say the system is overwhelmed by thousands of migrants, mostly from Central America, claiming fear of returning to their home countries. Families are often released to live in the United States because of limits placed on how long children can be held in detention, but adults can be locked up indefinitely during their court cases unless ICE decides to release them.

ICE expanded its detention capacity this year by 2,500 beds in three facilities in Louisiana, where many of the plaintiffs are being held.

First lawsuit in March 2018

One plaintiff in the lawsuit is a transgender woman who said she fled police repression in Cuba, sought asylum in El Paso, Texas, in January and has been detained since. During months in ICE custody, the suit alleges, she said she was periodically held in isolation and has yet to receive an interview to be considered for release.

A separate lawsuit filed in March 2018 made similar claims about ICE field offices in Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, El Paso, Texas, and Newark, New Jersey. Last July, a federal judge ordered ICE to follow its own policy and grant parole to asylum seekers who are not a flight risk or a danger to the community in those jurisdictions.
…

The United States is giving Mexico 10 days to stop illegal migrants from heading north to the U.S. border, or the country will be slapped with tariffs on all of its products.

The announcement was made in a tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump Thursday evening.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by Oct. 1.

“Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States,” Trump said in a subsequent statement. “Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries.”

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador responded with a tweet of his own. In a letter he posted on Twitter he said “social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process to ratify the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade.

Lopez Obrador said he was sending his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard to Washington to try to negotiate a solution.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about the plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in illegal migrants from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, told reporters on the call there is “an organized smuggling effort” involving commercial bus lines controlled by criminal organizations “to move 100,000 people to our country every four weeks.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.
…

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan said Thursday he did not authorize and was not even aware of a White House directive to have the U.S. Navy warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator (John) McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Singapore. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

During a visit to Indonesia earlier, Shanahan told reporters “What I read this morning was the first I heard about it.” He said he is asking his chief of staff to look into the matter.

An email seen by VOA shows discussions about the USS John S. McCain between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

​Trump says he was not informed

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

​

Shanahan’s spokesman, Army Lt. Col Joe Buccino, said the acting secretary of defense also “was not aware of the directive to move the USS John S. McCain, nor was he aware of the concern precipitating the directive.”

“In terms of ship movements, the only ships I’ve moved is the USS Abraham Lincoln,” Shanahan added during a press event at the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia. He was referring to his early deployment to the Middle East of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, which was sent to deter potential threats from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the directive to hide the USS John S McCain from Trump.

Long feud continues

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.

Meghan McCain, Sen. McCain’s daughter, called Trump a “child” who is “deeply threatened by the greatness” of her father. “Nine months since he passed, Trump won’t let him RIP. So I have to stand up for him,” she tweeted.

Media outlets report that a tarp was used to obscure the ship’s name ahead of Trump’s stop. When senior Navy officials figured out what was happening, they directed Navy personnel to remove the tarp, which was not present Saturday before Trump’s visit.

“The name of the USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage,” Navy Chief Information Officer Rear Adm. Charlie Brown tweeted Thursday.

Asked whether he would open an investigation, Shanahan said he needed to find out more about the incident first.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday declined to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice, though the president responded by declaring himself innocent and the “case is closed.” In his first public comments on the Russia probe, Mueller said because of a long-standing Department of Justice policy, the president cannot be charged with a federal crime while in office, and he indicated it is up to Congress to take further action. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has more.
…

Louisiana lawmakers on Wednesday passed a strict new abortion ban that would prohibit the procedure before some women even know they are pregnant, joining a half-dozen conservative states with similar measures. 

In a 79-23 vote, the Louisiana House gave final passage to a bill barring abortion once there’s a detectable fetal heartbeat, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Deep South’s only Democratic governor, supports the ban and intends to sign it into law despite opposition from national party leaders who say such laws are attacks on women.  

“I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me — and I respect their opinions,” Edwards said in a statement after the ban’s passage. “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.” 

Lawmakers in conservative states across the nation are striking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally. Abortion opponents are pushing new restrictions on the procedure in hopes that a case will make its way to the high court, where two new conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump could help overturn Roe. 

Heartbeat bills

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have enacted similar so-called heartbeat bills, while Missouri lawmakers approved an eight-week ban on abortion. Alabama went even further, outlawing virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. None of the bans has taken effect, and all are expected to face legal challenges.

Louisiana’s prohibition would take hold only if neighboring Mississippi’s law is upheld by a federal appeals court. A federal judge temporarily blocked that Mississippi law Friday.

Abortion rights activists said Louisiana’s bill would effectively eliminate abortion as an option before many women realize they are pregnant, calling the proposal unconstitutional.

The legislation includes an exception from the abortion ban to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” — or if the pregnancy is deemed “medically futile.” 

But it does not include an exception for a pregnancy caused by rape or incest. 

A doctor who violates the prohibition under the bill could face a prison sentence of up to two years, along with the revocation of his or her medical license. 

Although similar abortion bans have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats nationwide, Louisiana’s proposal won wide bipartisan support and was sponsored by a Democrat from the northwest corner of the state, Sen. John Milkovich.

Up for re-election

Support from Edwards, running for re-election this fall against two Republicans, is expected to help shore up his position with some voters in his conservative home state, even if it puts him at odds with national Democratic Party leaders and donors.

The ban is one of several bills that Louisiana lawmakers are advancing to add new restrictions on abortion, including a proposal to ask voters to rewrite the state constitution to ensure it offers no protections for the procedure. Another bill would limit where medication-induced abortions can be performed to the state’s three licensed abortion clinics.
…

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General — as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

 
…

President Donald Trump warned Wednesday the “consequences will be devastating” if Alabama Republican Roy Moore, whose 2017 U.S. Senate campaign was battered by allegations of long-ago sexual harassment of teenagers, seeks the seat again in 2020.

Moore lost in the once-reliably red state in a 2017 special election amid the sexual misconduct allegations, which he denied. He told The Associated Press earlier this month he is considering another campaign next year.

Trump, who backed Moore in 2017 despite the allegations, tweeted “I have NOTHING against Roy Moore,” but warned that “Roy Moore cannot win.” He adds that if Democrat Doug Jones retains the seat in 2020 “many of the incredible gains that we have made during my Presidency may be lost.”

Trump’s comments come as national Republicans have tried to keep Moore out of the race.

Moore’s nomination could have national repercussions, allowing Democrats to accuse the GOP of ignoring the #MeToo movement and coddling a man accused of sexual misconduct. Moore says he expects to announce a decision in mid-June.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate 53-47 and view defeating Jones as a top priority. Jones, 65, is considered the most endangered Democratic incumbent facing re-election in 2020, a year when several GOP senators are vulnerable and control of the chamber will be at stake.

Jones defeated Moore in 2017 by 22,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast in a special election to fill the seat previously held by Jeff Sessions, who became Trump’s attorney general.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice was not an option his office could consider under Justice Department guidelines, as he announced the closure of his office after concluding in late March a 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. 

Explaining his decision not to recommend formal charges against Trump despite uncovering nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice, Mueller cited a long-standing Justice Department legal opinion that says a sitting president can’t be indicted. 

“The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller said in his first public remarks since his appointment as special counsel more than two years ago. “Charging the president with a crime, therefore, was not an option we could consider.”  

WATCH: Mueller on indicting a sitting president

The special counsel added that his decision not to charge Trump was informed in part by the Justice Department’s view that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” an apparent reference to the impeachment process by Congress. 

“And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness,” Mueller said.  “It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.” 

However, Mueller said that while his investigators had found “insufficient evidence” to charge Trump with a “broader conspiracy” during the election, he repeated what he wrote in his final report about the investigation that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.” ​

WATCH: Mueller on returning to private life

Mueller concluded in the 448-page confidential report to Attorney General William Barr that he found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and Moscow.  As to whether Trump criminally obstructed the investigation, the special counsel wrote that while he could not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, he could not exonerate the president either. 

That left it to the attorney general, who, in a controversial decision made in consultation with senior Justice Department officials, determined that Trump could not be charged with obstruction based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller. Barr said he made the determination irrespective of the Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, even though the policy had played a prominent role in Mueller’s decision not to bring charges.  

Barr’s decision outraged Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of misrepresenting Mueller’s conclusions and had been pressing for the special counsel to testify before Congress. While not ruling out a congressional appearance, Mueller said, to the disappointment of many Democrats, that he would not go beyond the report if he were to testify.  

“The report is my testimony,” he said.  “I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”  

Mueller was appointed special counsel for the Russia investigation after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He told reporters that he was resigning from the Justice Department to return to private life.

Before his appointment, Mueller, a former FBI director, served as a partner at the WilmerHale law firm in Washington.   

In his statement, Mueller sought to play down reported friction with the attorney general over the manner in which the report was released to Congress and the public.  

Barr initially sent a four-page summary of the report’s principal conclusions to Congress, followed by a redacted version of the full report last month. The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee later voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to release the full report along with the underlying evidence used to prepare it.  

Mueller said that while he asked the attorney general to release “certain portions of the report” to Congress early on, he did “not question the attorney general’s good faith” in deciding to make the entire report public at a later date.  

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress.” 

“The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report,” Sanders said. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”  

In a tweet after Mueller’s statement, Trump wrote: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in a our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you. ” 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., responded to Mueller’s remarks, saying, “It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoings of President Trump — and we will do so.” 

In his remarks Wednesday, Mueller emphasized that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election” by Russia. He called it a “concerted attack on our political system.” 

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said. 
…

The next U.S. presidential election is not until November 2020, but Republican President Donald Trump and the leading Democrat trying to oust him, former Vice President Joe Biden, are launching rhetorical slingshots at each other with gusto.

Trump, in Japan for a four-day state visit, played golf with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, watched a sumo wrestling match and met Emperor Naruhito, but his mind strayed little from his re-election effort in throwing jabs at Biden, leading in U.S. political surveys over two dozen other Democratic presidential contenders.

For decades, U.S. presidents have generally refrained from political attacks on their opponents back home while they were overseas on diplomatic missions, and in turn, their political foes have not attacked them while they were on foreign soil.

But from Tokyo, Trump assailed “Sleepy Joe Biden” for his role as a senator in the 1994 passage of legislation that stiffened penalties for crimes that had the effect of sending more African-American defendants to prison for lengthy terms. 

“That was a dark period in American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!” Trump said on Twitter. 

He also tweeted:

Trump said he “also smiled” when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse,” suggesting that “Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?” that Kim preferred him in the White House, not Biden. At one point, Trump misspelled the former vice president’s name as “Bidan.”

Asked at a news conference about Kim’s assessment of Biden’s intelligence, Trump responded, “Well, Kim Jong Un made a statement that Joe Biden is a low IQ individual. He probably is, based on his record. I think I agree with him on that,” an attack that some lawmakers in the U.S. said was uncalled for on a fellow American, especially coming on the Memorial Day holiday honoring the country’s war dead. 

Biden’s campaign waited to respond until minutes after Trump landed back in Washington on Tuesday afternoon. 

“The president’s comments are beneath the dignity of the office,” a Biden spokeswoman said. “To be on foreign soil, on Memorial Day, and to side repeatedly with a murderous dictator against a fellow American and former vice president speaks for itself. And it’s part of a pattern embracing autocrats at the expense of our institutions — whether taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s word at face value in Helsinki or exchanging ‘love letters’ with Kim Jong Un.”

A Biden campaign official said the delayed timing of the statement was intentional, with the former vice president wanting to respect “the sacred purpose of Memorial Day, remembering those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.”
…

Real estate mogul Franklin Haney contributed $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee and all he’s got to show for the money is the glare of a federal investigation.

The contribution from Haney, a prolific political donor, came as he was seeking regulatory approval and financial support from the government for his long-shot bid to acquire the mothballed Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant in northeastern Alabama. More than two years later, he still hasn’t closed the deal.

His tale is a familiar one in Washington, where lobbyists and wealthy donors use their checkbooks to try to sway politicians. It’s a world Haney is accustomed to operating in and one that Trump came into office pledging to upend. Yet Trump has left in place many of the familiar ways to wield influence.

Haney’s hefty donation to Trump’s inaugural committee is being scrutinized by federal prosecutors in New York who are investigating the committee’s finances. Their probe is focused in part on whether donors received benefits after making contributions.

Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has given prosecutors information regarding Haney, his son and business associate, Frank Haney Jr., and the nuclear plant project, according to a person familiar with what Cohen told the authorities. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

Haney had briefly hired Cohen to help obtain money for the Bellefonte project from potential investors, including the Middle Eastern country of Qatar. Cohen is now serving a three-year prison sentence for tax evasion, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations.

Haney and his attorney did not respond to interview requests.

Prosecutors also are examining whether foreigners unlawfully contributed to the committee. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan issued a subpoena last year seeking a wide range of financial records from the committee, including any “communications regarding or relating to the possibility of donations by foreign nationals.”

The inaugural committee has denied wrongdoing and said its funds were fully accounted for.

Haney, 79, has previously faced accusations that his political gift giving is aimed at cultivating influence.

An investigation by House Republicans in the late 1990s alleged that Haney’s money and his political pull with senior Clinton administration officials helped him to get the Federal Communications Commission to move into an office building that he had a major stake in. Haney denied any wrongdoing and the Justice Department declined to pursue the matter.

But he was charged in 1999 with funneling about $100,000 in illegal contributions to President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other politicians, then acquitted. A federal prosecutor described Haney as a sophisticated fundraiser who hoped to impress potential business clients with his access to elected officials, like Clinton and Gore.

Haney’s family-owned real estate business donated thousands of dollars in 2013 and 2015 to political action committees that supported Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who later recommended that the nuclear plant Haney wanted to buy be put up for sale. Haney also contributed to a nonprofit created to promote Bentley’s agenda.

The Republican governor resigned in 2017 as he faced impeachment proceedings after an alleged affair with an aide.

In addition to the investigation into Haney’s contribution to the Trump inaugural committee, Haney is in an unrelated legal battle with the nuclear plant’s owner, the Tennessee Valley Authority. Another Haney company, Nuclear Development LLC, has filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the TVA, the nation’s largest public utility, of illegally blocking the plant’s sale to him at the last minute.

The utility has argued it couldn’t complete the transaction because Haney failed to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval for transfer of the construction permits.

A tentative Bellefonte sale in November 2016 involved two partially constructed nuclear reactors and the supporting cooling towers, several other buildings and more than 1,000 acres of land on the Tennessee River. Haney put down $22 million and had until November 2018 to complete the $111-million sale.

On Nov. 29, the day before the sale was to be closed, the TVA scrapped the deal, declaring that Haney’s company had not yet secured regulatory approval as required by the Atomic Energy Act. Haney filed a breach of contract lawsuit.

In early April, about five months after Nuclear Development submitted its application for transfer of the construction permits, the regulatory commission’s staff told the company it needed to submit more technical details before it could proceed.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the response reflected skepticism about whether Haney’s company “is serious about or capable of actually undertaking this project or just wants to put the license in its pocket for purposes unknown.”

But Lyman added the five-member nuclear regulatory board is dominated by Trump appointees and may not want to be seen by Congress and the Trump administration as throwing up roadblocks to a nuclear power expansion.

Haney’s Nuclear Development company also has applied to the U.S. Energy Department for financing assistance on the project. The department said it considers the loan application process to be “business sensitive” and declined to comment.

Stephen Smith, executive director of the nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said Haney faces too many technical and financial hurdles to overcome.

For example, Bellefonte’s never-completed nuclear reactors are decades old and are of a unique design that has never received an operating license in the U.S. before. He compared Bellefonte to a Ford Pinto, a 1970s-era vehicle with serious engineering flaws. Smith said it’s “extraordinarily unlikely” Bellefonte will be allowed to operate.
…

In Iowa, one of the whitest states in the nation, more than 100 black Democrats who expect to attend the 2020 caucuses crammed into a tiny community center in the capital city to position themselves as a force in the most wide-open presidential campaign in a generation.

“There is hope! There is hope, I tell you, the same hope that Barack Obama brought us,” Jamie Woods, former chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Black Caucus, implored the cheering group last month. 

In the state where Obama’s 2008 candidacy cleared its first important hurdle, black Democrats are energized as seldom seen, in part motivated by overwhelming dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump. That enthusiasm could make a difference in a state that holds a presidential caucus, which, unlike an open primary, attracts only the most motivated voters. That means a candidate who can rally more black voters in the caucuses can gain an outsized advantage, even though African Americans make up only 2% of Iowa’s population.

Iowa’s caucus, coming next February as the first event in the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating contest, is an early test of how voters are going to respond to nearly two dozen candidates and could be a harbinger of the primary a few weeks later in South Carolina, where African Americans comprise most of the Democratic primary electorate.

“They’re realizing that their voice needs to be heard,” said Deidre DeJear, the first African American to win a primary for statewide office in Iowa and now state chairwoman for Sen. Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign. “And they are using the platform they have whether they’re elected or whether just a regular voter.”

Stacey Walker, the first black county board chairman in Iowa’s second-most-populous metro area, said she hasn’t seen this kind of energy among black operatives, activists and officeholders in Iowa in years.

“Not since the Obama coalition have we seen so many persons of color actively engaged and inspired by our politics,” Walker said. “It hasn’t always been this way, and certainly not in Iowa.”

Giving an early indication of the energy within this small but influential segment of the caucus electorate, more than 200 black Democrats braved a driving ice storm in February to attend the Iowa Democratic Black Caucus winter fundraiser at a north Des Moines union hall. 

Candidates are looking to harness that energy. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a 2020 presidential candidate and former mayor of Newark, has convened city leaders, including Quentin Hart, the first black mayor of Iowa’s most densely African American city, Waterloo. Booker met Saturday with Shane McCampbell, the first black mayor of Burlington, along the Mississippi River in southeast Iowa.

Harris met privately with state Rep. Phyllis Thede, who is African American, before the four-term lawmaker moderated a campaign event for the California Democrat in eastern Iowa earlier this year.

In 2008, when Obama became the first African American to win the Iowa caucuses, 4% of caucus participants were black, double the percentage of the state’s overall black population. Obama received 76% of the black vote on caucus night. 

Non-black candidates are working to attract influential black supporters, who can help make the difference in a close race, especially given the crowded field. 

Amy Klobuchar, for instance, last month hired Woods, the former Iowa Black Democratic Caucus chairwoman, as her caucus campaign’s Iowa political director, giving the Minnesota senator a key ally in the competition for black votes. 

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang hired Al Womble, a black Des Moines-area businessman known for his behind-the-scenes organizing, as his Iowa campaign chairman.

Multiple black candidates in the race and the outreach by others in the crowded field create a different scenario than in 2008, when Obama was the only black candidate.

What’s more, most of the candidates put ending racial disparity in income and criminal justice atop their agendas.

“Even though we’re talking about racial disparity and white supremacy, and all this is bad, that this isn’t who we are. No one single candidate is leading the charge,” said Guy Nave, a Democrat from Decorah who is black and plans to attend the caucus. 

Iowa Democrats are predicting turnout in the 2020 caucuses will beat the record 237,000 set in 2008, as Trump’s approval in Iowa has struggled to top 50 percent. Meanwhile, candidates themselves are working to attract first-time caucus participants to eke out any advantage in a field that now numbers 23. 

That means even a narrow edge of support from African Americans, in combination with a coalition of other voters, could make the difference for the winner in Iowa next February, said former Iowa Democratic Party executive director Norm Sterzenbach.

“If you can find a candidate that has a stronghold in a particular demographic and is able to turn them out, that could turn into something extraordinary on caucus night,” said Sterzenbach, who is advising former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign.
…

President Donald Trump and U.S. lawmakers are away from Washington, but questions about possible impeachment of the president continue to swirl as the White House thwarts multiple investigations led by House Democrats after the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. While the House could impeach, Trump is virtually assured of remaining in office as there is almost zero chance the Republican-led Senate would convict him.

Democrats are using their House majority to investigate Trump and his administration on everything from the treatment of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border to the president’s foreign business dealings and tax returns. Democrats also want the Justice Department to release the full, unredacted Mueller report. The White House is blocking them at almost every turn, causing tempers to boil over.

“The Trump administration has taken obstruction of Congress to new heights,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

His words were echoed by Judiciary Committee member Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, also a Democrat.

“We have to surmise that this is an absolute lawless behavior by this administration,” she said.

The House is taking steps to hold key administration officials in contempt of Congress, but the body has a more potent – and explosive – option: formally leveling charges against Trump, or impeachment.

“What we need to do is at least be on that track and at least be in the process of impeachment,” said. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat.

Republicans see Democrats as desperately clinging to a narrative of presidential wrongdoing after special counsel Mueller found no collusion between Trump’s inner circle and Russia.

“The Democrats have no plans, no purpose, and no viable legislative agenda beyond attacking this administration,” said Rep. Doug Collins, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee.

And powerful Democratic leaders, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are wary of launching impeachment proceedings, at least for now.

“Impeachment is a very divisive place to go in our country. And we can get the facts to the American people, through our investigation. It may take us to a place where it is unavoidable, in terms of impeachment.”

Meanwhile, President Trump, sticking to his guns, called on Democrats to “get these phony investigations over with.”

Last week, Trump halted consultations with Democrats on a major initiative to modernize U.S. infrastructure until congressional probes are complete.

“You (Democrats) can go down the investigation track and you can go down the investment track – or the track of let’s get things done for the American people,” Trump said.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached, most recently Bill Clinton. The impeachment vote sullied Clinton’s record but did not lead to his removal from office. The same likely would be true for Trump. Democrats vying for the 2020 presidential nomination all want to oust Trump, but at the ballot box.

“It seems like every day or two, there is another affront to the rule of law … The best thing I can do to get us a new president is to win the nomination and defeat the president who’s there,” said Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democratic presidential candidate, one of more than twenty running to unseat Trump, speaking on ABC’s ‘This Week’ program.

Polls do not show the American people clamoring for Trump’s impeachment. Bill Clinton’s approval numbers actually rose after House Republicans launched impeachment proceedings against him in 1998.

 
…