Category Archives: World

Politics news. The world is the totality of entities, the whole of reality, or everything that exists. The nature of the world has been conceptualized differently in different fields. Some conceptions see the world as unique while others talk of a “plurality of worlds”. Some treat the world as one simple object while others analyse the world as a complex made up of parts

Democrats Blast Trump Diversion of Pentagon Money to Border Wall 

Congressional Democrats on Wednesday criticized a plan to divert money from Defense Department projects to fund President Donald Trump’s U.S.-Mexico border wall under emergency powers. 

At a committee hearing that yielded a few new details about how Trump wants to move money between accounts without the approval of Congress, the Democratic chairwoman of the panel delivered a harsh rebuke to Pentagon witnesses. 

“I’m not sure what kind of chumps you think my colleagues and I are,” said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who chairs the Appropriations military construction subcommittee. 

‘Circumventing Congress’

“What you are doing is circumventing Congress to get funding for the wall, which you could not get during the conference process,” she said, referring to a bipartisan spending measure approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump on Feb. 14. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert McMahon told the panel that no military construction projects already approved by Congress would be canceled. He said there could be deferrals of projects for which funds have not yet been dispensed. 

McMahon said that no money would be taken away from housing for soldiers and that the Pentagon would target project deferrals with “no or minimal operational readiness risks.” 

He said the Pentagon will ask that any funding that is deferred be fully replenished in next year’s appropriations bills making their way through Congress in coming months. 

Which projects?

Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas urged McMahon to inform Congress of the specific projects the Pentagon would defer. He said specific decisions had not yet been made. 

Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine expressed concern that a deferral could delay maintenance at a Portsmouth naval shipyard in her state. She also said she feared that the White House could target projects in congressional districts whose House members voted to terminate Trump’s emergency declaration. 

On the day he signed the bipartisan spending measure — which provided $1.37 billion for physical barriers on the border, but not the $5.7 billion he wanted for his wall — Trump declared a national emergency at the border, saying that would empower him to shift money from other accounts to his wall. 

The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a resolution to terminate the emergency order, although the Senate has not yet acted on the measure. Even if the Senate approved it, Trump would likely veto it. 

States’ lawsuit

Democrats say the order tramples on Congress’ constitutional authority to make major decisions about spending U.S. taxpayer funds. A coalition of 16 U.S. states has already sued Trump to block his emergency declaration. 

The White House has identified $3.6 billion in Pentagon construction projects that it says can be tapped for building the wall, which Trump first proposed when he was a presidential candidate. At that time, he promised Mexico would pay for it. Since Mexico has refused, he now wants U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill. 

Trump says a wall is needed to fight illegal immigration and crime; Democrats say it would be too costly and ineffective and that there is no actual emergency at the southern border. 

US House Passes Gun Control Bill

The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday passed the most significant gun control bill in years, expanding background checks to include gun shows and internet sales.

The vote was 240 to 190, with Congressman Mike Thompson of California calling it a “new day” in Congress, with Democrats in control and making a “commitment to address the issue of gun violence.”

Maryland Democrat Stenny Hoyer said a background check bill was never allowed to come to a vote when Republicans controlled the House.

“The carnage that we’ve seen perpetrated by gun violence over the last decade has heightened the American people’s concern,” adding that he believes 90 percent of Americans support the bill.

Loopholes would be closed

Wednesday’s bill would close the loopholes that allow people in most states to buy guns from other gun owners at shows and over the internet without the usual backgrounds checks licensed gun stores are required to carry out.

The House plans to vote on a second bill Thursday to expand the time allowed to conduct a background check from just a few minutes, in some cases, to at least 10 days.

The two bills are likely to face stronger opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate, where opponents say it will do nothing from stopping a criminal from getting a weapon.

President Donald Trump has said he supports expanding background checks for gun buyers. But the White House says his advisors would recommend a veto, claiming the bills would infringe on Second Amendment rights and place a burden on legitimate buyers.

Openness an Asset, US Transgender Service Members Say

Members of a U.S. House Armed Services subcommittee on Wednesday heard testimony from five transgender members of the U.S. military, just over a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can ban future transgender members of the military. 

 

The ruling made Jan. 22, 2019, said transgender men and women already serving in the military can stay, but any further applicants who have already undergone a gender transition could be barred from the service. 

 

Members of the service with gender dysphoria, or a feeling that their physical gender does not match the gender they feel themselves to be, would be required to serve as their physical gender. 

 

The Trump administration said the restrictions were necessary because of “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of having transgender military personnel serve.    

But the five transgender witnesses Wednesday testified that their openness about their gender identity has helped other service members to be transparent as well.  

  

U.S. Army Capt. Alivia Stehlik, a physical therapist, said her patients have told her they could be more honest with her because of her own authenticity about her identity. She said that has made her more effective at her work.  

  

Army Capt. Jennifer Peace said, “I consider myself to be a prime example of what a transgender service member can do.” She said she fears that the new ban would keep transgender service members already on the force from taking opportunities that would require leaving the military, because they would be banned from returning.  

Staff Sgt. Patricia King said the people under her command were readier for combat because her transgender status made for a more open atmosphere. “There were no secrets, no false bravado, no hiding,” she said. “We built cohesion in a way that I have never seen in my 19 years of service. That’s the value of openness.” 

 

And Jesse Ehrenfeld, a U.S. Navy veteran who now studies gay and lesbian health at Vanderbilt University, said there is “no medically valid reason to exclude gender-transitioned individuals from military service.”  

  

He added, “There is nothing about being transgender that diminishes an individual’s ability to serve. … Banning transgender troops harms readiness through forced dishonesty.” 

 

The Trump administration introduced the transgender ban in July 2017 via a tweet by the president. Civil rights groups have sued to overturn the restrictions.

Nadler: Former US AG Whitaker to Clarify House Testimony

Former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker agreed to meet with lawmakers to clarify his testimony, a congressional leader said on Tuesday, referring to an appearance where Whitaker was quizzed about whether President Donald Trump had sought to influence investigations.

“I want to thank Mr. Whitaker for volunteering to meet with us to clarify his @HouseJudiciary testimony,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, tweeted, saying he hoped to schedule Whitaker in the “coming days.”

Lawmakers have not said what Whitaker will address from his Feb. 8 testimony, which Nadler previously said was “unsatisfactory, incomplete, or contradicted by other evidence.”

But the most persistent questions then focused on whether Whitaker had contact with Trump about an investigation into hush-money payments to women during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney.

The Justice Department, which has already said Whitaker stands by his testimony, had no immediate comment.

The brief tenure of Whitaker as head of the Justice Department ended on Feb. 14 when the Senate confirmed Trump’s choice of permanent Attorney General William Barr.

The Judiciary Committee has obtained possible evidence suggesting that Trump asked Whitaker about possibly changing the prosecutor in charge of the hush-money probe, said a person familiar with the matter.

A House Judiciary Committee spokesman and a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment.

If true, such a request by Trump could bolster Democratic efforts to show that the president has sought to influence law enforcement investigations against him and his associates.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is said to be close to ending a 21-month investigation into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump; whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Moscow; and whether Trump has since obstructed justice.

Russia has denied meddling. Trump has denied any collusion.

The Mueller probe has clouded his presidency for many months.

Nadler’s panel has information suggesting that Trump asked Whitaker if U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman could take control of an investigation of Cohen by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, said the source who asked not to be identified.

Berman is a former law partner of another Trump attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Trump dismissed as false a report in the New York Times last week about a similar request to Whitaker.

Congressional investigators now have information that such a request was made and that Whitaker provided misleading testimony to the panel while under oath during his contentious Feb. 8 hearing, the source said.

In that session, Whitaker testified he had not talked to Trump about the probe and had not interfered with it in any way.

He also denied media reports that claimed that Trump had lashed out at Whitaker after he learned Cohen was pleading guilty to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow.

Nadler said then that media reports contradicted Whitaker’s testimony and that “several individuals” had direct knowledge of phone calls Whitaker denied receiving from the White House.

Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations, including making payments to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Cohen said he made those payments at the direction of Trump.

Both women have claimed they had affairs with Trump. He has denied having sex with Daniels and denied McDougal’s claim.

Cohen testified behind closed doors to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. He is expected to testify publicly on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee.

Trump Threatens to Veto Gun Bills Pushed by Democrats

President Donald Trump is threatening to veto two Democratic bills expanding federal background checks on gun purchases, saying they do not sufficiently protect gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.

The House is expected to vote this week on separate bills requiring background checks for all sales and transfers of firearms and extending the background-check review from three to 10 days.

The bills are the first in a series of steps planned by majority House Democrats to tighten gun laws after eight years of Republican control.

The White House says in a veto message that the bill expanding background checks would impose unreasonable requirements on gun owners. It says the bill could block someone from borrowing a firearm for self-defense or allowing a neighbor to take care of a gun while traveling.

The other bill, extending the review period for a background check, “would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm,” the White House said.

The bill would close the so-called Charleston loophole used by the shooter in a 2015 massacre at a historic black church to buy a gun. But the White House said allowing the federal government to “restrict firearms purchases through bureaucratic delay would undermine the Second Amendment’s guarantee that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Earlier Trump pledge

Democrats accused Trump of hypocrisy, noting that Trump advocated for strengthening background checks after 17 people were shot and killed at a Florida high school a year ago.

At a meeting with survivors and family members of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, Trump promised to be “very strong on background checks.” And he suggested he supported allowing some teachers and other school employees to carry concealed weapons to be ready for intruders.

A week later, during a televised meeting with lawmakers at the White House, Trump wagged his finger at a Republican senator and scolded him for being “afraid of the NRA.” The president declared that he would stand up to the gun lobby and finally get results in quelling gun violence.

Trump’s words rattled some Republicans in Congress and sparked hope among gun-control advocates that, unlike after previous mass shootings, tougher regulations would be enacted. But Trump later retreated on those words, expressing support for modest changes to the federal background check system, as well as for arming teachers.

‘Empty words’

The Democratic National Committee said in a statement Tuesday that Trump’s initial pledge to take on the National Rifle Association and address gun violence “were just empty words.”

Trump “had the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, and instead said he would veto bipartisan legislation” to expand background checks, the DNC said.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump was ignoring the threat of gun violence even as he declared a national emergency so he could siphon billions of dollars from the military to fund his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The gun violence epidemic in the United States of America is an actual national emergency. The days of this House burying its head in the sand are now over,” Jeffries said Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the two gun bills to be voted on this week are “something that the overwhelming majority of the American people will want us to support.”

EPA Defends Enforcement Record, Despite Drop in Penalties

The Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement chief on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s work, despite a report by her own agency showing that civil and criminal crackdowns on polluters have dropped sharply in the past two years.

Assistant administrator Susan Bodine, who heads the office of enforcement, said the idea that EPA is soft on enforcement is “absolutely not true,” adding that the agency is giving states a greater role in regulation and enforcement and stressing education and voluntary compliance by companies.

Bodine told a House subcommittee that a media “narrative” about lax enforcement “discredits the tremendous work of the compliance and assurance staff” at EPA.

“A strong environment program doesn’t mean we have to collect a particular dollar amount or pick up a number of penalties,” Bodine said.

But Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said EPA’s own statistics show an agency that’s “sitting on its hands” and “giving polluters a free pass. And it’s putting our health and environment at risk.”

When EPA enforcement activities go down, “pollution goes up. That’s a fact,” said DeGette, who chairs an Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The EPA has been one of the most active agencies in carrying out President Donald Trump’s deregulatory goals. Environmental and public health groups say the business-friendly rollbacks place public health and the environment at greater risk, a claim Democrats repeatedly made at Tuesday’s hearing.

The hearing was the first oversight hearing on EPA since Democrats reclaimed the House majority last month.

Congress has enacted a series of laws to protect health and the environment, “and this panel will not sit back and allow this administration to simply ignore those laws,” DeGette said. “We expect the EPA to do its job.”

Historically low levels

The latest numbers from EPA show its overall enforcement activities for 2018 were at historically low levels, according to an agency report earlier this month.

The EPA assessed polluters a total of $69 million in civil penalties in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the lowest dollar amount since EPA created the enforcement office in 1994, the report showed.

Inspections and evaluations dropped to about 10,600, half the number EPA conducted at its peak in 2010.

Civil investigations carried out by the agency declined to 22 last year, down from 40 in 2017 and 125 in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration.

Criminal fines and restitution tumbled, from $207 million in 2016 and $3 billion in 2017, which includes a $2.8 billion fine against Volkswagen over emissions-rigging in a case initiated under the Obama administration — to $86 million last year.

Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the full energy panel, told Bodine there was “no way to sugarcoat these numbers.”

Pallone, D-N.J., said it appears that under Trump, the EPA “is relying on industry to voluntarily come forward and disclose when they are not in compliance” with federal laws.

Pallone scoffed at that idea and said EPA must have a robust enforcement presence, with active inspections and investigations and, where appropriate, referrals to the Justice Department.

Pallone and other Democrats questioned Bodine about reports that EPA has lost 17 percent of its enforcement staff since 2017. Bodine disputed that, saying the agency has 607 enforcement employees of 649 authorized by Congress. More inspectors are being hired, including eight in March, she said.

‘Carrot and stick’ approach

Bodine challenged Democrats’ contention that higher penalties lead to improved compliance.

“Enforcement is a critical tool but it’s not an end to itself,” she said, adding that EPA uses a “carrot and stick” approach that ranges from helping companies better understand their obligations to supporting state enforcement actions “all the way to putting people in jail for knowing and egregious violations that endanger public health or the environment.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., said Bodine appeared to be making excuses.

“I think it’s fairly clear EPA is not doing its job as it should,” said Castor, who chairs a special House committee on climate change.

“I’m sorry you feel that way,” Bodine replied.

House to Vote on Measure to Revoke Trump’s Border National Emergency

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass a measure Tuesday to revoke President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the country’s southern border.

Democrats introduced the bill after Trump’s February 15 declaration, arguing his actions went against the constitutional separation of powers that gives Congress control over how federal money is spent.

Democratic control of the House means the bill is sure to pass there. Several Republicans in the Senate have indicated they would support the measure as well, but it remains to be seen if enough would join Democrats there to send the bill to Trump’s desk.

What seems certain is that once there, Trump would use his veto power to kill the initiative, and that there would not be enough votes in Congress to override the veto.

Trump has argued since his campaign for president that the United States needs a wall along its border with Mexico to stop people from entering the country illegally and to halt the flow of drugs. 

He demanded Congress approve $5.7 billion in spending for wall construction, but Democrats refused, saying a wall is an expensive and ineffective way to address border security issues. Instead, they agreed to a border security spending package that included nearly $1.4 billion for about 90 kilometers of border barriers in Texas.

Trump’s emergency declaration allows him to reallocate about $6 billion in money already approved for other purposes, most of it from the Defense Department.

On Monday, a group of 58 former U.S. national security officials, both Republicans and Democrats, issued a statement saying Trump had “no factual basis” to declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Signatories included former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, along with former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former United Nations Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former Defense chief and Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta and former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen.

Another letter from 28 former Republican members of Congress expressed their disapproval for Trump’s declaration, saying it undermined both Congress and the Constitution.

Bernie Sanders Says He’ll Soon Release Decade of Tax Returns

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday pledged to “sooner than later” make public 10 years of his tax returns and vowed to support the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, saying he held no grudges against the Democratic National Committee over his unsuccessful 2016 campaign.

 

Sanders appeared at a town hall hosted by CNN ahead of the official launch of his 2020 presidential campaign with events this weekend in Brooklyn, where he grew up, and Chicago, where he graduated from college. He joins a crowded field of nearly a dozen other contenders, including a number of fellow senators.

 

Asked Monday whether he would release a decade’s worth of his tax returns, as 2020 rival Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has already done, Sanders said that he would.

 

“Our tax returns will bore you to death, nothing special about them,” Sanders said, adding that his wife, Jane, does most of his taxes rather than using an accountant.

 

Sanders’ fellow contenders for the Democratic nomination have made similar pledges of transparency, in stark contrast with President Donald Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, saying they are under audit. He is the only president in modern history to decline to do so.

 

During his first presidential bid, Sanders endured questioning by Hillary Clinton over why he had not released several years of his tax returns and had instead opted to release just his 2014 tax returns. Sanders said Monday that he would have released more of his tax returns had he been the Democratic nominee.

 

Sanders’ plan to release a decade’s worth of tax returns was first reported by National Journal.

 

Sanders took questions from attendees in Washington on a variety of issues, including allegations of sexual harassment and other mistreatment of female staffers who worked on his first presidential campaign.

 

Sanders said his 2018 senatorial campaign had instituted strong protocols to handle any incidents of harassment. He said that all staffers on his presidential campaign would receive training on harassment and would have access to an independent entity if they experience harassment.

 

“I was very upset to learn what I learned,” Sanders said, adding, “It was very painful, very painful.”

 

Sanders clashed with the DNC during his first White House bid, especially after WikiLeaks released stolen documents and emails in which DNC officials appeared to support Clinton’s campaign over Sanders’. Sanders said Monday that he did not have lingering issues with the DNC, despite believing the group was “not quite even-handed” in 2016.

 

“I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anyone else,” Sanders said.

 

In response to a question Monday, he defended the role he played as a surrogate for Clinton’s campaign after she won the nomination. He referenced an October 2016 letter sent to him by Clinton in which she thanked him for campaigning for her in multiple states.

 

Sanders said he would back the eventual 2020 Democratic nominee, whomever that may be.

 

“I hope and believe that every Democratic candidate will come together after the nominee is selected and make certain that Donald Trump is not re-elected president of the United States,” Sanders said. “I pledge certainly to do that.”

 

Asked how he would engage with Trump on the debate stage if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, Sanders said he would “bring a lie detector along.”

 

“Every time he lies, it goes ‘beep,'” Sanders said as the audience laughed. “That would be the first thing.”

Court Filing: Manafort Asks Judge for Sentence Far Below the Maximum

Lawyers for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Monday asked a federal judge in Washington to impose a prison term “significantly below the statutory maximum” when he is sentenced on March 13, according to a court filing.

Manafort pleaded guilty in a federal court in Washington last September to conspiracy against the United States — a charge that includes a range of conduct from money laundering to unregistered lobbying — and conspiracy to obstruct justice for attempts to tamper with witnesses.

He can be sentenced up to five years for each count, for a statutory maximum of 10 years.

“We respectfully request that the Court impose a sentence significantly below the statutory maximum sentence in this case,” Manafort’s lawyers said in the filing.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team said in a filing on Saturday that Manafort, 69, “repeatedly and brazenly” broke the law, and argued he did not deserve leniency at sentencing.

While Mueller did not recommend a specific sentence, he portrayed Manafort as a “hardened” criminal who was at risk of repeating criminal behavior if released from prison.

Mueller is investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and any collusion between Russia and the campaign of President Donald Trump.

Russia denies trying to interfere in the election, and Trump says his team did not collude with Moscow.

Manafort is due to be sentenced on March 8 in a separate case in Alexandria, Virginia. He faces up to 25 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines in that case, in which he was convicted last year of financial crimes.

In Monday’s filing, Manafort’s lawyers asked the Washington judge to impose a concurrent sentence if he receives prison sentences in both cases.

Trump Goes After Spike Lee After Oscars Speech

President Donald Trump is going after director Spike Lee, who used his Oscar acceptance speech to urge mobilization for the 2020 election.

Trump tweeted Monday that Lee did a “racist hit on your President.” Trump claimed that he had “done more for African Americans” than “almost” any other president.  

Lee won for best adapted screenplay for his white supremacist drama “BlacKkKlansman,”  sharing the award with three co-writers. The film includes footage of Trump after the violent white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Lee did not directly name Trump. He spoke about black history and his family history, saying his grandmother’s mother was a slave, before stressing the presidential election next year.

 

Said Lee: “Let’s all be on the right side of history. Make the moral choice between love versus hate.”

Former US Security Officials to Oppose Emergency Declaration

A group of 58 former U.S. national security officials, both Republicans and Democrats, contended Monday that President Donald Trump had “no factual basis” to declare a national emergency to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to thwart illegal immigration.

“Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border,” the group said.

The officials who signed the statement included former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, along with former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former United Nations Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former Defense chief and Central Intelligence Agency director Leon Panetta and former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen.

Trump declared the emergency 10 days ago to circumvent congressional refusal to give him the $5.7 billion he wanted to build the border wall he says is necessary to block illegal migrants and criminals from entering the United States and to interdict drug shipments. Congress approved $1.375 billion for border barriers, but none for a wall.

WATCH: Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, a U.S. president has broad power to declare a national emergency. But what does that mean?

Trump did not respond directly to the statement by the former security officials, but defended his plans for a wall at a White House meeting with the country’s state governors.

“You take a look at Tijuana, Mexico,” Trump said. “Thousands and thousands of people are sitting there trying to get into our country. And if we didn’t have that wall there that we’ve totally renovated and fixed, if we didn’t have that wall, it would be impossible even for the military to stop them.”

He added, “It’s incredible, what that wall has done. And that’s not even the upper, you know, the best of our walls. We have a great system now. We have a prototype. We expect to have 250 to 300 miles of wall built in the very near future. It’s actually a beautiful wall, it’s a beautiful looking—actually, you know, I’ve always said part of the wall was that previous administrations when they did little walls, they built them so badly. So badly, so unattractive. So—I wouldn’t want them in my backyard.”

“And the new one is incredible looking,” he concluded. “It’s a piece of art, in a sense. And by the way, it’s more effective. It’s more effective.” 

But the former security officials said that contrary to Trump’s claim, there is no emergency at the border, noting that illegal border crossings are at nearly 40-year lows. They also said there is no drug trafficking emergency at the border since “the overwhelming majority of opioids” enter the country through legal ports of entry, a contention supported by government statistics but one that Trump disputes.

Trump plans to tap about $8 billion in government funds already earmarked for other projects to build the wall, including some designated for the Defense Department. But the former security officials claimed that redirecting the money “will undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.”

The officials’ statement comes a day before the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is likely to reject Trump’s national emergency declaration. A majority of House members has signed on to the resolution opposing Trump’s action.

The measure would then head to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, although several Republican lawmakers have voiced opposition to the emergency declaration. Whether they eventually will join Democrats in voting to oppose Trump’s action is uncertain.

Trump has started lobbying fellow Republicans to stand with him in support of the emergency declaration.

“I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security,” he said on Twitter. “Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country – and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats ‘trap’ of Open Borders and Crime!”

Sixteen states and other groups have sued to block the emergency declaration, but court hearings on the dispute have yet to held.

Top Democrat to Sue Justice Department if Mueller Report is Withheld

A top House Democrat says his committee will sue the Trump administration if the Justice Department withholds the Mueller report from the public.

“We will obviously subpoena the report, we will bring Bob Mueller in to testify before Congress, we will take it to court, if necessary,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff told ABC’s This Week program Sunday.

“We are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to share this information with the public and if the president is serious about all of his claims of exoneration, then he should welcome the publication of this report.”

Reports say Robert Mueller is wrapping up his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to turn the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor, and if the president obstructed justice in the probe.

Mueller will hand over his report to the Justice Department which, based on Mueller’s recommendations, will decide if anyone should be charged with a crime.

Attorney General William Barr failed to make it clear during his confirmation hearings whether he would release the report to the public.

But Barr said in his written testimony that he wants as much “transparency” as he can.

“If he were to try to withhold or try to bury any part of this report, that will be his legacy and it will be a tarnished legacy,” Schiff said. “So I think there will be immense pressure not only on the department, but on the attorney general to be forthcoming.”

While many Republicans also say they believe the public needs to know the whole story, Republican Senator Roy Blunt said he does not think Congress can subpoena the report.

But Blunt said “We need to get the facts out there, get this behind us in a way that people thought that anybody that should have been talked to was talked to, any question that schooled have been asked was asked.”

Blunt appeared on CBS television’s Face the Nation.

Teens Tweet Trump, Find Senate Ally, Score Civil Rights Win

All the bill needed to become law was President Donald Trump’s signature. It would create a national archive of documents from civil rights cold cases. Students had been working on the project for years, families waiting on it for decades. But time was running out.

Legislation dies in the transition from one session of Congress to the next, and unless Trump acted, it would be lost.

So the students at New Jersey’s Hightstown High School did what teenagers do: They started tweeting at the president.

And not just Trump. They tweeted at his advisers, his staff and even Trump-friendly celebrities whose thousands of followers could carry their message to the White House.

As the deadline neared, Oslene Johnson, 19, was managing the project’s Twitter account from under the blankets in her bedroom and trying not to be discouraged.

“When you really look at it, it’s about providing closure for communities, families, and also as a country,” said Johnson, who has since graduated but still works with the students.

Imagine, the class considered, all the people, African-Americans mostly, who have lived with questions about what happened to their loved ones 50 years or more ago. The killings and injuries have long passed. The perpetrators are gone. But the families, she said, “they’re still with us.”

The students’ interest began in 2015, when teacher Stuart Wexler’s Advanced Placement government and policy class at Hightstown High was studying the civil rights movement. They couldn’t believe that in America, so many criminal cases involving racial violence and death could remain unsolved.

Srihari Suvramanian, 17, a senior, said in an Associated Press telephone interview with the class: “It’s just atrocious that these individuals have gotten away with crimes committed decades ago, for so long, even though the majority of Americans know it’s wrong.”

He added: “We think it’s very important to provide a sense of closure. Even if we can’t get a full sense of closure, maybe provide some answers to the people that were denied justice.”

The students crowdsourced a list of cases, filed Freedom of Information Act requests and then waited. Research on old cases often runs into dead ends, and they could imagine the difficulties that families go through trying to get answers.

They turned their attention to Congress.

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which collects records at the National Archives from the assassination, provided a model for the legislation they wanted. They took bus trips to Washington to find supporters. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., was among the first to sign on, inspired, his office said, by the work and the possibility it held.

Then Democrat Doug Jones won a Senate seat from Alabama in December 2017. They had already reached out to Jones, the U.S. attorney who won convictions after reopening the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing case from 1963 in Birmingham.

Six months after he was sworn in as the first Democratic senator from Alabama in a generation, Jones stood on the Senate floor and introduced the bill that would become the Civil Rights Cold Case Collection Act. The students watched from the gallery above.

“Justice can take many forms,” Jones said. Reconciliation can be a potent force, he said. “After all this time, we might not solve every one of these cold cases, but my hope is, our efforts today will, at the very least, help us find some long overdue healing and understanding of the truth.”

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who was presiding in the chamber that day, has said he was so moved that he told Jones he would sign on as a co-sponsor. Cruz helped bring Republicans on board. By December, in the final days of the congressional session, the bill unanimously passed the Senate and was approved in the House, 376-6. From there, it was off to the president’s desk.

But the students worried the bill would expire when the new Congress convened in January.

“We went on a mad, desperate scramble to get the president to sign the bill,” said James Ward, a 17 year-old senior who helped mobilize the student body, class by class, “to take out their phones and tweet.”

In Wexler’s classroom, students posted photos of Trump’s “midnight advisers” — aides, media celebrities — and started putting “X’s” through the ones they had reached out to. “We were tweeting at as many people as we could,” Suvramanian recalled.

He was finishing class one afternoon when he dashed off an email to Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax and a Trump ally. “He got back to me within 30 minutes,” the teenager said. After a short exchange, another note came back, “He said, ‘I dropped a message to the president around 10 minutes ago and I really hope your bill gets signed into law.’”

Even with the new Congress starting the next day, the actual deadline for signing the bill was still a week away — the night of Trump’s border security address to the nation amid what became the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Johnson, a student leader when the project started, tried not to lose hope as she tweeted. She had graduated and moved on, as had many other students. There have been dozens in all, over the past several years, who had been involved in the project.

Then word came. Jones’ office told Wexler, who told the students: Trump had signed the bill, which focuses on unsolved criminal cases from 1940 until 1980.

Johnson cried.

“The families could now, with access to information, at least know something about what happened,” she said.

Along with Trump’s signature came a lengthy signing statement of potential concerns about the process for review and public release of the documents, but also support for Congress to fund the effort. Ruddy confirmed he had reached out to the White House, impressed by the students. He thinks the president would have been, too.

Margaret Burnham, a law professor at Northeastern University and director of the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project, said what Wexler and his class did was “nothing short of amazing.”

“The creativity was not so much in framing potentially effective legislation, but in strategizing how to get it through the Congress,” said Burnham, who has worked for years on these issues and similar efforts in Washington. “That’s where Stuart and his students, over several classes, were just dogged — and creative, incredibly creative — in their ability to persuade Congress, people on both sides of the aisle, of the meaning and continuing urgency and significance of this issue.”

Tahj Linton, 17, said he hopes other Americans understand the power they have to shape political outcomes. “If we can start to solve some of the racial problems that were never really closed in the past decades or 50 years or so, maybe we can start to work on the ones that are happening today and make a difference about it,” he said.

US Senate to Consider ‘Green New Deal’

In coming days, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider the Green New Deal, the most ambitious and sweeping measure to combat climate change ever put before Congress, as Republicans push to vote on a proposal they oppose but believe will split Democrats and make them vulnerable ahead of the 2020 elections.

A non-binding resolution introduced earlier this month, the New Green Deal aims to rapidly forge a carbon emissions-free economy while fighting economic and racial inequality. It calls for a 10-year “national mobilization” to remake power production, transportation, manufacturing and farming.  It also sets forth wide-ranging guarantees for worker retraining, higher education, health care, and retirement benefits, with special emphasis on disadvantaged sectors and those currently facing risks from a warming planet.

“We choose to assert ourselves as a global leader in transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy,” New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at a recent news conference outside the Capitol. “We should do it because we should lead. We should do it because we are an example to the world.”

“We will save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation,” Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said. “When we talk about a Green New Deal, we are talking about jobs and justice.”

Republicans have a different take on the resolution.

“This Green New Deal is nothing more than a socialist agenda disguised as feel-good environmental policy,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said. “This is, in reality, a new entitlement program on steroids.”

Noting an estimated price tag in the trillions of dollars and the many promises the measure makes to multiple constituencies, Cornyn added, “They [proponents] might have thrown in free beer and pizza, too.”

Another Republican, Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, labelled the Green New Deal “a raw deal for the American public.”

Barrasso said, “This is just so extreme, way out of the mainstream of the American public, to the point that it is scary.”

But it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are pressing for a vote. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California pointedly declined to endorse the Green New Deal at a recent news conference, saying, “There are all kinds of ideas coming forward” but stressing that a “well-defined approach” is needed “to make a difference.”

By contrast, the Senate’s Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, could barely suppress a smile when announcing a vote on a measure his entire caucus opposes.

“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate and give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell recently told reporters.

Climate change activists said they are energized.

“I’m excited,” Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club’s living economy program, told VOA. “It [Green New Deal] is a bold program to transition from an economy of low wages and climate pollution to one driven by dignified work and 100 percent clean energy for all.”

Some Democrats, meanwhile, are feeling the pressure. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein drew criticism on social media for her response to a youth group that urged her to vote in favor of the Green New Deal.

“It [carbon emissions] is not going to get turned around in 10 years [as the resolution mandates],” Feinstein said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing.”

But if Republicans believe they have set a trap for Democrats, Senate Democrats are determined to fight back when floor debate on climate change begins.

“Go for it. Bring it on,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in response to McConnell’s vote announcement. “I challenge Leader McConnell to say that our climate change crisis is real, that it is caused by humans, and that Congress needs to act.”

The forthcoming floor debate likely will expose divisions among Democrats on how to respond to climate change. But Democrats predicted Republicans will be even more exposed.

“We [Democrats] have never been more fired up,” Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said. “We’re going to take this opportunity to have a real debate about climate, because Republicans do not have a plan to address climate change.”

Proponents don’t deny the Green New Deal is strong medicine, insisting the time for half-measures is over.

“Climate change isn’t far-off and hypothetical. It’s here and now,” Beachy said. “Just last year, direct impacts from climate change in the United States killed hundreds of people and cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. So it’s already here and it’s only going to get worse unless we act at the scale and speed that justice and science and demand.”

Critics see the resolution as a costly economic disaster in the making.

“It would be a central planning, one-size-fits-all solution from Washington,” Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards told VOA. “While it has nice warm and fuzzy language about helping people, I think some of the top-down proposals would actually end up hurting people.”

Edwards noted that the free market is producing more energy efficient automobiles and appliances than existed a generation ago, arguing that a downward trend in energy consumption is already underway without massive governmental intervention.

Where Edwards sees unnecessary and harmful federal meddling, Beachy sees opportunity.

“We have a really big opportunity to renew our neglected infrastructure in this country. And doing so would simultaneously create new jobs, help ensure clean air and water, and tackle climate change,” Beachy said.

Polls show Americans increasingly concerned about a warming planet and destructive weather patterns. But that concern has yet to spur substantive congressional action.

“Yes, most Americans think climate change is real, it’s a problem,” Progressive Policy Institute founder Will Marshall said. “But they also don’t really rank it up there with health care, with the economy, with immigration, with issues they think are more pressing priorities for the country. That means that there isn’t a movement now to support the most ambitious definitions of what this Green New Deal means.”

With Republicans opposed and Democrats divided, the Green New Deal is expected to be soundly defeated in any final Senate vote. Proponents hope, at very least, it serves to advance America’s discourse on climate change and what might be done about it.

Pentagon Chief: Border Security Needs Broader Approach

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday after visiting the U.S.-Mexico border that the government needs a broader, more effective approach to border control. He suggested the Pentagon might contribute with its expertise in surveillance and monitoring.

“How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issue,” Shanahan said in an interview while flying back to Washington.

Considering how the military could reinforce efforts to block drug smuggling and other illegal activity comes as the Pentagon weighs diverting billions of dollars for President Donald Trump’s border wall.

Shanahan said he was not volunteering the Pentagon to take over any part of border control, which is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. But he said his visit led him to question whether there should be a “wholesale redesign” of the way border control is done by the federal government.

Shanahan said the Pentagon is willing to continue supporting the DHS but wants to see a longer-term solution.

“I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem,” he said.

​Surveillance, reconnaissance expertise

The Pentagon, for example, has agreed to temporarily provide active-duty troops to operate Border Patrol vehicles whose cameras can surveil wide areas along the border. Shanahan said this will free up the Border Patrol to do other important aspects of their mission. He said this is a function that could be developed more fully with the benefit of decades of U.S. military experience with ground and aerial reconnaissance and surveillance around the world.

In addition to speaking with Border Patrol agents and other leaders during his visit, Shanahan flew in a V-22 Osprey aircraft along dozens of miles of border west of El Paso, including two areas where DHS is proposing to replace vehicle barriers with 18-foot and 30-foot border walls.

Shanahan and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, visited a border site called Monument Site 3 where a stretch of 18-foot border wall stands atop a huge landfill. They also got a close look at Border Patrol vehicles used for surveillance. Vehicle-mounted surveillance cameras can see as far as eight miles away.

High-priority projects

During the visit Shanahan tried his hand at firing a couple of Border Patrol weapons, including one that fires plastic bullets.

The two border control sites farther west are on a list of high-priority projects DHS submitted to Shanahan Friday to support its request for money to pay for construction of roads, replacement of vehicle barriers and dilapidated pedestrian fencing, and installation of lighting. The pedestrian fencing would include detection systems that could alert border patrol agents when someone is attempting to damage or break through the fencing. The money would come from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction programs.

One such project proposed by DHS, dubbed “El Paso Project 1,” includes segments of border west of El Paso, in Luna and Dona Ana counties, in New Mexico. This is among areas DHS cites as known drug smuggling corridors used by Mexican cartels.

These projects are separate from, but related to, those Shanahan is expected to pay for by diverting money that Congress appropriated for military construction projects. This could total as much as $3.6 billion, although Shanahan has not yet determined that the diversion is justified. His visit Saturday was meant to help him decide whether to approve such spending.

DHS has yet to provide the details that Shanahan says he needs before making his decision on the repurposing of military construction funds. He has said he is likely to provide the full $3.6 billion the White House is expecting, plus $2.5 billion from the drug interdiction program. Trump authorized the use of these military funds when he declared a national emergency to build a wall.

Corps of Engineers

Wall construction would be done under contracts managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, whose commander, Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, accompanied Shanahan on Saturday. The Corps has built 126 miles (203 kilometers) of border wall in the last two years — mostly replacement barriers, Semonite told reporters.

There are about 2,900 active-duty troops and about 2,100 National Guard troops on the border in support of Customs and Border Protection. That combined total of 5,000 is expected to grow to 6,000 by March 1 as the Pentagon provides additional support.

The border mission for active-duty forces began on Oct. 30, 2018, as Trump asserted that caravans of Central American migrants posed an urgent national security threat. Critics dismissed his use of the military on the border as a political gimmick on the eve of midterm congressional elections. The active-duty mission has since been extended to Sept. 30.

Mueller: Manafort ‘Brazenly Violated the Law’ for Years

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort committed crimes that cut to “the heart of the criminal justice system” and over the years deceived everyone from bookkeepers and banks to federal prosecutors and his own lawyers, according to a sentencing memo filed Saturday by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

In the memo, submitted in one of two criminal cases Manafort faces, prosecutors do not yet take a position on how much prison time he should serve or whether to stack the punishment on top of a separate sentence he will soon receive in a Virginia prosecution. But they do depict Manafort as a longtime and unrepentant criminal who committed “bold” crimes, including under the spotlight of his role as campaign chairman and later while on bail, and who does not deserve any leniency.

“For over a decade, Manafort repeatedly and brazenly violated the law,” prosecutors wrote. “His crimes continued up through the time he was first indicted in October 2017 and remarkably went unabated even after indictment.”

Citing Manafort’s lies to the FBI, several government agencies and his own lawyer, prosecutors said that “upon release from jail, Manafort presents a grave risk of recidivism.”

The memo is likely the last major filing by prosecutors as Manafort heads into his sentencing hearings next month and as Mueller’s investigation approaches a conclusion. Manafort, who has been jailed for months and turns 70 in April, will have a chance to file his own sentencing recommendation next week. He and his longtime business partner, Rick Gates, were the first two people indicted in the special counsel’s investigation. Overall, Mueller has produced charges against 34 individuals, including six former Trump aides, and three companies.

The memo was filed in federal court in Washington, where Manafort last September pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy arising from his Ukrainian political consulting work. As part of that plea, he acknowledged he had tampered with witnesses even after he had been indicted by encouraging them to lie on his behalf. Even after his plea, prosecutors said, Manafort repeatedly lied to investigators, including about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business associate who the U.S. says has ties to Russian intelligence. That deception voided the plea deal.

The sentencing memo comes as Manafort, who led Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for several critical months, is already facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison in a separate tax and bank fraud case in Virginia. Mueller’s team endorsed a sentence of between 19.5 and 24.5 years in prison in that case.

Prosecutors note that the federal guidelines recommend a sentence of more than 17 years, but Manafort pleaded guilty last year to two felony counts that carry maximum sentences of five years each.

Prosecutors originally filed a sealed sentencing memo on Friday, but the document was made public on Saturday with certain information still redacted, or blacked out.

In recent weeks, court papers have revealed that Manafort shared polling data related to the Trump campaign with Kilimnik. A Mueller prosecutor also said earlier this month that an August 2016 meeting between Manafort and Kilimnik goes to the “heart” of the Russia probe. The meeting involved a discussion of a Ukrainian peace plan, but prosecutors haven’t said exactly what has captured their attention and whether it factors into the Kremlin’s attempts to help Trump in the 2016 election.

Like other Americans close to the president charged in the Mueller probe, Manafort hasn’t been accused of involvement in Russian election interference. His criminal case in Washington stems from illegal lobbying he carried out on behalf of Ukrainian interests. As part of a plea deal in the case, Manafort admitted to one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Washington on Edge as Mueller Report Looms

Official Washington is on edge with the news that special counsel Robert Mueller could finish his report on the Russia investigation in the coming days. After nearly two years of investigation and numerous indictments and guilty pleas from former associates and campaign aides to President Donald Trump, the long-awaited report on Russian interference in the 2016 election could have huge ramifications for Trump and the country. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has a preview from Washington.

Charges Possible in North Carolina’s US House Fight 

With a new election ordered in North Carolina’s disputed congressional race, a key question remains unanswered: Who could face criminal charges after a state elections board hearing exposed evidence of ballot fraud? 

 

Among those in potential legal trouble are the central figure in the scandal, political operative Leslie McCrae Dowless, and some of those working for him. According to testimony heard by the board, they illegally gathered voters’ absentee ballots and, in some cases, filled in votes and forged signatures. 

 

The Republican candidate for whom Dowless was working, Mark Harris, has denied knowledge of any illegal practices by those involved with his campaign. But he, too, could come under legal scrutiny. 

Suspicion of ballot tampering

 

Harris led Democrat Dan McCready by just 905 votes out of about 280,000 cast last fall in the district along the southern edge of the state. But the state refused to certify the outcome because of suspicions Dowless tampered with mail-in absentee ballots in rural Bladen County. Under state law, only voters and their close relatives can handle completed ballots. 

 

On Thursday, the five-member elections board unanimously ordered a new election after Harris abruptly reversed course and called for one. No date has been set.  

McCready said Friday that he was ready for another election. Harris has not said whether he intends to run. 

 

Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman in Raleigh said her office has been investigating potential Bladen County voting irregularities for over a year. The investigation has been expanded to include last year’s election, she said.   

 

In an email Friday, she said she expects the state elections board to submit its investigative files to her office, and “we will determine what, if any, supplemental investigation is required.” 

 

She said she hopes to present findings from her investigation to a grand jury in the next month. 

Federal charges

 

Federal prosecutors also could pursue charges under a law against interfering with an election for federal office, North Carolina elections board attorney Josh Lawson said. The U.S. attorney’s office in Raleigh has refused to say if an investigation is underway. 

 

Dowless has denied wrongdoing through his attorney. He refused to testify at the elections board hearing without a promise of immunity from prosecution. 

 

Dowless’ stepdaughter, Lisa Britt, could face criminal charges after admitting under oath that she collected dozens of ballots and forged signatures and dates while working for him.  

As for the GOP candidate himself, Harris admitted writing personal checks to Dowless in 2017, a potential legal violation if they weren’t reported by his campaign. Also, he could be in legal jeopardy over his testimony during the board hearing. 

 

On Thursday, Harris was on the stand when a lawyer for the state elections board pressed him repeatedly over whether his attorneys had turned over crucial emails. McCready’s lawyer, Marc Elias, reminded Harris that he was under oath. 

‘Culture of corruption’

 

Harris’ lawyer asked for a break, and Harris returned to the stand more than an hour later to read a statement admitting he misspoke, saying ill health, including two recent strokes, had caused confusion and memory problems. He then agreed that his apparent election victory was tainted and a new election was needed. 

 

“What we saw this week in the hearing was a culture of corruption. We saw emails that were hidden from the board under subpoena. We saw lying on the stand,” McCready said Friday.  

 

Asked if he was satisfied at where the investigation stands, the Democratic candidate responded: “I imagine that the district attorney’s office and the U.S. attorney will probably be picking things up.” 

 

And if Harris runs again, McCready said, “he is going to need to ask for forgiveness from the voters.”   

Report: Cohen, US Attorney Discussed Trump Organization

U.S. President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen met last month with federal prosecutors in Manhattan and provided information about potential irregularities in the Trump family business, The New York Times reported Friday.

The newspaper, citing people familiar with the matter, said prosecutors in the Southern District of New York also asked Cohen questions about Imaad Zuberi, a venture capitalist and donor to the president’s inaugural committee.

Cohen, a former employee at the Trump Organization, provided the prosecutors with information about insurance claims filed by the company over the years, the Times reported. There was no indication that Cohen implicated Trump in the possible irregularities, the newspaper said.

James Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, declined comment. Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Cohen did not reply to a request for comment.

The meeting with Cohen indicates prosecutors are interested in matters at the Trump Organization that go beyond its role in the illegal hush payments before the 2016 presidential election made to women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump, the Times said.

Cohen pleaded guilty to arranging the payments in violation of campaign finance laws and other crimes last year in the same district. He is scheduled to start a three-year prison term in May.

The New York Times said Cohen was also asked by the prosecutors about Zuberi, who contributed $900,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee and separately wrote Cohen a $100,000 check that was never cashed.

A spokesman for Zuberi, Steve Rabinowitz, said his client wrote the check to Cohen as a retainer. Cohen had proposed representing Zuberi in possible real estate investments in New York but Zuberi never signed the contract, he said.

“Zuberi never pursued Cohen, it was the other way around,” Rabinowitz said.

Rabinowitz said Zuberi has not been questioned by federal prosecutors about the inaugural or his dealings with Cohen.

Washington on Edge as Mueller Probe Nears Completion

Get ready for some fireworks over the long-awaited “Mueller Report.”

Word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may wrap up his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and issue his final report as early as next week has Washington on edge.  

Speculation is rife over what Mueller will conclude in his report: Will he implicate President Donald Trump in criminal conduct or will he exonerate him, in a probe the president has repeatedly called a “witch hunt.”

Another hotly-debated question: Will the report be made public or will Americans and the rest of the world be kept in the dark about details of an investigation that has cast a shadow over the Trump presidency?

Mueller could submit his report to Attorney General William Barr in the coming days, according to several unconfirmed reports, bringing to an end an investigation that began two years ago amid allegations Russian government agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign to tip the election against Democrat Hillary Clinton and in favor of the billionaire real estate mogul.

The probe has netted criminal charges against more than two dozen Russian operatives and six former Trump business and campaign associates but thus far has not revealed evidence of collusion or wrongdoing on the part of Trump surrounding the operations of his campaign.   Whether reported efforts by Trump to influence or derail the investigation rise to the level of obstruction of justice is another unanswered question.   

Here are five questions that legal experts and veterans of a former independent counsel investigation have been asking about the report:

Will the report be made public?

Under current Justice Department regulations, Mueller is required to submit a “confidential report” of his findings to the attorney general and for the attorney general to notify Congress about it. There are no requirements for Mueller to make his findings public.

Trump said this week that it is up to Barr to decide whether to share the full report with Congress.  Barr, who served once before as attorney general during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, has been non-committal on the issue.  During his recent confirmation hearing, Barr pledged to provide “as much transparency as I can” on the Mueller report but declined to commit to releasing the report in its entirety.  

That has not gone over well with congressional Democrats who have threatened to subpoena the report or Mueller to testify before Congress.   Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told CNN this week that if the report is not fully disclosed, “the public will feel rightly that there is a cover-up.”

With lawmakers, the news media and voters clamoring for a resolution to the prolonged investigation, some version of the report is certain to be made public. Over time, more and more details of Mueller’s findings likely will leak out. Kim Wehle, a former associate independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation now a professor of law at University of Baltimore, stressed that releasing the full report is key to insuring government accountability.

What will the report say?

The special counsel’s mandate was fairly broad: to determine whether Russians worked with the Trump campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential elections and pursue other tangential matters that might turn up during course of the investigation.   

However, what Mueller is required to say in his report is much narrower. Justice Department guidelines simply call for an explanation of his decision to charge or not to charge various targets of the probe.  Beyond that, there are no hard and fast rules about what form the report must take and how long it should be.

“It could be a brief report summarizing his conclusions or it could be a book,” said Randall D. Eliason, a former federal prosecutor now a law professor at George Washington University. 

The two biggest unanswered questions

There are two major questions that legal experts are looking to the report to address: Was there coordination between members of the Trump campaign and Russian operatives seeking to influence the election and was President Trump personally involved in any such conspiracy or other crimes?

Thus far, Mueller has offered no evidence of collusion.   While the special counsel has charged more than two dozen Russian operatives with seeking to influence the election and several former Trump associates with lying about their contacts with the Russians and other offenses, he has not connected them in a criminal conspiracy.

“That’s really the big [unresolved] question,” Eliason said.  “I think he has to answer that question somehow because that’s his primary charge.”

Another critical question is whether Mueller will present any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Trump that he may have uncovered during the course of his investigation.   “That’s the outstanding question everyone wants to know for purposes of a political solution to potential wrongdoing, which of course is impeachment,” Wehle said.

The U.S. Constitution says a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” leaving the question of “impeachable offenses” open to interpretation by Congress.

Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr included a list of impeachable offenses in his final report to Congress on the conduct of then-president Bill Clinton.  But current Justice Department regulations do not require Mueller to do so, said Eric Jaso, a former associate independent counsel who is now a partner at the Spiro Harrison law firm.

David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has already implicated Trump in unlawful conduct, testifying last year that he made hush money payments to two women during the 2016 campaign at the direction of Trump.  

“I’d be surprised if Mr. Mueller felt he could not say anything about the president in the course of describing what other people did with him,” Super said.

On the other hand, the report may exonerate the president.  

Are more indictments expected?

Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president can’t be indicted and Mueller is expected to adhere to those guidelines.  But if he is pursuing other indictments, Mueller hasn’t tipped his hand.  

Super of Georgetown said that any additional indictments could be announced in conjunction with the report or be handed over to other sections of the Justice department.   

Short of announcing new charges, the Mueller report could also shine a light on other players and institutions that have hummed in the background of the investigation but have not faced charges, Super said.

One example: Germany’s Deutsche Bank, which over the years was a major source of loans for the Trump Organization.  “I think the real headlines are going to be about people that haven’t figured in the indictments so far,” Super said.  

What happens after Mueller submits his report

The submission of the Mueller report does not mean the end of legal troubles for Trump, even if the president is not specifically accused of wrongdoing.  In recent months, Mueller has farmed out parts of his investigation to the Southern District of New York where prosecutors have opened separate investigation into Trump’s finances.

“I don’t think we should assume that just because he issues a final report, that that will be the end of prosecutions but rather that those prosecutions will be occurring through the ordinary process which is the U.S. attorney’s office,” Super said.

 

 

Report: NYC Preparing to Charge Manafort in Face of Possible Pardon

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is preparing state criminal charges against Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, in case Trump pardons him for his federal crimes, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing several people with knowledge of the matter.

Manafort, 69, could spend the rest of his life in prison for charges stemming from his work as an international political consultant and lobbyist. He is due to be sentenced in a federal court in Virginia on March 8, where he faces a prison sentence of up to 24 years and a fine of up to $24 million, and in another federal court, in Washington, D.C., on March 13.

He is one of the first people in Trump’s orbit to face criminal charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Dem. Senator Klobuchar Takes Her Presidential Campaign to Georgia

Sen. Amy Klobuchar will meet with former President Jimmy Carter and Democrat Stacey Abrams on Friday as she brings her presidential campaign to Georgia.

Klobuchar spokeswoman Carlie Waibel says the Minnesota Democrat will meet privately with Abrams, who lost a bid for governor last year and delivered the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address earlier this month.

Klobuchar and Carter will speak about her campaign during their meeting, which is also private. Carter’s vice president, Walter Mondale, also represented Minnesota in the Senate and has been one of Klobuchar’s political mentors.

Klobuchar also will attend a roundtable discussion on voting rights with local leaders and activists before a fundraiser Friday night in Atlanta.

Klobuchar also will campaign this weekend in South Carolina and New Hampshire

US Ambassador to Canada Front-Runner for UN Post

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft is emerging as the front-runner to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is backing Craft for the post, and she also has the support of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters. They say President Donald Trump has been advised that Craft’s confirmation would be the smoothest of the three candidates he is considering to fill the job last held by Nikki Haley.

Craft, a Kentucky native, was a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. General Assembly under President George W. Bush’s administration. She is also friends with McConnell’s wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, and thanked Chao for her “longtime friendship and support” at her swearing-in as ambassador.

As U.S. ambassador to Canada, she played a role in facilitating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, a revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Nauert withdraws

Trump’s first pick to replace Haley, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, withdrew over the weekend.

Trump is also considering U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell and former U.S. Senate candidate John James of Michigan for the post.

Nauert’s weekend withdrawal from consideration came amid a push within the administration to fill the position given a pressing array of foreign policy concerns in which the United Nations, particularly the U.N. Security Council, is likely to play a significant role. From Afghanistan to Venezuela, the administration has pressing concerns that involve the world body, and officials said there had been impatience with the delays on Nauert’s formal nomination.

Trump said Dec. 7 that he would pick the former Fox News anchor and State Department spokeswoman for the U.N. job, but her nomination was never formalized. Notwithstanding other concerns that may have arisen during her confirmation, Nauert’s nomination had languished in part because of the 35-day government shutdown that began Dec. 22 and interrupted key parts of the vetting process.

Demoting UN position

With Nauert out of the running, officials said Pompeo was keen on Craft to fill the position. Although Pompeo would like to see the job filled, the vacancy has created an opportunity for him and others to take on a more active role in U.N. diplomacy. On Thursday, for example, Pompeo was in New York to meet with U.N. chief Antonio Guterres.

Three other officials said both Pompeo and Bolton favor demoting the U.N. position to a sub-Cabinet level position, and Grenell has suggested he isn’t interested in a non-Cabinet role. The officials were not authorized to discuss internal personnel deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Haley had been a member of the Cabinet and had clashed repeatedly with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others during the administration’s first 14 months. Bolton was not a Cabinet member when he served as U.N. ambassador in President George W. Bush’s administration, and neither he nor Pompeo is eager to see a potential challenge to their foreign policy leadership in White House situation room meetings, according to the officials. 

LGBTQ Group Skeptical of US Decriminalization Move

An LGBTQ rights group expressed skepticism Thursday of a reported campaign by the Trump administration to decriminalize homosexuality around the world, after President Donald Trump expressed no knowledge of the plan. 

“We have a lot of questions about their intentions and commitments and are eager to see what proof and action will follow,” said Jeremy Kadden, senior international policy advocate with the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

Kadden added that Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have “turned away LGBTQ people fleeing violence and persecution and sent them back to countries that criminalize them, and have consistently worked to undermine the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families here at home from day one.”

Jerri Ann Henry, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a nonprofit organization representing LGBTQ conservatives, said, “I hope [Trump’s] comments were just a mistake. If they were not, that would be extremely disappointing.”

Henry added she would be watching closely to see that this plan “includes real action.”

NBC on Tuesday first reported the administration’s campaign to end criminalization of homosexuality worldwide. 

In an interview with NBC, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell announced the campaign and said the administration had strong backing for the plan at home from Republicans and religious conservatives.

Grenell, rumored to be a candidate for the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is the highest-profile openly gay person in the administration.

Trump: Which report?

When VOA asked the president Wednesday about the decriminalization campaign, he appeared to have no knowledge of it:

“I don’t know which report you’re talking about,” Trump said. “We have many reports.” 

State Department spokesman Robert Palladino acknowledged that Grenell had a “strategy meeting” with European LGBTQ activists, calling it “a good opportunity to listen and to discuss ideas about how the United States can advance decriminalization of homosexuality around the world.”

Grenell had invited activists from the LGBTQ community in Europe, including the Lithuanian Gay League, to a dinner at his Berlin residence Tuesday to discuss the issue.

On Twitter, the Lithuanian Gay League called on European Union member states to “support the U.S. government global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality,” and thanked Grenell for “leading this human rights effort.” 

​The White House has not responded to VOA about whether the president was briefed on the initiative. The State Department did respond to VOA’s query but was elusive about Trump’s having been informed, or whether there had been coordination with the White House on the matter.

Campaign against Iran? 

Earlier this month, Grenell wrote an op-ed column in a German publication condemning a public hanging of a gay man by the government of Iran, calling it a “wake-up call for anyone who supports basic human rights.” 

Sexual intercourse between two men is punishable by death in the Islamic Republic.

The timing of Grenell’s column and his push to globally decriminalize homosexuality has fueled speculation that the motive behind the campaign is to get European allies to further isolate Iran, Washington’s geopolitical foe.

“I think the concerns that have been raised stem from the apparent instigating execution in Iran,” Henry said, adding that she wanted to see all countries held accountable, not just Iran.

The administration has often condemned what it calls the Iranian regime’s acts of oppression against its own people, and has made getting tough on Iran the centerpiece of its foreign policy.

In Out magazine, a monthly LGBTQ publication, journalist Matthew Rodriguez wrote, “Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, the campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda.”

The administration has a less than stellar reputation with the LGBTQ community.

According to the Trump Accountability Project, a media-monitoring effort that catalogs anti-LGBTQ statements and actions of Trump and his associates, the administration has issued “more than 94 attacks against LGBTQ Americans in policy and rhetoric” since Trump took office. 

VOA’s Nike Ching contributed to this report.