Washington has been plunged into a power struggle between the executive and legislative branches of government — one that America’s third branch, the courts, ultimately may resolve. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration aims to jumpstart wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border that Congress did not authorize.
…

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert on Saturday said she has withdrawn her name from consideration for the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In December, President Donald Trump had announced he was picking Nauert to fill the vacancy caused when Nikki Haley stepped down from that position, leaving at the end of 2018.

Media reports said late Saturday Nauert has withdrawn due to complications surrounding her employment of a nanny who was in the country legally, but not legally allowed to work. 

According to The Washington Post, the nanny had worked for the Nauerts for 10 years and was paid in cash, but she had not paid taxes.  When the family discovered that taxes had not been paid, The Post reported, the Nauerts demanded that the tax bill be paid. 

Earlier Saturday, before news of the the nanny complication emerged, Nauert said, in a statement, “I am grateful to President Trump and Secretary (Mike) Pompeo for the trust they placed in me for considering me for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. However, the past two months have been grueling for my family and therefore it is in the best interest of my family that I withdraw my name from consideration.

“Serving in the Administration for the past two years has been one of the highest honors of my life and I will always be grateful to the President, the Secretary, and my colleagues at the State Department for their support,” Nauert said in a statement released by the State Department Saturday.

In the statement, Secretary of State Pompeo praised Nauert for performing her duties with “unequalled excellence,” and wished her the best “in whatever role she finds herself.” 

In nominating Nauert, Trump said she was “very talented, very smart, very quick. And I think she’s going to be respected by all.”

Broadcast journalist

Nauert joined the State Department in April 2017 after a career in broadcast journalism, first serving under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and then under Pompeo. In addition to serving as spokesperson, Nauert also served as acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from March to October of this year. 

She came to State from Fox News, where she co-anchored Fox and Friends, the morning program that Trump says he watches regularly. The president’s other recent hires from Fox News include White House communications chief Bill Shine and national security adviser John Bolton. 

Nauert likely would have faced tough questioning during her Senate confirmation hearings about her apparent lack of diplomatic or policymaking experience. 

The Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller said Nauert had a different profile from past U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations. 

“I think Heather Nauert is smart. She is a quick study. She will learn the brief. But, I think it [the U.S. ambassador job] is not going to be what it was under Nikki Haley, which was a serious competitor under a vacuum at the NSC [National Security Council] and at the State Department under Tillerson.” 

Miller, who advised several secretaries of state under Republican and Democratic administrations, said Haley took advantage of the “empty space” created by media-averse Tillerson to stake out positions on a whole range of foreign policy issues, and that was not likely going to be the case with Nauert. 

Smaller role seen

“Heather Nauert is not going to be a big-time player in the deliberations on substance in the administration,” he said. “I doubt, on an issue like Syria, unless it pertains to the U.N., that the president is going to call her up and say, ‘What do you think?’ ” 

Both Trump and Pompeo have been highly critical of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, with Pompeo noting in a Brussels speech earlier this week that “multilateralism has become viewed as an end unto itself. The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.” 

During Nauert’s twice-weekly briefings at the State Department and her own trips, she has shown a passion for human rights issues. While serving with Tillerson, Nauert took trips on her own initiative, visiting Myanmar and Bangladesh last year to meet with Rohingya refugees. 

She also visited Israel and strongly defended Trump’s controversial decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. 

Nauert is a graduate of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and Mount Vernon College in Washington. The 48-year-old is a wife and mother of two young sons, and was born in Rockford, Ill. 

Steve Herman at the White House, and Cindy Saine and Nike Ching at the State Department contributed to this report.
…

In early November, word began to leak that Amazon was serious about choosing New York to build a giant new campus. The city was eager to lure the company and its thousands of high-paying tech jobs, offering billions in tax incentives and lighting the Empire State Building in Amazon orange.

Even Governor Andrew Cuomo got in on the action: “I’ll change my name to Amazon Cuomo if that’s what it takes,” he joked at the time.

Then Amazon made it official: It chose the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens to build a $2.5 billion campus that could house 25,000 workers, in addition to new offices planned for northern Virginia. Cuomo and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Democrats who have been political adversaries for years, trumpeted the decision as a major coup after edging out more than 230 other proposals.

But what they didn’t expect was the protests, the hostile public hearings and the disparaging tweets that would come in the next three months, eventually leading to Amazon’s dramatic Valentine’s Day breakup with New York.

Immediately after Amazon’s Nov. 12 announcement, criticism started to pour in. The deal included $1.5 billion in special tax breaks and grants for the company, but a closer look at the total package revealed it to be worth at least $2.8 billion. Some of the same politicians who had signed a letter to woo Amazon were now balking at the tax incentives.

“Offering massive corporate welfare from scarce public resources to one of the wealthiest corporations in the world at a time of great need in our state is just wrong,” said New York State Sen. Michael Gianaris and New York City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, Democrats who represent the Long Island City area, in a joint statement.

The next day, CEO Jeff Bezos was on the cover of The New York Post in a cartoon-like illustration, hanging out of a helicopter, holding money bags in each hand, with cash billowing above the skyline. “QUEENS RANSOM,” the headline screamed. The New York Times editorial board, meanwhile, called the deal a “bad bargain” for the city: “We won’t know for 10 years whether the promised 25,000 jobs will materialize,” it said.

Anti-Amazon rallies were planned for the next week. Protesters stormed a New York Amazon bookstore on the day after Thanksgiving and then went to a rally on the steps of a courthouse near the site of the new headquarters in the pouring rain. Some held cardboard boxes with Amazon’s smile logo turned upside down.

In this Nov. 14, 2018 file photo, protesters hold up anti-Amazon signs during a coalition rally and press conference of elected officials, community organizations and unions opposing Amazon headquarters getting subsidies to locate in New York.

They had a long list of grievances: the deal was done secretively; Amazon, one of the world’s most valuable companies, didn’t need nearly $3 billion in tax incentives; rising rents could push people out of the neighborhood; and the company was opposed to unionization.

The helipad kept coming up, too: Amazon, in its deal with the city, was promised it could build a spot to land a helicopter on or near the new offices.

At the first public hearing in December, which turned into a hostile, three-hour interrogation of two Amazon executives by city lawmakers, the helipad was mentioned more than a dozen times. The image of high-paid executives buzzing by a nearby low-income housing project became a symbol of corporate greed.

Queens residents soon found postcards from Amazon in their mailboxes, trumpeting the benefits of the project. Gianaris sent his own version, calling the company “Scamazon” and urging people to call Bezos and tell him to stay in Seattle.

At a second city council hearing in January, Amazon’s vice president for public policy, Brian Huseman, subtly suggested that perhaps the company’s decision to come to New York could be reversed.

“We want to invest in a community that wants us,” he said.

Then came a sign that Amazon’s opponents might actually succeed in derailing the deal: In early February, Gianaris was tapped for a seat on a little-known state panel that often has to approve state funding for big economic development projects. That meant if Amazon’s deal went before the board, Gianaris could kill it.

“I’m not looking to negotiate a better deal,” Gianaris said at the time. “I am against the deal that has been proposed.”

Cuomo had the power to block Gianaris’ appointment, but he didn’t indicate whether he would take that step.

Meanwhile, Amazon’s own doubts about the project started to show. On Feb. 8, The Washington Post reported that the company was having second thoughts about the Queens location.

On Wednesday, Cuomo brokered a meeting with four top Amazon executives and the leaders of three unions critical of the deal. The union leaders walked away with the impression that the parties had an agreed upon framework for further negotiations, said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union.

“We had a good conversation. We talked about next steps. We shook hands,” Appelbaum said.

An Amazon representative did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The final blow landed Thursday, when Amazon announced on a blog post that it was backing out, surprising the mayor, who had spoken to an Amazon executive Monday night and received “no indication” that the company would bail.

Amazon still expected the deal to be approved, according to a source familiar with Amazon’s thinking, but that the constant criticism from politicians didn’t make sense for the company to grow there.

“I was flabbergasted,” De Blasio said. “Why on earth after all of the effort we all put in would you simply walk away?”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of a national emergency declaration to get funds to build a wall along the southern U.S. border likely sets up a lengthy legal battle that could help determine the limits of U.S. presidential power. As VOA’s William Gallo reports, the move also creates a divide in the president’s own Republican Party.
…

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld said Friday that he was launching a presidential exploratory committee, making him the first Republican to take steps to challenge U.S. President Donald Trump for the party’s nomination in 2020.

Trump’s popularity among Republicans remains high in his third year in office. While he is not expected to face significant hurdles in his bid for a second nomination, it is rare for an incumbent president to face a notable primary challenge, with the last being George H.W. Bush.

Weld, 73, is not well-known nationally but is well-respected among officials in the GOP establishment.

He was first elected governor of Massachusetts in 1990, defeating a conservative Democratic candidate. Weld became one of the state’s more popular governors, being elected twice by comfortable margins.

While in office, he followed traditional Republican fiscal policies of trying to keep taxes and government spending low, but embraced liberal positions on abortion and gay rights. 

Nation in ‘grave peril’

In announcing his presidential aspirations Friday in Bedford, N.H., Weld said the country was in “grave peril” and described Trump as a “schoolyard bully.”

“I encourage those of you who are watching the current administration nervously, but saying nothing, to stand up and speak out when lines are crossed in dangerous ways,” Weld said.

Weld said Trump was “a president whose priorities are skewed to the promotion of himself rather than toward the good of the country.”

Asked to comment on Weld’s campaign, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders responded: “Who?”

Weld tried to win a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts in 1996 but lost to John Kerry. He later moved to New York and unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for governor in 2005.

In 2016, Weld joined the Libertarian Party, serving as running mate to the party’s 2016 candidate, Gary Johnson. The duo received about 4.5 million votes, or a little more than 3 percent of the national popular vote. Weld returned to the Republican Party this year, saying it was the best place from which to challenge Trump.

Several other Republicans are also reportedly considering challenging Trump in the primaries, including former Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. More than a dozen Democrats have already announced their intentions to run in the Democratic primaries or are reported to be considering candidacies.
…

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

Trump invoked what his aides called the “common authority” of presidents to take unilateral action through the declaration of a national emergency. But there’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

At a Rose Garden news conference, Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

A look at some of his comments:

TRUMP: “I’ve built a lot of wall. I have a lot of money, and I’ve built a lot of wall.”

THE FACTS: He’s built no new miles of wall, lacking the money. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

This month marks the start of construction of 14 miles (22 kilometers) of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the first lengthening of barrier in his presidency. That’s from money approved by Congress a year ago, most of which was for renovating existing barrier.

Money approved by Congress in the new deal to avert another government shutdown would cover about 55 more miles (88 km).

He has often portrayed his wall, falsely, as largely complete, to a point where “Finish the wall” has become his rallying cry, replacing “Build the wall.” That masks a distinct lack of progress in physically sealing the border — a frustration that is now prompting him to find money outside the normal channels of congressional appropriation. Trump inherited about 650 miles (1,050 km) of physical border barrier from previous administrations.

TRUMP, on past presidents declaring national emergencies: “There’s rarely been a problem. They sign it; nobody cares.I guess they weren’t very exciting.But nobody cares. … And the people that say we create precedent — well, what do you have? Fifty-six? There are a lot of times — well, that’s creating precedent.And many of those are far less important than having a border.”

THE FACTS: Those declarations were rarely as consequential, and that’s precisely why they were mostly uncontroversial. He’s roughly correct about the numbers. But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

Emergency declarations by Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were overwhelmingly for the purpose of addressing crises that emerged abroad. Many blocked foreign interests or terrorist-linked entities from access to funds. Some prohibited certain imports from or investments in countries associated with human rights abuses.

Trump’s number resembles findings from the Brennan Center for Justice, which has tracked 58 emergency declarations back to 1978.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

Obama declared a national emergency in July 2011 to impose sanctions on transnational criminal groups, blocking any American property interests and freezing their assets, authorizing financial sanctions against anyone aiding them and barring their members from entering the United States. It authorized sanctions against criminal cartels in Mexico, Japan, Italy and Eastern Europe. It did not direct billions in spending by the U.S. treasury.

TRUMP: “And a big majority of the big drugs — the big drug loads — don’t go through ports of entry.They can’t go through ports of entry.You can’t take big loads because you have people — we have some very capable people; the Border Patrol, law enforcement — looking.

TRUMP: “We have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country, much of it coming from the southern border.When you look and when you listen to politicians — in particular, certain Democrats — they say it all comes through the port of entry. It’s wrong.It’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie.”

THE FACTS: His own administration says illicit drugs come mainly through ports of entry. He has persistently contradicted his officials — never mind Democrats — on this point. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

“Only a small percentage” of heroin seized by U.S. authorities comes across on territory between ports of entry, the agency says, and the same is true of drugs generally. The great majority of heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine and fentanyl is seized at ports of entry. Marijuana is one exception; significant quantities are seized between entry ports.

Even if a wall could stop all drugs from Mexico, America’s drug problem would be far from over. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 40 percent of opioid deaths in 2016 involved prescription painkillers. Those drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies. Some feed the addiction of people who have prescriptions; others are stolen and sold on the black market. Moreover, illicit versions of powerful synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have come to the U.S. from China, not Mexico.

TRUMP: “Take a look at our federal prison population. See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see. Go ahead and see. ”

THE FACTS: About 40 percent of the people who entered federal prison in 2014 were foreigners, according to the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics. The vast majority of the foreigners (20,842 of 28,821) were being held for immigration violations, not violent or property crimes. It’s not clear how many were in the country illegally. The federal prison population is not a solid yardstick of immigrant crime because it represents only 10 percent of the overall prison population of the U.S. Most people convicted of crimes are in state prison.
…

The Democratic party is not a monolith or a rubber stamp for any idea or policy position. That’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s oft-repeated way of describing the party she leads. But lately, a handful of House Democratic freshman have tested that approach to its limits, revealing cracks between the party’s traditional support of Israel and progressives’ vocal advocacy for Palestinians. 

Newcomer Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Somali-American, drew widespread condemnation for a tweet last Sunday implying Congressional support for Israel has been bought by money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that supports the U.S.-Israel relationship. 

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted late Sunday, asserting that politicians’ support of Israel is driven by money.

She touched off a firestorm of complaints from Democratic and Republican leaders alike, including Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Omar’s comment invoked offensive tropes about money or “Benjamins”  a reference to $100 bills — that are often used against Jewish people. Her remark was magnified because the freshman holds a coveted seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It’s shocking to hear a member of Congress invoke the anti-Semitic trope of ‘Jewish money.’ I fully expect that when we disagree on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will debate policy on the merits and never question members’ motives or resort to personal attacks,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel of New York said in a statement this week that reflects many of his colleagues’ reactions to the tweet.

“Criticism of American policy toward any country is fair game, but this must be done on policy grounds.” 

Omar apologized for her remarks Monday, tweeting “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.” But she went on to say that AIPAC continues to be an issue of concern, although the highly influential  organization does not make campaign contributions. 

During a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Omar’s apology as “lame” and called on her to resign. Omar replied by calling the president a hypocrite who has “trafficked in hate your whole life  against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more.”

The weeklong dust-up underscored growing divisions within a Democratic Party that for decades provided unalloyed support to the state of Israel but that now must adjust to skepticism within its ranks about the Israeli government and that country’s policies towards the Palestinians. Trump and other Republican leaders are attempting to use their insistence on unqualified support for Israel as a litmus test to drive a wedge through the Democrats, according to media reports.

Omar, 37, was born in Mogadishu and spent her formative years in Somalia. She and her family were resettled as refugees in the United States in 1995, after the start of the Somalia civil war, and subsequently moved to Minneapolis, where she learned English and went to school. She studied political science and international affairs at North Dakota State University, before launching a career in politics. She won a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 — which made her the first Somali-American elected to legislative office in the U.S. Then last November, she won an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Omar and Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, became the first two Muslim-American women elected to Congress.

Omar has been accused of anti-Semitic language in previous tweets expressing support for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), a movement that aims to end international support for Israel because of what the group calls “oppression of Palestinians.” Each time, Omar has apologized and said the controversy was an opportunity for her to learn. 

This week, Omar declined requests to speak with the media following her apology on social media for her “Benjamins” comment. But she showed no signs of backing down from courting controversy on Wednesday, when she challenged U.S. Special Representative to Venezuela Elliott Abrams on his human rights record during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. 

During the contentious exchange, Omar mistakenly referred to Abrams as “Mr. Adams” and told him she did not understand why “this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.” 

Omar is one of several high-profile Democratic freshman members of Congress who have publicly voiced their support for the BDS.

​Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from a heavily Democratic district in New York, has condemned “the occupation of Palestine.” Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, is currently seeking support for a congressional delegation trip or CODEL to Palestine later this year. AIPAC has a long history of organizing yearly congressional CODELs to Israel so that members can learn more about the situation on the ground. 

Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican from Texas, urged Democratic leaders in a letter sent Thursday to “please deny Rep. Tlaib’s request to sponsor and lead a CODEL to Palestinian territories and exercise your authority as chair to deny your consent to any member of your committee who seeks your approval to participate in such a misadventure.” 

Last month, 22 Senate Democrats voted against legislation that would facilitate penalties against American companies that boycott Israel. Six of those votes were from Senate Democrats who are running for president.  

Republicans see the growing support for Palestine on the part of younger, more progressive members of Congress as a possible opportunity to divide Democratic voters ahead of next year’s presidential nomination contest. 

A January 2018 Pew Research Center poll shows the partisan divide over Israel is at its widest point in four decades and that Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than with Palestinians has dropped from 38 percent to 27 percent since 2001. 

The House Republican leadership unexpectedly added a provision to unrelated legislation Wednesday condemning anti-Semitic language, forcing Democrats to go on the record against Omar’s remarks. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California called the vote a defining moment in Congress and for the country. 

“Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division,” McCarthy said in a statement. The provision passed unanimously, 424 to 0 vote. 

McCarthy has also faced criticism about comments invoking stereotypes about Jews. In a now deleted tweet just before the 2018 midterm elections, McCarthy accused three leading Jewish Democratic donors of trying “to buy this election.” 

Leadership in both parties will have to step carefully in the coming months, as a high-stakes 2020 presidential race heats up. Both sides will be looking for divisive tweets and off-the cuff remarks to run in campaign ads, firing up the more committed voters at the extreme ends of the parties who tend to show up at polls in early primary contests. 

Pelosi faces a tough dilemma. For the first time in decades of polling, the majority of Democrats identify themselves as liberal. The handful of progressive new House members are forcing policy discussions on a range of issues  from U.S. support of Israel to climate change to taxation rates  that is commanding media attention in a new way.
…

A U.S. judge on Friday limited the ability of people involved in the trial of Roger

Stone, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, from speaking publicly about the case in a way that may influence the outcome.

The order by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman prohibits lawyers involved in the case from speaking with news media, and prohibits other participants, like Stone himself, from making statements that may affect the case when they are near the courthouse.
…

The United States has called on Europe to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which Washington pulled out of last year.

At a two-day conference in Warsaw, attended by more than 60 nations Thursday, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence accused European allies of trying to break American sanctions against what he called “Iran’s murderous revolutionary regime.”

“The time has come for our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and join with us as we bring economic and diplomatic pressure necessary to give the Iranian people, the region and the world the security, peace and freedom they deserve,” Pence said at a news conference.

​Pompeo adds pressure

Also attending the conference, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said global pressure was mounting on Tehran.

“No country spoke out and denied any of the basic facts that we all have laid out about Iran, the threat it poses, the nature of regime. It was unanimous,” Pompeo said.

Unanimous, perhaps, among those countries attending the conference. Some U.S. allies, however, were notable for their absence, including the foreign ministers of France and Germany. Britain’s representative left the summit early.

All three allies have voiced strong support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and have launched a payment system to bypass U.S. sanctions on Tehran in an attempt to keep the agreement alive.

WATCH: U.S. Rebukes EU Allies Over Iran Deal

US-European divide

Warsaw-based analyst Piotr Buras of the European Council on Foreign Relations says summit host Poland and some other European states appear closer to Washington’s approach and the United States sees an opportunity.

“I have the feeling that the Trump administration doesn’t care much about Europe’s unity, or even more perhaps it really tries to exploit some divisions within Europe, or even deepen them,” he said.

Jonathan Eyal of Britain’s Royal United Services Institute argued Washington’s approach is in fact aimed at bridging transatlantic divides with European allies.

“The United States is willing to re-engage with them on a Middle East policy, especially on a very sensitive issue like the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran where the gulf between Europe and the U.S. is very big,” he sad. “And secondly it is also another attempt by the State Department to remind the White House that the friends in Europe are irreplaceable when it comes to most of America’s foreign policy objectives.”

The summit was attended by Israel and several Sunni Gulf states. Qatar, Turkey and Lebanon declined to take part. Iran, which did not attend the meeting, dismissed it as “dead on arrival.”
…

The United States has called on Europe to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which Washington pulled out of last year. At a conference in Warsaw attended by more than 60 nations, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence accused European allies of trying to break American sanctions against what he called Iran’s ‘murderous revolutionary regime.’ Several EU states have refused to attend the meeting, as Henry Ridgwell reports.
…

Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. Senate asked the Trump administration Thursday to tell them more about the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi consulate last year, days after a missed deadline for a detailed report on his death prompted an angry bipartisan backlash.

Ten of the 12 Republicans from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Chairman Jim Risch, wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking for more information.

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is committed to pursuing all information available in its oversight role and, to that end, is in the process of arranging a classified briefing for the committee,” Risch said in a statement.

All 10 committee Democrats, led by senior member Bob Menendez, along with Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Pat Leahy, signed their own letter demanding that Pompeo brief Congress on why President Donald Trump’s administration missed last Friday’s deadline to report to Congress on whether Saudi government officials and members of the royal family, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, were behind the death of Khashoggi, a legal U.S. resident.

Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and critic of the Saudi government, was killed at a Saudi consulate in Turkey in October. His death fueled simmering discontent with the Saudis among many in Washington angry over the kingdom’s human rights record and heavy civilian casualties in Yemen’s civil war, where a Saudi-led coalition is fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

War powers resolution

Members of Congress have been introducing legislation for months to push back against Riyadh. On Wednesday, the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives approved a rare war powers resolution that would end U.S. support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in Yemen. A Senate vote is expected within weeks.

While several Republicans had demanded more of a response from Trump last week, Risch told reporters Tuesday: “I’m really satisfied with the way they are answering questions and giving us information.”

Update provided

A State Department representative, commenting on the senators’ letters, said Pompeo had provided an update to Foreign Relations on Friday and would continue to consult with Congress.

After initially denying his death, Saudi Arabia has confirmed that its agents killed Khashoggi. Riyadh denies its senior leaders were behind the killing.
…

“I will build a great wall,” declared Donald Trump in announcing he was running for president in June 2015. “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

A wall at the U.S.-Mexico became Trump’s signature promise — a call and response at all of his campaign and post-campaign rallies, a symbol of his contempt for illegal immigrants and the centerpiece of his draconian immigration policies.

Yet, a­­s much as the billionaire former New York real estate investor says he wants it, there is still no trace of the towering, gleaming, all-encompassing border wall he originally promised.

More than two years into his first term, all Trump has to show is eight wall sections erected on a dusty plot of scrubland near San Diego. This month, previously planned construction begins on 9.5 kilometers of levee wall in the Rio Grande River Valley in Texas, marking the first wall construction during the Trump presidency.

The president’s insistence on $5.7 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds for the wall over Democrats’ objections and tepid­­ public support led to a 35-day partial government shutdown in December and January, and another one threatened for February.

The spending deal finally struck by Democratic and Republican negotiators — and expected to be approved by Trump — was an unmistakable setback for the president. It provided $1.375 billion for 88 kilometers of fencing, only a quarter of the money he sought, and a fraction of the 322 kilometers of new wall he demanded.

Trump said he was “not happy” with the compromise, but was unwilling to torpedo the agreement and trigger another shutdown. Instead, he hinted at seeking executive action to shift funding from other accounts to supplement the cost of a wall.

​​Actual wall and…

Currently, some kind of barrier exists on 1,127 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border, about a third of the 3,145-kilometer boundary.

While Trump’s focus on building a wall has not changed, the wall itself — or his idea of the wall — has steadily contracted.

What started out as a concrete barrier along the border “from sea to shining sea” has devolved into something “see-through” or built with metal slats, constructed where there are no natural barriers. Recently, Trump resolved to “just call them walls, and stop playing political games,” as if the term were merely a label that could be affixed to anything.

“The symbolism is more important than the reality,” the National Review’’s Jonah Goldberg wrote in December. “Immigration policy itself is something of an afterthought.”

Pundits have speculated on the symbolic meaning of Trump’s wall. “Shielding America from outside threats and uncertainty.” Trump’s “neediness.” “His presidency.” Proof that the “government is listening.” And “ruin.”

‘Big, beautiful wall’

Five days after he was sworn in as president, Trump issued an executive order authorizing the wall and earmarking whatever federal funds could be found to pay for it, to combat “a surge of illegal immigration.”

“’Wall’ shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier,” the order specified, to be built all along the southern border.

A month later, Customs and Border Protection announced it would accept design concepts from construction companies and award contracts after reviewing their bids.

By now, spurned by Mexican officials, Trump had abandoned his fantasy that the Mexican government would pay for it.

CBP didn’t have the money. Its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, could only find $20 million in existing funds for the wall, which it estimated would cost $21.6 billion.

​The money would cover only eight prototypes — with nothing left over for actual wall construction.

Trump vowed to renew the fight when the fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget was discussed in September, and if necessary, shut down the government — a threat that would become a refrain until it became a reality.

​In defeat, double down

During the next two budget cycles, Trump exhibited a pattern: big demands, lots of posturing, and when rebuffed, an even bigger demand.

On Oct. 1, 2017, when the new budget would have taken effect, the government was operating on money provided by a short-term funding bill, the first of five that would keep the government running through March 2018, with the exception of two brief shutdowns.

In his original budget request, Trump asked for $1.6 billion as a down payment on the wall. This was approved by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives in July. But it wouldn’t pass the Senate, where the majority needed Democratic votes to clear parliamentary hurdles in passing spending measures.

Yet in early December, Trump pushed for $25 billion in wall funding.

Why had he so greatly increased his request, when Congress was already deadlocked?

A key issue at the time was the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which sheltered young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and allowed them to work.

​Trump was ending DACA in March unless Congress acted to save it. Democrats badly wanted a fix for the DACA program, which also allowed recipients to work and go to school. An obvious deal would be for Trump to support a legislative extension of DACA in return for Democratic support of wall construction.

Three’s a charm?

In the first three months of 2018, Trump had three chances to obtain full wall funding. He rejected them all.

The First. In mid-January, with the third short-term spending bill set to expire in hours, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York met with Trump over cheeseburgers to head off a government shutdown. Schumer reportedly offered $25 billion for the wall over 10 years in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Reports say he left thinking he had a deal. But White House Chief of Staff John Kelly later called and quashed it. A 69-hour shutdown followed. 

Three days later, Trump introduced his “Four Pillars” immigration reform plan: No deal without wall construction. An end to family-based migration. An end to the diversity visa. A solution for DACA.

The Second. In mid-February, Democrats and some Republicans introduced a bill that included $25 billion for the wall over a 10-year period, and DACA. While it contained additional immigration provisions, it did not address the other pillars.

The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders put out a statement  threatening a Trump veto because the bill would “produce a flood of new illegal immigration.”

The bill subsequently failed in the Senate.

The Third. In March, with another funding deadline looming, Democrats offered $25 billion for the wall in a flat exchange for citizenship for DACA recipients. Republicans countered with a 2.5-year extension for DACA. Democrats rejected that offer as unbalanced because it called for permanent funding for the wall but only a temporary fix for DACA. 

By this time, the courts were keeping DACA going while its constitutionality was tested. There no longer was an urgency to preserve the program through congressional action.

When the budget was finally signed on March 22, lawmakers had approved only $1.375 billion for border security, none of which included construction of a border wall.

In a tweet, Trump threatened to veto the bill. But he signed the measure, vowing never to do it again.

‘Big fight’

If there was a silver lining to not getting wall authorization, it was that Trump could use the issue to whip up voters in advance of the 2018 midterm elections.

​His depiction of escalating danger at the southern border was the core of his campaign stump speeches for Republican House and Senate candidates.

While chants for the wall were vehement as ever at campaign rallies, no big constituency showed up at the polls. Republicans won a few additional seats in the Senate, but Democrats swept the House and set up a new dynamic: a divided government.

In September, outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin had promised a “big fight” over wall funding. A few weeks after the election, here it was. Trump showed his hand: DACA and the other pillars had fallen away. All he wanted was $5.7 billion for the wall. Earlier, Congress had given tentative approval to $1.6 billion.

“I am firm,” Trump said. “Politically speaking, that issue is a total winner.”

​In a bizarre, mid-December squabble with Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive new House Speaker, and Schumer at the White House, Trump declared, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security. … I will take the mantle. … I won’t blame you (Schumer) for it.”

​As a result, he owned the 35-day partial shutdown that followed, leaving 800,000 government employees without paychecks, curtailing government services and costing the economy billions of dollars.

The high-profile political clash ended where it began: the president insisting on $5.7 billion for the wall, and Pelosi firmly declaring, “There’s not going to be any wall money.”

As another government shutdown loomed this week, a bipartisan committee of 17 Senate and House members agreed on a compromise that Trump has reluctantly agreed to sign.

Negotiating downward

Two years. Two budgets. Two prolonged fights over funding for the wall. In each case, the final compromise fell short — not only of what the president was demanding, but also short of what he could have had if he’d just taken what was initially offered.

In both FY2018 and FY2019, the White House began by seeking $1.6 billion for border security. After an exhaustive six months of posturing, negotiating and shutting down the government, lawmakers agreed to less in both years, and only 88 kilometers (or 55 miles) of fencing in all.

It was almost as if Trump — long touted as a master deal maker — were reverse negotiating.
…

Accusations of extortion and blackmail made by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, against a national gossip newspaper in the U.S. may have breached the legal limits of broad press freedom protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. VOA’s Brian Padden takes a look at what’s at stake.
…

Accusations of extortion and blackmail made by the world’s richest man against a national gossip newspaper may have breached the legal limits of broad press freedoms protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, who owns both the Amazon online shopping site and The Washington Post newspaper, recently claimed that the publishers of the National Enquirer newspaper’s parent company, American Media Inc. (AMI), threatened to publish intimate photos of Bezos unless he halted an investigation into the tabloid’s aggressive coverage of his divorce.

The Amazon founder, who is reportedly worth $136 billion, said he would “spare no expense” to investigate how the Enquirer obtained his private text messages that were published in a story alleging an extramarital affair with former news anchor Lauren Sanchez before announcing his divorce from his wife of 25 years.

WATCH: Amazon Blackmail Allegations and US Press Freedom

​Legal liability

AMI has denied the charges and maintains it acted lawfully in its reporting.

“It absolutely is not extortion and not blackmail. What happened was the story was given to the National Enquirer by a reliable source that had given information to the National Enquirer for seven years prior to this story. It was a source that was well-known to both Mr. Bezos and Miss Sanchez,” said Elkan Abramowitz, an attorney representing AMI.

There have been media reports speculating that Michael Sanchez, the brother of Lauren Sanchez, may have provided the Bezos texts to the Enquirer.

​Legal hot water

However, AMI chairman and CEO David Pecker and the media conglomerate could be in legal jeopardy if Bezos’ blackmail allegations can be proved, or if the Enquirer is found to have been directly involved in stealing private text messages.

“I don’t quite understand why AMI and its lawyers engaged in activity that potentially violates federal extortion laws and state criminal laws involving coercion. And potentially, depending on how they got the information, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is an anti-federal, anti-hacking law,” said Tor Ekeland, a federal criminal defense lawyer.

Last year, Pecker admitted that before the 2016 election, AMI paid $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to silence her allegations of an affair with Trump. The publishers avoided prosecution by agreeing to cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are now looking into whether the Bezos extortion allegations violate the previous deal that was conditional on AMI not committing further crimes.

​Partisan press

The Bezos investigation is also looking into the possible political motivations behind the Enquirer’s extensive coverage, which according to the Enquirer entailed sending reporters to follow Bezos and Sanchez “across five states and 40,000 miles,” and tracking them “in private jets, swanky limos, helicopter rides.”

Bezos suggested he may have been targeted by the Enquirer in retaliation for The Washington Post’s critical coverage of President Donald Trump, and of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s alleged involvement in the killing of Saudi dissident and Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump has often criticized Amazon, The Washington Post and Bezos on Twitter, calling the newspaper “the Amazon Washington Post,” and its owner, “Bozo.”

Pecker, a longtime friend of Trump, reportedly also has ties to leaders in Saudi Arabia.

The White House and Saudi officials have denied any knowledge or involvement in the Enquirer coverage.

Press freedom

Bezos may find little legal recourse against charges he is being politically targeted by a media organization aligned with Trump.

The Enquirer’s salacious reporting on Bezos’ alleged affair, even if done for overtly partisan reasons, would likely be protected under the First Amendment.

“I have to separate out the sleaze here from the principle I think we’re trying to protect, which is, journalists have a right to publish what they know,” said Gene Policinski, director of the Freedom Forum Institute’s First Amendment Center.

And news organizations in the United States have a long history of political partisanship, of aligning with political parties and targeting opposition groups with more critical coverage.

“Political partnership, again, is part of our marketplace of ideas. It is part of what we’ve always accepted in the idea of, if you don’t like it, you can publish your own. Government stays out of the way,” Policinski said.

Bezos could also pursue a civil suit against AMI, but public figures have to cross a higher threshold to prove defamation in U.S. courts.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has made no decision on whether to sign proposed bipartisan legislation for limited new barrier construction along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to avert another partial government shutdown Friday over the dispute.

“We’ll be looking for land mines [in the bill]” but “we have not gotten it yet,” Trump said in response to reporters in the Oval Office during a meeting with Colombian President Ivan Duque. 

The president, however, indicated he was pleased with preliminary figures in the border security deal worked out by a committee of Republicans and Democrats, saying “total funding is almost up to $23 billion, it’s about 8 percent higher.”

Trump called Democrats stingy when it comes to funding for the wall.

“We’re building a lot of wall right now with money that we already have,” added Trump, explaining that there are “a lot of options” to complete the border barrier’s construction.

“We’re going to have a great wall, it’s going to be a great, powerful wall” with technology, including drones, explained the president. 

“I don’t want to see a shutdown. A shutdown would be a terrible thing,” Trump said.

The bipartisan agreement reached by lawmakers gives Trump less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion he has been demanding for wall construction, which was a centerpiece of his 2016 presidential campaign.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, said earlier Wednesday, “It’s hard to say definitively whether or not the president’s going to sign it until we know everything that’s in it.”

Trump suggested Tuesday that he would tap other government funds for wall construction without express authorization from Congress. Such a move would invite a legal challenge from opposition Democrats and other groups.

Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has voted yet on the legislation as aides continue to craft final language in the measure. To avert a new shutdown, both chambers have to approve the legislation, and Trump has to sign it before Friday midnight, when numerous federal agencies, including Homeland Security — which controls border operations —again run out of money.

Under Trump, Congress has not authorized any funding for a wall, one of Trump’s prime pledges during his successful 2016 campaign for the White House. But wall repairs and replacements for deteriorating sections along the 3,200-kilometer border have been ongoing.

The top leaders in the Senate, Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Chuck Schumer, both called on Trump to sign the compromise barrier funding legislation.

“I strongly urge the president to sign this agreement,” Schumer said Tuesday. “No one gets everything they want in these agreements. But the president must sign it and not, not, not cause another shutdown.”

The package calls for new barriers in the Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas, as well as technology upgrades for screening at border entry points, more customs officers and humanitarian aid.
…

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee postponed a vote on Wednesday on whether to approve Ronald Vitiello, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Committee Chairman Ron Johnson did not elaborate on the reasons for the delay, but the postponement came one day after ICE’s employee union urged lawmakers to block the nomination amid concerns about past racially tinged and controversial comments Vitiello made on Twitter.

“We are going to hold over the ICE director nomination,” Johnson said. “There are some issues that continue on that, so we will not be voting on the ICE director.”

This is the second time the Senate panel has delayed voting on Vitiello’s nomination.

The committee postponed a vote last November after the union, the National ICE Council, first raised concerns about Vitiello’s fitness for leading the agency.

On Tuesday, union President Chris Crane sent a letter formally asking the panel to oppose Vitiello, saying his prior offensive tweets showed he “lacks the judgment and professionalism to effectively lead a federal agency.”
…

The Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential field continued to grow this week with the formal entry of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

But a new poll suggests good news for two men who are not yet in the race, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran in 2016, and former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Morning Consult survey found Biden atop the Democratic field with 29 percent support, followed by Sanders at 22 percent and California Senator Kamala Harris in third place at 13 percent. That is good news for Harris, who is among several Democratic newcomers who have launched campaigns in recent days, and she has gained some traction in several recent surveys.

Klobuchar’s bid

Klobuchar is the latest entrant into the quickly expanding field and she hopes to gain momentum as a moderate, deal-making Democrat who can draw support from working class voters in the Midwest.

“I don’t have a political machine. I don’t come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit,” Klobuchar said to supporters gathered in a snowstorm Sunday in Minnesota at her official launch.

A day earlier, Warren made her candidacy official before a large crowd gathered in front of a mill building in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a city north of Boston.

Warren emphasized bridging the economic gap in the country between the very wealthy and America’s middle class.

“This is the fight of our lives. The fight to build an America where dreams are possible and an America that works for everyone!”

Another early contender who has been making the rounds in the early caucus state of Iowa is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He is emphasizing national unity in his pitch to Democratic voters.

“I am running for president because that garment, that fabric, has been ripped and torn and we must repair it. We must stitch it together, each of us,” Booker told a group of Democrats in Mason City, Iowa.

Diverse field

The Democratic field includes several women and minority candidates and is already shaping up as one of the most varied in history, according to Brookings Institution political scholar Elaine Kamarck.

“A lot of diversity in the field, which reflects what the Democratic Party is today. It is a pretty good field. “You have serious people who are serious about government. I don’t know who will manage to rise above the others. But so far it is a pretty solid field.”

So far, nine Democrats have either officially declared their candidacy or formed a presidential exploratory committee, and several more are expected to join the field in the weeks ahead.

Liberal views

Most of the Democratic contenders hold liberal views on the economy, the environment and social issues. Many, for example, support an approach known as “Medicare for All,” which would expand government health care coverage.

Others favor what is known as the “Green New Deal,” an environmental program that would emphasize renewable energy sources and drastically move away from fossil fuels.

Analysts say that in a field that could eventually expand to 15 or 20 candidates, the Democratic contenders early on will be looking for ways to set themselves apart from the rest of the field.

“I think the key candidates, the ones who will do well, will have a constituency either in the progressive wing of the party that is really fighting Donald Trump or especially in the African American community,” said John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Target Trump

The candidate field may be diverse, but grassroots Democratic voters will likely be focused on one key unifying goal, according to University of Virginia expert Larry Sabato.

“When you get right down to it, what is the most important thing to Democrats? If I am to believe what I am hearing, and I do, it is that they want to pick the candidate who has the best chance of beating Donald Trump,” Sabato said via Skype.

For his part, President Trump is eager to bash the Democratic presidential field as too far to the left, as he did at his Monday night border rally in Texas. 

“The Democrat Party has never been more outside of the main stream. They are becoming the party of socialism, late-term abortion, open borders and crime,” Trump said to cheers from supporters in El Paso.

More Democrats are expected to join the race in the weeks ahead and that list could include Biden, Sanders, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke.
…

The proportion of Americans found to be “alarmed” by climate change has doubled in just five years, the pollsters behind a nationwide survey revealed on Tuesday.

Twenty-nine percent of respondents to the poll conducted last December by Yale and George Mason universities were in the alarmed category — an all-time high — and twice the percentage of those surveyed in 2013.

More than 1,100 adults across the United States were asked about their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors toward climate change.

The answers were then used to classify respondents into six groups, from dismissive, or least worried about climate change, to alarmed, for those most worried.

Those deemed dismissive of global warming represented 9 percent of respondents, a drop of five points compared to 2013.

‘Green New Deal’

The findings come amid a growing polarization of the political debate over the issue of global warming in the United States.

The decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris climate deal has fired up his base, while opponents have championed a “Green New Deal” that seeks to eliminate the nation’s heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions within a decade.

The 2015 Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 nations, seeks to wean the global economy off fossil fuels in the second half of this century, limiting the rise in average temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

The increased visibility of global warming such debates generate could explain Americans’ rising concern, said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor emeritus at Hunter College in New York City.

“The more information you get there more interested that you are,” he said.

Academic research has further shown that growing exposure to bouts of extreme weather may also change minds, he added. “And it results in higher concern.”

Climate change influences economy

Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, hitting everything from health to infrastructure, according to a 2018 government report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II.

Meanwhile, three of the five costliest hurricanes in the United States — Harvey, Maria and Irma — occurred in 2017, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the U.S. Commerce Department.
…

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that the U.S. Senate will vote on a Green New Deal introduced by Democrats that aims to slash U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to negligible levels in a decade.

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

The document introduced last week marked the first formal attempt by lawmakers to define legislation to create big government-led investments in clean energy, infrastructure and social programs. The goal is to transition the U.S. economy away from burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, rising sea levels and severe storms.

The initiative was unveiled by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a rising political star, and Senator Edward Markey. The initiative has the backing of almost all the Democrats declared as candidates seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential election.

Co-sponsor Markey said McConnell’s call for a vote before hearings and a national debate on the Green New Deal was an attempt to sabotage the plan.

“They have offered no plan to address this economic and national security threat and want to sabotage any effort that makes Big Oil and corporate polluters pay,” he said in a statement.

Republicans have used the Green New Deal to try to sow discord within the Democratic party, painting their political rivals as shifting to the left and embracing extreme policies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had called the Green New Deal a “green dream” and some Democrats in fossil fuel-dependent or rural districts have stayed quiet on their position.

Republican criticism

Republican Senator John Barrasso, chair of the Senate environment committee, said Democrats were proposing a plan that “raises taxes, that overthrows really a productive energy market that we have right now in this country, raises energy costs, forces people out of work who are working in the energy field.”

Barrasso represents the coal-producing state of Wyoming.

The plan outlines some of the most aggressive climate goals ever put forward by Democratic lawmakers and clashes dramatically with the Trump administration’s efforts to advance domestic oil, gas and coal production by rolling back environmental protections.

Some Democrats hit back at the Republican attempt to call for a vote on the resolution before hearings and debates take place, calling it a “cynical” move.

“Instead of trying to cause mischief, the #Republican Party should put forward its own serious proposal to address #climatechange,” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

Trump response

President Donald Trump’s administration opposes action on climate change and favors boosting U.S. production of oil, gas and coal.

On Monday, Trump poked fun at the Green New Deal at his campaign rally in El Paso, Texas, making exaggerated claims that the policy would force people to give up air travel and owning cows, a source of methane emissions.

“I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of ‘let’s hop a train to California,’ of you’re not allowed to own cows anymore!” Trump said at the rally.

The name, Green New Deal, references the New Deal of the 1930s that President Franklin Roosevelt implemented to aid Americans suffering in the Great Depression by embarking on huge government-led infrastructure projects.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has called for the resignation of Democratic freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who apologize Monday after drawing widespread condemnation from both Republicans and her fellow Democrats for comments deemed anti-Semitic.

The president told reporters Tuesday that Omar’s apology was “lame” and added, “She didn’t mean a word of it.” Trump called on Omar to resign Congress or at least resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee on which she serves.

Omar, a Somali Muslim refugee who took office five weeks ago as a representative for the midwestern state of Minnesota,  apologized Monday after drawing widespread condemnation from both Republicans and her fellow Democrats for comments deemed anti-Semitic.

Congresswoman Omar contended in a string of Twitter comments Sunday that a pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, is buying off lawmakers to support the Jewish state.

She claimed the lawmakers’ support for Israel was being driven because of financial support from AIPAC,  even though the nonprofit organization does not directly make campaign donations to U.S. politicians.

While the organization does not make campaign donations to U.S. politicians, AIPAC members can make individual contributions.

“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” Omar tweeted during an interview with a journalist, using slang jargon for $100 bills with the picture of a U.S. founding father, Benjamin Franklin, on the currency. Omar then tweeted “AIPAC!” when another user asked who she thinks is paying U.S. politicians to be pro-Israel.

After extensive criticism of her remarks, Omar said Monday, “Anti-Semitism is real, and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

She added that “at the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics,” whether it is AIPAC, the National Rifle Association or the fossil fuel industry. “It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

Omar is a proponent of the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, and has drawn attacks for her comments about Israel.

The American Jewish Committee called her tweets about AIPAC “demonstrably false and stunningly anti-Semitic.”

Before Omar apologized, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said her “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Pelosi tweeted that she spoke with Omar and that the two “agreed that we must use this moment to move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all forms.”

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other Republican lawmakers called on Democratic leaders to “take action” against Omar and a second Muslim congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, for their criticism of Israel.

Congressman Peter King, a New York Republican, described Omar’s claims alleging AIPAC funding of U.S. lawmakers as “absolutely shameful. It’s immoral to be suggesting that somehow members of Congress are being paid off by Jews, by AIPAC. That goes right into the anti-Semitic bias, which has plagued the world for too long.”

Several Democratic lawmakers also swiftly rebuked Omar.

Congressman Sean Patrick Mahoney of New York said, “My support for Israel is based on shared values and U.S. nat’l security, not money.” He said he was “disappointed” that Omar “is again tweeting dangerous and hurtful tropes.”

Another Democrat, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, said, “It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Israel or the pro-Israeli lobby. Just please be careful to do it in a way that can’t be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.”
…

The Trump administration threatened on Monday to veto an effort in the U.S. Congress to end U.S. military support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the war in Yemen, continuing a stand-off with lawmakers over policy toward the kingdom.

Democrats and Republicans re-introduced the war powers resolution two weeks ago as a way to send a strong message to Riyadh both about the humanitarian disaster in Yemen and condemn the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The administration said the resolution was inappropriate because U.S. forces had provided aircraft refueling and other support in the Yemen conflict, not combat troops. It also said the measure would harm relationships in the region and hurt the U.S. ability to prevent the spread of violent extremism.

The White House has angered many members of Congress, including some of President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans, by failing to provide a report by a Friday deadline on the murder of Khashoggi last year at a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Khashoggi was a U.S. resident and columnist for the Washington Post.

“It’s hard to feel any affection or some obligation to a regime that does that kind of stuff,” Democratic Representative Ed Perlmutter said at a House of Representatives hearing on the resolution on Monday.

The Saudis, who Trump considers an important regional partner, are leading a coalition battling Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The war has killed tens of thousands and left millions on the brink of starvation.

The United States has supported the Saudi-led air campaign with mid-air refueling support, intelligence and targeting assistance.

Democrats view the war powers resolution as a way to assert Congress’ constitutional right to authorize the use of military force in foreign conflicts. Republican opponents of the measure, echoing Trump, argue that support for the Saudis constitutes a security agreement, not the use of force.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate passed the war powers resolution in December, the first time such a resolution had passed even one house of Congress. But Republicans, who then controlled the House, did not allow a vote in the lower chamber.

After sweeping election victories, Democrats now have a House majority. They intend to take up the resolution this week.

However, the resolution would struggle to garner the two-thirds majorities needed in both the House and Senate to overcome a Trump veto. Republicans still hold a slim majority in the Senate.
…

The Iowa Democratic Party on Monday proposed the biggest changes to the state’s famed caucuses in nearly 50 years by recommending Iowans be able to participate virtually.

If approved, the measure would allow people to caucus using telephones or smart devices during the days leading up to the Feb. 3 caucus night.

It’s a dramatic shift from the current system in which caucus-goers have to physically show up at a site — often a school, church or community center — and show their support for presidential candidates by standing in groups. If the group doesn’t meet an established threshold, the participants have to select another candidate.

It’s an often chaotic process that plays out before banks of television cameras on an evening that formally ushers in the presidential primary season. But proponents say it will help address criticism that the caucuses are difficult to attend for single parents, people who work at night and the elderly.

“Through this additional process we’re going to be able to give more Iowans a chance to participate in this process,” Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price said. “Whether someone is a shift worker, a single parent, in the military, living overseas or experiencing mobility issues, this process will now give these individuals a voice in selecting the next president of the United States.”

And while Price says the proposed changes are the state party’s effort to open the process often described by critics as antiquated, it was also required by the Democratic National Committee. The results are Iowa Democrats’ attempt at threading the needle of complying while maintaining the essence of the caucuses, which are real-time meetings of fellow partisans.

Presidential candidates are already beginning to swarm the state — three were here this weekend. They’ll likely try to determine whether a virtual caucus would help them turn out more of their supporters.

“I suspect presidential campaigns who we’ve shared this information with are going to be trying to figure out how to get their members to participate in this,” Price added.

Party officials said they didn’t know how many people would take advantage of the new format or how campaigns might seek to capitalize on it.

A key element of the proposal, which now goes before Iowa Democrats to comment on for 30 days, is that, no matter how many Iowans participate virtually, their contribution will be factored as a flat 10 percent of the total turnout, apportioned by congressional district. Price said officials reached 10 percent as a starting point, uncertain of how many people might join virtually.

“This is a new system so we don’t have any data to tell if this number is too high or too low,” Price said. “And so we are starting the conversation at the 10 percent threshold, and if it goes gangbusters this year, then we will have conversations in subsequent years about if we need to make adjustments.”

Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee who narrowly beat Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa that year, criticized the caucus process for deterring late-shift workers and others less able to steal away for an evening of political wrangling.

“Campaigns must decide how to organize for that 10 percent,” said veteran Iowa Democratic caucus operative Jeff Link, who did not work for Clinton in 2016 and is not affiliated with a candidate heading into 2020.

In another noteworthy development, the state party said it would release the raw data of preferences by caucus-goers, information that is typically kept confidential. The caucuses are a series of preference tests in which candidates without a certain level of support are rendered unviable. This data would give a first glimpse of the candidates’ support before caucus-goers abandon their first choices to side with more viable contenders.

The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for February 3, 2020. The proposal won’t be finalized until the spring.
…

President Donald Trump on Monday presented the border wall as a work in progress, hailing the start of a “big, big portion” with much more coming soon. That’s a hefty exaggeration from a president who has yet to see an extra mile of barrier completed since he took office.

With another possible government shutdown looming, and illegal immigration still at the heart of the budget dispute, Trump is pulling out the stops to portray his proposed wall as essential to public safety, including stemming crime. As he’s done repeatedly, Trump also defied the record in claiming that the wall that Congress has refused to pay for is rapidly coming together anyway.

Trump addressed the subjects at an El Paso, Texas, rally Monday night and an earlier White House meeting with sheriffs. A look at some of his comments:

TRUMP, on the effect of a border wall on crime: “When that wall went up, it’s a whole different ball game. … I don’t care whether a mayor is a Republican or a Democrat. They’re full of crap when they say it hasn’t made a big difference. I heard the same thing from the fake news. They said, ‘Oh crime, it actually stayed the same.’ It didn’t stay the same. It went way down. … Thanks to a powerful border wall in El Paso, Texas, it’s one of America’s safest cities now.”

THE FACT: Trump falsely suggests a dramatic drop in crime in El Paso due to a border wall. In fact, the city’s murder rate was less than half the national average in 2005, the year before the start of its border fence. It’s true that the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that El Paso’s annual number of reported violent crimes dropped from nearly 5,000 in 1995 to around 2,700 in 2016. But that corresponded with similar declines in violent crime nationwide and included periods when the city’s crime rates increased year over year, despite new fencing and walls.

TRUMP, on his proposed wall: “We’ve built a lot of it.” — rally remarks.

TRUMP: “We’ve actually started a big, big portion of the wall today at a very important location, and it’s going to go up pretty quickly over the next nine months. That whole area will be finished. It’s fully funded … and we’re going to have a lot of wall being built over the next period of time.” — White House remarks.

THE FACTS: There’s less going on here than his words convey. Construction is getting started on merely 14 miles (23 kilometers) of extended barrier, approved by Congress about a year ago in an appropriation that also authorized money to renovate and strengthen some existing fencing. The extension will be in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. That’s not a “big, big portion” of the grand project he promised in his campaign and countless times since — a wall that, combined with existing fencing and natural barriers, would seal the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border with Mexico.

The fight with Democrats in Congress now is over his demand for a $5.7 billion down payment on the wall. That money would pay for a little over 200 miles (320 kilometers) of new barrier. Democrats have refused to approve anything close to that for extended barrier construction.

Trump also promised in the campaign that he would make Mexico pay for the wall, which it refused to do.

He inherited over 650 miles (1,050 kilometers) of border barrier from previous administrations.

TRUMP, on preparations for his rally: “We have a line that is very long already. I mean, you see what’s going on. And I understand our competitor’s got a line, too, but it’s a tiny little line.” — at the White House.

THE FACTS: That’s not true. His comment came about four hours before his El Paso rally and a competing one nearby, led by Beto O’Rourke, a prospective Democratic presidential contender. The gathering for both events was small at the time. People were standing around in a dusty wind, not so much lined up.

TRUMP, addressing El Paso rally: “He has 200 people, 300 people, not too good. … That may be the end of his presidential bid.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true, either. O’Rourke’s march and rally drew thousands. Police did not give an estimate, but his crowd filled up nearly all of a baseball field from the stage at the infield to the edge of outfield and was tightly packed.

TRUMP:  “We’re going to El Paso. … We’re going there to keep our country safe, and we don’t want murderers and drug dealers and gang members, MS-13, and some of the worst people in the world coming into our country. … We need a wall.”

THE FACTS: Trump suggests that weak border enforcement is contributing to vicious crime committed by MS-13, a gang held responsible for murders in cities across the U.S. But sealing the border completely would not eliminate the gang. It was founded in the U.S. in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants and has sunk roots in the country. Some of its members are U.S. citizens and not subject to deportation or border enforcement.

The government has not said recently how many members it thinks are citizens and immigrants. In notable raids on MS-13 in 2015 and 2016, most of the people caught were found to be U.S. citizens.

More broadly, there is scant evidence that immigrants are perpetuating a crime wave. In a paper published last year, sociologists Michael Light and Ty Miller reviewed crime in every state and the District of Columbia from 1990 to 2014. They found that a rising number of immigrants in the country illegally corresponded with a drop, not a rise, in reported crime.

The authors acknowledged that it’s possible that people who came illegally are less likely to report a crime. But the authors also note that such immigrants overwhelmingly arrived to work, a trend that helps reduce crime levels.

Find more AP Fact Checks.

Follow (at)APFactCheck on Twitter:
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is set to travel to the border at El Paso, Texas, for a rally Monday night to focus on his demands for a wall to prevent people from illegally entering the United States from Mexico.

El Paso’s former congressman, Beto O’Rourke, who is considering a possible run for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential race, will be among those leading a march in opposition to Trump’s wall demand.

Trump’s visit comes as the U.S. government faces a Friday deadline for funding about a quarter of its operations, struggling to avert another shutdown after a record 35-day closure was ended last month.

Construction money for a barrier at the U.S. southern border remains at the center of the dispute, with Trump asking for $5.7 billion in funding and opposition Democrats apparently ready to offer some money, but much less than the president wants.

Several lawmakers said late last week they were close to reaching a deal, even as it remained unclear what Trump would agree to.

But on Sunday, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the lead Republican on a 17-member congressional panel trying to reach agreement on border security funding, told Fox News, “I think the talks are stalled right now. I’m not confident we’re going to get there.”

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told NBC News another shutdown “absolutely cannot” be ruled out. He said whether lawmakers are close to reaching a deal on border security funding “depends on who you listen to.” 

​Mulvaney added, “The president really does believe that there is a national security crisis and a humanitarian crisis at the border and he will do something about it. He is going to do whatever he legally can to secure that border.”

He said if Trump does not win approval for as much money as he wants, he is likely to say, “I’ll go find the money someplace else,” by tapping other government funds, a move sure to draw a legal challenge from Democrats.

When the five-week closure ended Jan. 25, a bipartisan group of 17 Republican and Democratic lawmakers was created to hammer out details of what border security operations would be funded and how much money would go toward Trump’s demand for a wall, perhaps his most popular pledge from his successful 2016 campaign for the White House.

Democrats initially offered no funding for a wall, but now lawmakers familiar with the negotiations say Trump’s opponents appear ready to agree to some border barrier funding, perhaps as much as $2 billion, along with provisions for heightened controls at ports of entry to thwart drug smuggling and increased use of drones and other technology to try to halt illegal entry into the country.

Lawmakers have often said since the shutdown ended that a second closure would be prevented, but Trump has refused to rule it out if he does not like the border security agreement they present him. 

He has not publicly stated what level of funding he would accept as a compromise to build a barrier along a relatively small portion of the 3,200-kilometer U.S.-Mexican border.
…