Members of the U.S. Congress and former professional athletes took to the soccer pitch Tuesday in Washington, as Republicans and Democrats fought for bragging rights during the annual Congressional Soccer Match. All to benefit charity. From Washington, VOA’s Jill Craig has more.
…

The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is the world’s highest, leading to what many lawmakers and policy analysts say is a nationwide imprisonment epidemic. But the beginning of the end of that epidemic started Tuesday, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, told VOA.

A bipartisan prison reform bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a 360-59 vote “strikes an opening blow against the overcriminalization of the nation,” Jeffries, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said.

U.S. President Donald Trump said “the strong bipartisan vote paces the way for action by the Senate.” Last week, Trump endorsed the bill at a White House summit on prison reform, saying, “Our whole nation benefits if former inmates are able to reenter society as productive, law-abiding citizens.”

If the bill reaches the president’s desk for a signature, it would provide $50 million in funding for five years to provide job training, education and substance abuse treatment for prisoners as well as a number of quality-of-life measures aimed at reducing chronically high rates of recidivism among former inmates.

Contentious issue

But the contentious issue of criminal justice reform has split Democrats and Republicans within their own parties, possibly jeopardizing the bill’s chances of passage as it heads to the U.S. Senate.

In a letter to colleagues last week, Democratic Senators Kamala Harris, Dick Durbin and Cory Booker joined two House Democratic colleagues, Representatives John Lewis and Sheila Jackson Lee, in saying the bill could not be implemented effectively and could possibly lead to prison privatization.

Jeffries told VOA many of the arguments against the First Step Act “were anchored in falsehoods.”

He added the legislation passed today “is a first step towards eradicating the cancer of mass incarceration”  a move also welcomed by many House Republicans.

“Rather than allowing the cycle of crime to continue, this legislation takes a practical, intelligent approach to rehabilitation,” House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, said, speaking of the bill’s reform measures on the House floor Tuesday.

The bill represents the first significant criminal justice reform effort since the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, a measure that reduced the disparity in the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine required to trigger mandatory sentences for drug offenders.

But the First Step Act faces tough odds in the Senate, where a bipartisan group of senators is pushing for more comprehensive criminal justice reform.

The rival Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, championed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican, promises lower sentences for nonviolent, low-level offenders and gives judges greater discretion at sentencing, among other provisions.

Nearly two dozen senators have signed on to the bill, but the White House opposes the measure.   

“We need a more strategic approach to drug sentencing that focuses law enforcement resources on violent career criminals and drug kingpins instead of nonviolent, lower-level offenders,” Grassley wrote in a recent op-ed for Fox News.

Sentencing laws

Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, instituted in the 1970s and 1980s, are widely blamed for a sharp rise in the number of U.S. prisoners in recent decades.

Though the number of U.S. prisoners has fallen in recent years, nearly half of the 184,000 inmates currently held in federal correction facilities are serving time for drug offenses, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

The divide in Congress over prison reform mirrors an unusual schism among longtime advocates of overhauling America’s criminal justice system.

At one end of the spectrum is a coalition of more than 100 advocacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who say the bill falls short of bringing about “meaningful” criminal justice reform.

In a letter on Monday, the group urged House members to vote down the bill, saying it fails to address “racial disparities, draconian mandatory sentences, persistent overcrowding, lack of rehabilitation, and the exorbitant costs of incarceration.”

At the other end of the divide is an unlikely grouping of more than 70 other organizations that support the legislation, ranging from Koch Industries, headed by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that opposes mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Kevin Ring, the group’s president, says the prospect of sentencing reform under the Trump administration is slim, leaving prison reform as the only viable alternative.

“What we don’t want to do is make the perfect the enemy of the good: kill a bill that has modest reforms that will help real people just because we’re waiting for something that’s not likely to happen in this administration,” Ring said.

Ring said he hopes negotiations in the Senate can lead to a compromise between the First Step Act and the bill advocated by Grassley.

At the White House summit last week, Trump urged lawmakers to “work out their differences” and send him a reform bill to sign.
…

The U.S. Department of Justice is expanding an internal probe into whether there was any political motivation when the FBI first began investigating Russian meddling in 2016 during the presidential election. President Trump met with top Justice Department officials Monday following his claim via Twitter that the FBI used an informant to spy on his campaign. It was Trump’s latest in a series of escalating attacks on the Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

Former CIA officer Gina Haspel has become the first woman to head the U.S. spy agency after a swearing-in ceremony Monday. Haspel has overcome the criticism by lawmakers of both parties for her involvement in the torture of terror suspects after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump praised her ability to overcome what he called “a lot of very negative politics” and said no one was more qualified the job. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

A commemorative coin featuring U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has been struck by the White House Communications Agency ahead of their planned summit next month.

In a statement, deputy spokesman Raj Shah insisted that “the White House did not have any input into the design and manufacture of the coin.”

The coin depicts Trump and Kim, described as North Korea’s “Supreme Leader,” in profile facing each other in front of a background of U.S. and North Korean flags.

At the top of the front, the words “Peace Talks” are emblazoned, with the date “2018” beneath.

The back of the coin features a picture of the White House, Air Force One and the presidential seal.

Trump is scheduled to hold a landmark summit with the North Korean leader in Singapore on June 12, but Pyongyang has recently threatened to pull out over U.S. demands for “unilateral nuclear abandonment.”

The White House Communications Agency regularly issues commemorative or challenge coins to present to foreign guests, diplomats and members of the military.

A number of the coins are available for sale through the White House Gift Office.

“Since 2003, White House Communications Agency members have ordered a limited number of commercially designed and manufactured souvenir travel coins for purchase,” Shah explained.

“These coins are designed, manufactured and made by an American coin manufacturer. These souvenir coins are only ordered after a trip has been publicly announced.”
…

An upcoming report from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog is expected to criticize senior FBI leaders for not moving quickly enough to review a trove of Hillary Clinton emails discovered late in the 2016 campaign, according to people familiar with the findings.

The FBI’s timing has been a sore point for Clinton supporters, who say then-director James Comey’s announcement of the new review less than two weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election contributed to her loss. The agency’s findings affirming its decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton were disclosed two days before the vote — too late, her supporters say, to undo the damage.

Some FBI officials knew in September 2016 of the emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop but the bureau did not obtain a warrant to review them until the following month. Clinton allies say the candidate’s name could have been cleared much faster if the FBI acted on the emails as soon as they knew of their existence.

An inspector general report examining a broad range of FBI actions during the Clinton email investigation will criticize officials, including Comey, for not moving fast enough to examine the email trove and for a weekslong delay in getting a warrant, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.

A lawyer for Comey and spokespeople for the inspector general and the FBI all declined to comment Monday.

The report will likely revive scrutiny of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton case and the extent to which it helped shape the outcome of the presidential election. Its conclusions may cut against President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the FBI was working against him during the campaign and instead revive allegations that the bureau broke from protocol in ways that ultimately harmed Clinton.

The nonpolitical watchdog has been repeatedly pulled into the partisan arena amid demands to investigate FBI actions in the early stages of its probe of possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. 

On Sunday, the Justice Department asked the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to expand his existing investigation to look into whether Trump associates were improperly monitored during the campaign for political reasons.

The report dealing with the Clinton emails arises from a wide-ranging investigation launched in January 2017. It has been examining actions including Comey’s decision to announce his recommendation against criminal charges at an FBI headquarters news conference and his decision months later to alert Congress that the probe had been reopened because of the discovery of email messages on Weiner’s laptop.

The report is also expected to criticize two FBI officials who exchanged derogatory text messages about Trump during the course of the Clinton investigation.

A draft of the report has been completed, and officials whose actions are scrutinized in it have been permitted with their lawyers to review it and respond to the findings. The final version is expected out next month.

A separate inspector general report from last month faulted former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for misleading investigators about his role in a 2016 news media disclosure about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. 

McCabe, who has denied wrongdoing, was fired because of those findings, and the inspector general has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington for possible criminal prosecution.

Weiner is the former husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. His laptop was being analyzed by FBI investigators as part of a separate sexting investigation involving a teenage girl. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is serving a 21-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl.

In his book released last month, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey writes that he learned in early October — probably from McCabe — that Weiner’s laptop might hold a connection to the Clinton email investigation. He said he did not recall the conversation clearly and that it seemed like a “passing comment and the notion that Anthony Weiner’s computer might connect to … Hillary Clinton made no sense to me.”

Comey said it wasn’t until the morning of Oct. 27 when FBI officials asked his permission to seek a warrant for the Clinton emails, having determined that “hundreds of thousands of emails” from Clinton’s personal email domain existed on the computer and that there was no way Weiner would consent to a search of his entire laptop given the legal trouble he was in.

Some of the emails on the laptop had been forwarded by Abedin to Weiner to be printed out while others had been stored there after being backed up from personal electronic devices.

The FBI subsequently obtained a warrant, and though Comey said he was told there was no chance the email review would be done before the election, he announced on Nov. 6 that, “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”
…

Amid increasing skepticism of the chances for success for a summit between the leaders of the United States and North Korea and doubts the meeting will take place as planned, President Donald Trump on Tuesday is to meet South Korea’s leader at the White House.

Moon Jae-in, during Tuesday’s scheduled two hours of talks, is to try to reassure Trump that next month’s encounter with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un can lead to a historic breakthrough. 

“I suspect President Trump has some tough questions for President Moon that he’d prefer to ask privately, given the lack of clarity on what the North Koreans will agree to — and the latest chess move by the North Koreans to threaten to cancel the June 12 summit,” said Jean Lee, the Korea Center program director at the Wilson Center. 

Trump, according to officials in the U.S. and abroad, has been questioning his aides and foreign leaders about whether he should proceed with going to Singapore to meet Kim.

Some officials in Washington, speaking on condition of not being named, also blame South Korean officials for initially overselling to Trump the willingness of the North Korean leader to denuclearize. 

It is a view shared by some outsiders, as well. 

“Moon likely exaggerated this to tie Trump to a diplomatic track to prevent him from backsliding into last year’s war threats, which scared the daylights out of South Koreans,” said Robert Kelly, a political science professor at Pusan National University.

Lee, a former Pyongyang bureau chief for the Associated Press, sees Moon as desiring to “jump in again to play the role of mediator, and to show that Seoul and Washington are in close coordination at the highest level, at least outwardly. But it will be a difficult conversation, I suspect.”

Eager for U.S. involvement

In the view of some analysts, such as Institute for Corean-American Studies Fellow Tara O, Moon appears anxious to persuade Trump to go ahead with the Kim summit and to get the U.S. president to grant sanctions relief so planned joint South-North projects would be able to proceed. 

As a result of last month’s Panmunjom meeting between Moon and Kim, the two Koreas “provided a deadline for the signing of the peace treaty by this year, so Moon would also discuss that with Trump,” O, the author of a book “The Collapse of North Korea:  Challenges, Planning, and Geopolitics of Unification,” tells VOA.  

In her view, however, some in Washington may take a dim view of that, seeing the requests as premature “rewards for North Korea, which has not done anything to reduce the threat on the Korean Peninsula.”

O, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who served on the Korean peninsula, contends “the North Koreans have skillfully played the situation by manufacturing an awkward moment between Moon and Trump just before their May 22 meeting. It’s all part of the classic North Korean strategy of divide and conquer.”

Another key geopolitical player is China, whom Trump recently surmised influenced the statements coming out of Pyongyang casting doubt on the Singapore summit.

The president, on Twitter on Monday morning, called on China to keep its border tight with North Korea amid sanctions until he is able to reach an agreement with Kim.

The North Koreans have threatened to pull out of the talks with Trump, blaming what they term are demands by the United States for “unilateral nuclear abandonment.” 

Since that threat, Trump and others in the White House have denied they are demanding a so-called “Libya model” for disarmament, while still insisting North Korea must give up its nuclear weapons for which it would be richly rewarded.
…

The Justice Department will expand its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to include President Donald Trump’s claims that the FBI planted an informant to spy on his campaign, the White House said Monday.

The announcement came after Trump’s demand for a probe and his meeting Monday with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The White House also said the Justice Department will work with congressional leaders to review “highly classified” documents related to Trump’s claim that someone spied on his campaign.

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Rosenstein said before Monday’s meeting with Trump.

Trump has alleged the FBI, under former President Barack Obama, planted a spy in his campaign “for political purposes,” calling it the “all-time biggest political scandal.”

The informant’s actual role was to talk with two Trump campaign advisers suspected of having contacts with Russia. There is no evidence the FBI acted illegally.

Several news agencies have identified the informant as Stefan Halper, a 73-year-old American-born professor at Britain’s University of Cambridge, who had worked decades ago in three other Republican administrations.

Ned Price, who served on Obama’s National Security Council, told VOA that Trump’s charge of spying on his campaign is dangerous to American democracy.

Price said the president is “officially knocking down the firewall between policy and law enforcement — an indispensable element of the rule of law. And he’s doing so for his own personal ends.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Alene tweeted that “Trump is a subject of the investigation he will apparently succeed in obtaining evidence in and that no subject is entitled to during a criminal investigation. This is unprecedented.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in interfering in the 2016 campaign and whether Trump himself obstructed justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey, who had been investigating the charges.

Trump has denied those charges. In a tweet Sunday, he contended investigators have “found no Collussion [sic] with Russia, No Obstruction, but they aren’t looking at the corruption” in the campaign of his Democratic challenger two years ago, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Things are really getting ridiculous,” Trump said in another Twitter remark, asking at what point the investigation will end, calling it a “soon to be $20,000,000 Witch Hunt,” although the cost appears to be much less. 

Mueller has already indicted numerous Russian individuals and entities for interference in the U.S. election, along with guilty pleas from three Trump campaign associates who are cooperating with prosecutors in the investigation.

Trump has expressed fears the Mueller probe could last long enough to hurt Republicans in the November congressional elections.
…

The voting age in the United States is 18. But teenagers in Washington, D.C. want local authorities to lower it to 16. More than half of the city council members have already agreed to support a bill that, if approved, would make Washington the first U.S. city to allow 16-year-olds to vote in both local and federal elections. Anna Rice narrates Lesya Bakalets’ report.
…

President Donald Trump says he will order an investigation Monday into claims an FBI informant infiltrated his 2016 election campaign – setting up a potential showdown with the Justice Department.

“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!,” Trump tweeted Sunday.

Later Sunday, the Justice Department announced it has asked the inspector general to expand its current review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT (FISA) “application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election,” department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.

Within minutes of the president’s tweets, former members of the Obama administration and others reacted with alarm. They believe the Trump threat is potentially the most serious intervention into the U.S. judicial system since the president fired FBI Director James Comey while he was investigating Trump’s campaign.

Trump on Saturday complained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department infiltrated his campaign by using an informant who made contact with three campaign associates before passing on information to the FBI.

Several news agencies have identified the informant as Stefan Halper, a 73-year-old American-born professor at Britain’s University of Cambridge who had worked in three other Republican administrations.

‘Crossing a massive red line’

Ned Price, who served on the National Security Council under President Barack Obama tells VOA that Trump’s charge is dangerous to American democracy. Price says the president is “officially knocking down the firewall between policy and law enforcement – an indispensable element of the rule of law. And he’s doing so for his own personal ends.”

Former NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor tweeted, “This is crossing a massive red line. Trump is forcing DOJ to conduct a politicized investigation – something he himself conceded he shouldn’t do.”  

It is not clear whether Trump will ask for a general investigation or specifically call on the Justice Department to make public certain materials about the FBI’s counterintelligence process or the identity of sources.

There is “no doubt” Trump has the authority to make the demand, said Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who specializes in U.S. national security law.  

Wittes also predicts Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray will not comply with Trump’s order.

“This is a nakedly corrupt attempt on the part of the President to derail an investigation of himself at the expense of a human source to whose protection the FBI and DOJ are committed,” tweeted Wittes.

‘Getting ridiculous’

Trump further complained Sunday about the yearlong investigation into whether his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia and if he obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe.

“Things are really getting ridiculous,” Trump complained in one the Twitter remarks, asking at what point the investigation will end, calling it a “soon to be $20,000,000 Witch Hunt.”

He contended investigators have “found no Collussion (sic) with Russia, No Obstruction, but they aren’t looking at the corruption” in the campaign of his Democratic challenger two years ago, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump said the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller “has given up on Russia and is looking at the rest of the world” and its connections to the Trump campaign.

Trump said Mueller, “should easily be able” to extend the inquiries into the congressional elections in November where he and his team “can put some hurt on the Republican Party.”

He added, “Republicans and real Americans should start getting tough on this Scam.”

One of Trump’s attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, told several news organizations Sunday that Mueller told him the probe will end by September 1.

He echoed Trump’s concerns that an extended investigation could hurt Republicans in the November congressional elections.

There has been no comment from Mueller’s office.

Giuliani also said the two sides were still negotiating whether Trump will be interviewed as part of the investigation.

Mueller has already indicted numerous Russian individuals and entities for interference in the U.S. election through the creation of fake news stories commenting on contentious American issues. He has also secured guilty pleas from three Trump campaign associates who are cooperating with prosecutors in the investigation.
…

Wild animal sounds were heard recently in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. But these were not the calls of escaped animals. They were the sounds of endangered animals serving as the animal world’s ambassadors to commemorate “Endangered Species Day.” Their presence in the Capitol was intended to encourage legislators to support efforts to protect endangered and rare animals. But as Veronica Balderas Iglesias reports, conservation and animal welfare appears to be a touchy subject on Capitol Hill.
…

The chaos among House Republicans this past week on immigration shows how problematic and risky the issue can be for a party that needs unity heading into the elections in November that will decide control of Congress.

GOP leaders thought they had found a way by Friday morning to make the party’s warring conservative and moderate wings happy on an issue that has bedeviled them for years.

Conservatives would get a vote by late June on an immigration bill that parrots many of President Donald Trump’s hard-right immigration views, including reductions in legal immigration and opening the door to his proposed wall with Mexico. Centrists would have a chance to craft a more moderate alternative with the White House and Democrats and get a vote on that, too.

​Farm bill hostage

But it all blew up as conservatives decided they didn’t like that offer and rebelled. By lunchtime Friday, many were among the 30 Republicans who joined Democrats and scuttled a sweeping farm and food bill, a humiliating setback for the House’s GOP leaders, particularly for lame-duck Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The conservatives essentially took the agriculture bill hostage.

They said they were unwilling to let the farm measure pass unless they first got assurances that when the House addresses immigration in coming weeks, leaders would not help an overly permissive version pass.

Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., a leader of the moderates, said his group would try to write a bill that would let young “Dreamer” immigrants in the U.S. illegally stay permanently — a position anathema to conservatives — and toughen border security.

A moderate immigration package “disavows what the last election was about and what the majority of the American people want, and the people in this body know it,” said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. He’s a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, many of whose members opposed the farm bill.

“It’s all about timing unfortunately and leverage, and the farm bill was just a casualty, unfortunately,” Perry said.

Denham and his allies were also unwilling to back down. He told reporters that the conservatives “broke that agreement,” and his group would pursue bipartisan legislation.

“I’m disappointed in some colleagues who asked for a concession, got the concession and then took down a bill anyway,” Denham said in a slap at the Freedom Caucus. Denham said the concession was a promised vote on the conservative immigration bill by June, though conservatives said they never agreed to that.

Such internal bickering is the opposite of what the GOP needs as the party struggles to fend off Democratic efforts to capture House control in November. Democrats need to gain 23 seats to win a majority, and a spate of Democratic special election victories and polling data suggests they have a solid chance of achieving that.

Republican leaders and strategists think their winning formula is to focus on an economy that has been gaining strength and tax cuts the GOP says is putting more money in people’s wallets.

Immigration is a distraction from that message — and worse.

On one side are conservatives from Republican strongholds, where many voters consider helping immigrants stay in the U.S. to be amnesty. On the other are GOP moderates, often representing districts with many constituents who are Hispanic, moderate suburbanites or are tied to the agriculture industry, which relies heavily on migrant workers.

20 Republicans

A look at the 20 Republicans who have signed a petition by GOP moderates aimed at forcing House votes on four immigration bills is instructive.

Of the 20, nine are from districts whose Hispanic populations exceed 18 percent, the proportion of the entire U.S. that is Hispanic. Denham’s Central California district is 40 percent Hispanic, while five others’ constituencies are at least two-thirds Hispanic.

In addition, 11 of the 20 represent districts that Democrat Hillary Clinton carried over Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

The petition drive, led by Denham and GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo, whose South Florida district is 70 percent Hispanic, is opposed by party leaders because the winning bill probably would be a compromise backed by all Democrats and a few dozen Republicans. That would enrage conservatives, perhaps prompting a rebellion that could cost House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., his goal of succeeding Ryan as speaker.

Long odds to become law

All that trouble would be for legislation that still faces long odds of becoming law.

Even if a formula is discovered that could pass the House, it could run aground in the Senate, where four immigration bills died in February and Democrats can use the filibuster to scuttle any bill they dislike. Those defeats led Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to say he wouldn’t revisit immigration unless a bill arose that could actually pass this chamber.

Trump’s willingness to sign immigration legislation also remains in question after a year that has seen his stance on the issue veer unpredictably.

Audience members hold signs reading “DISAGREE” as U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., speaks during a town hall meeting, March 18, 2017, in Red Lion, Pa. Perry’s event turned contentious in his conservative south-central Pennsylvania district over questions about his support for President Donald Trump’s budget proposal and immigration plans and for undoing former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.
…

Donald Trump Jr., the U.S. president’s eldest son, met in August 2016 with an envoy representing the crown princes of United Arab Emirates and Saudi

Arabia. The meeting, first reported by The New York Times on Saturday and confirmed by an attorney representing Trump Jr., was a chance for the envoy to offer help to the Trump presidential campaign, according to the Times.

The newspaper said the meeting, held Aug. 3, was arranged by Erik Prince, the founder and former head of private military contractor Blackwater, who attended the meeting. Joel Zamel, a co-founder of an Israeli consulting firm, was also in attendance.

Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.’s attorney, said Saturday that nothing came of the meeting.

“Prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump Jr. recalls a meeting with Erik Prince, George Nader and another individual who may be Joel Zamel,” Futerfas said in an emailed statement.

“They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested and that was the end of it.”

A company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a “covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign” to help Trump, utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts, the Times report said.

The envoy, Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, told Trump Jr. that the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were eager to help his father win the 2016 presidential election, the paper said.

Since 1974, the United States has barred foreign nationals from giving money to political campaigns, and it later barred them from donating to political parties. The campaign financing laws also prohibit foreign nationals from coordinating with a campaign and from buying ads that explicitly call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

The Saudi and UAE embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mueller team met Zamel

The Wall Street Journal last month reported that investigators working for U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller had met with Zamel, and that Mueller’s team was looking into his firm’s work and his relationship with Nader.

Mueller is investigating whether Russia meddled in the presidential election and whether Moscow colluded with the Trump campaign, as well as whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by trying to thwart the U.S. Department of Justice probe.

Trump has denied any collusion with Russia and has called the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt.”

The Times report said the meetings were an indication that other countries besides Russia might have offered help to Trump’s presidential campaign. Mueller’s investigators have questioned witnesses in Washington, New York, Atlanta, Tel Aviv and elsewhere regarding possible foreign help to the campaign, the report said.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s team, declined to comment on the report.

Zamel’s attorney, Marc Mukasey, said in a statement to Reuters that his client “offered nothing to the Trump campaign, received nothing from the Trump campaign, delivered nothing to the Trump campaign and was not solicited by, or asked to do anything for, the Trump campaign.”

“Media reports about Mr. Zamel’s engaging in ‘social media manipulation’ are uninformed,” Mukasey added. “Mr. Zamel’s companies harvest publicly available information for lawful use.” 

Kathryn Ruemmler, Nader’s lawyer, told the paper that her client “has fully cooperated with the U.S. special counsel’s investigation and will continue to do so.”

Erik Prince, who is the brother of U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, could not be immediately reached for comment.
…

VOA Contributor Greta Van Susteren talks with U.S. Senator Mark Warner about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 US presidential election and the controversy surrounding the new director of the CIA. Warner is from Virginia and is the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
…

It’s been an unlikely journey from a Somali refugee camp in Kenya to the Minnesota State House of Representatives, but 36-year-old Ilhan Omar’s historic rise as the first Somali American legislator in the United States is a beacon of hope for Muslims – particularly Muslim women – worldwide. VOA’s Kane Farabaugh has more from St. Paul, Minnesota.
…

U.S. officials are pushing back at reports that America’s ties with European allies are frayed over the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

“We agree on more than we disagree,” said State Department Policy Planning Director Brian Hook during a telephone briefing Friday with reporters. “People are overstating the disagreement between the U.S. and Europe.”

“We believe that our shared values and commitment to confront the common security challenges will transcend any disagreements over the JCPOA,” said Hook, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear accord with major powers.

His remarks come after President of the European Council Donald Tusk lashed out at Washington over a trade dispute and the United States pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

When asked about Tusk’s tweet, U.S. President Donald Trump hit back, saying the European Union has been “terrible” with the U.S. on trade.

“We lost $151 billion last year dealing with the European Union,” Trump told reporters Thursday, referring to the U.S. trade deficit with the 28-nation bloc. “So they can call me all sorts of names. And if I were them, I’d call me names also, because it’s not going to happen any longer.”

Iran deal fallout

Intense diplomacy followed Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran deal, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo making phone calls to his counterparts in Britain, France and Germany. U.S. officials said those conversations were focused on agreeing to a new “security architecture” for Iran.

At the same time, the European Commission is working to prohibit European companies from adhering to U.S. sanctions against Iran, a move to help keep the Iran nuclear agreement intact and to defend European corporate interests.

“We have the duty to protect European companies,” Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said following a meeting of European Union leaders Thursday in Sofia, Bulgaria. “We now need to act and this is why we are launching the process.”

Juncker said the commission will begin the process of activating a so-called blocking statute, which bans EU companies from observing the sanctions and any court rulings that enforce U.S. penalties.

The way forward

On Monday, Pompeo will deliver his first major foreign policy remarks on Iran and the path forward after the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

U.S. officials say Washington seeks a diplomatic outcome with Iran that addresses “the totality of Iran’s threats,” including its nuclear programs and “destabilizing” activities.

 

“This involves a range of things around its [Iran’s] nuclear program — missiles, proliferating missiles, and missile technology, its support for terrorists, and its aggressive and violent activities that fuel civil wars in Syria and Yemen,” Hook said Friday.

“We see this, the coming months, as an opportunity to expand our efforts and to work with a lot of countries who share the same concerns about nonproliferation, about terrorism, about stoking civil wars around the region, and so we’re very, very hopeful about the diplomacy ahead,” he added.
…

The Trump administration acted Friday to bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions, energizing its conservative political base ahead of crucial midterm elections while setting the stage for new legal battles.

The Health and Human Services Department sent its proposal to rewrite the rules to the White House, setting in motion a regulatory process that could take months. Scant on details, an administration overview of the plan said it would echo a Reagan-era rule by banning abortion referrals by federally funded clinics and forbidding them from locating in facilities that also provide abortions.

Planned Parenthood, a principal provider of family planning, abortion services, and basic preventive care for women, said the plan appears designed to target the organization. “The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood, who are counting on us every day,” said executive vice president Dawn Laguens.

But presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing “that abortion is not family planning. This is family planning money.”

The policy was derided as a “gag rule” by abortion rights supporters, a point challenged by the administration, which said counseling about abortion would be OK, but not referrals. It’s likely to trigger lawsuits from opponents, and certain to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate going into November’s congressional elections.

Social and religious conservatives have remained steadfastly loyal to President Donald Trump despite issues like his reimbursements to attorney Michael Cohen, who paid hush money to a porn star alleging an affair, and Trump’s past boasts of sexually aggressive behavior. Trump has not wavered from advancing the agenda of the religious right.

Tuesday night, Trump is scheduled to speak at the Susan B. Anthony List’s “campaign for life” gala. The group works to elect candidates who want to reduce and ultimately end abortion. It says it spent more than $18 million in the 2016 election cycle to defeat Hillary Clinton and promote a “pro-life Senate.”

Reagan-era rule

The original Reagan-era family planning rule barred clinics from discussing abortion with women. It never went into effect as written, although the Supreme Court ruled it was an appropriate use of executive power. The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton, and a new rule took effect requiring “nondirective” counseling to include a full range of options for women.

The Trump administration said its proposal will roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption.

Known as Title X, the family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics, costing taxpayers about $260 million.

Although abortion is politically divisive, the U.S. abortion rate has dropped significantly, from about 29 per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 1980 to about 15 in 2014. Better contraception, fewer unintended pregnancies and state restrictions may have played a role, according to a recent scientific report.

Abortion remains legal, but federal family planning funds cannot be used to pay for the procedure. Planned Parenthood clinics now qualify for Title X family planning grants, but they keep that money separate from funds that pay for abortions.

Abortion opponents say a taxpayer-funded program should have no connection to abortion. Doctors’ groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the administration action amounts to an “egregious intrusion” in the doctor-patient relationship and could force doctors to omit “essential, medically accurate information” from counseling sessions with patients.

Health care and rights

Planned Parenthood’s Laguens hinted at legal action, saying, “we will not stand by while our basic health care and rights are stripped away.”

Jessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents clinics, said requiring physical separation from abortion facilities is impractical, and would disrupt services for women.

“I cannot imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged,” Marcella said.

But abortion opponents said Trump is merely reaffirming the core mission of the family planning program.

“The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs, just as … federal law requires and the Supreme Court has upheld,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a key voice for religious conservatives.

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said, “Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices, rather than hormone-induced changes.”

Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortions provided by Planned Parenthood, whose clinics are also major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care. Hawkins’ group is circulating a petition to urge lawmakers to support the Trump administration’s proposal.

Abortion opponents say the administration plan is not a “gag rule.” It “will not prohibit counseling for clients about abortion … but neither will it include the current mandate that [clinics] must counsel and refer for abortion,” said the administration’s own summary.
…

In an embarrassment for House Republican leaders, conservatives on Friday scuttled a bill that combines stricter work and job training requirements for food stamp recipients with a renewal of farm subsidies popular in GOP-leaning farm country.

Hard-right conservatives upset over the party’s stalled immigration agenda opposed the measure, which failed by a 213-198 vote. Some 30 Republicans joined with every chamber Democrat in opposition.

The vote was a blow to GOP leaders, who had hoped to tout its new work requirements for recipients of food stamps. The work initiative polls well with voters, especially those in the GOP political base.

More broadly, it exposed fissures within the party in the months before the midterm elections, and the Freedom Caucus tactics rubbed many rank-and-file Republicans the wrong way.

“You judge each piece of legislation on its own,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. “You don’t hold one thing hostage for something that’s totally different and has nothing to do with it. I would say that’s a mistake in my view.”

Key conservatives in the rebellious House Freedom Caucus opposed the measure, seeking leverage to win conservative policies an advantage in a debate on immigration next month. Negotiations with GOP leaders Friday morning failed to bear fruit, however, and the unrelated food and farm measure was defeated.

Conservative Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said some members had concerns over the farm bill, but said, “That wasn’t my main focus. My main focus was making sure we do immigration policy right” and “actually build a border security wall.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., took steps to call for a re-vote in the future but it’s not clear when the measure might be revived. A handful of GOP moderates opposed the bill, too, but not enough to sink it on their own.

Reaction from Democrats

The farm bill, a twice-per-decade rite on Capitol Hill, promises greater job training opportunities for recipients of food stamps, a top priority for House leaders. Democrats are strongly opposed, saying the stricter work and job training rules are poorly designed and would drive 2 million people off of food stamps. They took a victory lap after the vote.

“On a bipartisan basis, the House rejected a bad bill that failed farmers and working families,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Republicans wrote a cruel, destructive farm bill that abandoned farmers and producers amid plummeting farm prices and the self-inflicted damage of President Trump’s trade brinkmanship.”

Currently, adults 18-59 are required to work part-time to receive food stamps, officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or agree to accept a job if they’re offered one. Stricter rules apply to able-bodied adults 18-49, who are subject to a three-month limit of benefits unless they meet a work or job training requirement of 80 hours per month.

Under the new bill, the tougher requirement would be expanded to apply to all adults on SNAP, with exceptions for seniors, pregnant women, caretakers of children under the age of 6, or people with disabilities.

“It sets up a system for SNAP recipients where if you are able to work, you should work to get the benefits,” said Ryan. “And if you can’t work, we’ll help you get the training you need. We will help you get the skills you need to get an opportunity.”

The measure would have greatly expanded funding for state-administered job training programs, but Democrats and outside critics say the funding for the proposed additional job training would require huge new bureaucracies, extensive record-keeping requirements, and that the funding levels would fall far short of what’s enough to provide job training to everybody covered by the new job training requirements.

“While I agree that there are changes that need to be made to the SNAP program, this is so clearly not the way to do it,” said Rep. Colin Peterson of Minnesota, top Democrat of the Agriculture Committee. “The bill cuts more than $23 billion in SNAP benefits and will result in an estimated 2 million Americans unable to get the help they need.”

He said it “turns around and wastes billions … cut from SNAP benefits to create a massive, untested workforce training bureaucracy.”

Farm safety-net programs

In addition to food stamps, the measure would renew farm safety-net programs such as subsidies for crop insurance, farm credit and land conservation. Those subsidies for farm country traditionally form the backbone of support for the measure among Republicans, while urban Democrats support food aid for the poor.

On Thursday, supporters of the agriculture safety net easily defeated an attempt to weaken the government’s sugar program, which critics say gouges consumers by propping up sugar prices.

The measure mostly tinkered with farm programs, adding provisions aimed at boosting high-speed internet access in rural areas, assisting beginning farmers, and easing regulations on producers. But since the measure makes mostly modest adjustments to farm policy, some lawmakers believe that the most likely course of action this year is a temporary extension of the current measure, which expires at the end of September.

In the Senate, the chamber’s filibuster rules require a bipartisan process for a bill to pass. There, Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., promises a competing bill later this month and he’s signaling that its changes to food stamps would be far more modest than the House measure.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump says the United States and North Korea are still making arrangements for a summit next month, despite tough rhetoric by officials on both sides. Trump denied his national security adviser’s claim that the U.S. would model a nuclear deal with North Korea after one reached in 2003 with Libya. John Bolton angered North Korean leaders with his tough talk regarding a possible denuclearization deal, and they threatened to cancel the summit. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke has more.
…

The next U.S. presidential election is more than two years away, but that has not stopped President Donald Trump nor a large group of potential Democratic candidates from contemplating the 2020 race. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more from Washington.
…

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday barred immigration judges from a once-common practice of shelving deportation cases involving some immigrants with deep ties to the United States.

The practice known as administrative closure allowed judges to clear low-priority cases off their dockets, effectively letting some immigrants remain indefinitely in the United States despite their lack of legal status.

Under President Barack Obama there had been an effort to administratively close certain cases as a way of allowing judges to focus on higher-priority matters and reduce the immigration court backlog. More than 200,000 cases were closed during the last six years of his presidency.

The closures were routinely used for people without criminal backgrounds who had lived for many years in the United States, often with U.S. citizen children or spouses. In many cases, the immigrants became eligible for work permits.

The administration of President Donald Trump has taken a sharply different tack on immigration, declaring that all those in the country illegally, whether or not they pose a threat to public safety, are subject to deportation.

Since immigration courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, the attorney general can issue opinions in immigration cases to establish legal precedent for judges across the country and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

On Thursday, Sessions issued such an order in a case in which a judge had granted administrative closure for an unaccompanied minor from Guatemala.

Before Sessions’ ruling, the government or an immigrant could ask a judge to close a case. The attorney general ruled that judges “do not have the general authority to suspend indefinitely immigration proceedings by administrative closure.”

He said exceptions could be made in some cases, including when an immigrant has certain forms of legal status pending.

Sessions had already quietly been instituting the policy even before this announcement. Reuters reported last June that government prosecutors were moving to put cases that had been previously closed back on the court calendar.

Sessions acknowledged in the order, however, that recalendaring all cases that had been closed “would likely overwhelm the immigration courts.”

Immigration attorneys and advocates quickly criticized Sessions’ decision. The ruling was intended “to reduce immigration judges to deportation machines,” said Chuck Roth of the National Immigrant Justice Center.
…

Here in the United States, campaigning has begun for the 2018 midterms in November, and President Donald Trump has announced his slogan for what he says will be his 2020 re-election campaign. But at one Summer Camp in Washington, young Maira Phillips is getting ready for her White House run, about 27 years from now. Faith Lapidus explains.
…

President Donald Trump is wrongly blaming Democrats for a law that he says is forcing migrant children to be taken from their parents at the border. The decision to separate families was made by the Trump administration.

A look at his comment Wednesday during his meeting with local California officials who support the president’s moves on immigration policy:

TRUMP:  To Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: “I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough but those are the bad laws that the Democrats gave us. We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law. It’s a horrible thing where you have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law and they don’t want to do anything about it. They’ll leave it like that ‘cause they don’t want to make any changes. And now you’re breaking up families because of the Democrats. It’s terrible.”

THE FACTS: Not so. No law that “the Democrats gave us” mandates the separation of children from their parents at the border.

A 2008 law designed to combat child trafficking has been described by Trump and his administration as a principal reason for “catch-and-release” policies that he’s trying to end at the border.

The law says children traveling alone from countries other than Mexico or Canada must be released in the “least restrictive setting” — often to family or a government-run shelter — while their cases slowly wind through immigration court. It was designed to accommodate an influx of children fleeing to the U.S. from Central America.

And it had full-throated support from Republicans and Democrats alike, passing both houses of Congress unanimously. Republican George W. Bush signed it into law as one of his last acts as president.

The law says nothing about breaking up families. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entries, pledging to criminally prosecute people with few or no previous offenses. If parents are jailed, they are separated from children who joined them under protocols described in the 2008 law. 

Administration officials have acknowledged that about 700 children have been separated from their parents since October. That figure is certain to increase once the zero-tolerance policy takes hold; nearly 50,000 Border Patrol arrests since October were of people who came as families. That’s about 1 in 4 arrests by the agents.

TRUMP: “Our numbers are much better than in the past, but they’re not nearly acceptable and not nearly as good as what we could have. We’re down 40 percent from those other standards, so that’s really good — meaning 40 percent crossings.”

THE FACTS: That claim of a 40 percent drop in illegal crossings in a year is based on outdated numbers. Yes, Border Patrol arrests plummeted to the lowest level since 1971 during the last budget year. But they began a sharp and steady climb after Trump’s first few months in office. One likely explanation is that people who initially took a wait-and-see attitude toward Trump are now taking their chances.

Overall border arrests in April — which add people who are stopped at land crossings and other official points of entry — topped 50,000 for a second straight month. That was more than triple the number from a year earlier, which was the lowest tally on record since the Homeland Security Department was created in 2003.

Border arrests are an imprecise measure of how many people are attempting to enter the country illegally, because the numbers who make it into the U.S. are not known. But when arrests are up, that’s taken by the government to mean that more people are trying.
…

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP

AT A CALIFORNIA SANCTUARY STATE ROUNDTABLE

 

Cabinet Room

 

3:19 P.M. EDT

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  I’m greatly honored to be here with the courageous mayors and sheriffs and local leaders from across the state of California.  A great state.  Each of you has bravely resisted California’s deadly and unconstitutional sanctuary state laws.  You’ve gone through a lot, too, although it’s becoming quite popular what you’re doing.  A law that forces the release of illegal immigrant criminals, drug dealers, gang members, and violent predators into your communities.  

 

California’s law provides safe harbor to some of the most vicious and violent offenders on Earth, like MS-13 gang members putting innocent men, women, and children at the mercy of these sadistic criminals.  But we’re moving them out of this country by the thousands.  MS-13, we’re grabbing them by the thousands and we’re getting them out, Kevin.

 

     We’re also joined by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Jeff, thank you.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen.  Secretary, thank you very much.  I know you folks are keeping busy, right?  Keeping busy at those borders.  And Deputy ICE Director, Tom Homan, who’s going to be leaving us soon for a life of retirement.  But there’s no such thing as retirement for Tom.  (Applause.)

 

     You’ve done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it very much, Tom.  Incredible job.

 

     MR. HOMAN:  I’m not leaving the fight, sir.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  I know that.  Oh, you’ll never leave the fight.  No, you’ll always be in.

     

 

     Also with us is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who’s been a special friend of mine.  He represents California’s 23rd Congressional District, and he is very, very popular.  And I just recently saw a poll of Kevin.  I think the opposition might as well just go home, because Kevin, they love him out there and he’s done an incredible job.  He’s brought it home.  And we appreciate it, Kevin, the great job you’ve done for the country.  Thank you very much.

 

     Unfortunately, Congress — and I’d have to say, congressional Democrats — you take a look at what has been going on and what’s going on with the laws, whether it’s catch and release, whether it’s any of the things that we’re fighting for so hard.

 

     Now, we have started the wall.  We’re spending $1.6 billion between fixing and starting.  You know, Melissa, what’s been going on.  We’re getting it up.  We have a lot of folks in California, they don’t talk about it, but they want the wall up, and they’re very happy.  That’s one of the reasons we started in California.  But we made a lot of progress on it, and now we’re going for the full funding for the wall, and we’re going to try and get that as soon as possible.  But it’s become a very popular issue.

 

     In January, the Los Angeles Police Department arrested an illegal immigrant from Mexico for drug possession.  Instead of honoring the ICE detainer, they set him free.  Just a few weeks later, he was arrested again, this time for murder.  So they arrested him, they had him, they let him go.  Tom, you’ve seen this.  They let him go, and he killed somebody.  And it’s happening more and more.  And we get them out as fast as we can.  We have the worst laws anywhere in the world for illegal immigration.  There’s no place in the world that has laws like we do.  

 

Catch and release — think of it.  We catch somebody, we find out they’re criminals.  We end up having to release them, and they go into our society.  Now, we do the best we can, I’ll tell you.  We do better than anybody.  And our numbers are much better than in the past, but they’re not nearly acceptable and not nearly as good as what we could have.  We’re down 40 percent from those other standards, so that’s really good — meaning 40 percent crossings.  So that’s good.  But we can do — we can do much better.

 

     Part of the problem that we have is our economy is so strong that people are pouring up to get into our economy.  They want a piece of our economy.  And that makes the job even tougher.  But we want to keep — we want people based on merit.  We want people to come into our country based on merit.  We’re not looking to keep them out.  We’re looking to bring them in.  We need them.  We have companies moving back into the United States like never before.  Chrysler is opening up now in Michigan.  We have so many companies actually coming from Mexico, even, and coming back in.  So we want people coming in based on merit.  

 

We all remember the tragic case of Marilyn Farris who was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been arrested six times prior to breaking into Marilyn’s home, raping her and savagely beating her to death with a hammer.  

 

And this is one example, but there are many examples.  I’ve been saying it for a long time.  We cannot let this butchery happen in America.

 

The state of California’s attempts to nullify federal law have sparked a rebellion by patriotic citizens who want their families protected and their borders secured.  They want border security.  They want protection.  That’s what we’re all about.  We’re about protection, both from international and from, frankly, people crossing our border illegally.

 

I will now go around the room and ask these incredible mayors and officials to discuss their brave stand on behalf of their constituents.  They are very popular, they are very well respected.  These are the top people.  And they are people that other people listen to, and they listen to them from around the country.  

 

So I’ll begin by asking California Assemblywoman, Melissa Melendez.  And you have been an inspiration to a lot of people, Melissa.  So maybe you could say a few words, and we’ll go right around the room, okay?

 

MS. MELENDEZ:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

 

     MS. MELENDEZ:  I just want to start off by saying, on behalf of everyone here, thank you for inviting us.  There are more people in California, I think, that you know who support what you’re doing, who believe in your agenda in securing our borders.  Everywhere in between, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, you have millions of people who want to see that our borders are secure and that our neighborhoods are safe.

 

     So we want to thank you for what you’re doing.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

 

     MS. MELENDEZ:  I have been in office in California for five years now, and it’s interesting to me that you’ve been in office for a year almost?

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Seventeen.  Seventeen months.  Seventeen years would be nice.  Seventeen.  (Laughter.)

 

     MS. MELENDEZ:  But you have invited us here to talk about this issue.  I’ve been in office in California for five years.  Not once has Governor Brown invited any Republican to discuss this issue in California.  And it is a crisis.  That’s the point we’re at in California.  It’s a crisis.

 

     So for me and my constituents — and those are Democrats and Republicans and independents, alike, because I get emails from all of them — they don’t want to see another Kate Steinle.  That’s what I hear every single week.  They don’t want to see another Kate Steinle.  

 

     So when my husband and I talk about this issue, we have 37 years of service between the two of us.  We both served in the Navy.  That’s where we met.  We know a lot about what it takes to protect our way of life, what it means to protect other people.  But we want to make sure that our citizens are protected.  

 

     And I think the resistance that started in the Democrat Party, this is your Republican resistance right here against what they’re doing in California.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  And beyond Republican.  I mean, this has really become a Democrat issue, a Republican issue.  I think a lot of the Democrat politicians don’t understand what’s going on.  Because it’s actually good politically.  People want safety.  

 

     Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

 

     MS. MELENDEZ:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Sam, go ahead.

 

     MAYOR ABED:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I am a proud immigrant here from Lebanon.  Thirty years ago, I came here to live the American Dream, and we did well.  Jerry Brown wants to take this American Dream from us.  I see myself —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  He’ll going to be retired pretty soon, won’t he?

 

     MAYOR ABED:  I hope so.

 

     MS. MELENDEZ:  End of the year.  End of the year.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Somebody said he’s going to run for President.  I said, “Please.  Please run.”  (Laughter.)  But no, I think he’s going to be retired, from what I understand, pretty soon.

 

     MAYOR ABED:  I see myself fighting for these values that made our country great, Mr. President.  We are aligned with your goals.  

 

Here’s the success story of Escondido.  When I was elected mayor in 2010, I made the agreement with ICE.  We brought eight ICE agents to Escondido, to our police station.  Since then, we deported over 2,700 illegal criminals from our city, and made Escondido as safe as it was in 1980.  This is a great success story, and our cooperation with ICE and the San Diego ICE is a very compelling model for the nation to follow.

 

In our city, more immigrant people report crime.  And this narrative that sanctuary city will allow more immigrants to report crime is fake news, Mr. President.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Fake news.  Fake news.

 

MAYOR ABED:  We are going — California is going down the drain.  It’s going to be — sorry, Congressman McCarthy.  But California is the least business friendly, is the poorest city in the nation, the highest poverty rate, the highest taxes, you name it.  Instead of fixing the Golden State and making it the American Dream for everyone, they are dealing with illegal criminals.

 

When Jerry Brown cares more about illegal criminals than he cares about the Hispanic community and the American citizens, this is insanity, and this is unconstitutional.  When I swore to be a citizen, and again as mayor, I swore to defend the Constitution and to keep my community safe.  This is personal to me.  I’m going to work hard to make sure our community is safe.  Escondido is a great example of our success.  As a result of making Escondido safe, we brought $2 billion in investment to our city, and we outperformed San Diego County in economic growth.

 

I am passionate about it.  When I go back to California, I’m going to start a PAC.  And we’re going to fight the fight.  We want to make sure if the Supreme Court does not repeal the sanctuary state, we’re going to make sure the grassroot team like you see today, we will repeal that.  We are with you.  We need to build that wall.  We need to end the sanctuary state.  We had 11 sanctuary cities not too long ago.  Now we have 560.  Ten-thousand illegal criminals have been released under the sanctuary cities —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  But now it’s reversing, Sam.  And it really got bad, and now it’s reversing.  There’s a big change of heart, of mind, of people don’t want sanctuary cities.  They’re dangerous; they don’t want them anymore.  

 

So thank you, Sam.

 

MAYOR ABED:  Most of the people support us, Mr. President.  Sixty-five percent of the Hispanics support us.  The liberal, the Democrat, everybody is supporting our — in my city, 90 percent are with us.  Thank you.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  And I’ll tell you what, I had a lot more support in the state of California than people understand.  (Laughter.)

 

MS. MELENDEZ:  That’s right.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Check the voting records, folks.  Please.

 

MAYOR RUIZ:  I’m Crystal from the city of San Jacinto.  Can I speak frankly?

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

 

MAYOR RUIZ:  I’m sitting here in this room in awe of God’s power; how He can take someone who was homeless in a tent, make them the mayor in the city, and bring them before the President of the United States of America who wants to hear the cry of our people.  And that’s what’s going on.

 

Our people are the ones hurting.  Sacramento is angry because they lost an election.  For God’s sake, get over it.  They’re angry.  And you know what?  Now we’re more angry.  

 

They’re releasing these criminals, not by their houses.  They’re not releasing them by their houses.  They’re releasing them by our houses.  Our children are at risk.  My community is my family.  You’re putting my family at risk.  Every day we’re getting more and more reports from the police department about how they can’t arrest these people.  They arrest them — everything is a misdemeanor.  Because it’s not near Jerry Brown’s house.  It’s not near the elected official’s house.  It’s in our communities, and we’re tired of it.  

 

We need help, Mr. President.  We need help protecting the city of San Jacinto, Escondido, the state of California.  All of us need help getting this solved.  I was just at a church the other day.  I was at my church, and I went over to another one — a Hispanic church — and all the people from the Hispanic church were out there, and they all came up to me: “Would you tell Mr. Trump that we have a message for him: We want help.”  

 

You see, every one of us came from somewhere else.  We all came from different countries.  My husband is from Mexico.  My family came way back from before the Revolutionary War, and we’ve been fighting for this country ever since.  Fighting for the constitutional rights of our country.  I’m not going to stop fighting for those rights.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t fight — look, it’s coming back and it’s coming back fast.  Faster than even the people in this room understand.  Kevin understands what’s happening.  You see it, maybe, better than anybody.  But it’s coming back.  People are tired of this nonsense, and it’s happening.  So don’t give up the fight.  Don’t give up the fight.  

 

     MAYOR RUIZ:  I’m not, Mr. President.  You are our leader.  And thank God for you.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.

 

     MAYOR RUIZ:  So bless you.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  And yours is an amazing story.

 

     MAYOR RUIZ:  Thank you, God.  Thank you.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Sheriff?  

 

     SHERIFF D’AGOSTINI:  Thank you, Mr. President.  John D’Agostini.  I’m the elected Sherriff of El Dorado County, California.  And the bottom line from sheriffs — and you’ll hear from my peers, as well — is we just want to do our jobs.  We want to do what the people elected us to do, and that is respect our Constitution and keep our communities safe.  

 

     When this bill was being heard in legislature and it was going through — we have in California what we call “leg days,” where the state sheriffs go and meet with the legislators moving this bill through.  And what literally disgusted me was a common term that we heard throughout the discussion of SB 54 from different legislators.  And the quote was, “We know this is bad policy but it’s great politics.”  That’s wrong.  Because this bill absolutely jeopardizes public safety in our communities.  

 

     We’re not immigration officers; we never have been, and we’re never going to be.  We just want to be able to cooperate with our federal partners so that these folks that end up in our custody and need to be deported, get deported.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Sheriff, I’ll tell you what — it’s not bad politics anymore.  You know, if you look at what’s going on — because I think, maybe, more than anyplace else right now, there’s a revolution going on in California.  They want safety.

 

     You know, you had the Mayor of Oakland that I read where you had 1,000 people — Tom, you know this because it was your deal — it had 1,000 people together.  Many of these were illegals.  They were criminals.  They were all sorts of — it was work.  And she informed them and they all fled, or most of them fled.  And that whole operation that took a long time to put together — I mean, you talk about obstruction of justice; I would recommend that you look into obstruction of justice for the Mayor of Oakland, California, Jeff.  She advises a thousand people.  They told, “Get out of here, the law enforcement is coming.”  And you worked on that long and hard.  And you got there, and there were very few people there.

 

     To me, that’s obstruction of justice.  And perhaps the Department of Justice can look into that with respect to the mayor, because it’s a big deal out there and a lot of people are very angry about what happened.  There’s a lot of hard work and a lot of danger involved.  And that was a terrible thing.  

 

     Yes, ma’am.

 

     MAYOR JOHNSON:  Mr. President, Natasha Johnson, from the city of Lake Elsinore.  As the mayor, April 24th, we took a formal position and adopted a resolution opposing SB 54.  It was based on our constitutional duty to serve.  I think everyone in this room that is elected knows that public safety is their number-one priority.  But we can’t say that we are public safety driven and also turn a blind eye to what is happening.  

 

     There was courage and maybe a little risk.  We were not risk-averse to step out as one of the first cities to take a position.  I think I’m more proud of the fact that we were just listening to what our community wanted — and they don’t want it.  They clearly don’t want to have an overreach of their rights.  And that’s what really this stands for.  

 

     So as far as the city of Lake Elsinore, I think that this is a siloed approach.  I think SB 54 is a very — is a great representation, and I think maybe some have forgotten, maybe especially Sacramento, about a siloed approach right before 9/11.  And some of the things that we really can look back in history and see — it’s going to take a multi-agency approach.  It’s going to take coalition, a revolution, whatever you want to call it.  But I’m completely impressed with the room and what we stand for.  

 

     This isn’t a fight.  This is a battle.  This is a war.  And I know that we have a lot of work to do.  This is just the beginning.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll get it done.  Thank you very much.

 

     MAYOR JOHNSON:  Secretary Nielsen?  Would you like to say something?

 

     SECRETARY NIELSEN:  Just — mostly just thanks.  I’m want to thank you for your leadership, sir, in bringing us all together but in also recognizing what a very important issue this is.  And this week, as many of you know, we celebrate police week and we celebrate law enforcement.  Everyone in this room is an enforcer of the law, and I thank you for that and I thank you for your leadership.  

 

     When states are turning their back on the U.S. Constitution and their communities, you are standing up.  And we greatly, greatly appreciate your partnership.

 

     I know Director Homan will give us more details on the dangers of sanctuary cities, which you’re living, as do our officers and folks who work at ICE and other parts of the federal family.  But I just want to hear from you and just thank you.  Thank you for your partnership and for standing up for your communities.  Thank you.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  And you’re doing a good job, and it’s not an easy job.  I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough.  But those are the bad laws that the Democrats gave us.  We have to break up families.  The Democrats gave us that law.  It’s a horrible thing.  We have to break up families.  

     

     The Democrats gave us that law and they don’t want to do anything about it.  They’ll leave it like that because they don’t want to make any changes.  And now you’re breaking up families because of the Democrats.  It’s terrible.  

 

     MAYOR EDGAR:  Yeah.  How are you doing, there, President Trump?  I’m Troy Edgar, Los Alamitos Mayor.  It’s an honor to be here.  

 

     You know, I just want to say, thank you for inviting us also to the residence earlier today.  You know, as a previous ex-Navy guy, and being able to be on a city council of a small city, it’s people like you that are actually bringing the people back to the People’s House — your house, our house.  So we really appreciate it.  

 

     You know, going through, I also want to say thank you to Secretary Nielsen.  There’s a gentleman in our community, Mark Cito (ph), who is on the local ICE officer in charge of Orange County.  When we came out, we were the first city.  He came, he called right away, he started giving me that bright line between where ICE has problems with local law enforcement.  

 

Secretary Nielsen, thank you.  

 

     SECRETARY NIELSEN:  Thanks to Director Homan.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Troy.  

 

     MAYOR EDGAR:  Yeah.  And then, Attorney General — you know, coming out first has a price to pay.  And the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against us.  You know, we would really appreciate any direct or indirect funding there — any sort of fiscal help that you could provide us — (laughter) — for, you know, things like potentially putting some of your Attorney General or Assistant Attorney Generals maybe, if they have the base in our military town, or helping us offset some of the costs.  

 

But we really appreciate everything that you’re doing.  We also filed the amicus brief to kind of join, and we’re going to plan on intersecting you at the appeals court.  One of you guys will appeal, and we think that we’ll have a more substantive amount to offer at that point.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Maybe we could join in with you, though.  We could perhaps join in with you.  Because we have a lot of cases like that where we’re with you 100 percent but we’re not in paper.  So we’ll join in with you.  If it’s at all possible, we’d like to do that.  

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Yes.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Pam?  Thank you very much, Troy.

 

MS. PATTERSON:  So thank you, Mr. President.  It’s an amazing honor to meet you, and thank you so much for the invitation.  

 

I served on San Juan Capistrano City Council for the last three years, but I’ve also served on the community engagement panel of the San Onofre Nuclear Power plant, which is — they call it SONGS.  And they, back in 2001, were testifying before Congress that the terrorists were saying, “target the power plants.”  So the fact that we have this unsecure border is putting us —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Crazy.

 

MS. PATTERSON:  — at great risk because we know that terrorists are coming in.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s crazy.

 

MS. PATTERSON: But with respect to the power plant — that is number one — that has the worst safety record in the nation.  And one of the questions that I asked —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a nuclear power plant?

 

MS. PATTERSON:  Yes.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  And the terrorists are coming in alongside of the power plant.

MS. PATTERSON:  Exactly.  And you —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Isn’t that wonderful?  (Laughter.)

 

MS. PATTERSON:  — can get in to that power plant with really — you can just drive in.  And so I asked them, actually, during one of the meetings — I said, “So you have a no-fly zone, right?” — with respect to the power plant — and they said, “Yes.”  And I said, “So what would happen if an airplane flew into the no-fly zone?  Would you shoot it down?”  They said, “No.”  And that was on the record.

 

And so I just think that it’s a Fukushima, number one, waiting to happen.  It’s on an active earthquake fault, in a Tsunami zone, where they’re storing this radiation which is 124 times that of Chernobyl, and improperly stored, and it’s — there’s no security.

 

So I think that —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll check it out.

 

MS. PATTERSON:  Okay.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It doesn’t sound too good.  (Laughter.)  It doesn’t sound like the greatest, right?  

 

MS. PATTERSON:  Exactly.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll check it out.  Thank you very much.    

MS. PATTERSON:  Okay, thank you.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, Margaret?

 

SHERIFF MIMS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  You know, sheriffs in California are now in an untenable position when it comes to trying to figure out — now, we have state law, we have federal laws, and here we are stuck in the middle.  Sheriffs, especially, because most of us run our county jails.

 

When there became a legal challenge to the 48-hour holds for ICE, it was very frustrating for us.  So what I did is I invited ICE to put their officers in my jails so they’re able to do their work.  We didn’t have the staffing to be able to help figure out who they wanted to talk to or didn’t.  I said, come on in, work with our people to keep our community safe.  Two weeks later, Mr. President, Kate Steinle was murdered.

 

Now, I wasn’t the only sheriff to do that.  Sheriff Youngblood did, Sheriff Christianson.  And it was perfect — because we didn’t have to take our time, with our staff, to do anything.  ICE was in there doing their work in a safe, controlled, environment.  And then, the initiatives started happening — the TRUST Act, the TRUTH Act, and finally, SB 54, the Values Act.  And that is causing us all kinds of turmoil.

 

So here we are, stuck in the middle, trying to decide.  We have federal law, we have state law.  And that’s why I welcomed Attorney General Sessions’s lawsuit, because that will provide us the clarity that we need and direction that we need.  What do we do?  Because here we are.  

 

And I appreciated Mr. Homan and ICE.  We had a great relationship; we still do.  But now ICE is the only law enforcement agency that cannot use our databases to find the bad guys.  They cannot come in and talk to people in our jail, unless they reach a certain threshold.  They can’t do all kinds of things that other law enforcement agencies can do.  And it’s really put us in a very bad position.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a disgrace.  Okay?  It’s a disgrace.

 

SHERIFF MIMS:  It’s a disgrace.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  And we’re suing on that, and we’re working hard, and I think it will all come together, because people want it to come together.  It’s so ridiculous.  The concept that we’re even talking about is ridiculous.  We’ll take care of it, Margaret.  We’ll win.

 

SHERIFF MIMS:  Thank you.  There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country.  You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are.  These aren’t people.  These are animals.  And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.  And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out.  It’s crazy.  

 

The dumbest laws — as I said before, the dumbest laws on immigration in the world.  So we’re going to take care of it, Margaret.  We’ll get it done.  We’re going to ask that man right there, because that man can do it.  (Laughter.)  Right now he’s the most important man in the room.  Kevin can do it.  

 

Kevin?  Please.

 

MAJORITY LEADER MCCARTHY:  Well, first of all, I want to thank all of you, because most people around the country do not realize how your hands are tied behind your back.  The only thing you want to do is to have safe streets, safe neighborhoods, and protect your communities.  And for California legislature to go against the Constitution — one of the greatest strengths of this nation, and we’re fortunate to be in this room, is the rule of law.  They are breaking down society by breaking down the rule of law; that you have a known criminal that you can’t communicate with ICE about.  

 

We know how bad this is.  But from one aspect, we should be excited because we have a new President that understands this problem.  Since he has taken office, we have lowered the illegal crossings across this border.  That stops gang members from coming across.  He has started building the wall — $1.6 billion.  And you know where that wall is starting to be built?  In California.  He has pushed a number of bills through — one, to try to stop sanctuary cities; to reward those who uphold the Constitution.  Second, to stop the MS-13 gang members.  And you know what’s interesting, after you moved that bill?  A Governor of New York, Mr. Cuomo, who thought that wasn’t a problem, I saw him sign one similar just the other day because he watched what was happening, as well.

 

So, collectively, it was city councils and sheriffs — city council is not your full-time job, but you listened to your community, you saw the problem that was going on.  So things are improving, and that’s why I’m so thankful for this President to call us together, because collectively we’ll be stronger.  The Secretary is doing an amazing job.  I’ll tell you, the number of times we meet or call at all hours of night, trying to make sure she can protect it.  The Attorney General just talked to me last night, around 10 o’clock.

 

     And so, from that perspective, we are in this together, but we are in it for the Constitution.  We’re in it for the security and the safety of our streets, and I thank you for leading the charge.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we want to thank you, Kevin.  You have done an incredible job.  You’re sort of going against the tide, but now the tide is sort of with us because you see it in the room.  I mean, a year ago, two years ago, this would have been unthinkable to have you all in the room talking the way we’re talking.  But you’re fed up with what’s happening.  

 

And, Kevin, thank you very much.  You’re doing really great.

 

     Stacey.

 

     MS. MONTGOMERY:  Thank you very much.  I just want to say thank you for your leadership in your office and on this issue.  I am delighted and privileged to be here.  And it is so wonderful to be here among all of you as well, because you’re all on the frontlines in your own communities fighting this fight.  

 

     I was born and raised in California, been an attorney there for 24 years.  Got my start in the law when Three Strikes was starting out in California, and developed a real passion for prosecution.  I was the appointed district attorney, and I’ve been the elected district attorney now for four years.  And in the last four years, I have seen California become a disaster.  It’s been tragic to watch my state pass laws that basically have sent our communities into a very dangerous place.  

 

     In Lassen County, we’re a very small community.  But I’m pleased to say, when you’re talking about voting, that you have supporters in California.  Lassen County voted overwhelmingly for you in California.  I believe we had the highest margin in all the 58 counties in California.  You are loved in Lassen County.  

 

And I believe that, to a certain extent, we are sort of a forgotten part of California.  We are rural California, and we do not stand for the policies in Sacramento.  We have a horrible problem in our public lands, in our forests.  We’ve got illegals, marijuana — excuse me, drug cartels that have come up to grow on our public lands and in our forests, and they are decimating it.  They are killing wildlife.  

 

THE PRESIDENT:  And you can’t really do anything about it.

 

MS. MONTGOMERY:  There’s not a thing we can do.  We work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who file charges that do the best that they can.  But these people are coming into our forests, they’re endangering our citizens.  They are armed.  They’re setting up camps, and they’re growing mass amounts of marijuana on our public lands.  They are killing wildlife.  They’re diverting streams.  The damage that they’re causing, both to the economy and to our public lands, is going to be generational.  A large portion of these people that are coming in to do this are illegal immigrants.    

 

Because of the legalization of marijuana in California, now we’re seeing those same individuals working with other criminal groups — the Asian groups, the Russian groups, the motorcycle groups, all kinds of organized crime.  It’s bringing into rural —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  So legalization made it worse?

 

MS. MONTGOMERY:  The legalization made it worse.  Yes.  I believe the legalization made it worse.  I’ve been appalled, as a district attorney, someone who’s sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state, that we have fallen so far in California.  

 

We also have other issues.  We are prosecuting an illegal immigrant right now who has been deported several times and has had a violent criminal history, who hit and killed a 16-year-old kid — a boy in our community — and fled the scene.  So his case is pending right now.  After I brought the suit, I was promptly served with a gag order to prevent me from talking about the case.  It’s been very frustrating.

 

Also, I have received correspondence — and I know that every DA’s office in California has received correspondence from the ACLU and their affiliate organizations, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the California Public Information Act wanting to know what policies — “We want to see what policies your office is implementing.  What have you done to ensure compliance with SB 54?”

 

Well, the response from my office was very simple: We have nothing.  Because this office will stand for the rule of law.  Lassen County stands for the rule of law.  And we have no policies to give you because we will not issue such policies from this desk and from this office.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Good job.

 

MS. MONTGOMERY:  We stand with you.  We are delighted with the actions that you have taken, Mr. Sessions.  The people of Lassen County stand with you, I stand with you, and we appreciate everything that you’re doing.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yep.  Thank you, Stacey.

 

MS. MONTGOMERY:  You’re welcome.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Beautifully said.  Thank you very much.

 

Tom?

 

MR. HOMAN:  First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you for having this meeting today — this roundtable.  We appreciate your leadership on this issue.  The Secretary, I appreciate your leadership and how you support law enforcement and the rule of law.  And the AG, I can’t say enough good things about what you’ve done for law enforcement.

 

You know, I hear a lot of things today about sanctuary cities and the wall.  I’m not the smartest guy at this table by any means, but in sanctuary cities. they want to take the Attorney General on to get their funding.  Even though they violate federal law to keep criminal aliens in, they don’t want a wall to keep them out.  To me, that’s just backwards.

 

And I want to talk — I just want to spend a minute to say — separating fact from fiction, please.  I hope the American people can understand the fight about sanctuary cities.  And I appreciate the American patriots in this room that have joined this fight, which is the good fight, it’s the right fight.

 

The intentional mis-messaging of sanctuary cities and what they do — I hear, “They protect the immigrant communities.”  And they don’t.  It’s the complete opposite.  When you release a criminal alien from a jail, they’re going to go to the very communities in which they live and reoffend.  Anybody can Google recidivism rates.  Over half reoffend the first year against the very immigrant communities in which they live.  So you’re not protecting the immigrant community.  You’re putting them at greater risk of crime.  

 

And when you force an ICE agent, where he can take someone — the custody of somebody in the safety and security of a county jail and force them into neighborhoods, you put our officers at risk.  You’re already putting the public at risk.  And we’re going to find others who weren’t even on our radar.  So you put the community at greater risk of crime, you put them at greater risk of ICE arrest, and you put the heroes — the law enforcement officers — at great risk.

 

This is National Police Week, as said earlier.  And I want to talk about the messaging — the mis-messaging from some of these groups and some of these politicians about what ICE does.  When you read that sanctuary cities protect the immigrant communities, but also, we don’t want to be commandeered, we don’t have the ICE agents — we have never asked anybody to be an ICE agent.  We don’t want any law enforcement officer to be an ICE agent.  What we want is access to a county jail to talk to somebody that we know is here illegally, in violation of federal law, that committed yet another crime.  You can’t tell ICE to prioritize criminal aliens and not give me access to the jail.  It just don’t make sense.

 

And the final point I want to make in defense of the brave men and women of the Border Patrol and ICE: I’m sick and tired of the constant vilification of these men and women who leave their home every day and strap a gun to their hip; leave the safety and security of their families to defend this nation and to defend their neighborhoods.  

 

When you have a congressman standing in front of the ICE office in New York City and call us the Gestapo, comparing what we do to war crimes.  When you got a congressman who said, quote, “The cowardly acts of ICE officers that terrorize innocent immigrant communities.”  ICE does more to protect the immigrant than any politician ever has done.  We arrested several hundred-thousand criminals removed from the streets.

 

For all these people who want to keep vilifying the men and women who took a sworn oath, who are enforcing laws enacted by you, Congress, the next time you think about vilifying the men and women of ICE, I want you to do what I did this week.  I want you to go to our National Law Enforcement wall, I want you to walk that wall, and read the names on that wall: over 400 Border Patrol agents and ICE officers whose hearts stopped beating defending this nation.  It’s a dishonor to these men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice to vilify the men and women that carry the badge and gun.  So think twice before you do it.

 

And as far as the hate that I take for defending the men and women of ICE and the Border Patrol, that will stop the day my heart stops to beat.  And it won’t end.  And even though I may be retiring soon, this fight doesn’t end with me.  I will stay engaged, and I will keep fighting for you, sir.  So thank you very much.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  

 

MR. HOMAN:  I’ve worked for six Presidents, and I respect them all.  But no President has done more than you for border security and for law enforcement.  I think every law enforcement officer at this table would agree with me.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  No, that’s very nice.  That’s a great compliment, believe me — because you have, indeed, worked for six.  And all six respected you greatly.  None more than me.  Thank you very much.  I just wish you could have said that to the press, but — (laughter) — here’s the good news: You have such a beautiful, full head of hair, you look good even from that angle.  (Laughter.)

 

I appreciate it, Tom.  That’s really nice.  Thank you very much.  

 

Elaine?

 

MAYOR GENNAWEY:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  And thank you for inviting us here to share our thoughts with you.  I’m Elaine Gennawey, Mayor of the city of Laguna Niguel in Orange County, California.  And so, really appreciate the opportunity to let you know what our residents are feeling.

 

But first, I’d like to ask Director Homan, please let the men and women of ICE know that they have our gratitude and our deep, deep appreciation for what they do.

 

MR. HOMAN:  Thank you.

 

MAYOR GENNAWEY:  But, you know, Laguna Niguel took a stance against SB 54 because that is the greatest threat to the safety of all of California residents — all of our residents, all of our communities.  And that includes our immigrant communities.  The siloing or preventing law enforcement agencies from talking to each other is a threat to our agents and to the communities.  And our country learned a very tragic lesson on September 11th —  and that’s what happens when law enforcement does not communicate.

 

So isn’t it ironic that in an age of calls for increased transparency, that the California legislature wants to prevent that.  So we think that all of our residents deserve to live in a safe community.  And also, Mr. President, there is an area where we need your assistance with.  We will support you on preventing SB 54 and upholding what ICE does, but in California we need your help with sober living homes.  Orange County has become known as the “Rehab Riviera.”  So H.R. 5724 is just being introduced, and we would appreciate help with that, because local control is being attacked from Sacramento every single day, and this is one other issue.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll take a look.  We’ll take a look.  I’ll take a look on that.  Thank you very much.

 

MAYOR GENNAWEY:  Okay, thank you.  Appreciate that.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Steve Miller, would you like to say something?

 

MR. MILLER:  Just what an honor it is to be able to work for a President who has the backs of our law enforcement officers.  Everything you’re doing every day is saving so many lives all across this country, and it’s just an endless honor to be a part of it, and even in any a small way.  So thank you, sir.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Stephen.  That’s great.  A great job you do, too.

 

MS. GASPAR:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  It’s an honor to be here.  I’m Kristin Gaspar representing the largest county here today, San Diego County.  I have 3.5 million constituents that I’m responsible for their public safety.  If you look around this room, your tiny but mighty team, this is what Governor Brown classifies as low-life politicians.  Well, here we are.

 

You’ve heard about the problems.  You’ve heard about the statistics.  And I could have thought of a million things to say to you.  I have a stack of 3,000 emails in my office.  These are the emails that have come in — thank yous, people supporting what we’re doing.  And I have a tiny little stack of less than 50 where people are very upset with what we’re doing in San Diego County.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  How is the wall going?  How is the wall?  (Laughter.)

 

MS. GASPAR:  It’s going.  It’s going.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  We’re getting it built, right?

 

MS. GASPAR:  It is being built.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  They wanted it so badly — San Diego.  They wanted it so badly.  And I said, you know, if we build it, we will lose a big constituency, because there won’t be anybody saying, “We want the wall.”  But we had to build it.  So I know they’re very happy about it.

 

MS. GASPAR:  And I’d like to share with you a story, because sometimes humanizing the issue is really important.  And a family reached out to me, and I brought with me one single photo on that plane, since the stack of 3,000 emails is a little difficult to carry.  But that photo was the last photo taken of 27-year-old Alexander Mazin, who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported.

 

Now, as his family picks up the pieces of their lives that have been shattered, his killer lives openly and freely in a Tijuana motel.  

 

Now, it’s really interesting what’s happening in San Diego with our borders, because we’ve created a situation where Governor Brown makes San Diego a great place to commit a crime because you have options.  You can either be across the border in a matter of minutes and shielded by Mexico, or you have the option of simply staying put, shielded by Governor Moonbeam.  So there are options, but there are real consequences for what’s happening.  And my heart just broke talking to Mr. Mazin about his son.  And he described his son dying like a filthy rat in a parking lot, while this killer gets to just live freely in Mexico, and being robbed of ever having the opportunity to have grandchildren.

 

Now, he said something that stuck with me.  He said, “You know, my son, he was a true patriot.  He was a wonderful human being, an exemplary citizen, lost because of the problem at our border.”  So this case, and so many others, these are the faces — this is what we’re fighting for.  And we’re all in, because we’re going to fight to protect our public safety, and we are going to speak freely about this issue until we can look back at our own children and guarantee their safety in our community.

 

Thank you for your advocacy.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you very much.  And you find Mexico helps or it does nothing for us?

 

MS. GASPAR:  Mexico does not help with cases like this because it will take years —

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Mexico does nothing for us.  They do nothing for us.  

 

     MS. GASPAR:  And this family will —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Mexico talks, but they do nothing for us, especially at the border.  Certainly don’t help us much on trade, but especially at the border, they do nothing for us.

 

     Jeff, thank you very much.  Jeff.

 

     ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS:  Mr. President, great to be with you.  I want you to know that the President has made clear to all of us that we have to do better.  We are going to do better in our Department.  We’re reviewing everything we’re doing.  And we’re going to probably have twice as many prosecutions, add a whole bunch of judges, and do the things that we can to move this agenda forward.  

 

     But I want to tell you, in my opinion, having been here and a lot of battles over this issue, this year — Kevin, and I know you and I were talking about it — could be the year — this is the year that we have to move Congress.  I’ve always said Congress will pass anything as long as it doesn’t work.  (Laughter.)  If you come up with a bill that will actually improve our sheriffs’ and our ICE officers’ and Border Patrol officers’ ability to do their job, to deport people who have entered illegally, then they object, and we seem to come up short.  This time, let’s not come up short.  

 

     We’ve got a leader.  He can articulate this message effectively.  And if we all get behind our leader, we’ll get something done this year that’s historic.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Jeff.  Thank you very much.

 

SHERIFF GRANGOFF:  Mr. President, Ray Grangoff, Deputy with the Orange County Sheriffs Department.  And thank you so much for fighting for law enforcement.  It’s much appreciated.

 

You know, for us, as the Mayor said, the biggest issue with SB 54 is not being able to communicate with law enforcement partners.  We need to be able to talk.  And since 9/11, we have done a great job of opening up the communication at the local, state, and federal level, and addressing our shared threats.

 

And in communicating with ICE, we were able to address the shared threat of getting criminal offenders off our streets.  We had a 287(g) program in Orange County, where we were able to screen all our inmates, and some of those people that we were able to identify were people that weren’t even yet on ICE’s radar because they were just new to the country.  And so we were able to put them on ICE’s radar and get them out of here.  

 

One of them that stands out, and it was back in October of 2016, a 21-year-old that was in jail on child molestation charges.  We screened that person and we were able to alert ICE, and now that person is serving time and will be out of the country.  But that goes away with SB 54, and we’re not able to talk, and that is not a good thing.  We need to address the shared threats.

 

So we will reap these bad policies that have been sown.  But the lawsuit and what your administration is doing to fight that is a huge help.  So keep it up, and thank you so much.

 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Sheriff.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

 

MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE:  Hi.  Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, city of Barstow.  We sit — we have the longest cul-de-sac.  The National Training Center is 27 miles from the city of Barstow.

 

When we joined the amicus brief, it was — we recognized that — myself and my councilmembers — was that federal law reigns over immigration, not the state.  What is happening — in listening around this table of what’s happening in other communities, I haven’t had anything personal from the ICE of illegal immigration yet, but I know it’s coming, because we can’t enforce anything.  The crime rate is up in California, and it’s going to continue to rise as long as these policies —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  It’s true.

 

     MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE:  — are blanketed across California.  And they don’t — they’re not talking to the small communities.  We talk to our citizens every day.  They’re afraid —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  And we have — the crime rate in the nation is way down.  But in California, it’s up.  Because of the ridiculous laws.  Go ahead.  

 

     MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE:  Yes.  And I just appreciate, Mr. President, for you here, listening to our concerns, listening to — it’s going to take all of us and I think we’re ready to make the fight to California to say, “Enough is enough.  We’re done.”  The blanketed policies across California aren’t working.  So we need help.  I’m glad that you’re making this fight known.  We appreciate everyone in your staff, in your administration, helping and pushing through to make sure that our communities are safe.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Appreciate it.  Thank you.

 

     MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO:  Mr. President, I’m Warren Kusumoto from the tiny town of Los Alamitos.  And we were first, and we were boldest — (laughter and applause) —

 

     PARTICIPANT:  Here, here.  

 

     MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO:  We’ve done something that no other city has done.  We’ve actually passed an ordinance and exposed our city to a lawsuit, as Mayor Edgar said.  And in this experience, there’s a silent majority of patriots out there — I’m sorry, I’m getting broken up — that they want this.  They want us to do what we’re doing.  And that anyone with common sense knows this California Values Act was put in place to protect those that are here breaking the law.  

 

     And the message I got from this whole experience is, the citizens of our state and our city feel like they have less rights than the entitled illegal aliens, and the entitled attitude is a thing that really just makes me really unhappy.  They feel that they’re entitled to something that we don’t even get.  So please, sir, we need your help.  We appreciate your leadership.

 

     And because —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  And by the way, you gave us great leadership, too.  

 

     MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO:  Thank you, sir.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Don’t kid yourself.  You did a great job.  

 

     MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO:  But the state — you know, the double-speak from the politicians in the State of California — the commandeering — they’ve commandeered our police force by tying their hands.  And so that’s the double-speak that comes out of the bullies there.  We just poked the bully.  And I think being the lowlifes that we are, we’re closest to the people.  We know what the people want, and we’ve gone forward with that boldly.  And I’ve asked other cities to step up and do at least — consider the matter, listen to their constituents, and they’ll know what they’re supposed to do.  

 

     Thank you, sir, for having us here.    

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thanks very much.  Great job.  Thank you.  

 

     MS. STEEL:  Mr. President, Michelle Steel from Orange County.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

 

     MS. STEEL:  Thank you very much by inviting us.  And I just want to say, as a Korean-American — first generation Korean-American — went through legal process to coming in here, really appreciate for the release of three Korean-Americans from North Korea.  So we really appreciate that.   

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  We’re very happy about that.

 

     MS. STEEL:  At the same time that — for SB 54 — that because of City of Los Alamitos, they have 11,700 people living there, and they had the gutsy move and then Orange County led, as of now, the 9 counties of 58 in California that they passed an ordinance — they passed the ordinances or resolutions to go anti-sanctuary state.  And then more than 35 cities as of now.

 

     This is really an interesting experience because I was never called — I married to — you know, Kevin knows my husband, John Steel, who is a national committeeman from California —

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  Good.  Say hello.  

 

     MS. STEEL:  This is the first time that I was called — because I was going out for anti-sanctuary state — “a racist big ‘B’.”  I mean, on the email that you get this — and I said, “Oh my God, first generation.  How desperate that the other side are” — (laughter) — “that being called.”  

 

     But I am very, very excited that Orange County actually filed a lawsuit to join Attorney General’s lawsuit.  So June 5th, that court is going to decide we can join them — join the federal government or not.  If it’s not, then we’re going to file the lawsuit.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good.

 

     MS. STEEL:  So we’re going to work together in Orange County.  Most of cities that we came from — Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano — Orange County is all with you.  And you know what?  People — and I got all these emails; mostly positive.  And then, actually, Berkeley study came out where 57 percent are against us — so for sanctuary state — and 41 percent against sanctuary state.  I don’t think that polling is really right because whatever we get, we got all mostly positive ones except that person called.  Yep.

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  Right.  Well, you have done a great job, Michelle.

 

     MS. STEEL:  Thank you very much.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  We appreciate it.  Fantastic job.  Sheriff?  

 

     SHERIFF CHRISTIANSON:  Well, Mr. President, thank you for having us.  And first of all, thank you for being a defender of the rule of law, and for your overwhelming support of public safety and standing with the men and women who put their lives on the line every day.  That’s just tremendous.

 

     You know, the great part about being last is there’s not much else to say.  (Laughter.)  So I won’t, in the interest in time and out of respect of your time, I’ll only add one point.   And I know this is something that we’ve had conversations with Director Homan and Attorney General Sessions, and that’s the detainer issue.  For the sheriffs, that’s a real problem for us.  The federal court has said that honoring detainers is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  That puts us in a very precarious position from a point — a liability standpoint.  

 

And we really need to be able to do our jobs without all of the interference that’s going on.  And certainly, I’m going to reaffirm Director Homan’s comments.  We have an outstanding relationship with ICE.  We work very closely with them.  Since 9/11, sir, we have an unbelievable partnership with our federal law enforcement agencies.  And there shouldn’t be anybody interfering with a sheriff’s ability, a chief’s ability, or anybody in this room at this table today from defending people against those who exploit and victimize them.  There should be no interference in our ability to protect our communities, to protect our national security.  

 

     I’m privileged to live in the Central Valley, where agriculture is the number-one economic industry — multi-billion dollar industry.  We feed the world.  ICE is not out sweeping through those agricultural communities.  We’re looking for the people, the criminals.  Not the people who are working, seeking a better life in America, sent their kids to school, are out every day in agriculture, whether that’s nuts, fruits, poultry, dairy, you name it.  That’s not what we’re doing, sir.  We’re focused on those individuals who victimize and exploit the weak and defenseless.  And we should be able to do that without interference.  

 

     Thank you for having us.  

 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Adam.  That’s fantastic.  I want to thank everybody for being here, very special people.  And we are — step by step, we’re bringing it back, and we will bring it back.  We will not fail.  We’ll bring it back.  So thank you very much.  Thank you very much.  Please.  Go ahead.  Thank you.  Thank you.  

 

                             END                4:14 P.M. EDT

 
…