U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday is set to unveil his long-awaited plan to tackle the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.

The plan aims to turn $200 billion in federal funds into a $1.5 trillion investment for fixing America’s roads, bridges, railways and other infrastructure.

The proposal relies heavily on state and local governments and the private sector to cover the costs for most of the  projects.

“Every federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with state and local governments, and where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit,” Trump said at last month’s State of the Union address.

The $200 billion federal funds would come from cuts to existing programs. Of that, half would be spent on an incentive program to match funds from state and local governments.

About $50 billion would go toward rural projects in the form of block grants to states. Another $20 billion would be allocated to “transformative programs” meant for new and innovative projects. An additional $20 billion would go toward expanding loan programs and private activity bonds, and the final $10 billion would go into a “capital financing fund.”

The plan also seeks to shorten the time and expense of getting federal permits to no more than two years. Currently, the process can take five to 10 years.

“President Trump’s infrastructure proposal is a disaster,” said Shelley Poticha of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It fails to offer the investment needed to bring our country into the 21st century. Even worse, his plan includes an unacceptable corporate giveaway by truncating environmental reviews.”

But Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, praised Trump “for providing the leadership we have desperately needed to reclaim our rightful place as a global leader on true 21st-century infrastructure.”

On Monday, Trump will meet with key members of Congress, including heads of relevant committees, to discuss the plan.
…

The U.S. Senate begins debate this week on a topic Congress has left unaddressed for decades: immigration reform.

“Yes, it’s going to happen right here — stay tuned,” Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said in a recent floor speech. “Next week could be historic.”

President Donald Trump has consistently framed immigration reform as a security matter, first and foremost.

“Glaring loopholes in our laws have allowed criminals and gang members to break into our country,” Trump said in his weekly address, issued Sunday. “During my State of the Union, I called on Congress to immediately close dangerous loopholes in federal law that have endangered our communities and imposed enormous burdens on U.S. taxpayers.”

Of immediate concern to many lawmakers of both political parties are hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants soon to be at risk of deportation. Some Republicans also want to reshape and restrict legal immigration, which could have a major impact on those aspiring to come to America from around the world.

Trump set the stage for the upcoming debate last year, when he terminated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a program that granted temporary work and study permits to immigrants brought illegally to America as children, and gave Congress a March 5 deadline to address their plight.

“At that point [March 5], 1,000 young people each day, on average, will lose their protection from deportation and their legal right to work in America,” Durbin said.

“I see this as an opportunity for these individuals who have literally grown up in our country to be able to be full participants in our country,” Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said.

The president has made clear he wants more than a DACA fix.

“We need the [border] wall. We’re going to get the wall,” Trump said at the White House last week. “We’ve identified three priorities for creating a safe, modern and lawful immigration system: securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the terrible visa lottery.”

Aside from building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump has proposed lower the number of immigrants America accepts from around the world and prioritizing newcomers with advanced work skills.

Democrats say they are open to a smaller deal, legal status for DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers and beefing up U.S. borders.

“There’s an appetite on both sides and in both chambers to get this done, both helping the Dreamers and border security,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said.

Senior Republican lawmakers say Trump deserves credit for the totality of his immigration proposal.

“President Trump has done something that President Obama never did. He’s offered 1.8 million young adults who are currently DACA recipients and DACA-eligible an opportunity to get on a pathway to American citizenship,” Republican Senator John Cornyn said. “That’s an incredibly generous offer.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has not speculated what, if anything, the chamber might pass.

“While I obviously cannot guarantee any outcome, let alone supermajority support, I can ensure the process is fair to all sides, and that is what I intend to do,” McConnell said last week.

“We’re not going to solve the whole problem in this next week,” Maine independent Senator Angus King warned. “We are not going to solve all of the complicated — and believe me they are complicated — issues.”

McConnell promised an open debate, meaning there is no time limit and senators of both parties can, in theory, offer an unlimited number of proposals for the chamber to consider. Anything the Senate approves would need to pass in the House of Representatives and get Trump’s signature to become law.

 
…

A statement from the White House press secretary Sunday affirmed that “Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, and we support its right to defend itself from the Iranian-backed Syrian and militia forces in southern Syria.”

The statement follows Israel’s attack Saturday on a dozen Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria. Israel conducted the air strikes after anti-aircraft fire downed an Israeli warplane returning from a raid on Iranian-backed positions in Syria. Earlier Israel said it had shot down an Iranian drone launched from Syria after it entered Israeli territory late Friday.

The White House statement urged “Iran and its allies to cease provocative actions and work toward regional peace.”

US: Israel entitled to protect itself

On Saturday, the U.S. Department of Defense also said that Israel is entitled to protect itself against acts of aggression.

“Israel is our closest security partner in the region and we fully support Israel’s inherent right to defend itself against threats to its territory and its people,” said Pentagon spokesman Adrian Rankine-Galloway, who added the U.S. was not involved in the attack.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he spoke Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I reiterated to him our obligation and right to defend ourselves against attacks from Syrian territory,” he said. “We agreed coordination between our armies would continue,” said Netanyahu, who also discussed the strike with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Syria: New Israeli aggression

Syria’s state media said earlier Saturday Syria is responding to “new Israeli aggression,” following the Israeli raid.

In Saturday’s raid, an Israeli F-16 fighter jet was downed by the Syrian Army with anti-aircraft fire.

The Israeli pilots were able to eject themselves from their aircraft, the IDF said. Israel said one pilot was “severely injured” in the “emergency evacuation,” while another pilot was slightly injured.

Feras Shehabi, a Syrian lawmaker, said Syria’s response to Israel’s assault signals a “major shift in the balance of power in favor of Syria and the axis of resistance.” He said “Israelis must realize they no longer have superiority in the skies or on the ground.”

IDF spokesperson Brigadier General Ronen Manelis said, “Iran is dragging the region into a situation in which it doesn’t know how it will end. We are prepared for a variety of incidents …whoever is responsible for this incident is the one who will pay the price.”

The Syrian attack resulted in air raid sirens being activated in the Golan Heights and Beit She’an, but no casualties were reported.

“The IDF will continue to operate against attempts to infiltrate Israeli airspace and will act with determination to prevent any violations of Israel’s sovereignty,” an IDF spokesperson said Saturday.
…

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s invitation to South Korean President Moon Jae-in to visit Pyongyang could complicate the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts to pressure the reclusive communist state to abandon its nuclear weapons program, analysts say.

Kim extended the rare invitation to the South Korean leader through his closest confidante: his only sister Kim Yo Jong, who was visiting the South as part of the North Korean delegation to the Winter Olympics, according to South Korea’s presidential office on Saturday.

Moon said he wanted to “create the environment for that to be able to happen,” according to the office.

​Dialogue or pressure or both?

The North Korean diplomatic initiative comes amid growing international pressure, led by the United States, aimed at imposing maximum economic and diplomatic pressure on the regime. Former U.S. officials and analysts say the North Korean move could put Moon, who supports Trump’s pressure campaign while pursuing dialogue with the North, at odds with the Trump administration.

“The invitation is a very clever move by Kim Jong Un to drive a big wedge [between Washington and Seoul]. Kim has been masterful at public relations in regard to the summit and playing on feelings for Korean unity,” said Robert Manning, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

In the past, inter-Korean summits often resulted in a substantial economic aid to Pyongyang. If Moon follows in the footsteps of his predecessors, it would hurt the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against the North, according to Ken Gause, director of the International Affairs Group at the Center for Naval Analyses.

“If it leads to promises of aid, then it would definitely undermine the maximum pressure strategy,” Gause said, referring to the proposed summit between the two Koreas.

Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst who is now senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, warned Seoul could violate international sanctions by providing economic aid to Pyongyang.

“Moon should realize that offering economic benefits for symbolic North Korean gestures is not only ineffectual but would themselves risk being violations of U.N. resolutions,” Klingner said.

Balancing act

The Moon government has been engaging in a delicate balancing act between Pyongyang and its longtime ally Washington after Kim Jong Un offered to send a delegation to the Olympics in the South. Moon has accommodated the North’s demands on Olympics participation in hopes of persuading Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table to discuss denuclearization, while trying to allay concern in Washington that the North was using a “charm offensive” to simply ease sanctions and earn time to complete its nuclear weapons program. 

The North’s invitation, Manning said, apparently puts Seoul in a difficult position, where it needs to prove its efforts will bear fruit.

“President Moon must balance his desire for North-South reconciliation with his policy of denuclearization,” Manning said.

Dennis Wilder, a Georgetown University assistant professor, who served as National Security Council senior director for East Asian affairs during the George W. Bush administration, suggested Moon should accept the invitation only if Pyongyang agrees to discuss denuclearization with Washington.

“My own view is that President Moon should only go if there is a strong signal from the North of willingness to engage seriously with the Trump administration,” Wilder said.

Joseph DeTrani, former U.S. special envoy for nuclear talks with North Korea, said Moon should make it clear to Kim that he wants to discuss the nuclear and missile issues at the summit. The former envoy believes Moon should use the meeting as an opportunity to push Kim to accept his predecessor’s promise to denuclearize.

Washington unmoved

The latest North Korean diplomatic overture does not appear to have discouraged Washington from pursuing its strategy of pressure.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who led a U.S. delegation to the Olympic Games, told reporters that he and Moon discussed the South Korean leader’s meeting with Kim Jong Un’s sister, adding he remains confident about Seoul’s support for the pressure strategy.

“There is no daylight between the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan on the need to continue to isolate North Korea economically and diplomatically until they abandon their nuclear and ballistic missile programs,” Pence said.
…

The CIA on Saturday categorically denied reports that it was fleeced by a mystery Russian who promised compromising information on U.S. President Donald Trump.

The secretive agency rarely issues any kind of comment, but came out to deny the report in The New York Times and a similar one in The Intercept, an online journal focusing on national security issues.

“The fictional story that CIA was bilked out of $100,000 is patently false,” the Central Intelligence Agency said in a statement sent to AFP.

“The people swindled here were James Risen and Matt Rosenberg,” the CIA said, referring to Times reporter Rosenberg, who wrote the story, and Risen, a former Times reporter who authored The Intercept’s article.

Both reports appeared Friday.

The president tweeted approvingly that the Times article shows a need to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

Worthy of a le Carre novel

In a story worthy of a John le Carre novel that included secret USB-drive handovers in a small Berlin bar and coded messages delivered over the National Security Agency’s Twitter account, CIA agents spent much of last year trying to buy back from the Russians hacking programs stolen from the NSA, the Times reported.

The seller, who was not identified but had suspected links to both cyber criminals and Russian intelligence, tantalized the U.S. spies with an offer of the NSA hacking tools that had been advertised for sale online by a group called the Shadow Brokers.

Some of the tools, developed by the NSA to break into the computers of U.S. rivals, were used by other hackers last year to crack or infect computer systems around the world. The Times described the Americans as desperate to get the tools back.

Reached through a chain of intermediaries, the seller reportedly wanted $1 million after quickly dropping his opening demand of about $10 million.

The $100,000 was an initial payment by U.S. agents still dubious he really had what he was promising.

In its report, the Times cited U.S. and European intelligence officials, the Russian, and communications the newspaper reviewed.

The seller also repeatedly pressed U.S. agents with offers of compromising materials, or kompromat, on Trump, the Times said.

‘Off the books’

But an investigation was under way in Washington on possible links between Moscow and Trump’s 2016 election campaign, and the U.S. agents reportedly did not want to get involved in anything that smelled of the politics back home.

U.S. intelligence officials say that Russia interfered with the election to help elect Trump, and that it continues to use disinformation to sow confusion in the American political system.

The Intercept reported that the “off-the-books communications channel” with Russia created rifts in the CIA. The agency is led by Trump loyalist Mike Pompeo, but many of its staffers are still smarting over Trump’s repeated harsh comments about the intelligence community’s role in the Russia meddling investigation.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is probing the possible links between Trump’s presidential campaign and Moscow, as well as possible obstruction of justice.

Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu said in a tweet Friday that Risen’s article “suggests the CIA Director fears getting information damaging to @realDonaldTrump that is being offered by Russians.”

If that’s true, Lieu said, “the CIA Director needs to explain his actions to Congress. He took an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump.”

Trump on Saturday referred favorably to the Times article about the Russian who “sold phony secrets on ‘Trump’ to the US,” and noted the operative reportedly had drastically lowered his original price.

“I hope people are now seeing and understanding what is going on here. It is all now starting to come out — DRAIN THE SWAMP!” he tweeted, in a reference to what he sees as a need for reform.

Trump has frequently criticized the Times, which has published numerous investigative reports about him and his administration, calling it a “failing” newspaper providing “fake news.”

Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia.

The Times reported that, in the end, the deal with the Russian broke down last month as the Russian failed to come up with any of the sought-after NSA materials, and the Trump-related material was either already known or untrustworthy.

The Russian was told by the Americans to leave Western Europe and not return, according to the Times.
…

With the launch of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert dismissed concerns that U.S. efforts to counter North Korea’s “charm offensive” could create a rift with South Korea. But some analysts are expressing concern that tough talk from Vice President Mike Pence on Pyongyang could put the U.S. on a collision course with its long-time ally, South Korea. VOA diplomatic correspondent Cindy Saine reports from the State Department.
…

The New York Times is reporting that a draft military investigation into the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Niger last year calls for the Pentagon to reduce the number of ground missions in West Africa.

Military officials with knowledge of the findings told the newspaper the investigation also concludes that commanders in the field should have less authority to send troops on potentially high-risk patrols. Higher-level commanders will now need to approve certain missions that carry a higher risk.

No drawdown in Libya, Somalia

The officials say U.S. troops will continue to carry out joint patrols with local military forces, but say military officials will more thoroughly vet such missions, according to the paper. The officials said missions would not be scaled back in Libya or Somalia, where U.S. troops have been working with local forces to fight Islamic State and al-Shabab militants.

The draft investigation findings have not yet been released to the public.

The Times said the military investigation describes a string of errors that led to the deaths of the Americans, including bad decision-making and a breakdown in communication.

​October ambush in Niger

Pentagon and Nigerien defense officials said Islamic State fighters ambushed their forces Oct. 4, killing four American soldiers, four Nigerien soldiers and a Nigerien interpreter.

In the attack, a group of 12 members of a U.S. Special Operations Task Force had accompanied 30 Nigerian forces on a reconnaissance mission from the capital city of Niamey to an area near Tongo Tongo.

Members of the team had just completed a meeting with local leaders and were walking back to their vehicles when they were attacked, U.S. officials told VOA.

The soldiers said the meeting ran late, and some suspected the villagers were intentionally delaying their departure, one of the officials said.

About 1,300 U.S. military personnel work in the Lake Chad Basin — Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and Chad — to help strengthen local militaries and counter Boko Haram, al-Qaida, IS and other extremist groups.
…

The White House confirmed late Friday that a second staff member had resigned over allegations of domestic abuse.

Spokesman Raj Shah said David Sorenson, a speechwriter for the Council on Environmental Quality, resigned Friday. Two days earlier White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter stepped down amid accusations by both his former wives that he had abused them.

Sorensen denied the abuse allegations, which were first reported Friday by The Washington Post. Sorenson’s ex-wife had told the Post that he was violent and emotionally abusive during their short marriage.

Trump on Porter

President Donald Trump said Friday that he is very sad at Porter’s resignation.

“He says he’s innocent, and I think you have to remember that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday. “He said very strongly yesterday that he’s innocent, so you’ll have to talk to him about that.”

The president did not mention the former wives or their claims that Porter physically and psychologically abused them.

Security clearance concerns

The revelations about Porter have raised fresh questions about the attitude of senior White House staff toward allegations of improper behavior by employees. It has also cast a spotlight on the practice of allowing staff without security clearances to work in and around the Oval Office.

Porter had only an interim clearance while holding one of the most sensitive jobs in the White House, where he controlled the flow of information to the president. A full clearance had been held up while the FBI investigated abuse allegations by his two former wives.

Trump Friday wished his former aide well, noting that Porter had done “a very good job in the White House.”

Porter’s swift resignation followed publication in Britain’s Daily Mail of a picture of his first wife, Colbie Holderness, with a black eye allegedly suffered when Porter punched her in 2005 while the couple was on vacation in Italy.

Holderness and Porter’s second wife, Jennifer Willoughby, were both quoted by the tabloid as saying Porter’s consistent abuse was the reason for their respective divorces.

​Kelly under scrutiny

The Porter matter has intensified scrutiny of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a former army general brought in to bring order to an administration that had been seen as chaotic under previous chief, Reince Priebus.

Media reports say Kelly apparently had prior knowledge of Porter’s inappropriate behavior. Critics say Kelly should have been more concerned about employees working without security clearances.

Kelly has also come under fire for appearing to defend Porter when the allegation of abuse first surfaced. He issued a statement Wednesday calling Porter “a man of true integrity and honor.”

“I can’t say enough good things about him,” Kelly wrote. “He is a friend, a confidant and a trusted professional. I am proud to serve alongside him.”

Later, as the picture of Holderness with the black eye circulated on the Internet, Kelly amended his original statement, saying, “I was shocked by the new allegations released today against Rob Porter. There is no place for domestic violence in our society.”

Porter resigns

A day after Kelly and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders spoke warmly of Porter, his departure was announced with a terse comment. 

“He was terminated yesterday and his last day was yesterday,” Shah, the deputy press secretary said Thursday. Shah characterized the departure as a resignation, however, rather than a firing.

Porter, a Rhodes scholar and Harvard-educated lawyer, played an important role in deciding which articles and policy proposals were given to the president for his review.

Porter had a hand in writing Trump’s recent State of the Union address, and news photos and videos often showed images of him with other members of the White House inner circle. Several news agencies have reported that he is currently romantically linked with another close Trump aide, White House Communications Director Hope Hicks.

Porter issued a statement Wednesday denying the accusations.

“These outrageous allegations are simply false,” he said. “I took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. I have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but I will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign.”
…

The U.S. Congress has approved spending bill and two year budget agreement which has been signed by President Donald Trump, ending a brief government shutdown. The deal ended weeks of uncertainty as well as Democratic hopes of linking passage of the budget with a solution for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. VOA congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on the immigration fight ahead on Capitol Hill.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping bipartisan budget bill, ending a brief government shutdown and adding hundreds of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, disaster aid and the military.

Trump signed the measure without fanfare after it received final congressional approval in the early hours of Friday morning.

White House officials said the lack of a signing ceremony indicated Trump’s displeasure with the last-minute additions that will further add to the government’s ballooning deficit. In two subsequent morning tweets, he took aim at Democrats, who had demanded more domestic spending in return for the votes needed to win enough bipartisan support to pass the deal.

The House voted in the wee hours of the morning, 240-186, to approve the measure, which funds the government through March 23. Hours earlier, the Senate had voted 71-28 in favor.

The deal gives appropriations committees in both houses of Congress time to craft a detailed spending plan that will fund the government through September of 2019.

Several lawmakers on the left and right opposed the bill, including conservative Republicans who objected to the large spending increases. Progressive Democrats protested the omission of language that would end the threat of deportation for more than one million young undocumented immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” who were brought to the United States as children.

Trump ordered an end to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program last year. Participants face deportation when the program expires March 5 unless Congress takes action.

Trump, in his third tweet of the day, applauded the exclusion of the Dreamers, or recipients of the DACA provision, from the spending bill. “Fortunately, DACA not included in this Bill, negotiations to start now!” he wrote.

Republican and Democratic legislative leaders praised the deal.

“This is a great victory for our men and women in uniform. Republicans and Democrats joined together to finally give our troops the resources and our generals the certainty to plan for the future,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had opposed earlier versions of the bill that cut domestic and disaster relief spending, also claimed victory.

“What makes Democrats proudest of this bill is that after a decade of cuts to programs that help the middle class, we have a dramatic reversal,” Schumer said. “Funding for education, infrastructure, fighting drug abuse, and medical research will all, for the first time in years, get very significant increases, and we have placed Washington on a path to deliver more help to the middle class in the future.”

Dreamers’ plight

While Schumer and the Democrats yielded on the DACA issue, Republican leaders gave assurances that overhauling America’s immigration system remains high on their agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to start Senate floor debate on immigration reform, including a fix for DACA recipients, as soon as spending issues are resolved.

Speaker Ryan gave a similar assurance Thursday, saying, “To anyone who doubts my commitment to solve this problem and bring up a DACA and immigration reform bill, do not. We will bring a solution to the floor, one that the president will sign.”

A single Republican senator had held up passage of the budget bill Thursday, forcing the brief government shutdown, to underscore his fear that increasing spending by hundreds of billions of dollars would explode America’s already rising federal deficit and add to the nation’s more than $20 trillion national debt.

“The reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said in a fiery floor speech that went on for hours. “I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, How come you were against President [Barack] Obama’s deficits and then how come you’re for Republican deficits?'”

Michael Bowman contributed to this report.

Watch related video by VOA’s Katherine Gypson:

​
…

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence arrived in Pyeongchang, South Korea, Friday to attend the opening ceremonies of the 2018 Winter Olympics.

Earlier Friday, Pence traveled to the South Korean Navy’s 2nd Fleet Command in Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers south of Seoul, to visit a memorial for the South Korean warship Cheonan, which was sunk by an explosion blamed on the North. Nearly 50 sailors aboard the Cheonan were killed.

“Our objective here today is to stand with our allies. But is also to stand up for the truth. And to recognize that whatever images may emerge against the powerful backdrop and idealism of the Olympics, North Korea has to accept change,” Pence told reporters at the naval base before heading to the Olympic Games venue.

“They have to abandon their nuclear ambitions. They have to end the day of provocation and menacing. And frankly they have to end an appalling record of human rights that you heard first-hand today, the world community,” he added.

The vice president also met with North Korean defectors while in Pyeongtaek.

At the Olympics

U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility that the vice president might meet a North Korean official at the Olympics. North Korean state media said Thursday there was no intention on the North Korean side for such talks to take place.

Pence said his team had not requested a meeting, but that if it did happen, he would continue his message that North Korea must entirely abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile efforts and will remain under pressure until it does so.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said South Korea sees hosting the Olympics as a way to improve diplomatic relations with North Korea. He has referred to the games as the “Olympic Games of peace.”

Ahead of the opening ceremony in Pyeongchang, Pence, Moon and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe attended a reception for about 200 dignitaries hosted by the South Korean president.

According to the vice president’s office, Pence stopped by many tables at the reception, “but did not come across the North Korea delegation.”

Vow to South Korea

On Thursday, Pence said in a meeting with Moon that Washington would “bring maximum pressure to bear on North Korea” until they abandon their nuclear weapons program.

Meeting with Moon at the Blue House in Seoul, Pence reaffirmed to longtime ally South Korea the U.S. commitment to economically and diplomatically isolate North Korea in order to achieve the goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

On Thursday, while in Japan, Pence stopped at Yokota Air Base in western Tokyo, where he gave a pointed speech against North Korea.

He said the United States will act with “vigilance and resolve” in the face of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats, and reiterated the Trump administration’s warning that while its seeks peace, “all options are on the table.”

About 54,000 personnel are stationed at the U.S. base. Pence toured the facility and met with Air Force Lt. Gen. Jerry Martinez, commander of U.S. Forces Japan. He also was briefed on the capabilities of the base if “diplomacy fails.”

Pence said North Korea has repeatedly responded to overtures from the world with broken promises and provocations. He highlighted his earlier announcement that the United States would continue to intensify what he called a “maximum pressure campaign” and keep it in place until North Korea abandons its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

“We’re standing in a country that has literally seen ballistic missiles overfly their land twice in a single month. And they’ve seen multiple ballistic missiles land within their economic zone in the Sea of Japan,” Pence later told reporters.

“American forces, the Self-Defense Forces of Japan are ready for any eventuality. And we will continue to make it clear to all parties that the United States and our allies in this region stand ready at a moment’s notice to defend our people and defend our way of life,” he added.
…

U.S. House of Representatives Democrats on Thursday proposed $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending over 10 years — five times the amount President Donald Trump is expected to offer in his upcoming plan to spur states and cities to seed new public works projects.

Trump will outline his long-awaited plan to use $200 billion to try to generate at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure improvements over 10 years next Monday, a White House official confirmed earlier this week.

But Democrats want far more government spending, including $100 billion on schools alone as well as billions to expand rural broadband internet service, improve airports, mass transit, roads and ports, boost energy efficiency and improve aging water systems.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Trump’s plan was a “disappointment” and spends too little federal money. The plan “shifts the burden onto cities and states,” she added.

A leaked document last month disclosed administration plans to reduce federal cost-sharing for projects to no more than 20 percent of the costs from the traditional 80 percent.

The Trump administration has previously rejected Democrats’ call to spend $1 trillion in new government spending as not fiscally responsible.

On Wednesday, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders unveiled a spending deal that includes an additional $20 billion over two years “to invest in infrastructure, including programs related to rural water and wastewater, clean and safe drinking water, rural broadband, energy, innovative capital projects, and surface transportation.”

Specific spending details will be left up to members of Congress when they write legislation later this year.

Trump will meet with state and local officials Monday to tout his plan, which includes $100 billion in incentives for state and local projects, $50 billion in grants for rural projects, $30 billion for government lending programs and $20 billion for transformative projects, sources briefed on the matter said.

Trump plans a separate meeting with congressional leaders later next week and is expected to travel to Florida for an infrastructure event next Friday, two officials said.

One big question is how improvements will be paid for.

Democrats did not propose a specific funding mechanism Thursday, and the Trump administration has said it plans to rely on spending cuts to pay for the plan. The White House has not ruled out potential new revenue streams, such as an increase in the gas tax.
…

More than 500 evangelical Christian leaders and pastors in the United States called Thursday for President Donald Trump to curb his effort to limit the number of refugees he is allowing into the country.

The church officials are part of World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization. They voiced concern about the sharp cutback in the number of refugees to the United States. They say the number declined from nearly 97,000 in 2016 to about 33,000 last year.

Trump has limited the number of refugees the U.S. has accepted as part of his effort to thwart potential terrorists from moving to the nation.

Faith leaders ‘troubled’

In a letter to Trump and members of Congress, the faith leaders said, “We are troubled by the dramatic reduction in arrivals of refugees to the United States,” saying the number this year could fall to the lowest since the refugee resettlement program was started in 1980. 

They said the reduction was occurring “at a time when there are more refugees in the world than ever before in recorded history. Our prayer is that the U.S. would continue to be a beacon of hope for those fleeing persecution.”

The church leaders, who have generally been supportive of Trump’s presidency, acknowledged that “we live in a dangerous world and affirm the crucial role of government in protecting us from harm and setting the terms on refugee admissions. However, compassion and security can coexist, as they have for decades. While we are eager to welcome persecuted Christians, we also welcome vulnerable Muslims and people of other faiths or no faith at all.”

They said Trump’s order to limit the number of refugees entering the U.S. is “robbing families of hope and a future.”

Call for protection of young refugees

The faith leaders also called for protection against the deportation of young immigrants brought illegally into the U.S. years ago by their parents.

Trump also has called for allowing 1.8 million of these immigrants to be allowed to stay in the U.S. after he ended a program started by former President Barack Obama to protect them from being returned to their native countries.

In exchange, Trump wants Congress to fund construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico to thwart further illegal migration and an end to other programs that have allowed hundreds of thousands of other foreign nationals to move legally to the U.S.

Congress is expected to soon debate immigration policy changes, but it is unclear what might be adopted or what legislation Trump might be willing to accept. 
…

President Donald Trump has been getting a bump up in the polls in recent days, likely thanks to growing public optimism about the U.S. economy.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll has President Donald Trump’s approval rating at 40 percent, his best showing in seven months in that survey. The Gallup weekly tracking poll also had Trump at 40 percent. The last time that happened was mid-September. The Real Clear Politics polling average now has Trump at slightly above 42 percent, a notable change after months of weak readings in the mid to high-30’s.

But political analysts have been quick to caution any presidential progress in the polls could be undone by continuing attacks aimed at opposition Democrats and the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Blasting Democrats

Trump took his economic message to a factory in Ohio recently where he highlighted the impact of his tax cuts. But the president also took a swipe at Democrats who withheld their applause at his recent State of the Union Address.

“They were like, death, and un-American, un-American.Somebody said treasonous. I mean, yeah I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not?,” he said.

It was a sharp deviation in tone from Trump’s recent address to Congress where he raised the prospect of bipartisanship.

“I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people,” a line that generated applause in the House chamber.

Trump’s slightly improving poll numbers suggest voters are beginning to give him some credit for the surging economy. But the attacks on Democrats could undermine his efforts to reach out and broaden his base of support beyond Trump loyalists.

“You know, if Trump is smart he will try to move to the center and make deals with Democrats,” said Jim Kessler of the center-left advocacy group Third Way. “But they have not shown an ability to go more than a week without some disaster occurring. So until they are able to string a couple of weeks together, I expect chaos.”

Russia probe

Trump and some of his Republican allies in Congress also continue to complain about the Russia probe.Dueling Republican and Democratic staff memos have sharpened the divide over whether there was any political motivation to initiate the investigation into Russian election meddling.But Democrats see that as a concerted effort to undermine the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

“They do not quit with all these conspiracy theories, with all these ridiculous fomentations,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer this week. “They do not quit, perhaps because they are afraid of what a real investigation, which Mueller is doing and will continue to do, will reveal.”

The Mueller probe shows no signs of ending anytime soon and the longer it looms over the administration, the more it could become a factor in the November midterm congressional midterm elections.

“That does overhang his presidency,” said John Fortier with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.” We do not know the timing.We do not know the revelations that will come out and it could be a big bombshell one way or the other as we proceed this year.”

Looming midterms

Presidential approval ratings can have a big impact on midterm voting. The party that holds the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in midterms, and those losses are magnified when the president’s approval is under 50 percent. In Trump’s case, he has struggled throughout the first year of his presidency to stay near 40 percent, and that has a lot of Republicans worried about their chances to hold their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats need to pick up 24 seats in the House to retake the majority.

Republicans hold a 51 to 49 seat edge in the Senate.But Democrats are defending 26 of the 34 seats at stake in the November election and ten of the seats they hold are states that voted for Trump in 2016.

Another good indicator for the midterms is the generic ballot question where voters are asked which party they would prefer to represent them in Congress. Democrats currently have an edge on that question over Republicans by about six points, according to the Real Clear Politics average of several surveys. But that is down from a double-digit Democratic advantage in December, suggesting the strong economy and the slight uptick in Trump’s approval rating might be helping Republicans.
…

President Donald Trump will be among friends Thursday when he speaks to the 66th annual National Prayer Breakfast, an event dominated by his staunchest supporters, evangelical Christians.

He comes to the breakfast with several promises kept. 

“There are a lot of issues that the president has delivered on for evangelicals and for Christians,” said Jenna Browder, host of the Christian Broadcasting Network’s Faith Nation show. 

“We’re talking about moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. We’re talking about his stance on abortion and being pro-life. We’re talking about the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, and not just him at the Supreme Court but also the federal courts as well,” Browder said in a VOA interview.

This year, however, there’s a new item on the agenda of many evangelicals: helping undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children who now face deportation after Trump rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allows them to stay.

Trump has said he wants these immigrants — known informally as Dreamers, a name taken from a legislative effort to address their status, which did not pass — to remain in the only country many of them have ever known, but only if Congress approves measures to strengthen border enforcement and fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

At a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday, evangelical leaders joined members of Congress from the president’s Republican Party in demanding a solution to the Dreamers’ dilemma before a March 5 deadline set by Trump.

“As Christians, Dreamers are not some abstract category for us,” said Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

“Dreamers are teaching Sunday school in our churches. Dreamers are leading door-to-door evangelism efforts in our communities. Dreamers are the ones who are baptizing, the ones who are teaching people to read in our communities,” Moore added.

Conservative Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma called this a “unique moment” to act on the immigration issue.

“Each individual is created in the image of God, each individual has value and worth, each individual has dignity, and for the very foundation of our country, even before we were a nation, the Declaration of Independence, we honored the rights of each individual,” Lankford said. “We want to continue to be able to practice that.”

Keeping promises to evangelicals

Trump’s reputation for keeping promises to evangelicals is good. Weeks after taking office last year, he told prayer breakfast attendees he would do away with a 63-year-old law known as the Johnson Amendment, which some Christian pastors said threatens their churches’ tax-exempt status if they endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

“Our republic was formed on the basis that freedom is not a gift from government, but freedom is a gift from God,” Trump said, quoting Thomas Jefferson. “That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. I will do that.”

While the law remains on the books, Trump signed an executive order last May intended to allow churches to be more politically outspoken.

“That’s something that hasn’t been done in a long time, and the president was proud to do it,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said.

Those who support the Johnson Amendment, however, say Trump’s executive order made it easier for religious groups to deny contraception and other forms of birth control to their employees in their health insurance coverage.

At a forum held before the 2016 presidential election, Diane Winston, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and an authority on religion and the media, said evangelical voters differentiate between Trump’s morality and his politics.

“He supports some of their basic social and political positions. He may be immoral, but he has a moral agenda,” Winston said.

CBN’s Browder said Trump has shown evangelicals that while his behavior may not be what they would like, he represents their interests.

“If you have a candidate, a president, who is not perfect, like you, like me, but who is delivering on policy, then it makes a lot of sense that evangelicals would support him,” she said.

The annual multifaith breakfast is held each year on the first Thursday in February. Lawmakers and religious leaders from about 70 countries are expected at this year’s event, which brings bipartisan political leaders and their religious counterparts together to meet, pray and build relationships.

Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has headlined the event.
…

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi conducted a rare “filibuster” speaking for more than seven hours in Congress on Wednesday to try to force Republicans to bring up an immigration bill in the chamber.

The California Democrat, who turns 78 next month, started talking shortly after 10 a.m., saying that Democrats would oppose any funding bill unless House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, agreed to bring a bipartisan immigration bill to the House floor for a vote.

A filibuster is a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures. This case is not a classic filibuster since it is not obstructing the passage of specific legislation.

“There’s nothing partisan or political about protecting Dreamers,” Pelosi said, using the term commonly applied to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children. “If a Dream Act were brought to the floor, it would pass immediately, with strong bipartisan support.” She cited polling that showed 84 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. 

“I commend my Republican colleagues for their courage in speaking out on this, yet our Dreamers hang in limbo with a cruel cloud of fear and uncertainty above them. The Republican moral cowardice must end,” she continued, referring to Republican leadership’s reluctance to bring a bill to the floor.

Eight hours and seven minutes later, at 6:11 p.m., Pelosi stopped, having spent an entire workday standing at her desk in 10-centimeter heels and consuming nothing but water, an aide said.

The House historian’s office said in a statement that Pelosi’s speech was the longest continuous one in the chamber that it was “able to find on short notice.”

What was thought to be the previous House record belonged to Missouri Democratic Representative Champ Clark, who in 1909 spoke for five hours and 15 minutes, the statement said, but he was repeatedly interrupted, unlike Pelosi.
…

U.S. White House staff secretary Rob Porter said Wednesday he would resign following accusations of domestic abuse from two former wives.

He did not say when his resignation would be effective.

Porter, a senior adviser who is in charge of much of the documentation that goes to President Donald Trump for his signature, announced his resignation in a statement after his former wives made accusations against him in published reports.

DailyMail.com quoted Colbie Holderness as saying that Porter choked and punched her during their marriage. Intercept.com quoted former wife Jennifer Willoughby as saying that Porter was abusive. Reuters has not independently confirmed the claims.

“These outrageous allegations are simply false,” Porter said in a statement released by the White House. “I have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but I will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign.”

Porter said he would “seek to ensure a smooth transition when I leave the White House.”

The accusations against Porter were a surprise to many at the White House, who have seen the lanky aide as a mild-mannered, easy-going adviser.

Porter had not yet been approved for a security clearance.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said issues related to an individual’s suitability are reviewed through a thorough and lengthy background check process.

“Background checks involve a complex investigation run by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. As has always been our policy, we do not comment on security clearances. Rob Porter has been effective in his role as Staff Secretary. The President and Chief of Staff [John Kelly] have full confidence in his abilities and his performance,” she said.
…

U.S. lawmakers grilled Trump administration officials Tuesday on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, saying the new White House strategy is inconsistent and and is not producing results. The comments, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, reflect growing frustration about the U.S.-led war, which is entering its 17th year, as VOA’s Bill Gallo reports.
…

The U.S. Congress appeared no closer to finding a way forward on an immigration deal securing the status of 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children Tuesday, even as leaders negotiated an end to the long-running budget stalemate. VOA’s Congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on an unpredictable day in Washington.
…

The U.S. Congress is poised to deadlock on extending government funding two days before another possible federal shutdown. The Republican-led House of Representatives is expected to pass a bill that funds the U.S. military for the rest of the fiscal year but extends domestic funding for just six weeks — something Senate Democrats are pledging to block.

Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, say national defense must come first with yearlong funding while negotiations continue on domestic spending levels.

“Senators on both sides of the aisle say they agree that our war-fighters deserve sufficient, stable funding to fulfill the missions and tasks their country assigns them,” he said.

Democrats say health care and other domestic needs are just as vital.

“We [Democrats] support an increase in funding for our military and our middle class,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “The two are not mutually exclusive. We don’t want to do just one and leave the other behind.

U.S. government funding has been extended four times since late last year and is set to expire once again at midnight Thursday. Further complicating the picture is a continuing stand-off on immigration reform, with President Donald Trump and conservative Republicans so far unable to reach a deal with Democrats to protect young undocumented immigrants brought to America as children who will be at risk of deportation next month.
…

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon skipped a scheduled interview Tuesday with the House Intelligence Committee about his time as a key adviser to President Donald Trump, even after lawmakers subpoenaed him to appear.

Congressman Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican leading the panel’s investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said he had expected Bannon to appear to answer questions, but Bannon was a no-show, part of lawmakers’ ongoing dispute with the White House over the scope of their questioning of Bannon.

Bannon could face a contempt of Congress charge for his failure to answer the subpoena, but it was not clear whether the committee would take any action against him.

The top Democrat on the panel, Congressman Adam Schiff of California, said Bannon’s lawyer told the committee this week the White House is continuing to block Bannon’s testimony “beyond a set of 14 yes-or-no questions the White House had pre-approved.”

Schiff said the White House position on Bannon’s testimony “covers matters during the transition” before Trump’s assumption of power a year ago, Bannon’s seven months at the White House, and his communications with Trump since leaving government service last August, “even though the president has not in fact invoked executive privilege” to bar Bannon’s testimony.

Schiff called the White House stance “unacceptable” and said the subpoena remains in effect, with Bannon’s interview rescheduled for next week.  He said that “should Bannon maintain his refusal to return and testify fully to all questions, the committee should begin contempt proceedings to compel his testimony.”

Bannon last month spent 10 hours before the committee, but largely refused to answer questions about the weeks he spent helping Trump organize his administration before Trump took office in January 2017, and then about the time he served as the president’s chief strategist until he was ousted in August.

Fall from grace

Bannon was a vocal alt-right supporter of Trump’s brand of America-first populism in the White House.  But he fell from grace with the president after voicing disparaging views of White House operations and other Trump advisers in author Michael Wolff’s recently published book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.  

Bannon was particularly critical of Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, both of whom are White House advisers, and Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., for his role in arranging a Trump Tower meeting in New York in the midst of the 2016 campaign on the premise a Russian lawyer would turn over incriminating evidence about his father’s election opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” Trump said of Bannon.

Even as Bannon has feuded with the House panel over his questioning, news accounts say he plans to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian meddling and whether Trump obstructed justice by seeking to curb his probe.

While negotiations over Bannon’s testimony plays out, The New York Times reported that Trump’s lawyers are advising him not to agree to appear for an interview with Mueller.

Trump testimony

Mueller’s team has already talked to multiple White House officials and others involved with Trump’s campaign for president, as part of its criminal probe into the Russia interference in the U.S. election and whether Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey, the one-time director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who was heading the agency’s Russia investigation at the time Trump dismissed him.

The Times said that according to four people briefed on the issue, Trump’s lawyers have concerns about whether the president would make false or contradictory statements and thus open himself up to possible charges of lying to federal investigators.  The report says further the lawyers believe Mueller should not be legally allowed to question the president about some aspects of the investigation.

Trump said recently he looks forward to answering Mueller’s questions under oath. Earlier, he questioned why such a step would be necessary as he rejected that there was any collusion between his campaign and Russia and said he did not obstruct justice by firing Comey.

Mueller could subpoena Trump if he does not agree to a request to speak with the investigators.  The Times said the president’s lawyers believe Mueller might not be willing to take that step and enter a legal battle with the White House to force his testimony.

 
…

New York’s highest court will consider on Tuesday whether the New York Police Department can use a Cold War-era legal tactic to conceal information about whether it put Muslims under surveillance.

The Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the cases of two Muslims who say the NYPD overstepped its reach by responding to a 2012 public records request related to the surveillance by saying it could “neither confirm nor deny” the records even existed.

The lawsuits over that so-called Glomar response were prompted by a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories by The Associated Press that detailed how the NYPD searched for possible terrorists after 9/11, in part by infiltrating Muslim student groups and putting informants in mosques.

The cases of former Rutgers University student Samir Hashmi and Manhattan imam Talib Abdur-Rashid were initially heard separately, with two lower court judges issuing conflicting rulings. In Hashmi’s case, a court denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In Abdur-Rashid’s case, the court ruled the Glomar doctrine was allowable in response to state Freedom of Information Law requests.

The cases have since been combined, with Manhattan attorney Omar Mohammedi representing the two men.

“It would be a detriment to all New Yorkers if the decision goes the NYPD’s way,” Mohammedi told The Associated Press. “We might as well not have FOIL.”

New York City’s Law Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Last year, spokesman Nick Paolucci told the AP after the Abdur-Rashid ruling that “the NYPD is not required to reveal the targets of counterterrorism surveillance.”

The Glomar doctrine is named for the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a massive salvage ship built by the eccentric industrialist who died in 1976. Two years earlier, the CIA had used the ship to retrieve a portion of a Soviet submarine that had sunk in the Pacific Ocean in 1968, killing everyone aboard. The Glomar featured technology designed to lift the sub more than 3 miles (4 kilometers) to the surface, but most of the sub broke apart and fell back to the ocean floor.

When a journalist sought information on the Hughes-built ship in 1976, a federal court issued a ruling that allowed the CIA to “neither confirm nor deny” whether records existed on the mission. The Glomar doctrine has since been used by agencies if information falls within certain exemptions.

But Mohammedi said the NYPD is overstepping its reach in applying the tactic to cases involving the state’s Freedom of Information Law.

“The Glomar doctrine was initiated based on national defense,” he said. “This issue should be decided by legislators, not decided by the NYPD just because they want to do this.”
…

Top intelligence and law enforcement officials warn that last week’s release of a congressional memo alleging FBI surveillance abuse could have wide-ranging repercussions: Spy agencies could start sharing less information with Congress, weakening oversight. Lawmakers will try to declassify more intelligence for political gain. Confidential informants will worry about being outed on Capitol Hill.

The GOP-produced memo released last week contends that when the FBI asked a secret court for a warrant to do surveillance on a former associate in then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign, the bureau relied too heavily on a dossier compiled by an ex-British spy whose opposition research was funded by Democrats.

Critics accuse Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., of abusing his power as chairman of the House intelligence committee to do the president’s bidding and undermine the investigation into whether any Trump campaign associates colluded with Russian during the 2016 election. His office rebuts that claim, saying the real abuse of power was using unverified information bought and paid for by one political campaign to justify government surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

This is’t the first time intelligence has been politicized. Both Democrats and Republicans used the release of the so-called torture report in late 2015 outlining the CIA’s detention and interrogation program as political ammunition. In the 1960s, while intelligence agencies warned that the Vietnam War was being lost, the White House was telling the public the opposite. During the George W. Bush administration, cherry-picked intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fueled momentum for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden worries that the memo’s release will damage congressional oversight and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

“We are chiseling away at processes and institutions on which we currently depend — and on which we will depend in the future,” said Hayden, who has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Hayden, who also directed the National Security Agency, wrote an op-ed in The Cipher Brief, an online newsletter focused on intelligence issues, to urge Justice Department and intelligence professionals to speak out. He wondered, though, if they would, given Trump’s penchant for honoring loyalty.

“A senior official in justice or a senior official in intelligence needs to say, ‘We need to take a knee here. We need to take a deep breath’” Hayden said. “What we are now doing is destroying the institutions we need to keep America safe.”

Josh Campbell, a former supervisory special agent with the FBI who investigated counterterrorism, recently resigned to do just that. Partisan attacks undermine the agency and national security, according to Campbell, who said he disagrees with colleagues who advised staying mum until the current controversy passes.

“FBI agents are dogged people who do not care about the direction of political winds,” Campbell said in an editorial published Feb. 2 in The New York Times. “But to succeed in their work, they need public backing. Scorched-earth attacks from politicians with partisan goals now threaten that support, raising corrosive doubts about the integrity of the FBI that could last for generations.”

FBI director Christopher Wray and the second-ranking official at the Justice Department, Rod Rosenstein, had urged Trump to keep the memo classified and out of public view, but the president declined. Last week, Trump attacked both agencies through his Twitter account, saying their leadership and investigators had “politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.”

Wray has defended the bureau and its agents throughout the memo controversy.

Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, who is a member of the House intelligence committee, said the memo is not a rebuke of the FBI rank-and-file or special counsel Robert Mueller.

“The memo is about a process and what kinds of information should be used in order to allow the federal government to spy on Americans,” said Hurd, a former covert CIA officer. “In my opinion, unverified information, circular reporting and rumors should not be used in an application to spy on American citizens. We should be protecting our civil liberties.”

Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the director of national intelligence, said the future relationship between intelligence agencies and their congressional overseers has been put at risk.

“The precedent that’s been set here is very dangerous’ Litt said. “You can only imagine if the Democrats get control of the House in the mid-year election; they will now be able to say look, ‘We’ve established a precedent here. You’ve released classified information, and we’re going to start doing it as well.’”

Democrats have prepared their own memo in response to the one Nunes released last week and have asked the committee to authorize its release.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said he too fears lawmakers will start seeking to disclose intelligence information in politically biased memos.

Schiff also worries that confidential sources could become more reluctant to provide information to U.S. intelligence agencies for fear that Congress could out them. Moreover, the American public could start wondering whether actions that law enforcement and intelligence agencies take to protect the country will be mischaracterized for political reasons, he said.

The contract between intelligence agencies and the House intelligence committee is broken, he warned.

“I have to think that it’s going to have a chilling effect on what they’re willing to share with us,” he said “It’s also going to be very demoralizing for people at the FBI to see them being used as a piñata for partisan reasons.”
…

With three days to go before U.S. government funding runs out yet again, the path to an immigration deal remained murky on Monday, with President Donald Trump rejecting core elements of a bipartisan proposal put forward in the Senate.

“Any deal on DACA that does not include STRONG border security and the desperately needed WALL is a total waste of time,” Trump tweeted, restating some of his demands for approving a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants brought to America as children.

“We’re building the wall. Believe me, we’re building the wall,” the president later emphasized during a speech in Ohio. “The ones that don’t want security at the southern border or any other border are the Democrats.”

Trump spoke out as Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware unveiled a proposal granting legal status to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama administration program Trump set for expiration next month.

The bipartisan bill seeks to boost border security but would mandate a study to determine the most effective means to do so — neither ruling out a border wall nor providing immediate funding for one, as Trump has demanded. Setting a goal of attaining “operational control” of U.S. borders by 2020, the proposed legislation mirrors a House bill that has dozens of co-sponsors of both political parties.

Immigrant rights groups praised the proposal for its limited scope, saying a bill that focuses on DACA and border security has a better chance of passing in Congress than comprehensive legislation addressing both legal and illegal immigration.

“Narrow gets it done. A radical and massive overhaul does not,” said Frank Sharry of Washington-based America’s Voice, which urges a swift path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

In his tweet, Trump noted that March 5, when DACA recipients lose protections from deportation, “is rapidly approaching.” He said Democrats “seem not to care about DACA. Make a deal!”

For their part, Democratic leaders signaled a growing resistance to key planks of the White House’s blueprint for immigration, including a reduction in legal immigration and prioritizing newcomers with advanced skills to benefit the U.S. economy.

“This is not an acceptable premise,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said on CNN. “They (Trump and some Republican lawmakers) want to cut legal immigration into the United States of family members, some of whom have waited 20 years or more to join up with their families here.”

A continued impasse would put to the test a pledge by Senate Majority Leader McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. Last month, McConnell secured enough Democratic support to end a three-day partial government shutdown by promising to start a floor debate on a DACA fix if no bipartisan immigration agreement had been reached by Feb. 8, when federal spending authority expires once again.
…