RiyadMedia

President Donald Trump’s longtime confidant, Roger Stone, asked a federal judge Friday to compel the Justice Department to turn over a full copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation as part of discovery in his criminal case.

Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges he lied to Congress, engaged in witness tampering and obstructed a congressional investigation into possible coordination between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. In a court filing late Friday night, his lawyers said Stone is entitled to see the confidential report, which was submitted to the attorney general late last month, because it would help prove their allegation that there are constitutional issues with the investigation.

In a separate action, Andrew Miller, a former aide to Stone who was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, asked a federal appeals court to determine whether he still needs to testify now that the Russia probe has concluded.

Private disclosure of report

Stone’s team also filed motions Friday night arguing he was selectively prosecuted, challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment and that the special counsel didn’t have the ability to prosecute him for lying to Congress. They allege that Congress did not formally make a referral to the Justice Department about Stone’s testimony and because of that, Mueller’s investigation was “a violation of the separation of powers.”

In court documents, the lawyers argue they are entitled to a private disclosure of the nearly 400-page report that Mueller submitted to Attorney General William Barr late last month and said they “must be allowed to review the report in its entirety because it contains the government’s evidence and conclusions on matters essential to Stone’s defense.”

“To be clear, Stone is not requesting the report be disclosed to the world, only to his counsel so that it may aid in preparing his defense,” the lawyers wrote.

November trial

Stone, who is set to go on trial in November, has maintained his innocence and blasted the special counsel’s investigation as politically motivated. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which stem from conversations he had during the campaign about WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that released material stolen from Democratic groups, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

In a four-page letter to Congress that detailed Mueller’s “principal conclusions,” Barr said the special counsel did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and Trump associates during the campaign, but did not reach a definitive conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Instead, Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the obstruction question, but Barr said he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to prove that Trump had obstructed justice.

Barr has said he expects to release a redacted version of Mueller’s report next week that will be sent to Congress and made public.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that he was considering sending detained illegal migrants to so-called sanctuary cities, which oppose his tough immigration policies. 

Trump made the announcement hours after White House and Homeland Security officials insisted the idea had been rejected. 

He told reporters at the White House that his administration was “strongly looking at the possibly.”  

Earlier Friday, he tweeted, “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities.” 

“The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!” he added. 

Sanctuary cities are local jurisdictions — often run by Democrats — that have refused to hand over illegal immigrants to federal authorities for possible deportation.  

Offer of pardon?

In another development Friday, CNN reported that Trump told the head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, that he would pardon him if he were sent to jail for denying U.S. entry to migrants. CNN cited two unnamed officials who said Trump made the offer during a visit to the border town of Calexico, California.

Trump has since named McAleenan the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, following the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Friday: “At no time has the president indicated, asked, directed or pressured the acting secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the Acting Secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.”

Sending a message

The White House proposal to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities was first reported by The Washington Post. 

According to the Post, the White House told Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan would alleviate a shortage of detention space, as well as send a message to Democrats.  

The Post said a White House official and a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said the proposal was no longer under consideration. 

Revelation of the proposal drew criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as other Democrats. 

In remarks to reporters Friday, Pelosi called the idea “unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we face as a country, as a people, to address who we are — a nation of immigrants.” 

Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Mayors of several sanctuary cities said Friday they would accept undocumented migrants.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement, “While the Trump administration’s proposal shows their disdain to basic human dignity, the City (Philadelphia) would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “We would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar.” 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that he was considering sending detained illegal migrants to so-called sanctuary cities, which oppose his tough immigration policies. 

Trump made the announcement hours after White House and Homeland Security officials insisted the idea had been rejected. 

He told reporters at the White House that his administration was “strongly looking at the possibly.”  

Earlier Friday, he tweeted, “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities.” 

“The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!” he added. 

Sanctuary cities are local jurisdictions — often run by Democrats — that have refused to hand over illegal immigrants to federal authorities for possible deportation.  

Offer of pardon?

In another development Friday, CNN reported that Trump told the head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, that he would pardon him if he were sent to jail for denying U.S. entry to migrants. CNN cited two unnamed officials who said Trump made the offer during a visit to the border town of Calexico, California.

Trump has since named McAleenan the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, following the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Friday: “At no time has the president indicated, asked, directed or pressured the acting secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the Acting Secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.”

Sending a message

The White House proposal to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities was first reported by The Washington Post. 

According to the Post, the White House told Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the plan would alleviate a shortage of detention space, as well as send a message to Democrats.  

The Post said a White House official and a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said the proposal was no longer under consideration. 

Revelation of the proposal drew criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as other Democrats. 

In remarks to reporters Friday, Pelosi called the idea “unworthy of the presidency of the United States and disrespectful of the challenges that we face as a country, as a people, to address who we are — a nation of immigrants.” 

Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Mayors of several sanctuary cities said Friday they would accept undocumented migrants.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement, “While the Trump administration’s proposal shows their disdain to basic human dignity, the City (Philadelphia) would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “We would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar.” 
…

A Washington political consultant initially entangled in the Russia investigation was sentenced to three years of probation for illegal lobbying and skirting the ban on foreign donations to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee.

W. Samuel Patten and prosecutors had asked for leniency citing his cooperation in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and other ongoing probes.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson imposed the sentence Friday as Mueller has concluded his investigation but federal prosecutors in New York continue to investigate foreign donations to the inaugural committee.

Patten has said he wasn’t part of a larger scheme to funnel money to the committee.

He pleaded guilty to violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act for lobbying on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. He also lied to the Senate intelligence committee.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he has no knowledge of the website WikiLeaks, after the whistleblowing site’s founder, Julian Assange, was arrested in Britain.

The 47-year-old Australian national had been living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, but was ejected Thursday and taken into custody by British police.

Ecuador said Assange had broken asylum conventions by continuing to interfere in other countries’ affairs through the publishing of confidential information.

WATCH: Trump Denies Knowledge of WikiLeaks

Trump was questioned by reporters on the arrest Thursday.

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing,” Trump said. “I know there is something to do with Julian Assange, and I’ve been seeing what’s happened to Assange. And that would be a determination, I would imagine, mostly by the attorney general, who’s doing an excellent job. So, he’ll be making a determination.”

On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump repeatedly referred to WikiLeaks after it published hacked emails from the Democrat National Committee. He once declared, “WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks,” at a rally in Pennsylvania.

In 2010, WikiLeaks published a cache of more than 700,000 documents, videos, diplomatic cables and battlefield accounts from Iraq and Afghanistan, obtained by former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. They detailed civilian casualties, along with details of suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Manning was prosecuted under the Espionage Act and jailed in 2010. She was released in 2017, but was jailed again in March 2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about WikiLeaks.

​Asylum in embassy

Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy after facing rape charges in Sweden, which have since been dropped. He predicted then that he would face extradition to the United States.

“As WikiLeaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of all our societies,” Assange told a crowd of supporters from the balcony of the embassy.

The United States accuses Assange of conspiring with Manning to access classified information on Department of Defense computers and has requested his extradition from Britain.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so the precise charges against Assange will be key, said legal analyst Caroline Mala Corbin of the University of Miami School of Law.

“If you break the law while you gather information, that is not protected by the free speech clause. If, however, you publish information — even if someone else has illegally obtained it — the free speech clause does come into play,” she told VOA.

Assange supporter and prominent human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said Assange must be afforded the rights of other journalists.

“It smacks of double standards, and it has the whiff of a vendetta against WikiLeaks and against Julian Assange,” he said.

British judges will now decide whether to fulfill the U.S. extradition request.

Geoffrey Robertson, an attorney who has represented Assange in the past, said Assange could face up to 40 years in prison if he is extradited to the United States.

“I have faith in the British justice system, and I think he will argue that this is a breach of his right of freedom of speech,” Robertson said.

Assange will first face sentencing for failing to surrender to authorities on sexual assault charges in 2012.

Meanwhile, one of the Swedish women who accused Assange of rape has requested the case be reopened, further complicating the legal case against him.
…

The Treasury Department did not meet House Democrats’ deadline to turn over President Trump’s past tax returns this week, escalating the legal battle and investigation into the president’s personal and business finances. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara looks at the tradition of American presidents releasing their tax returns, and why after Trump’s refusal some think the tradition should be codified into law.
…

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will unveil a proposal to speed state-level permitting decisions for energy infrastructure projects soon, the agency’s chief told Reuters on Thursday, blasting states that have blocked coal terminals and gas pipelines on environmental grounds.

President Donald Trump is seeking to boost domestic fossil fuels production over the objections of Democrats and environmentalists concerned about pollution and climate change.

On Wednesday he issued a pair of executive orders targeting the power of states to delay energy projects.

“We started working on it in advance, so we hope to have something out soon,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an interview. He was unable to provide a precise timeline.

Based on Trump’s orders, Wheeler’s EPA has been tasked with clarifying a section of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has allowed states like New York and Washington to delay projects in recent years.

New York has used the section to delay pipelines that would bring natural gas to New England, for example, and Washington state has stopped coal export terminals that would open the Asian market for struggling coal companies in Wyoming and other landlocked western states.

“They are trying to make international environmental policy,” Wheeler said of Washington state, whose governor, Democrat Jay Inslee, is running for president on a climate change-focused platform. “They’re trying to dictate to the world how much coal is used.”

Wheeler said New York, which amid strong public pressure denied a clean water act permit for construction of a natural gas pipeline to New England, is forcing that region “to use Russian-produced natural gas.”

“We are importing Russian natural gas which is not produced in an environmentally conscious manner. If the states that are blocking the pipelines were truly concerned about the environment, they would look to where the natural gas would be coming from … I think it’s very short-sighted,” he said.

Wheeler said the EPA would not prevent a state from vetoing a project, but would clarify the parameters they should be able to consider, and the length of time they have to do so.

He also said that California is playing politics in its fight with the EPA to preserve its more stringent vehicle emission standards as the national standard.

Wheeler: Water trumps climate

Wheeler said he believes climate change is a problem, but that it had been overblown by former President Barack Obama’s administration — at the expense of other bigger issues like water quality.

“Yes, climate is an issue and we are working to address it, but I think water is a bigger issue,” he said.

Wheeler dismissed the findings of a report released earlier this week by EPA scientists in the journal Nature Climate Change that detailed the scale and urgency of climate change.

He said while he encouraged EPA scientists to carry out and publish research, he stressed the recent paper “did not reflect EPA policy.”

Environmental groups say the EPA’s replacement of an Obama-era rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants would likely lead to increased emissions by allowing older, more polluting coal plants to operate longer.

Asked whether the replacement — the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which gives states responsibility for regulating emissions — is stringent enough, Wheeler said it adheres to the parameters of federal law. 

“I think what is effective regulation is one that follows the law and one that will be held up in court,” he said.

EPA vs. polls

Several Democrats challenging Trump in the 2020 election have made climate change a top-tier issue, embracing aggressive policy platforms like the Green New Deal calling for an end of fossil fuels use.

Asked whether he was concerned that the EPA may be out of synch with polls showing an overwhelming number of young people believe climate change should be a priority issue, Wheeler was dismissive.

“I do fear that because so many people only talked about climate change. You’re right, there could very well be a new generation coming up saying that’s the only environmental issue — and it’s not,” he said.

 
…

The U.S. Senate is set to confirm former energy lobbyist David Bernhardt as the next Interior Secretary on Thursday, even as coastal state senators from both parties raise concerns about his plans to vastly expand offshore drilling.

Bernhardt would replace former Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke as the head of the Interior Department, which manages federal and tribal lands and waters and is key to President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost domestic crude oil, natural gas and coal production.

He is expected to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate over the objections of Democrats concerned that his former lobbying for industry means he will favor energy and minerals development over conservation.

Republican Senators including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida have also raised concerns over the Interior Department’s looming five-year offshore drilling plan, which could expand drilling into new parts of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. Coastal states like Florida are concerned about the impact of a spill on their tourism industries.

But in a sign that Bernhardt has assuaged some of those concerns in recent days, Rubio said on Twitter Wednesday evening he would vote for Berhardt’s confirmation.

“I am VERY confident that when all is said & done, no oil drilling is coming to our coastline,” Rubio said.

Rubio and Scott had sent a letter to Bernhardt last month urging him to keep Florida protected from offshore drilling and honor a promise Zinke had made prior to his resignation that Florida would be exempted from the plan.

Scott did not comment on Bernhardt’s confirmation. Democratic senators continued to urge that the Senate reject Bernhardt’s confirmation because of his close ties to some of the industries that the Interior Department would regulate.

Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, for example, asked the Department of Justice earlier this week to investigate whether Bernhardt was in violation of lobbying disclosure laws.

“Add these troubling allegations to the long list of reasons why the nomination of David Bernhardt should be stopped, or at minimum delayed, until the Senate and the American people get all of the facts,” said Wyden.
…

The acting defense secretary is making a renewed pitch to Congress for authority to create a Space Force as a separate branch of the military.

Patrick Shanahan, who’s been heading the Pentagon on an interim basis since Jan. 1, is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some committee members have expressed skepticism about the need to establish a Space Force as a separate military service.

In his prepared remarks, Shanahan says a Space Force is required to maintain what he calls America’s “margin of dominance” in space. He also says China and Russia are — in his words — “weaponizing” space.

The Trump administration’s proposal is part of a broader plan intended to accelerate the development of U.S. space defenses.

 
…

South Korean President Moon Jae-In is meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday to discuss ways of getting talks on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula back on track. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has asked for concessions before halting the country’s nuclear program, but the U.S. government says the economic sanctions must stay in place until that program is dismantled. VOA’s Korean service discussed the future of the talks with U.S. lawmakers. Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

Emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states are pushing near-total bans on the procedure in a deliberate frontal attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi and Kentucky have passed laws that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which means as early as six weeks, when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant. Georgia could join them if Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs a measure that has been sent to him.

And a bill in Ohio won final approval Wednesday in the Republican-controlled legislature; it now heads to GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, who said he will sign it. The final votes followed a spirited committee hearing where abortion rights activists evoked an era of back alleys and coat-hanger abortions.

Similar bills have been filed in at least seven other states with anti-abortion GOP majorities in their legislatures.

Criminalize abortion

Alabama may go further, with legislation introduced last week to criminalize abortion at any stage unless the mother’s health is in jeopardy.

The chief sponsor of the Alabama bill, Rep. Terri Collins, acknowledged that the measure, like the heartbeat bills, is intended as a direct challenge to Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

“To me this is an issue the court simply got wrong years ago,” said Collins, who hopes President Donald Trump’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court lead to a reconsideration of Roe.

Staci Fox, Atlanta-based CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said these bans are “blatantly unconstitutional and lawmakers know it, they just don’t care.” The goal, she said, is to “challenge access to safe, legal abortion nationally.”

Trouble reaching Supreme Court

Activists and legal experts on both sides of the debate agree that getting a Supreme Court decision on such a defining case is unlikely any time soon.

The bans may face difficulties just reaching the high court, given that Roe established a clear right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Kentucky’s heartbeat law has been blocked for now by a federal judge; abortion-rights lawyers are seeking a similar injunction in Mississippi before the law there takes effect July 1.

“The lower courts are going to find these laws unconstitutional because the Supreme Court requires that outcome,” said Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, some federal appeals courts around the country, such as the 5th Circuit, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, are viewed as having grown more conservative with the addition of Trump appointees.

​Less-sweeping measures

If even one circuit breaks with Roe v. Wade and upholds a heartbeat ban, that could be enough for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, said Justin Dyer, a political science professor at the University of Missouri.

Alternatively, the high court could agree to hear any of several less sweeping anti-abortion measures. Some would tighten restrictions on clinics; others seek to ban certain categories of abortions.

What might happen at the Supreme Court is far from clear. Legal experts are unsure what effect the Trump appointees might have, or where Chief Justice John Roberts stands in regard to Roe.

Schneller said she is skeptical the reconfigured court will overturn or weaken Roe, as abortion foes are hoping.

“Over 45 years, the court has had different compositions, and we’ve always gotten the same answer,” she said.

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, warned that it is impossible to predict what the court will do but said Kavanaugh’s appointment “gives pro-lifers hope that legislation which offers more comprehensive protection to the unborn will receive a sympathetic hearing.”

Some anti-abortion groups have declined to endorse the heartbeat bills, signaling doubts about their prospects. Texas Right to Life has instead endorsed bills that would curtail late-term abortions and ban abortions based on a fetus’ race, gender or disability.

If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would presumably be left to decide for themselves whether abortion would be legal.

Abortions declining

The renewed challenges come as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. The latest 50-state tally was 926,000 in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The heartbeat bills in particular have alarmed many women.

After Kentucky’s governor signed the heartbeat bill, and before it was blocked, “we could feel the fear,” said Marcie Crim of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, which runs a fund supporting Kentuckians who opt to get abortions.

“We had so many phone calls from people trying to save up the money for their procedure,” Crim said. “They were thinking they were safe and could go get this done, and all of a sudden it was snatched away from them.”

In Georgia, where Kemp is expected to sign the heartbeat bill soon, more than 50 actors, including Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin and Amy Schumer, have threatened a campaign to pull Hollywood productions out of Georgia, a hub for TV and movie projects, if the ban is enacted.

Other states where heartbeat bills have been filed, and in some cases advanced, include Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia.
…

Emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states are pushing near-total bans on the procedure in a deliberate frontal attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi and Kentucky have passed laws that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which means as early as six weeks, when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant. Georgia could join them if Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs a measure that has been sent to him.

And a bill in Ohio won final approval Wednesday in the Republican-controlled legislature; it now heads to GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, who said he will sign it. The final votes followed a spirited committee hearing where abortion rights activists evoked an era of back alleys and coat-hanger abortions.

Similar bills have been filed in at least seven other states with anti-abortion GOP majorities in their legislatures.

Criminalize abortion

Alabama may go further, with legislation introduced last week to criminalize abortion at any stage unless the mother’s health is in jeopardy.

The chief sponsor of the Alabama bill, Rep. Terri Collins, acknowledged that the measure, like the heartbeat bills, is intended as a direct challenge to Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

“To me this is an issue the court simply got wrong years ago,” said Collins, who hopes President Donald Trump’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court lead to a reconsideration of Roe.

Staci Fox, Atlanta-based CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said these bans are “blatantly unconstitutional and lawmakers know it, they just don’t care.” The goal, she said, is to “challenge access to safe, legal abortion nationally.”

Trouble reaching Supreme Court

Activists and legal experts on both sides of the debate agree that getting a Supreme Court decision on such a defining case is unlikely any time soon.

The bans may face difficulties just reaching the high court, given that Roe established a clear right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Kentucky’s heartbeat law has been blocked for now by a federal judge; abortion-rights lawyers are seeking a similar injunction in Mississippi before the law there takes effect July 1.

“The lower courts are going to find these laws unconstitutional because the Supreme Court requires that outcome,” said Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, some federal appeals courts around the country, such as the 5th Circuit, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, are viewed as having grown more conservative with the addition of Trump appointees.

​Less-sweeping measures

If even one circuit breaks with Roe v. Wade and upholds a heartbeat ban, that could be enough for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, said Justin Dyer, a political science professor at the University of Missouri.

Alternatively, the high court could agree to hear any of several less sweeping anti-abortion measures. Some would tighten restrictions on clinics; others seek to ban certain categories of abortions.

What might happen at the Supreme Court is far from clear. Legal experts are unsure what effect the Trump appointees might have, or where Chief Justice John Roberts stands in regard to Roe.

Schneller said she is skeptical the reconfigured court will overturn or weaken Roe, as abortion foes are hoping.

“Over 45 years, the court has had different compositions, and we’ve always gotten the same answer,” she said.

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, warned that it is impossible to predict what the court will do but said Kavanaugh’s appointment “gives pro-lifers hope that legislation which offers more comprehensive protection to the unborn will receive a sympathetic hearing.”

Some anti-abortion groups have declined to endorse the heartbeat bills, signaling doubts about their prospects. Texas Right to Life has instead endorsed bills that would curtail late-term abortions and ban abortions based on a fetus’ race, gender or disability.

If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would presumably be left to decide for themselves whether abortion would be legal.

Abortions declining

The renewed challenges come as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. The latest 50-state tally was 926,000 in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The heartbeat bills in particular have alarmed many women.

After Kentucky’s governor signed the heartbeat bill, and before it was blocked, “we could feel the fear,” said Marcie Crim of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, which runs a fund supporting Kentuckians who opt to get abortions.

“We had so many phone calls from people trying to save up the money for their procedure,” Crim said. “They were thinking they were safe and could go get this done, and all of a sudden it was snatched away from them.”

In Georgia, where Kemp is expected to sign the heartbeat bill soon, more than 50 actors, including Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin and Amy Schumer, have threatened a campaign to pull Hollywood productions out of Georgia, a hub for TV and movie projects, if the ban is enacted.

Other states where heartbeat bills have been filed, and in some cases advanced, include Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia.
…

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says the department hasn’t decided whether to comply with a demand by a key House Democrat to deliver President Donald Trump’s tax returns and won’t meet a Wednesday deadline to provide them. 

In a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who asked for Trump’s returns a week ago, Mnuchin said Treasury will consult with the Justice Department and “carefully” review the request further. 

“The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power,” Mnuchin wrote. 

He said Treasury respects lawmakers’ oversight duties and would make sure taxpayer protections would be “scrupulously observed, consistent with my statutory responsibilities” as the department reviews the request. 

Under audit

Earlier Wednesday, Trump weighed in, telling reporters that he won’t agree to release his returns while he is under audit. 

Trump said, “I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it while I’m under audit.” The IRS says there’s no rule barring subjects of an audit from publicly releasing their tax filings. 

Neal asked the IRS last Wednesday to turn over six years of the president’s tax returns within a week. Trump has broken with decades of presidential precedent by not voluntarily releasing his returns to the public. 

Trump’s position has long been that he is under audit and therefore could not release his returns. But in recent weeks, he has added to the argument, saying publicly and privately that the American people elected him without seeing his taxes and would do so again.  

“Remember, I got elected last time — the same exact issue,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people don’t care.” 

The president has told those close to him that the attempt to get his returns were an invasion of his privacy and a further example of the Democratic-led “witch hunt” — a term he has applied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election — meant to damage him. 

Trump has repeatedly asked aides about the status of the House request and has inquired about the “loyalty” of the top officials at the IRS, according to one outside adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. 

Democrats didn’t expect the department to comply, but they haven’t sketched out their next steps. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., speaking before Mnuchin’s response was delivered, said it may take Neal a couple of days to issue his own response. House Democrats are at a party retreat in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. 

Methodical approach

Neal has adopted a methodical approach to seeking Trump’s returns. He has the option of eventually seeking to subpoena the records or to go to court if Treasury does not comply, but it’s not clear he’ll adopt a more confrontational approach just yet. 

Neal’s initial letter, sent a week ago, didn’t lay out any consequences for the IRS if it didn’t comply, and a spokesman said a likely course would be a second, more insistent letter. 

“We intend to follow through with this,” Neal said Wednesday. “I’ll let you know fast.” 

The request for Trump’s tax filings is but one of many oversight efforts launched by Democrats after taking back the House in last fall’s midterms. Neal is relying on a 1920s-era law that says the IRS “shall furnish” any tax return requested by the chairmen of key House and Senate committees. 

Mnuchin told lawmakers that his department will “follow the law,” but he hasn’t shared the department’s interpretation of the statute. 

The White House did not respond to questions as to whether the president asked Mnuchin or the IRS head to intervene. The president’s outside attorney also did not respond to a request for comment. 
…

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says the department hasn’t decided whether to comply with a demand by a key House Democrat to deliver President Donald Trump’s tax returns and won’t meet a Wednesday deadline to provide them. 

In a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who asked for Trump’s returns a week ago, Mnuchin said Treasury will consult with the Justice Department and “carefully” review the request further. 

“The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power,” Mnuchin wrote. 

He said Treasury respects lawmakers’ oversight duties and would make sure taxpayer protections would be “scrupulously observed, consistent with my statutory responsibilities” as the department reviews the request. 

Under audit

Earlier Wednesday, Trump weighed in, telling reporters that he won’t agree to release his returns while he is under audit. 

Trump said, “I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it while I’m under audit.” The IRS says there’s no rule barring subjects of an audit from publicly releasing their tax filings. 

Neal asked the IRS last Wednesday to turn over six years of the president’s tax returns within a week. Trump has broken with decades of presidential precedent by not voluntarily releasing his returns to the public. 

Trump’s position has long been that he is under audit and therefore could not release his returns. But in recent weeks, he has added to the argument, saying publicly and privately that the American people elected him without seeing his taxes and would do so again.  

“Remember, I got elected last time — the same exact issue,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people don’t care.” 

The president has told those close to him that the attempt to get his returns were an invasion of his privacy and a further example of the Democratic-led “witch hunt” — a term he has applied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election — meant to damage him. 

Trump has repeatedly asked aides about the status of the House request and has inquired about the “loyalty” of the top officials at the IRS, according to one outside adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. 

Democrats didn’t expect the department to comply, but they haven’t sketched out their next steps. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., speaking before Mnuchin’s response was delivered, said it may take Neal a couple of days to issue his own response. House Democrats are at a party retreat in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. 

Methodical approach

Neal has adopted a methodical approach to seeking Trump’s returns. He has the option of eventually seeking to subpoena the records or to go to court if Treasury does not comply, but it’s not clear he’ll adopt a more confrontational approach just yet. 

Neal’s initial letter, sent a week ago, didn’t lay out any consequences for the IRS if it didn’t comply, and a spokesman said a likely course would be a second, more insistent letter. 

“We intend to follow through with this,” Neal said Wednesday. “I’ll let you know fast.” 

The request for Trump’s tax filings is but one of many oversight efforts launched by Democrats after taking back the House in last fall’s midterms. Neal is relying on a 1920s-era law that says the IRS “shall furnish” any tax return requested by the chairmen of key House and Senate committees. 

Mnuchin told lawmakers that his department will “follow the law,” but he hasn’t shared the department’s interpretation of the statute. 

The White House did not respond to questions as to whether the president asked Mnuchin or the IRS head to intervene. The president’s outside attorney also did not respond to a request for comment. 
…

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi castigated Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday for comments he made during congressional hearings this week about the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. 

“Let me just say I’m very, very dismayed and disappointed that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails yesterday and today,” Pelosi told reporters at a Democratic Party retreat in Virginia. 

“He is attorney general of the United States of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump.” 

Pelosi said Democrats want to see special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which dealt with Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign. 

Russia’s activities were an assault on U.S. democracy — “there is no doubt about that,” Pelosi said. 

During two congressional hearings this week, Barr defended his handling of the 400-page report Mueller submitted to him on March 22 after a two-year investigation. 

The attorney general released a four-page letter to Congress providing a broad outline of its assessments. In the March 24 letter, Barr said that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that members of Trump’s election campaign conspired with Russia. He also said that Mueller presented evidence “on both sides” about whether Trump had obstructed justice, but did not draw a conclusion one way or the other.

Barr said he would make public a redacted version of the report next week. Democrats have been calling for full disclosure. 

Barr, who was appointed by Trump, said Wednesday that he would look into whether U.S. agencies illegally spied on Trump’s 2016 campaign, but acknowledged under sharp questioning by lawmakers that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
…

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi castigated Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday for comments he made during congressional hearings this week about the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. 

“Let me just say I’m very, very dismayed and disappointed that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails yesterday and today,” Pelosi told reporters at a Democratic Party retreat in Virginia. 

“He is attorney general of the United States of America, not the attorney general of Donald Trump.” 

Pelosi said Democrats want to see special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which dealt with Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign. 

Russia’s activities were an assault on U.S. democracy — “there is no doubt about that,” Pelosi said. 

During two congressional hearings this week, Barr defended his handling of the 400-page report Mueller submitted to him on March 22 after a two-year investigation. 

The attorney general released a four-page letter to Congress providing a broad outline of its assessments. In the March 24 letter, Barr said that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that members of Trump’s election campaign conspired with Russia. He also said that Mueller presented evidence “on both sides” about whether Trump had obstructed justice, but did not draw a conclusion one way or the other.

Barr said he would make public a redacted version of the report next week. Democrats have been calling for full disclosure. 

Barr, who was appointed by Trump, said Wednesday that he would look into whether U.S. agencies illegally spied on Trump’s 2016 campaign, but acknowledged under sharp questioning by lawmakers that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
…

Rob Garver contributed to this report

The top Senate Democrat says President Donald Trump’s picks to fill two vacant seats on the Federal Reserve Board are unqualified for the job.

Trump has nominated former pizza chain boss Herman Cain and conservative economic commentator Stephen Moore for the Fed — posts that need Senate confirmation. Both are strong Trump supporters.

“I don’t see the qualifications of Cain or Moore fitting in with the mission of the Fed, which is to conduct monetary policy and not be political,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said Tuesday.

Cain is best known as the former CEO of the Godfather’s Pizza chain and a failed 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

He had several top positions at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. But local Fed boards do not set monetary policy and do not have the global impact that the main Federal Reserve has.

Stephen Moore was a Trump campaign economic adviser and is a TV commentator and columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Opponents to their nominations say they could compromise the Fed’s credibility as an independent policymaking body that responds only to economic trends, not politics.

Chief White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNN television that Cain and Moore are both “very smart people” and said Trump has “every right to put people on the Federal Reserve board … who share his philosophy.”

But Cain has faced charges of sexual harassment, which he denies, and Moore owes more than $75,000 in back taxes. He was once found in contempt of court for failing to pay $300,000 in alimony and child support.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has not commented on the qualifications of either man, only saying “We’re going to look at whoever the president sends up.”
…

Rob Garver contributed to this report

The top Senate Democrat says President Donald Trump’s picks to fill two vacant seats on the Federal Reserve Board are unqualified for the job.

Trump has nominated former pizza chain boss Herman Cain and conservative economic commentator Stephen Moore for the Fed — posts that need Senate confirmation. Both are strong Trump supporters.

“I don’t see the qualifications of Cain or Moore fitting in with the mission of the Fed, which is to conduct monetary policy and not be political,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said Tuesday.

Cain is best known as the former CEO of the Godfather’s Pizza chain and a failed 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

He had several top positions at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. But local Fed boards do not set monetary policy and do not have the global impact that the main Federal Reserve has.

Stephen Moore was a Trump campaign economic adviser and is a TV commentator and columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Opponents to their nominations say they could compromise the Fed’s credibility as an independent policymaking body that responds only to economic trends, not politics.

Chief White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNN television that Cain and Moore are both “very smart people” and said Trump has “every right to put people on the Federal Reserve board … who share his philosophy.”

But Cain has faced charges of sexual harassment, which he denies, and Moore owes more than $75,000 in back taxes. He was once found in contempt of court for failing to pay $300,000 in alimony and child support.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has not commented on the qualifications of either man, only saying “We’re going to look at whoever the president sends up.”
…

President Donald Trump is wholly mispresenting the immigration detention policy he introduced that forced migrant children from their parents at the border.

“President Obama had child separation,” Trump said Tuesday. “I’m the one that stopped it.”

In fact, he stopped — or at least suspended — family separations that spiked as a result of his own “zero-tolerance” policy.

A look at his remarks to reporters before meeting Egyptian President Abdel-Fatah el-Sissi:

TRUMP on family separations: “President Obama had the law. We changed the law, and I think the press should accurately report it but of course they won’t.”

THE FACTS: This is false. Trump did not achieve any change in the law.

Operating under the same immigration laws as Barack Obama, Trump instituted a zero-tolerance policy aimed at detaining everyone who was caught crossing the border illegally and criminally prosecuting all the adults.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated and sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. In the face of a public uproar, Trump suspended most separations in June. About 2,400 children were taken from parents at the height of the separations. During the Obama administration and before Trump’s zero-tolerance policy was introduced, migrant families caught illegally entering the U.S. were usually referred for civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation, unless they were known to have a criminal record.

Trump repeatedly but without specifics rails against a “Democrat” law that he wrongly claims to have changed. He appears to be referring to one that passed unanimously in Congress and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush. It was focused on freeing and otherwise helping children who come to the border without a parent or guardian and does not call for family separation.

TRUMP: “Just so you understand, President Obama separated the children.”

THE FACTS: Not in widespread fashion. Then and now, immigration officials may take a child from a parent in certain cases, such as serious criminal charges against a parent, concerns over the health and welfare of a child or medical concerns. The Obama administration also contended with a surge of minors who came to the border without parents and were held in short-term Border Patrol detention.

It did not seek to criminally prosecute all who crossed the border illegally, without regard to whether those who were caught had committed crimes other than illegal entry.

Family separations were the exception before Trump made them the rule.

TRUMP on family separations: “Once you don’t have it, that’s why you see many more people coming. They’re coming like it’s a picnic, because ‘let’s go to Disneyland.'”

THE FACTS: It’s not been proved that people are discouraged from coming to the U.S. when they know their children will be taken from them if they are caught.

Apprehensions did fall last summer, after the June suspension of separations, but they decline most summers because of the extreme heat in much of Mexico and the border region.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials announced on Tuesday that they apprehended about 53,000 parents and children at the southern border in March. The officials declined to answer a question about whether they believed family separation was an effective deterrent.

Find AP other Fact Checks 

Follow (at)APFactCheck on Twitter
…

Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham flatly rejected on Tuesday President Donald Trump’s request to slash the budget for the U.S. State Department by more than 23 percent.

That proposal “ain’t happening,” Graham, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the State Department, declared at the opening of the hearing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the top subcommittee Democrat, said the administration has proposed “damaging funding cuts, with little to no logical explanation.”

The Trump administration requested about $40 billion to fund the State Department and its aid arm, the United States Agency for International Development, for the fiscal year starting in October.

Pompeo noted the hearing comes days before his first anniversary as Trump’s second secretary of state. Graham joked that Pompeo was the longest-serving member of Trump’s cabinet, referring to the high turnover of senior-level staff at the White House.

Pompeo smiled but did not reply.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stepped down this week in the latest high-profile resignation, and Trump said on Monday he would replace the head of the U.S. Secret Service.

Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives have also said they will reject the proposed cuts to the budget, setting the stage for a budget battle with the White House.
…

President Donald Trump is gearing up for an even tougher hard line immigration policy, after abruptly dismissing his Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen Sunday. U.S. officials say the immigration crisis has worsened in recent weeks, and Trump is reportedly considering reinstating the hugely unpopular policy of separating migrant children from their families. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has this report.
…

President Donald Trump is gearing up for an even tougher hard line immigration policy, after abruptly dismissing his Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen Sunday. U.S. officials say the immigration crisis has worsened in recent weeks, and Trump is reportedly considering reinstating the hugely unpopular policy of separating migrant children from their families. White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara has this report.
…