RIYADMEDIA

In one government facility for immigrant youths, a 20-year-old woman who had lied that she was 17 sneaked a needle out of a sewing class and used it to cut herself.

In another, cameras captured a boy repeatedly kicking a child in the head after they got into an argument on the soccer field.

One 6-year-old tried to run away from the same facility after another boy threw his shoes into the toilet. Three employees had to pull the boy off a fence and carry him back into a building.

​14,000 children detained

Records obtained by The Associated Press highlight some of the problems that plague government facilities for immigrant youths at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration has been making moves in recent weeks that could send even more migrant children into detention.

About 14,000 immigrant children are detained in more than 100 facilities nationally, with about 5,900 in Texas. Many crossed the border without their parents and are having to wait longer in detention to be placed with relatives or sponsors, who are being dissuaded to come forward out of fear they’ll be arrested and deported.

Hundreds of children who were separated from their parents earlier this year were also detained in these facilities, but most of them have since been released to their parents.

Overtaxed system

Amid the global uproar over family separation, the Trump administration presented the facilities as caring, safe places for immigrant children.

But as records obtained by the AP show, the child detention system is overtaxed. Children are acting out, sometimes hitting each other and trying to escape, and staff members struggle to deal with escalating problems.

Doctors have warned for months about the consequences of detaining children for long periods of time, particularly after most of them had fled violence and poverty in Central America and undertaken the dangerous journey to the U.S.

“Being in detention can be a form of trauma,” said Dr. Alan Shapiro, a pediatrician who works directly with immigrant children. “We can’t treat children for trauma while we’re traumatizing them at the same time.”

Sexual abuse in Arizona

Southwest Key Programs, a Texas-based nonprofit, operates the facilities where the three incidents occurred. In Arizona, the organization agreed in October to close two facilities and stop accepting more children at others as part of a settlement with the state, which was investigating whether the organization conducted adequate background checks of staff. One former employee was convicted this year of sexually abusing multiple boys.

Meanwhile, in Texas, Southwest Key is pushing to expand. It has sued Houston after local officials tried to stop the opening of a facility.

In a statement, Southwest Key said it reported all three incidents on its own and that it was committed to correcting any problems.

“As long as immigrant children are forced to leave their homes due to violence and poverty, we want to provide them with compassionate care and help reunify them with family safely and quickly,” the group said.

Southwest Key’s facilities are licensed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which inspects child detention centers and released inspection records to the AP.

The U.S. government has also set up a temporary facility in Tornillo, Texas, that isn’t licensed by the state because it’s located on federal property. There, roughly 1,800 children are housed in large tents at much higher costs than the licensed facilities. That’s up from 320 in June, at the height of the family separation crisis.

Repeated investigations

One facility that was repeatedly flagged was Casa El Presidente in Brownsville, Texas, operated by Southwest Key.

As parents were being arrested and separated from their infants and young children, Casa El Presidente became one of three Texas “tender age” facilities that took in their kids. A group of congressmen who visited in June said the facility had an infant room with high chairs and toys, where staff members were caring for babies.

Casa El Presidente multiplied in size during the family separation crisis. According to the state’s monthly head counts, the facility went from 56 children in June to 367 in the most recent count taken Nov. 15.

A shift supervisor told a state inspector June 26 that more staff were quitting and that workers “struggle with implementing healthy boundaries for children of this age.”

“He admitted staff are afraid to touch the children,” the inspector wrote in a report.

The supervisor said Casa El Presidente had to change its policy on restraining young children who were misbehaving, because holding them for too short a time was “escalating instead of de-escalating.” Southwest Key said an example of a typical restraint would be holding a child’s arm or shoulder, and that it doesn’t use mechanical restraints.

The facility was cited for improperly restraining a 6-year-old boy who tried in July to climb a playground fence and run away.

The boy was identified in an inspection report by his first name, Osman. Staff members told an inspector that two days before Osman ran to the fence, two other boys had placed his shoes in a toilet. Osman “also expressed frustration about being in the shelter away from his family,” the report said.

Three staff members eventually carried Osman away from the fence and back into the building.

The same month, two boys named Luis and Franklin got into a fight after Luis apparently kicked a soccer ball that Franklin said belonged to him. An inspector who viewed the facility’s video wrote that Franklin chased Luis and punched him, causing Luis to fall.

“Franklin starts to kick him, once again making contact and kicking Luis in the face,” the inspector wrote. Employees “never make efforts to move Franklin away from Luis; the staff just hold him.”

The inspector cited the facility for not properly intervening to stop the kicks.

At Casa Rio Grande in San Benito, Texas, one of the people living there was a 20-year-old who told the staff she was 17. An investigation report identified her as Julia.

Julia told an inspector that she took a needle from a sewing class and used it to cut herself because “she felt alone.” She hid her wrist for around two weeks under a sweater, but when she forgot to wear her sweater one day, a staff member spotted the marks.

In each case, inspectors interviewed other minors detained at the facility. According to the reports, the other youths said they were treated well, had enough food, and felt respected by the staff.

Jeff Eller, a spokesman for Southwest Key, acknowledged that staff morale has suffered this year because of the unprecedented demands.

“We are against family separations at the border,” Eller said. “Keeping families together is better for the children, parents, and communities.”
…

Mark Robbins gets to work at 8:15 each morning and unlocks the door to his office suite. He switches on the lights and the TV news, brews a pot of coffee and pulls out the first files of the day to review.

For the next eight hours or so, he reads through federal workplace disputes, analyzes the cases, marks them with notes and logs his legal opinions. When he’s finished, he slips the files into a cardboard box and carries them into an empty room where they will sit and wait. For nobody.

He’s at 1,520 files and counting.

Such is the lot of the last man standing in this forgotten corner of Donald Trump’s Washington. For nearly two years, while Congress has argued and the White House has delayed, Robbins has waited to be sent some colleagues to read his work and rule on the cases. No one has arrived. So he toils in vain, writing memos into the void.

Robbins is a one-man microcosm of a current strand of government dysfunction. His office isn’t a high-profile political target. No politician has publicly pledged to slash his budget. But his agency’s work has effectively been neutered through neglect. Promising to shrink the size of government, the president has been slow to fill posts and the Republican-led Congress has struggled to win approval for nominees. The combined effect isn’t always dramatic, but it’s strikingly clear when examined up close.

“It’s a series of unfortunate events,” says Robbins, who has had plenty of time to contemplate the absurdity of his situation. Still, he doesn’t blame Trump or the government for his predicament. “There’s no one thing that created this problem that could have been fixed. It was a series of things randomly thrown together to create where we are.”

Robbins is a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a quasi-judicial federal body designed to determine whether civil servants have been mistreated by their employers. The three members are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed for staggered seven-year terms. After one member termed out in 2015 and a second did so in January 2017, both without replacements lined up, Robbins became the sole member and acting chairman. The board needs at least two members to decide cases.

That’s a problem for the federal workers and whistleblowers whose 1,000-plus grievances hang in the balance, stalled by the board’s inability to settle them. When Robbins’ term ends on March 1, the board probably will sit empty for the first time in its 40-year history.

It’s also a problem for Robbins. A new board, whenever it’s appointed and approved, will start from scratch. That means while new members can read Robbins’ notes, his thousand-plus decisions will simply vanish.

“There is zero chance, zero chance my votes will count,” the 59-year-old lawyer says, running his fingers over the spines leather-bound volumes lined up neatly on a shelf. Inside are the board’s published rulings. None of the opinions he’s working on will make it into one of them.

“Imagine having the last year and half of your work just … disappear,” he said.

Despite the choke of files piled up everywhere else, Robbins’ office is remarkably orderly. Three paperweights rest on stacks of papers on his desk: a stone from Babel province, a memento from his time working for the State Department in Iraq; a model of the White House, to commemorate his tenure under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush; and a medallion bearing the merit board’s seal. This job, which pays about $155,000 a year, “has been the honor of my life,” he says.

In the corner, a potted plant he rescued from a trash can outside his condo six years ago is now so tall that it’s bumping up against the ceiling, growing in circles.

He swears it’s not a metaphor.

Robbins, a Republican, was excited when Trump won the election. The president chooses two board members of his or her own party, and the Senate minority leader picks a third. Robbins assumed he’d finally be in the majority after years of serving alongside Democrats, soon able to write opinions rather than just logging dissent.

No such luck.

Trump was in office a year before he nominated two board members, a pair of Republicans, including Robbins’ replacement. A third nominee, a Democrat, was named three months later, in June.

Assuming they’d be swiftly confirmed, Robbins quickly began preparing for their arrival, leaving customized notes with comments and suggestions for the nominees based on their distinct personalities and experience on each case.

He’d at least impart a little wisdom, he thought.

But months went by and still no vote. Robbins said he was told the Democrats were refusing to confirm the two Republicans by unanimous consent, insisting instead on a full debate for each. In late September, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee that screens nominees told Robbins it probably would not be able to confirm the appointees before the end of the current Congress. That meant that the entire process, which typically takes several months when there are no complications, will begin again come January, with no guarantee the nominees will be the same.

Now his pile of personalized sticky notes is bound for the trash, too.

Tall, slim and bald, Robbins is an eternal optimist. He sees the futility of the piles of paper and empty offices. But he’s determined to keep the trains running, even if he’s the only one on the ride.

“It’s not like I’m sitting around on the sofa watching soap operas and eating bonbons. I’m still doing my job,” he said. “It’s only when the agency stops working that people realize what we do and the value we bring.”

“Maybe someday they’ll say, `Good old Robbins, he just kept plugging along.”’

Frustrating? Yes. But at least it makes for a good story at parties.

“When I say to people, And then my votes just disappear,' the crowd usually goesOh, no!”’ he said. “And there’s empathy, there’s real empathy.”

The board, established in 1978, is responsible for protecting 2.1 million federal employees from bias and unfair treatment in the workplace. The board handles appeals from whistleblowers and other civil servants who say they were mistreated or wrongly fired, and want to challenge an initial ruling by an administrative judge. The board also conducts independent research and writes policy papers destined for the president’s desk.

Or it used to.

Robbins is quick to point out the staffing crisis began under President Barack Obama, back when Robbins’ first colleague termed out without a replacement.

Others say it’s the Trump administration’s fault.

Trump has lagged slightly behind his predecessors in nominating political appointees. As of Nov. 19, he had nominated people for 929 positions, compared with Obama’s 984 and Bush’s 1,128 at the same point in their presidencies. Congress has acted on just 69 percent of those nominations, according to data provided by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization promoting government efficiency.

Max Stier, the partnership’s CEO, blames the administration, the Senate and a dysfunctional system of appointing and confirming political nominees.

“There are many different flavors of the same problem,” he said. He cited several other vacancies, including assistant secretary for South Asian affairs at the State Department, deputy secretary and undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the deputy secretary at the Homeland Security Department, among others. “There is so much going on, but the underlying reality is that our basic government is suffering.”

John Palguta, former director of policy and evaluation for the merit board, called the delay “outrageous.”

“We’re setting a new standard, and it’s particularly severe and unfortunate at MSPB because of the structure of the agency. It just can’t operate. And to let it go for this long, that’s really unconscionable,” Palguta said. “The administration simply hasn’t done its job.”

Sen. James Lankford, who chairs the Senate Home Security and Government Affairs’ Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management said in a statement he understands the urgency in filling these positions.

“There are over 1,500 individuals waiting for their cases to be heard, but there are not board members in place which means the backlog cannot be addressed,” said Lankford, R-Okla.

Robbins keeps plugging away and the cases keep piling up.

“We are running out of space,” he said, shimmying between towers of boxes in a storage closet close to 6 feet tall. More boxes are stacked against the hallway wall and piled up in the clerk’s office.

“Any additional cases I work from now on are just, grains of sand on a beach.”
…

The Trump administration is downplaying the significance of a report issued Friday that included dire predictions about the impact of climate change in the U.S. The White House said the study was largely based on “the most extreme scenario” and doesn’t account for new technology and other innovations that could diminish carbon emissions and the effects of climate change.

The National Climate Assessment, the fourth edition of a congressionally mandated report on climate change, noted that disasters caused by weather are becoming more common.  The report, prepared by more than 300 researchers in 13 U.S. government departments and agencies, predicts that those events will become more common and more severe if steps aren’t taken “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters noted that work on the assessment began under the administration of former U.S. president Barack Obama and uses multiple modeling scenarios to assess the effects of climate change.  But the report issued Friday, according to Walters, relies too heavily on the worst-case-scenario.

“The report is largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that, despite strong economic growth that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population,” Walters said in a statement.

She said the next climate assessment, which will be prepared over the next four years, will “provide for a more transparent and data-driven process that includes fuller information on the range of potential scenarios and outcomes.”

Walters also pointed out that, since 2005, carbon dioxide emissions related to energy production in the U.S. have declined 14 percent, while global emissions continue to rise.  

While that’s true, the U.S. remains the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind only China.

The Trump administration has rolled back several environmental regulations put in place during the Obama administration and has promoted the production of fossil fuels.

Last year, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been signed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change. He argued the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy and said there is little evidence in its environmental benefit.

Trump, as well as several members of his Cabinet, have also cast doubt on the science of climate change, saying the causes of global warming are not yet settled.

White House Bureau Chief Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an unusually quick ruling into the military’s policy of restricting military service by transgender people.

The administration Friday asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings blocking the military’s policy, seeking to bypass a federal appeals court currently considering the issue.

Except in rare cases, the Supreme Court usually waits to get involved in cases until both a trial and appeals court have ruled on the matter.

The Trump administration argued Friday that the Supreme Court should get involved in this case early because it “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”

Administration officials say they want to ensure that the Supreme Court would be able to review the dispute before its term ends in June 2019.

Pentagon policy

The Pentagon changed its policy regarding transgender people in 2016, under then-President Barack Obama, allowing them serve openly in the military. But when President Donald Trump was elected, his administration reversed the policy and reinstated a ban on transgender troops.

Several courts ruled against that ban, leading the Trump administration to modify its policy, which now states that most transgender troops are banned from serving in the military except under limited circumstances.

Ruled unconstitutional twice

Lower courts have since ruled that the new administration policy is essentially the same as the original ban and is unconstitutional.

One of the lawsuits against the Pentagon policy has made its way to an appeals court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is a frequent target of criticism by Trump who tweeted just this week “the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result.”
…

A conservative writer and conspiracy theorist who is an associate of U.S. President Donald Trump and Trump confidant Roger Stone said Friday that he was in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.  

Jerome Corsi declined to comment further on his talks with Mueller’s team, which is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But Corsi said on a YouTube program last week that expected to be charged with lying to federal investigators. 

Mueller’s team questioned Corsi about Stone’s links to WikiLeaks. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia provided to WikiLeaks hacked material aimed at hindering Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

The talks with Corsi could help Mueller’s office determine whether Stone and other associates of Trump were aware of WikiLeaks’ plans to release the material. 

Corsi is a former Washington bureau chief of the conspiracy theory website InfoWars. He reportedly cooperated with investigators for about two months, giving them computers and a cellphone. He also gave the FBI access to his email and Twitter accounts. 

Stone has denied acting as a conduit for WikiLeaks, which was founded by Julian Assange and published thousands of emails allegedly stolen from the computer of Clinton’s campaign chairman weeks before the election. Stone has also said he expects to be indicted. 

Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller and an attorney for the president. 
…

Emboldened by a referendum voters approved this month, North Carolina’s soon-dwindling Republican majorities at the legislature will scramble to approve their preferred voter identification law before Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper can stop it.

The GOP-dominated General Assembly returns to work Tuesday to decide how a new amendment to the state constitution requiring photo ID to vote in person will be carried out. The amendment passed with more than 55 percent of the vote, giving Republicans confidence to move ahead despite years of controversy in the state over such a mandate.

Meeting now is strategic. Democrats won enough legislative seats Election Day to end the Republicans’ veto-proof control come January. So Cooper, a longtime opponent of voter photo ID laws, won’t be able to stop any lame-duck session bills as long as Republicans remain united.

New restrictions, on which courts probably will weigh in, would affect over 7 million voters in the anticipated 2020 presidential battleground state, which will also feature races for governor and U.S. Senate that year.

“We will pass a law that improves the real and perceived integrity of the election system,” said Rep. David Lewis, a Harnett County Republican expected to shepherd a bill through the legislature.

Republicans have passed voter ID legislation twice, but they’ve been derailed both times. Federal judges struck down a wide-ranging 2013 elections law, which contained several voting restrictions, writing it was passed with “racially discriminatory intent” by targeting black residents with “almost surgical precision.”

Undeterred and rejecting the ruling as political hyperbole, GOP lawmakers decided to submit the voter ID question directly to voters. More than 30 other states require some form of identification to vote. Along with a successful November referendum in Arkansas, four states now have constitutional provisions addressing photo ID.

The state chapter of the NAACP, which sued over the 2013 law, tried unsuccessfully to get judges to keep the referendum off the ballot and is still asking them to cancel the referendum results.

The state NAACP “has led the fight against the anti-democracy, racist photo voter ID even before it was improperly placed on the ballot this time, and we will continue to fight it and any effort to suppress the sacred right to vote,” said the Rev. T. Anthony Spearman, the state chapter president.

Voter ID backers say it bolsters the public’s confidence in elections — even as statistics show voter impersonation charges are extremely rare. Republicans cite stories from constituents who say they have seen fraud as credible proof.

The 2013 requirement was used for the state’s two 2016 primaries before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law. The U.S. Supreme Court let that decision stand.

The upcoming proposal is likely to expand on the 2013 ID provisions. Draft legislation released by Republicans this week envisions additional methods to qualify.

In addition to eight forms of approved IDs in 2013 — driver’s licenses, military and tribal IDs among them — there would, for the first time, be free voter photo identification cards issued by county election boards, the draft says. Student IDs at University of North Carolina system schools — left out of the 2013 law — would work as well. And more qualifying IDs are possible.

People with hardships to obtain IDs could get them for free or still vote without one if they signed a “reasonable impediment” form. The constitutional amendment allows for exceptions.

More than 80 percent of the 1,050 people who filled out the form during the March 2016 primary had their ballot count, according to the state elections board. But Democracy North Carolina, a voting rights group, calculated more than 1,400 people who lacked acceptable photo ID didn’t have their ballots counted, with black residents disproportionately affected. More than 2.3 million people voted in that election.

Democracy North Carolina Executive Director Tomas Lopez, whose group opposed the amendment, said the draft wouldn’t resolve all concerns that it would create voting barriers for otherwise eligible voters. He said lawmakers shouldn’t rush through a law this year.

Activists also hope exceptions will be broadened by telling legislators the stories of people like Janice Franklin of Charlotte, a disabled woman who says her vote didn’t count in the 2016 primary despite showing a Social Security card at the polls and filling out forms.

“We need other options and at the same time we need these options to matter. They need to be in the law because people … will know ‘you bring this and it’s going to count,’” Franklin, 60, said in a phone interview this week. The former preschool teacher now has a state ID card that qualified under the 2013 law.

Lewis said he wants input from critics to improve any measure.

Sen. Floyd McKissick, a Durham County Democrat who voted against the 2013 law, is skeptical Republicans will incorporate Democrats’ suggestions. GOP leaders haven’t wanted to include Democrats in hammering out other key legislation, he said.

Despite strong opposition to the voter ID amendment in urban counties, a majority of the state’s voters were in favor of requiring photo ID.

“It has to be done,” McKissick said. “We’re beyond the point of saying whether it is something that can be enacted.”

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed members of all military branches deployed overseas to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving and thank them for their service. But when asked when he will visit any of them in person, he did not have a clear answer. The president paid a holiday visit to the Coast Guard near his home in Palm Beach, Florida, Thursday. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify about investigations into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia and Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Comey and Lynch have been ordered to appear before the House Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform committees on December 3 and 4. They have been ordered to participate in closed-door interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled the two investigations.

The subpoenas, issued Wednesday but made public Thursday, made good on threats by Republican Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte earlier in the week.

Both Comey and Lynch have previously testified before congressional panels investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election campaign and have expressed willingness to appear before the two committees.

Comey, though, has raised objections to the format of the interview and suggested in a Thanksgiving Day tweet he may not appear if the interview is not conducted in a public setting.

“I’m still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a ‘closed door’ thing because I’ve seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion.” Comey added: “Let’s have a hearing and invite everyone to see.”

Republican lawmakers have been investigating the decision-making by the FBI and the Justice Department in 2016 and 2017. They maintain that anti-Trump bias among senior officials resulted in the FBI focusing more on its probe into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia and less on its investigation into Democratic candidate Clinton’s private email server.

Trump has repeatedly called the Russia probe a “witch hunt” and has accused Comey and his close colleagues of being corrupt.

Democrats complain Republicans are simply trying to fuel a conspiracy theory to protect Trump from the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Democrats say they will scrutinize Trump’s attacks on the FBI and the Justice Department when they assume control of the House in January. They have also urged their Republican counterparts to shield Mueller from any attempts by Trump or his newly-appointed acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, to impede the investigation.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump started his Thanksgiving holiday by renewed his public debate over the independence of the country’s judicial system.

In a teleconference Thursday with American troops overseas, Trump said a federal appeals court in California has become “a big thorn in our side.”

The president’s remarks came one day after he and U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in an extraordinary exchange over the independence of the federal judiciary, with Roberts berating Trump for criticizing a judge who ruled against his administration as an “Obama judge.”

Roberts responded with a rare public rebuke of the president, saying Trump’s comments reflect his misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a bluntly worded statement.  “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.  That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Although it is very unusual for a president to personally criticize judges, Trump quickly responded by questioning the independence of federal judges appointed by his predecessor and confirmed by the Senate.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.  It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ Trump said via Twitter from his Mar-a-lago resort in Florida. 

While Trump cited the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling that drew his ire came from a district judge in California.

Trump has been particularly critical of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and much of the U.S. west coast.  Trump tweeted Wednesday the court, considered by many as the country’s most liberal, has become a “terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace.”

The president has maintained the Supreme Court has overruled the 9th Circuit more than other courts, but studies conducted during the past five years show three others have a higher percentage of their rulings overturned.

The controversy began Tuesday when Trump attacked U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who ruled against his migrant asylum order.  The ruling prompted Trump to claim again Thursday, as he has in the past, that the 9th Circuit was biased against him.

“It’s a terrible thing when judges take over your protective services, when they tell you how to protect your border.  It’s a disgrace” he said.

Roberts had refrained from commenting on Trump’s previous attacks on judges.  But after a query Wednesday from Associated Press, Roberts defended the independence of the federal judiciary and dismissed the notion that judges are beholden to presidents who appoint them.

Roberts, who has often expressed concern about attacks on the judiciary’s impartiality, has previously been the target of criticism from Trump.  Trump often belittled Roberts during the 2016 presidential campaign, at one point calling Roberts an “absolute disaster” after Roberts voted along with liberals in 2012 to uphold President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Roberts was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush and has compiled a firmly conservative voting record during his 13 years on the Supreme Court.

The chief justice’s statement came as he adjusts to changes on the Supreme Court.  The arrival last month of Trump’s second appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, pushed Roberts to the court’s ideological center, a position that was held by Justice Anthony Kennedy until he retired in July.

Former special assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings, told CNN Thursday the ideological shift on the court may have compelled Roberts to defend the courts.

“I think what Chief Justice Roberts feels like his job is now is to look out for the integrity of and the reputation of the entire judiciary.  I mean in a world where a lot of people view most of government as being polarized, as being partisan for you or partisan against you, I think he believes it’s his job to make sure that folks view the judiciary as independent.”

Inside Elections publisher Nathan Gonzales said on CNN that Trump’s criticism of Roberts could further endear him to his conservative base, “There are some Republicans and conservatives who have already turned their back on Chief Justice Roberts because of his involvement in the decision with the Affordable Care Act.”

Gonzales added, “We have to remember that the Republican Party has become all about President Trump and whatever he does or the enemies he chooses are going to be with him and I think that remains the case in this situation.”
…

Senate Republicans are working to soon fill the nation’s longest judicial vacancy with a North Carolina lawyer whose nomination has raised objections from black lawmakers and civil rights groups concerned about his work defending state laws found to have discriminated against African-Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has helped push 84 of President Donald Trump’s nominees over the finish line and is itching for more. With just a few more weeks to go before Congress adjourns for the year, he has teed up a vote on the nomination of Thomas Farr, 64, to serve as a district court judge in North Carolina.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Farr’s confirmation with a party-line vote back in January, meaning McConnell has waited about 10 months and until after the midterm elections to hold a vote on the floor.

Senators tend to save their biggest fights in the judicial arena for Supreme Court and appeals court nominees, but Farr’s nomination has proved an exception.

“It’s hard to believe President Trump nominated him, and it’s even harder to believe the Senate Republicans are considering it again,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York in one of about 20 tweets he has sent out in recent days concerning Farr.

Farr has the backing of home-state Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans. They have noted that Farr was also nominated to the same position by former President George W. Bush and has a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. They have protested the implication that Farr is racially insensitive or biased.

“I think absolutely destroying a good man’s reputation is inappropriate,” Tillis said before the committee advanced Farr’s nomination.

In introducing Farr last year, Burr said the judiciary needs good people and he “fills every piece of the word good.”

But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., described Farr as “probably the worst of the litter” when it comes to Trump’s judicial nominees.

“Could this administration have picked an individual who is more hostile to the rights of minorities than this man? It is hard to imagine,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in the same committee hearing.

GOP leaders in charge of the North Carolina Legislature hired Farr and others at his firm to defend congressional and legislative boundaries that the Legislature approved in 2011. A federal court eventually struck some boundaries down as racial gerrymanders and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

Farr also helped defend a 2013 law that required photo identification to vote, reduced the number of early voting days and eliminated same-day registration during that period.

North Carolina Republicans said that requiring voter ID would increase the integrity of elections. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state provided no evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the ID mandate would address. The Richmond, Virginia-based court said the law targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision.”

Farr told lawmakers that, as an advocate, he vehemently disagreed with the argument that the North Carolina Legislature sought to curtail the voting rights of people of color or any other voter. But, said, “I am obligated to follow the decision by the 4th Circuit and pledge that I will do so.”

The history of the particular judicial opening Farr would fill has also contributed to the acrimony.

President Barack Obama nominated two African-American women to serve on the court, but neither was granted a hearing and their nominations stalled. If confirmed, they would have been the first blacks to serve in that particular district, which is about 27 percent black.

Farr also served as a lawyer for the re-election campaign of Republican Sen. Jesse Helms in 1990. The Justice Department alleged that about 120,000 postcards sent overwhelmingly to black voters before that election was intended to intimidate them from voting.

Farr said he was not consulted about the postcards and did not have any role in drafting or sending them. He said that after he had been asked to review the card, “I was appalled to read the incorrect language printed on the card and to then discover it had been sent to African Americans.”

The explanation has failed to win over the NAACP.

“The courts are supposed to be where we can find and seek justice. But Farr’s lifetime crusade is to disenfranchise African Americans and deprive them of their rights,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “He belongs nowhere near a bench of justice.”

Democratic lawmakers called on the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to schedule Farr for another round of testimony about his role in the Helms’ campaign, but Grassley declined.

With a 51-49 majority, Republicans will have little margin for error in confirming Farr.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has already pledged to oppose all judicial nominees until he gets a vote on legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.
…

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has warned Central American migrants seeking political asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico that the Trump administration will not tolerate “frivolous asylum claims” or illegal entry. Her warning came Tuesday as a U.S. federal judge temporarily prevented the administration from blocking asylum status for people who do not enter at a designated port of entry. VOA’s Celia Mendoza is in Tijuana, Mexico, where she spoke to some of the migrants.
…

For congressional Republicans, this month’s elections ushered in the year of the woman — literally. 

West Virginia’s Carol Miller will be the only Republican woman entering the 435-member House as a newcomer in January. She’ll join what may be the chamber’s smallest group of female GOP lawmakers since the early 1990s — as few as 13 of at least 199 Republicans. Democrats will have at least 89. 

Numbers like those have Republicans searching for answers to the glaring gender disparity in their ranks — and fast. The concern is that Democrats’ lopsided edge among female voters could carry over to 2020, when President Donald Trump will be seeking a second term and House and Senate control will be in play. If the current trend continues, Republicans risk being branded the party of men. 

“You will see a very significant recruiting effort occur” for female candidates, said David Winston, a pollster who advises GOP congressional leaders. “It’s a natural conclusion. An environment has got to be created where that can be a success.” 

Evidence of the GOP gender gap was just as clear in the 100-member Senate, where Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be the only Republican freshman. If Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wins a runoff later this month there will be record-setting seven GOP women in the Republican-run Senate. But even that record is less than half the class of 17 Democratic women, which includes two freshmen. 

The search for answers leads to some familiar places. Trump’s fraught history with women, combined with the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, helped motivate Democratic women to seek office but did not appear to have the same effect with GOP women, politicians and analysts say. More broadly, the president’s brash style doesn’t sit well many female voters or potential candidates.  

“Women don’t like the tweets,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a moderate GOP group. “I don’t know how to tone down the rhetoric. If I could have a fantasy, one wish, that would be my one wish.” 

Women backed Democratic candidates over Republicans on Election Day by a telling 57 percent to 41 percent, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate conducted by The Associated Press. Women broke by similar margins in the crucial suburbs, where Democratic victories in swing districts helped power the gains they needed to win House control. Men supported Republicans over Democrats, 51 percent to 46 percent. 

Strategists note the issue isn’t just about current personalities; it’s about party infrastructure. 

“We as a party have to make recruiting women candidates who can win a high priority,” said Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for Winning for Women, a fledging GOP group that tries bolstering female Republican candidates. She added, “Unless people in leadership really make it a priority, I don’t think it will happen.” 

A record number of women ran for the House as major-party candidates this year. But Democrats outnumbered Republicans by nearly 3 to 1, according to AP data, and Democratic women were more likely to win their primaries. 

Of those contenders who ran in November, 183 were Democrats, the most ever, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Fifty-two were Republicans, a near-record but far smaller than the number of  female Democrats running. 

That partisan imbalance was made greater by Democrats’ superior campaign infrastructure for helping female candidates. 

Winning for Women, created in early 2017, says it spent more than $1 million helping female candidates for the recent election. That and other GOP groups assisting female candidates couldn’t match Democrats’ 33-year-old Emily’s List, a well-financed organization that poured tens of millions into primaries and general elections and provided recruiting, training and other services to female candidates. 

“Democrats have been doing a much better job of getting women elected,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics. 

Asked to explain her success against other female candidates’ defeats, West Virginia’s Miller sent an email lauding Trump and other Republicans and GOP women’s groups and saying “liberal special interests” had spent heavily to defeat Republican women. Officials at the White House and the GOP did not provide answers to requests for comment. 

Republicans have displayed a sensitivity this year to their overwhelmingly male numbers. That includes hiring a female prosecutor to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and its all-male Republicans about her allegations of sexual misconduct against him. 

Within days of the elections, Republicans vaulted women into congressional leadership positions. 

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, will be No. 3 House GOP leader next year, that chamber’s highest-ranking Republican woman ever. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will be vice chairwoman of the Senate GOP conference, a lower-tier post, making her the first Republican woman in a Senate leadership job in eight years. 

Cheney said Republicans must better communicate that their policies on national security, the economy and health care are best for men and women. She called it “fundamentally offensive and paternalistic” to think women’s votes are driven by their gender. 

Asked on CBS’s Face the Nation last week whether Trump’s rhetoric alienated women, Ernst said, “We could do a better job of communicating clearly that we support women.”  
…

Before joining the Justice Department, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker earned more than $1.2 million from a right-leaning nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings. Whitaker’s earnings represented a sizable chunk of the charity’s revenue.

Financial disclosure forms released Tuesday show Whitaker received $904,000 in income from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust from 2016 through nearly the end of 2017. He also received $15,000 from CNN as a legal commentator, according to the documents released by the Justice Department.

The nonprofit group, known as FACT, styles itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog promoting ethics and transparency. The tax-exempt group is supposed to serve the public interest without supporting or opposing specific candidates for office. However, its challenges and its website have focused largely, though not exclusively, on Democrats and their party.

Whitaker used his role as president and executive director of FACT in 2016 as a platform to question the ethics of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

From 2014 through 2016, FACT paid out nearly 30 percent of its total revenue to Whitaker. In 2015 alone, Whitaker’s $252,000 salary made up half of what the group brought in. Whitaker’s salary also grew each year from $63,000 in 2014 to as much as $502,000 in 2017, according to the tax filings and public financial disclosures released by the Justice Department.

Separately, Whitaker is also facing criticism about whether he violated federal law because a campaign committee set up for his failed 2014 U.S. Senate bid accepted $8,800 in donations this year, while Whitaker was serving as a top Justice Department lawyer.

On Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., called for an investigation into whether Whitaker violated the Hatch Act, a statute that generally prohibits executive branch employees from accepting or soliciting campaign donations.

Whitaker’s campaign committee, which still carries about $49,000 in debt, hadn’t received any contributions between 2015 through 2017, according to Federal Election Commission data.

The campaign committee, Whitaker for U.S. Senate Inc., also reported paying $500 to Whitaker’s old law firm, Whitaker, Hagenow & Gustoff, for space rental on Febraury 2. The campaign paid a $228 reimbursement to Christopher Hagenow — an Iowa legislator and founding partner of the law firm — for data services that same day.

Several news outlets, including The Associated Press, and outside groups had requested Whitaker’s financial disclosure forms from the Justice Department after President Donald Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and elevated Whitaker to the agency’s top post on Nov. 7.

Those documents show Whitaker began revising his public disclosures the day he was appointed acting attorney general. He revised the forms four more times, including on Tuesday.

In a disclosure form Whitaker completed when he joined the Justice Department in September 2017, he reported receiving $1,875 in legal fees from a company called World Patent Marketing. Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his involvement with the company, which was accused of misleading consumers and is under investigation by the FBI.

Whitaker also disclosed his partial interest in a family farm in Ely, Iowa, that he valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. The forms also included disclosures of $20,000 to $30,000 in credit card debt in 2017.

FACT drew its funds from 2014-2016 mainly from Donor’s Trust, another nonprofit designed to provide anonymity to conservative and libertarian donors. Though such tax-exempt groups can legally withhold the identity of their contributors and generally do so, there may be a distinct irony when a group dedicated to transparency keeps its funding sources in the shadows.

Whitaker’s appointment has been criticized by Democrats who have challenged its constitutionality and are concerned that he will interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

On Tuesday, the Senate’s top Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate communications between Whitaker and the White House and to look into whether Whitaker had access to confidential grand jury information in Mueller’s probe.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the second-ranking Justice Department official, had been overseeing the special counsel’s Russia investigation until Whitaker’s appointment. Whitaker is now overseeing the investigation.

Schumer and other Democrats have said they are concerned about Whitaker’s past criticism of the Mueller probe, which is looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and ties to Trump’s campaign.

Whitaker’s past public statements have included an op-ed article in which he said Mueller would be straying outside his mandate if he investigated Trump’s family finances. In a talk radio interview he maintained there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
…

President Donald Trump frequently credits himself with accomplishing more for the military and veterans than any other president in recent memory. But he has yet to embark on what has long been a traditional presidential pilgrimage important to the military: a visit to troops deployed in a war zone. 

As he departed Tuesday for Florida to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday at his private club in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump said he’d soon correct the oversight. 

“I’m going to a war zone,” he said in response to a reporter’s question about his support for the troops. 

He did not say when he would be making the trip or where he planned to go. An official said a White House team recently returned from beginning to plan for such a visit. 

The omission is one of a list of norm-breaking moves that underscore the Republican president’s increasingly fraught relationship with the military, which has celebrated Trump’s investments in military spending but cringed at what some see as efforts to politicize their service. 

Just this week, Trump criticized the storied commander of the 2011 mission that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, retired Adm. William McRaven. “Wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn’t it have been nice?” Trump said. 

The latest controversy followed a pattern of concerns raised by former senior military officers about Trump’s grasp of the military’s role, and it came as White House aides and defense officials have raised alarm about what they view as the president’s disinterest in briefings about troop deployments overseas. 

Shortly after taking office, Trump appeared to try to deflect responsibility for the death of a service member, William “Ryan” Owens, in a failed operation in Yemen, saying planning for the mission began under his predecessor and was backed by senior military commanders. 

“They explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected,” he told Fox & Friends at the time. “And they lost Ryan.” 

Trump won the White House on a platform of ending U.S. military commitments abroad, but he’s been bedeviled by many of the same challenges as his predecessors. More American troops are now deployed in conflict zones than when he took office. 

Aides have suggested that Trump is wary of traveling to conflict zones where he doesn’t fully support the mission. Trump begrudgingly backed a surge of troops in Afghanistan last year and boosted U.S. deployments in Iraq, Syria and Africa to counter the Islamic State and other extremist groups. 

Trump said last week in a Fox News Sunday interview that he was “very much opposed to the war in Iraq. I think it was a tremendous mistake, should have never happened.” Trump, in fact, offered lukewarm support for the invasion at the time but began offering public doubts about the mission after the conflict began in March 2003. 

At home, some assert that Trump’s decision to send thousands of active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border shortly before the Nov. 6 midterm elections was a political stunt. And Defense Department officials said they rejected requests by the Department of Homeland Security — and backed by the White House — for armed active-duty troops to bolster Border Patrol agents, saying it ran afoul of federal law. 

Trump also drew criticism for his decision not to visit Arlington National Cemetery to mark Veterans Day, following his trip to Europe. He said later he “should have” visited the cemetery but was too busy with official business. His public schedule that day listed no events. 

In the “Fox News Sunday” interview, Trump was asked why he hadn’t visited the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in the two years he’s served as commander in chief. 

“Well, I think you will see that happen,” he said. “There are things that are being planned.” 

He also touted his support for the men and women in uniform. 

“I don’t think anybody’s been more with the military than I have, as a president,” Trump said. “In terms of funding, in terms of all of the things I’ve been able to get them, including the vets, I don’t think anybody’s done more than me.” 

Trump received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War, four for education and one for a diagnosis of bone spurs — though he later told The New York Times he could not remember which foot was affected by the malady or how long it lasted. 

Trump told The Associated Press in a recent interview that he doesn’t think visiting troops in a war zone is “overly necessary.” 

“I’ve been very busy with everything that’s taking place here,” he added. 
…

Abandoning Saudi Arabia, despite its responsibility for killing a U.S.-based journalist, “would be a terrible mistake,” President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday.

Any human rights concerns are outweighed by U.S. national security and economic interests, the president said. 

“We’re staying with Saudi Arabia,” Trump announced, noting the kingdom’s mutual opposition to Iran and Riyadh’s purchases of American military equipment that mean, according to the president, “hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment.”

Russia and China “are not going to get that gift,” Trump told reporters on the White House South Lawn before departing for the Thanksgiving holiday.

“We’ve kept oil prices down,” Trump said, claiming they would soar if the U.S.-Saudi relationship was broken up.

“I’m not going to destroy the world economy and destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with Saudi Arabia,” he added.

​’Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t’

Asked about a reported conclusion by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman most likely knew about or ordered the plot to kill dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside Riyadh’s consulate in Istanbul, Trump replied: “Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t” and stated, concerning the CIA’s finding: “They have nothing definitive.”

The president denied that his decision to avoid harshly punishing the Saudis for the Oct. 2 killing had anything to do with his personal business interests.

“I don’t make deals with Saudi Arabia. I don’t make money from Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “Being president has cost me a fortune.” 

Earlier in the day, in a statement issued by the White House, Trump said he understood that some lawmakers in Congress — who “for political or other reasons” — wanted to pursue sanctions against Riyadh for the killing. “They are free to do so,” he said.

“I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America,” Trump said.

But the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Bob Menendez, sent a letter to Trump Tuesday reminding him U.S. law requires him to examine whether the crown prince ordered Khashoggi’s death.

The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act requires the president to determine if a foreign official is responsible for a human rights violation.

The act is named for Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky who was apparently beaten to death in prison in 2009  after accusing Russian officials of tax fraud.

“I never thought I’d see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia,” Senator Corker tweeted Tuesday. He added that  Congress will consider “all the tools at our disposal” to determine the role of the crown prince in the Khashoggi killing.

Khashoggi lived in the United States, writing opinion articles for The Washington Post that were critical of the crown prince and Riyadh’s involvement in the long-running Yemen conflict.

His editor at the newspaper, Karen Attiah, described Trump’s statement as “full of lies and a blatant disregard for his own intelligence agencies. It also shows an unforgivable disregard for the lives of Saudis who dare criticize the regime. This is a new low.”

U.S. intelligence community

Veterans of the U.S. intelligence community are also expressing their disdain with the president’s stance.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who has repeatedly clashed with Trump, after Tuesday’s statement said on Twitter that Trump “excels in dishonesty,” so now it is up to Congress to obtain and declassify the CIA findings on Khashoggi’s death.

“No one in Saudi Arabia — most especially the Crown Prince — should escape accountability for such a heinous act,” Brennan wrote.

Former CIA officer Ned Price said in the wake of the president’s statement, which puts the agency’s reported high confidence assessment on par with Saudi denials, “how appointed intelligence leaders could continue to serve after this betrayal is beyond me.”

A Saudi prosecutor cleared the crown prince of wrongdoing last week while calling for the death penalty for five men, among the 11 indicted in the case. The prosecutor said a total of 21 people had been detained in connection with the killing.

Turkish officials concluded that Khashoggi was tortured and killed, with his body then dismembered.

Turkey Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Tuesday that Ankara might formally seek a U.N. investigation of the killing if cooperation with Riyadh reached an impasse.

VOA’s Chris Hannas and Katherine Gypson contributed to this report.
…

New revelations about the extent of Ivanka Trump’s personal email use in the White House will be getting a hard look from House Democrats when they take power in January.

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee began looking into private email use last year after reports by Politico revealed that Ivanka Trump’s husband, Jared Kushner, and other White House officials had been using private email for government purposes in possible violation of the Presidential Records Act and other federal record-keeping laws.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the likely incoming chairman of the Oversight panel, said Tuesday that he will resume that bipartisan investigation, which was dropped by Republicans. And he will pressure President Donald Trump’s administration to turn over records about the use of private email for public business by Ivanka Trump, Kushner and other senior officials.

“My goal is to prevent this from happening again — not to turn this into a spectacle the way Republicans went after Hillary Clinton,” Cummings said. “My main priority as Chairman will be to focus on the issues that impact Americans in their everyday lives.”

The issue resurfaced this week when The Washington Post reported that the president’s daughter, while a top White House adviser, sent hundreds of emails about government business from a personal email account last year. The emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules, according to the Post.

In comments to reporters, the president, who has spent years railing against Clinton’s use of private email for public business while secretary of state, sought to downplay — and differentiate — his daughter’s email use from his former opponent’s.

“They aren’t classified like Hillary Clinton. They weren’t deleted like Hillary Clinton,” Trump said, adding: “What Ivanka did, it’s all in the presidential records. Everything is there.”

A spokesman for Ivanka Trump’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, didn’t dispute the Post report. The spokesman, Peter Mirijanian, said no classified information was transmitted in the messages, no emails were deleted and the emails have since been “retained” in conformity with records laws. He also said Ivanka Trump did not set up a private server for the account, which he said was “never transferred or housed at Trump Organization.”

Mirijanian said that while transitioning into the government, Ivanka Trump “sometimes used her private account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family.”

“When concerns were raised in the press 14 months ago, Ms. Trump reviewed and verified her email use with White House Counsel and explained the issue to congressional leaders,” he said. He did not say which congressional leaders were briefed.

On Tuesday, Republican Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a fierce defender of the president as the leader of the House Freedom Caucus, also downplayed the matter.

“There are over 30,000 BleachBit reasons why the Hillary Clinton email scandal isn’t even close to the Ivanka email issue,” Meadows tweeted, referring to a computer program used to delete emails from her server.

The House Oversight investigation into private email used by Trump White House officials was launched in early 2017 with the support of then-Republican chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz. After Chaffetz retired from Congress, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina joined with Cummings in demanding that the White House provide the identities of staff members who had used their personal emails to conduct official business.

In October 2017, the White House dispatched counsel’s office lawyers Stefan Passantino, Uttam Dhillon and Daniel Epstein to brief bipartisan committee staff, but the attorneys refused to identify any officials who had used private email for official business. The lawyers only said that several White House employees had “confessed” to failing to following the Presidential Records Act, according to a letter summarizing the briefing released by Cummings earlier this year.

The White House lawyers said they couldn’t provide additional information on specific employees while an internal review was under way, according to the letter.

But the White House lawyers said they would share the findings of the internal review with the committee once it concluded, according to a separate letter sent to the White House by Gowdy.

Cummings has said the committee never received that information, and Democrats have said Gowdy dropped the issue and never followed up.

The discovery of the extent of Ivanka Trump’s email use was prompted by public records requests from the liberal watchdog group American Oversight. The group’s executive director, Austin Evers, said in a statement that “The president’s family is not above the law,’” and he called on Congress to investigate.

“For more than two years, President Trump and senior leaders in Congress have made it very clear that they view the use of personal email servers for government business to be a serious offense that demands investigation and even prosecution, and we expect the same standard will be applied in this case,” he said.

The emails the group uncovered include correspondence between Ivanka Trump and Small Business Administration chief Linda McMahon and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
…

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows most American voters approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy.

Fifty-three percent of the voters surveyed approved of the way he has overseen the economy, his most favorable rating ever on the issue, the poll found. Forty-two percent said they did not approve of his economic policies.

More than half of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump’s overall job performance, compared to 41 percent who believe he is doing a good job.

On foreign policy, 42 percent of voters give Trump high marks, while 53 percent disapprove of his handling of those issues.

Just over 40 percent of voters agree with the way he addresses immigration issues, compared to 56 percent who do not.

Trump also did not fare as well for his handling of race-related issues. The poll found that 35 percent of voters agreed with his approach to race relations, while 59 percent did not.   

 
…

The US president’s daughter and senior advisor Ivanka Trump used a personal email account for government business in violation of federal records rules, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The Post, citing anonymous sources, said the discovery was made by White House officials reviewing emails in response to a public records lawsuit.

When asked about it, Trump said she was unfamiliar with details of the rules, the Post said.

A spokesman for Trump’s attorney confirmed that she did use a private email account before she was informed of the rules, and said that all her government-related emails had been turned over months ago, the newspaper reported.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pilloried Hillary Clinton, his rival in the 2016 presidential election, for her use of a private email server for government business while she was secretary of state.

Then FBI director James Comey — fired by the president last year — announced that the bureau would reopen an investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server just 11 days before the 2016 presidential vote, a move that some say may have helped cost her the election.

Trump supporters still chant “Lock her up!” at rallies, mimicking one of Trump’s battle cries during the election campaign, indicating they believe Clinton should be jailed.

 
…

Months after comic Michelle Wolf angered Trump administration officials with her blistering routine at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, the group said on Monday it would feature a historian, not a comedian, at next year’s event.

The WHCA said Ron Chernow, who has written biographies of presidents George Washington and Ulysses Grant and founding father Alexander Hamilton, has been asked to speak on freedom of the press at next year’s black-tie affair in April.

“Freedom of the press is always a timely subject and this seems like the perfect moment to go back to the basics,” Chernow said in a statement released by the WHCA. President Donald Trump has repeatedly derided some media organizations as “fake news” and the “enemy of the people.”

The decision breaks with the association’s long-standing tradition of having a comic roast the president and the press at the dinner, and it drew a sharp response from Wolf.

“The @whca are cowards. The media is complicit. And I couldn’t be prouder,” she said on Twitter.

Presidents traditionally have been given the floor to make their own humorous remarks before the comic speaks. But President Donald Trump, who frequently found himself the target of jokes when he attended before he ran for office, including by then-President Obama, has refused to attend the dinner his first two years in office.

Wolf angered Trump administration officials last April with jokes that many felt were caustic and overly personal, saying of presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway “all she does is lie” and ridiculing press secretary Sarah Sanders’ eye makeup.

It was not the first time comics at the dinner have riled their targets. Stephen Colbert, Wanda Sykes and Seth Meyers have spoken at the dinner and also had their detractors.

But Wolf’s jabs at Trump administration officials prompted the New York Times to question in a headline last April: “Did Michelle Wolf kill the White House Correspondents’ Dinner?”

Although the dinner has become a high-profile event on Washington’s social calendar, it is primarily a fund-raiser to earn money for college journalism scholarships, journalism awards and to pay for other programs sponsored by the WHCA, which represents journalists covering the White House.

“While I have never been mistaken for a stand-up comedian,” Chernow said, “I promise that my history lesson won’t be dry.”
…

The chasm between U.S. President Donald Trump and elders of the intelligence community is widening.

Trump, repeating a criticism he made in a television interview the previous day, took to Twitter on Monday to again exclaim that the United States “should have captured Osama bin Laden long before we did.”

In the Fox News Sunday interview, the president labeled retired U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven, the leader of the operation that killed the al-Qaida founder, “a Hillary Clinton backer and an Obama backer,” referring to his 2016 Democratic Party opponent and his predecessor as president.

McRaven has repeatedly criticized Trump’s presidency, calling it an embarrassment and a humiliation of the United States on the world stage that has divided the country.

After Trump’s broadcast remarks, McRaven declared he did not back Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the previous presidential election, but said he is “a fan of President Obama and President George W. Bush, both of whom I worked for.”

He added that he admires all presidents, regardless of political party, “who uphold the dignity of the office and who use that office to bring the Nation together in challenging times.”

McRaven, a former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said he stands by his comment that Trump’s attack on the media “is the greatest threat to our democracy in my lifetime.”

Others with inside knowledge of the 2011 operation in Pakistan against bin Laden are coming to McRaven’s defense.

Former intelligence officials push back

Former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell tweeted that a correction is needed following Trump’s implication that the terrorist leader should have been nabbed faster.

A former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency, retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, in reaction to Trump’s attack on McRaven, taunted the president on Twitter for not capturing the current leaders of al-Qaida and the Islamic State terror group, who are in hiding.

The Navy SEAL who is credited with having fired the head shot that killed bin Laden on Monday tweeted that the bin Laden mission was bipartisan.

“The president is simply wrong and pushing an idea that I think is not helpful,” said retired Army General Stanley McChrystal on CNN about Trump asserting previous administrations were tardy in eliminating the al-Qaida head.

Trump’s criticism “is symptomatic of the crisis of leadership we have today,” added McChrystal, who headed the Joint Special Operations Command for five years.

“This president owes Admiral McRaven and all of the SEALs involved in that operation an apology for what he’s saying,” said former CIA Director and ex Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on MSNBC. “He’s undermining his position as Commander-in-Chief. Not only with those that conducted the operation, but with the entire military.”

One senator from Trump’s party is also coming to McRaven’s defense. In a tweet, Marco Rubio of Florida, who is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed gratitude for the retired admiral’s service.

​McRaven, who recently quit as the chancellor of the University of Texas for health reasons, has also defended former CIA Director John Brennan, another Trump critic, whose security clearance was revoked by the president.

The official Twitter account of the Republican party on Monday claimed McRaven has been critical of Trump since during the 2016 presidential campaign and was reportedly on Hillary Clinton’s short list as her running mate in that race — something the retired admiral and campaign officials have denied.

A contentious relationship

Trump has had a contentious relationship with the U.S. intelligence community from the start of his presidency, most notably rebutting its consensus Russia attempted to influence the election on his behalf.

He has also alleged a “deep state” conspiracy of shadowy figures from the intelligence community and other elements of the federal government is intent on thwarting his agenda, pursuing a “witch hunt” linking him to Moscow and leaking to the media what the president asserts is false information.

Trump on Saturday countered media reports that the CIA had concluded the Saudi crown prince had ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying who is really responsible may never be known.

The biggest current source of tension between the president and the U.S. intelligence community is over Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to a former senior CIA officer, Paul Pillar.

“The relationship was already bad and we had already seen before this week most of the implications of that bad relationship,” Pillar, a non-resident senior fellow at Georgetown University, told VOA News.

Trump’s denial of the CIA’s conclusions about the crown prince are, by implication, “a criticism of the intelligence analysis on the subject. But the administration will have a hard time winning a battle of public perceptions on this one,” according to Pillar.

“The general perception,” he said, “is that the implausible and ever-shifting Saudi cover stories show the Saudis are hiding something and the analysis of outside observers conforms with what reportedly is the intelligence analysis about [the crown prince’s] involvement.”

Jeff Seldin contributed to this report.
…

Three U.S. Democratic senators have sued to block President Donald Trump’s appointment of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, alleging the appointment was made to undermine the ongoing criminal investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii filed the lawsuit Monday in a federal court in Washington.

The suit is the fourth legal challenge of Trump’s appointment of Whitaker, following the ouster earlier this month of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom Trump had long disparaged for removing himself from oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Before joining the Justice Department as Sessions’s chief of staff more than a year ago, Whitaker attacked the Mueller investigation in commentary on television network CNN, saying a replacement attorney general, such as he is now, could cut funding to the probe so that it “grinds almost to a halt.”

Whitaker has taken no public action against the investigation since Trump named him, for up to 210 days, as the country’s top law enforcement official, but also has made no statements on how he views the probe.Democratic lawmakers, along with some Republicans, have called for Whitaker to avow he would not curtail Mueller’s investigation while it is still underway and contended his appointment, as head of a Cabinet-level agency, was subject to Senate confirmation.

“President Trump is denying senators our constitutional obligation and opportunity to do our job: scrutinizing the nomination of our nation’s top law enforcement official,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “The reason is simple: Whitaker would never pass the advice and consent test.In selecting a so-called ‘constitutional nobody’ and thwarting every senator’s constitutional duty, Trump leaves us no choice but to seek recourse through the courts.”

Senator Whitehouse added that the “stakes are too high to allow the president to install an unconfirmed lackey to lead the Department of Justice, a lackey whose stated purpose, apparently, is undermining a major investigation into the president.Unless the courts intercede.”

He added that this “troubling move creates a plain road map for persistent and deliberate evasion by the executive branch of the Senate’s constitutionally mandated advice and consent. Indeed, this appointment appears planned to accomplish that goal.”

Justice pushes back

The Justice Department, for the second time in recent days, defended Whitaker’s appointment as legal.

“There are over 160 instances in American history in which non-Senate confirmed persons performed, on a temporary basis, the duties of a Senate-confirmed position,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said. “To suggest otherwise is to ignore centuries of practice and precedent.”

In an interview with Fox News that aired Sunday, Trump said he was unaware of Whitaker’s CNN commentary opposing the Mueller investigation before naming him to head the Justice Department, bypassing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom Sessions had delegated to oversee the Mueller investigation.

Trump dismissed concerns about how Whitaker will deal with the Mueller investigation, but said that he, as president, would not intervene.

“It’s going to be up to him,” Trump said. “I think he’s very well aware politically. I think he’s astute politically. He’s a very smart person. A very respected person. He’s going to do what’s right. I really believe he’s going to do what’s right.”

Asked by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace whether he would overrule Whitaker if he decides to curtail the Mueller investigation, Trump replied, “I would not get involved.”

Trump has answered written questions from Mueller about his campaign’s connections with Russia during the run-up to the November 2016 voting, but told Wallace he “probably” won’t sit for an in-person interview with Mueller’s investigators.
…

The White House is planning to again revoke press credentials for CNN correspondent Jim Acosta when a judge’s restraining order allowing him access to the building expires at the end of November, the news network says.

The Trump administration had blocked Acosta from entering the White House grounds after his testy exchange with President Donald Trump two weeks ago during a news conference the day after the national congressional and state elections.

But a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington agreed with CNN that the ban likely violated Acosta’s constitutional rights of freedom of the press and imposed a two-week restraining order against the White House banning him from the White House grounds.

The network said, however, that soon after the order was handed down Friday, the White House told Acosta it would reinstate the ban as soon as it expires November 30.

In light of the White House stance, CNN said it has asked Judge Timothy Kelly for another emergency hearing in the dispute.

“The White House is continuing to violate the First and 5th Amendments of the Constitution,” the network said. “These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the president.”

But CNN’s lawyers also said they “remain hopeful” that the network and the White House “can resolve this dispute without further court intervention.”

At the November 7 White House news conference, Acosta questioned Trump whether he had demonized migrants with his claim during the election campaign that the slow-moving caravan of Central American migrants walking through Mexico toward the southern U.S. border was an “invasion.” Trump responded that he believed it was an invasion, telling Acosta, “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country.”

But the exchange with Trump grew testier when Acosta attempted to ask the president another question, whether he was concerned about possible impending indictments of Trump 2016 campaign officials brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.

The president said he wasn’t concerned “about anything” because he considered the Mueller investigation a hoax, but then berated Acosta as a “rude, terrible person.”

Shortly after the judge’s ruling allowing Acosta renewed access to the White House, Trump told Fox News in an interview that was aired Sunday, “It’s fine, it’s not a big deal.”

But the president then seemed to threaten Acosta, saying, “If he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out. Or we’ll stop the news conference.”

Trump said, “Nobody believes in the First Amendment more than I do… And if I think somebody’s acting out of sorts I will leave. I will say, Thank you very much everybody, thank you very much for coming’ and I will leave. And those reporters will not be too friendly to whoever it is that’s acting up.”
…

Republican Rick Scott has won Florida’s U.S. Senate race, defeating incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson – ending two weeks of insults, lawsuits, charges, and counter-charges.

Scott says Nelson “graciously conceded” the election Sunday after a mandatory hand recount gave the Florida governor a 10,000 vote margin.

State election officials are expected to certify the results Tuesday.

President Donald Trump tweeted his congratulations to Scott, saying he waged a “courageous and successful campaign.”

Nelson, the incumbent, will likely retire from politics. He held the U.S. Senate seat from Florida since 2000 after serving 12 years in the House of Representatives.

Scott led Nelson on election night by about 15,000 votes, triggering an automatic machine recount that was also inconclusive. This led to a second automatic recount, this time by hand.

In the meantime, both Democrats and Republicans filed number of lawsuits relating to the recounts, including one that said many ballots were not counted because the signatures did not exactly match the ones on file.

There were also problems involving electronic counting machines and one recount coming up 800 votes short of the original tally.

Trump accused Nelson and the Democrats of fraud and trying to steal the election.

Federal judge Mark Walker berated all sides last week, saying Florida’s inability to decide elections has made the state a global “laughingstock.”

He was no doubt thinking about the 2000 presidential election which had to be decided by the Supreme Court when a state-wide vote recount in Florida was turning into a mess of confusion.

Two other Florida contests have also been decided after recounts.

Democrat Andrew Gillum conceded the race for governor to Republican Ron DeSantis Saturday. Gillum was trying to become Florida’s first African-American governor.

Democrat Nikki Fried narrowly beat Republican Matt Caldwell in the battle for Florida state agriculture commissioner.

 
…

Nearly halfway through his four-year term in the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump says he thinks of himself in the top rung of American presidents.

“I would give myself an A+,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. “Can I go higher than that?”

But the U.S. leader, in a White House interview taped Friday and aired Sunday, made a rare acknowledgement of an error in judgment, saying he should have gone last Monday to Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate the country’s annual Veterans Day honoring those who have served in the U.S. armed forces or are currently serving in one of its military branches.

“In retrospect, I should have,” Trump told interviewer Chris Wallace. The U.S. leader, who has yet to visit U.S. troops in any war zones overseas, also said, “There are things that are being planned. I will be doing that.” He declined to say when such a visit might occur because of security concerns.

In the November 6 nationwide congressional and state elections, opposition Democrats took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years and captured key governor’s races in industrial states that were vital to Trump’s 2016 election as president. National political surveys show Americans disapprove of his White House performance by a 52.9 to 43.3 percent margin, according to an average of polls by Real Clear Politics.

But Trump took no blame for the losses because his name was not on the ballot, even though he told several political rallies ahead of the elections that voters ought to look at the voting that way, as a referendum on his policies and performance during the first 22 months of his presidency.

“I won the Senate and that’s historic, too,” Trump said. “That’s a tremendous victory.” Trump’s Republican party could add two seats to its current 51-49 majority bloc in the Senate, when two close contests are decided.

Trump said Republicans also “had a tremendous set of victories” by winning governorships in the southern states of Georgia and Florida and the midwestern state of Ohio, even as Democrats won governorships in other electoral battlegrounds, including the key midwestern states of Michigan and Wisconsin that had been held by Republicans.

As for the electoral losses, Trump said, “I didn’t run. My name wasn’t on the ballot. I had people that wouldn’t vote because I wasn’t on the ballot.”

Trump is already deep in planning for his 2020 re-election bid, while a long list of Democrats are considering whether to seek their party’s presidential nomination to oppose him.  

 
…