#roadblocks to Congressional convictions

[patriotsnet]

Why Did Republicans Vote Against The Violence Against Women Act

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-did-republicans-vote-against-the-violence-against-women-act/

Why Did Republicans Vote Against The Violence Against Women Act

House Votes To Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act Despite Gop Opposition

Republicans Still Blocking Violence Against Women Act

WASHINGTON The House on Thursday passed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections for survivors of domestic violence, and includes new gun-related provisions that are opposed by the NRA.

Lawmakers approved the bill in a 263-158 vote, with most Republicans voting against it.

The measure, which expired in February, was sponsored by Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. The bill today, which would extend the law for five years, includes new provisions that would make it harder for domestic abusers to gain access to guns.

Those include an attempt to close the so-called ‘boyfriend’ loophole, prohibiting those convicted of stalking or abusing individuals with whom they have been in a relationship that did not include marriage from buying a gun.

House Votes To Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

Washington The House voted Wednesday to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act , the landmark 1994 law that strengthened domestic violence protections for women.;

The House approved the reauthorization by a vote of 244 to 172, with 29 Republicans joining all Democrats in voting for it. But the measure, which expired two years ago, may hit a roadblock in the evenly divided Senate.

VAWA enshrines legal protections for women who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. It was initially passed in 1994, championed by then-Senator Joe Biden, and was updated and reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and 2013. The bill expired at the end of 2018 due to a government shutdown and was briefly renewed by a resolution reopening the government, but expired again in February 2019. Mr. Biden made reauthorizing VAWA a key campaign promise before he was elected.

The White House Office of Management and Budget released a statement on Wednesday saying that “the administration strongly supports” reauthorizing VAWA.

The current bill would expand victims services and reauthorize grant programs for the criminal justice response to domestic and sexual violence. It also includes provisions that would expand housing options for survivors, and end immunity for non-Native perpetrators of sexual violence on tribal lands.

“I think it’s critically important that we advance VAWA,” she said.

Senate Rewrites Rules To Speed Confirmations For Some Trump Nominees

“The NRA is wrong to oppose this provision, they are wrong to oppose this entire bill, it shows where they are when it comes to safety and when it comes to protecting women, and we will fight to keep it in this bill,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who is running for president.

President Trump has not yet weighed in on whether he would sign it if it reaches his desk with the gun or transgender provisions intact. Echoing House Republicans, White House spokesman Judd Deere said, “The White House supports a clean extension of VAWA.”

Recommended Reading: What Is The Pin Nancy Pelosi Wears

Violence Against Women Act Now Touted By Republicans Who Voted Against Bill

WASHINGTON — When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill late last month, more than 130 House Republicans voted against it. But some of those same lawmakers are putting out misleading statements that make it look like they voted for the bill instead.

Rep. Steve King , for one, issued a statement with the headline, “King Votes in Support of Violence Against Women Act.” But King didn’t vote for the VAWA bill. Instead, he voted for a GOP alternative bill that failed to advance.

“I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it most,” King’s statement reads.

Then there’s Rep. Bill Johnson , who disputed his VAWA vote with a constituent during . “Please make sure you have the facts right. I DID vote in favor of VAWA today,” Johnson wrote. But he didn’t.

The list goes on. As Steve Benen of The Maddow Blog first reported, a smattering of local newspapers have called out lawmakers including Rep. Tim Walberg , Rep. Vicky Hartzler , Rep. Keith Rothfus and Rep. Tim Murphy for being deceptive about how they voted.

A Johnson spokesman told HuffPost that the congressman voted against the VAWA bill that passed because it was a “politicallyâmotivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference.â

Biden Supports Changes To Filibuster Returning It To ‘what It Used To Be’

In a statement Wednesday evening, Biden said “writing and passing VAWA is one of the legislative accomplishments of which I’m most proud,” and urged the Senate to follow suit.

“This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue it’s about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence,” he said.

A number of Republican senators said this week they are working on finding a bipartisan compromise that can pass the now-Democratic-controlled chamber. “I think it’s fair to say that there is a good strong interest in trying to advance VAWA,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

The most contentious issue in the House-passed bill is a provision that expands the criminal threshold to bar an individual from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking. It would also close the so-called boyfriend loophole to expand the definition of who is affected by existing gun prohibitions to include dating partners. “This legislation makes it clear that Democrats consider gun ownership a second-class right,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va.

Don’t Miss: Senate Party Breakdown 2017

House Votes To Reauthorize Landmark Violence Against Women Act

The House voted on Wednesday to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, legislation originally authored by then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1994 that aims to strengthen protections for women from domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

The landmark law was reauthorized several times since, but lapsed in 2019 after the Democratic-controlled House voted to renew it, but it stalled in the Republican-led Senate. Democrats are hopeful it will find the support this time although the latest version still faces potential obstacles in the evenly-divided Senate.

The vote was 244-to-172, with 29 Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in backing the reauthorization.

We want women to live. We want victims of violence to live, men or women. We want children to be able to have a parent, said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee , at an earlier news conference with House Democrats where all the women wore white in honor of womens suffrage.

Republican opposition to the bill revolves in part around closing the so-called boyfriend loophole, which adds dating partners and stalkers to the provision banning spouses of convicted domestic violence or abuse from owning firearms.

The National Rifle Association is opposed to the extending the ban, and Republicans have opposed the broader VAWA legislation over it, arguing that it is a ploy by Democrats to erode Second Amendment rights.

The term VAWA has become synonymous with justice Pelosi said.

Biden An Original Sponsor

First passed in 1994, VAWA enshrines legal protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence. The original bill was championed by then-Sen. Joe Biden, and was reauthorized and updated in 2000, 2005 and 2013.

The House bill would expand victim services and reauthorize for five years grant programs for the criminal justice response to domestic and sexual violence. It also includes provisions that would expand housing options for survivors, and allow tribal jurisdiction over non-Native perpetrators of sexual violence on tribal lands.

The White House Office of Management and Budget released a statement on Wednesday saying that “the administration strongly supports” reauthorizing VAWA.

The OMB statement praised the bill for recognizing the need to provide protection and services to all victims of abuse and includes proposals to strengthen existing policies that were supported by both Democrats and Republicans last year. The Administration urges swift passage of this legislation.”

In 2019, the bill received support from 33 House Republicans, and the current version is cosponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick.

Other Republicans, including New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, criticized Democrats for moving forward with what they called an overly partisan bill. Stefanik pointed out that the process shut out the record number of Republican women who joined the chamber after the 2020 election.

Don’t Miss: Democrats And Republicans Switched Platforms

Democrats On Violence Against Women Act: We’re Closing A Loophole

The NRA, which has pushed back on the new provisions, and had been urging House Republicans to vote against the bill. Most Republicans were expected to vote against the legislation.

The NRA opposes domestic violence and all violent crime, and spends millions of dollars teaching countless Americans how not to be a victim and how to safely use firearms for self-defense, NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a Wednesday statement, accusing activists and politicians who support gun control of “intentionally politicizing the Violence Against Women Act as a smokescreen to push their gun control agenda” and “trivializing the serious issue of domestic violence.

On the House floor Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that he was deeply disappointed that some House Republicans are using the NRA as cover to vote against this reauthorization, which has been overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion reauthorized over and over again.

President Bill Clinton first signed VAWA into law in 1994. It has since been reauthorized three times, in 2000, 2005 and 2013.

The law was a direct response to the epic violence against women that plagued our country at that time, Bass said in a speech touting the bill on the House floor Wednesday.

At a press conference Wednesday, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her father, spoke emotionally about the new VAWA reauthorization.

Colorado Delegation Split As Us House Passes Violence Against Women Act And Equal Rights Amendment

Republicans Once Again Block Violence Against Women Act

With the women of the House Democratic Caucus wearing white the traditional color of womens suffrage the chamber passed two bills aimed at promoting and protecting womens rights.

One, which passed 244-172, would reauthorize and expand the Violence Against Women Act, which expired in 2019. The other removes a deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. It passed 222-204.In both votes, Colorados House delegation split along party lines. Democrats supported the measures, Republicans opposed them.

The votes took place against the backdrop of a mass shooting that killed eight people, including seven women working at spas in the Atlanta area.

First passed in 1994, the VAWA strengthened laws around domestic and sexual violence against women. The Senate failed to authorize the bill last congress over disagreements on LGBTQ and firearms provisions.

Weve seen a huge increase in domestic violence during the pandemic. We have to do more to protect those who need our help, tweeted Rep. Diana DeGette.

The latest bill expands protections for the most vulnerable, including immigrant, LGBTQ and Native American women, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It strengthens services for victims and survivors, empowers law enforcement to protect their communities, helps stop abusers and stalkers from obtaining firearms and expands protections for victims and survivors financial security.”

How And Why We Cover Colorados Congressional Delegation

Don’t Miss: Are Other Republicans Running For President

Full List Of 172 Republicans Who Opposed The Violence Against Women Act

The House voted on Wednesday to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act after 29 Republicans broke with their party to support the bill, which offered women protections from domestic violence, sexual assault and other harassment.

Lawmakers approved the bill in a 244-172 vote following its lapse in late 2018. The Democratic-controlled House sought to renew the bill the following year, but it was held up in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Now the Democrats hold a one-vote majority in the upper chamber and are hoping to garner the Republican support needed for a 60-vote supermajority that negates the threat of the filibuster.

President Joe Biden, who first introduced the bill as a senator in 1990, celebrated its reauthorization in the House and called on the upper chamber to “strengthen and renew” the law.

Releasing a statement, Biden said: “This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue it’s about standing up against the abuse of power and preventing violence.” He then urged a “bipartisan coalition” in the Senate to get the law over the final hurdle.

A number of provisions in the Violence Against Women Act have widespread bipartisan support, such as state grants for sexual assault and domestic violence services, and offers of housing assistance for victims of domestic abuse.

At present, the rule applies to those convicted of violence against former or present spousesbut not those in non-marital relationships.

Related Articles

House Passes Sweeping Gun Bill

There are other objections. Republicans also oppose a new provision to allow U.S. citizens to be tried in tribal courts for crimes of domestic or dating violence committed by non-native perpetrators on native lands; a provision to create a pathway for an “alternative justice response” as a form of mediation between victims and abusers; and the expansion of existing protections to include transgender victims. Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., an abuse survivor, attempted to strip provisions that would allow transgender women access to shelters and the ability to serve in prisons that align with the sex with which they identify, but it failed along party lines. Republicans want those access and sentencing guidelines to continue to correspond with biological sex assigned at birth.

The Senate has not yet advanced its own VAWA reauthorization, which Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are working on. It is unclear if the gun provisions in the House bill can clear the Senate, but Democrats say they will demand their inclusion.

Recommended Reading: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

Legislative Battle And Reauthorization

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

When a bill reauthorizing the act was introduced in 2012, it was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act’s protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered foreigners residing in the country illegally to claim temporary visas, also known as U visas. The U visa is restricted to 10,000 applicants annually whereas the number of applicants far exceeds these 10,000 for each fiscal year. In order to be considered for the U visa, one of the requirements for immigrant women is that they need to cooperate in the detention of the abuser. Studies show that 30 to 50% of immigrant women are suffering from physical violence and 62% experience physical or psychological abuse in contrast to only 21% of citizens in the United States.

In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure . Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by procedural measures, leaving the re-authorization in question. The Senate’s 2012 re-authorization of VAWA was not brought up for a vote in the House.

In 2013, the question of jurisdiction over offenses in Native American country continued to be at issue over the question of whether defendants who are not tribal members would be treated fairly by tribal courts or afforded constitutional guarantees.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

House Judiciary Approves Subpoena For Full Mueller Report In Party

Republicans countered with an unaltered bill to extend VAWA in the short term until a deal can be reached, but Democrats have the votes, the party broadly supports the changes to the law and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear the new majority will hold firm.

Democrats successfully fought Republicans over the most recent VAWA renewal in 2013 because it included new provisions to protect same-sex couples and certain immigrants. It was a two-year battle in which Democrats ultimately claimed victory over conservative Republican opposition with help from bipartisan support in the Senate. “We had a big ongoing fight, until we made it too hot for them to handle,” Pelosi told reporters last week. She brushed off NRA opposition. “I don’t see that it has much impact on the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives,” she said.

Democrats plan to follow a similar road map to renew VAWA this time. “Our calculation was: We’re in charge now. We can pass a bill that we think is a comprehensive bill to protect all women,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Tuesday.

While the law is currently expired, Congress will continue to fund all of the bill’s programs through the annual appropriations process whether or not it’s renewed quickly. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the updated VAWA authorizes about $1 billion annually over a five-year renewal period.

Read Also: Trump Losing Republican Support

Republicans Voted To Oppose The Violence Against Women Act And People Are Furious

Congress has passed anti-domestic violence laws but 172 Republicans sparked anger by voting against it

People online are expressing their anger after 172 Republicans voted against anti-domestic violence laws in the immediate aftermath of a series of deadly attacks on women.

This act passed after 29 Republicans joined forces with the Democrats, who control Congress, leading the final vote to be 224 to 194.

The Violence Against Women Act creates and supports comprehensive, cost-effective responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

In a statement, they said the group applauds the bills lead sponsors Sheila Jackson , Brian Fitzpatrick and Jerry Nadler , and all those who voted for the VAWAs passage.

The groups president Deborah Vagins said it was a vote to support survivors… that both maintains established protections and resources and expands VAWA to address ongoing gaps in the law.

The pandemic continues to reveal deep racial and gender inequalities that impact survivors lives and jeopardise their safety.

Much has been said about Covid-19 exacerbating already existing societal injustices, such as domestic violence.

However, people were quick to point out the high number of Republicans who did not support the legislation, which many said felt particularly outrageous in light of a mass shooting that killed eight women in Atlanta.

[licensedproducers]

Cannabis Retail Roadblocks Coming Down in Ontario, US

Positive Indications on Both Sides of the Border Send Stocks Upwards – LPC

It seems that Ontario may finally do away with the lottery licence system. Many licensed producers (LPs), analysts, and policy groups have blamed cannabis retail roadblocks for disappointing cannabis sales. Ontario in particular has been blamed – a province with just 24 stores open for a population of 14 million. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that bringing down cannabis retail roadblocks was always the eventual goal of the current PC government. “That's eventually what the goal is: to open it up to the market and let the market dictate,” Ford said. “It's like any business. Some people will be successful and some won't.” He said the government’s been “blazing a new trail” and that eventually they would “get it down pat”. Alberta cannabis retailers are seen as the gold standard in Canada with almost 300 stores. Saskatchewan recently announced removing its cannabis retail roadblocks with a similar open market cannabis model. Click here to view full story at www.cp24.com

US Takes Steps Towards Decriminalization and Removing Cannabis Retail Roadblocks – LPC

Meanwhile, south of the border, the United States have taken steps to take down some of its own cannabis retail roadblocks. A congressional committee voted to decriminalize cannabis. The bill would also allow the US federal government to charge 5 per cent tax on cannabis sales and imports, and give individual states the power to pardon past federal convictions. Thomas Reuters reported that this sent stocks higher including Aphria,  Canopy Growth, Tilray, and Aurora Cannabis. However, there is no mention of Doug Ford’s announcement, which may have had a bigger impact. The same Thomas Reuters report quotes one analyst as saying the congressional vote is a long way from bringing down cannabis retail roadblocks. (Please see link to full article below.) Alan Brochstein, managing partner at New Cannabis Ventures, said it’s a first step in a long process.  “There are no near-term implications for cannabis stocks,” he said. “The Senate isn’t likely to approve it, even if the House were to do so.” This editorial content from the LPC News Team provides analysis, insight, and perspective on current news articles. To read the source article this commentary is based upon, please click on the link below. Click here to view full story at business.financialpost.com Read the full article

[holysmokescrafts]

House panel approves marijuana decriminalization, but it faces a long, hard road A Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Republicans would oppose the bill and that "it is even less likely that the Senate would take it up." The campaign to decriminalize marijuana overcame a historic congressional hurdle this week, but opponents and some supporters acknowledge the legislation faces serious obstacles. The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted 24-10 to approve the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE, which would remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances, where it's now banned alongside powerful drugs like heroin and LSD. The bill would require federal courts to expunge convictions for marijuana offenses and authorize a 5 percent tax on marijuana sales to encourage minority communities to enter the cannabis business. It's believed to be the first time a congressional committee has backed legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Eleven states and Washington, D.C., have already done so. But major roadblocks must be cleared before the measure can ever become law. For one, the Judiciary Committee is only the first committee to have taken up the bill; it also has been introduced in seven other House committees, any or all of which could alter the debate. And it isn't a lock to pass the Democratic-led House, because members are sharply divided over whether to try to push through sweeping legislation like the MORE Act or to go more slowly, emphasizing regulatory issues like the financial ramifications of decriminalization. #housepanel #approves #republicans #democrats #losers #committee #decriminalize #expungement #divided #holysmokestv #holysmokes #holysmokescrafts #oneman #solo #cannabis #reform #legalization #safeaccess #news #ismokecannabis #medicalcannabis #thc #cbd #breal #losangeles #california #ca #la #knowledgeispower #knowyourroots (at Los Angeles, California) https://www.instagram.com/p/B5IgOHHh5Cx/?igshid=1di78iby41a61

[science-criticaltheory]

The Long Road to Impeaching Trump Just Got Shorter by Norman Solomon

President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. (Gage Skidmore / CC 2.0)

The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating. On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment. A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent. Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country. Under the Trump presidency, defending a wide range of past gains is both necessary and insufficient. Fighting for impeachment is a way to go on the offensive, directly challenging the huge corruption that Trump has brought to the White House. From the outset, President Trump has been violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution—its foreign and domestic “emoluments” clauses. In a nutshell, both clauses forbid personally profiting from presidential service beyond receiving a government salary. Some believe that the Republican-controlled Congress is incapable of impeaching Trump, but history tells us what’s possible when a president falls into wide disrepute. On July 27, 1974, seven GOP representatives on the 38-member House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach a fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon. As for objections that impeaching and removing Trump from office would make Mike Pence the president, that concern is apt to bypass one set of key considerations after another. Along the way, in political terms, people need to think through the implications of the fact that Trump could only be removed from office with the help of many votes from Republicans on Capitol Hill. Even if every Democrat in the House voted in unison to impeach Trump, impeachment would only be possible if at least two-dozen Republican members of the House voted in favor. Likewise, a vote in the Senate (requiring two-thirds) to remove Trump from the presidency would only be successful if at least 19 Republican senators voted for conviction. Such events would badly splinter and damage the Republican Party—causing divisive bitterness, putting GOP leaders back on their heels and hobbling a Pence presidency. Arguably most important of all, democracy requires that no one be above the law—a principle that’s most crucially applied to the holder of the most powerful office in the U.S. government. Extreme abuse of power from the top of the government must be seen and treated as intolerable. The Constitution that Trump continues to flagrantly violate is supposed to be “the supreme law of the land.” To give Trump a pass would be to wink at his merger of vast personal wealth and corporate holdings with vast governmental power. From the grassroots, it’s crucial for constituents to push back with determination. As the Impeach Donald Trump Now campaign’s website documents in detail, Trump’s personal riches are entangled with countless policy options for his administration. That precedent must be resisted and defeated. So far, the Democratic Party’s leadership in Congress has shown scant interest in impeaching Trump. With escalating pressure from constituents, that may soon change. Congressman Nadler’s unusual resolution of inquiry will be able to avoid some of the standard roadblocks in the House. As his website explains, 

“A Resolution of Inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.”

Nadler has just put a big toe in the impeachment water. Yet no members of the House have taken the plunge to introduce an actual resolution for impeachment. They will have to be pushed.

[thisdaynews]

Impeachment takeaways: Another week of big developments

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/impeachment-takeaways-another-week-of-big-developments/

Impeachment takeaways: Another week of big developments

What stood out to you as the biggest development of a crazy week?

Natasha Bertrand, national security reporter:Definitely that two associates of Rudy Giuliani who are in many ways at the heart of this Ukraine scandal — Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — wereindicted on campaign finance charges.The indictment could shed more light on the pair’s campaign, alongside Giuliani, to discredit former Vice President Joe Biden and remove the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Masha Yovanovitch. It also signals an intensifying crackdown on illicit campaign contributions, at a moment when Trump’s inaugural committee is under criminal investigation for potentially receiving donations from illegal foreign sources. Parnas and Fruman, born outside the U.S., are alleged to have funneled up to a million dollars in foreign cash into political action committees and campaigns, including Trump’s.

Darren Samuelsohn, senior White House reporter:The news about the Giuliani associates was definitely big. But I’ll throw a curveball here and go with someone we hadn’t been thinking much about of late: Robert Mueller. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s questions and commentary during a hearing Tuesday suggested she’s leaning toward ordering the release of the special counsel’s grand jury materials. If that happens, she’d be handing House Democrats a bounty of new information in their impeachment inquiry — the kind of stuff that would become ammunition in an expanding probe beyond Ukraine. The Justice Department would also be all but certain to appeal a ruling from Howell that goes against them, thereby setting up a much bigger fight that seems headed to the Supreme Court.

Andrew Desiderio, congressional reporter:The biggest development of the week, in my book, came at the tail end when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld House Democrats’ subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars. It’s a huge loss for the president, after having lost a bid to quash the subpoena in a lower court. Trump has done everything he possibly can to avoid his financial records and tax returns from getting into the hands of his political enemies — and he may have no further recourse this time. But even beyond this specific battle, Friday’s ruling from a three-judge panel gives a big boost to congressional oversight authority. “Contrary to the president’s arguments, the committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena,” one of the judges wrote.

Kyle Cheney, congressional reporter:In a week of big developments, the one I think will be most consequential is former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s decision to defy the State Department to testify in the House’s impeachment investigation. With her decision, she set a template for other witnesses to come forward even if they’ve been ordered not to — and already a second State Department ambassador, Gordon Sondland, is preparing to follow suit. Yovanovitch’s testimony itself was significant, too. She obliterated some of the conspiracy theories that led Trump to oust her and revealed that she was given a word of support from John Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state, even as Trump pulled her from her post in Ukraine.

Josh Gerstein, legal affairs reporter:I’m going to go off the board (is that allowed?) and say that the most significant impeachment development of the week was Trump’s decision to have U.S. troops stand aside as Turkey invades Syria. Of course, it has nothing directly to do with the current grounds Democrats have asserted for impeachment, but the move shook many of Trump’s key supporters to their core.

People who have stridently defended Trump at some cost to their own reputations, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), were caught completely off guard by the president’s decision to abandon the Kurds — longtime U.S. allies. Other Trump backers even popped up in unexpected places like MSNBC to denounce the move. Why anyone in the political fight of his life would piss off his closest friends is hard to fathom. The impulsive, widely criticized move and the scramble to clean it up also undercuts arguments from Trump that that his unorthodox telephone diplomacy is as consistently “perfect” as he maintains.

Democrats aren’t giving any kind of official timeline yet for their plans. Is there really any clock here they need to be worried about?

Natasha:I think some Democrats are wary of the inquiry going too deep into an election year, and forcing an impeachment battle into the middle of the presidential primary contests. It also risks creating sympathy for Trump if it drags on too long. On the other hand, an impeachment inquiry and an election year have never coincided before, so the consequences are tough to predict.

Darren:It sure feels like the unofficial schedule that’s been kicking around — House impeachment vote around Thanksgiving and Senate trial circa Christmas — is a tad bit unrealistic. That would suggest the House will do all its investigating, questioning and document gathering over the course of the next five weeks before the Turkey Day break. Sure, that’s possible. But Trump and company are also putting up plenty of roadblocks to slow things down. While their obstinance could just be another impeachment article, it would seem like Democrats may try to do even more due diligence to make sure they’ve got what they need. And that’s especially the case if they think there’s any kind of realistic chance of convincing House Republicans to come along on an impeachment vote, let alone find the 20 Republicans for conviction. I’d also just say that the Democrats at this point are all-in on impeachment and they’re probably calculating that it won’t hurt them on the turnout front once Iowa, New Hampshire and other states start voting in the primaries and caucuses next year.

Andrew:Before the Ukraine scandal blew up, senior Democrats were saying they wanted to reach a decision by the end of the calendar year on whether to recommend articles of impeachment. But with Ukraine now the central focus of their inquiry — and the near-certainty that Democrats will draw up articles — that timeline is very much in flux. Moderate and swing-district Democrats have indicated that they don’t want to rush the process, in part so that they could obtain as much evidence as possible to convince both the publicandRepublicans. They are very wary of the perception that this is a partisan process; and the more evidence they have, the more likely it is that they can convince holdouts to support them. These lawmakers will have 2020 on their minds the entire way, even if they won’t say it publicly.

Kyle:The plan right now is there is no plan. House Democrats are operating with the wind at their back for the first time — polls show their impeachment inquiry is gaining public support and they’re actually generating new information for the first time all year and getting witnesses to testify about substantive episodes that could feed the articles of impeachment they eventually craft. Though some Democrats say they want to turn this momentum into articles as quickly as possible — perhaps even by early November — there are more cautious lawmakers who want to make sure they have beefed up their case against Trump enough to maintain public support all the way through the process.

Josh:The bombastic Tuesday letter from the White House declaring plans to stonewall the House impeachment probe and the unexpected arrests of the two Giuliani associates contributes to the growing momentum for impeachment in the House.

The timeline for impeachment and for the slew of court fights involving the White House will ultimately diverge. Even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders hailed key legal victories this week, they seemed to be treating Trump’s continuing resistance as an admission of guilt that leaves the door wide open to voting on impeachment without final resolution from the courts. More information could be useful to Democrats in the impeachment process, but it doesn’t seem essential at this point to a process that appears to be moving to an inexorable conclusion — at least in the House.

Are we any closer to a Trump conviction in the Senate?

Natasha:Republicans still expect the impeachment process to play out along entirely partisan lines — i.e., House Democrats vote to impeach, and Senate R’s decline to convict and remove. But as my colleagues Darren Samuelsohn and Burgess Everettwrote on Friday, the political landscape could change quickly depending on what is revealed over the course of the inquiry.Several Republican governorshave already come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, and while they can’t participate directly in the process, it’s at least a signal that GOP support for Trump might not be impenetrable.

Darren:Maybe a tiny bit. Someone I’d always been watching — Mitt Romney — is now on the record criticizing the president for pressing both the Ukraine and China to help his 2020 reelection bid. Pretty much everyone else is keeping their powder dry, save an occasional comment from the likes of Ben Sasse or Susan Collins. That’s just about to be expected given we still don’t know what the House will even send over on articles of impeachment. They’ve got no incentive to change that — for now. And yeah, as Natasha said, I’d definitely recommend our story on this from Friday, which teed up the idea that Trump world is starting to feel a bit nervous even as the president does his best to appear confident the Senate will save him.

Andrew:Ever since Democrats have been contemplating moving forward with impeachment, I’ve thought that Republicans would only break with the president under one condition: if the public turns against Trump so forcefully and overwhelmingly that it’s no longer politically tenable for Republicans to stick with him. Will we reach that moment? Probably not; the president will always have his base voter bloc that will stick with him no matter what. But with public support for impeachment rising steadily in recent weeks, I wouldn’t completely close the door on a Senate conviction. That being said, I would not put money on it.

Kyle:Conviction is still a pipe dream in the current political climate. A handful of Senate Republicans are openly critical of Trump, but nowhere close to 20 — and even the small number who think Trump’s actions are worthy of scrutiny have stopped far short of calling for impeachment proceedings and trial. Politics can change quickly, and Trump picked a strange time to infuriate his allies by rescinding support for Kurds in Syria, but it’ll take several seismic unforeseeable events for the dynamic to change.

Josh:I’m still not seeing overt signs of a collapse in Trump’s Senate support, but it’s worth keeping in mind that when these things happen they tend to happen quickly. Everything looks hunky-dory until the moment that it doesn’t. There’s very little incentive for a GOP senator to go wobbly right now. But the list of prominent GOP officials endorsing an impeachment probe grew a bit longer this week asMaryland Gov. Larry Hogan said he believes some House investigation of Trump’s Ukraine diplomacy is necessary. Every Republican who makes a comment like that makes it easier for the next one to follow, which has to worry the White House.

Can Rudy go on as Trump’s lawyer?

Natasha:He’ll probably try — but there’s a good chance Trump will try to distance himself from him given the indictment of Parnas and Fruman. Giuliani also doesn’t have many allies among congressional Republicans, whohave souredon him recently.

Giuliani may also have some legal exposure himself. For example, his dealings with Ukraine may have been a violation of the Logan Act, which aims to prevent private citizens from conducting foreign diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. He could also be vulnerable if he conspired with the president to extort the Ukrainians. Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor from the Southern District of New York, argued ina recent op-edthat DOJ now “has more than enough basis to open a federal criminal investigation into the former New York mayor.”

Darren:Rudy’s lawyer, Jon Sale, told me on Friday that Giuliani is indeed still representing the president. I do think the relationship may be a bit strained right now. And it’s possible we’ll be seeing less of Giuliani on cable TV in the coming weeks — one would think, right? — as the feds circle him via the indictments against his associates. But Trump and Giuliani do goway, way, way back— “My Rudy” is thepresident’s nicknamefor his lawyer — and it’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t still be talking and strategizing in private.

Andrew:Republicans on Capitol Hill have been privately fuming over Giuliani’s involvement and his penchant to make things worse for the president. There has also been some reporting in recent weeks that even members of Trump’s inner circle within the administration are also frustrated with Giuliani. I’m going to slightly disagree with my colleagues here and say that if those people can convince the president that Giuliani is hurting him more than he’s helping, he could very well cut off Giuliani.

Kyle:Trump may need him to. Rudy knows everything about everything and he’s intertwined with all of Trump world. Though I wouldn’t expect to see Giuliani on TV quite as often as the president’s emissary, it’ll be hard to excommunicate him from the inner circle completely, even if his commentary has alienated other Republicans and seems to embroil the president in more legal trouble every time he speaks.

Josh:I think Giuliani will be more or less silenced within a matter of days. No one wants a lawyer who is himself under criminal investigation, according to multiple reports. And someone facing that kind of investigation suddenly has all kinds of conflicts in all his or her cases because it is very hard to negotiate with prosecutors about your own potential liability while doing your best by your clients.

Another prediction: His talk of testifying before the Senate will devolve into a court battle over that testimony. I can’t imagine Giuliani’s lawyers will want him being publicly grilled by Democrats and be open to potential charges over those answers, when he’d be entirely within his rights to take the Fifth or just claim everything he knows is protected by attorney-client privilege. Those arguments get harder to make when you’re on TV all the time talking, so that’s another reason we will see less of that.

What can we expect to see next week?

Natasha:I’ll be watching for any new information that comes out of Fiona Hill’s congressional testimony on Monday. Hill was the special assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council — aka Trump’s top Russia/Europe adviser — until just before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. Hill was crafting policy on Ukraine, Russia and Europe while Giuliani, Sondland and Volker were conducting what was essentially a shadow foreign policy campaign on Ukraine, and she and her team noticed. They were apparently unnerved by it, sources told me, so Hill could probably fill in some blanks for Democrats about what was going on in the NSC at the time — including the practice of concealing Trump’s calls with foreign leaders on the NSC’s top secret codeword system.

Andrew:Depositions, depositions and more depositions. Democrats are rapidly gathering evidence in the form of documents, communications and witness testimony in order to establish that Trump abused his office by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election. And next week, they’re talking to a few more key witnesses who could contextualize the full extent of Trump’s and Giuliani’s efforts to push Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden.

In addition, the House is back in session on Tuesday after two weeks back home, so we should have a better idea of how the political landscape has shifted ever since Pelosi declared formalized the impeachment process. Pelosi could also face new pressure to hold aformal voteauthorizing an impeachment inquiry — something she has been hesitant to do amid complaints from Republicans. Democrats largely believe such a vote is unnecessary, but some of the court decisions we’re expecting in the coming days could weigh on Pelosi — namely, the Mueller grand jury case, in which a federal judge is hearing arguments that center on whether the House is engaged in a formal impeachment inquiry and therefore can access Mueller’s grand jury secrets.

Kyle:Lawmakers return from recess for the first time since their impeachment push began in earnest, and since polls began to reflect the changing mood of the country in their favor. I’d expect a frenzied atmosphere on Capitol Hill as lawmakers hash out a timetable to turn their investigation into actual articles of impeachment. It’s going to get messy, especially with a slew of court deadlines that could result in teams of new information landing on Capitol Hill connected to the House’s impeachment efforts.

Darren:Hard to fathom there are technically only four business days next week given how much stuff is indeed packed onto the calendar. There are too many depositions and subpoena deadlines to count, and if many of them are ignored, as expected, the Democrats will have even more impeachment fodder to run with. Just having members of Congress back in Washington is going to amplify things as well. They’ve been scattered around the country since Nancy Pelosi added propellant to the impeachment fire — and now they’ll be followed at every turn by reporters looking for a comment about where things stand. Rest up this weekend, everyone.

Josh:I predict more talk among returning Democratic lawmakers about a vote to explicitly authorize impeachment proceedings. Don’t think that actually happens next week, but consensus among Dems for that could build. Also continued focus on Giuliani’s role in the Ukraine affair. His clients might enter pleas to the charges next week, which would engender a New York media scrum. And the press will be on to out the Ukrainian official said to have bankrolled and directed their alleged scheme to make straw donations to gain influence in D.C. and with Trump.

Read More

[fullspectrum-cbd-oil]

Running the Roadblock: House Democrats Seeking Way Around White House on Impeachment

Facing a White House vowing to block the U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, Democratic congressional leaders on Thursday were plotting the next moves in their probe of President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Two days after the administration abruptly blocked the U.S. ambassador to the European Union from testifying to three House committees, lawmakers were negotiating how to secure testimony from the U.S. intelligence officer whose whistleblower report on Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president sparked the furor.

Talks on the intelligence agent were focused on how to prevent that person’s identity from being made public, possibly by having the officer testify by telephone from remote location and using voice-obscuring technology to hide the officer’s voice and appearance, according to sources close to the negotiations.

Congressional sources also acknowledged some concern that a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump removed from that post last May before her term was up, could be blocked from testifying. The State Department on Tuesday called off testimony by Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the EU, after he had flown in from Brussels to do so.

The investigation is focused on whether Trump used almost $400 million in congressionally approved aid to Ukraine as leverage to pressure the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump’s main Democratic rivals as he seeks re-election in 2020.

Trump has denied wrongdoing and has described the probe as a partisan smear.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to discuss the impeachment inquiry in a Friday afternoon conference call, according to a Democratic leadership aide.

House Democrats spearheading the inquiry are said to be mulling a possible counterattack against White House efforts to block the investigation, which one aide said could be unfurled early next week, when lawmakers return to Capitol Hill from a two-week recess.

Two Ukrainian businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, whose testimony the House had sought, are no longer expected to speak, U.S. media reported. A lawyer for the men has said that neither will appear for depositions.

The House on Tuesday subpoenaed Sondland to appear on Oct. 16.

BIDEN LASHES OUT

The impeachment fight played out on the campaign trail on Wednesday, when Biden for the first time called for Trump’s impeachment. One of the most moderate of the Democrats seeking the 2020 nomination, Biden waited longer than many of his rivals to make that call.

“With his words and his actions, President Trump has indicted himself. By obstructing justice, refusing to reply with a congressional inquiry, he’s already convicted himself,” Biden said. “In full view of the world and the American people, Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation and committed impeachable acts.”

Trump, true to form, fired back immediately on Twitter: “So pathetic to see Sleepy Joe Biden, who with his son, Hunter, and to the detriment of the American Taxpayer, has ripped off at least two countries for millions of dollars, calling for my impeachment – and I did nothing wrong.”

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence accused Biden and his son of benefiting from a corrupt deal in Ukraine. Biden has denied wrongdoing.

(Reporting by David Morgan and Patricia Zengerle; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Peter Cooney)

from IJR https://ift.tt/2pWNhVq via IFTTT

[whittlebaggett8]

Top Democrat: Impeach or not, the only way to deal with Trump is to ‘vote his ass out of office’, Defence Online

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California tempered calls for for President Donald Trump’s impeachment and explained that a additional prudent motion would be to “vote his ass out of office” in the 2020 US presidential election.

A developing range of Democrats have urged the Dwelling to start impeachment proceedings, subsequent the release of the exclusive counsel’s report.

“I’m not there however on impeachment,” Schiff stated in the course of an interview on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday. “I may possibly get there, he could get me there.”

“But here’s the awful dilemma that we face,” Schiff said. “If we do not impeach him, that sends a information – that this type of conduct, this obstruction of justice, this variety of inclined use of the help of a international adversary, all the lies and protect-up – that this is non-impeachable.”

“At the identical time, if we do impeach him, and he is acquitted as he would probable be acquitted, then the concept is ‘those are not impeachable offenses,’” Schiff additional.

Schiff recommended that there was a safer wager in lieu of gambling with impeachment.

Stop by Defence Online’s homepage for extra stories.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California tempered calls for for President Donald Trump’s impeachment and claimed that a additional prudent action would be to “vote his ass out of office” in the 2020 presidential election.

“I’m not there still on impeachment,” Schiff mentioned through an job interview on HBO’s “Real Time with Invoice Maher” Friday. “I might get there, he could get me there.”

In an op-ed last yr, Schiff warned Democrats not to “take the bait on impeachment,” inspite of the attract of impeachment proceedings. Schiff’s views echo that of other Democrats, this kind of as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who have known as for restraint on starting up impeachment proceedings.

“But here’s the dreadful dilemma that we confront,” Schiff mentioned. “If we really don’t impeach him, that sends a concept – that this variety of conduct, this obstruction of justice, this type of willing use of the assistance of a overseas adversary, all the lies and protect-up – that this is non-impeachable.”

“At the exact time, if we do impeach him, and he is acquitted, as he would possible be acquitted, then the message is ‘those are not impeachable offenses,’” Schiff extra.

Read through more: Some Homeland Stability officers are shaken by Trump’s purge and pointing out their new office environment is developed at a previous government mental clinic

A developing quantity of Democrats, which includes some 2020 Democratic candidates, have urged the House to start the procedure, pursuing the release of the unique counsel’s report on Russian election interference.

But Democrats who want Trump impeached facial area several roadblocks.

Two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to convict the president, indicating at the very least 20 Republicans would have to cross celebration traces. Impeachment proceedings would also “tear the nation apart” by deepening the partisan divide, according to Household Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York.

Schiff instructed that there was a safer guess in lieu of gambling with impeachment.

“At the stop of the day … there’s only one way to deal with this difficulty, no matter if we impeach him or not, and that is to vote his ass out of business office,” Schiff explained.

“I assume individuals acknowledge no matter if he could be indicted or not, that his conduct is unethical, most likely felony in conditions of at the very least the obstruction of justice,” Schiff explained, adding that “we have it in our electrical power, we have it within our numbers to turn out and vote him out of office.”

“And the larger the repudiation of him at the ballot box, the additional it suggests to ourselves,” Schiff reported.

Schiff, the chairman of the Residence Intelligence Committee, had been on the frontlines of the congressional investigation into Trump’s funds and Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. His work has frequently drawn the ire of Republicans and Trump, who have not too long ago referred to as for his resignation.

The post Top Democrat: Impeach or not, the only way to deal with Trump is to ‘vote his ass out of office’, Defence Online appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/04/27/top-democrat-impeach-or-not-the-only-way-to-deal-with-trump-is-to-vote-his-ass-out-of-office-defence-online/

[benrleeusa]

Could enhanced FIRST STEP Act get more than 90 votes in the Senate if even brought up for a vote?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this Hill piece from late Friday headlined "Sentencing reform deal heats up, pitting Trump against reliable allies." Here are excerpts (with emphasis added):

Negotiations on a criminal justice reform bill are pitting President Trump against some of his closest allies on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent a public warning shot to the White House this week, writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Trump should not support a “jailbreak” by reducing mandatory minimum sentences. “That foolish approach is not criminal justice reform. … [It would] undercut President Trump’s campaign promise to restore law and order,” Cotton wrote.

Besides Cotton, other reliable allies of the White House, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), are opposing the administration’s approach, which would combine a House-passed prison reform bill with changes to sentencing and mandatory minimums that have wide, bipartisan support in the Senate.

Supporters say completing the bill would give the administration a needed win heading into November's midterm elections. Cotton argues it would make Trump and the GOP look weak on crime.

White House officials and supporters of a deal have been talking with Republican holdouts to try to convince them to back the proposed compromise, which they say would add roughly four sentencing reform provisions into the House bill, which currently focuses on recidivism and not sentencing laws. The pending agreement is expected to add into the House bill lower mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug convictions and more exceptions for judges on applying mandatory minimums. It would also let judges avoid doubling up on convictions for drug offenders facing simultaneous charges, and retroactively apply the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, which is aimed at reducing the disparity between cocaine- and crack-related offenses.

A senior White House official said they had received largely positive feedback and have 30 to 32 locked down “yes” votes among Republican senators. The official offered hope that the number of GOP supporters could eventually grow as many as 40 to 46. “We're hopeful that we'll be able to bring everybody together to get this to a place where we have ... most of the Republicans ready to vote for it,” the official said...

Supporters are moving forward and trying to build support within the GOP conference, signaling they view Cotton as a surmountable outlier. “I view it like the handful of people who are trying to obstruct are kind of giving it their best shot and, again, at the end of the day, I think facts usually overcome scare tactics,” the senior White House official said.

If Cotton’s op-ed was meant to build opposition to the potential deal within the Senate Republican Conference, officials suggested it appeared to have backfired. The senior White House official said that nearly a dozen Republican senators had reached out in wake of the Wall Street Journal article to say they didn’t agree with Cotton. A second White House official confirmed the outreach.

But opposition from a small, but vocal, group of critics has been a years-long roadblock for criminal justice reform in the Senate, where GOP leadership has been reluctant to put a spotlight on intra-caucus fights.

In addition to Cotton, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) threatened to do everything within their power to block a 2015 criminal justice reform bill, which had the support of the White House. Hatch has since come on board with criminal justice legislation, and Sessions is now attorney general. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has warned him to “stay out” of the negotiations....

Republicans won’t be able to pass a criminal justice deal on their own. A separate Senate bill, spearheaded by Grassley and Durbin, has the support of 32 senators, including Democrats like Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). The White House is hoping electoral politics won’t get in the way of them supporting the pending agreement. “[If] people vote against it, I think it would just be really bad vote for them because this bill does a lot of good things,” the senior White House official said of potential Democratic opposition....

Trump held an event on prison reform last week, and at a White House meeting earlier this month signaled support for criminal justice reform. The senior White House official said that while negotiations are ongoing and no final decision has been made, “there is a very strong chance” the president will support the final package.

“[That] means that a lot of the people will want to be with him on it,” the official said. “And again, they know that the president's very tough on crime and if he's supporting something then they know it's not going to be a soft on crime bill.”

But Cornyn appeared skeptical that Trump, despite his deep popularity with GOP voters, would be able to change the dynamics in the Senate. “I don’t think people are going to change their strongly held positions on the sentencing reform part,” he said. “So my goal is to achieve what’s possible."

Riffing on the quote from Senator Cornyn, it seems quite possible that 45 Senators or more from both parties will be inclined to support whatever version of the FIRST STEP Act gets to the floor of the Senate with the President's support.  As I said in a recent post here, and as this article confirms, the problem now is not getting enough votes in support of reform but rather on getting congressional leadership to settle on the particulars of a bill and finally allowing a vote on the Senate floor.

As the GOP heads into a challenging mid-term election, I think and hope that many members would see the FIRST STEP Act as an opportunity to demonstrate bipartisan leadership. And maybe, as he headline of this interesting Bustle article suggest, Prez Trump could have another one of his kids involved in advocacy efforts here: "Tiffany Trump's Georgetown Work Shows She Has An Interest In Criminal Justice Reform Too."  

Some of many prior recent related posts:

House Judiciary Committee approves FIRST STEP Act by a vote of 25-5 after lots of discussion of amendments

FIRST STEP Act passes US House of Representatives by vote of 360-59(!), but its fate in Senate remains uncertain

Interesting new US Sentencing Commission analysis of possible impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017

Five prominent congressional Democrats write in opposition to federal statutory prison reform without broader sentencing reform

Prez Trump pledges to sign prison reform that will be "best in the world"

An (encouraging?) update on the state of federal criminal justice reform in US Senate

Disconcerting update on Senate's (lack of) progress on federal statutory criminal justice reforms

Large group of former prisoners urge Senate leaders to move forward with FIRST STEP Act

Intriguing comments about the politics and persons around FIRST STEP Act and federal criminal justice reform efforts

An interesting political pitch for the FIRST STEP Act 

Encouraging news from DC about prospects for prison reform with sentencing reform getting enacted in 2018

White House emails "startling facts about America’s prison system"

Could a version of the FIRST STEP Act with sentencing reforms pass the Senate in a matter of weeks?

FAMM provides detailed review of SRCA sentencing provisions most likely to be added to FIRST STEP Act

Senator Cotton delivers faulty arguments to prop up faulty federal sentencing system

Will Trump White House soon "deploy its assets ... to stump" for federal criminal justice reform? It may be critical.

[blockheadbrands]

Can LA’s Expanded Cannabis Staff Bring Equity to the Industry?

Hayley Fox of Leafly Reports:

Months after Los Angeles announced a potentially game-changing program designed to boost minority ownership of the city’s cannabis industry, officials have agreed to scale up the city’s cannabis staff eightfold in order to speed what some critics are calling a slow rollout.

RELATED STORY

LA’s Cannabis Office Is Woefully Understaffed, Chief Says

The Los Angeles City Council last week approved 21 new positions at the city’s Department of Cannabis Regulation, expanding an office that currently has just three.

“There’s not a specific timeline of when these things are going to happen.”

Cat Packer, LA Department of Cannabis Regulation

In addition to positions aimed at speeding the licensing process in general, Cat Packer, the department’s executive director, told Leafly that she intends to hire a social equity program manager to help spur the initiative forward.

“It’s no secret that with more resources you can get more done,” Packer said.

In addition to the new positions, which include accounting and administrative clerks, management assistants, and public relations personnel, the City Council approved hiring new staff at the Office of Finance, City Attorney’s Office, and the Los Angeles Fire Department, agencies the city’s cannabis department regularly collaborates with, Packer said.

Hilary Bricken@CannaBizLawyer

Wait, wait, wait. #LA’s department of #cannabis regulation has 3 employees? 3?! So, we’ll see non-retail, social equity, and general public fully licensed in, say, a decade? SMH. https://twitter.com/badlin/status/963247631156695040 …

8:29 PM - Feb 14, 2018

The new cannabis jobs still need to be approved by the mayor’s office and the city administrative officer. The mayor has until March 12 to act. While those offices are aware of the time crunch, there’s no estimate yet on when hiring can begin, Packer said. “There’s not a specific timeline of when these things are going to happen.”

RELATED STORY

LA Equity Program Aims to Undo Impacts of Drug War

More than 120 retail cannabis businesses so far have received city approval for licenses. Officials have said they estimate hundreds of unlicensed businesses are also operating, albeit illegally.

Some in the industry are hopeful that new Department of Cannabis Regulation staff will increase the office’s capacity, bringing regulatory progress on all fronts. But in terms of the city’s social equity program, intended to address disproportionate drug-war harm inflicted on minority communities, complicated questions remain.

Equity Program Still Taking Shape

One key component of the program that still needs to be finalized: Who qualifies for it?

The answer will be determined in part by a coded map of the city that identifies which neighborhoods were particularly hard hit by the war on drugs. Assembled with the help of an outside consultant, these communities were identified through a variety of factors, including marijuana-related arrest rates and the number of people living in poverty.

RELATED STORY

Oakland Rolls Out Drug War Reparations

The city’s initial survey highlighted a number of applicable areas. But councilmembers called for further study after noticing that one region of the city, the San Fernando Valley, seemed to contain none.

“While the strongest impacts of the war on drugs were probably felt other places, there were impacts in the Valley as well,” said Jake Flynn, the communications director for Blumenfield, whose district is located in the San Fernando Valley. “And we felt that wasn’t really addressed.”

The San Fernando Valley is a massive swath of LA that’s home to approximately 40% of the city’s population. The city is sending its consultant back to the drawing board, to review additional data and contributing factors to “expand the social equity analysis to include the San Fernando Valley,” according to council files.

RELATED STORY

California Is Still Arresting Too Many People of Color for Cannabis

“We don’t believe this will cause additional delay, and our understanding is that license processing and program implementation continue to move forward while the Council studies whether to fine-tune elements of the existing framework,” Ariel Clark, a cannabis business attorney, said via email.

Robert Chlala, a policy researcher for UFCW Local 770 and a member of the social equity working group for the advocacy group LA Cannabis Task Force, said there is some upside to the slow progress of the social equity program. Namely, applicants have more time to prepare and hammer out potential roadblocks.

Among the obstacles is the fact that applicants need to have secured a location for their business before applying for a license. That can be difficult for equity program applicants, who may have limited access to property or investment capital. Even once after obtaining appropriately zoned location, it can be prohibitively expensive to pay rent on that dormant property while waiting for license approval.

RELATED STORY

Former Congressional Aide Convicted of Taking Cannabis Bribe

Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have been working to line up support systems for eligible applicants. The California Minority Alliance has been working to partner potential equity applicants with qualified private investors, for example, and Chairman Donnie Anderson says the organization has vetted 20 licensees and already helped some secure funding.

While the City Council has approved the new cannabis positions through June, Clark predicted the funding would be extended going forward.

“I would expect the Mayor to propose similar resources in his budget for the next fiscal year,” she said via email, “but that is something we will pay close attention to during budget season.”

Correction: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this story omitted the full name of Ariel Clark, a cannabis business attorney at Clark Neubert LLP. Leafly regrets the error.

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE ON LEAFLY, CLICK HERE.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/can-las-expanded-cannabis-staff-bring-equity-to-the-industry

[mdye]

"George W. Bush, but racist." That's what Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine says President Donald Trump is turning into, as he abandons some of his more idiosyncratic campaign positions and starts listening to Republican Party regulars who favor foreign wars and tax cuts for the rich.

This comparison is unfair — to George W. Bush. Bush accomplished things, whether you liked those things or not.

I agree with Chait that Trump is failing to promote and advance a policy agenda of his own. But the likely result is that he will do very little, not that he will achieve what a conventional Republican president would achieve, if given a Republican Congress to work with.

I think Trump is so inept, he will be unable to get a major tax cut out of a Republican Congress. And I certainly hope I am right that he is too lazy to start a ground war.

If Trump does not get us all killed, I expect his presidency will look surprisingly unimportant in retrospect.

Trump's weaknesses will usually lead to nothing happening

Most policy issues present Trump with three possible policy actions: A standard Republican thing, a quirky "Trumpist" thing, or nothing. In most areas, the smart money should be on "nothing."

In support of his Trump-as-Bush hypothesis, Chait writes:

"Trump’s pledge not to cut Medicaid while replacing Obamacare with a terrific plan that would include 'insurance for everybody,' with better coverage than they have now, turned into endorsement of a conventional Republican plan that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid and throw tens of millions of people off their insurance."

Yes, but remember where this landed: With Congress passing nothing. The implosion of the AHCA has left Trump with Barack Obama's healthcare policy, not George Bush's. Trump healthcare policy change: nothing.

Let's look where else this president is going nowhere fast.

Taxes

Since the president can't decide whether to admit healthcare reform is dead or not, tax reform is now supposed to get pushed back to make space for another doomed try on healthcare, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin admitting the administration's August goal for tax changes will be missed.

Republicans in Congress still have no agreement for a vision on taxes, and the White House doesn't have a plan of its own. Trump has mused about the possibility of working with Democrats on taxes, but they'll be reluctant to hand him any victories and have settled on the line that they can't change the tax code until we've seen Trump's tax returns, because otherwise we won't know if the deal is designed to benefit him.

Tax reform dies for all sorts of good reasons, and this administration looks even less organized on the issue than those who have failed to reform the tax code in the past. My bet on a Trump tax legacy: nothing.

The budget

Last month, the White House circulated a Trumpist "skinny budget," with ideas like sharply cutting spending on the National Institutes of Health and the State Department to fund military expansion and construction of a border wall. Congress is preparing to summarily ignore this budget.

But they're not going to take what you might call a "conventional Republican" approach either, like, say, cutting food stamps to fund military expansion.

The spending bill to keep the government open past April 28 will need to get 60 votes in the Senate, which means it will need Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's approval, which likely means an increase in domestic spending to go along with any increase in military spending, certainty for threatened Obamacare subsidies, and little-to-no money for a border wall.

Of course, Trump could veto such a spending bill, but Axios reports the White House is in "no mood" for the government shutdown that would ensue. Likely federal spending outlook: nothing terribly different than if Hillary Clinton had won.

Trade

Trump is backing off his heated trade rhetoric, says China is not a currency manipulator, and even says he's willing to let China off easy on trade if they're helpful with North Korea. A Trumpist remaking of American trade policy is looking less and less likely.

But what would a "conventional Republican" trade policy look like? Probably the pursuit of multilateral trade agreements that Republican presidents used to favor until they became associated with Obama.

Do you really think Trump will negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU? It seems a lot more likely to me that he will do nothing.

Foreign policy

In his first 100 days, Trump has softened toward China, somewhat hardened toward Russia, flip-flopped on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and re-endorsed NATO. These shifts do as much to put him in line with Obama as with Bush.

It's possible that won't stay true. Trump's national security adviser is, according to a report from Eli Lake at Bloomberg, developing a plan for tens of thousands of ground troops to fight ISIS in Syria.

As Chait writes, such an invasion would constitute a remarkable, Bush-like turn toward neoconservatism, if Trump were actually to pursue it. But I am skeptical that he will do so.

Trump has, so far, not demonstrated the attention span for a ground war. A man who figured out it was best to rent his name and let other people deal with the messy business of actual high-rise construction will probably get the logic of launching the occasional airstrike and leaving most of the ground fighting to proxy forces.

I might be wrong — and future external events could push Trump into a ground war somewhere, just as they could with any other president. But so far, the president's main foreign policy departures from Obama are (1) offending a bunch of foreign leaders, and (2) launching one airstrike against Assad. This looks more like "nothing" than "Neocon" to me.

The limited areas where Trump means change

Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court definitely mattered. This appointment was conventional, but not a surprise or a breach of any Trumpist promises. Trump issued an explicit list of whom he might appoint to the court before being elected, and the list was vetted to please conventional conservatives.

With Trump, it's always a good idea to get it in writing, and they did.

The other obvious place where Trump already matters is immigration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has clearly stepped up enforcement, and some people who would have been held harmless under Obama are being deported.

Is this a "conventional Republican" policy course? Mitt Romney probably would have done something similar, but there are a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington who would prefer a more lax immigration policy.

Trump's Justice Department may have significant effects, by changing its emphasis in overseeing police departments and voting rights. The latter moves will be in line with "conventional Republicanism"; the former ones run counter to incipient Republican enthusiasm for criminal justice reform, which Trump and his attorney general reject.

Trump's other significant policy accomplishments so far consist mostly of laws he has signed under the Congressional Review Act. This law allows Congress to overturn, by simple majority, regulations issued late in a departing president's administration.

These laws will affect the cleanliness of streams near coal mines, and will allow Internet Service Providers to sell user data — though, from the breathless reaction, you might not realize they're reversing regulations that either were not yet effective or only recently became effective. That is, all these fearsome laws have done is to restore the Obama-era status quo, circa 2015.

Bigger reversals of Obama-era policies that Trump might hope to do with his executive power — like neuter Dodd-Frank and the Clean Power Plan — will require him to get past bureaucratic and judicial roadblocks. I wouldn't bet on Trump succeeding bigly in these areas soon.

A presidency does not have to be important

The AHCA failed for a fundamental reason: Like a lot of conventional Republican ideas, it was very unpopular.

The thumbnail version of the AHCA was that it cut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It would take a president with a lot of political capital, political skill, and ideological commitment to shove something like that through Congress.

Trump has none of those three, a problem that will repeat with other unpopular, conventional Republican policies he might try to pass.

Trump's lack of his own unique policy vision, plus his lack of the resources and conviction he would need to impose a conventional Republican policy vision, will add up to him doing little beyond what he must do to keep the lights on: Sign spending bills, raise the debt limit, respond to foreign crises, appear at the Easter Egg Roll.

Not all presidents have a major legacy. Warren Harding wasn't important; neither was Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter.

I remain worried that a foreign crisis will be foisted on Trump, and that his mishandling of it will get us all killed in a nuclear war. If that happens, his presidency will be very important.

But if it doesn't, I don't see Trump posting a lot of "wins." I see him making Carter look dynamic and accomplished by comparison.

SEE ALSO: Tax reform is about to follow the same doomed script as healthcare reform

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet the MQ-25A Stingray — the US's response to threats like China's 'carrier killers'

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/fact-checking-donald-trumps-100-day-contract-americans/

Fact checking Donald Trump's 100 Day Contract with Americans

All politicians make plenty of promises while campaigning that they never plan on keeping, and Donald Trump was no different. But, none have drawn up a contract with Americans instilling that their campaign promises will be kept. Trump did just that, plus he went further in stating that all these would be done in the first 100 days of his taking office. Last Friday, he suddenly stated that the 'first 100 days' standard was ridiculous, but he set all this up for himself. He continually pushed on how much he would get done in this time period, so here's a breakdown of what he's done and not done. You can find a full list of all the bills and Executive Orders he's signed here. [pdf-embedder url="https://movietvtechgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/donald-trump-contract-with-americans-first-100-days.pdf" title="donald trump contract with americans first 100 days"]   But where's that wall? Or the promised trade punishment against China - will the Chinese get off scot-free from "the greatest theft in the history of the world"? What about that "easy" replacement for Obamacare? How about the trillion-dollar infrastructure plan and huge tax cut that were supposed to be in motion by now? Trump's road to the White House, paved in big, sometimes impossible pledges, has detoured onto a byway of promises deferred or left behind, an AP analysis found.

Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington

FIRST: propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. Trump has not proposed such an amendment, though two Republicans in Congress -- Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Ron DeSantis -- proposed such a measure before Trump took office. Trump has not remarked at length about this amendment since taking office. SECOND: a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health). STATUS: FULFILLED, BUT LIFTED. Trump signed an executive action enforcing a hiring freeze in January, but it was lifted a few months later, in April. THIRD: a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. STATUS: FULFILLED. Trump signed an executive order in January requiring two regulations be eliminated for every new regulation signed. FOURTH: a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service. STATUS: PARTIALLY FULFILLED. Trump signed an executive order placing the lobbying ban on administration officials but not on congressional officials. FIFTH: a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. STATUS: FULFILLED. The same executive order that placed the five-year ban also prohibited all lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. SIXTH: a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. Trump's executive order on lobbying did not contain provisions for current foreign lobbyists.

7 actions to protect American workers

FIRST: I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. While Trump still vows to renegotiate NAFTA during public remarks, he has not yet formally begun the renegotiation process. His nominee for US trade representative has not yet been confirmed. SECOND: I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. STATUS: FULFILLED. Trump signed a presidential memo in January withdrawing the US from the TPP. THIRD: I will direct the secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. Trump has reversed course on China's currency status, telling The Wall Street Journal that China is not a currency manipulator. China was not labeled as such by the Treasury Department in a report this month. FOURTH: I will direct the secretary of commerce and US trade representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately. STATUS: FULFILLED. Trump signed an executive order in late March initiating a large-scale review of foreign trade abuses. FIFTH: I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. While Trump signed an executive order promoting American energy, it only ordered a review of current regulations. SIXTH: lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone pipeline, to move forward. STATUS: FULFILLED. Trump signed a presidential memo in January allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline to proceed. SEVENTH: cancel billions in payments to UN climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. While Trump's budget proposal scrapped UN climate funding, it's not yet clear which elements of that plan will make it into law.

5 actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law

FIRST: cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. STATUS: depends on your view of 'unconstitutional.' SECOND: begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the US Constitution. STATUS: FULFILLED. Trump's choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed in April and now is the court's junior associate justice. THIRD: cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. STATUS: UNFULFILLED. Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, have threatened to eliminate Justice Department grants to 'sanctuary cities,' but cutting off all federal funding to those municipalities would require action from Congress. FOURTH: begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back. STATUS: PARTIALLY FULFILLED. Trump signed an executive order expanding authorities for individual ICE agents, but it's too early to tell if deportations are quickening. FIFTH: suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered "extreme vetting." STATUS: UNFULFILLED. Trump has tried twice to bar entry to citizens from certain Muslim-majority nations, but his executive order remains stalled in court.

Legislative proposals

I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my administration: Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act: An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED. End the Offshoring Act: Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free. American Energy and Infrastructure Act Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED. School Choice and Education Opportunity Act: Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education and makes two- and four-year college more affordable. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act: Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, allows the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: There are more than 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications. STATUS: INTRODUCED, but failed to garner sufficient support in the House Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act: Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED, though Trump has proposed a childcare plan End Illegal Immigration Act: Fully funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED Restoring Community Safety Act: Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a task force on violent crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED, though Trump signed an executive order in February creating a task force on crime. Restoring National Security Act: Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public Department of Veterans Affairs treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED, though Trump's proposed budget eliminates the defense sequester Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act: Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics. STATUS: NOT INTRODUCED Of 38 specific promises Trump made in his 100-day "contract" with voters - "This is my pledge to you" - he's accomplished 10, mostly through executive orders that don't require legislation, such as withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. He's abandoned several and failed to deliver quickly on others, stymied at times by a divided Republican Party and resistant federal judges. Of 10 promises that require Congress to act, none has been achieved and most have not been introduced. "I've done more than any other president in the first 100 days," the president bragged in a recent interview with AP, even as he criticized the marker as an "artificial barrier." In truth, his 100-day plan remains mostly a to-do list that will spill over well beyond Saturday, his 100th day. Some of Trump's promises were obviously hyperbole to begin with. Don't hold your breath waiting for alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl to be dropped out of an airplane without a parachute, as Trump vowed he'd do at many of his campaign rallies. China's leader got a fancy dinner, complete with "beautiful" chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago this month, not the promised "McDonald's hamburger" and humble pie. But many promises were meant to be taken seriously. Trump clearly owes his supporters a Mexico border wall, even if it doesn't end up being a foot taller than the Great Wall of China. One page of his 100-day manifesto is devoted to legislation he would fight to pass in 100 days. None of it has been achieved. The other page lists 18 executive actions and intentions he promised to pursue - many on Day One. He has followed through on fewer than a dozen, largely through the use of executive orders, and the White House is boasting that he will set a post-World War II record when he signs more this week. That's a change in tune. "We need people in Washington that don't go around signing executive orders because they can't get people into a room and get some kind of a deal that's negotiated," he declared in New Hampshire in March 2015. "We need people that know how to lead, and we don't have that. We have amateurs." Efforts to provide affordable child care and paid maternity leave, to make college more affordable and to invest in urban areas have been all but forgotten. That's despite the advantage of a Republican-controlled Congress, which the White House failed to pull together behind Trump's first attempt to repeal and replace "Obamacare." An AP reporter who followed Trump throughout the presidential campaign collected scores of promises he made along the way, from the consequential to the fanciful. Here are some of them, and his progress so far: ENERGY and the ENVIRONMENT: - Lift President Barack Obama's roadblocks on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Done. Keystone XL is revived and construction of the Dakota Access is completed. - Lift restrictions on mining coal and drilling for oil and natural gas. Done. Trump has unraveled a number of Obama-era restrictions and initiated a review of the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to restrict greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. - Cancel payments to U.N. climate change programs and pull out of the Paris climate accord Nope. Trump has yet to make a decision on Paris. His aides are torn. ECONOMY and TRADE: - Pass a tax overhaul. "Just think about what can be accomplished in the first 100 days of a Trump administration," he told his supporters again and again in the final weeks of the campaign. "We are going to have the biggest tax cut since Ronald Reagan." He promised a plan that would reduce rates dramatically both for corporations and the middle class. Nowhere close. Trump has scrapped the tax plan he campaigned on, and his administration's new package is in its early stages, not only missing the first 100 days but likely to miss a new August deadline set by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Some details may emerge this week. -Designate China a currency manipulator, setting the stage for possible trade penalties because "we're like the piggy bank that's being robbed. We can't continue to allow China to rape our country, and that's what they're doing." Abandoned. Trump says he doesn't want to punish China when it is cooperating in a response to North Korean provocations. He also says China has stopped manipulating its currency for unfair trade advantage. But China was moving away from that behavior well before he took office. Also set aside: repeated vows to slap high tariffs on Chinese imports. -Announce his intention to renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. Backtracked, in essence. A draft of his administration's plan for NAFTA proposes only a mild rewrite. But in his AP interview, he threatened anew to terminate the deal if his goals are not met in a renegotiation. - Direct his commerce secretary and trade representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly hurt American workers. Done. Trump has initiated plenty of studies over the past 100 days. - Slap a 35 percent tariff on goods from companies that ship production abroad. Force companies like Apple and Nabisco to make their products in the U.S. Nope. -Embark on a massive $1 trillion effort to rebuild the country's infrastructure, including airports, roads and bridges. Not yet. SECURITY, DEFENSE and IMMIGRATION: - Immediately suspend the Syrian refugee program. Trump tried, but the first version of his travel ban was blocked by the courts. A revised version dropped references to Syrian refugees entirely. That was blocked, too. And he has yet to mention another campaign pledge: to deport Syrian refugees already settled in the U.S. - Inform his generals they have 30 days to submit a new plan for defeating the Islamic State group. Trump did indeed order up a plan. It's unclear what it is since it has yet to be made public. - Suspend immigration from "terror-prone regions" where he says vetting is too difficult. Trump's effort to bar immigration temporarily from some Muslim-majority countries has been stymied by courts. - Implement "extreme" immigration vetting techniques. In progress. The Homeland Security Department is considering a number of measures, like asking for visitors' phone contacts and social media passwords. -Build an "impenetrable physical wall" along the length of the southern border, and make Mexico pay for it. The government has been soliciting bids and test sections could be built as soon as this summer. Mexico is not paying for this work. -End federal funding to "sanctuary cities" - places where local officials are considered by Washington to be insufficiently cooperative in arresting or detaining people in the country illegally. The Justice Department has threatened to do so, but there are legal limits. - Immediately deport the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" living in the country, including gang members, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. Deportations have not increased. Arrests of people in the U.S. illegally are up and illegal border crossings are significantly down. -Cancel visas for foreign countries that won't take back criminals deported by the U.S. There's been no discussion of this yet. -"Immediately terminate President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties," one of which allows young people brought into the country as children to stay and work. Trump has made no effort to end the program, even though it would take a single phone call. In fact, he told AP these young people can "rest easy" and not fear deportation. GOVERNMENT and the SWAMP: - Ask agency and department heads to identify job-killing regulations for elimination. Done. - Propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Nope. - "Drain the swamp." On his pledge to curb the power of special interests, Trump has so far used an executive order to prohibit political appointees from lobbying the government for five years after serving in his administration and to ban outgoing officials from representing foreign governments. But he's discontinuing the Obama-era practice of releasing White House visitor logs, restoring a shroud over what special interests are getting in his gates. He's also issued at least one waiver to his lobbying ban, allowing a White House budget adviser to go advocate for a business trade group - Impose a hiring freeze on federal employees, excluding military and public safety staffers. This was one of Trump's first actions. But the freeze has since been lifted. -Require that two regulations be eliminated for each new one imposed. Trump signed an order requiring agencies to identify two existing regulations for every new one imposed - though there is nothing in the order that requires the two to be eliminated. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: - End the strategy of nation-building and regime change. Trump's foreign policy posture is still in its early stages, though he has already intervened in Syria and has escalated rhetoric against North Korea. - Move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The administration says it is studying the issue. - Negotiate the release of all U.S. prisoners held in Iran, even before taking office. Renegotiate or leave the Iran nuclear deal. No prisoners have been released. The administration is studying the nuclear deal and Trump told AP "it's possible" the U.S. will withdraw. - Create a safe zone in Syria for refugees, paid for by the Gulf states. Not yet. HEALTH CARE, COURTS and GUNS: -"My first day in office, I'm going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability. You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost. It's going to be so easy." The bill to replace "Obamacare" was pulled from Congress because it lacked enough support. He will try again with a revised plan. - Begin selecting a new Supreme Court judge to fill the court's vacancy. Done. Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch and the Senate approved him. - Eliminate gun-free zones in schools and on military bases. Nope. REALLY? - "I promise I will never be in a bicycle race." So far, so good. Trump's vow came after John Kerry, then secretary of state, broke his femur in May 2015 while riding a bicycle. He was not in a bicycle race. -Bar his generals from being interviewed on television. Never mind that. Army Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, as Trump's national security adviser, recently appeared on a Sunday news show. Several senior military officers have done Pentagon news conferences in the past few months that are taped by the networks. Gen. John Nicholson, the top general in Afghanistan, appeared at a news conference Monday. -No time for play. Most weekends as president, Trump has broken his pledge to avoid the golf course, after years of criticizing his predecessor for playing the game. "Because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go play golf," he told a Virginia rally in August. "Believe me." -Season's greetings. - "If I become president, we're gonna be saying Merry Christmas at every store. ... You can leave 'happy holidays' at the corner." As president-elect over the holidays, he sent a "Merry Christmas" tweet. So did President Obama. And both sent Happy Hanukkah wishes.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[timjordan]

This is what Donald Trump Pledged to do after elected. Do you think he will actually do any of it? Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty and accountability, and bringing change to Washington. On the rst day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following: Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC: ★ FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. ★ SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health). ★ THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. ★ FOURTH, a ve-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service. ★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. ★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. Seven actions to protect American workers: ★ FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205. ★ SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Paci c Partnership. ★ THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator. ★ FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately. ★ FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. ★ SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward. ★ SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to x America’s water and environmental infrastructure. ★★★Five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law: ★ FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. ★ SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. ★ THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. ★ FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back. ★ FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.” ________________________________________________ I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and ght for their passage within the 1st 100 days of my Administration: ★Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simpli cation, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simpli ed. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate. ★End the Offshoring Act Establishes tari s to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free. ★American Energy and Infrastructure Act Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral. ★School Choice and Education Opportunity Act Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and makes two- and four- year college more affordable. ★Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications. ★Afordable Childcare and Eldercare Act Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families. ★End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a ve-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are o ered to American workers 1rst. ★Restoring Community Safety Act Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a task force on violent crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent o enders behind bars. ★Restoring National Security Act Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values. ★Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting in uence of special interests on our politics. On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities and honesty to our government. This is my pledge to you. And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people. LEARN MORE AT http://ift.tt/2k9JVrg

from Facebook via IFTTT

[stopkingobama]

Trump Signs Executive Orders to Stem Illegal Immigration. Now What?

Image Credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Domain

Immigration analysts say President Donald Trump’s executive actions Wednesday to combat illegal immigration signify his intent to strip away impediments imposed by his predecessor and enforce existing laws more strictly.

“The executive orders signed today reflect the administration’s understanding that there is more to immigration security than just building the wall,” Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Trump began an effort to dramatically reshape immigration policy, signing a pair of executive actions to enhance enforcement of the law and begin construction of a wall across the southern border.

“The secretary of homeland security, working with myself and my staff, will begin immediate construction of a border wall,” Trump said, flanked by Vice President Mike Pence and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. The presidential directives include withholding funds from so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, increasing the use of detention centers, and endorsing the hiring of additional Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents.

The measures, some of which will require congressional support, represent a substantial policy shift from President Barack Obama, Vaughan and other immigration analysts told The Daily Signal.

How to Build a Wall

In announcing his actions at the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, Trump expressed surprise at how much he can do on his own, and within existing law.

For starters, immigration policy experts agree the Trump administration at least can begin “immediate” construction of the border wall, based on previous authority in a 2006 law signed by President George W. Bush. Called the Secure Fence Act, it mandated a minimum of 700 miles of “physical barrier” on the nearly 2,000-mile southern border.

“Restarting construction of the border wall and fencing, which Congress committed to in 2006, and boosting the number of immigration enforcement personnel, in conjunction with policies that end incentives to illegal immigration, will go a long way in making effective border control a reality,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, said in a statement.

The 2006 law called specifically for double-layered fencing, but a little more than a year later Congress amended it to allow Border Patrol the leeway to decide what types of barriers were appropriate in various regions.

The amended law never was fully implemented (only 36 miles of fencing is double-layered), nor did it set a deadline for the fencing or other barriers to be built. This means Trump could pick up where Bush left off by redirecting already-authorized federal funds.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/824365670137729024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

But Trump will need Congress to approve additional funding to do the bulk of the building.

The president has estimated the cost of the wall to be $8 billion to $12 billion. Other estimates have put it at $25 billion. The Trump administration also must follow a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built.

“There is nothing shovel-ready here,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security.

“This will take a bit of time, and require more money, logistics planning, and manpower,” Brown told The Daily Signal in an interview. “We will see over the course of the coming months what actually happens, because the realities of doing some of this stuff are much more complex than saying, this is what I want to do.”

Enforcement Policy Changes

Shawn Moran, vice president for the National Border Patrol Council, the largest union for Border Patrol officers, told The Daily Signal that his organization has recommended to the Trump administration that they undertake a review of border sectors to determine the infrastructure appropriate for each place.

Moran downplayed the impact of a border wall, conceding that it “may not stop” the most prevalent form of illegal immigration today: Central American children and families fleeing violence, corruption, and poverty willingly surrender to Border Patrol agents and plead for asylum.

But some of Trump’s other priorities described in his executive orders will speed up the processing of cases and deter future illegal immigration, Moran said.

“We are looking forward to policy changes that will take place, and we think that is where the real effect will be seen in terms of immigration enforcement and border security,” he said.

https://twitter.com/Raul_Labrador/status/824376891608023042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

To step up deportations and detentions, Trump announced that he is directing the Department of Homeland Security to bring back a local enforcement program called Secure Communities that drew some sharp criticism. Bush started the program and Obama ended it.

Under Secure Communities, federal immigration agents asked law enforcement agencies to keep illegal immigrants in custody for an extra 48 hours than normal so federal authorities could pick them up and deport them. These requests were known as detainers.

Critics of the program said it violated illegal immigrants’ civil rights, and did not differentiate between their being arrested initially for low-level or serious offenses. Many local jurisdictions stopped complying with the program, fearing they would be sued by advocacy groups.

In November 2014, the Obama administration replaced Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which is less demanding of local authorities.

The Obama administration also narrowed those targeted for deportation to focus on illegal immigrants considered threats to national security and public safety, who likely have been convicted of a felony. Other priorities for deportation included individuals convicted of multiple misdemeanors, as well as recent arrivals.

Trump has said that he too will prioritize deporting criminal illegal immigrants. His executive order broadens Obama’s enforcement targets and calls for deportations based on any criminal conviction or commission of an act that “constitutes a chargeable offense.”

https://twitter.com/RepBillFlores/status/824390145767993345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Challenges Ahead

Some of the other directives detailed in Trump’s executive orders are less specific and will require agencies to work out a plan.

For example, the sanctuary city order doesn’t take any action and doesn’t specify what types of funding the executive branch would withhold from cities that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

Immigration analysts say that depending on what the administration ultimately does, sanctuary states and localities likely will challenge Trump in court, given Supreme Court rulings that limit the federal government’s ability to make grants conditional on specific policies.

“It’s very likely states and jurisdictions will fight those policies, and you can expect to see a lot of litigation,” Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

https://twitter.com/RepBillFlores/status/824390145767993345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

One of the first threats to challenge Trump’s policy came from Kevin de Leon, a Democrat who leads the state Senate in California. That state strictly limits the situations in which local agencies will help the federal government take custody of those it seeks to deport.

Other objectives that Trump describes in his executive orders include prioritizing border prosecutions for those who repeatedly cross the border illegally, or are engaged in drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, and other criminal activity.

In addition, Trump calls for ending “catch and release,” in which the Border Patrol apprehends somebody and quickly returns him or her to the other side of the border with no penalty.

The Obama administration used this protocol to free immigrants seeking asylum while they await a hearing with an immigration judge, who determines if they can stay in the country.

“Ending catch and release would require a huge use of detention,” Hipsman said. “Because court backlogs are so long, you would need to keep immigrants in detention for months or years.”

But Trump could face roadblocks in using detention more. A federal appeals court in 2015 sharply limited the ability of immigration authorities to detain children who enter the country illegally.

Meanwhile, Congress would have to approve funding for another major Trump proposal: tripling the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who focus on deporting those in the country illegally, and hiring an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents.

The Border Patrol has faced challenges fulfilling hiring goals mandated by Congress. Since 2001, the U.S. has more than doubled the ranks of the Border Patrol, which now has nearly 20,000 agents.

Report by The Daily Signals”Josh Siegel. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[americanlibertypac]

Trump Signs Executive Orders to Stem Illegal Immigration. Now What?

Image Credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Domain

Immigration analysts say President Donald Trump’s executive actions Wednesday to combat illegal immigration signify his intent to strip away impediments imposed by his predecessor and enforce existing laws more strictly.

“The executive orders signed today reflect the administration’s understanding that there is more to immigration security than just building the wall,” Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Trump began an effort to dramatically reshape immigration policy, signing a pair of executive actions to enhance enforcement of the law and begin construction of a wall across the southern border.

“The secretary of homeland security, working with myself and my staff, will begin immediate construction of a border wall,” Trump said, flanked by Vice President Mike Pence and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. The presidential directives include withholding funds from so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, increasing the use of detention centers, and endorsing the hiring of additional Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents.

The measures, some of which will require congressional support, represent a substantial policy shift from President Barack Obama, Vaughan and other immigration analysts told The Daily Signal.

How to Build a Wall

In announcing his actions at the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, Trump expressed surprise at how much he can do on his own, and within existing law.

For starters, immigration policy experts agree the Trump administration at least can begin “immediate” construction of the border wall, based on previous authority in a 2006 law signed by President George W. Bush. Called the Secure Fence Act, it mandated a minimum of 700 miles of “physical barrier” on the nearly 2,000-mile southern border.

“Restarting construction of the border wall and fencing, which Congress committed to in 2006, and boosting the number of immigration enforcement personnel, in conjunction with policies that end incentives to illegal immigration, will go a long way in making effective border control a reality,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, said in a statement.

The 2006 law called specifically for double-layered fencing, but a little more than a year later Congress amended it to allow Border Patrol the leeway to decide what types of barriers were appropriate in various regions.

The amended law never was fully implemented (only 36 miles of fencing is double-layered), nor did it set a deadline for the fencing or other barriers to be built. This means Trump could pick up where Bush left off by redirecting already-authorized federal funds.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/824365670137729024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

But Trump will need Congress to approve additional funding to do the bulk of the building.

The president has estimated the cost of the wall to be $8 billion to $12 billion. Other estimates have put it at $25 billion. The Trump administration also must follow a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built.

“There is nothing shovel-ready here,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security.

“This will take a bit of time, and require more money, logistics planning, and manpower,” Brown told The Daily Signal in an interview. “We will see over the course of the coming months what actually happens, because the realities of doing some of this stuff are much more complex than saying, this is what I want to do.”

Enforcement Policy Changes

Shawn Moran, vice president for the National Border Patrol Council, the largest union for Border Patrol officers, told The Daily Signal that his organization has recommended to the Trump administration that they undertake a review of border sectors to determine the infrastructure appropriate for each place.

Moran downplayed the impact of a border wall, conceding that it “may not stop” the most prevalent form of illegal immigration today: Central American children and families fleeing violence, corruption, and poverty willingly surrender to Border Patrol agents and plead for asylum.

But some of Trump’s other priorities described in his executive orders will speed up the processing of cases and deter future illegal immigration, Moran said.

“We are looking forward to policy changes that will take place, and we think that is where the real effect will be seen in terms of immigration enforcement and border security,” he said.

https://twitter.com/Raul_Labrador/status/824376891608023042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

To step up deportations and detentions, Trump announced that he is directing the Department of Homeland Security to bring back a local enforcement program called Secure Communities that drew some sharp criticism. Bush started the program and Obama ended it.

Under Secure Communities, federal immigration agents asked law enforcement agencies to keep illegal immigrants in custody for an extra 48 hours than normal so federal authorities could pick them up and deport them. These requests were known as detainers.

Critics of the program said it violated illegal immigrants’ civil rights, and did not differentiate between their being arrested initially for low-level or serious offenses. Many local jurisdictions stopped complying with the program, fearing they would be sued by advocacy groups.

In November 2014, the Obama administration replaced Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which is less demanding of local authorities.

The Obama administration also narrowed those targeted for deportation to focus on illegal immigrants considered threats to national security and public safety, who likely have been convicted of a felony. Other priorities for deportation included individuals convicted of multiple misdemeanors, as well as recent arrivals.

Trump has said that he too will prioritize deporting criminal illegal immigrants. His executive order broadens Obama’s enforcement targets and calls for deportations based on any criminal conviction or commission of an act that “constitutes a chargeable offense.”

https://twitter.com/RepBillFlores/status/824390145767993345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Challenges Ahead

Some of the other directives detailed in Trump’s executive orders are less specific and will require agencies to work out a plan.

For example, the sanctuary city order doesn’t take any action and doesn’t specify what types of funding the executive branch would withhold from cities that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

Immigration analysts say that depending on what the administration ultimately does, sanctuary states and localities likely will challenge Trump in court, given Supreme Court rulings that limit the federal government’s ability to make grants conditional on specific policies.

“It’s very likely states and jurisdictions will fight those policies, and you can expect to see a lot of litigation,” Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

https://twitter.com/RepBillFlores/status/824390145767993345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

One of the first threats to challenge Trump’s policy came from Kevin de Leon, a Democrat who leads the state Senate in California. That state strictly limits the situations in which local agencies will help the federal government take custody of those it seeks to deport.

Other objectives that Trump describes in his executive orders include prioritizing border prosecutions for those who repeatedly cross the border illegally, or are engaged in drug smuggling, weapons trafficking, and other criminal activity.

In addition, Trump calls for ending “catch and release,” in which the Border Patrol apprehends somebody and quickly returns him or her to the other side of the border with no penalty.

The Obama administration used this protocol to free immigrants seeking asylum while they await a hearing with an immigration judge, who determines if they can stay in the country.

“Ending catch and release would require a huge use of detention,” Hipsman said. “Because court backlogs are so long, you would need to keep immigrants in detention for months or years.”

But Trump could face roadblocks in using detention more. A federal appeals court in 2015 sharply limited the ability of immigration authorities to detain children who enter the country illegally.

Meanwhile, Congress would have to approve funding for another major Trump proposal: tripling the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who focus on deporting those in the country illegally, and hiring an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents.

The Border Patrol has faced challenges fulfilling hiring goals mandated by Congress. Since 2001, the U.S. has more than doubled the ranks of the Border Patrol, which now has nearly 20,000 agents.

Report by The Daily Signals”Josh Siegel. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[greatestwizardofalltime]

Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

source: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

[bnfbc]

2016 - A Year in Review

This was a special year, as Jachles and Christina welcomed Natalie Jachles into the world on November 8th. Jachles now faces a difficult decision - make Natalie listen to boring non-fiction books as bedtime stories or pull a controversial move and choose “Goodnight Moon” as his next book. The annual year in review meeting was a success, with homemade biscuits (in honor of “Pappy Pass the Biscuits”) and homemade bagels (in honor of Seeds), and a great recap of the year in book club. Without further ado, let’s get to the lists!

Does Natalie Jachles have “The Bunton Strain?”

2016 Books by GPA:

The Path to Power - 3.93

The Triumph of Seeds - 3.67

The Invention of Nature - 3.40

Ghettoside - 3.27

1861 - 3.07

The Signal and the Noise - 3.00

Babyhood - 2.80

How Eskimos Keep Their Babies Warm - 2.70

The Great Starvation Experiment - 2.67

Superintelligence - 2.67

Barbarian Days - 1.92

Andy’s Top Three:

The Path to Power

The Triumph of Seeds

The Invention of Nature

Gabe’s Top Two:

The Path to Power

The Invention of Nature

Jachles’s Top Three:

The Path to Power

The Invention of Nature

1861

Paul’s Top Three:

The Path to Power

The Invention of Nature

The Signal and the Noise

Tommy’s Top Three:

The Path to Power

The Triumph of Seeds

The Invention of Nature

Non Book Club Books We Enjoyed in 2016:

Andy: NeuroTribes by Steve Silberman

Gabe: One Perfect Day by Rebecca Mead

Jachles: Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child by Marc Weissbluth

Paul: Einstein by Jürgen Neffe

Tommy: A Place of My Own by Michael Pollan

Articles We Enjoyed in 2016:

Andy:

The Elusive Runner’s High Has Prehistoric Roots by Matt Wilkinson

Gabe:

The Mind of Donald Trump by Dan McAdams

Jachles: 

After the Process: Meet Sam Hinkie 2.0 by Chris Ballard

Paul: 

Justin Bieber Would Like to Reintroduce Himself by Caity Weaver

Two Hands, One Trophy: a Kawhi Leonard Escapade by Shea Serrano

Woman Says Catfish Fell From Sky, Striking Her Near Art Museum by William Bender

Tommy:

The Last Days of the Polymath by Edward Carr

The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence by Tim Urban

The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction by Tim Urban

Top Five Chapters in The Path to Power

5. Rayburn

Smack in the middle of this book is a mini-biography of Sam Rayburn, a man who would come to greatly influence LBJ’s path to power. The story of Rayburn’s own rise to power sets him up as a perfect foil to the man he would come to mentor. Rayburn is deeply principled, patient, loyal, and honest - all qualities that our man LBJ would come to see as being roadblocks to a swift ascent. Despite their obvious differences, Rayburn’s desperate desire for a son and LBJ’s gift as a “professional son” set the stage for a lifelong bond between the two men.

Sam Rayburn’s blocky figure -- pounding along the Capitol corridors with strides that one observer likened to the pumping of a piston -- seemed broader now, even more massive, the face beneath the bald skull even more grim and hard. The impression of physical strength was not misleading. Once, two big Congressmen -- one was a 230-pound six-footer, Thomas Blanton of Texas, the name of the other has been lost in time -- got into a fistfight. Stepping between them, Rayburn pushed them apart. Then, bunching each man’s lapels in one hand, he held them apart, his arms rigid. Standing between two men almost a head taller who were thrashing furiously in his grip, he held them, each with one hand, until they had quieted down, as effortlessly as if they had been two crying babies.

4. White Stars and Black Stars

LBJ’s first taste of politics may have been low stakes - San Marcos Teachers College student council - but his rise to power involved all the juicy elements of his bigger campaigns to come. In this chapter we finally see LBJ as the ruthless, scheming, and incredibly driven sycophant that would eventually use those same qualities to become the most powerful person in the world. Caro leaves no rock unturned to tell the story of Johnson’s campus politicking, and sections of this chapter read like a zany historical precursor to the movie Election, with LBJ playing the role of Reese Witherspoon’s character, but even less likeable.

The son of the man whom “you always knew where he stood” let no one know where he stood. Men like Kyle and Puls, into whose ambitions he was scheming to plunge a knife, thought he was their friend until the knife was in up to the hilt. These tactics had, of course, been employed within the confines of campus politics, so small-scale and insignificant compared to the politics of the outside world. Within those confines, nonetheless, had emerged a certain pattern to the tactics -- the politicking -- of Lyndon Johnson. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the pattern was its lack of any discernible limits. Pragmatism had shaded into morality of the ballot box, a morality in which nothing matters but victory and any maneuver that leads to victory is justified -- into a morality that is amorality.

3. The Bunton Strain

You know you’re in for a treat when the first chapter of a biography is 33 pages and it doesn’t even get to the birth of the subject’s parents, let alone the subject himself. In this first chapter, Caro goes deep on LBJ’s ancestors’ physical characteristics (milky white skin, dark eyes) as well as their personality traits (stubborn, idealistic), then paints a vivid picture of the economical and geographical trap that is the Texas Hill Country, and concludes with the quixotic tale of grandpa Sam’s failed cattle-driving empire. All of this may seem superfluous, but each of these narratives sets the stage for themes that will run through LBJ’s life.

So strong were its outward marks that pictures of generations of Bunton men might, except for different hair styles and clothing, almost be pictures of the same man -- a tall man, always over six feet, with heavily waved coal-black hair and dramatic features: large nose, very large ears, heavy black eyebrows and, underneath the eyebrows, the most striking of all the Bunton physical characteristics, the “Bunton eye.” The Bunton skin was milky white -- “magnolia white,” the Hill Country called it -- and out of that whiteness shone eyes so dark a brown that they seemed black, so bright that they glittered, so piercing that they often seemed to be glaring. “When my mother and father came back from seeing the baby and said he had the Bunton eye, I knew exactly what they meant,” says Lyndon’s cousin Ava. “Because Grandmother Bunton had the Bunton eye. If you talked to her, you never had to wonder if the answer was yes or no. Those eyes told you. Those eyes talked. They spit fire.”

2. The Sad Irons

Right in the middle of the section about LBJ’s first term on Capitol Hill, Caro abruptly takes us back to the Texas Hill Country, for a 15-page description of the hardships of farm life before electricity. In classic Caro fashion, the descriptions are vivid, the quotes are used to perfection, and there’s just the right amount of hyperbole to take it over the top. A perfect emotional set-up for one of LBJ’s first legislative successes - electrifying the Hill Country.

Even the concept of the toilet was difficult for them to accept completely; when Errol Snodgrass, newly arrived in Mount Gaynor, began not only to build an outhouse but to dig a pit underneath it, a neighbor said to him: “What do you want that pit for?” And when he explained, Bernice Snodgrass recalls, the reaction of the neighborhood was, “ ‘They’re so highfalutin that they have to have a toilet.’ They thought an outhouse with a pit under it -- they thought that was what people meant when they spoke about a toilet!”

1. “Pass the Biscuits, Pappy”

Without a doubt the dramatic climax of this first book is the gripping saga of Johnson’s first senate race - the 1941 campaign that he lost to W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel. Caro takes us on a rollercoaster ride, first by introducing us to the colorful cast of characters in the race, then taking us to the campaign trail, where LBJ used all of his influences to run the most expensive and elaborate congressional campaign in American history. Caro’s descriptions are so vivid that you feel like you are right there at the campaign stops, eating barbecue food, drinking beer, and listening to the best bluegrass musicians money can buy.

Reading this during the 2016 presidential campaign provided a unique and saddening lens to see just how little progress has been made in American campaign ethics in the past 75 years. From the massive amount of questionable campaign dollars, to the ruthless slandering of the opposition, to the attempt to buy the votes of marginalized groups en masse, all the sketchy strategies LBJ was employing in his first campaign have only grown more prevalent with time. It’s almost too easy to draw comparisons between the central figures in the two campaigns - Pappy is Trump (“O’Daniel’s candidacy was not taken seriously by politicians or by the press, which noted his total lack of political experience; reporters treated it as a joke. The principal reason he was running, he said, was to throw them - the ‘professional politicians’ - out of Austin”) - Gerald Mann is Bernie Sanders (“To a man of such deep convictions, there was something almost immoral about the Johnson campaign, with its theatrics, its use of money, the unadorned appeal to selfishness”) - “Cyclone” Davis is Ben Carson (“lived under a Dallas viaduct and announced that he didn’t have to campaign because ‘Providence will place me in the Senate’”) and LBJ is Hillary (“Implicit in Johnson’s delivery of speeches, and in his manner of greeting voters, was the feeling that with the mighty President behind him, he couldn’t lose.”) But just like in 2016, the 1941 campaign ended with a surprise result which sent the establishment candidate packing and sent a racist and incompetent carnival huckster to Washington D.C.

And, indeed, doubts about Pappy’s sincerity were occasionally raised in print by commentators who noted that the first of his fervent paeans to Texas had been composed when he had hardly arrived in that state, having previously lived in Kansas, and that even now he was occasionally prone to minor errors about Texas history -- such as confusing the Battle of San Jacinto with the Alamo. Those closest to him knew that his country-boy image was a pose; he was actually a business-college graduate and a businessman who dealt not just in Hillbilly Flour but in Fort Worth real estate; by 1937, while he was telling his listeners that he was a “common citizen,” poor like them, his net worth had passed half a million dollars. Intimates also had some doubts about the depth of his religious feeling; although he was constantly urging his listeners to go to church, he seldom went himself. But O’Daniel’s listeners, mesmerized by that friendly voice, had no doubts. They bought whatever he was selling.