Trump Administration, Week 125: Friday, 7 June – Thursday, 13 June 2019 (Days 869-875)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 7 June 2019, Day 869:

 

Trump announces migration deal with Mexico, averting threatened tariffsThe Washington Post, David Nakamura, John Wagner, and Nick Miroff, Friday, 7 June 2019: “President Trump announced Friday night that a deal was in place that would avert threatened tariffs on imports from Mexico in exchange for that country’s taking ‘strong measures’ to curb the influx of Central American migrants at the U.S. southern border. The agreement, which came just two days before Trump had vowed to impose a 5 percent, across-the-board tariff on one of the United States’ top trading partners, called for the Mexican government to widely dispatch its national guard forces to help with immigration enforcement, with priority in the south, on its border with Guatemala, according to a joint statement. In addition, the two countries would expand a program known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), created this year, that allows the United States to return Central American migrants to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their asylum hearings in U.S. immigration court, a process that can take months. The expansion of the program could result in tens of thousands of migrants waiting in limbo in potentially unsafe conditions in Mexico. MPP already has faced legal challenges, and while a federal appeals court panel in San Francisco has allowed it to temporarily continue while it reviews the policy, some judges have indicated that the MPP program might not be constitutional.” See also, Trump Calls Off Plan to Impose Tariffs on MexicoThe New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Ana Swanson, and Azam Ahmed, Friday, 7 June 2019: “President Trump backed off his plan to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods and announced via Twitter on Friday night that the United States had reached an agreement with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants to the southwestern border. Mr. Trump tweeted the announcement only hours after returning from Europe and following several days of intense and sometimes difficult negotiations between American and Mexican officials in Washington.” See also, U.S. and Mexico Issue Joint Declaration on Migration and TariffsThe New York Times, Liam Stack, Friday, 7 June 2019.

Senate Democrats apply new pressure to Deutsche Bank and Trump organizationThe Washington Post, Tory Newmyer, Friday, 7 June 2019: “Senate Democrats are moving to tighten the screws on Deutsche Bank over the firm’s dealings with the Trump and Kushner organizations. Seven Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee wrote to the Federal Reserve on Thursday, requesting it probe whistleblower allegations, first reported by the New York Times last month, that Deutsche Bank buried suspicious activity from accounts associated with President Trump and his son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner.”

83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, The New York Times, Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, Friday, 7 June 2019: “President Trump has made eliminating federal regulations a priority. His administration, with help from Republicans in Congress, has often targeted environmental rules it sees as burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other big businesses. A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law SchoolColumbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Mr. Trump. Our list represents two types of policy changes: rules that were officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress. The Trump administration has released an aggressive schedule to try to finalize many of these rollbacks this year.”

Continue reading Week 125, Friday, 7 June – Thursday, 13 June 2019 (Days 869-875)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 124: Friday, 31 May – Thursday, 6 June 2019 (Days 862-868)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 31 May 2019, Day 862:

 

Elizabeth Warren Wants Congress to Ensure Presidents Can Be IndictedThe New York Times, Matt Stevens, Friday, 31 May 2019: “For many Democrats, the aftermath of the Mueller report raised one central question: Would Robert S. Mueller III have charged President Trump with a crime if Justice Department policy had not prevented him from doing so? On Friday, Senator Elizabeth Warren said the answer was yes. Ms. Warren, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, proposed legislation she said was aimed at ensuring that ‘no President is above the law.’ She called on Congress to pass a law clarifying that the Justice Department can in fact indict the president of the United States, while also renewing her call to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. ‘Mueller’s statement made clear what those of us who have read his report already knew: He’s referring Donald Trump for impeachment, and it’s up to Congress to act,’ she wrote in a post on Medium. ‘But impeachment isn’t supposed to be the only way that a President can be held accountable for committing a crime,’ she wrote. ‘Congress should make it clear that Presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice. And when I’m President, I’ll appoint Justice Department officials who will reverse flawed policies so no President is shielded from criminal accountability.'” See also, Elizabeth Warren pledges to reverse Justice Department policy that prevents indicting sitting presidentsThe Washington Post, John Wagner, Friday, 31 May 2019: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Friday that she would seek to reverse a long-standing Department of Justice policy that prevents the indictment of a sitting president and push Congress to amend the law to make it clear that presidents can be charged with crimes. Warren’s proposals were the latest of the policy initiatives that have come to define her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, and they put her squarely back in the debate over whether President Trump should be removed from office.”

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler says there certainly is justification for impeaching TrumpPolitico, Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio, Friday, 31 May 2019: “House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Friday that there ‘certainly is’ justification for launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, but cautioned that the public first must agree that it’s warranted. ‘Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,’ Nadler (D-N.Y.) said during an appearance on WNYC. ‘The American people right now do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts. We have to get the facts out. We have to hold a series of hearings, we have to hold the investigations.’ Nadler emphasized that he intends to use the next few weeks to bring special counsel Robert Mueller’s report ‘to life,’ providing for a television audience the dramatic evidence that Mueller compiled about Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Part of that will include testimony from Mueller himself, Nadler said, even if Mueller sticks to his promise to limit his comments to the findings of his report. Nadler said revealing Mueller’s words and findings to a television audience would educate Americans about the president’s conduct in a way they haven’t been to this point.” See also, Full List: Who Supports an Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump? The New York Times, Alicia Parlapiano, Jason Kao, Emily Cochrane, and Catie Edmondson, Friday, 31 May 2019: “More than 50 House Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump, according to a New York Times survey. The Times is asking every representative for his or her position, starting with the Democrats, and will update this page with each response. Many House Democrats who do not currently support impeachment proceedings say investigations of Mr. Trump should continue. The White House has stonewalled these inquiries.”

The Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General finds detainees ‘standing on toilets’ for breathing room at border facility in Texas (El Paso) holding 900 people in space meant for 125CNN, Priscilla Alvarez, Friday, 31 May 2019: “The Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General has found ‘dangerous overcrowding’ and unsanitary conditions at an El Paso, Texas, Border Patrol processing facility following an unannounced inspection, according to a new report. The IG found ‘standing room only conditions’ at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center, which has a maximum capacity of 125 migrants. On May 7 and 8, logs indicated that there were ‘approximately 750 and 900 detainees, respectively. We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets,’ the report states. The report was first obtained by CNN.”

Continue reading Week 124, Friday, 31 May – Thursday, 6 June 2019 (Days 862-868)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 123: Friday, 24 May – Thursday, 30 May 2019 (Days 855-861)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 24 May 2019, Day 855:

 

Supreme Court Blocks Two Rulings Striking Down Voting MapsThe New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 24 May 2019: “The Supreme Court on Friday blocked rulings from federal courts in Ohio and Michigan that had struck down voting maps in those states as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. Both courts had found that Republican legislators had violated the Constitution by drawing voting districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates. The Supreme Court’s move was expected. The justices will soon decide, in a second pair of cases, whether voting maps can ever be so warped by politics as to cross a constitutional line. The answer to that question, in pending cases from Maryland and North Carolina, will very likely affect the cases from Ohio and Michigan.” See also, Supreme Court says Ohio and Michigan do not have to come up with new maps immediatelyThe Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 24 May 2019: “The Supreme Court on Friday put on hold lower-court decisions that said Ohio and Michigan had to come up with new electoral maps because of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The decision was not surprising, because the justices are currently considering whether judges should even have a role in policing partisan gerrymandering. There were no noted dissents in the orders for either state.”

Missouri Governor Mike Parson Signs Bill Outlawing Abortion After 8 WeeksThe New York Times, Mitch Smith, Friday, 24 May 2019: “Gov. Mike Parson of Missouri on Friday signed into law a bill outlawing abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy, joining several other states this year in enacting measures designed to limit women’s access to the procedure. The decision by Mr. Parson, a Republican, was not a surprise. It continued a season of legislative success for conservatives who oppose abortion and who see an opening to ultimately press their case to the Supreme Court.”

Students around the world skip school to protest and demand action on climate changeThe Washington Post, Friday, 24 May 2019: “Students in scores of countries around the world skipped school on Friday to stage protests against governmental inaction on climate change and to demand that world leaders address the issue immediately. The coordinated action follows one in March, in which an estimated 1.6 million students from 125 countries protested instead of going to school. It was the latest event in a movement called Fridays for Future, in which young people periodically take action on climate change. The movement was sparked by a Swedish teenage activist named Greta Thunberg, who in 2018 led a solo protest in front of the Swedish parliament with a sign saying ‘School strike for the climate.’ Pictures she posted on her social media accounts went viral, and the movement was born.”

Continue reading Week 123, Friday, 24 May – Thursday, 30 May 2019 (Days 855-861)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 122: Friday, 17 May – Thursday, 23 May 2019 (Days 848-854)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 17 May 2019, Day 848:

 

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Comply With Subpoena for Trump’s Tax ReturnsThe New York Times, Alan Rappeport and Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 17 May 2019: “Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Friday refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to hand over President Trump’s tax returns, a move that is likely to be the final step before the matter heads to the courts. For more than a month, the Treasury Department and House Democrats have exchanged letters about the request, which was initiated in April by Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.” See also, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin rejects Democrats’ subpoena for Trump’s tax returnsThe Washington Post, Jeff Stein, Friday, 17 May 2019: “Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Friday rejected a subpoena from House Democrats demanding President Trump’s tax returns, setting the stage for a court battle over the documents.” See also, Trump administration rejects subpoena for Trump’s tax returns, upping stakes in Battle with DemocratsPolitico, Brian Faler, Friday, 17 May 2019.

No Mueller, no McGahn and stalled investigations leave House Democrats frustratedThe Washington Post, Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis, Friday, 17 May 2019: “An increasing number of House Democrats are frustrated by their stalled investigations into President Trump, with an uncooperative chief executive, their own leader’s reluctance about impeachment and courts that could be slow to resolve the standoff. Democrats have yet to hear from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who led the nearly two-year investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election and possible involvement with the Trump campaign. Even with negotiations, the earliest Mueller could testify would be next month. And any hopes of former White house counsel Donald McGahn facing a congressional panel on Tuesday are slim, as the White House moves to block all current and former aides  from cooperating with congressional inquiries. Weighing all options, Democrats have raised the specter of imposing fines or jailing people who ignore subpoenas, extreme measures that have prompted some legal experts to wonder whether Democrats have a strategy for this constitutional conflict. A group of House Judiciary Committee Democrats privately have discussed ways to increase pressure on leadership to bring impeachment proceedings despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s wariness, according to several Democrats who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the plan.”

House passes bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identityThe Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 17 May 2019: “The House passed sweeping legislation Friday to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity after an emotional debate that underscored the divide between the two parties. Democrats cast the decades-in-the-making move to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a historic step to extend protections to LGBTQ Americans, with several gay and bisexual lawmakers emphasizing the need for the bill called the Equality Act. Republicans warned of the threat to religious freedom and argued that the measure could undermine women’s rights, with men who identify as women taking spots on women’s sports teams and denying them athletics scholarships. The bill would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education, jury service and federal financing, protecting people from being fired or harassed for their sexuality or gender identity. As Democrats cheered and applauded, the bill passed 236-to-173, with eight Republicans breaking ranks and joining all Democrats in backing the measure. It is unlikely to get a vote in the Republican-led Senate, and the White House has signaled President Trump would veto the measure if it ever reached his desk.” See also, House Equality Act Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gay and Transgender PeopleThe New York Times, Catie Edmondson, Friday, 17 May 2019: “The House passed sweeping legislation on Friday that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill, passed 236-173, comes as departments across the Trump administration have dismantled policies friendly to gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, like barring transgender recruits from serving in the military or formally rejecting complaints filed by transgender students who are barred from restrooms that match their gender identity.”

Continue reading Week 122, Friday, 17 May – Thursday, 23 May 2019 (Days 848-854)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 121: Friday, 10 May – Thursday, 16 May 2019 (Days 841-847)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 10 May 2019, Day 841:

 

Richard Neal, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Subpoenas Trump Tax ReturnsThe New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 10 May 2019: “The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee subpoenaed the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service on Friday, disregarding the Treasury secretary’s refusal this week to hand over six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns and demanding access. The subpoenas from Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Charles P. Rettig, the I.R.S. commissioner, amounted to an unexpected shift in tactics in the yearslong Democratic effort to secure tax returns that Mr. Trump has refused to release. Mr. Mnuchin had rejected a request for the returns made under a little-known provision of the federal tax code that dates back to the Teapot Dome scandal of Warren G. Harding’s administration nearly a century ago. So Mr. Neal is turning to a more conventional avenue: the subpoena.” See also, House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal subpoenas Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig over Trump tax returnsThe Washington Post, Jeff Stein, Friday, 10 May 2019. See also, Democrats subpoena Trump’s tax returns in escalating fight with White HousePolitico, Brian Faler and Aaron Lorenzo, Friday, 10 May 2019.

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn refused request by White House to say Trump did not obstruct justice after the release of the Mueller reportThe Washington Post, Carol D. Leonnig and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 10 May 2019: “President Trump sought to have former White House counsel Donald McGahn issue a public statement last month that he did not believe the president had engaged in criminal conduct when he sought to exert control over the Russia investigation — a request McGahn declined, according to people familiar with the episode.”  See also, White House Asked Former Counsel Donald McGahn to Declare Publicly That Trump Never Obstructed JusticeThe New York Times, Michael S. Schmidt, Friday, 10 May 2019: “White House officials asked at least twice in the past month for the key witness against President Trump in the Mueller report, Donald F. McGahn II, to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice, according to two people briefed on the requests. Mr. Trump asked White House officials to make the request to Mr. McGahn, who was the president’s first White House counsel, one of the people said. Mr. McGahn declined. His reluctance angered the president, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.” See also, Former White House Counsel Don McGahn Rebuffed Trump’s Request to Say He Didn’t Obstruct JusticeThe Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 10 May 2019: “Within a day of the release of the Mueller report last month, President Trump sought to have former White House counsel Don McGahn declare he didn’t consider the president’s 2017 directive that he seek Robert Mueller’s dismissal to be obstruction of justice, but Mr. McGahn rebuffed the request, according to people familiar with the matter.”

House Approves Disaster Relief and Puerto Rico Aid Over Trump’s OppositionThe New York Times, Emily Cochrane, Friday, 10 May 2019: “The House on Friday again approved a huge emergency relief bill for farmers and communities hit by hurricanes, wildfires, floods and other natural disasters, escalating a standoff with President Trump, who has resisted more aid to Puerto Rico and demanded additional money for immigration enforcement. Thirty-four House Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in approving the emergency package, which passed 257 to 150 and would send $19.1 billion in relief and recovery assistance across the country and give a quick cash infusion to farmers swamped by floods and caught in the president’s trade war. The package builds on a measure that was initially passed in January, in the midst of a government shutdown, and rejected by the Senate for not accommodating the floods that recently devastated the Midwest. That flood relief was included in the package passed on Friday, which should intensify pressure on the Senate to reach an agreement with or without the president.” See also, House passes Trump-opposed disaster-relief bill with more funding for Puerto RicoThe Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 10 May 2019.

Continue reading Week 121, Friday, 10 May – Thursday, 16 May 2019 (Days 841-847)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 120: Friday, 3 May – Thursday, 9 May 2019 (Days 834-840)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are usually my emphasis, though not always. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 3 May 2019, Day 834:

 

Ohio Congressional Map Is Illegal Gerrymander, Federal Court RulesThe New York Times, Trip Gabriel and Michael Wines, Friday, 3 May 2019: “A federal court on Friday tossed out Ohio’s congressional map, ruling that Republican state lawmakers had carved up the state to give themselves an illegal partisan advantage and to dilute Democrats’ votes in a way that predetermined the outcome of elections. The ruling, by a three-judge panel from the Federal District Court in Cincinnati, ordered new maps to be drawn by June 14 to be used for the 2020 election, when Democrats will fight to preserve their House majority. The ruling will go directly to the United States Supreme Court for review. The ruling follows decisions by four other federal courts striking down partisan gerrymanders in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maryland and, last week, in Michigan. All but Maryland were gerrymandered by Republicans. The Supreme Court, which last year sidestepped the issue of whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, is expected to rule this spring in appeals from Maryland and North Carolina. The rulings in those cases could determine whether the Supreme Court upholds this decision, alters it or nullifies it entirely.” See also, Federal judges declare Ohio congressional map unconstitutionalThe Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Friday, 3 May 2019: “A unanimous panel of federal judges on Friday declared Ohio’s Republican-drawn congression­al map unconstitutional, adding to a growing number of states where partisan gerrymandering has been outlawed. That decision and a similar one last month in Michigan could be seen as signals from the lower courts to their superiors. The Supreme Court is deciding whether judges even have a role in such disputes. While the high court regularly polices redistricting plans for racial gerrymandering, it has never found lawmakers’ partisan efforts to preserve power so extreme that their actions violate the constitutional rights of voters. The justices’ decision is expected by the term’s end in June.” See also, A federal appeals court just dealt a blow to gerrymandering. It probably won’t last. The Washington Post, Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, Friday, 3 May 2019.

House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler gives Attorney General William Barr deadline for access to the Mueller reportThe Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima, Friday, 3 May 2019: “The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has given Attorney General William P. Barr one last shot to accommodate lawmakers seeking access to a more complete version of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report before beginning contempt proceedings. In a letter Friday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) gave Barr until Monday to respond to his request that the Justice Department allow more lawmakers the chance to read the fuller report as well as turn over investigative material underlying the report. Barr had released a redacted version of the report on April 18. Earlier this week, citing a ‘compelling need to protect the autonomy and effectiveness of its investigations,’ the department said it was ‘unable to provide’ Mueller’s investigative files in response to a committee subpoena. ‘The committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation with the department,’ Nadler wrote. ‘But if the department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with a validly issued subpoena, the committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further legal recourse.'” See also, Democrats Try to Revive Talks Over Full Mueller Report as Contempt of Congress Vote LoomsThe New York Times, Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage, Friday, 3 May 2019: “House Democrats, threatening to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress, tried on Friday to revive negotiations with the Justice Department over a subpoena for Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and its underlying evidence. They offered to prioritize some material under subpoena over others and raised the possibility of limiting their request for the underlying evidence. At the same time, they asked the Justice Department to reconsider allowing all members of Congress to view a less-redacted version of his report.” See also, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler delivers ultimatum to Attorney General William Barr before holding him in contempt of CongressPolitico, Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney, Friday, 3 May 2019: “House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is making what he calls a final ‘counter offer’ to Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to grant immediate access to the underlying evidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. In a new letter to Barr on Friday, Nadler (D-N.Y.) gave the Justice Department until 9 a.m. Monday to comply with his adjusted request before moving forward with an effort to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a committee subpoena demanding Mueller’s full unredacted report and underlying documents by May 1.”

Jay Inslee, Running as a Climate Candidate, Wants Coal Gone in 10 YearsThe New York Times, Lisa Friedman and Matt Stevens, Friday, 3 May 2019: “Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington has centered his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination on a single issue, climate change. On Friday, he unveiled his first major climate policy proposal, calling for all coal-fired power plants to be closed in a decade.”

Continue reading Week 120, Friday, 3 May – Thursday, 9 May 2019 (Days 834-840)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 119: Friday, 26 April – Thursday, 2 May 2019: (Days 827-833)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 26 April 2019, Day 827:

 

Kansas Supreme Court rules state constitution protects abortion rights, a decision that could lead to challenges in other states, The Washington Post, Emily Wax-Thibodeaux and Annie Gowen, Friday, 26 April 2019: “The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution fundamentally protects abortion rights, blocking a state law that aimed to restrict a common procedure and declaring that Kansans have broad rights to control what happens to their own bodies regardless of federal court decisions. Judges ruled 6 to 1 on Friday that the Kansas constitution protects the ‘right of personal autonomy,’ meaning state law cannot abridge the right ‘to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.’ Abortion rights advocates immediately seized on the ruling as a landmark decision that could have widespread implications, providing a pathway to override restrictive state laws elsewhere. They also believe it could help battle potential federal court efforts to limit abortion rights protected by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Those who oppose abortion said the ruling was extreme, and Kansas groups vowed to seek an amendment to the state constitution — as other states have — to curtail certain abortion rights.” See also, Once a center of antiabortion extremism, Kansas’s protections are now stronger than ever, The Washington Post, Reis Thebault, published on Saturday, 27 April 2018.

Trump defends Charlottesville comments by praising a Confederate general, The Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 26 April 2019: “President Trump on Friday defended his comments after the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ protests in which an avowed neo-Nazi killed a woman and injured dozens of others in Charlottesville, arguing that his focus was on the protesters defending the monument of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Trump, pressed on whether he stood by his comments that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ told reporters, ‘If you look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general.’ Former vice president Joe Biden resurrected Trump’s response to the deadly rally by self-professed white supremacists in a video to launch his presidential campaign on Thursday. In it, Biden said Trump’s remarks ‘shocked the conscience of this nation.'” See also, Trump says he answered Charlottesville questions ‘perfectly,’ Politico, Katie Galioto, Friday, 26 April 2019: “President Donald Trump on Friday defended his 2017 statement that there were ‘very fine people’ on both sides of the deadly white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Va., comments that recently came under fire again after former Vice President Joe Biden attacked Trump for them. When asked for clarification on his remark about the racially charged clash that left one person dead, Trump stood by his claim made more than 1½ years prior.”

Trump Pulls Out of Arms Treaty During Speech at N.R.A. Convention, The New York Times, Katie Rogers, Friday, 26 April 2019: “In a speech to National Rifle Association members on Friday that was part political rally and part pep talk, President Trump called himself a champion of gun rights. Then he proved it, whipping out a pen onstage to sign a letter that would effectively cease America’s involvement in an arms treaty designed to regulate the international sale of conventional weapons. Mr. Trump said that his administration ‘will never’ ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to discourage the sale of conventional weapons to countries that do not protect human rights. Although the accord was brokered by the United Nations and signed by President Barack Obama, it has never been ratified by the Senate. Experts in arms control note that the accord, even if ratified by the Senate, would not require the United States to alter any existing domestic laws or procedures governing how it sells conventional weapons overseas.” See also, Fact-Checking Trump’s Speech to the N.R.A., The New York Times, Linda Qiu, Friday, 26 April 2019: “In a speech to the National Rifle Association on Friday, President Trump made misleading statements on drug prices, his border wall, MS-13 and an international arms treaty.”

Continue reading Week 119, Friday, 26 April – Thursday, 2 May 2019 (Days 827-833)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 118: Friday, 19 April – Thursday, 25 April 2019 (Days 820-826)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

For “a weekly newsletter celebrating people-powered wins against the Trump administration’s agenda,” visit Small Victories. 

For independent global news, visit Democracy Now!

 

Friday, 19 April 2019, Day 820:

 

House Democrats Subpoena the Full Mueller Report and the Underlying EvidenceThe New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Friday, 19 April 2019: “The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena on Friday demanding that the Justice Department hand over an unredacted version of Robert S. Mueller III’s report and the evidence underlying it by May 1, and pledged ‘major hearings’ on its findings. The subpoena, one of the few issued thus far by House Democrats, escalates a fight with Attorney General William P. Barr over what material Congress is entitled to see from the special counsel’s nearly two-year investigation. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, asked for all evidence obtained by Mr. Mueller’s investigators, including summaries of witness interviews and classified intelligence — and indicated he intended to air it to the public. ‘Even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrongdoing by President Trump and some of his closest associates,’ Mr. Nadler said in a statement. ‘It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and to decide what steps we must take going forward.’ The subpoena was sent as House Democrats, who have the power to initiate impeachment proceedings if they so choose, debate how to proceed with the new evidence handed over Thursday by Mr. Mueller. Democratic-led committees have already initiated their own investigations of Russian election influence, as well as obstruction of justice and abuse of power, which can incorporate the findings in the shorter term. But there were also new calls in the wake of the report from the party’s left flank — including Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat running for president — to go further and open a formal impeachment inquiry.” See also, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler subpoenas the Department of Justice for the full version of the Mueller reportPolitico, Caitlin Oprysko, Kyle Cheney, and Andrew Desideerio, Friday, 19 April 2019: “House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Friday issued a subpoena to the Justice Department for an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, in addition to the underlying grand jury evidence and testimony. The subpoena, which demands the material by May 1, escalates the House’s confrontation with Attorney General William Barr, whom Democrats have accused of whitewashing Mueller’s findings and misleading the public about the nature of the special counsel’s conclusions in order to protect President Donald Trump.” See also, House issues subpoena for full unredacted version of the Mueller reportThe Guardian, Lauren Gambino and Jon Swaine, Friday 19 April 2019. See also, Mueller report updates: Trump and his supporters seek to turn a page, as Democrats issue a subpoena for the full special counsel’s report that details what they say is ‘alarming’ behaviorThe Washington Post, John Wagner and Colby Itkowitz, Friday, 19 April 2019. See also, William Barr Misled Everyone About the Mueller Report. Now Democrats Are Calling for His Resignation. The Intercept, James Risen, Friday, 19 April 2019: “Attorney General William Barr is coming under increasing fire from congressional Democrats for statements he made before the release of the Mueller report. Critics say the remarks purposefully downplayed how damaging special counsel Robert Mueller’s report was for President Donald Trump. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said Friday morning that his committee has issued a subpoena to the Justice Department to obtain the full, unredacted report. The subpoena demands that the Justice Department turn over the report by May 1. Nadler also asked Mueller to testify before his committee. ‘It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings,’ Nadler said. Critics said both Barr’s press conference and the four-page letter were part of Barr’s attempt to whitewash the Mueller report’s findings.”

Trump Lashes Out as Mueller Report Reverberates Around WashingtonThe Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Ballhaus, Vivian Salama, and Natalie Andrews, Friday, 19 April 2019: “President Trump declared parts of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report ‘total bullshit’ Friday as House Democrats demanded an unredacted version of a document whose findings reverberated through the capital. Mr. Trump in recent weeks had hailed the report as having exonerated him, after Attorney General William Barr in a letter to Congress said the special counsel hadn’t established collusion with Russians or decided to charge the president with obstruction of justice. On Friday, Mr. Trump questioned the authenticity of administration aides’ notes that informed their accounts of the president’s efforts to interfere in the investigation, calling parts of the report ‘fabricated & totally untrue.'” See also, Trump uses profanity to complain about the Mueller report, The Washington Post, Colby Itkowitz and John Wagner, Thursday, 19 April 2019: “President Trump sought Friday to discredit portions of the special counsel’s report in which others described behavior that could be seen as obstruction of justice, calling their assertions ‘total bullshit.’ Less than 24 hours ago, Trump and his allies took a victory lap after the 448-page redacted report was made public, saying that the findings fully exonerate him. But in morning tweets, Trump complained about the report’s finding, arguing that because he chose not to testify during the probe, he never got to tell his side of the story.” See also, Trump blames former White House counsel Donald McGahn after Mueller paints damning portrait with notes from White House aidesThe Washington Post, Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey, and Robert Costa, Friday, 19 April 2019: “President Trump seethed Friday over the special counsel’s portrayal of his protracted campaign to thwart the Russia investigation and directed much of his ire at former White House counsel Donald McGahn, whose ubiquity in the report’s footnotes laid bare his extensive cooperation in chronicling the president’s actions. Some of the report’s most derogatory scenes were attributed not only to the recollections of McGahn and other witnesses but also to the contemporaneous notes kept by several senior administration officials — the kind of paper trail that Trump has long sought to avoid leaving. Many White House aides use pen and paper both as a defensive mechanism — such as when then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly documented Trump’s move to grant security clearances to his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner — and as a means of creating the first draft of a page-turning presidency. But the fact that some of those notes became primary source material for Mueller to paint a vivid portrait of Trump’s efforts to derail the investigation angered the president, who was stewing over the media coverage as he decamped to Florida for the holiday weekend, according to people familiar with his thinking.” See also, A day after celebrating the Mueller report as a vindication, Trump seems to be souring on its conclusionsPolitico, Nancy Cook, Andrew Restuccia, and Caitlin Oprysko, Friday, 19 April 2019.  See also, Reaction to the Mueller Report One Day After Its ReleaseThe New York Times, Eileen Sullivan and Michael Tackett, Friday, 19 April 2019. See also, Trump campaign punishes Don McGahn’s law firmPolitico, Nancy Cook, Friday, 19 April 2019: “The Trump campaign has hired its own in-house attorney for its 2020 reelection bid — shifting future business away from Jones Day, the law firm, that has represented Trump since his first run for president.”

See Which Sections of the Mueller Report Were RedactedThe New York Times, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Derek Watkins, and Karen Yourish, Friday, 19 April 2019: “About 10 percent of the special counsel’s 448-page report is blacked out. A bird’s-eye view of the report reveals the pattern of redactions. More is kept secret in the first volume of the report, which covers Russian interference in the 2016 election, than in the second, which covers possible obstruction of justice…. A majority of the redactions, about 69 percent in total, were made because the material related to ongoing investigations. 18 percent of the redactions were based on legal rules that generally forbid the disclosure of grand jury material. 8 percent of the redactions were related to classified information that intelligence officials feared could compromise sensitive sources and methods. 5 percent of the redactions were made because the material infringed on personal privacy.” See also, Mueller report offers clues to what’s behind the redactionsThe Washington Post, Joe Fox, John Muyskens, and Danielle Rindler, Friday, 19 April 2019: “Of the 448 pages in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, 178 pages — 39 percent — contain a redaction. In many cases, context and other clues offer insight into what might be behind the black boxes. Attorney General William P. Barr’s office grouped redactions into four categories. The vast majority of redactions were material from grand jury proceedings, kept secret by law, or details whose public disclosure could jeopardize ongoing investigations. To a lesser degree, material was redacted if it could ‘compromise sources and methods’ used in intelligence gathering or would ‘unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.’ The first volume of the report, which deals with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, is the most heavily redacted. It contains almost all of the report’s grand jury redactions. The second volume, which deals with the question of whether President Trump obstructed justice, was most often redacted because of harm to ongoing investigations.”

Continue reading Week 118, Friday, 19 April – Thursday, 25 April 2019 (Days 820-826)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 117: Friday, 12 April – Thursday, 18 April 2019 ( Days 813-819)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently during the day. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 12 April 2019, Day 813:

 

Concerns of young protesters about climate change are justifiedScience, Gregor Hagedorn, Peter Kalmus, Michael Mann, Sara Vicca, Joke Van den Berge, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Dominique Bourg, Jan Rotmans, Roope Kaaronen, Stefan Rahmstorf, Helga Kromp-Kolb, Gottfried Kirchengast, Reto Knutti, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Philippe Thalmann, Raven Cretney, Alison Green, Kevin Anderson, Martin Hedberg, Douglas Nilsson, Amita Kuttner, and Katharine Hayhoe, Friday, 12 April 2019: “The world’s youth have begun to persistently demonstrate for the protection of the climate and other foundations of human well-being. As scientists and scholars who have recently initiated similar letters of support in our countries, we call for our colleagues across all disciplines and from the entire world to support these young climate protesters. We declare: Their concerns are justified and supported by the best available science. The current measures for protecting the climate and biosphere are deeply inadequate.”

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ a Day After His Administration Said the Policy Proposal Was Never Seriously ConsideredThe New York Times, Eileen Sullivan, Friday, 12 April 2019: “President Trump said on Friday that he was open to releasing migrants detained at the border into mostly Democratic ‘sanctuary cities,’ suggesting that the idea should make liberals ‘very happy’ because of their immigration policies. Mr. Trump’s comments came a day after his administration said the policy proposal was never seriously considered. But after the president’s Twitter posts on Friday, a White House spokesman said Democrats should work with the administration to welcome migrants into their districts…. Democratic lawmakers do not want ‘open borders,’ as the president has suggested. They favor improving border security, but they do not support many of Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration policy proposals, such as building a wall along the southwestern border…. Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, a state with several sanctuary cities, criticized the president’s proposal. ‘Trump’s plan to release migrants into “enemy” cities as if they are some kind of contagion is reprehensible,’ Mr. Markey wrote in a Twitter post. ‘Trump is obsessed with the border and sanctuary cities because he only wins by dividing people.'” See also, Trump says he is giving ‘strong considerations’ to releasing immigrant detainees in ‘sanctuary cities,’ The Washington Post, David Nakamura, Josh Dawsey, John Wagner, and Rachael Bade, Friday, 12 April 2019: “President Trump moved aggressively Friday to take ownership of an internal White House plan to release immigrant detainees into ‘sanctuary cities’ that his aides had sought to minimize a day earlier by saying it was shelved months ago after only informal consideration. Directly contradicting his staff, Trump declared in a tweet that he was giving the plan ‘strong considerations,’ and, at an event later in the day, sarcastically challenged Democrats in liberal jurisdictions to accept the immigrants with ‘open arms.’ The president said that if Congress refuses to change immigration laws to allow his administration to more quickly deport a surge of asylum-seeking Central American families, ‘we’ll bring — I call them the “illegals” because they enter the country illegally — to sanctuary cities and areas and let those particular areas take care of it.'” See also, Trump threatens to send undocumented immigrants to sanctuary citiesPolitico, Rebecca Morin, Friday, 12 April 2019. See also, Seattle isn’t afraid of immigrants, Mr. TrumpThe Washington Post, Jenny A. Durkan, Friday, 12 April 2019: Jenny A. Durkan, a Democrat, is mayor of Seattle. “Here’s a message to President Trump: Seattle is not afraid of immigrants and refugees. In fact, we have always welcomed people who have faced tremendous hardships around the world. Immigrants and refugees are part of Seattle’s heritage, and they will continue to make us the city of the future. What does scare us? A president and federal government that would seek to weaponize a law enforcement agency to punish perceived political enemies. A would-be despot who thinks the rule of law does not apply to him.”

Trump Urged Homeland Security Official Kevin McAleenan to Close the Border Despite an Earlier Promise of a DelayThe New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Annie Karni, and Eric Schmitt, Friday, 12 April 2019: “President Trump last week privately urged Kevin McAleenan, the border enforcement official he was about to name as acting secretary of homeland security, to close the southwestern border to migrants despite having just said publicly that he was delaying a decision on the step for a year, according to three people briefed about the conversation. It was not clear what Mr. Trump meant by his request or his additional comment to Mr. McAleenan that he would pardon him if he encountered any legal problems as a result of taking the action. Federal judges have already blocked the administration’s attempts to limit asylum seekers who illegally enter the country, and it is not likely that Mr. McAleenan would have ended up in jail if he had followed the president’s directive. One of the people briefed on the conversation said it was possible Mr. Trump had intended the comments to Mr. McAleenan as a joke. But the conversation, which took place during the president’s visit to the border town of Calexico, Calif., alarmed officials at the Department of Homeland Security who were told of it, according to the people familiar with the remarks. It was another instance of the president trying to undo a decision and to stretch the boundaries of his power, even when told there were legal issues at stake. The same situation played out on Friday, when Mr. Trump said he was considering releasing asylum seekers into so-called sanctuary cities after administration officials told reporters the proposal was rejected because of legal issues.”

Continue reading Week 117, Friday, 12 April – Thursday, 18 April 2019 (Days 813-819)

[Read more…]

Trump Administration, Week 116: Friday, 5 April – Thursday, 11 April 2019 (Days 806-812)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ for a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 5 April 2019, Day 806:

 

Trump Lawyer Asserts President’s Right to Keep Tax Returns PrivateThe New York Times, Nicholas Fandos and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 5 April 2019: “President Trump’s personal lawyer on Friday asserted Mr. Trump’s right as a citizen to keep his tax returns private and told the Treasury Department not to hand the returns over to House Democrats, foreshadowing what has the potential to be a far-reaching legal fight that could reach the Supreme Court. The lawyer, William S. Consovoy, argued that Democrats who have demanded to see Mr. Trump’s tax information had no legitimate legislative reason to request it and that Representative Richard E. Neal’s decision this week to ask for six years of the president’s personal and business returns flouts ‘fundamental constitutional constraints.’… Mr. Consovoy’s views have no direct bearing on the case. The little known tax code provision employed by the Democrats in demanding Mr. Trump’s returns says only that the Internal Revenue Service ‘shall furnish’ the information, giving it and its parent agency, the Treasury Department, little leeway in deciding how to respond…. Mr. Neal made the request through an obscure but frequently used provision of the federal tax code — Section 6103 — that allows Congress’s tax-writing committees to view tax information on any filer.” See also, Trump lawyer calls on the Treasury to reject Democrats’ demand for tax returns until the Justice Department weighs inThe Washington Post, Jeff Stein and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 5 April 2019: “An attorney for President Trump on Friday told the Treasury Department it should not turn over the president’s tax returns until it receives a legal opinion from the Justice Department, calling on Treasury to deny Democrats’ demands for six years of the president’s records…. On Wednesday, Neal formally requested that the Internal Revenue Service, which is part of the Treasury Department, turn over six years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns. A 1924 law cited by Neal states that the treasury secretary ‘shall furnish . . . any return or return information specified’ in a request from the head of the House or Senate tax-writing committees. Trump has for months signaled he would resist attempts to compel him to turn over his taxes.” See also, Trump’s Lawyer Urges the IRS to Reject Democrats’ Demand for Trump’s Tax ReturnsThe Wall Street Journal, Richard Rubin, Friday, 5 April 2019: “A lawyer for President Trump said that House Democrats’ request for the president’s tax returns flouts constitutional constraints and should be rejected by the Internal Revenue Service…. Mr. Trump broke a four-decade tradition among presidents and major-party candidates in 2016 when he refused to disclose his tax returns. He sometimes has said he would release his returns once audits are complete, and he sometimes has said that no one cares about his taxes.”

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals narrows path for disclosure of grand jury information in Mueller reportPolitico, Josh Gerstein, Friday, 5 April 2019: “A federal appeals court on Friday tossed an obstacle in the way of grand jury information in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report being released directly to the public, but the decision may not slow disclosure of that material to Congress. The decision from a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not directly address Mueller’s report, but involved a grand jury investigation more than six decades ago into the disappearance of a Columbia University professor and political activist, Jesús Galíndez. In the new ruling, the panel majority concluded that federal district court judges lack the authority to order the release of typically secret grand jury material except in situations specially authorized in a federal court rule. While there is no exception that covers cases of intense political or historical interest, courts have repeatedly held that they have “inherent authority” to make such disclosures in unusual cases. However, the D.C. Circuit decision Friday sided with a long-standing Justice Department position that those rulings were mistaken and a formal change to the grand jury secrecy rule would be needed to give judges that power.” See also, Federal Appeals court in D.C. rules judges may not create exceptions to grand-jury secrecy rulesThe Washington Post, Tom Jackman and Spencer S. Hsu, Friday, 5 April 2019: “The federal appeals court in Washington on Friday ruled that grand-jury testimony and information may be disclosed only to prosecutors, defendants and other grand juries and that judges may not carve out exceptions to the secrecy already mandated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The split decision, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, could lead to further confusion over the public release of the report written by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III documenting his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, as well as related investigative materials.”

Trump Administration’s Census Citizenship Question Plans Are Halted by 3rd Federal JudgeNPR, Hansi Lo Wang, Friday, 5 April 2019: “The Trump administration’s plans to add a hotly contested citizenship question to the 2020 census have suffered another major blow in the courts. The question asks, ‘Is this person a citizen of the United States?’ A third federal judge has found the decision to include it on forms for the national head count to be unlawful. ‘The unreasonableness of Defendants’ addition of a citizenship question to the Census is underscored by the lack of any genuine need for the citizenship question, the woefully deficient process that led to it, the mysterious and potentially improper political considerations that motivated the decision and the clear pretext offered to the public,’ wrote U.S. District Judge George Hazel of Maryland in a 119-page opinion released Friday.” See also, Federal judge in Maryland blocks Trump administration’s plan to add citizenship question to 2020 CensusThe Washington Post, Tara Bahrampour, Friday, 5 April 2019: “A federal judge in Maryland ruled Friday against the government’s addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, the third decision against the Trump administration on the issue. Judge George J. Hazel, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, found that the government violated administrative law when it decided to add the question last year. The ruling, like two earlier ones, is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.”

Continue reading Week 116, Friday, 5 April – Thursday, 11 April 2019 (Days 806-812)

[Read more…]