Stories about
Patrick Leahy


Patrick Joseph Leahy (/ˈleɪˌhiː/; born March 31, 1940) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Vermont, a seat he was first elected to in 1974. A member of the Democratic Party, Leahy held the position of President pro tempore of the United States Senate from December 17, 2012, to January 6, 2015, and was thus during that time third in the presidential line of succession. He is currently the most senior member of the Senate and took office at the age of 34 years, younger than any other current U.S. Senator. Leahy received the title of President pro tempore emeritus upon the commencement of the 114th Congress. He is the last remaining member of the Senate to have served prior to the 1976 election of President Jimmy Carter.

The Federalist

Published  2 days ago

Of all the Russian conspiracy angles, the one alleging Jeff Sessions is working on behalf of the Russians is easily the most outlandish.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Democratic leaders directed their deputies on the 2019 border security panel to hide their negotiating victories from President Donald Trump.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

A Republican-Democrat border deal keeps current rates of Catch and Release of illegal aliens, border crossers, and adults who have trafficked children across the U.S.-Mexico border at around the same level as this previous year.

As Breitbart News reported, the Republican and Democrat lawmakers’ deal includes about $1.3 billion in border wall funding — a fraction of the $5.7 billion that President Trump had requested — that can only be used in certain areas of the southern border and must be the bollard fencing that the Bush and Obama administrations previously deployed. The funding will add 55 miles of new barriers at the border.

Additionally, the deal keeps the amount of detention space that federal immigration officials need to detain illegal aliens and border crossers at about current levels. As of today, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is only funded for about 40,250 beds in detention centers.

Due to the massive number of illegal aliens in the U.S. — around 12 to 22 million — and roughly 1,300 new border crossers coming to the country every day, ICE officials have had to routinely exceed this 40,250 bed limit.

Trump requested Republicans last year, when they held the House and Senate, to fund additional detention space. GOP lawmakers, though, refused.

The Republican-Democrat deal, by keeping detention space at essentially the same level, allows for the Catch and Release program — whereby illegal aliens and border crossers are released into the interior of the country due to a lack of space — to remain at the same pace as in 2018.

ICE officials have said that since December 2018, federal immigration officials have had to release about 4,000 adults and the children they trafficked across the border into the interior of the country. Every month, the federal officials are encountering about 13,000 adults and children at the southern border. In the process, officials said about 3,000 are being released into the U.S. every month.

In total for 2018, ICE released 180,000 illegal aliens and border crossers into the interior of the U.S., though officials said the mass release is not all due to a lack of detention space. Some of the releases are due to the medical conditions of the detainee or because a judge has ordered the detainee be released.

Breitbart News has chronicled the Trump administration’s continuing release of illegal aliens and border crossers into the country. For example, at the end of 2018, the administration released more than 2,000 border crossers and their children into the interior of the U.S. over the course of just a couple weeks.

These illegal aliens and border crossers are driven into the interior of the country and dropped off en masse at bus stops. Some are required to wear ankle bracelets. Experts have told Breitbart News that the ankle monitors, though, are ineffective and that newly released detainees simply remove the bracelet once out of ICE custody.

The conference committee was formed after Trump reopened the federal government following a shutdown without securing any funding for the border wall. Members of the committee include:

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Texas Rep. Kay Granger, Tennesee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Georgia Rep. Tom Graves, and Mississippi Rep. Steven Palazzo, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, New York Rep. Nita Lowey, California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, North Carolina Rep. David Price, California Rep. Barbara Lee, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, and California Rep. Pete Aguilar.

The committee was formed to work on a funding package for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a deadline of February 15, a funding route that experts have said the president never had to take.

Defense Department officials have reiterated that Trump does not need approval from Congress and, also, does not have to declare a national emergency to begin construction of the border wall. Instead, the president could have invoked 10 United States Code § 284, which authorizes the U.S. military to build barriers at the southern border, a Pentagon official has testified to Congress.

Illegal immigration at the southern border is expected to reach levels that have not been seen since President George W. Bush if reforms are not implemented this year. Researchers project, at current rates, there will be more than 600,000 illegal aliens apprehended at the border this year. In December 2018, there were about 51,000 border crossers apprehended and 52,000 apprehended in November 2018. This is a two-month border crosser population that exceeds the total population of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

Hogan Gidley, White House deputy press secretary, told Fox News he wasn’t sure if Pres. Trump would support this compromised negotiation to avert another government shutdown. Let me say; there will be a lot of disappointed Trump supporters if this is signed.

On Monday night, lawmakers part of this compromise committee leaked out small details about a possible bill that would avert another government shutdown this Friday by including $1.375 billion for the border barrier. This is less than the Senate $1.6 billion offered late last year and way less than the $5.7 billion passed by the House and accepted by President Trump.

McConnell and the Senate offered 1.6 billion in October 2018 so this 1.3 billion is less than that AND Democrats get detention beds dropped.

Who's negotiating for Republicans again? https://t.co/mtYCsz4Qy7

“We’re not sure yet, to be quite honest,” Gidley said during an interview on Fox News when asked if the deal was something Trump would approve.

He added that it’s “very difficult to comment” without seeing the details of the agreement.

“I’m not really ready to focus on what could be in there,” Gidley said. “I would like to focus on what is actually in there. We haven’t seen that yet. We’ve heard some rumors and we’ve heard some reports. We’ve seen some reporting on exactly what could or could not be in there.”

“It’s not consistent with what we’re hearing coming out of the conference committee,” he added. “So until we actually see it, it is very difficult to comment on it.”

“We don’t know what’s in the document,” Hogan Gidley says, referring to compromise border security deal.

Gidley says he hasn’t talked to Trump yet today after president’s 2:30a arrival back at White House after Texas rally, but Mulvaney told staff: need to hear nuances of deal. pic.twitter.com/OOKbkSM0y4

I don’t care if Senators Richard Shelby, Patrick Leahy, and House Representatives Nita Lowey and Kay Granger came out with white doves and walking on water singing praises on this compromise, it’s a bad deal. Democrats seem to have once again been able to swindle Republicans on the specifics to get what they want and giving Trump a piece of junk to sign.

I will admit the final details are not out yet, but from what they have released, I am not sure I want to hear the rest.

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Carter Page, a U.S. citizen, who was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump presidential campaign in early ...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

A Republican-Democrat border security deal that is expected to be offered to President Trump funds about $1.3 billion for a United States-Mexico border wall and includes no increase in detention space to control increasing illegal immigration at the border.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have announced that they have reached a deal on border wall funding to avoid a government shutdown. The deal, according to details by the Washington Post, includes about $1.3 billion in border wall funding — a fraction of the $5.7 billion that Trump had requested from Republicans and Democrats.

This funding is set to provide about 55 miles of new border wall along the roughly 2,000-mile long southern border. Much like the 2018 omnibus spending, which prevented Trump from building a border wall out of new materials, the deal is set to tack on stipulations as to what the barrier can be made from and where it can be placed.

Additionally, the deal keeps detention space for federal immigration officials to detain illegal aliens and border crossers at the same levels that have been funded over the last two years. The deal includes about 40,250 beds for immigration detention facilities, about 11,500 fewer beds than Trump had requested.

The conference committee was formed after Trump reopened the federal government following a shutdown without securing any funding for the border wall. Members of the committee include:

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Texas Rep. Kay Granger, Tennesee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Georgia Rep. Tom Graves, and Mississippi Rep. Steven Palazzo, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, New York Rep. Nita Lowey, California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, North Carolina Rep. David Price, California Rep. Barbara Lee, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, and California Rep. Pete Aguilar.

The committee was formed to work on a funding package for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a deadline of February 15, a funding route that experts have said the president never had to take.

Defense Department officials have reiterated that Trump does not need approval from Congress and, also, does not have to declare a national emergency to begin construction of the border wall. Instead, the president could have invoked 10 United States Code § 284, which authorizes the U.S. military to build barriers at the southern border, a Pentagon official has testified to Congress.

In the meantime, illegal immigration at the southern border is expected to reach levels that have not been seen since President George W. Bush. Researchers project, at current rates, there will be more than 600,000 illegal aliens apprehended at the border this year. In December 2018, there were about 51,000 border crossers apprehended.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

America’s sheriffs are warning Congress to stop a proposed backroom deal that would institute a ceiling on the number of illegal immigrants that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can detain.

According to letters sent to House and Senate lawmakers on Friday, the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the Major Country Sheriffs of America claim that if ICE is forced to release detainees, over 8,300 criminal illegals will be sent to the streets and potentially lost to the administrative and judicial systems.

The letters were obtained by The Daily Caller Sunday after contacting the NSA.

The brokered agreement would mandate that ICE can hold no more than 16,500 people at a time. The negotiations began last December as part of the talks surrounding the partial government shutdown. Discussions resumed after the reopening of the federal government and are reportedly ongoing with another shutdown potentially looming. (RELATED: Raid Leads To More Than 100 ICE Arrests In New York)

“Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE’s ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk,” the letters read. One letter was sent to Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, while a second identical letter was sent to Texas Republican Rep. Kay Granger and New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey.

The letter warned, “Any legislation that reduces ICE’s detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions, but also impact local law enforcement’s ability to protect the communities they serve. In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody.” (RELATED: Report: ICE Drops Off Illegal Aliens On The Streets Of Texas)

The correspondence noted, “Over 90 percent of ICE’s arrests are aliens who have a criminal conviction, have been arrested for a criminal, or have been previously removed. Placing a cap on ICE detention beds will undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States.”

U.S.

Published  1 week ago

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporte...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Five million Latin Americans plan to migrate to the United States in the next 12 months, and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter the country.

Those statistics were in a report from Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO at Gallup:

Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.

The poll came as Democrats began using their new political clout to try to widen the catch-and-release loopholes in President Donald Trump’s border defenses.

Breitbart News reported:

Democrats say the DHS does not need so many detention beds but instead can release and track migrants or resident illegals by using “Alternatives to Detention,” such as monitors strapped to migrants’ ankles.

Democrats also argue that migrants who bring children should not be detained. If that rule is adopted by Congress, all migrants who bring children to the border would be quickly released into the U.S. jobs market.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman Katie Waldman rejected the Democrats’ proposals, saying in a statement:

Without the necessary detention authority and sufficient funding for family beds to enable ICE to detain family units when they are ordered removed, ICE will still only be able to remove a very small percentage of family units, thereby increasing the pull factors and further contributing to the border crisis. For example last year, only one percent of all removals were on ATD, at a cost of $72,000 per removal.

“Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan,” Clifton concluded. “What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.”

The Republicans on the DHS funding panel include Sens. Richard Shelby (AL), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), John Hoeven (ND), and Roy Blunt (MO), as well as Reps. Kay Granger (TX), Chuck Fleischmann (TN), Tom Graves (GA), and Steven Palazzo (MS).

The Democrats on the panel are Sens. Patrick Leahy (VT), Richard Durbin (IL), and Jon Tester (MT), along with Reps. Nita Lowey (NY), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), David Price (NC), Barbara Lee (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), and Pete Aguilar (CA).

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 week ago

Nearly 3,000 sheriffs from across the country are joining together and warning lawmakers in Washington that maybe they don’t know what is best when it comes to immigration and its costs on local communities.

These sheriffs are collectively warning House and Senate negotiators to reject the current immigration deal they are negotiating as it would allow for the release of over 8,300 criminal immigrants back onto the streets.

“This dangerous congressional proposal not only jeopardizes the risk of our national security, but hinders our law enforcement officers from effectively enforcing and upholding the law and protecting their communities,” the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America said in a letter to the D.C. lawmakers, as the Washington Examiner reports.

The deal is a bad one, the sheriffs explain in the letter, as it also does not include any money for the construction of a new border wall. It also caps the number of immigrants the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can detain.

From the Washington Examiner:

According to reports, the emerging deal does not include the money President Trump wants for a physical wall, and it does not include the number of beds Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it needs to house illegal immigrants arrested inside the United States.

Most of those arrested inside the U.S. have criminal records, convictions and have been deported before. The sheriffs suggested that those released often never return for court dates.

“Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE’s ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk,” said the two letters signed by Sheriff John Layton, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Grady Judd, president of the Major County Sheriffs of America, and Sheriff Mike Bouchard, vice president of governmental affairs for Major County Sheriffs of America.

According to the report, the letter from the sheriffs’ associations was addressed to Republican Senator Richard Shelby, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger, and Democrat Congresswoman Nita Lowey.

Read the letter below:

“Any legislation that reduces ICE’s detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions, but also impact local law enforcement’s ability to protect the communities they serve. In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody. To achieve the 16,500 adult average detainee population (ADP) caps for the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, a net reduction of 9,264 adults by the end of this fiscal year would be required.

“Approximately 72 percent of ICE’s current detention population is subject to mandatory detention due to the alien having certain convictions or having committed certain acts. Over 90 percent of ICE’s arrests are aliens who have a criminal conviction, have been arrested for a criminal offense, or have been previously removed. Placing a cap on ICE detention beds will undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States.”

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

America’s sheriffs are warning Congress to stop a proposed backroom deal that would institute a ceiling on the number of illegal immigrants that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can detain.

According to letters sent to House and Senate lawmakers on Friday, the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the Major Country Sheriffs of America claim that if ICE is forced to release detainees, over 8,300 criminal illegals will be sent to the streets and potentially lost to the administrative and judicial systems.

The letters were obtained by The Daily Caller Sunday after contacting the NSA.

The brokered agreement would mandate that ICE can hold no more than 16,500 people at a time. The negotiations began last December as part of the talks surrounding the partial government shutdown. Discussions resumed after the reopening of the federal government and are reportedly ongoing with another shutdown potentially looming. (RELATED: Raid Leads To More Than 100 ICE Arrests In New York)

“Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE’s ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk,” the letters read. One letter was sent to Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, while a second identical letter was sent to Texas Republican Rep. Kay Granger and New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey.

The letter warned, “Any legislation that reduces ICE’s detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions, but also impact local law enforcement’s ability to protect the communities they serve. In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody.” (RELATED: Report: ICE Drops Off Illegal Aliens On The Streets Of Texas)

The correspondence noted, “Over 90 percent of ICE’s arrests are aliens who have a criminal conviction, have been arrested for a criminal, or have been previously removed. Placing a cap on ICE detention beds will undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States.”

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Democratic legislators are using the budget/wall negotiations to reopen catch-and-release loopholes which have been narrowed since 2016.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

Juan Carlos LLorca/AP

Some 3,000 sheriffs from around the country are urging lawmakers and administration officials crafting an immigration packages to drop a proposed cap on the number of illegals aliens ICE can hold, warning it will free over 8,300 criminal immigrants and endanger the public.

In a letter to House and Senate negotiators, the National Sheriffs’ Association and Major County Sheriffs of America said, “This dangerous congressional proposal not only jeopardizes the risk of our national security, but hinders our law enforcement officers from effectively enforcing and upholding the law and protecting their communities.”

The letters were provided to Secrets.

According to reports, the emerging deal does not include the money President Trump wants for a physical wall and it does not include the number of beds Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it needs to house illegal immigrants arrested inside the United States.

Most of those arrested inside the U.S. have criminal records, convictions and have been deported before. The sheriffs suggested that those released often never return for court dates.

“Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE’s ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk,” said the two letters signed by Sheriff John Layton, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Grady Judd, president of the Major County Sheriffs of America, and Sheriff Mike Bouchard, vice president of governmental affairs for Major County Sheriffs of America.

The legislation puts a cap on those ICE can hold at an average of 16,500.

If passed, that would require ICE to release over 9,000, said the sheriffs, and they estimated that at least 90 percent are criminals.

The negotiations are ending soon in order to get legislation passed before a mid-February deadline that must be met to avoid another partial government shutdown.

In their letter to Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey and Republican Rep. Kay Granger, the association presented their key fears.

They wrote:

“Any legislation that reduces ICE’s detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions, but also impact local law enforcement’s ability to protect the communities they serve. In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody. To achieve the 16,500 adult average detainee population (ADP) caps for the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, a net reduction of 9,264 adults by the end of this fiscal year would be required.

“Approximately 72 percent of ICE’s current detention population is subject to mandatory detention due to the alien having certain convictions or having committed certain acts. Over 90 percent of ICE’s arrests are aliens who have a criminal conviction, have been arrested for a criminal offense, or have been previously removed. Placing a cap on ICE detention beds will undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States.”

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

A Republican-Democrat House and Senate committee is planning to offer President Trump a border security package that could include less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion for a U.S.-Mexico border wall he originally requested.

Capitol Hill sources tell the media that a conference committee of Republicans and Democrats is preparing to unveil a border security funding plan that gives only about $1.3 to $2 billion to Trump for construction of his proposed wall on the southern border to stop wage-crushing illegal immigration.

The New York Times reports:

On Capitol Hill, House and Senate conferees were nearing an agreement that could offer the president between $1.3 billion and around $2 billion in funding for border security, a range, still subject to change, that could include some physical barriers and result in a deal as early as Monday. Talk of a wall has given way to “bollard fencing” and strategic placements. [Emphasis added]

This $1.3 to $2 billion would be the total spending for border security, meaning the funding for the proposed border wall would be a figure potentially less than $1.3 billion.

Despite previously committing that he would not accept anything less than $5 billion in funding for a border wall in a border security package, Trump is now telling lawmakers and aides that he is open to accepting just $2 billion for the wall, sources told the New York Times:

Mr. Trump has told allies he would grudgingly accept a figure of around $2 billion, but House Democrats remain publicly opposed to spending that much on physical barriers. It is still not clear how much of the final allocation would go for new fencing, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. [Emphasis added]

Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told senators at a party lunch and in private conversations over the past few days that Mr. Trump had told him, “I can live with $2 billion,” according to a Senate aide who witnessed one of the exchanges. [Emphasis added]

The conference committee was formed after Trump reopened the federal government following a shutdown without securing any funding for the border wall. Members of the committee include:

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, Texas Rep. Kay Granger, Tennesee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Georgia Rep. Tom Graves, and Mississippi Rep. Steven Palazzo, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, New York Rep. Nita Lowey, California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, North Carolina Rep. David Price, California Rep. Barbara Lee, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, and California Rep. Pete Aguilar.

The committee was formed to work on a funding package for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a deadline of February 15, a funding route that experts have said the president never had to take.

Defense Department officials have reiterated that Trump does not need approval from Congress and, also, does not have to declare a national emergency to begin construction of the border wall. Instead, the president could have invoked 10 United States Code § 284, which authorizes the U.S. military to build barriers at the southern border, a Pentagon official has testified to Congress.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has urged Trump to invoke these executive powers to immediately begin building the border wall.

“I think what [Trump] needs to do now is Title 10 gives him authority to you know where there’s an active drug corridor … that the Department of Defense can access money and build a fence, I think he needs to do that … I think that needs to happen,” Biggs said last month.

Total construction of the proposed southern border wall would cost about $25 billion, far from the funding the GOP-Democrat committee is expected to offer. At the current rate, securing about $1.3 to $2 billion for the border wall would fund less than 205 miles of wall construction on the roughly 2,000-mile long U.S.-Mexico border.

While Congress and Trump haggle dally over border wall funding, mass illegal immigration has continued at the southern border. Border apprehension data from December 2018 reveal that the number of adults traveling to the southern border with children has skyrocketed by 280 percent compared to the same time last year.

Illegal immigration at the border, for December 2018, has increased 81 percent compared to this same month the year before. Additionally, between January 25 and February 15 — the period that Trump has given Congress to work on a border security package — there is likely to be anywhere between 30,000 to 44,000 illegal border crossings based on previous DHS totals. This is about 1,300 to 2,000 illegal crossings a day at the southern border.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

Henry Rodgers, DCNF

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse plans on putting senators on the record over their stance on infanticide, or the intentional killing of newborn children, on the Senate floor Monday evening.

Sasse wants to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would not make abortion illegal but would hold doctors responsible for not taking care of a child that was just born after an attempted abortion. The bill would also make it so that newborn children who were born in abortion clinics would be immediately taken to a hospital for medical care.

The Nebraska senator believes members of both parties should unanimously pass this bill, saying it should not be a partisan issue and that all 100 senators should vote for the legislation.

“Everyone in this Senate ought to be able to say unequivocally that killing that little baby is wrong,” Sasse said on the Senate floor Thursday. “I’m going to ask all 100 senators to come to the floor and be against infanticide. This shouldn’t be complicated.”

This all comes as a majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would not discuss state legislature bills that would allow abortions up to the point of birth, on Capitol Hill Thursday one day after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam defended the “Repeal Act,” a proposed bill that would remove restrictions on abortion in Virginia. The governor made controversial comments about late-term abortion.

“If a mother is in labor … the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable,” Northam said. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin told The Daily Caller News Foundation when asked about Northam’s comments:

“I haven’t seen anything. I’ve been in retreats. Obviously, I just got out of a meeting.”

“I’m literally mid-sentence talking to staff about the vote I have to take right now. Happy to talk to you soon,” Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said to TheDCNF. “I’ve been in a caucus retreat for two days.”

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also said he did not hear the comments.

“I have no idea what he said. I have no idea what happened there. I do follow the governor of Vermont though, all the time,” Leahy told TheDCNF.

The comments received massive pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill and across the country.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Conservative News Today

Published  3 weeks ago

Henry Rodgers, DCNF

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy blasted Democratic Senators for their silence over Virginia Democratic Governor Ralph Northam’s comments regarding late-term abortion Friday morning, as over 10 Democratic members of congress have denied hearing them.

Even the babies being aborted aren’t this silent https://t.co/wb1eUlihzN

— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) February 1, 2019

Cassidy’s comments come after The Daily Caller News Foundation asked a number of Democratic Senators about Northam’s defense of the “Repeal Act,” a proposed bill that would remove all restrictions on abortion in the commonwealth of Virginia, saying controversial comments about late-term abortion.

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable,” Northam said. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”

Cassidy, who is a doctor and member of the Senate health committee, explained his frustration in a Thursday radio interview.

“Do no harm’ is supposed to be the first rule of medicine, and clearly, clearly, Governor Northam didn’t get that memo,” Cassidy said.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to acknowledge Northam’s comments on late-term abortion, claiming she does not know what he said Thursday.

Within hours, Democrats in the Senate echoed the same message, claiming they did not hear the news, which went viral the day before.

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin told TheDCNF, “I haven’t seen anything. I’ve been in retreats. Obviously I just got out of a meeting,” when asked about Northam’s comments.

“I’m literally mid sentence talking to staff about the vote I have to take right now. Happy to talk to you soon,” Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said to TheDCNF. “I’ve been in a caucus retreat for two days.”

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also said he did not hear the comments.

“I have no idea what he said. I have no idea what happened there. I do follow the Governor of Vermont though, all the time,” Leahy told TheDCNF.

The comments received massive pushback from Republican’s on Capitol Hill and across the country.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

mcclatchydc

Published  3 weeks ago

Jim Clyburn, the House’s number 3 Democrat, is proposing a “smart wall.” It’s the latest way of saying let’s create border security barriers without officially giving President Donald Trump the sort of wall he wants

True Pundit

Published  3 weeks ago

Vermont is quietly seeking to pass a law that gives women the right to have elective abortions up until birth and strips away all rights of unborn babies.

Vermont is considering H-0057 which would give women the right to abort a baby at any time and for any reason up until birth. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” the bill reads.

Interference by the state, law enforcement or a public entity with an attempt to procure or induce an abortion is illegal under the proposal. Women have a “fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice and to prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy,” according to the bill’s text.

An unborn baby also has no rights, according to the bill, which reads, “A fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.” Planned Parenthood was investigated in 2017 for the alleged illegal sale of baby body parts, a practice which would become legal under the Vermont proposal.

If the law passes, late-term abortion doctors can be expected to set up clinics in the state to which women would travel to seek elective abortions until birth.

There are 91 authors of the proposal.

Virginia is considering HB 2491 which would repeal the state’s current restrictions on late-term abortions. The bill would allow a doctor to perform an abortion when a woman is dilating, meaning she is about to give birth. The proposal eliminates the state’s requirement that second and third-trimester abortions be performed only to preserve the health or life of the woman.

The bill also does away with a number of other restrictions, including a mandate that women obtain ultrasounds prior to aborting and that second and third-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals. Opinions from multiple physicians are not required under the proposal.

New York passed the Reproductive Health Act Jan. 22 expanding abortion access and codifying a woman’s right to abort under state law. The law removes abortion from the state’s criminal code and allows women to have abortions after 24 weeks in cases where “there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health,” according to the legislation.

“Democrats have forgone safe, legal and rare and have now staked their ground in abortion extremism,” March For Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement. “Abortion up until birth is not only brutishly callous, it is severely out of touch with mainstream America,” Mancini added.

Seventy-five percent of Americans support significant abortion restrictions and say abortion should not be legal after a woman is three months pregnant, according to a Jan. 15 Marist poll.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment in time for publication. Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy also did not immediately respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

POLITICO

Published  3 weeks ago

The president's theories about how the storm-wracked island is using disaster relief money could have dire consequences for its residents.

GOP

Published  1 month ago

If Senate Democrats try to obstruct attorney general nominee William Barr, they’ll have to explain why not a single Democrat objected to him holding that very same position before.

In 1991, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed Barr by voice vote just 36 days after he was nominated. The Joe Biden-led Judiciary Committee approved Barr by a unanimous 14-0 vote.

Then-Judiciary Chair Joe Biden praises William Barr as a “heck of an honorable guy.” https://t.co/lwHa3O4Lw4 pic.twitter.com/raQ7nxxcyF

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 7, 2018

Here’s just some of what prominent Democrats – including Chuck Schumer – had to say about Barr at the time…

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to Barr: “You're going to be a good Attorney General, you're sharp, you're smart…” (U.S. Senate Hearing, Committee On Judiciary, 11/13/91)

Biden: Barr showed “commitment to the public interest above all else...” (U.S. Senate Attorney General Confirmation Vote, 11/20/91)

Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-Brooklyn), then-chairman of the House Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee: “Mr. Barr has proven to be a capable deputy attorney general. He did a good job of helping run the department in troubled times.” (Newsday, 10/17/91)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Barr will be “an independent voice for all Americans – not just the President.” (Los Angeles Times, 11/16/91)

Leahy: “I get the impression that he's committed to working with rather than against the committee.” (Facts On File World News Digest, 11/21/91)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Mr. Barr comes before this committee with a distinguished record of public service in the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House and the Department of Justice, as well as in the private practice of the law.” (U.S. Senate Hearing, Committee On Judiciary, 11/12/91)

White House Nominations

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump and congressional leaders are preparing Wednesday for a breakneck series of meetings aimed at ending a 19-day partial government shutdown. But each side’s position on Trump’s border wall demands are as stubborn as ever, with no signs that a compromise is emerging.

Trump will meet with Senate Republicans for their party lunch at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, along with Vice President Mike Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Then the president and the top Senate and House leaders in each party will huddle at the White House at 3 p.m., the third such bipartisan meeting in a week’s time.

The president, in a rare Oval Office address, suggested on Tuesday night that the conflict “could be solved in a 45-minute meeting.” But Democratic leaders and staffers have spent hours and hours holed up with Pence, Trump and other White House officials to no avail.

“We’re ready to negotiate: After government reopens,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat who has now met with Trump multiple times. “If this becomes a blunt instrument against the Democratic House to just shut down the government and imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, we’ve got to take a position.”

The shutdown meetings come after Trump as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to reframe the debate on Tuesday night in national addresses that largely repeated their well-stated positions. Trump will not sign a government funding bill without getting more than $5 billion in money for a physical barrier on the border, and Democrats will not give more than $1.3 billion.

Both sides seemed headed for more partisan clashes: Schumer and Pelosi planned a news conference before the White House meetings, and Trump is expected to travel to the border on Thursday to continue making his case for more wall money.

The president is also weighing a national emergency declaration to build the border wall with Democrats so entrenched in opposition to his wall. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally, said that such a move is a “last resort” and said he believes Trump can still win the wall fight with Democrats.

“There’s a crisis at the border, we need more money,” Graham said. The national emergency “only happens if we completely get stuck up here. That’s not the preferred route.”

After it was pointed out that Congress seems stuck, Graham shrugged. But some members of Congress are growing more antsy as the shutdown persists.

A handful of House and Senate Republicans are calling for the government to reopen and then negotiate on border security, boosting Democratic hopes for a rebellion against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Senate Democrats are tanking unrelated legislation, hoping to keep attention on McConnell and his resistance to taking up House-passed government funding bills.

“Separate the shutdown from the arguments over border security,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday night. “Reopen government while allowing debate over border security to continue.”

But that strategy hasn’t resonated with McConnell, who is running for reelection and is unlikely to undercut the president on his chief political priority. It’s not just the GOP leader who is unmoved: Little in Washington has changed over the past 19 days other than growing worry about the shutdown affecting travel, tourism, agriculture and other staples of the American economy.

“We’re concerned about all the aspects of the shutdown,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Senate Republican who will attend both meetings. He said he hoped the meeting would be “constructive in terms of getting to a final agreement. I hope that there’s a sense of urgency on both sides.”

Trump believes he has made a concession by agreeing to make the wall out of steel instead of concrete and said on Tuesday he hoped Democrats will “rise above partisan politics in order to support national security.” But with polls showing that voters still blame the president for the shutdown and Trump himself taking ownership for it in December, Democrats feel little urgency to shift their tactics.

“President Trump tried to make the case that there is [a] crisis at our southern border that only a wall can solve,” said Senate Appropriations ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “But the real crisis is being inflicted upon millions of Americans by the president’s costly and senseless shutdown.”

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Democrats have already dropped hints of what their response to President Donald Trump’s address Tuesday evening from the Oval Office on the border crisis will be.

The networks have granted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) airtime to respond. Their message will be that there is no crisis that merits building a barrier on the border. The only crisis, to them, is the partial government shutdown.

As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said last week, responding to the suggestion Trump may declare an emergency so he can order the military to build the barrier: “There is no national emergency on the southern border.” He described the idea as “stealing resources from the Defense Department.”

The real solution to what he called the “complex issues at our southern border” — which are not an emergency, mind you — is “comprehensive immigration reform.”

The idea that there is no crisis at the border will be a tough sell, especially as Democrats and the media described the situation as a crisis last summer, when the Trump administration started enforcing its “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal crossings that resulted — thanks to existing rules dating to the Obama administration — in children being separated from adults. Pelosi even questioned “why there aren’t uprisings all over the country” about it.

To Democrats, the only “crisis” — aside from the government being partially closed for two weeks — results from the enforcement of existing laws at the border. To resolve that “crisis,” they want to pass more laws — which, they insist, include provisions for “border security,” though they do not want to enforce the laws already on the books.

Here are some other arguments Democrats will likely use, based on their statements over the past several days.

1. Trump is a liar. “I expect the president to lie to the American people,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the new chair of the House Judiciary Committee, during a visit to the border yesterday. (Nadler added: “There’s no security crisis at the border.”) Nadler echoed the CNN line, which is that the president’s speeches should not enjoy live coverage because he might say inaccurate things — a problem journalists never had with President Barack Obama.

2. Border walls and fences do not work. This is another weak argument, since many House and Senate Democrats — including Schumer — voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Other variants of this argument is that a wall would be “immoral” (Pelosi) and “racist” (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)). However, given examples of walls or fences to stop migrants in the European Union, Israel, and even Botswana, these arguments are also easily defeated.

3. Trump’s $5 billion proposal is wasteful. This is a tough argument to sustain after Democrats’ own proposals to end the partial shutdown and re-open the government. Democrats want “over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested,” according to Breitbart News’ Rebecca Mansour. Democrats also asked for a combined $10 billion in extra funding for the United Nations and other supposed priorities. $5 billion is nothing.

4. Mexico should be paying for it. Democrats have been taking potshots at the president for months by reminding him of his refrain from the campaign trail in 2016. Trump has argued that Mexico is paying for the wall through its concessions on trade. But the U.S. could also tax remittances Mexican workers in the U.S. send home, or raise fees for crossing the border. There are many ways to collect in future, if needed; what the wall needs is a down payment.

5. Government shutdowns are wrong. This used to be a winning argument for Democrats — until they shut down the government themselves last year in an effort to force President Trump and the Republicans to legalize the so-called “Dreamers,” i.e. illegal aliens brought to the country as minors. The contrast also works in favor of Trump: Democrats shut down the government to protect illegal aliens, while the president is doing so to protect Americans.

The fact is that the Democrats’ best and only case against the border wall is that Trump proposed it. They know if he fails to deliver on his core campaign promise, he will lose his voter base. And they know if he buckles and re-opens the government without the funding he wants, they can walk all over him for the next two years.

What they may not realize is those reasons also make him stronger: he cannot compromise, therefore he has the advantage.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump will deliver his first address from the Oval Office on Tuesday evening at 9 p.m. ET. He will explain why the country needs a physical barrier at the U.S-Mexico border, and why he is refusing to consider bills to end the partial federal government shutdown unless they provide the funding he is seeking.

Breitbart News readers and listeners have been looking forward to such an address for weeks.

Here are seven things Trump must say.

1. The border issue is about national security, the first priority of government. Americans are used to fights over immigration policy. This is different. The nation faces a crisis at its southern border. The drug cartels are taking advantage of our open border to smuggle drugs, weapons, and people. They are also waging a bloody civil war that bleeds over into our country. Everything else the government does is secondary to protecting the country. There is literally no point to opening the government until politicians are prepared to take care of its first priority.

2. The first victims of the Mexican cartels are the migrants and the countries from which they come. Cartels are brutal. They slaughter innocent civilians. They rape the women and girls they are trafficking to criminals in the U.S. The drugs they sneak into the U.S. kill thousands of Americans each year. And the developing countries that migrants leave behind become poorer. Democrats who, like Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), say “[t]here is no national emergency on our southern border,” are encouraging the cartels. There is nothing humane about an open border.

3. The border crisis has nothing to do with legal immigration, which we embrace. Corporal Ronil Singh, a Newman, California police officer — and legal immigrant — was murdered the day after Christmas by an alleged illegal alien. Many Americans want less immigration — a debate for another day. Regardless, Americans respect legal immigrants. We should reform our immigration laws, including those that allow foreigners to claim amnesty as soon as they touch American soil. Corporal Singh gave his life to defend the rule of law. That is what is at stake.

4. Illegal immigration hurts all Americans, but especially legal immigrants, minorities, and the poor. With better border enforcement, black and Hispanic unemployment is the lowest ever, and wages are rising for all Americans. Those gains are threatened by illegal aliens who compete with U.S. citizens and legal immigrants for jobs. Illegal immigration also hurts public health care and education, as illegal aliens place additional burdens on services that are already struggling. We can have a generous welfare state, or open borders, but not both.

5. Democrats are hypocrites. Many Democrats — including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — have voted for a barrier at the border in the past. Border walls, and fences, are not “immoral,” as Speaker Nancy Pelosi keeps saying. Nor are they racist. They work — which is why the European Union builds them, why our ally Israel builds them, and why even developing countries in Africa build them. The main reason Democrats oppose a barrier at the border is because they don’t want President Trump to have a political win. Stop making this personal.

6. We have to act now because both parties failed in the past. Many Democrats want open borders because they see illegal aliens as future voters. Many donor-class Republicans have tolerated illegal immigration because of business demand for cheap labor. That is why both parties have overlooked the laws they voted to pass, and ignored the wishes of the American people. President Barack Obama told Congress in 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.” They did nothing. We can no longer wait.

7. Let the engineers design a barrier that works. The wall should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. Nor should it be a budget issue: Democrats are fighting over a mere $5 billion, when their own budget bill spends tens of billions more in excess of White House requests on other items, including foreign aid. The wall — or fence — is little more than an engineering problem. We should let experts make their recommendations about what kind of physical barriers to build at each point along the border. Let the engineers do their job — and let’s put America first.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

An internal FBI spy program reportedly used to surveil the Trump campaign has a long history of being used to protect killers and jail innocents.

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Robert Mueller haven't explained how they came to trust him so completely. It's a question worth asking.

dailycaller

Published  4 months ago

The worst of the worst

The Nation

Published  4 months ago

Sign up to get the best of The Nation in your inbox every weekday.

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is right where he likes to be: at the center of attention, moralizing on every TV screen and positioning himself as the essential man in the Senate from which he will soon retire. The fear is that, as usual, the Republican senator from Arizona is pulling his punches, creating more confusion than certainty and, if past is prologue, preparing for an act of compromise rather than conscience.

For now, however, Flake has opened an avenue for renewing the system of checks and balances that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley have abandoned. We should utilize it. But we should not accept attempts by Flake or anyone else to limit how far we can take it.

On Friday afternoon, moments before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to support the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Flake announced to his fellow members of the committee that he wasn’t so sure about what it was about to do. No, the Republican who frequently criticizes Donald Trump but rarely breaks with the president did not say he was going to join Democrats in voting to block Trump’s scandal-plagued nominee to the Supreme Court. In fact, Flake had already revealed that he would vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

After the senator announced his planned vote, however, he was confronted in a Capitol elevator Friday by Maria Gallagher, who said: “I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me. I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them, you are going to ignore them.”

The Arizonan did not change his vote. But during the committee session, Flake acknowledged the the poignant and powerful testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford on allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. He admitted that Thursday’s hearing had left Kavanaugh’s critics “justifiably uncomfortable” about Judiciary Committee chairman Grassley’s rush to approve the nomination. With this in mind, Flake said, “I think that we ought to do what we can to make sure that we do all due diligence with a nomination this important.” What to do? “I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to but not more than one week, in order to let the FBI do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there,” said the senator.

A limited inquiry is insufficient to meet the constitutional standard for the confirmation process in which the Senate is now engaged.

As usual, Flake was more philosophical than specific. That made the vote that followed his announcement all the more chaotic. Several senators seemed to be uncertain about whether they were voting on the Kavanaugh nomination or on some kind of amendment from Flake. When the dust settled, Grassley was celebrating an 11-10 party-line vote in support of Kavanaugh.

It was a muted celebration, however. Flake had sided with his fellow Republicans. But the Arizonan had attached an asterisk to his acquiescence—that call for a one-week delay and an FBI inquiry. Moments later, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who is not on the committee, said she had consulted with Flake and supported the delay. Then, Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, aligned with Flake and Murkowski. McConnell had to respect the demand—since the combination of 49 Democrats and at least three Republicans left him without the votes required to advance the nomination. (The bare minimum required to confirm Kavanaugh would be 50 votes from senators and a tie-breaking 51st vote from Vice President Mike Pence.)

In short order, to the surprise of many, President Trump agreed to get the FBI back on the case. On Friday afternoon, Trump sounded conciliatory, describing Dr. Ford’s testimony as “compelling” and saying that, while he still backs Kavanaugh, he wants McConnell and Senate Republicans to do “whatever they think is necessary” to complete deliberations on the nomination.

That sounds good. But beware. Trump has a history of going from conciliatory to combative at the drop of a hat—or the posting of a tweet. And what McConnell thinks is “necessary” may not meet the standards that are entertained by Flake, Murkowski, Senate Democrats or the American people.

So this is a hot mess that could yet get messier. And the messiest part had to do with the definition of the inquiry.

Flake’s intervention has raised the prospect not merely of a delay but of an inquiry that could derail the Kavanaugh nomination. That is welcome news for critics of Kavanaugh. Unfortunately, what Flake has proposed is not a full inquiry into the many credible complaints that have been raised with regard to the nominee since the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed initial background checks on Kavanaugh.

The senator from Arizona said Friday the investigation should be “limited in time and scope to the current allegations.” But which “current allegations” does he mean? Certainly the issues that have been raised so powerfully by Dr. Ford must be reviewed. But what about the allegations from other women regarding other assaults? And what about the overwhelming evidence that Kavanaugh has lied, repeatedly, to the Senate and to the American people?

Current and former senators have bluntly charged that Kavanaugh perjured himself while testifying under oath to the Judiciary Committee. The senior member of the Senate, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, says of Kavanaugh: “I have never been more concerned about a Supreme Court nominee’s basic willingness and unwillingness to be truthful under oath.” Former senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who served on the Judiciary Committee when Kavanaugh appeared before it in the 2000s, has described “the nominee’s disturbing willingness to avoid the truth.” As one of the committee members who questioned the judge, Feingold cites “clear evidence showing that Kavanaugh lied under oath during the 2006 confirmation hearing for his spot on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.”

Four veteran Senate aides—Bob Schiff, who served as chief counsel for Feingold; Lisa Graves, who served as chief counsel for nominations for Leahy; Kristine Lucius, who served as nominations counsel and staff director for Leahy; and Jeff Berman, who served as chief counsel for Senator Charles Schumer—have written that “We watched the testimony of Judge Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee with dismay and disbelief. His many misleading and false statements cast serious doubt on whether he should be confirmed to a seat on the US Supreme Court.”

Shouldn’t Kavanaugh’s “many misleading and false statements” to the Senate be examined? Isn’t an FBI assessment of the perjury issue something the Senate needs to consider in and of itself? And isn’t information about the nominee’s pattern of perjury something that must be considered when weighing Kavanaugh’s claims regarding the incidents Dr. Ford and others have described?

It is reasonable to suggest that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is capable of conducting a rapid inquiry into the allegations against Kavanaugh. Although the prospect that speed might trump thoroughness is a legitimate concern, there are those who argue that an adequate inquiry is possible in a week. But it really is not reasonable to limit the scope of the inquiry in ways that excludes consideration of the many new issues that have arisen regarding this nomination—and of the nominee’s credibility. How can it be possibly be suggested that the Kavanaugh nomination has received proper scrutiny if his lying under oath remains unexamined?

A limited inquiry is insufficient to meet the constitutional standard for the confirmation process in which the Senate is now engaged. It fails to provide senators with what they require: the information that is necessary to provide informed advice and consent for a nomination to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

currentaffairs

Published  4 months ago

This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…

Conservative Review

Published  4 months ago

Tuesday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin played audio of former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings, asserting that the “FBI explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period. Period!”

Levin called out the media for refusing to bring up Biden’s quote while Senate Democrats push for an FBI investigation into the behavior of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“Chuck Schumer knows that Joe Biden said this, but he was relying on the media not to bring it up. Dick Durbin knows that Joe Biden said this; they were there. But they’re relying on the media not to bring it up. Patrick Leahy knows that Joe Biden said this. He was on the committee. But they’re relying on the media not to bring it up! The media’s bringing up everything but this,” Levin said.

“They have these large research operations. … How do they miss this? Unless they want to. Unless they decide not to look,” Levin said.

“These people are un-American, in every respect.”

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up for your FREE 30-day trial now!

Roving Gangs of Leftists

Don't miss tonight's episode! https://t.co/GB20J0BgAU pic.twitter.com/HJq8WJ3Z29

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) September 25, 2018

arkansasonline

Published  5 months ago

The Democrats in Congress have a dirty little secret. They are merely puppets attached to the strings of their master, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Nation

Published  5 months ago

The Trump nominee is trying to bury his apparent engagement with one of Karl Rove’s ugliest gambits.

Rantt

Published  5 months ago

Trump has put forward one of the swampiest nominees ever for the Supreme Court

Salon

Published  5 months ago

Merrick Garland may play a role in the vacant Supreme Court seat after all. A liberal group has filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh for allegedly perjuring himself in front of the Senate judiciary committee. Garland, who is the chief judge of the D.C. federal circuit, was asked to rule upon the complaint or appoint a special panel of jurists to investigate the allegations.

The Democratic Coalition, a group led by Jon Cooper and Scott Dworkin, claim that Kavanaugh lied under oath before the Senate back in 2004 and 2006 when he said he was unaware he read and used stolen emails in 2002. Kavanaugh was going through the hearing process in those years to become a federal district and appellate judge, respectively.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who was on the Senate judiciary committee back in the mid-2000s, asked Kavanaugh if he was involved in the stolen email scandal while he worked in the Bush White House in the early 2000s. Kavanaugh said he was unaware that emails were stolen at the time, and insisted that if he did know, he would would have blown the whistle on his colleagues. Fast forward to 2018, Leahy, still on the Senate judiciary committee, introduced new evidence that suggested Kavanaugh handled emails that were stolen during that time period.

Those who wish to bring down Kavanaugh's nomination say that these new, unearthed emails demonstrate that the judge perjured himself during the past hearings.

The Democratic Coalition filed a complaint against Kavanaugh earlier this week in regards to these allegations. They have asked Garland to review the claims.

Garland's introduction to the Kavanaugh's nomination process is ironic considering Republicans refused to give him a hearing when former President Barack Obama wished to appoint him to Justice Scalia's old seat.

Now, it appears, Garland will play a role as to whether Kavanaugh gets approved by the Senate.

Fortunately for Kavanaugh, he has been careful to speak highly of Garland the past few months.

“As I’ve said before, [Garland is] a great judge – a great chief judge – and he’s very careful and very hardworking, and we work well together and try to read the statute as written, read the precedent as written,” Kavanaugh said, Fox News reported, according to Mediaite . “He’s a judge – like I try to be as well – a judge who’s not trying to impose any personal preferences onto the decision but take the law as written, and that’s what I’ve tried to do in those cases and that probably explains some of that.”

The Daily Beast

Published  5 months ago

Formerly confidential emails have been released that show the Supreme Court nominee contradicting statements he made under oath to the Senate.

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh enters what could be the final stretch of questioning in his confirmation hearing Thursday, with Democrats springing a series of cryptic questions – in an apparent attempt to box the nominee into an embarrassing admission or at least throw him off what has been a relatively steady performance.

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that congressional Democrats want to delay the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh because they're attempting to "re-litigate" the 2016 presidential election.

A number of Democratic senators quickly interrupted Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's opening statement at Tuesday's confirmation hearing.

They objected to just receiving a batch of 42,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh's work with past administrations, and called for other withheld documents to be released.

Democrats are putting a lot of energy into receiving more documents, Cruz said, because their demands will be "impossible to meet."

He said that seeking more past information on Kavanaugh is simply an attempt to "distract and delay" his confirmation.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) were among others who voiced objections on Tuesday.

Grassley has repeatedly stated that significantly more documents of executive branch material have been provided than was the case with past Supreme Court nominees.

"I believe this fight is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by our Democratic colleagues to re-litigate the 2016 presidential election," Cruz added.

.@SenTedCruz: “Most Americans, and I know the overwhelming majority of Texans, want judges who will follow the law and will not impose their policy preferences on the rest of us, and who will be faithful to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” https://t.co/ffhxc4dqFa pic.twitter.com/3O8KksFPmj

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 4, 2018

“If you will trust the American people, they will trust you," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Kavanaugh. "But if your effort today continues to conceal and hide documents, it raises a suspicion.”

Kavanaugh was a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for more than a decade, and was also a lawyer in the White House Counsel's office during George W. Bush's administration.

Watch more above.

'A Charade and a Mockery': Democrats, Protesters Interrupt Kavanaugh Hearing

DC Dirty Laundry

Published  5 months ago

The Most Treasonous Thing John Brennan Ever Did...

The Federalist

Published  5 months ago

Mueller's investigation into the anthrax attacks following 9/11 -- one of the most important of his career -- did not go well, to say the least.

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

WASHINGTON, DC – Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced on Friday that his Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court on September 4 through 7, giving the Senate time to confirm him before the Supreme Court begins its annual term on October 1.

Opening statements from Kavanaugh and the senators on the committee will take place September 4. The senators will then question the nominee on September 5. The final part of the hearings will include testimony from national leaders in the legal community.

Democrats are expressing outrage at the schedule, saying that they have not had enough time or material to vet President Trump’s nominee, but those objections fall apart on the facts.

Grassley has presided over the most thorough vetting of any Supreme Court justice in U.S. history, and he says it is now time for his committee to prepare for public hearings.

Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 12 years. During that time he has authored 307 opinions, totaling 4,800 pages. He has also joined hundreds more, for a total of over 6,400 pages of additional judicial opinions. This comprehensive record of his legal philosophy has been in the public domain for years.

All that notwithstanding, Grassley has ensured that the Judiciary Committee took an extremely close look at Kavanaugh, and has reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents. While senators received 172,000 pages on Justice Elena Kagan and 184,000 pages on Justice Neil Gorsuch, lawmakers received an all-time record of over 900,000 pages of documents on Kavanaugh – the largest number of Executive Branch records ever submitted to the Senate for a Supreme Court nominee in American history.

Beyond that, Kavanaugh returned the most comprehensive, bipartisan Senate questionnaire in the history of the Judiciary Committee, providing 110 pages of answers to the committee’s questions. These answers were accompanied by an astounding 17,000 pages of documentation and supporting materials.

Grassley has also allowed more time to review the nominee than other modern Supreme Court picks, looking back at all vacancies over the past decade. Former Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) scheduled hearings 48 days after the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and 49 days after Kagan’s nomination. Hearings for Gorsuch began 48 days after his nomination announcement. By contrast, Kavanaugh’s hearings will start 57 days after his nomination.

“Democrats have already announced that they oppose him, so this claim that they need more time or more documents is nothing more than a show, a fishing expedition designed to obstruct and create gridlock,” said Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel Carrie Severino. “Judge Kavanaugh has been endorsed by leading figures on the right and the left. He is a mainstream nominee who will base his decisions on the law and the Constitution.”

Other conservative leaders are singling out Grassley for special thanks.

“President Trump did his part by putting forward an incredibly well-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, and now Chairman Grassley is doing his part to confirm the newest justice before the Court begins its extremely important work,” said National Rifle Association board member Ken Blackwell in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News.

“Today Senator Chuck Grassley has kept a promise to the American people by setting timely dates for the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh,” said Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Chairman Jenny Beth Martin. “We fully support Chairman Grassley’s decision to advance the process of confirming this very qualified nominee.”

“Liberal Democrats don’t need more time to review Judge Kavanaugh’s record, they just don’t like the fact that his record shows he is fair, independent and adheres to the Constitution,” added Martin, “so they are now resorting to obstruction and gridlock to extend their fishing expedition.”

“We applaud Senator Chuck Grassley for swiftly moving along Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings so the Supreme Court seat vacated by Anthony Kennedy can be filled quickly,” agreed Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance. She added that the “‘Women for Kavanaugh’ six-state bus tour spent time this week at Senator Grassley’s townhalls in Iowa, and we saw how enthusiastic Americans – especially women – are about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Concluding the committee hearings on September 7 allows the full Senate more than two full weeks to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court well in advance of the Supreme Court term, which by law begins on the first Monday of October.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Yahoo

Published  6 months ago

WASHINGTON ― Republicans on Wednesday rejected a bid to direct another $250 million to election security ahead of the November midterms, maintaining that funds Congress previously allocated for the effort have not yet been spent.

In March, lawmakers approved $380 million to help safeguard state voting systems from cyberattacks in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Democrats proposed an amendment that would have appropriated an additional $250 million to bolster election systems, replace outdated equipment and undertake other protective efforts. Last month, a bipartisan group of attorneys general from 21 states urged Congress to commit more funding to the effort ahead of the midterms.

“It is time that we heed the clear warning of the intelligence community and take action,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the author of the amendment, said in a statement. “It is our obligation to take these attacks on our states seriously, and to step in with the necessary resources to defend our elections.”

Leahy’s amendment failed to garner the necessary 60 votes for passage on Wednesday, however, because of nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

“There’s $380 million that’s already allocated that hasn’t been spent ― not a dime,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told HuffPost. “No one explained to me why we needed $250 million more.”

Citing similar reasons, House Republicans also voted down a Democratic request last month to increase election security spending.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), meanwhile, said he feared the amendment would lead to “the running and interfering with elections by the federal government” if the funds were contingent on lawmakers in Washington telling states how to conduct their elections.

The 50-47 vote took place as the Senate intelligence committee was holding a hearing on the use of social media by foreign actors to influence U.S. elections. The debate followed an unexpected announcement by Facebook on Tuesday, in which the company said it had removed more than a dozen pages, profiles and accounts from “bad actors.” While the company didn’t point fingers, it said the interference bore a resemblance to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“Some feel that we as a society are sitting in a burning room, calmly drinking a cup of coffee, telling ourselves ‘This is fine.’ That’s not fine,” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s chairman, said at the hearing in regard to Russia’s continued attempts to interfere with U.S. election systems. (Burr was apparently referring to a popular image by the cartoonist KC Green.)

The ongoing threat to voting systems and the U.S. election infrastructure became even more apparent this week after it was revealed that two senators had already been targeted with hacking attempts: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is an outspoken critic of the Kremlin.

Democrats said that because of the ongoing threats, more funding is needed to harden election security.

“Clearly the threat is larger and we should be taking a lot more efforts to secure the ballot,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, told HuffPost. “We have a real ongoing threat by a foreign power that’s trying to undermine the security of our elections.”

This video is currently not available in the browser on your device.

Fox News

Published  8 months ago

Investigators should probe whether former FBI Director James Comey discussed classified information using a personal email account, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said Monday at a hearing on the Justice Department watchdog's bombshell report on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

POLITICO

Published  8 months ago

Senate Republicans privately acknowledge that they’re unlikely to pass a funding bill that will satisfy the president.

realclearpolitics

Published  8 months ago

In the wake of Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department named Robert S. Mueller III as a special prosecutor to investigate possible Russian interference in the 2016 election. It was a decision greeted with a chorus of supportive croaking from inside official Washington, aka The Swamp.

“If anyone can stay on course and not be deterred by the whims of politics, it’s Bob Mueller,” said former Missouri senator and U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft. “A great choice,” added John McCain. “Somebody we all trust,” echoed California Congressman Darrell Issa.

“Impeccable credentials,” chimed in Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. “Should be widely accepted.”

Democrats were even more extravagant. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that “no better person” could have been named. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin tweeted, “I have the highest regard for his integrity and intelligence.”

All this was dutifully reported in the press, which gushed over Mueller just as effusively. “Robert Mueller: The Special Counsel America Needs,” intoned the New York Times editorial board. Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, revealing a lack of self-awareness worthy of Trump himself, gleefully predicted disaster for the president.

“Mueller is a Trump nightmare: a pro, who ran the FBI for 12 years and is broadly respected in both parties in Washington for his competence and integrity,” Kristof wrote. “If Trump thought he was removing a thorn by firing Comey, he now faces a grove of thistles.”

Kristof never mentioned why he had as much reason to recuse himself from this subject as Attorney General Jeff Sessions did. I’ll explain later. First, I’ll say that when I heard Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Bob Mueller as a special prosecutor, I didn’t experience the same rhapsody as my capital compatriots. Why? Three reasons.

First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and that Mueller’s professionalism will supersede any personal loyalty. Okay, but here’s a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic infighting – with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It’s a long and convoluted story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:

In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of the program’s constitutionality, wouldn’t do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed there, too, to stop them.

Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they’d quit rather than extend the program. “Here I stand, I can do no other,” Comey told Bush. That’s Martin Luther’s iconic line, and although in 2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection, but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who was attorney general by then.

The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources – a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put his conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted -- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell – the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain” they weren’t making a mistake.

Such certitude seems to be Comey’s default position in his professional life. Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I’m not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country’s call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.

I know Steven Hatfill’s attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better—and I spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a “decent guy” who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller’s reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man’s integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington’s agreed-upon narrative.

While running for president, Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp.” He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him president. So here’s the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding – an investigation that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning?

->