The Pronk Pops Show 1097, Story 1: Both House Republican Immigration Bills Do Not Have Enough Support to Pass House — Democrats Concerned More For 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens That Invaded The United States Than American Workers and Their Children — Fund and Build The Wall and Enforce Immigration Laws With Deportations and Removals — No Amnesty — No Citizenship — No Legal Status — No Chain Migration For Illegal Aliens — Videos –Story 2: Foreign Actors Gained Access To Hillary Clinton’s Emails on Email Server Including Classified Documents — Videos

Posted on June 25, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, United States of America, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1088, June 6, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1087, June 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1086, May 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1085, May 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1084, May 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Both House Republican Immigration Bills Do Not Have Enough Support to Pass House — Democrats Concerned More For 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens That Invaded The United States Than American Workers and Their Children — Fund and Build The Wall and No Amnesty, Citizenship, Legal Status or Chain Migration For Illegal Aliens — Videos —

Trump suggests GOP is wasting time with immigration bill

Trump says Republicans should stop “wasting their time” on immigration

Trump blames Democrats on immigration as GOP fails to pass bill

Girl on TIME cover wasn’t separated from mom, family says

Tucker Monologue on Illegal Immigration

Lou Dobbs and Judge Jeanine Pirro House Speaker Paul Ryan needs to go: Judge Jeanine Piro

Should Congress focus on building Trump’s border wall?

Tucker: Dems don’t want honest discussion about immigration

I won’t be running for House speaker: Rep. Meadows

House to vote on two immigration bills. Will they pass?

Does Paul Ryan want to pass Trump’s agenda?

INGRAHAM: A BORDERLESS WORLD

Trump says he won’t sign moderate immigration bill

Rep. Scalise on immigration: Democrats don’t want to solve the problem

Tucker: The Left does not care about family separation

Nielsen holds contentious White House briefing amid immigration policy backlash

Sessions defends zero tolerance immigration policy

Ingraham: Faux liberal outrage, destruction of rule of law

Immigration Histrionics & Academy Award Crocodile Tears — Lionel on Real News With David Knight

Immigrant Children, Broken Borders, Blame and Bluster: Harsh Words, Rhetoric and Failed Policies

Immigration Derangement Syndrome | Dave Smith and Stefan Molyneux

Kellyanne ERUPTS after CNN’s Host Plays GUT-Wrenching Audio of Immigrant kids taken from Parents

Ann Coulter Claims Child Migrants Detained at US Borders Are ‘Child Actors’ | Good Morning Britain

Border patrol agent: Kids are treated humanely

Ingraham Angle Friday June, 22 2018 – Border Crisis Policy | FOX News Tonight 06/22/2018

Ben: This is EXACTLY Why People Don’t Trust the Media!!

Guess who employs the most illegal immigrants

Published on May 30, 2014
A new report by the New York Times reveals that the US government is using illegal immigrants detained in detention centers as cheap labor. Sometimes they pay them $1 a day, sometimes not at all. The work is only supposed to benefit the detention centers, but meanwhile immigrants are being used to package meals for prisoners at other jails. Detractors are calling it a hypocritical, unlawful practice that bends many rules on the book. The Resident discusses.

Undocumented and Underage: The Crisis of Migrant Children

Published on Aug 13, 2014
Subscribe to VICE News here: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE-News Between October 2013 and May 2014, authorities at the US-Mexico border began detaining underage migrants at an alarming, never-before-seen rate. During this period, thousands of underage migrants ended up in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention facilities along the border. Capacity at CBP detention facilities was overwhelmed by the influx of migrants, who predominantly came from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. As overcrowding became more severe, conditions for the migrants worsened. Lacking proper installations and sufficient personnel at the facilities, Department of Homeland Security officials began to release underage migrants into the custody of family members in the US, and cited them to attend immigration hearings at a later date. The situation is similar in Mexico. The flow of underage migrants in the border region has increased rapidly, and shelters for child migrants report that the Central American population they care for now outnumbers the population of Mexican children. VICE News travelled to the border between Texas and Tamaulipas to speak to people who have been detained on both sides of the border. They told us about their reasons for crossing the border, how they were detained, what their stay was like inside the detention centers, their plans for the future, and their fears. Now migrants have two options: return to their country, where they could be killed by gang-related violence, or attempt to enter the United States again, hoping that their luck will change, and they will achieve their American dream.

House GOP Leaders Forced To Again Delay Vote On Compromise Immigration Bill

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., leaves after meeting with reporters before a House showdown on immigration, at the Capitol in Washington on Thursday.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Updated at 7:40 p.m. ET

House Republican leaders delayed a vote on the “consensus” immigration legislation Thursday afternoon as they scrambled to convince enough GOP lawmakers to support the measure.

The vote on that bill was initially rescheduled for Friday morning. But after a closed-door meeting that lasted more than two hours, leaders delayed it even further — to next week, according to several House Republican sources.

A more hard-line immigration bill came up for a vote earlier Thursday, as part of a compromise approach crafted by Republican leaders to satisfy GOP lawmakers’ competing immigration demands.

That measure failed, as expected, but the 193 votes it earned was far more than Republican leaders had anticipated. That development emboldened supporters of the more conservative measure to demand some items from their version be added to the leadership’s bill.

“We just had a bill that got 193 though, though, without really any help, in my opinion, any real significant help,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry. “The attorney general didn’t come while it’s been sitting here for six months. The homeland security secretary didn’t come while it’s been sitting here for six months. And it got 193 votes. That seems like a pretty good starting point.”

Both Cabinet members made trips to Capitol Hill in recent days, as did President Trump, who told Republicans he backed both immigration bills. Trump’s approval didn’t do enough for Perry and other holdouts. “I appreciate the president’s opinion and his input. But I worked on the bill a little bit,” Perry said. “To me, we voted today on a bill that I thought was more indicative of where the people are and what the president originally ran on.”

In addition to the policy divides, several GOP lawmakers felt that they didn’t know what was in the “consensus” bill as it was still being tweaked hours before they were scheduled to vote on it.

Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo, one of the moderate members who has been working with leadership to craft the compromise bill, said the delay will give members a chance to clarify details of the bill.

“Immigration policy is complex. Most members are not expert at it,” Curbelo said. “I think the more members understand this bill the more comfortable they will become with it.”

Curbelo said members have raised questions about how it would address issues like border security and visas for those immigrants who are in the country illegally after being brought here as children, commonly known as DREAMers.

Members were also confused because leaders were forced to update their hastily written bill after a $100-billion error was discovered. The House Rules Committee was forced to hold a special hearing at 10 p.m. Wednesday because the bill contained nearly $125 billion rather than the roughly $25 billion leaders intended to include for a border wall President Trump promised the U.S. would build during the 2016 presidential campaign.

GOP committee members were able to quickly remedy the mistake but the incident sowed further doubt among skeptics who already worried about the contents of the sweeping legislation.

Thursday evening’s Republican meeting was devoted to answering many of those basic questions. “We should have done this first before we put a bill together,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta. “It would have avoided what we’re seeing right now.”

The stalemate and delay underscore how far apart Republicans remain on immigration. If the issue continues to highlight disagreements within the Republican conference, it could ratchet up pressure on Ryan to step down as speaker.

Since President Trump ended the protections of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, last September and punted its future to Congress, lawmakers have failed to reach a consensus on any legislation to deal with the program or with the administration’s push for stepped-up border security measures.

Ahead of the votes, Ryan conceded that the goal of bringing the likely doomed measures up for a vote was to prevent moderates from gathering more signatures on a measure known as a discharge petition, which would force votes on their own set of immigration bills.

“Because a discharge petition would have brought legislation to the floor that the president would have surely vetoed, it would have been an exercise in futility,” Ryan explained. “But a lot of our members want to be able to express themselves by voting for the policies that they like, so they can express their votes on the floor.”

If the leadership-backed immigration bill goes down, Ryan may face increased calls to vacate his leadership post before the year’s end. Conservatives have argued that the issue of immigration was a driving force in Trump’s 2016 presidential victory and voters expect the party to follow through on the promise to enact more hard-line policies policing the southwest border. Ryan is not running for another term but has vowed to remain as speaker through the end of the year.

Conservatives have been frustrated for months with the way leadership handled immigration. Freedom Caucus Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Ryan should have allowed committees to draft an immigration bill and vote on it using what is known as regular order.

Jordan told reporters that the collapse this week is further evidence that some of his Republican colleagues are unwilling to back hard-line immigration proposals that were a central part of Trump’s campaign in 2016 and the GOP platform more broadly.

“The simple answer is not enough Republicans are willing to do what we told the American people we were going to do when they elected us,” Jordan said. “The reason it’s not going to pass is not enough members are willing to do what we said. Plain and simple.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622229439/house-immigration-bills-set-for-thursday-votes-expected-to-fail

 

Hardline immigration bill fails in the House

The House on Thursday rejected a hard-line immigration bill — introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — after leadership postponed a second vote on a compromise measure written with centrists.

The 193-231 vote came a day after President Trump signed an executive order ending the controversial practice of separating children from parents who cross the border illegally.

Every Democrat and 41 Republicans voted against Goodlatte’s bill.A second vote on the compromise measure has been delayed until Friday as leaders seek to rally support for it.

There will also be a conferencewide meeting on immigration at 4:30 p.m., which will give GOP leaders one last chance to rally the party around the legislation and convince the remaining holdouts to get on board with the plan.

The compromise measure would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 1.8 millions “Dreamers,” provide $25 billion for Trump’s border wall and other security measures, and prevent families from being separated at the border.

Trump’s Wednesday executive order, a rare reversal for the president, followed days of bipartisan — and global — condemnation of his “zero tolerance” policy toward families crossing the border illegally.

Trump has made immigration a signature issue of his administration, and he blames Democrats for the situation at the border.

House leadership had expressed pessimism on the chances for either Goodlatte’s legislation or a second compromise bill written with centrists, both of which come as the growing crisis at the border dominated headlines.

The hardline measure faced sharp pushback from both Democrats and moderates, who took issue with a number of provisions including its cuts to legal immigration.

Both bills have the support of the administration.

The vote effectively killed a discharge petition — introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) in April — that would have circumvented leadership and forced votes on four separate immigration proposals. The bill with the most votes over 218 would have then been sent to the upper chamber. 

The discharge petition, backed by moderates Republicans and most Democrats, nearly had its required number of backers, forcing leadership’s hand in bringing forth the Thursday votes.

Goodlatte’s bill would have provided funding for a wall along the southern border, ended the diversity visa lottery program, limited family-based visas, created an agriculture guest worker program require employers to use the E-Verify program — a pivotal provision in garnering conservative support — and allowed for the administration to cut funding toward sanctuary cities. 

—Melanie Zanona contributed.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/393460-hardline-immigration-bill-fails-in-the-house

Goodlatte Immigration Bill Fails to Pass Through House

by Sean Moran

The House of Representatives failed to pass the Donald Trump-endorsed Goodlatte immigration reform bill on Thursday.

The House failed to pass H.R. 4760, the “Securing America’s Future Act,” with a vote tally of 193-231. Forty-one Republicans voted against the immigration bill and no Democrats voted for it.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) sponsored the legislation. The House Freedom Caucus has lobbied House Republican leadership for months to vote on the measure. The Goodlatte bill, which is more conservative than the Ryan-sponsored immigration bill, received 193 votes despite little lobbying and whip support from House Republican leadership.

At a press conference earlier on Thursday, the House Freedom Caucus decried the House leadership’s “broken” promises that fast-tracked the vote for an amnesty bill pushed by Speaker Paul Ryan while ignoring the Goodlatte bill.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) said that the leadership’s push for the Ryan amnesty bill compared to the Goodlatte bill is “exactly what’s broken with Congress.” The Idado conservative said that the Goodlatte bill “should have been pushed.”

Labrador continued, suggesting that the “leadership team that decided that a committee was not wise enough to get 218” votes to pass through the House. Labrador said that the leadership “meddled with the bill.”

Former Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) that the House Judiciary Committee “did not get to vote in the committee.” Jordan contended that the Goodlatte bill would have “passed unanimously.”

Jordan told Breitbart News in an interview earlier this week why conservatives support the Goodlatte bill. Jordan said:

It’s the one that done with what’s consistent with the election. It says it will build the border security wall, end chain migration, stop the visa lottery, deal with sanctuary cities, reform the asylum law — right down the list of everything we know needs to happen and move to a merit-based [immigration system] and then we will deal with the DACA population.

The House will likely vote on the Ryan amnesty bill on Friday. In contrast, Jordan said that the Ryan bill is inconsistent with the 2016 Trump election mandate.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/21/goodlatte-immigration-bill-fails-to-pass-through-house/

House GOP abruptly scraps planned vote on troubled immigration bill, saying it could pass next week

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

IG Report shows foreign actors gained access to Clinton emails

Hillary Was Hacked And They Found It All – She’s In Serious Trouble Over ‘1 Secret’

FBI Email Reveals Foreign Actors Accessed Clinton’s Emails

Hostile foreign actors did obtain access to Clinton emails

REPORT: Hillary Thought She Was Off The Hook, But the IG Report Says ‘NOT SO FAST’

Congress Exposes FBI Coup Against Trump

Game-Changer: FBI Admits Classified Clinton Email Accessed by ‘Foreign Actors’

Gowdy, Goodlatte react to inspector general’s report on FBI

6-19-18 Mark Meadows (R-NC) Questions DOJ IG a Hillary Clinton Email Investigation

MARK MEADOWS WANTS ANSWERS FROM IG HOROWITZ ON 302 FORMS

FBI may have modified witness reports, misled DOJ watchdog with ‘false information,’GOP Rep says

GOP lawmaker charges FBI with changing witness forms in Clinton probe – 247 news

Rep. Meadows Q&A – Oversight of the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election

Rep. DeSantis Q&A – Oversight of the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election

Breaking Down The Justice Watchdog’s Report On Hillary Clinton Email Probe | Katy Tur | MSNBC

IG Report shows foreign actors gained access to Clinton emails

Whistleblower: Clinton emails include classified info

Ex-inspector general: Blowback came from Clinton allies

Ex-watchdog: From start, pushback on Clinton email probe

Hume: Intel watchdog shut down for doing his job

Clinton campaign looked to fire intel watchdog over email scandal

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch Speaks Out | NBC Nightly News

Rep. Jordan: There’s a different standard for politically connected

FBI chief grilled over Clinton emails

FBI Director James Comey FULL STATEMENT on Hillary Clinton Email Investigation (C-SPAN)

Documents released on Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton

Sekulow reacts to Senate probe into former AG Loretta Lynch

Could Loretta Lynch face 5-10 years in jail?

‘Completely Inappropriate’: Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Meet | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Jeanine Pirro reacts to Bill Clinton’s meeting with AG Lynch

Judge Napolitano on Lynch announcement: Very bad news for Clinton

Attorney: AG Lynch sabotaged Clinton investigation

Why did AG Lynch secretly meet with Bill Clinton?

WOW! IG Horowitz Probing Reports McCabe Demanded FBI Agents Change Interview Summaries

 

But her emails? You’re dang right her emails.

When the Justice Department inspector general’s report revealed that former FBI director James B. Comey had used a personal email account to conduct official business, Hillary Clinton claimed vindication. “But my emails,” she tweeted.Yes, Madam Secretary, your emails.In fact, the overlooked bombshell of the report is the inspector general’s confirmation that classified information contained in Clinton’s emails was in fact compromised by foreign intelligence services, and that Clinton had recklessly emailed President Barack Obama using her unsecured personal email from the territory of a hostile foreign adversary.Before the report was released, we knew from Comey’s July 2016 statement that Clinton’s private emails included “seven e-mail chains [which] concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.” We also knew that the FBI “also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.” Comey further declared, “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” And he speculated that, given how “extremely careless” Clinton had been, it was “possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”Well, it turns out, the FBI knew with certainty at the time that hostile actors had in fact gained access to classified information via Clinton’s emails. According to the inspector general, a special review of the Clinton email investigation in 2017 by the Office to the FBI’s Inspection Division (INSD) found that, before Comey’s 2016 statement, “the FBI . . . successfully determined classified information was improperly stored and transmitted on Clinton’s email server, and classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means” [emphasis added].The initial draft of Comey’s 2016 statement said it was “reasonably likely” that hostile actors had gained access to Clinton’s private email account. Moreover, the inspector general quotes FBI agent Peter Strzok as commenting on that “It is more accurate to say we know foreign actors obtained access to some of her emails (including at least one Secret one) via compromises of the private email accounts of some of her staffers” [emphasis added]. These facts were inexplicably left out of the final statement.

 2:37
Key takeaways from the inspector general’s Comey report

The Fix’s Callum Borchers analyzes the key takeaways from the Justice Department inspector general’s report on former FBI Director James B. Comey.

We still don’t know the full extent of the damage Clinton caused, because the inspector general reports that the FBI intentionally chose not to follow every potential lead of compromised classified information. The report notes that “Strzok further stated that the FBI’s ‘purpose and mission’ was not to pursue ‘spilled [classified] information to the ends of the earth’ and that the task of cleaning up classified spills by State Department employees was referred back to the State Department.”

We also learned new details about Clinton’s recklessness and willful misconduct in using her private email. The final version of Comey’s statement did note that Clinton “used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” But we did not know at the time that the original draft included one more sentence: “That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary.” According to the inspector general, “This reference later was changed to ‘another senior government official,’ and ultimately was omitted.”

When I worked in the George W. Bush White House, and traveled to certain foreign countries with the president, we were required by the Secret Service to remove the batteries from our BlackBerrys, place them in a sealed plastic bag, and leave them on Air Force One for the duration of our visit to prevent foreign adversaries from hacking into the White House email system. But Clinton was so cavalier that she actually used not her government communications device, but her unsecured private email to communicate directly with the president of the United States from the territory of a foreign adversary. By emailing Obama directly from hostile territory, she put both her own email system and the president’s at risk of foreign intrusion.

Many Democrats blame Comey’s July 2016 statement for causing Clinton irreparable harm in the election. But we now know Clinton’s actions were worse than what Comey presented to the American people. Just imagine if his statement had been full and complete.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archivefollow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

‘Foreign Actors’ Accessed Clinton’s Emails, House Committees’ Memo Finds

Hillary Clinton speaks at the IBEW union hall in Commerce, Calif., May 24, 2016. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

“Foreign actors” accessed Hillary Clinton’s emails, including one that was classified “secret,” according to a memo produced by two Republican-led House committees and obtained by Fox News.

The memo details the findings of congressional investigators who looked into whether the Department of Justice made politically motivated decisions over the past two years with respect to the Clinton and Trump-Russia investigations.

“Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails — including at least one email classified ‘Secret,’” the memo says. The private accounts of Clinton staffers were also breached by unnamed foreign actors, according to the memo.

The memo also notes that the “secret” classification, which was applied to at least one of the hacked emails, refers to information that, if disclosed, could “reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.”

An internal FBI email sent in May 2016 by Peter Strzok, who was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe for demonstrating political bias, corroborates the contents of the memo.

“We know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, Strzok wrote in the email, obtained by Fox News.

Stay Updated with NR DailyNR’s afternoon roundup of the day’s best commentary & must-read analysis.

Strzok, who served as a key investigator in the Clinton email probe, also asserts that foreign actors accessed at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers.

Strzok’s statement exceeded those of former FBI director James Comey, who said in July 2016 that hostile actors accessed the email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly conversed on her personal account. Comey made that conclusion public while announcing he would not recommend that charges be brought against Clinton for her handling of classified information as secretary of state.

The House committees chastised Comey for reaching an outcome that was “predetermined” in deciding not to charge Clinton before he had interviewed her and other key witnesses. The memo they produced also questions Comey’s interpretation of the law, which held that because there was no evidence of “intent” on Clinton’s part, she could not be charged.

“Mr. Comey, as the FBI Director, was the chief investigator, not the prosecutor. It was not up to him to determine what a ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would do with the evidence the FBI had collected,” the memo says.

The Department of Justice inspector general is expected to release a report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation to Congress Thursday afternoon.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hillary-clinton-email-accessed-foreign-actors/

 

FBI may have modified witness reports, misled DOJ watchdog with ‘false information,’ GOP Rep says

The FBI may have “edited and changed” key witness reports in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations, a top House Republican charged in a hearing into FBI and Justice Department misconduct Tuesday.

Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, also raised the possibility that the FBI misled the DOJ watchdog in an attempt to hide the identities of FBI employees who were caught sending anti-Trump messages.

The House Judiciary and Oversight committees were questioning Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz over his bombshell report into FBI and DOJ misconduct during the Hillary Clinton email probe.

“The other thing that I would ask you to look into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed,” Meadows told Horowitz. “Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”

OTHER HEARING DRAMA: DEM REP WARNS OF GOP PLOT TO OUST DEPUTY AG ROSENSTEIN ‘ON FRIDAY’

So-called “302s” are reports on witness interviews compiled by federal investigators. Horowitz said later he has additional information suggesting that the witness reports were changed after-the-fact in both the Clinton and Russia probes — a particularly alarming possibility given the IG report’s findings of bias in those investigations.

Horowitz suggested that the IG is reviewing information concerning modified 302s, saying his office intended to “follow up” on the matter.

In a dramatic moment, Meadows then directly asked Horowitz whether two anonymous FBI employees identified as making anti-Trump statements in the IG’s report were named Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer.

Horowitz refused to confirm the employees’ identities, which the FBI has declined to publicly reveal, citing the supposed sensitivity of their counterintelligence matters.

But Meadows suggested that justification may have been a sham.

“If that’s the reason the FBI is giving, they’re giving you false information.”

– GOP Rep. Mark Meadows

“They don’t work in counterintelligence,” Meadows said. “If that’s the reason the FBI is giving, they’re giving you false information, because they work for the [FBI] general counsel.”

SEVEN KEY TAKEWAYS FROM DOJ IG REPORT ON CLINTON PROBE MISCONDUCT

In the IG report released last Thursday, the two unnamed anti-Trump FBI employees reacted with shock and dismay at Trump’s election.

“I am numb,” one wrote on Election Day. “Viva le resistance,” the lawyer wrote later, in response to what he would do now that Trump had won.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/20/fbi-may-have-modified-witness-reports-misled-doj-watchdog-with-false-information-gop-rep-says.html

 

Hillary Clinton email controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Hillary Clinton email controversy was a major public controversy arising from the use by Hillary Clinton of her family’s private email server for official communications during her tenure as United States Secretary of State rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on secure federal servers. Those official communications included over 100 emails which contained classified information (but did not have classification markings) at the time they were sent, as well as 2,093 emails which were not marked classified but would retroactively be ranked as “confidential” by the State Department. Post-election analyses of media coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign show that the Clinton email controversy received the most extensive coverage of any topic.[1][2][3]

The controversy unfolded against the backdrop of Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign and hearings held by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her use of private messaging system software and a private server violated State Department protocols and procedures, as well as federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping. In response, Clinton said that her use of personal email was in compliance with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts, though not their own private email servers.

After allegations were raised that some of the emails in question contained classified information, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated an investigation regarding the origin and handling of classified emails on Clinton’s server. FBI Director James Comey identified 110 emails as containing information that was classified at the time it was sent, including 65 emails deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret”. None of these had classification markings. However, as noted in Clinton’s non-disclosure agreement, unmarked classified information should be treated the same as marked classified information. An additional three email chains contained “portion markings”, simply a “(C)” indicating “Confidential” in front of one or more paragraphs. These were not included in Comey’s list of 110 because the State Department failed to confirm they were classified at the time they were sent. Clinton told the FBI she did not know the meaning of “(C)”. Nearly 2,100 emails on the server were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department. In April 2018, Comey said that it was possible that his decision to announce the re-opening of the investigation was influenced by the fact that he thought it extremely likely that Clinton would become the next President.[4]

News reports indicated that while some of the emails contained information that the government considered classified to the highest levels, the information was “innocuous” and not “particularly sensitive” because the emails discussed matters that were simultaneously available in the public domain—such as in newspapers—but the government “owning agency” that acquired that same information by secret means maintains and enforces the classification status nevertheless.[5][6][7] The Los Angeles Times reported in October 2015, “Critics, including many current and former officials, have argued for years that the government classifies too much information, often for reasons that have little to do with actual security threats.”[7]

In May 2016, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General released an 83-page report about the State Department’s email practices, including Clinton’s. In July 2016, Comey announced that the FBI’s investigation had concluded that Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling her email system but recommended that no charges be filed against her. On July 6, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that no charges would be filed. US presidential candidate Donald Trump used the nickname Crooked Hillary to criticize Clinton primarily in relation to the email controversy.[8]

On October 28, 2016, just days before 2016 election day, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had started looking into newly discovered emails that may be pertinent to the case. On November 6, Comey notified Congress that the FBI had not changed its conclusion, reached in July, regarding Clinton’s emails.[9] Comey’s decision to hold a speech concluding that Clinton was “extremely careless” in the summer of 2016 and then just days before the 2016 election announce the re-opening of the investigation were both highly contentious, with critics saying that Comey violated Department of Justice guidelines and precedent, and that he prejudiced the public against Clinton.[10] Clinton herself, as well as other observers such as Nate Silver, argued that Comey’s decision to reopen the investigation days before the election date was a factor in her loss in the 2016 presidential election. On June 14, 2018, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General released its report into the FBI and DOJ’s handling of Clinton’s investigation.[11]

Background

Clinton’s use of BlackBerrys

Clinton holding a Blackberry phone in 2009

Prior to her appointment as Secretary of State in 2009, Clinton and her circle of friends and colleagues communicated via BlackBerry phones.[12] State Department security personnel suggested this would pose a security risk during her tenure.[13] The email account used on Clinton’s BlackBerry was then hosted on a private server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, but that information was not disclosed to State Department security personnel or senior State Department personnel.[14] It proved impractical to find a solution, even after consulting the National Security Agency, which would not have allowed Clinton to use her BlackBerry, or a similarly unsecured device, linked to a private server in her home.[15]

Setting up a secure desktop computer in her office was suggested, but Clinton was unfamiliar with their use[16] and opted for the convenience of her BlackBerry,[17] not the State Department, government protocol of a secured desktop computer. Efforts to find a secure solution were abandoned by Clinton,[15] and she was warned by State Department security personnel about the vulnerability of an unsecured BlackBerry to hacking.[18] She affirmed her knowledge of the danger, and was reportedly told that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security had obtained intelligence about her vulnerability while she was on a trip to Asia, but continued to use her BlackBerry outside her office.[19]

Domain names and email server

A screenshot of the Outlook Web App login page that is displayed when navigating to Clinton’s email service

At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, the domain names clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com were registered to Eric Hoteham,[20] with the home of Clinton and her husband in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address.[21][22] The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a state.gov email account) used to send and receive email, and which was purchased and installed in the Clintons’ home for her 2008 presidential campaign.[23]

The email server was located in the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York, from January 2009 until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.[24][25][26][27][28]

The server itself runs a Microsoft Exchange 2010[29][30] server with access to emails over the internet being delivered by Outlook Web App. The web page is secured with a TLS certificate to allow information to be transmitted securely when using the website. However, for the first two months of its use – January 2009 through March 29, 2009 – the web page was reportedly not secured with a TLS certificate, meaning that information transmitted using the service was unencrypted and may have been liable to interception.[19]

Initial awareness

As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]

In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.”[32] Emails sent to Clinton’s private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named “Guccifer” widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal’s email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]

Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.[36][37]

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton’s personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A request by the State Department for additional emails led to negotiations with her lawyers and advisors. In October, the State Department sent letters to Clinton and all previous Secretaries of State back to Madeleine Albright requesting emails and documents related to their work while in office. On December 5, 2014, Clinton lawyers delivered 12 file boxes filled with printed paper containing more than 30,000 emails. Clinton withheld almost 32,000 emails deemed to be of a personal nature.[32] Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton’s email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups.[38]

As of May 2016, no answer had been provided to the public as to whether 31,000 emails deleted by Hillary Clinton as personal have been or could be recovered.[39]

A March 2, 2015 New York Times article broke the story that the Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law.[40][41][42] At that point, Clinton announced that she had asked the State Department to release her emails.[43] Some in the media labeled the controversy “emailgate”.[44][45][46]

Use of private server for government business]

According to Clinton’s spokesperson Nick Merrill, a number of government officials have used private email accounts for official business, including secretaries of state before Clinton.[47]

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said that: “For some historical context, Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account.”[40] John Wonderlich, a transparency advocate with the Sunlight Foundation, observed while many government officials used private email accounts, their use of private email servers was much rarer.[48]

Dan Metcalfe, a former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, said this gave her even tighter control over her emails by not involving a third party such as Google and helped prevent their disclosure by Congressional subpoena. He added: “She managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it—perhaps forever”, making it “a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better”.[40][49]

According to Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency. The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.[40] NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained, require that they must be maintained “by the agency” and “readily found”, and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress”.[40]Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which “knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.[40]

Experts such as Metcalfe agree that these practices are allowed by federal law assuming that the material is not supposed to be classified,[47][50] or at least these practices are allowed in case of emergencies,[41] but they discourage these practices, believing that official email accounts should be used.[40]

Jason R. Baron, the former head of litigation at NARA, described the practice as “highly unusual” but not a violation of the law. In a separate interview, he said, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario—short of nuclear winter—where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.”[41][51][52] Baron told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2015 that “any employee’s decision to conduct all email correspondence through a private email network, using a non-.gov address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies.”[53]

May 2016 report from State Department’s inspector general

In May 2016, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General Steve Linick released an 83-page report about the State Department’s email practices.[54][55][56] The Inspector General was unable to find evidence that Clinton had ever sought approval from the State Department staff for her use of a private email server, determining that if Clinton had sought approval, Department staff would have declined her setup because of the “security risks in doing so”.[54] Aside from security risks, the report stated that “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”[57] Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point.[58][59][60] The report also stated that Clinton and her senior aides declined to speak with the investigators, while the previous four Secretaries of State did so.[54]

The report also reviewed the practices of several previous Secretaries of State and concluded that the Department’s recordkeeping practices were subpar for many years.[54] The Inspector General criticized Clinton’s use of private email for Department business, concluding that it was “not an appropriate method” of document preservation and did not follow Department policies that aim to comply with federal record laws. The report also criticized Colin Powell, who used a personal email account for business, saying that this violated some of the same Department policies.[54] State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the report emphasized the need for federal agencies to adapt “decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era” and said that the Department’s record-retention practices had been improved under the current Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Clinton’s successor.[54] The report also notes that the rules for preserving work-related emails were updated in 2009.[61]

Inspector General Linick wrote that he “found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system”, and also found that multiple State employees who raised concerns regarding Clinton’s server were told that the Office of the Legal Adviser had approved it, and were further told to “never speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again”.[62][63][64][65]

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon issued a statement saying: “The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic record-keeping systems were long-standing” and that Clinton “took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”[54] However, the Associated Press said, “The audit did note that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had also exclusively used a private email account…. But the failings of Clinton were singled out in the audit as being more serious than her predecessor.”[66] The report stated that “By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated, Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”[66]

Server security and hacking attempts

Encryption and security

In 2008, before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, managed the system. Cooper had no security clearance nor expertise in computer security.[67] Later, Bryan Pagliano, the former IT director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, was hired to maintain their private email server while Clinton was Secretary of State.[68][69] Pagliano had invoked the Fifth Amendment during congressional questioning about Clinton’s server. In early 2016, he was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in exchange for cooperation with prosecutors.[70] A Clinton spokesman said her campaign was “pleased” Pagliano was now cooperating with prosecutors.[71] As of May 2016, the State Department remained unable to locate most of Pagliano’s work-related emails from the period when he was employed by that department under Secretary Clinton.[72]

Security experts such as Chris Soghoian believe that emails to and from Clinton may have been at risk of hacking and foreign surveillance.[73] Marc Maiffret, a cybersecurity expert, said that the server had “amateur hour” vulnerabilities.[74] For the first two months after Clinton was appointed Secretary of State and began accessing mail on the server through her Blackberry, transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted. On March 29, 2009, a digital certificate was obtained which would have permitted encryption.[19]

Former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael T. Flynn,[75] former United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates,[76][77] and former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell[78][79] have said that it is likely that foreign governments were able to access the information on Clinton’s server. Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren’t sitting back, paging through the emails.”[80]

Hacking attempts

Clinton’s server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft’s Remote Desktop Services.[74]

It is known that hackers were aware of Clinton’s non-public email address as early as 2011.[81] Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of hacking attempts in 2011, and were reportedly worried about them.[82]

In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned Clinton’s Chappaqua server at least twice, in August and in December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com.[74] During 2014, Clinton’s server was the target of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea. Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three months prior to that, no such software had been installed.[83][84]

According to Pagliano, security logs of Clinton’s email server showed no evidence of successful hacking.[85] The New York Times reported that “forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers,” adding the logs “bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account […] did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments.[73][85][86]

In 2013, Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazăr (aka “Guccifer“) distributed private memos from Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton on events in Libya.[87][88] In 2016, Lazăr was extradited from Romania to the U.S. to face unrelated federal charges related to his hacking into the accounts of a number of high-profile U.S. figures,[89] pleading guilty to these charges.[90][91] While detained pending trial, Lazăr claimed to the media that he had successfully hacked Clinton’s server, but provided no proof of this claim.[92] Officials associated with the investigation told the media that they found no evidence supporting Lazăr’s assertion,[93] and Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon said “There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell.”[94][95] FBI Director James Comey later stated in a congressional hearing that Guccifer admitted his claim was a lie.[96]

According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127 (TG-4127), which targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. CTU researchers believe the group was gathering information for the Russian Government.[97][third-party source needed]

Classified information in emails

In various interviews, Clinton has said that “I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.”[98] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton’s emails did include messages with classification “portion markings”.[99][100] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as “Secret”; more than 20 contained “Top-Secret” information.[101][102] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small “c” in parentheses, described as “portion markings” by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[103][104][105]

Clinton personally wrote 104 of the 2,093 emails that were retroactively[106][107][108] found to contain information classified as “confidential.”[54][109] Of the remaining emails that were classified after they were sent, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote the most, at 215.[106]

According to the State Department, there were 2,093 email chains on the server that were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department at the “Confidential” confidential level.[110][111] TG-4127 accessed Hillary for America Campaign Gmail accounts through spoofed login pages. Victims thought they were standard pages and hackers were able to access their email account.[97][third-party source needed]

State Department inspector general reports and statements

A June 29, 2015, memorandum from the Inspector General of the State Department, Steve A. Linick, said that a review of the 55,000-page email release found “hundreds of potentially classified emails”.[112] A July 17, 2015, follow-up memo, sent jointly by Linick and the Intelligence Community (IC) inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, to Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, stated that they had confirmed that several of the emails contained classified information that was not marked as classified, at least one of which was publicly released.[112]

On July 24, 2015, Linick and McCullough said they had discovered classified information on Clinton’s email account,[113] but did not say whether Clinton sent or received the emails.[113] Investigators from their office, searching a randomly chosen sample of 40 emails, found four that contained classified information that originated from U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA).[113] Their statement said that the information they found was classified when sent, remained so as of their inspection, and “never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system”.[113]

In a separate statement in the form of a letter to Congress, McCullough said that he had made a request to the State Department for access to the entire set of emails turned over by Clinton, but that the Department rejected his request.[113][114] The letter stated that none of the emails were marked as classified, but because they included classified information they should have been marked and handled as such, and transmitted securely.[114]

On August 10, 2015, the IC inspector general said that two of the 40 emails in the sample were “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information” and subsequently given classified labels of “TK” (for “Talent Keyhole”, indicating material obtained by aerial or space-based imagery sources and NOFORN).[115] One is a discussion of a news article about a U.S. drone strike operation.[115] The second, he said, either referred to classified material or else was “parallel reporting” of open-source intelligence, which might still be classified by the government “owning agency” that sourced the information by secret means even though the same information was also available in the public domain.[115][116][117] Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the letter, and questioned whether the emails had been over-classified by an arbitrary process. According to an unnamed source, a secondary review by the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency endorsed the earlier inspectors general findings concluding that the emails (one of which concerned North Korea’s nuclear weapons program) were “Top Secret” when received by Clinton through her private server in 2009 and 2011, a conclusion also disputed by the Clinton campaign.[118]

The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016. In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn declaration that “several dozen emails [had been] determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels.” Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced by the emails.[119][120][121] NBC News reported on January 20, 2016 that senior American officials described these emails as “innocuous” because—although they discussed the CIA drone program that is technically classified TOP SECRET/SAP—the existence of the CIA drone program had been widely known and discussed in the public domain for years. These officials characterized the IC inspector general as unfair in how he had handled the issue.[6]

On January 29, 2016, the State Department announced that 22 documents from Clinton’s email server would not be released because they contained highly classified information that was too sensitive for public consumption. At the same time, the State Department announced that it was initiating its own investigation into whether the server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.[122]

In February 2016, State Department IG Linick addressed another report to Under Secretary of State Kennedy, stating his office had also found classified material in 10 emails in the personal email accounts of members of former Secretary Condoleezza Rice‘s staff and in two emails in the personal email account of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[123][124] None of the emails were classified for intelligence reasons.[125] PolitiFact found a year earlier that Powell was the only former secretary of state to use a personal email account.[126] In February 2016, Clinton’s campaign chairman issued a statement claiming that her emails, like her predecessors’, were “being inappropriately subjected to over-classification.”[123]

FBI investigation

July 2015 – Security referral

The State Department and Intelligence Community (IC) inspector generals’ discovery of four emails containing classified information, out of a random sample of 40, prompted them to make a security referral to the FBI’s counterintelligence office, to alert authorities that classified information was being kept on Clinton’s server and by her lawyer on a thumb drive.[113][114] As part of an FBI probe at the request of the IC inspector general, Clinton agreed to turn over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as thumb drives containing copies of her work-related emails. Other emails were obtained by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi from other sources, in connection with the committee’s inquiry. Clinton’s own emails are being made public in stages by the State Department on a gradual schedule.[127][128][129]

Clinton’s IT contractors turned over her personal email server to the FBI on August 12, 2015,[28] as well as thumb drives containing copies of her emails.[130][131]

In a letter describing the matter to Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Clinton’s lawyer David E. Kendall said that emails, and all other data stored on the server, had earlier been erased prior to the device being turned over to the authorities, and that both he and another lawyer had been given security clearances by the State Department to handle thumb drives containing about 30,000 emails that Clinton subsequently also turned over to authorities. Kendall said the thumb drives had been stored in a safe provided to him in July by the State Department.[132]

August 2015 – Investigation continues; email recovery

On August 20, 2015, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan stated that Hillary Clinton’s actions of maintaining a private email server were in direct conflict with U.S. government policy. “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” he said, and ordered the State Department to work with the FBI to determine if any emails on the server during her tenure as Secretary of State could be recovered.[133][134][135]

Platte River Networks, the Denver-based firm that managed the Clinton server since 2013, said it had no knowledge of the server being wiped. “Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped”, company spokesman Andy Boian told the Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”[136] When asked by the Washington Post, the Clinton campaign declined to comment.[136]

In September 2015, FBI investigators were engaged in sorting messages recovered from the server.[137] In November 2015, the FBI expanded its inquiry to examine whether Clinton or her aides jeopardized national security secrets, and if so, who should be held responsible.[138][139]

Conflicting media sources sized the FBI investigation from 12[140] to 30 agents[141] as of March 2016.

May–July 2016 – Public statements

In May 2016, FBI Director James Comey said that Clinton’s description of the probe as a “security inquiry” was inaccurate saying “It’s in our name. I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry'” and “We’re conducting an investigation … That’s what we do”.[142]

In late June 2016, it was reported that Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her private plane on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Officials indicated that the 30 minute meeting took place when Clinton became aware that Lynch’s plane was on the same tarmac at the airport. When the meeting became public, Lynch stated that it was “primarily social” and “there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body”. Lynch was criticized for her involvement in the meeting and was called on by some critics to recuse herself from involvement in the FBI’s investigation of the email case. In response, she stated “The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state”, but “the case will be resolved by the same team that has been working on it from the beginning” and “I will be accepting their recommendations.”[143][144][145]

On July 1, 2016, the New York Times reported in the name of a “Justice Department official” that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will accept “whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server.”[143]

Clinton maintained she did not send or receive any confidential emails from her personal server. In a Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders on February 4, 2016, Clinton said, “I never sent or received any classified material.” In a Meet the Press interview on July 2, 2016, she stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”[146][147][148]

July 2016 – Investigation concludes

On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced in a statement he read to press and television reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, that the FBI had completed its investigation and was referring it to the State Department with the recommendation “that no charges are appropriate in this case.”[149][150][151] He added, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”[149][150]

With regard to mishandling of classified information, Comey said, “there is evidence that they [Clinton and her team] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The investigation found 110 emails that should have been regarded as classified at the time they were sent; another 2,000 emails were retroactively classified which means they were not classified at the time they were sent.[152] Comey said that “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding … should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”[153][154]

The FBI learned that Clinton used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, both sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. The FBI did not find “direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain … was successfully hacked”; they assessed it “possible that hostile actors gained access” to it.[149][151] Investigators found that State Department employees often used private emails to conduct business. Comey noted, “We also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”[155]

On July 6, 2016, Lynch confirmed that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state would be closed without criminal charges.[156]

October 2016 – Additional investigation

In early October 2016, FBI criminal investigators working on a case involving former Congressman Anthony Weiner allegedly sending sexually explicit texts to a fifteen-year-old girl discovered emails from Weiner’s estranged wife, Huma Abedin, vice chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, that they considered potentially relevant to the Clinton server investigation. FBI officials reportedly decided to disclose the development despite its potential effect on the pending presidential election to preempt the possibility that it would be leaked in another way.[157]

On October 28, 2016, Comey informed Congress that “in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation.” He said the FBI will take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He added that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”[158] The FBI obtained a new search warrant to allow them to review Abedin’s emails.[157]

Comey informed Congress of this additional investigation despite having been advised by Justice Department officials that such an announcement would violate department policies and procedures, including a policy not to comment on investigations close to an election.[159] Comey later explained, in a letter to FBI employees, “We don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.” Law enforcement sources added that he feared he would be accused of concealing relevant information if he did not disclose it.[159]

News of this renewed investigation being revealed shortly before the U.S. presidential election led to the announcement being described as an “October surprise“,[160] and prompted statements from both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. Donald Trumprepeated his characterization that Hillary Clinton’s email usage as secretary of state was “worse than Watergate.”[161][162] Clinton called for the FBI to immediately release all information about the newly discovered emails and said she was confident the FBI would not change its earlier conclusion that there is no basis for criminal prosecution.[163] Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she was “shocked” by the letter, saying it “played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump.”[159]

On November 6, in another letter to Congress, Comey stated that, after working “around the clock” to review all of the newly discovered emails, the FBI had not changed the conclusion it reached in July.[164][165][166] An unnamed government official added that the newly discovered emails turned out to be either personal or duplicates of emails previously reviewed, and that Comey’s letter represents a conclusion of the investigation.[167] The following day, stock and currency markets around the world surged in response.[168][169][170]

On November 12, during a conference call to top donors, Hillary Clinton attributed her presidential election loss to Comey’s announcements, saying they stopped her momentum.[171] In January 2017, the US Justice Department started an investigation of Comey’s announcements.[172]

Senate probes Loretta Lynch interference

According to Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had asked him to downplay the investigation into Clinton’s emails by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. He said the request “confused and concerned” him. He added that Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton also influenced his decision to publicly announce the results of the FBI probe.[173][174][175]

On June 23, 2017, several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee opened a bipartisan inquiry into whether former Attorney General Lynch interfered in the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.[176][177]

Internal State Department investigation

On July 7, 2016, the internal State Department resumed its review of whether classified information had been mishandled. The review had been suspended until the completion of the Justice Department investigation.[178][179]

Department of Justice Inspector General’s report

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice (IG) launched an investigation into how the DOJ and FBI had handled the investigation into Clinton’s email. On June 14, 2018, the IG issued a report that was highly critical of Comey’s actions.[11] Regarding his July press conference, in which he criticized Clinton even while announcing the investigation was over, the IG said it was “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions (about the press conference) from his superiors”, and that “we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies.”[180] Comey’s October decision to send a letter notifying Congress that the investigation had been re-opened one week before the election was described as “ad-hoc” and “a serious error in judgment”.[180] However, the IG concluded that prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were consistent with precedent and were not affected by bias.[181]

Opinions of journalists and experts

According to the New York Times, if Clinton was a recipient of classified emails, “it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified.”[98][113] The newspaper reported that “most specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in the Clinton account was probably of marginal consequence.”[23] Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said that inadvertent “spillage” of classified information into an unclassified realm is a common occurrence.[23]

Reuters‘ August 2015 review of a set of released emails found “at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails,” that include what the State Department identifies as “foreign government information”, defined by the U.S. government as “any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.” Although unmarked, Reuters’ examination appeared to suggest that these emails “were classified from the start.”[98] J. William Leonard, a former director of the NARA Information Security Oversight Office, said that such information is “born classified” and that “[I]f a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession.”[98]According to Reuters, the standard U.S. government nondisclosure agreement “warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.” The State Department “disputed Reuters’ analysis” but declined to elaborate.[98]

The Associated Press reported, “Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch—a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification.”[115] Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience.[182] Toobin writes that “government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.”[182] Toobin wrote that “It’s not only the public who cannot know the extent or content of government secrecy. Realistically, government officials can’t know either—and this is Hillary Clinton’s problem. Toobin noted that “one of Clinton’s potentially classified email exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones” and wrote: “That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets.”[182]

In an analysis of the Clinton email controversy published by the Brookings Institution, Richard Lempert wrote that “security professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification.”[183] Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says that “The odds are good that any classified information in the Clinton emails should not have been classified,” since an estimated 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could be made public without risking national security.[183] Nate Jones, an expert with the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said: “Clinton’s mistreatment of federal records and the intelligence community’s desire to retroactively overclassify are two distinct troubling problems. No politician is giving the right message: Blame Clinton for poor records practices, but don’t embrace overclassification while you do it.”[183]

House Oversight Committee hearing

On July 7, 2016, Comey was questioned for 5 hours by the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Comey stated that there was “evidence of mishandling” of classified information and that he believed that Clinton was “extremely careless; I think she was negligent”. He defended the FBI’s recommendation against bringing charges because it “… would have been unfair and virtually unprecedented …”[184][185]

Responses and analysis

Clinton’s initial response

Clinton addressing email controversy with the media at the UN Headquarters on March 10, 2015.

Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill defended Clinton’s usage of her personal server and email accounts as being in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules”.

Clinton herself stated she had done so as a matter of “convenience”.[186]

On March 10, 2015, while attending a conference at the headquarters of the United Nations in Manhattan, Clinton spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes.[187] Clinton said she had used a private email for convenience, “because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”[188][189] It was later determined that Clinton had used both an iPad and a BlackBerry while Secretary of State.[188][190][191][192]

Clinton turned over copies of 30,000 State Department business-related emails from her private server that belonged in the public domain; she later explained that she instructed her lawyer to err on the side of disclosure, turning over any emails that might be work-related. Her aides subsequently deleted about 31,000 emails from the server dated during the same time period that Clinton regarded as personal and private.[193][194][195] State Department employees do have the right to delete personal emails.[196]

Clinton has used humor to try to shrug off the scandals.[197][198] In August 2015, when asked by a reporter whether she had “wiped” her server, Clinton laughed and said: “What? Like with a cloth or something? I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”[199] In September 2015, Clinton was asked in an interview with Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show about the content of the emails. She laughed it off, saying there was nothing interesting and joking that she was offended people found her emails ‘boring’.[200]

Later responses

Clinton’s responses to the question, made during her presidential campaign, evolved over time.[182][201]

Clinton initially said that there was no classified material on her server. Later, after a government review discovered some of her emails contained classified information, she said she never sent or received information that was marked classified.[182] Her campaign claimed other emails contained information that is now classified, but was retroactively classified by U.S. intelligence agencies after Clinton had received the material.[202] See also the section above on the May 2016 IG report for a number of Clinton statements that were contradicted by the report, and how she and her supporters responded afterward.

Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said: “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.”[202] Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri has “stressed that Clinton was permitted to use her own email account as a government employee and that the same process concerning classification reviews would still be taking place had she used the standard ‘state.gov’ email account used by most department employees.”[115][203] Palmieri later stated: “Look, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”[24]

In her first national interview about the 2016 presidential race, on July 7, 2015, Clinton was asked by CNN‘s Brianna Keilar about her use of private email accounts while serving as Secretary of State. She said:

Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing… Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.[204]

On September 9, 2015, Clinton apologized during an ABC News interview for using the private server, saying she was “sorry for that.”[205] Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on September 27, 2015, Clinton defended her use of the private email server while she was secretary of state, comparing the investigations to Republican-led probes of her husband’s presidential administration more than two decades ago, saying, “It is like a drip, drip, drip. And that’s why I said, there’s only so much that I can control”.[206]

Clinton and the State Department said the emails were not marked classified when sent. However, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement which stated that classified material may be “marked or unmarked”.[207][208][209] Additionally, the author of an email is legally required to properly mark it as classified if it contains classified material, and to avoid sending classified material on a personal device, such as the ones used exclusively by Clinton.[210]

Clinton maintained that she did not send or receive any confidential emails from her personal server. In a Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders on February 4, 2016, Clinton said, “I never sent or received any classified material.” In a Meet the Press interview on July 2, 2016, Clinton stated: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now, I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”[146][147][148]

In an interview with Fox News in late July 2016, Clinton stated “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” The Washington Post awarded Clinton four “Pinocchios”, its worst rating, for her statement saying “While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public.”[211][212][213]

Democratic response

In August 2015, the New York Times reported on “interviews with more than 75 Democratic governors, lawmakers, candidates and party members” on the email issue.[214] The Times reported, “None of the Democrats interviewed went so far as to suggest that the email issue raised concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s ability to serve as president, and many expressed a belief that it had been manufactured by Republicans in Congress and other adversaries.”[214] At the same time, many Democratic leaders showed increasing frustration among party leaders of Clinton’s handling of the email issue. For example, Edward G. Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania, a Clinton supporter, said that a failure of the Clinton campaign to get ahead of the issue early on meant that the campaign was “left just playing defense.”[214] Other prominent Democrats, such as Governor Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, were less concerned, noting the campaign was at an early stage and that attacks on Clinton were to be expected.[214]

At the October 2015 primary debate, Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, defended Clinton, saying: “Let me say this. Let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right. And that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!”[215][216] Sanders later clarified that he thought Clinton’s emails were a “very serious issue”,[217] but Americans want a discussion on issues that are “real” to them, such as paid familyand medical leavecollege affordability, and campaign finance reform.[216]

Republican response

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said, in a statement regarding the June 30, 2015 email releases, “These emails … are just the tip of the iceberg, and we will never get full disclosure until Hillary Clinton releases her secret server for an independent investigation.”[218] Trey Gowdy said on June 29, 2015, that he would press the State Department for a fuller accounting of Clinton’s emails, after the Benghazi panel retrieved 15 additional emails to Sidney Blumenthal that the department had not provided to the Committee.[219]

On September 12, 2015, Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson, chairmen of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they would seek an independent review of the deleted emails, if they were recovered from Clinton’s server, to determine if there were any government related items among those deleted.[136]

Comparisons and media coverage

Analyses by Columbia Journalism Review, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School show that the Clinton email controversy received more coverage in mainstream media outlets than any other topic during the 2016 presidential election.[1][2][3] The New York Times coverage of the email controversy was notoriously extensive; according to a Columbia Journalism Review analysis, “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta).”[1]In attempting to explain the lopsided coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review speculates, “In retrospect, it seems clear that the press in general made the mistake of assuming a Clinton victory was inevitable, and were setting themselves as credible critics of the next administration.”[1]

Media commentators drew comparisons of Clinton’s email usage to past political controversies. Pacific Standard Magazine published an article in May 2015, comparing email controversy and her response to it with the Whitewater investigation 20 years earlier.[220]

In August 2015, Washington Post associate editor and investigative journalist Bob Woodward, when asked about Clinton’s handling of her emails, said they remind him of the Nixon tapes from the Watergate scandal.[221] On March 9, 2015, liberal columnist and Clinton supporter Dana Milbank wrote that the email affair was “a needless, self-inflicted wound” brought about by “debilitating caution” in “trying to make sure an embarrassing e-mail or two didn’t become public”, which led to “obsessive secrecy.” Milbank pointed out that Clinton herself had justifiably criticized the George W. Bush administration in 2007 for its “secret” White House email accounts.[222][223]

On Fox News Sundaypolitical analyst Juan Williams contrasted the media coverage of Clinton’s emails to the coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy which he claimed received “just about zero press coverage”.[224] PolitiFact found Williams’ assertion to be “mostly false”, concluding “We found hundreds of articles and television transcripts referencing the issue. Still, Williams has something of a point that compared to the extensive recent coverage of Clinton’s use of private email, media coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy was thin.”[224]

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an editorial opining that “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences.”[225][226] Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote in The Week that “Clinton set up a personal email server, in defiance or at least circumvention of rules, with the probable motive of evading federal records and transparency requirements, and did it with subpar security.”[227]

On November 2, 2016, Fox News anchor Bret Baier reported that according to Fox’s anonymous sources the FBI had discovered that Clinton’s private server had been hacked by “five foreign intelligence agencies”.[228][229][230] Baier further reported that according to an anonymous source an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation was “likely” to lead to an indictment of Hillary Clinton.[228][229] On November 4, 2016, he acknowledged that his assertions were a mistake, saying, “indictment obviously is a very loaded word”, and that he was sorry.[231][228][229]

House Select Committee on Benghazi

On March 27, 2015, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, asserted that some time after October 2014, Clinton “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean” and “summarily decided to delete all emails.”[232][233] Clinton’s attorney, David E. Kendall, said that day that an examination showed that no copies of any of Clinton’s emails remained on the server. Kendall said the server was reconfigured to only retain emails for 60 days after Clinton lawyers had decided which emails needed to be turned over.[234]

On June 22, 2015, the Benghazi panel released emails between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, who had been recently deposed by the committee. Committee chairman Gowdy issued a press release criticizing Clinton for not providing the emails to the State Department.[235] Clinton had said she provided all work-related emails to the State Department, and that only emails of a personal nature on her private server were destroyed. The State Department confirmed that 10 emails and parts of five others from Sidney Blumenthal regarding Benghazi, which the Committee had made public on June 22, could not be located in the Department’s records, but that the 46 other, previously unreleased Libya-related Blumenthal emails published by the Committee, were in the Department’s records. In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill, when asked about the discrepancy said: “She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”[236] Republican Committee members were encouraged about their probe, having found emails that Clinton failed to produce.[236][237] Clinton campaign staff accused Gowdy and Republicans of “clinging to their invented scandal”.[237]

In response to comments that House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy made on September 29, 2015, about damaging Clinton’s poll numbers,[238] Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi threatened to end the Democrats’ participation in the committee.[239][240][241]Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced an amendment to disband the committee, which was defeated in a party-line vote.[242] On October 7, the editorial board of The New York Times called for the end of the committee.[243] Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) took step towards filing an ethics complaint, calling the committee “the new McCarthyism”, alleging it was violating both House rules and federal law by using official funds for political purposes.[244] Richard L. Hanna, (R-NY),[245] and conservative pundit Bill O’Reillyacknowledged the partisan nature of the committee.[246]

Hillary Clinton’s public hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi

On October 22, 2015, Clinton testified before the Committee and answered members’ questions for eleven hours before the Committee in a public hearing.[247][248][249]

The New York Times reported that “the long day of often-testy exchanges between committee members and their prominent witness revealed little new information about an episode that has been the subject of seven previous investigations…Perhaps stung by recent admissions that the pursuit of Mrs. Clinton’s emails was politically motivated, Republican lawmakers on the panel for the most part avoided any mention of her use of a private email server.”[247] The email issue did arise shortly before lunch, in “a shouting match” between Republican committee chair Trey Gowdy and two Democrats, Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings.[247] Late in the hearing, Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio accused Clinton of changing her accounts of the email service, leading to a “heated exchange” in which Clinton said that she had erred in making a private email account, but denied having dealt with anything marked classified, instead seeking “to be transparent by publicly releasing her emails.”[247]

Freedom of Information lawsuits

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State

Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton

Judicial Watch, an conservative activist group, filed a complaint against the Department of State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 10, 2013, seeking records under the federal Freedom of Information Act relating to Clinton aide Huma Abedin (a former deputy chief of staff and former senior advisor at the State Department).[250][251] Judicial Watch was particularly interested in Abedin’s role as a “special government employee” (SGE), a consulting position which allowed her to represent outside clients while also serving at the State Department. After corresponding with the State Department, Judicial Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit on March 14, 2014.[250] On March 12, 2015, in response to the uncovering of Clinton’s private email account, it filed a motion to reopen the suit, alleging that the State Department had misrepresented its search and had not properly preserved and maintained records under the act.[250] U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the motion to reopen the case on June 19, 2015.[252][253]

On July 21, 2015, Judge Sullivan issued supplemental discovery orders, including one that Clinton, Abedin, and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills disclose any required information they had not disclosed already, and promise under oath that they had done so, including a description of the extent Abedin and Mills had used Clinton’s email server for official government business.[254][255]

On August 10, 2015, Clinton filed her declaration, stating “I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State”, and that as a result of this directive, 55,000 pages of emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.[256][257][258] She said in her statement that Abedin did have an email account through clintonemail.com that “was used at times for government business”, but that Mills did not.[256][257][258] The statement was filed as Clinton faced questions over fifteen emails in exchanges with Blumenthal that were not among the emails she gave to the department the previous year. She did not address the matter of those emails in the statement.[257] On September 25, 2015, several additional emails from her private server[259] surfaced which she had not provided to the State Department.[259][260][261] These emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus, discussing personnel matters, were part of an email chain that started on a different email account before her tenure as Secretary of State,[259][260][261] but continued onto her private server in late January 2009 after she had taken office.[259][260][261] The existence of these emails also called into question Clinton’s previous statement that she did not use the server before March 18, 2009.[262]

In February 2016, Judge Sullivan issued a discovery order in the case, ruling that depositions of State Department officials and top Clinton aides were to proceed.[263] On May 26, 2016, Judicial Watch released the transcript of the deposition of Lewis Lukens,[264] on May 31, 2016, the transcript of Cheryl Mills,[265] on June 7, 2016, the transcript of Ambassador Stephen Mull,[266] and on June 9, 2016, Karin Lang, Director of Executive Secretariat Staff.[267]

The testimony of Clarence Finney, who worked in the department responsible for FOIA searches, said that he first became curious about Clinton’s email setup after seeing the Texts from Hillary meme on the Internet.[268]

Jason Leopold v. U.S. Department of State

In November 2014, Jason Leopold of Vice News made a Freedom of Information Act request for Clinton’s State Department records,[269][270] and, on January 25, 2015, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel production of responsive documents.[269][270][271] After some dispute between Leopold and the State Department over the request, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered rolling production and release of the emails on a schedule set by the State Department.[272][273][274]

Over the next several months, the State Department completed production of 30,068 emails, which were released in 14 batches, with the final batch released on February 29, 2016.[275] Both the Wall Street Journal and WikiLeaks independently set up search engines for anyone who would like to search through the Clinton emails released by the State Department.[276][277]

It was revealed in October 2017 that during the 2016 US Presidential election, Cambridge Analytica funder and GOP mega-donor Rebekah Mercer had proposed creating a searchable data base for Hillary Clinton emails in the public domain and then forwarded this suggestion to several people, including Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, who personally emailed a request to Julian Assange for Clinton’s emails.[278] Assange responded to the report by saying he denied Nix’s request.[279]

The emails showed that Blumenthal communicated with Clinton while Secretary on a variety of issues including Benghazi.[218][280][281][282]

Associated Press v. U.S. Department of State

On March 11, 2015, the day after Clinton acknowledged her private email account, the Associated Press (AP) filed suit against the State Department regarding multiple FOIA requests over the past five years. The requests were for various emails and other documents from Clinton’s time as secretary of state and were still unfulfilled at the time.[283][284][285] The State Department said that a high volume of FOIA requests and a large backlog had caused the delay.[283][286]

On July 20, 2015, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reacted angrily to what he said was “the State Department for four years dragging their feet”.[286] Leon said that “even the least ambitious bureaucrat” could process the request faster than the State Department was doing.[287]

On August 7, 2015, Leon issued an order setting a stringent schedule for the State Department to provide the AP with the requested documents over the next eight months.[285] The order issued by Leon did not include the 55,000 pages of Clinton emails the State Department scheduled to be released in the Leopold case, or take into account 20 boxes given to the State Department by Philippe Reines, a former Clinton senior adviser.[285]

Other suits and coordination of email cases

In September 2015, the State Department filed a motion in court seeking to consolidate and coordinate the large number of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits relating to Clinton and Clinton-related emails. There were at the time at least three dozen lawsuits are pending, before 17 different judges.[288][289]

In a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia order issued on October 8, 2015, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts wrote that the cases did not meet the usual criteria for consolidation but: “The judges who have been randomly assigned to these cases have been and continue to be committed to informal coordination so as to avoid unnecessary inefficiencies and confusion, and the parties are also urged to meet and confer to assist in coordination.”[289]

In 2015, Judicial Watch and the Cause of Action Institute filed two lawsuits seeking a court order to compel the Department of State and the National Archives and Records Administration to recover emails from Clinton’s server. In January 2016, these two suits (which were consolidated because they involved the same issues) were dismissed as moot by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, because the government was already working to recover and preserve these emails.[290]

In March 2016, the Republican National Committee filed four new complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stemming from Freedom of Information Act requests it had filed the previous year. These new filings brought the total number of civil suits over access to Clinton’s records pending in federal court to at least 38.[291]

In June 2016, in response to the Republican National Committee’s complaints filed in March 2016, the State Department estimates it will take 75 years to complete the review of documents which are responsive to the complaints.[292] It has been observed that a delay of this nature would cause the documents to remain out of public view longer than the vast majority of classified documents which must be declassified after 25 years.[citation needed]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1097

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018, Story 1: When Will President Trump Ask Congress For A Declaration of War Against Syria Required By The Constitution of The United States? — Congress Is Abdicating Their Responsibility To Declare War! — The Big Loophole Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973 or War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) — From Constitutional Representative Republic of Peace and Propensity to Two Party Tyranny American Empire Warfare and Welfare State — No More Presidential Undeclared Wars! — Videos –Story 2: Trump Wants 4,000 National Guard Force Assisting U.S. Border Patrol — Zero Miles of Wall Built — Videos — Story 3: House Speaker Paul Ryan Retiring January 2018 — Videos

Posted on April 12, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Chemical Explosion, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, James Comey, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, MIssiles, National Interest, National Security Agency, Nerve Gas, News, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Networking, Syria, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Uncategorized, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vietnam, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare Spending, Wisdom, Yemen | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: When Will President Trump Ask Congress For A Declaration of War Against Syria Required By The Constitution of The United States? — Congress Is Abdicating Their Responsibility To Declare War! — The Big Loophole Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973 or War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) — From Constitutional Representative Republic of Peace and Propensity to Two Party Tyranny American Empire Warfare and Welfare State — No More Presidential Undeclared Wars! — Videos —

Tucker Carlson Debates Pro Syrian War Commentator Noah Rothman

Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Authoritarian Behavior of American Media Clamoring For War

Tucker: How does Syrian regime change help the U.S.?

War In Syria: What You Need To Know!

War In Syria: This Could Be The End

What Was the War Powers Resolution of 1973? | History

Ron Paul on The Unconstitutional War Powers Act and an Agitated James Baker

Mark Levin: Lesson on the 1973 War Powers Resolution

 

America Declares War on Japan – President Roosevelt Speech

Sept. 20, 2001 – Bush Declares War on Terror

Breaking News – Five Destroyers And Cruisers Head To Middle East

Breaking News – Five Destroyers And Cruisers Head To Middle East USS Normandy, USS Bulkeley, USS Forrest Sherman, USS Farragut, USS Arleigh Burke

Donald Trump warns Putin his missiles are coming after Russia vowed to Shoot them down

US-UK readying attack ships and jets off the coast of Syria: Russia armed forces on heightened alert

U.S. Navy destroyer heads towards Syria as Trump mulls options over suspected chemical attack

White House: All options are on the table for Syria response

Syria’s war: Who is fighting and why

Why Russia Is So Involved With The Syrian Civil War

The Middle East’s cold war, explained

5 Most Likely Causes Of World War 3

10 Empires That Came Close To World Domination

DECLINE of EMPIRES: The Signs of Decay

Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony

The Sorrows of Empire – Chalmers Johnson

The Parallels between Rome and the United States

The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels

Tucker Carlson Goes on Epic Rant Against War in Syria

Tucker Carlson Gets into Heated Debate with Sen Wicker After He Implied Tucker’s Stance on Syria war

John Stossel – War Powers

Which Countries Has The U.S. Invaded?

Is The USA Starting World War 3?

How will John Bolton help President Trump deal with issues like Syria?

Tucker Carlson’s awkward interview with John Bolton

Rand Paul: I’m an ‘Automatic No’ on John Bolton

Constitutional War Power: The Founders’ Framework

The Constitution and the Power to “Declare War”

What Was the War Powers Resolution of 1973? | History

Actually, We Don’t Know If Assad Is Behind This’ – Tucker Carlson Ridicules Clueless Democrat

What is a neocon? Neoconservatism explained in 5 minutes

What is a Neoconservative?

The Danger of Neoconservatism – Ron Paul

War Party : Documentary on the Neoconservative War Party

National Review’s Neoconservative Agenda

The Neoconservative Agenda | John F. McMan

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 1 Baby Its Cold Outside (2004)

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 2 The Phantom Victory (2004)

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 3 The Shadows In The Cave (2004)

Neocon Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians ‘Pussies’ & Gets Booed By Room Full Of Students

G. Edward Griffin – The Grand Design: The Hidden Plan That Shapes US Foreign Policy

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

Why the United States doesn’t declare war anymore

Why the United States doesn’t declare war anymore

By Sara Jerving Apr 7, 2017

President Trump justified the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian air base Thursday night as being in the “vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” He did not ask for Congress’ authorization to carry out the strikes.

Ordered in retaliation for a horrific Syrian sarin gas attack on civilians Tuesday, the strikes came on the 100th anniversary of the day the U.S. declared war on Germany and entered World War I. The U.S. has formally declared war 11 timesin its history, but the last time was during World War II.

Trump ordered the Syria strike under the War Powers Resolution, which says a president has to report to Congress within 48 hours if the U.S. armed forces are introduced into a conflict. It’s a law that was enacted in 1973 to restore Congress’ role in authorizing force in response to the lack of a formal war declaration in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Under the law, troops cannot stay for more than 90 days unless Congress approves.

Today, American forces are still operating under the authorization for the use of military force that President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks in order to fight countries or groups connected to the attacks.

Regarding the Syria strikes, the White House said that about two dozen members of Congress were notified and briefed while the strikes were underway, but some want Trump to seek congressional approval. “Assad is a brutal dictator who must be held accountable for his actions,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat from Virginia. “But President Trump has launched a military strike against Syria without a vote of Congress. The Constitution says war must be declared by Congress.”

“The United States was not attacked. The president needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate,” said Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

A true declaration of war would give the president broad legal authority, such as the ability to stop exports of agricultural products, control transportation systems, and order manufacturing plants to produce weapons — and even seize the plants if they refuse. President Truman skirted Congress when he sent troops to Korea in 1950 without seeking a declaration of war, eventually numbering 1.8 million U.S. service members. In the early days, he referred to the troop introduction as a “police action.” This set a precedent for future conflicts.

But since 9/11, the definition of “war” has become more vague and lacks the geographical restrictions it used to. Before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush said, “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

In August 2013, President Obama drafted legislation for Congress to grant authorization of military force in Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack. It was not approved. Again, in February 2015, five months after the U.S. began launching airstrikes in Syria, Obama asked Congress to authorize force against the Islamic State group. It didn’t approve the authorization. In 2014, Rand Paul introduced a formal declaration of war against ISIS. It was not passed. For the 2011 strikes in Libya, the Obama administration argued it didn’t need authorization because the air campaign was part of an international coalition.

Rep. Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress who voted against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, tweeted in response to the strikes inSyria: “This is an act of war. Congress needs to come back into session & hold a debate. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility.” She also saidthat the strikes were beyond the scope of the 2001 authorization that Congress granted Bush. Lee has previously introduced legislation to repeal the Bush-era authorization of force.

Even Trump himself used to be on board with this line of thought. In 2013, hetweeted about the need for President Obama to get permission from Congress, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict? Obama needs congressional approval.”

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzg9dx/why-the-united-states-doesnt-declare-war-anymore

 

War Powers Resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Powers Resolution
Great Seal of the United States
Long title Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Enacted by the 93rd United States Congress
Effective November 7, 1973
Citations
Public law 93-148
Statutes at Large 87 Stat.555
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the HouseasH.J.Res. 542byClement J. Zablocki (DWIon May 3, 1973
  • Committee consideration byHouse Foreign Affairs
  • Passed the House on July 10, 1973 (244–170)
  • Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 (75-20)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee onOctober 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–122)
  • Vetoed by PresidentRichard Nixonon October 24, 1973
  • Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
  • Overridden by the Senate and became law onNovember 7, 1973 (75–18)
wars and interventions

United States1812 North AmericaHouse Federalists’ Address1847 Mexican–American WarSpot Resolutions1917 World War IFilibuster of the Armed Ship Bill1935–1939Neutrality Acts1935–1940Ludlow Amendment1970 VietnamMcGovern–Hatfield Amendment1970 Southeast AsiaCooper–Church Amendment1971 VietnamRepeal of Tonkin Gulf Resolution1973 Southeast AsiaCase–Church Amendment1973War Powers Resolution1974Hughes–Ryan Amendment1976 AngolaClark Amendment1982 NicaraguaBoland Amendment2007 IraqHouse Concurrent Resolution 63

 

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president‘s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding the vetoof the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Background

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has the “Power … to declare war”, while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, and the militia (armed citizenry) “when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war. However, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action counter to the nation’s direct interests.

History

Background and passage

During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.

The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.

Implementation, 1993–2002

Presidents have submitted 130[5] reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a)(1) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (Pub.L. 102–1) which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

On November 9, 1994, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former YugoslaviaBosniaKosovoIraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. “[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization.”[6] Clinton’s actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciablepolitical question.[7] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.[8]

After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against IraqPub.L. 107–243 which authorized President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.[9] This was in addition to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists enacted in 2001.

Libya intervention in 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution’s provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no “hostility” in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[15][16][17]

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[19]since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,[20] and since US involvement was somewhat “limited”. In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[16][23]

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama’s position “lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.”[26]

Syrian Military Action in 2017

On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violates the War Powers Resolution.[27]

Questions regarding constitutionality

The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed.[28] In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority.[29] Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Because the Constitution limits the President’s authority in the use of force without a declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution rather than “pursuant to” so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[30] argues “The power to make war is not an enumerated power” and the notion that to “declare” war is to “commence” war is a “contemporary textual preconception”. Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that ‘declaration’ was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as “linked and sequenced”; Congress’s control over the armed forces is “structured” by appropriation, while the President commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.[clarification needed] Bobbitt also argues that “A democracy cannot … tolerate secret policies” because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.

A second argument concerns a possible breach of the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine, and whether the resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions. This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the then-President) that required the President to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926.[31] When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the House of Representativesimpeached him; action in the Senate to remove him failed by one vote.

Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to “declare war”, “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1, Section 8), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief. This argument does not address the other reporting requirements imposed on other executive officials and agencies by other statutes, nor does it address the provisions of Article I, Section 8 that explicitly gives Congress the authority to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.

The constitution specifically states that Congress is authorized “to provide and maintain a Navy” (Article 1 Section 8). The idea of “maintenance” of a Navy implies that Naval Forces would be a permanent fixture of national defense. Two types of Land Forces are described by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8): the Militia (armed citizenry organized into local defense forces and state volunteer regiments) which Congress can “call forth” and prescribe the “organizing, arming, and disciplining [training]” of, as Congress did in the Militia acts of 1792; and the Army, which Congress can “raise and support”, through regular appropriation acts limited to no more than two years. This division matches how the Revolutionary War was fought, by the Continental Army, raised and supported by the Continental Congress, and local Militias and Volunteer Regiments, raised by the separate Colonies. After the war, under the Articles of Confederation, a small standing Army, the First American Regiment was raised and gradually increased in size over time by Congress before, following the Constitution’s ratification, being transformed into the Regular Army. The availability of a standing Army, and the President of the United States being authorized as “Commander in Chief”, implies his ability as a military commander to employ forces necessary to fulfill his oath to defend the constitution.

There is also an unresolved legal question, discussed by Justice White in INS v. Chadha of whether a “key provision of the War Powers Resolution”, namely 50 U.S.C. 1544(c), constitutes an improper legislative veto. (See Chadha462 U.S. 919, 971.) That section 1544(c) states “such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution”. Justice White argues in his dissent in Chadha that, under the Chadha ruling, 1544(c) would be a violation of the Presentment Clause. The majority in Chadha does not resolve the issue. Justice White does not address or evaluate in his dissent whether that section would fall within the inherent Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.[citation needed]

Footnotes

  1. Jump up^ “50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 – WAR POWERS RESOLUTION”.
  2. Jump up^ “War Powers – Law Library of Congress – Library of Congress”.
  3. Jump up^ The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)(1911)
  4. Jump up^ [1] Archived December 15, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
  5. Jump up^ U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. Washington: The Service, 2011 (RL33532), Summary.
  6. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (2011-04-01) Clock Ticking on War Powers ResolutionThe New York Times The Caucus Blog
  7. Jump up^ Campbell v. Clinton203, February 18, 2000, p. 19, retrieved 2017-02-23
  8. Jump up^ How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time The Wall Street Journal (2013-09-02)
  9. Jump up^ 107th Congress (October 10, 2002). “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
  10. Jump up^ “Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission”. CNN. March 31, 2011.
  11. Jump up^ Lillis, Mike; et al. (March 30, 2011). “White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement”The Hill.
  12. Jump up^ Crabtree, Susan (March 30, 2011). “Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions”. Talking Points Memo.
  13. Jump up^ Charlie Savage (May 26, 2011). “Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act”The New York Times. p. A8.
  14. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). “2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate”The New York Times. p. A1.
  15. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). “President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy”The Seattle Times.
  16. Jump up to:a b Cosgrove, Maureen. “State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya”JURIST (June 28, 2011).
  17. Jump up^ “War Powers Act of 1973”The New York Times (June 29, 2011).
  18. Jump up^ Libya War Deadline Arrives Fox News
  19. Jump up^ “White House on War Powers Deadline: ‘Limited’ US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization”, ABC News, May 20, 2011
  20. Jump up^ “Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation”. BBC News. March 27, 2011.
  21. Jump up^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
  22. Jump up^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on October 16, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
  23. Jump up^ Owen, Robert (2015). “The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support”. In Karl Mueller. Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Rand Corporation. p. 105.
  24. Jump up^ Dinan, Stephen, “Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission”The Washington Times, Saturday, June 4, 2011
  25. Jump up^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 3, 2011). “House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent”The New York Times.
  26. Jump up^ Ackerman, Bruce. “Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War”The New York Times (June 21, 2011). Page A27.
  27. Jump up^ “Was Trump’s Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In”. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
  28. Jump up^ “The war powers resolution”. US Department of State Bulletin. 1988-09-15. Retrieved 2008-07-09. “The War Powers Resolution has been controversial from the day it was adopted over President Nixon’s veto. Since 1973, executive officials and many Members of Congress have criticized various aspects of the law repeatedly.”
  29. Jump up^ War Powers Joint Resolution, §2(b).
  30. Jump up^ “War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely‘s War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath,” Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400.
  31. Jump up^ “Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)”.

References

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Declaration of war by the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941

declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a “declaration of war” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

This article will use the term “formal declaration of war” to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase “declaration of war” in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms “authorized by Congress”, “funded by Congress” or “undeclared war” to describe other such conflicts.

History

The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President’s authority in this regard. Public opposition to American involvement in foreign wars, particularly during the 1930s, was expressed as support for a Constitutional Amendment that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war.[4] Several Constitutional Amendments, such as the Ludlow Amendment, have been proposed that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war.

After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president’s claimed powers. The War Powers Resolution proscribes the only power of the president to wage war which is recognized by Congress.[5]

Declarations of war

Formal

The table below lists the five wars in which the United States has formally declared war against eleven foreign nations.[6] The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany, against which the United States has declared war twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary).

In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany and Italy, led respectively by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, declared war on the United States, and the U.S. Congress responded in kind.[7][8]

War Declaration Opponent(s) Date of declaration Votes President Result
Senate House
War of 1812 Declaration of War upon the U.K.  United Kingdom June 18, 1812 19–13 79–49 James Madison Treaty of Ghent (December 24, 1814)
Mexican–American War “An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico.”[9]  Mexico May 13, 1846 40–2 173–14 James K. Polk Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848)
Spanish–American War Declaration of War upon Spain  Spain April 25, 1898 42–35 310–6 William McKinley Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898)
World War I Declaration of War upon Germany  Germany April 6, 1917 82–6 373–50 Woodrow Wilson Treaty of Berlin (August 25, 1921)
Declaration of War upon Austria-Hungary[10][11]  Austria-Hungary December 7, 1917 74–0 365–1 1921 U.S.–Austrian Peace Treaty (August 24, 1921), 1921 U.S.-Hungarian Peace Treaty(August 29, 1921)
World War II Declaration of War upon Japan  Japan December 8, 1941 82–0 388–1 Franklin D. Roosevelt V-J DayJapanese Instrument of Surrender (September 2, 1945), Treaty of San Francisco(September 8, 1951)
Declaration of War upon Germany  Germany December 11, 1941 88–0 393–0 V-E DayGerman Instrument of Surrender (May 8, 1945), Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (September 12, 1990), Treaty of Vienna with Austria (May 15, 1955)
Declaration of War upon Italy  Italy 90–0 399–0 Paris Peace Treaty (February 10, 1947)
Declaration of War upon Bulgaria  Bulgaria June 5, 1942 73–0 357–0
Declaration of War upon Hungary[10]  Hungary 360–0
Declaration of War upon Romania[10]  Romania 361–0

Undeclared wars

Military engagements authorized by Congress

In other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that was authorized by Congress.

War or conflict Opponent(s) Initial authorization Votes President Result
Senate House
Quasi-War  France An Act further to protect the commerce of the United States
July 9, 1798
18–4 John Adams Treaty of Mortefontaine
First Barbary War Morocco Morocco
 Tripolitania
February 6, 1802[12] Thomas Jefferson War ended 1805
Second Barbary War Fictitious Ottoman flag 2.svg Algiers May 10, 1815[13] James Madison War ended 1816
Enforcing 1808 slave trade ban; naval squadron sent to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders  Slave traders and pirates “Act in addition to the acts prohibiting the Slave Trade” 1819 James Monroe 1822 first African-American settlement founded in Liberia, 1823 U.S. Navy stops anti-trafficking patrols
Redress for attack on U.S. Navy‘s USS Water Witch  Paraguay 1858.[14] James Buchanan
Mexican Revolution

 Mexico H.J.R. 251, 38 Stat. 770
April 22, 1914
337–37 Woodrow Wilson Force withdrawn after six months. However, the Joint Resolution was likely used to authorize the Pancho Villa Expedition. In the Senate, “when word reached the Senate that the invasion had gone forward before the use-of-force resolution had been approved, Republicans reacted angrily” saying it was a violation of the Constitution, but eventually after the action had already started, a resolution was passed after the action to “justify” it since Senators did not think it was a declaration of war.[15][16]
Russian Civil War

 Commune of Estonia
 Far Eastern Republic
 Latvia
 Mongolian People’s Party
 Russia
 Ukraine
1918[17] Woodrow Wilson
Lebanon crisis of 1958 Lebanon Lebanese Opposition

H.J. Res. 117, Public Law 85-7, Joint Resolution “To promote peace and stability in the Middle East”, March 9, 1957[18] 72–19 355–61 Dwight D. Eisenhower U.S. forces withdrawn, October 25, 1958
Vietnam War


Laotian Civil War


Cambodian Civil War

China China
National United Front of Kampuchea

 North Korea
 North Vietnam
Laos Pathet Lao
 South Vietnam

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 196488–2416–0Lyndon B. JohnsonU.S. forces withdrawn under terms of the Paris Peace Accords signed January 27, 1973Multinational Force in LebanonShia and Druze militias; SyriaS.J.Res. 159
Pub.L. 98–119
September 29, 198354–46253–156Ronald W. ReaganForces withdrawn in 1984Persian Gulf War IraqH.J.Res. 77
January 12, 1991.52–47250–183George H.W. BushThe United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

War in Afghanistan


al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen


Somali Civil War


War in North-West Pakistan


Moro conflict


Iraqi Civil War


Syrian Civil War


Second Libyan Civil War

Afghanistan Afghanistan

 al-Qaeda

 Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya
 Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin
 Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Jamaat-ul-Ahrar
Jundallah
Lashkar-e-Islam
 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
 Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi
 Turkistan Islamic Party
 Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan


Afghanistan High Council of the Islamic Emirate
 Fidai Mahaz


 al-Itihaad al-Islamiya
 Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia
 Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahedeen
 Hizbul Islam
 Islamic Courts Union
 Jabhatul Islamiya
 Mu’askar Anole
 Ras Kamboni Brigades


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Abu Sayyaf
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters
 Islamic State
 Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Maute group
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao

S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 200198–0420–1George W. Bush Iraq War[19] IraqH.J. Res. 114,
March 3, 200377–23296–132George W. BushBa’athist Iraqi government deposed April 2003. U.S. combat operations ended August 31, 2010. War ended December 15, 2011. Destabilization of Iraq and emergence of ISIL in the region 2011–present.[20]

 

Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress[edit]

In many instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.

Military engagement Opponent(s) Initial authorization President Result
Korean War  China
 North Korea
 Soviet Union
UNSCR 84, 1950 Harry S. Truman Korean Armistice Agreement,[21] 1953
Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia militias, Druze militias, Syria UNSCR 425, 1978UNSCR 426, 1978 Jimmy CarterRonald Reagan U.S. forces withdrew in 1984
Persian Gulf War  Iraq UNSCR 678, 1990 George H. W. Bush UNSCR 689, 1991
Bosnian War  Republika Srpska UNSCR 770, 1992
UNSCR 776, 1992
UNSCR 836, 1993
Bill Clinton Reflagged as IFOR in 1995, Reflagged as SFOR in 1996, Completed in 2004
Second Liberian Civil War Peacekeeping UNSCR 1497, 2003 George W. Bush U.S. forces are withdrawn in 2003 after the UNMIL is established.
Haitian coup d’état UNSCR 1529, 2004UNSCR 1542, 2004 2004
First Libyan Civil War

 Libya UNSCR 1973, 2011 Barack Obama Debellation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, October 31, 2011

Other undeclared wars[edit]

Military engagement Opponent(s) President Result
American Revolutionary War Kingdom of Great Britain Great Britain

German auxiliaries

Native Americans[22]

None Peace of Paris

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[23] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine–American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999, and the 2017 missile strikes on Syria.

The United States’ longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there was never more than 90 days of peace.[citation needed]

The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These localized conflicts, with Native Americans, began with European colonists coming to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The United States Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890–1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.[24]

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation by other sovereign states.[25][26] The CSA was recognized by the United States government as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA’s status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.

The War Powers Resolution

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War[clarification needed]. The only exception was President Clinton’s use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

On March 21, 2011, a number of lawmakers expressed concern that the decision of President Barack Obama to order the U.S. military to join in attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces exceeded his constitutional authority because the decision to authorize the attack was made without Congressional permission.[27] Obama explained his rationale in a two-page letter, stating that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in scope and duration, and necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Libya.

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Doe v. Bush, 03-1266, (March 13, 2003)”FindLaw. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
  2. Jump up^ Henderson, Phillip G. (2000). The presidency then and now. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 51ISBN 978-0-8476-9739-7.
  3. Jump up^ The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison : August 17,The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, retrieved Feb 13, 2008
  4. Jump up^ “Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Hold National Referendums on Declarations of War from Danville, Ohio”. The National Archives of the United States. 1938. Retrieved July 29,2016.
  5. Jump up^ Shindler, Michael (1 March 2018). “War Powers: Return to Congress”. RealClearDefense. RealClear Media Group. Retrieved 2 March 2018.
  6. Jump up^ Official Declarations of War by Congress
  7. Jump up^ BBC News, On This Day
  8. Jump up^ Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America… the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared. The War Resolution
  9. Jump up^ United States Congress (May 13, 1846). “An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico” (PDF). Government of the United States of America. Government of the United States of America. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2006. Retrieved August 10, 2006.
  10. Jump up to:a b c Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
  11. Jump up^ H.J.Res.169: Declaration of War with Austria-Hungary, WWI, United States Senate
  12. Jump up^ Key Events in the Presidency of Thomas JeffersonMiller Center of Public AffairsUniversity of Virginia, (retrieved on August 10, 2010).
  13. Jump up^ Key Events in the Presidency of James MadisonMiller Center of Public AffairsUniversity of Virginia, (retrieved on August 10, 2010).
  14. Jump up^ Expenses – Paraguay Expedition, House of Representatives, 36th Congress, 1st Session, Mis. Doc. No. 86 (May 11, 1860), p. 142
  15. Jump up^ Cyrulik, John M., A Strategic Examination of the Punitive Expedition into Mexico, 1916-1917. Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2003. (Master’s thesis)
  16. Jump up^ Wolfensberger, Don. Congress and Woodrow Wilson’s Introductory Forays into Mexico, an Introductory Essay. Congress Project Seminar On Congress and U.S. Military Interventions Abroad. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Monday, May 17, 2004
  17. Jump up^ A History of Russia, 7th Edition, Nichlas V. Riasanovsky & Mark D. Steinberg, Oxford University Press, 2005.
  18. Jump up^ http://www.shafr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/U.S.-Congress-Approval-of-the-Eisenhower-Doctrine-1957.pdf
  19. Jump up^ Obama’s full speech: Operation Iraqi Freedom is Over, MSNBC
  20. Jump up^ Londoño, Ernesto (August 19, 2010). “Operation Iraqi Freedom ends as last combat soldiers leave Baghdad”The Washington Post.
  21. Jump up^ s:Korean Armistice Agreement
  22. Jump up^ OnondagaMohawkCayugaSenecaMi’kmaq (from 1779)CherokeeOdawaMuscogeeSusquehannockShawnee
  23. Jump up^ The President’s Constitutional Authority To Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them
  24. Jump up^ Army Continues to Parade Wounded Knee Battle StreamerNational Congress of American Indians.
  25. Jump up^ “Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy, 1861–1865”. U.S. Department of State. Archived from the originalon August 28, 2013.
  26. Jump up^ McPherson, James M. (2007). This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. Oxford University Press US. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-19-531366-6.
  27. Jump up^ Obama Attacked for No Congressional Consent on LibyaNew York Times.

Further reading

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Story 2: Trump Wants 4,000 National Guard Force Assisting U.S. Border Patrol — Zero Miles of Wall Built — Videos

California’s governor agrees to deploy 400 National Guard troops at Trump’s request

Trump wants to send National Guard troops to the border to help fight illegal immigration

Arizona, Texas to deploy National Guard troops to border

Pentagon: National Guard Will Support Border Patrol – Full News Conference

 

California’s governor agrees to deploy 400 National Guard troops at Trump’s request

SOURCE: CNN

California Gov. Jerry Brown responded to President Donald Trump’s request to add more troops for border security, saying he’ll add about 400 troops but also saying they won’t be used for “enforcing federal immigration laws.”

The location of the troops and the number working along the border, the coast and other places in the state will be determined by the needs on the ground, the governor’s press office said.

This supplements the 250 troops already working statewide, including 55 Guard members already at the border.

Trump said last week he wants to send 2,000 to 4,000 National Guard members to the border, issuing a proclamation citing “the lawlessness that continues at our southern border.”

Arizona, New Mexico and Texas all made new pledges that add up to almost half of the up to 4,000 troops Trump requested. Some Guard members started arriving at the border as states and the federal government officials continued to discuss what they will do.

Read Gov. Brown’s full letter below.

Dear Secretary Nielsen and Secretary Mattis:

Pursuant to your request, the California National Guard will accept federal funding to add approximately 400 Guard members statewide to supplement the staffing of its ongoing program to combat transnational crime. This program is currently staffed by 250 personnel statewide, including 55 at the California border.

Your funding for new staffing will allow the Guard to do what it does best: support operations targeting transnational criminal gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers along the border, the coast and throughout the state. Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans – Republicans and Democrats. That’s why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.

But let’s be crystal clear on the scope of this mission. This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.

Here are the facts: there is no massive wave of migrants pouring into California. Overall immigrant apprehensions on the border last year were as low as they’ve been in nearly 50 years (and 85 percent of the apprehensions occurred outside of California).

I agree with the Catholic Bishops who have said that local, state and federal officials should “work collaboratively and prudently in the implementation of this deployment, ensuring that the presence of the National Guard is measured and not disruptive to community life.”

I look forward to working with you on this important effort.

Sincerely,

Edmund G. Brown Jr.

http://www.kcra.com/article/californias-governor-agrees-to-deploy-400-national-guard-troops-at-trumps-request/19747526

Story 3: House Speaker Paul Ryan Retiring January 2018 — Good Day For Limited Government Conservatives — Videos

See the source image

Tucker: House Speaker Paul Ryan leaves a party in shambles

Laura Ingraham: What Paul Ryan’s departure means

Paul Ryan’s retirement could have ripple effect

Where does Paul Ryan’s departure leave the GOP?

Paul Ryan retiring over trouble with Trump?

Paul Ryan Exits | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 515

Mark Levin: The real reason behind Paul Ryan’s decision to retire (April 11 2018)

Phony Conservative  Big Government Republicans

Senator
Mitch McConnell (KY)
KY
F 36%

Representative
Paul Ryan (WI)
WI
F 34%

Representative
Kevin McCarthy (CA)
CA
F 36%

Real Conservative Limited Government Republicans

Download PDF

Representative
Warren Davidson (OH)
OH
A 100%

Representative
Andy Biggs (AZ)
AZ
A 100%

Senator
Mike Lee (UT)
UT
A 100%

Representative
Thomas Garrett (VA)
VA
A 100%

Representative
Thomas Massie (KY)
KY
A 98%

Representative
David Brat (VA)
VA
A 97%

Representative
Jim Jordan (OH)
OH
A 96%

Representative
Mark Meadows (NC)
NC
A 95%

Representative
Louie Gohmert (TX)
TX
A 94%

Representative
Ted Budd (NC)
NC
A 94%

Representative
Jeff Duncan (SC)
SC
A 94%

Representative
Jim Bridenstine (OK)
OK
A 94%

Representative
Gary Palmer (AL)
AL
A 94%

Representative
Paul Gosar (AZ)
AZ
A 93%

Representative
Mark Sanford (SC)
SC
A 93%

Senator
Benjamin Sasse (NE)
NE
A 92%

Representative
David Schweikert (AZ)
AZ
A 92%

Senator
Rand Paul (KY)
KY
A 92%

Representative
Ken Buck (CO)
CO
A 91%

Representative
Raul Labrador (ID)
ID
A 91%

Representative
Jody Hice (GA)
GA
A 91%

Senator
Ted Cruz (TX)
TX
A 90%

Representative
Justin Amash (MI)
MI
A 90%

Representative
Jason Lewis (MN)
MN
B 89%

Representative
Mo Brooks (AL)
AL
B 88%

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1059

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017, Story 1: Did President Trump Betray His Supporters By Promising Citizenship or Pathway To Citizenship For Illegal Alien “Dreamers”? — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers (Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ) Say They Have A Deal or Understanding and Rollover Republicans Support Trump (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan) — No Wall and No Deportation For 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Including “Dreamers” — You Were Warned Not To Trust Trump — Rollover Republicans Want Touch-back Amnesty For Illegal Aliens — Hell No — Illegal Aliens Must Go — Trump Has 48 Hours To Confirm or Deny Dreamer Citizenship Deal — Political Suicide Watch Countdown — Videos

Posted on September 14, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Jeb Bush, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Middle East, National Interest, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, South America, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017Image result for branco cartoons on trump on immigrationImage result for cartoons trump on dreamersImage result for cartoons on trump on dreamers

Image result for cartoons trump on dreamers

Image result for u.s. Border patroll statistic on apprehensions thourght 1990-2015

Image result for u.s. Border patroll statistic on apprehensions thourght 1990-2015

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

Ann Coulter on illegal immigration

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U.S.? – Introduction

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Philip Romero

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Fred Elbel

Published on Oct 20, 2007

Story 1: Did President Trump Betray His Supporters By Promising Citizenship or Pathway To Citizenship For Illegal Alien “Dreamers”? — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers (Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ) Say They Have A Deal or Understanding and Rollover Republicans Support Trump (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan) — No Wall and No Deportation For 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Including “Dreamers” — You Were Warned Not To Trust Trump — Rollover Republicans Want Touch-back Amnesty For Illegal Aliens — Hell No — Illegal Aliens Must Go — Trump Has 48 Hours To Confirm or Deny! — Political Suicide Watch Countdown — Videos

He’s a BETRAYER” Ann Coulter goes off on President Trump for deal with democrats

Tucker Carlson Tonight 9/14/17 | Tucker Fox News September 14, 2017

Ann Coulter Urges President Trump to Terminate DACA

President Donald Trump Supports DACA Amnesty? | True News

No, Trump Did Not Cave on the Border Wall in His DACA Deal

Laura Ingraham Show 9/14/17 Podcast – Trump Violating Pledge On The Wall at His Own Peril

Gohmert on ‘Political Realignment’ on Capitol Hill

Gohmert on Border Wall: ‘Some of Us Are Not Giving Up”

Breitbart And Ann Coulter Lash Out At Trump After Alleged Immigration Deal With Dems

“Amnesty Don” – the new country Western song about Trump supporting amnesty for illegals

Would the border wall be a part of the DACA deal?

President Trump: ‘Fairly close’ to DACA deal with Democrats

Daca: Trump denies reaching ‘Dreamers’ deal with Democrats

Trump disputes Democrats’ claim on DACA agreement

President Trump statement on immigration, green card reform with Sen Tom Cotton, Sen David Perdue

9 Misconceptions about the Green Card

Image result for green card

USCIS Form I-765 – Application for Employment Authorization

Image result for employment authorization card

Donald Trump: Green Card Reforms Will Reduce Unskilled Immigration | CNBC

Trump Makes Announcement on Immigration Reform

GOP lawmaker: Trump risking blowing up his base

Chuck Schumer Senate Floor: President Trump DACA Deal 9/14/17

Pelosi: Trump, Dems Agreed to ‘Move Forward’

Did Trump Just Give Away The Border? | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 383

It’s fine Trump is talking to Democrats on DACA: Sen. Ted Cruz

“Donald Trump will betray you on every issue” ~ Ted Cruz

Donald Trump: ‘We need to keep illegals out’ | Fox News Republican Debate

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump on immigration: ‘We either have a country or we don’t’

Donald Trump’s entire immigration speech

Trump: I want an immigration policy that benefits Americans

Rep Steve King discusses Trump’s touchback amnesty

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

US-Mexico border wall needs to be built: Rep. Gohmert

“Shut the Border!” Ben Shapiro on Illegal Immigration Reform

Ben Shapiro: Amnesty Will Destroy Conservatives

Why Trump Is 100% Correct In Ending #DACA

Trump Is Right About Illegal Immigration and the New World Order & Deep State Vow to Destroy Him

Ann Coulter: Immigration Act of 1965 designed to change demographics

Edwin Meese on Immigration

The 1986 IRCA and Current Reform Efforts

he 1986 IRCA and Contemporary Reform Efforts

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Lessons learned from the 1986 immigration reform

Ronald Reagan’s amnesty legacy

Ronald Reagan – “I Believe in Amnesty for Illegal Aliens”

Reagan on Mexico Border 1980 – No Wall!

BEST VERSION: Reagan on Amnesty & Illegal Immigration

President Reagan’s Remarks at Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act. November 6, 1986

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act

How the 1965 Immigration Act Changed America

The Immigration Act of 1965 and its Effects

The Impact of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

1952: The McCarran-Walter Immigration Act

1924 Immigration Act

1917 Immigration Act

The Immigration History of the United States

America’s Sources of Immigration (1850-Today)

The Sopranos 6.06 – “How much more betrayal can I take?”

Trump’s die-hard supporters are fuming after an apparent about-face on ‘dreamers’

 September 14

Staunch conservative allies of President Trump have erupted in anger and incredulity after Democrats late Wednesday announced that the president had agreed to pursue a legislative deal that would protect thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation but not secure Trump’s signature campaign promise: building a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Nearing midnight and into Thursday, social media accounts came alive as elected officials and activists on the right dashed off tweets and posts to share their shock.

And in between those posts, there was a flurry of fuming calls and text messages — a blaring political fire alarm among Trump’s die-hard supporters.

“The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency,” Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign adviser, said in an interview early Thursday morning.

While the initial wave of fury could change direction as new details emerge, the torrent represented the first major break of Trump’s devoted base from the president on a core issue.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the GOP’s biggest immigration hawks, issued a dramatic warning to the president after he scrolled through news reports.

“If AP is correct, Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” King tweeted, referencing an Associated Press story on the bipartisan agreement.

e added, “No promise is credible.”

Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, who is friendly with Trump, mocked him for seeming to shelve the pledge that has animated his supporters since his campaign’s launch.

“Exactly what @realDonaldTrump campaigned on. Not,” Ingraham wrote on Twitter. She later added, “BUILD THE WALL! BUILD THE WALL! … or … maybe … not really.”

Trump tried to calm the conservative outrage early Thursday in a series of tweets that insisted the border wall “will continue to be built” and that no deal was hashed out with Democrats on the undocumented young immigrants known as “dreamers.”

“No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,” Trump wrote, referring to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 “dreamers” to work and go to school without fear of deportation.


Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) talks with President Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 6. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

As he departed the White House on Thursday en route to Florida, which has been ravaged by Hurricane Irma, Trump told reporters that “the wall will come later … The wall is going to be built, it’ll be funded a little bit later.”

“We are working on a plan for DACA,” Trump said, calling the negotiations “fairly close” to concluding. Congressional Republican leaders, he added, were “very much on board” with his position.

Conservative polemicist Ann Coulter, who wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust”, did not buy the president’s explanation.

“At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?” Coulter tweeted on Thursday morning.

Breitbart News, the conservative website now run by former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, quickly became a gathering place for aggrieved Trump backers. Readers congregated by the thousands in the comments section for an article with a bright red headline: “Amnesty Don.”

Days earlier, Bannon said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he was “worried about losing the House now because of this, because of DACA,” arguing that Republican voters would lack enthusiasm for Trump and the party if they felt it was drifting to the center on immigration.

“If this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion, in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party that will be every bit as vitriolic as 2013,” Bannon said, referencing the stalled fight that year over a comprehensive immigration bill. “And to me, doing that in the springboard of primary season for 2018 is extremely unwise.”

“This a betrayal of the highest order,” a Breitbart editor, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said in a phone call late Wednesday. “Donald Trump should be ashamed of himself. He wasn’t elected to do this.”

The editor was mostly echoed by the site’s readers:

“Put a fork in Trump. He is done.”

“PRIMARY TIME!!!!”

“What a HUGE let down.”

“I can reconcile Trump caving on virtually any issue, Amnesty and not building the wall are not one of them.”

Adding to the tumult in the deep of night: conflicting accounts over what exactly Trump and Democrats had brokered.

Aides to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserted that Trump had agreed not to request wall funding as part of their pact to soon move legislation to help undocumented immigrants who are protected under the executive order.

Play Video 2:47
What to know about the decision to end DACA
Embed
Share
The Trump administration is rescinding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program granted two-year work permits to undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted at 10:21 p.m.: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”

Eleven minutes later, Matt House, an adviser to Schumer, tweeted: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

Sanders’s Twitter assurance, however, did little to calm the roiled voices, especially in the populist-nationalist wing of the Republican Party — a wing deeply linked to Trump.

“Deep State Wins, Huge Loss for #MAGA,” Fox Business anchor Lou Dobbs tweeted, alluding to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan.

Others who have supported Trump’s immigration positions took a wait-and-see approach amid the chaos.

“My sense is that he told Chuck and Nancy what they wanted to hear, and they heard what they wanted to hear. I think there could be some mischief-making on the part of Schumer since the White House is walking it back,” said Mark Krikorian, an immigration hard-liner who runs the Center for Immigration Studies, in an interview.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, tweeted Thursday that his efforts to work with Democrats on immigration policy were “undercut” by Trump’s moves and asked the White House staff to “brief me.”

Meanwhile, Fox News host Sean Hannity, who is in regular contact with Trump, directed his ire over the developments not at the president but at GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

“Well Mitch GREAT JOB!” Hannity tweeted, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “You failed so miserably with Healthcare and ‘excessive expectations’ now @POTUS has to deal with Dem Leaders!”

Hannity added later, “I blame R’s. They caused this. They wanted him to fail and now pushed him into arms of political suicide — IF TRUE.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/14/according-to-democrats-trump-has-done-an-about-face-on-dreamers-his-diehard-supporters-are-fuming/?utm_term=.773af8800f82

You asked if anyone wants to deport ‘dreamers,’ President Trump: Yes. Your base.

Commentary: 

Don’t buy into all of that rosy PR about DACA

Mickey KausSpecial to the Washington Post

Who wants to deport “Dreamers”? Not many people, it turns out. Even veteran immigration restrictionists seem willing to legalize this subset of immigrants in the country illegally if it is part of a package deal. That’s true even though a lot of what’s said about the DACA recipients is PR-style hooey.

For example, it’s often said — indeed, former President Barack Obama just recently said — that the approximately 800,000 of them were “brought to this country by their parents.” Well, many were. But that’s not required to qualify as a protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program recipient under the various plans, including Obama’s. You just have to have entered the country illegally before age 16. You could have decided to sneak in against your parents’ wishes. You’re still a “Dreamer!”

Likewise, we’re told DACA recipients are college-bound high school grads or military personnel. That’s an exaggeration. All that’s actually required is that the person enroll in a high school course or an “alternative,” including online courses and English-as-a-second-language classes. Under Obama’s now-suspended program, you didn’t even have to stay enrolled.

Compared with the general population, DACA recipients are not especially highly skilled. A recent survey for several pro-”Dreamer” groups, with participants recruited by those groups, found that while most DACA recipients are not in school, the vast majority work. But their median hourly wage is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed lower-skilled Americans.

The DACA recipients you read about have typically been carefully selected for their appeal. They’re valedictorians. They’re first responders. They’re curing diseases. They root for the Yankees. They want to serve in the Army. If DACA recipients are the poster children for the much larger population of immigrants in the country illegally, these are the poster children for the poster children.

Still, taking the DACA recipients as a whole, not just the dreamiest of them, they represent an appealing group of would-be citizens. So why not show compassion and legalize them? Because, as is often the case, the pursuit of pure compassion comes with harmful side effects.

First, it would create perverse incentives. Can you imagine a stronger incentive for illegal immigration than the idea that if you sneak into the country your kids will get to be U.S. citizens? Sure, the protections don’t currently apply to recent entrants — under Obama’s plan, you had to have come before 2007. But those dates can be changed — Obama himself tried to do it once. And the rationale for rewarding those who arrive when young — that they’re here through “no fault of their own” and know only America, etc. — can apply on into the future, with no apparent stopping point. What about the poor kids who came in 2008? 2018? There’s a reason no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor, you’re a citizen. We’d be inviting the world.

Second, it would have knock-on effects. Under “chain migration” rules established in 1965 — ironically as a sop to conservatives, who foolishly thought that they’d boost European inflows — new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws, until whole villages have moved to the United States. That means today’s DACA recipients would quickly become millions of newcomers, who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who, in theory, are at fault.

There are obvious, sensible ways to control these side effects. Pair any DACA recipient amnesty with a major upgrade to our system to prevent a new undocumented wave — such as a mandatory extension of E-Verify, the system that lets employers check on the legal status of hires. Curtail the right to bring in distant relatives. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has proposed such a compromise — and it would be easy to compromise on his compromise, say by cutting back on chain migration only by the number of people that the new DREAM Act program adds to the citizenry. President Donald Trump could declare a one-time act of mercy for those who came here during the pre-Trump Era of Laxity, but make clear the game was changed for future entrants.

Why wouldn’t Democrats jump at such a deal? For years they’ve been touting “comprehensive immigration reform,” a mix of amnesty with stepped-up enforcement to prevent another surge of people entering the country illegally. But the DREAM Act is not comprehensive. It’s all amnesty, no prevention — let alone any compensating reduction in legal inflows. It’s hard to avoid the thought that Democrats (and Republicans who support the DREAM Act ) aren’t really interested in preventing illegal inflows. They’re not inclined to take Cotton up on his deal because they don’t think they have to.

If they win, we’ll get the compassion without dealing with its consequences. That would be especially unfortunate given the signs that Trump’s immigration crackdown, simply stepping up enforcement of current laws, is already helping to tighten the low end of the labor market and boost wages of low-skilled workers. News organizations are featuring stories from employers who aren’t getting their usual supply of workers in the U.S. illegally and are forced to take radical measures — such as raising wages. Proof of this connection, in the public mind, may be what terrifies the pro-immigration lobby the most.

The Washington Post

Mickey Kaus, the author of “The End of Equality,” writes at http://www.kausfiles.com.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-dreamers-daca-narrative-0914-story.html

 September 14

 

It seems like only about a week ago that the White House issued a statement from President Trump arguing that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program should be ended because, Trump argued, it encouraged illegal immigration and hurt salaries and job prospects for American citizens.

In fact, it was only about a week ago. On Sept. 5, Trump’s attorney general argued that the program — which allows some of those who immigrated to the country illegally as minors to live and work legally in the country — should be ended. The White House issued a statement from Trump bolstering Jeff Sessions’s arguments. The administration sent out talking points encouraging those in the program to use the six months before it ended to prepare to leave the country.

Even that afternoon, however, Trump seemed conflicted. A bit over a week later, his position on DACA has apparently flipped entirely.

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..

…They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security

There’s a question embedded in those tweets: Who could possibly want to toss these immigrants out of the country (except for the White House a week ago)? And the answer is: A large percentage of the people who elected Donald Trump.

Shortly before Election Day last year, American National Election Studies pollsters interviewed thousands of Americans about their views on a number of political issues, including the issues at the heart of DACA.

What should happen to those who immigrated illegally as children but who met the criteria of the program, the pollsters asked. Most Americans — including most Republicans and Trump voters — thought they should be allowed to stay and work in the country.

Nearly a fifth of Americans, though, thought that those immigrants should be “sent back where they came from” — a percentage powered by nearly 3-in-10 Republicans holding that position.

What’s most important to note in that graph are the last two numbers. Thirty-two percent of Trump general-election voters thought that DACA recipients should be deported. This isn’t a big surprise: Nearly a fifth of Trump voters in November thought that immigration was the most important issue facing the country, according to exit polls.

But notice that the 32 percent of Trump voters supporting deportation is significantly lower than the 40 percent of Trump primary voters who hold that position. Trump’s primary voters — the core base of support that powered him to the Republican nomination and then the presidency — is more supportive of deporting DACA recipients than anyone else.

We’ve made this argument before, but it bears repeating. A hard line on immigration was central to Trump’s candidacy. His comments about Mexican immigrants “bringing crime” and being “rapists” at his campaign launch spurred a public backlash that, in turn, drew a lot of attention to his campaign and his position on immigration — a position that appealed to a lot of conservative voters but which was anathema to mainstream Republicans. The controversy over immigration allowed him to cement the support of a big chunk of the Republican electorate — a chunk large enough to vault him into the lead in the crowded field and, eventually, push him to the nomination.

Marco Rubio would keep Barack Obama’s executive order on amnesty intact. See article. Cannot be President.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/marco-rubio-jorge-ramos-will-keep-obamas-first-executive-amnesty-place-legislative-amnesty-enacted/ 

Photo published for Marco Rubio To Jorge Ramos: I Will Keep Obama's First Executive Amnesty In Place Until Legislative...

Marco Rubio To Jorge Ramos: I Will Keep Obama’s First Executive Amnesty In Place Until Legislative…

“I think it will have to end at some point and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws,” Rubio said.

breitbart.com

Perhaps Trump is making a more nuanced case reflecting the evolution he himself seems to have gone through over the past week: Once people get to know these kids, to think about the issue in a broader context, they’ll change their minds. Given how fervent opposition to illegal immigration is among a number of conservatives, though, it seems unlikely that those views would shift simply because Trump’s position has. Trump once said that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing any support. That argument has proven to be sound repeatedly. But it’s not clear if Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and safely grant residency status to an immigrant here illegally.

Trump expressing bafflement that anyone could want to deport DACA recipients is, in a sense, like Trump wondering aloud if there were actually people who would have supported Trump in July 2015. Trump’s presidency was built on the people who Trump now speculates couldn’t possibly exist.

No wonder those people are now angry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/14/you-asked-if-anyone-wants-to-deport-dreamers-president-trump-yes-your-base/?utm_term=.e16b3e26390d

Trump vows to work with Dems to legalize Dreamers, says ‘the wall will come later’

 – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 14, 2017

President Trump said Thursday that he is working with Democratic leaders on a plan to legalize illegal immigrant Dreamers, and said he won’t insist on funding his border wall as part of it, saying that “will come later.”

The president also said GOP leaders in Congress are “very much on board” the deal he’s working with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The two Democrats emerged from a working dinner at the White House Wednesday to say they’d all reached a framework, which would speed a bill to grant Dreamers full legal status, coupled with more border security. But they said the president agreed the wall wouldn’t be part of that security.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders disputed that version later Wednesday, but Mr. Trump on Thursday agreed with the Democrats’ reading, saying that the wall will not be part of the deal.

“The wall will come later, we’re right now renovating large sections of wall, massive sections, making it brand new,” he said as he departed the White House en route to Florida, where he was to look at hurricane recovery efforts.

Mr. Trump said he will insist on “massive border controls” as part of the Dreamer bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/donald-trump-vows-work-democrats-legalize-dreamers/

‘If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing’: Trump says there WILL eventually be a border wall and there won’t be amnesty for Dreamers

  • Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi claimed after a dinner at the White House with the president that a DACA deal had been done
  • They said  that Trump agreed to enshrine protections for 800,000 illegal immigrants, aka Dreamers, in a border security package ‘excluding the wall’ 
  • White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later said that there was no agreement on the wall during the meeting
  • President Trump said the same thing in a string of tweets on Thursday morning
  • ‘No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,’ he said 
  • Follow up message: ‘The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built’
  • Trump again pushed Congress to pass legislation protecting the immigrants – but said he wanted ‘BIG border security’
  • As he left the White House, Trump admitted he was ‘fairly close’ to reaching a deal with Democrats that excluded the wall and GOP leader are ‘on board’
  • Pelosi and Schumer released a statement around the same time saying the president’s tweets were not inconsistent with what they said 
  • When he landed in Florida Trump clarified that there will be a wall, just later, when he’s ready for it – and there won’t be amnesty for illegal immigrants 

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he’s ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress.

‘Ultimately, we have to have the wall. If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing,’ Trump reporters from the tarmac when he landed in Florida for a briefing on Hurricane Irma this morning.

The president also denied that he was giving ‘amnesty’ to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children as part of an agreement he’s working on with Democrats.

‘We’re not looking at citizenship. We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here. We’re working with everybody, Republican, we’re working with Democrat,’ Trump stated.

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he's ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress. He talked to reporters from the tarmac in Florida

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he’s ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress. He talked to reporters from the tarmac in Florida

His claim about citizenship directly contradicts what the leading House Democrat is saying about a conversation that took place over dinner last night at the White House.

Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference this morning Democrats and Trump have an ‘understanding’ and that people under the DACA program would get a path to citizenship. 

‘It’s in the DACA bill,’ Pelosi said. ‘The path to citizenship … they get way at the end of the line of people who’ve been here fully documented…Just in terms of timing it’s a long way down the road,’ she said.

The president admitted earlier on Thursday as he left the White House for the daylong trip that he discussed a deal with Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall.

Citizenship did not come up in the original dispute. The part of the conversation the White House was quibbling with was about the border wall.

After claiming in early morning tweets that ‘no deal’ had been reached, Trump told reporters awaiting his departure that he was ‘fairly close’ to hammering out an agreement that mirrors the one his White House smacked down last night as a false negotiation.

‘We’re working on a plan for DACA. People want to see that happen. You have 800,000 young people brought here, no fault of their own, so we’re working on a plan, we will see how it works out. But we are going to get massive border security as part of that, and I think something can happen,’ Trump said over the roar of Marine One.

The president explicitly said, ‘The wall will come later.’ He also claimed that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are ‘on board’ with the DACA deal he hammered out last night at a private meeting with Democrats.

‘The wall is going to be built, and it will be funded later,’ he asserted.

Trump admitted Thursday as he left the White House for a daylong trip to Florida that he discussed a deal with Democrats to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Trump admitted Thursday as he left the White House for a daylong trip to Florida that he discussed a deal with Democrats to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Trump explained in Florida that funding for the wall would not be a part of the immigration and border security package that’s in the works on Capitol Hill. It’s part of a separate set of budget and spending priorities his administration sent to Congress.

The president said he anticipates that a DACA deal will come to fruition in the next six months, although there is not one now, clarifying a disagreement that erupted last night and has sucked in all of Washington.

After Democratic leaders sent out a statement last night saying they ‘agreed’ with the president on a border package that doesn’t include the wall, news outlets reported that Trump struck a deal with the opposing party and caved on one of his top campaign priorities.

The statement did not say there was a ‘deal.’ It referred to an agreement, though, creating mass confusion about what had actually happened. The White House added to the chaos by claiming in a tweet that Trump did not agree to exclude funding for the border wall from a DACA and border security package.

Except that he did, as acknowledge himself today.

‘It doesn’t have to be here,’ he said of the DACA and border security package, ‘but they can’t obstruct the wall if its in a budget or anything else.’

 The president indicated then that Pelosi and Schumer’s original statement was not inaccurate, it had just been misinterpreted. 

‘There was no deal and they didn’t say they had a deal…they didn’t say that at all,’ he stated.

A debacle for both sides, the DACA ‘deal’ became a major distraction for Trump as he prepared to leave Washington for Florida to survey the damage caused by Hurricane Irma.

Trump said in this early morning tweets that ‘massive border security’ adjustments would have to be on the table for him to make a handshake agreement with Democrats.

‘No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,’ he said in back to back messages. ‘The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.’

Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, and Pelosi, the head Democrat in the House, said in a joint statement at roughly the same time as Trump was speaking to the press at the White House that his tweets were not inconsistent with what they’d claimed in the Wednesday evening statement.

They said last night after a White House dinner that an agreement had been brokered that would protect the 800,000 immigrants who benefited from former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Trump had put the program on a six-month sunset and urged Congress to pass legislation in that window to keep Dreamers, as they are called, in the U.S. permanently.

The Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of an agreement to keep Dreamers from being deported.

Hours later, as he spoke to reporters as the White House, Trump seemed to confirm what Pelosi and Schumer had said.

‘We want to get massive border security, and I think that both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, I think they agree with it,’ Trump posited. ‘So we met last night, with, as you know, Schumer, Pelosi and a whole group. I think we’re fairly close but we have to get massive border security. ‘

Trump said he’d spoken to McConnell and Ryan since, and they had no qualms with the package that’s under development.

Oh I think he’s on board, yeah, Mitch is on board. Paul Ryan’s on board. We all feel, look, 92 percent of the people agree on DACA, but we want, is we want very, very powerful border security,’ Trump said.

President Donald Trump says he did not make a deal with Democratic leaders to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall 

President Donald Trump says he did not make a deal with Democratic leaders to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Schumer and Pelosi more or less agreed with Trump’s take on the meeting in a joint statement that hit inboxes as he was talking.

‘President Trump’s Tweets are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night. As we said last night, there was no final deal, but there was agreement on the following:

‘We agreed that the President would support enshrining DACA protections into law, and encourage the House and Senate to act.

‘What remains to be negotiated are the details of border security, with a mutual goal of finalizing all details as soon as possible. While both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement, the President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it.

‘Both sides agreed that the White House and the Democratic leaders would work out a border security package. Possible proposals were discussed including new technology, drones, air support, sensor equipment, rebuilding roads along the border and the bipartisan McCaul-Thompson bill.’

Pelosi vouched later at a press conference in the Capitol for the president’s overall sincerity, as well.

‘When we’re talking about this legislation to protect the DREAMers, yes I do trust that the president is sincere in understanding that the public supports that overwhelmingly, the public supports not sending these young people back,’ Pelosi said.

It’s the second time in two weeks that Trump has met with Pelosi and Schumer to talk about a deal with the potential to anger conservatives. The first time he met with them Ryan and McConnell were present. The meeting ended with a firm agreement to move forward with a three-month extension of government funding and the debt limit.

Importantly, the deal provided immediate aid to areas affected by Hurricane Harvey.

A joint Democratic statement that hit inboxes at 9:45 pm last night that began the brouhaha over DACA and the border wall said Pelosi and Schumer had a ‘very productive meeting at the White House with the President’ once again.

‘The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.’

At 10:21 pm, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said they were mistaken.

‘While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,’ she tweeted.

Trump followed up in a series of tweets this morning that suggested the joint statement was wrong, too. He defended the Dreamers again – yet said ‘no deal’ had been made.

‘Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!’ he said. ‘They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security.’

The DACA program provides two-year work permits and protection from deportation to its 800,000 recipients.

Trump said he was ending the program this month and giving Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before DACA paperwork begins to expire.

Conservatives were quick to point out that previous amnesty deals did not end with immigration overhaul like the one Trump has been pushing.

‘Reagan led with Amnesty, 1986. Bush 43 led with Amnesty ’06, Obama led with Amnesty ’13. All failed so…Trump leads with DACA Amnesty 2017,’ Iowa Rep. Steve King tweeted.

A joint Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of the agreement. The White House spokeswoman immediately slapped the claim down

A joint Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of the agreement. The White House spokeswoman immediately slapped the claim down

The deal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (picturd on Wednesday) following a White House dinner would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as children

The deal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (picturd on Wednesday) following a White House dinner would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as children

The White House initially said the president had had 'a constructive working dinner' with Schumer (pictured), Pelosi and administration officials

The White House had initially claimed that the president had had ‘a constructive working dinner’ with Schumer, Pelosi and administration officials ‘to discuss policy and legislative priorities’ such as DACA.

‘This is a positive step toward the President’s strong commitment to bipartisan solutions for the issues most important to all Americans,’ the White House said.

During a White House meeting earlier in the day with Republicans and Democrats, Trump brought DACA back to the forefront of the discussion.

‘We don’t want to forget DACA,’ Trump said. ‘We want to see if we can do something in a bipartisan fashion so that we can solve the DACA problem and other immigration problems.’

Trump has called Schumer a ‘clown’ and a ‘loser’ in the past, but has turned to the fellow New Yorker more recently to help break through congressional gridlock.

‘More and more we’re trying to work things out together,’ Trump said Wednesday. ‘If you look at some of the greatest legislation ever passed, it was done on a bipartisan manner. And so that’s what we’re going to give a shot.’

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said earlier Wednesday that Trump was 'committed to the wall. It doesn't have to be tied to DACA but its important and he will get it done'

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said earlier Wednesday that Trump was ‘committed to the wall. It doesn’t have to be tied to DACA but its important and he will get it done’

Trump (pictured on Wednesday) ended the DACA program earlier this month and had given Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before the statuses of the so-called 'Dreamers' begin to expire

Trump (pictured on Wednesday) ended the DACA program earlier this month and had given Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before the statuses of the so-called ‘Dreamers’ begin to expire

Sanders said Wednesday that Trump was ‘committed to the wall’ while acknowledging that ‘it doesn’t have to be tied to DACA.’

‘But it’s important and he will get it done,’ she said.

Ryan, the House speaker, told AP Wednesday during an interview that deporting Dreamers was ‘not in our nation’s interest.’ Trump was right to include a six-month sunset in his DACA termination orders.

‘I wanted him to give us time. I didn’t want this to be rescinded on Day One and create chaos,’ Ryan said. Congress how has time to ‘come up with the right kind of consensus and compromise to fix this problem.’

At a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Ryan reiterated his position on a DACA fix.

McConnell said in a paper statement that he and his colleagues ‘look forward’ to Trump’s proposal.

‘As Congress debates the best ways to address illegal immigration through strong border security and interior enforcement, DACA should be part of those discussions. We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal as we continue our work on these issue,’ the senator said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4882526/Trump-agrees-deal-Democrats-protect-immigrants.html#ixzz4sgM3IU7l

 

Cruz Is Far Tougher On Illegal Aliens Than Trump, Who Supports “Touchback” Amnesty

In the 2016 GOP primaries, Donald Trump has positioned himself as a hardliner on immigration. The general consensus is that no one is tougher on illegal aliens than Donald Trump. But is that actually the case?

While Trump would work diligently to deport all illegal immigrants-he has even proposed creating a “deportation force”-most would be surprised to learn that he would welcome the non-violent, “good” ones back in on an expedited basis. An expedited basis means line-cutting, and line-cutting means amnesty.

Trump’s specific plan-deportation before amnesty-is known as “touchback” amnesty, which was first proposed in 2007 by some members of Congress but failed after strong opposition from conservatives.

Marc Thiessen has written about it here, and also explains it below:

“My position is very simple. I oppose amnesty. I oppose citizenship. I oppose legalization … Today, tomorrow, forever. I believe in the rule of law.”

Cruz recently made note of the difference between his position and Trump’s:

Some Trump supporters will say that Cruz flip-flopped on a legal status-although Cruz insists that he was inserting a poison pill into the Gang of Eight bill.

If we are going to consider past positions, we can’t forget that Trump said in 2012 that Mitt Romney’s plan for self-deportation was “maniacal” and “mean-spirited.” And in 2013, Trump told a group of DREAMers that they had “convinced” him.

Ultimately voters will have to ask themselves whose immigration policy they prefer, and which candidate they trust.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/southernconstitutionalist/2016/01/11/cruz-far-tougher-illegal-aliens-trump-supports-touchback-amnesty/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-964

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017, Story 1: Will Congress Celebrate Independence Day July 4 By Passing Tax Reform And Repealing Obamacare? — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Flip Flopping On Immigration Law Enforcement By Not Terminating DACA Now! — Failing To Rollback The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States By Deporting Them All — Must Go After Employers Hiring Illegal Aliens — Videos — Story 3: More Mueller Milking The American Taxpayers Hires More Lawyers — Trump Should Fire Them All Now — Enough Is Enough — Videos

Posted on June 21, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, China, College, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Japan, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, News, Nuclear Weapons, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Russia, Security, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 915,  June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914,  June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913,  June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912,  June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911,  June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910,  June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909,  June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908,  June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907,  June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906,  June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905,  June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904,  June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903,  June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902,  May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901,  May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900,  May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899,  May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898,  May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897,  May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896,  May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895,  May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894,  May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893,  May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892,  May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891,  May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890,  May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889,  May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888,  May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887,  May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886,  May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885,  May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884,  May 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 883 April 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 865: March 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 864: March 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 863: March 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 862: March 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Story 1: Will Congress Celebrate Independence Day July 4 By Passing Tax Reform And Repealing Obamacare? — Videos —

Image result for trump tax reform

Image result for trump tax reformImage result for branco cartoons trump on DAPA and DACAImage result for branco cartoons trump tax reform

Image result for the fairtaxImage result for the fairtax

Story 2: President Trump Flip Flopping On Immigration Law Enforcement DACA (Dreamers) Still Exists — Failing To Rollback The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Must Go After Employers Hiring Illegal Aliens — Videos

Where’s That Senate Healthcare Bill? Senator John Thune Tells Us!

Will Republicans unite to pass health care and tax reform?

Ryan: ‘We’re going to cut taxes’

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin On Tax Reform, Debt | CNBC

Ron Paul on Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan

s

Tax reform coming this year – Paul Ryan

Trump ‘much closer’ on tax reform: Tony Sayegh

Can GOP-led Congress pass health care and tax reform?

Trump’s tax reform plan unveiled by Treasury Sec’y Steve Mnuchin, National Economic Dir. Gary Cohn

George Stephanopoulos GRILLS Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Trump’s Tax Plan

Senate tight on time to pass health care bill

Gingrich talks Trump’s plan to focus on tax reform

What is the FairTax legislation?

FAIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Pence on the Fair Tax

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Sen. Moran Speaks on Senate Floor about Finding Healthcare Solutions

Health care vote possible by July 4, McConnell tells Trump

Story highlights

  • Republicans met Tuesday to discuss health care legislation
  • Disagreements in the party have led a host of senators to declare the legislation is in trouble

Washington (CNN)The Senate may vote on health care legislation by July 4, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told President Donald Trump Tuesday afternoon at a White House meeting with congressional leaders.

McConnell said he expects the Congressional Budget Office will soon score the Senate’s version of the bill, which continues to be negotiated behind closed doors among Republicans, a source with direct knowledge of what was discussed at the meeting told CNN.
He did not set a firm deadline for the vote, but Republicans are impatient with the lack of progress and political quicksand the bill is creating and want the Senate to either act quickly on health care or move on to other business.
“We had a good, productive meeting with President Trump, Vice President Pence, and congressional leadership,” McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a joint statement after the meeting. “The discussion focused on the continued progress of our shared legislative agenda and how we can accomplish our goals.”
After weeks of discussions about how to move forward in a small working group, Republican senators were briefed at a lunch Tuesday on what their options are to repeal and replace Obamacare and warned that the time is quickly approaching for decisions to finally be made.
“The time is now,” a Senate aide involved in discussions said. “We either go or we don’t.”
The aide said this is the natural point the chamber was bound to get to. The working group has spent several weeks tossing around ideas, but with conservatives and moderates still starkly divided on the best way to proceed, it’s time for leadership to make the call.
According to Senate aides, during the meeting leadership tried to make it clear that lawmakers need to show their cards and decide if they are going to get behind repealing Obamacare — a campaign promise that ultimately launched them to win back the majority in the House and the Senate in recent years.
“Leadership is stepping in now and making clear that this is what they all campaigned on, so they need to go now or move on,” the aide said.
Senators are clearly impatient.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, asked if there would be a vote on the health care bill by July 4 said “there better be.”
“‘Cause this is not like fine wine, it doesn’t get better with age,” he added with a laugh.
“We’re at decision time,” a congressional aide close to the health care conversation said. “Decisions have to start being made in order to get the package ready.”
During their lunch Tuesday, Republicans were presented with a PowerPoint and a menu of options to overhaul Obamacare. But lawmakers emerging from the room were tight-lipped about what exactly is on the table. Key questions remain about how the GOP will phase out Medicaid expansion as well as how they will structure tax credits to help Americans purchase their health insurance under a Republican health care plan.
Sen. Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada who is up for re-election in 2018, said he was still looking at the proposals and what he could support.
“The big print giveth. The small print taketh away. I’m waiting for the small print at this point,” Heller said.
“I’m not going to go into details. There’s been a lot of work done and we see where we go from here,” said moderate Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican who has been a fierce advocate of more slowly phasing out Medicaid expansion than the House’s repeal bill did, said the health care bill “needs some work still for me.”

Sticking points: Medicaid, tax credits

Most members wouldn’t get into details about what actually is on the table, but they were honest that there are still sticking points here that have to be resolved.
“They laid out the goals and then different ideas on how we achieve them and we are working on how to build consensus to get to the right mix on 50-plus votes,” said North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven.
Lawmakers remain split over what to do about Medicaid. The House bill would eliminate enhanced federal funding for Medicaid expansion in 2020 and curtail support for the program overall. Moderates like Portman have advocated to phase out funding to cover low-income adults under Medicaid expansion more gradually. Conservatives like Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey want to shrink federal responsibility for the overall program even more that the House bill does by restructuring the growth rate for Medicaid funding.
The House plan would give states a set amount of money each year to cover their Medicaid enrollees. The funding level would increase annually based on the medical inflation rate in the Consumer Price Index, which grows more quickly than the standard inflation rate. Toomey argues that using the growth rate of medical care spending would lead to an unsustainable Medicaid program, so he advocates for tying Medicaid funding increases to the standard inflation rate instead.
Other options that are on the table include how to structure tax credits. Unlike the House’s health care repeal bill, which based the tax credits mainly on age, Senate Republicans have suggested tying them to income and even geographic location in order to make health care more affordable for low-income individuals living in areas that have expensive health care costs such as Alaska and rural America.
“There should be,” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters. “Alaska is an extreme outlier and part of it is just our geography, it’s our low-density population so if there is not some kind of geographic cost adjustor it makes it tough for me.”
However, adjusting the tax credits for income and geographic location would make them even more similar to Obamacare’s premium subsidies, which are tax credits based on income and cost of coverage in one’s area. Conservatives are sure to oppose this idea. Several, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have said the House GOP tax credits already are too much like Obamacare’s subsidies.

Freedom Caucus crafting tax reform plan

05/04/2017 05:21 PM EDT

Updated 05/04/2017 08:08 PM EDT

The caucus, which roiled the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, would be parachuting in to what promises to be another pitched battle over the Republicans’ next marquee issue. Though it doesn’t have an official line yet on tax reform, members appear to be more aligned with the Trump administration than House Republican leaders on how deep tax cuts should be, if they need to be offset and whether to include a controversial import tax.

Mark Sanford, a caucus member from South Carolina, told POLITICO he is already identifying areas of disagreement with the House leaders’ tax plan. The health care bill that passed Thursday proved better for conservatives, Sanford said, so they’re aiming to have greater influence on the tax reform process from the beginning.

“Rather than react, then stop something, and then go in fits and starts forward, we can constructively engage at the front end and say this is more of what we believe,” he said. “Let’s … avoid the kind of dislocation that we saw in this particular [health care] bill about a month ago.”

The principles outlined recently by President Donald Trump pulled the Freedom Caucus off the sidelines, Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), its leader, said.

“We’re looking at President Trump’s tax reform plan to see how we can maybe put some legislative text to that to come alongside the administration,” Meadows said, “and hopefully agree more than we disagree and move what he proposed in those bullet points the other day. We’ve got guys working on that.”

“I think we’re going to try to have a lot of different ideas and hopefully we can have our input with Ways and Means,” he said, referring to the House tax-writing committee.

The group isn’t ready to roll out paper just yet.

Freedom Caucus members are awaiting a budget plan and reconciliation instructions, a budget tactic that will allow Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, said Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and then they’ll settle more details on a tax bill.

Already, though, there are signs that the caucus will nudge tax reform in Trump’s direction.

Trump has proposed a much lower business tax rate – 15 percent across-the-board – than House Republican leaders, and Meadows has said lower taxes are paramount. (Trump and the GOP leaders are closer on proposed rate cuts for individuals.)

Jordan would prefer that the Freedom Caucus plan not include the “border adjustment” import tax pushed by Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas). Border adjustment, which has sharply divided the business community, is a sticking point among Republicans, and Trump has been wary of the idea.

Other Freedom Caucus members have also been outspoken against border adjustment.

“A number of folks have registered grave concerns with the border adjustment tax in the way that it opens up a new revenue source for the federal government,” Sanford said.

Like Jordan, Sanford said the government needs to slash spending. Lowering overall outlays would help cover some of the cost of tax cuts, which Meadows said shouldn’t require a pay-for.

The resulting economic growth should also make up for not bringing in revenue equal to current levels, Meadows said.

“Revenue neutral is a fancy way of saying the tax burden stays the same, but you just shift around who pays what,” Jordan said. “Typically in that scenario, the connected class gets a good deal and the middle class gets a bad deal, so I’m not wedded to this revenue-neutral thing at all.”

That also aligns those caucus members with the White House. While Brady and Ryan have offered pay-fors, including the border adjustment provision, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has repeatedly said tax reform will “pay for itself” by unleashing economic growth.gns him with the White House, while Brady and Ryan have offered pay-fors.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/freedom-caucus-tax-reform-plan-238003

Story 2: President Trump Flip Flopping On Immigration Law Enforcement By Not Terminating DACA Now! — Failing To Rollback The 30-60 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States By Deporting Them All — Must Go After Employers Hiring Illegal Aliens — Videos —

Donald Trump’s Immigration Plan – Deport and then Mass Expedited Amnesty

How to solve the illegal immigration problem

Donald Trump on Immigration – Does He Favor An Amnesty?

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

Rep Steve King discusses Trump’s touchback amnesty

Donald Trump is for Touchback Amnesty and not to be trusted on Illegal Immigration!

Trump Breaks MAJOR Campaign Promise By Backing DACA Amnesty Program

The Future of DACA and Dreamers still uncertain under President Trump

Marco Rubio: DACA has to End, It’s Unconstitutional

Trump just revoked an Obama amnesty program for illegal aliens

Trump Admin Rescinds DAPA Amnesty Program

125,000 ‘DACA’ Illegals Immigrants Got Work Permits Since President Trumps Inauguration!!!

Trump goes back on promise to ‘terminate’ DACA

This is what’s going on with DAPA and DACA

Trump Keeps DACA: Who Gets to Stay in the US, Who’s Left Out in the Cold

Trump’s Stance on DACA Has Immigration Hardliners Concerned

Ann Coulter: Trump better keep his promises

Trump will allow ‘DREAMers’ to remain in the US, for now

Ann Coulter Argues Eloquently Against Destroying America With Immigrants

Ann Coulter vs. media myths on immigration

Laura Ingraham – Analysis of illegal immigrants crossing the border

Published on Jun 2, 2015

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

6 Things To Know About Trump’s Reversal On ‘Dreamers’ June 16, 2017 4:38 PM ET

President Trump has reversed himself on one key campaign promise on immigration — and kept another.

The Department of Homeland Security says it will preserve, for now, an Obama administration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. It’s the most explicit statement yet that the Trump administration will not seek to deport the so-called “Dreamers” who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

At the same time, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly officially revoked another program that might have protected some of their parents from deportation.

Then-candidate Trump promised to get rid of both programs during last year’s campaign, saying “we will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties” during a major immigration speech in August 2016.

But his position on so-called “Dreamers” has been shifting since the election. Here’s where it stands now and what that could mean for “Dreamers” and their parents.

1. What did the Trump administration just do?

In a FAQ posted on its web site Thursday night, the Department of Homeland Security says current DACA recipients “will continue to be eligible for renewal,” and that DHS will continue to abide by “the terms of the original DACA program” as outlined by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012.

The Obama-era memo, issued five years ago this week, lays out who is eligible for DACA. It’s also what protects people who signed up for the program from deportation, and allows them to apply for work permits.

2. Does this go beyond what President Trump had said before?

Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump told ABC that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.”

“I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody,” he told ABC. “But I will tell you, we’re looking at this, the whole immigration situation, we’re looking at it with great heart.” Trump suggested that a new DACA policy would be forthcoming, but did not clarify what it was.

3. Is this a victory for immigrant rights activists?

Not exactly. It’s clearly a relief for some of the roughly 800,000 people who’ve signed up for DACA. As the fifth anniversary of the program approached, there were fears that the Trump administration might abolish it altogether.

“It is an important win for those 800,000 individuals,” says Muzna Ansari, immigration policy manager at the New York Immigration Coalition. “But in the grand scheme of things, there are 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country, who have really been living in fear” under the Trump administration.

4. How do President Trump’s supporters feel about it?

Some are deeply disappointed. Others are willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt because his administration has been aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration across the board.

“He broke the DACA promise,” says Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for lower immigration levels. “Are we happy about it? No,” Stein said. “We think they should have allowed the work authorizations to expire. End of story, full stop.”

But Stein is taking the long view. He says the White House may want to use the DACA program as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Congressional Democrats on a broader immigration reform package.

5. What is DAPA, and how does it fit in?

DAPA is shorthand for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. It’s another Obama-era program that would have extended protection from deportation even further. It was designed for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents who were themselves living in the U.S. illegally.

But it was quickly blocked by the courts, and never implemented.

DHS officially revoked DAPA on Thursday. But that was not a big surprise, since no one expected the Trump administration to defend the program in court, as the Obama administration had.

6. Is this a final decision on the future DACA?

In a word, no.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security have been emphasizing that this is not a permanent decision, and that president could still change his mind and revoke that program, too.

But for now, the administration continues to accept new DACA applications. And DHS says that “no work permits will be terminated prior to their current expiration dates.”

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255575/trump-allows-dreamers-to-stay-removes-protections-for-parents

Trump: Illegal “Dreamers” Will Not Be Targets For Deportation

He flips. He flops.

I’m actually fine, as my expectations for Trump were basement-level, anyway. His adoring nationalists and assorted MAGA trolls might be a bit chaffed by this, however.

Then again, when you have no principles, you’ll swallow anything.

The AP featured an extensive interview with President Trump today, and he revealed his “evolving” views on foreigners who break the laws of a sovereign nation.

 Young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children can “rest easy,” President Donald Trump said Friday, telling the “dreamers” they will not be targets for deportation under his immigration policies.

As a candidate, Trump strongly criticized President Barack Obama for “illegal executive amnesties,” including actions that allowed young people brought to the country illegally as children to be spared from deportation. But after the election, Trump started speaking more favorably about these immigrants, popularly dubbed “dreamers.”

On Friday, he said that when it comes to them, “This is a case of heart.”

Wait. What changed?

Jim Jamitis

He won, so no need to play the role. Got it.

This is actually a dramatic departure from Trump’s campaign rhetoric. He was going to deport, then build a great wall.

Of course, over time, it began to take on more nuance.

It would be a big, beautiful wall, with a big beautiful door.

Then, maybe deals could be made on a case-by-case basis.

As for the wall, the price tag is growing and we still don’t know who is paying for it. We know Mexico won’t.

The president, who took a hard line on immigration as a candidate, vowed anew to fulfill his promise to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But he stopped short of demanding that funding for the project be included in a spending bill Congress must pass by the end of next week in order to keep the government running.

“I want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall,” Trump said in the Oval Office interview. Asked whether he would sign legislation that does not include money for the project, he said, “I just don’t know yet.”

He really needs to stop talking about a wall and focus more on the strategic fencing, boots on the ground, and drones flying along the border to monitor activity.

That, at least sounds like a workable plan, and would likely cost quite a bit less than the unworkable wall he’s promising.

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/04/21/trump-illegal-dreamers-will-not-targets-deportation/

WASHINGTON — President Trump will not immediately eliminate protections for the so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as small children, according to new memorandums issued by the administration on Thursday night.

But White House officials said on Friday morning that Mr. Trump had not made a decision about the long-term fate of the program and might yet follow through on a campaign pledge to take away work permits from the immigrants or deport them.

The Department of Homeland Security announced that it would continue the Obama-era program intended to protect those immigrants from deportation and provide them with work permits so they can find legal employment.

A fact sheet posted on the department’s website says that immigrants enrolled in the 2012 program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “will continue to be eligible” to renew every two years, and notes that “no work permits will be terminated prior to their current expiration dates.”

A news release from the department said flatly that “the June 15, 2012, memorandum that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect.”

But officials at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday morning that those statements were intended only to clarify that immigrants enrolled in the DACA program would not immediately be affected by a separate action officially ending a similar program for undocumented immigrants whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents.

“There has been no final determination made about the DACA program, which the president has stressed needs to be handled with compassion and with heart,” said Jonathan Hoffman, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the department. He added that John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security, “has noted that Congress is the only entity that can provide a long-term solution to this issue.”

Immigration rights activists, who have fiercely battled Mr. Trump’s travel ban and increased enforcement of other immigration laws, initially hailed the announcement, calling it a surprising turn of events from Mr. Trump.

“This is a big victory for Dreamers amid months of draconian and meanspirited immigration enforcement policy,” said David Leopold, an immigration lawyer. “The preservation of DACA is a tribute to the strength of the Dreamer movement.”

But after the White House clarified its intent, activists expressed regret. Mr. Leopold said in a second statement that “it’s no surprise that Trump would quickly walk back the preservation of DACA.” He added that the administration was trying to “cynically pit 800,000 Dreamers against the rest of the 11 million undocumented immigrants.”

Cecilia Muñoz, who led President Barack Obama’s domestic policy council and oversaw immigration policy for the White House, said, “It is unfortunate that their status is still temporary, and their peace of mind not complete.”

A decision to maintain the DACA program would be a reversal from Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant language during the campaign and would disappoint some of the president’s most ardent supporters, who view the program started by Mr. Obama as an illegal grant of amnesty.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly agreed with that sentiment. At one rally last summer, Mr. Trump vowed to “immediately terminate” the program, saying that Mr. Obama had “defied federal law and the Constitution.”

But once in office, Mr. Trump faced a new reality: the political risks of targeting for deportation a group of people who are viewed sympathetically by many Americans. In some cases, the immigrants did not know they were in the country illegally. Many attended American schools from the time they were in kindergarten.

Asked repeatedly about his intentions for the program since he took office, the president has hinted that he would not try to deport the Dreamers. But immigration activists had remained worried that the administration might still eliminate the program.

On Friday, young immigrants who have gained legal status through the program were eager for clarity.

“My initial reaction was, ‘Well, what’s the catch?’” said Carlos Robles-Shanahan, 27, a business consultant in Chicago who is waiting for his deferred action status to be renewed. “It felt like it sounds too good to be true. If they gave us that, what did they take away?”

Born in Mexico, Mr. Robles-Shanahan and his two siblings followed their parents to the Chicago area in 2004, when they were children. He and his brother were arrested and detained by immigration officials while traveling to Boston by train in 2010, but were given a temporary reprieve from deportation. Joining the deferred action program two years later, he said, allowed him to obtain financial aid from his college, teach for a year through a fellowship, earn a master’s degree in public policy, get a white-collar job and buy a house for his mother.

“DACA changed a ton of stuff for me and my brother, exponentially,” he said. “It was like a switch.”

Mr. Robles-Shanahan recently married a United States citizen and has begun the process of applying for a green card, but fears that his ability to work and live in the country will be jeopardized if his deferred action status is not renewed.

Confirmation that the Trump administration planned to preserve the program would have given young immigrants some certainty that they could apply for deferred action or renew their status, said Rigo Rivera, 27, who crossed the Mexican border when he was 9 to join his parents in Alpharetta, Ga. Many have been afraid to apply for fear of putting their information in the hands of federal authorities.

“With Trump, we can expect anything. Tomorrow he can say that he wants to deport us,” he said. “I don’t know what to make of this, or what to believe.”

Mr. Rivera, a prep worker in a restaurant kitchen who also leads a group of young undocumented activists, received protected status in 2013, allowing him to obtain a driver’s license, a Social Security number and permission to work legally.

But he said he worried that he and other young immigrants in the program would not be protected from deportation even if Mr. Trump does not formally end DACA, because of several recent episodes in which people like him have been detained despite their participation in the program.

The announcement that the DACA program will continue for the time being, a decision that affects about 800,000 people in the United States, came as the administration formally ended Mr. Obama’s attempt to expand it to also cover the parents of Dreamers.

In 2015, Mr. Obama proposed an expansion of the program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, which could have shielded as many as five million people from deportation and provided work permits to them as well.

That program was never put in place because a Texas court blocked it at the request of a coalition of 26 state attorneys general. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, on a challenge to that ruling, but the decision by the Trump administration officially ends the litigation.

Correction: June 17, 2017
An earlier version of this article, using information from a Department of Homeland Security news release and a separate fact sheet, referred incorrectly to the status of the Obama-era immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The program is continuing for now; President Trump has not decided to keep it permanently, according to a clarification released by the administration. The headline repeated the error.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/trump-will-allow-dreamers-to-stay-in-us-reversing-campaign-promise.html

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an Americanimmigration policy founded by the Obama administration in June 2012. DACA allows certain illegal aliens who entered the country as minors, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit.

The policy was created after acknowledgment that these illegal students had been largely raised in the United States, and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from “low priority” individuals with good behavior.[1] The illegal alien student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal alien students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis.[2]

From the start, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible.[3] As of June 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had received 844,931 initial applications for DACA status, of which 741,546 (88%) were approved, 60,269 (7%) were denied, and 43,121 (5%) were pending. Over half of those accepted reside in California and Texas.[4]

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to expand DACA.[5] However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).[6][7][8] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeds.[9][10] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.[11]

On February 14, 2017 a CNN report on the detention of 23-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina in Northwest Detention Center,[12]Tacoma, Washington following his arrest in his father’s Des Moines, Washington home, observed that “The case raises questions about what it could mean” for the 750,000 Dreamers, who had “received permission to stay under DACA.”[12][13]

On March 7, 2017 the Los Angeles Times[14] reported that 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi became the second DACA recipient to be detained by the Trump Administration, further raising speculation about President Trump’s commitment to Dreamers and questioning whether immigrants who speak out against the administration’s policies should fear retaliation [1].

Vargas was released from LaSalle Detention Center on March 10, 2017 [2] and Ramirez Medina’s release followed on March 29, 2017 [3]. However, questions remain regarding the future of DACA recipients due to the Trump administration’s initial plans [4].

On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it would rescind the executive order by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, though the DACA program’s overall existence would continue to be reviewed.[15][16]

History

President Barack Obama announced the policy with a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on 15 June 2012,[17] a date chosen as the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal alien children tuition. Republican Party leaders denounced the program as an abuse of executive power.[18]

USCIS began accepting applications for the program on 15 August 2012.[3]

Republican response

Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224-201 to defund DACA in June 2013.[19] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, “The point here is…the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he’s done both with these Morton memos in this respect.”[20] However, in practice Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations.[21]

Although politicians are divided on immigration issues related to DACA, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that he would honor the grants of deferred action approved under DACA until a more permanent legislation was put into place.[22]

Under the presidency of Donald Trump, DACA has been under scrutiny, also in view of Trump’s earlier announcement during his candidacy that he intended to end that program.[23][24]

Implementation

DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland SecurityJanet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.[25]

To apply for DACA, illegal aliens must pay a $495 application fee, submit several, and produce documents showing they meet the requirements. They do not need legal representation.

Eligibility

To be eligible, illegal aliens must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship,[26] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.[27]

In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).[28]

To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:[26]

  • Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
  • Have lived continuously in the United States since 15 June 2007
  • Were under age 31 on 15 June 2012 (i.e., born on 16 June 1981 or after)
  • Were physically present in the United States on 15 June 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
  • Had no lawful status on 15 June 2012
  • Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
  • Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

To show proof of qualification (verify these requirements), applicants must submit three forms; I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and I-765WS, Worksheet, as well as supporting documentation.[26]

Travel eligibility

In addition to the $495 application fee, if a DACA qualifying illegal alien wants to travel abroad there is an additional fee and application requirement.

Form I-131 Application Type D, with a fee of $575 needs to be submitted to USCIS.[29]

To receive advance parole one must travel abroad for the sole purpose of an educational, employment, or humanitarian purposes. This must be indicating on the Form I-131 as described below:

  • Educational purposes, such as studying abroad;
  • Employment purposes, such as overseas positions, interviews, training, or meetings with clients; or
  • Humanitarian purposes, such as travel for medical reasons, attend funeral services for a family member, or visit a sick relative.

Travel for leisure is not a valid purpose.[29]

Renewals

USCIS released the process for DACA renewals in June 2014 and directed applicants to file their documents during a 30-day window starting 150 days before the expiration of their previous DACA status. Renewing requires an additional $495 fee.[30]

As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.[4]

Expansion

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal aliens who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.[31]

However, in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).[32][33][34] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeds.[35][36] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4-4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.[11]

The court’s temporary injunction does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[26]

Impact

A 2016 study found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of illegal aliens in the bottom of the income distribution. However, DACA had no significant effects on the likelihood of attending school. Using these estimates, DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.[27]

State responses]

State-level government officials are also divided on the issue. Although state governments cannot affect DACA itself, they can control the state benefits available to individuals under deferred action.

California

To assist those eligible under the program,[37] the state of California has agreed to support those who receive a DACA grant by allowing access to a state driver’s license,[38] provided that such individuals participate in specific state guidelines (such as paying income taxes). The state of California also allows DACA holding individuals to qualify for Medi-Cal.[39]

Arizona

Arizona became the first state to oppose President Obama’s order for DACA when Governor Jan Brewer issued a counter-order that prevents those with deferred status from receiving any state benefits.[40] This caused controversy,[41] as eligible and approved applicants would still be unable to obtain a driver’s license.[42] In May 2013, a federal district court held that this policy was likely unconstitutional. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against Brewer’s ban, and in November 2014 held this ban was in violation of the law.[43]

Maryland

Former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake chose to open the city’s doors to undocumented immigrants to boost its dwindling population. The city boasts an executive order prohibiting officials from questioning an individual’s immigration status, especially about Maryland’s Dream Act, which grants in-state tuition rates to “any student who graduates from a Maryland high school and comes from a family who has paid taxes. If the individual is a male he must also complete his Selective Service form and prove his acceptance.”[44]

Illinois

In a New York Times interview, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated that he wants to make Chicago the “most immigrant-friendly city in the country”. In addition to offering in-state tuition for illegal aliens, he has also made plans for an ordinance that would prevent illegal aliens with no criminal background from being turned over to immigration enforcement agencies.[45]

Texas

Although in-state tuition is still offered, Governor Rick Perry announced his opposition to DACA by distributing a letter to all state agencies, meant “to ensure that all Texas agencies understand that Secretary Napolitano’s guidelines confer absolutely no legal status whatsoever to any illegal alien who qualifies for the federal ‘deferred action’ designation.”[46]

Nebraska

Governor Dave Heineman, also joined in the opposition against DACA, confirming that the state, will continue its practice of not issuing driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, or other public benefits to illegal immigrants” regardless of deferred status. Since then, however, Nebraska legislature has made it legal for these people to acquire driver’s licenses.[47]

Michigan

In October 2012, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, announced that Michigan will not issue drivers licenses or state identification of any kind to beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.[48] In making this decision, it was clear that the Secretary of State erroneously conflated the notion of “lawful presence,” which is required under Michigan Law to issue a driver’s license, and “lawful status,” a different legal concept entirely.[49]USCIS has made it clear that DACA beneficiaries do not possess legal status, but does not state that DACA beneficiaries are unlawfully present; in fact, it states that DACA beneficiaries will not accrue unlawful presence time here while they are in this deferred action status.[50] The Secretary of State relied upon USCIS’ own explanation, which discusses legal status, not lawful presence.[50] In response to this policy, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that the policy violated both Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution.[51] On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated their “Frequently Asked Questions” page about DACA, clarifying, among other things, that DACA beneficiaries are, in fact, lawfully present in the United States.[52] On 1 February 2013, Johnson reversed her policy and began issuing drivers licenses to DACA beneficiaries on February 19, 2013.[53]

North Carolina

North Carolina briefly suspended giving out driver’s licenses to DACA grantees while waiting for the state attorney general’s opinion. The attorney general decided that even without formal immigration status the DACA grantees were to be granted legal presence. After that, the state once again continued to give out drivers licenses and allowed the DACA grantees to become legal members of North Carolina.[54]

Virginia

On April 29, 2014, Virginia Attorney GeneralMark Herring sent a letter to the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities, and the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System, in response to inquiries from public institutions of higher education on whether DACA students are eligible for in-state tuition. The attorney general advised these institutions that under Virginia law, DACA students who meet Virginia’s domicile requirements are eligible for in-state tuition.[55][56]

See also

References

Story 3: More Mueller Milking The American Taxpayers — Trump Should Fire Them All Now — Enough Is Enough — Videos

War of Words on Special Counsel Mueller Hires 13 Lawyers.

Out of Control Investigations. Alan Dershowitz!

Mueller, Witness Flipper, and More on Hidden Obama Documents! Judge Nap!

Jay Sekulow: It’s a Witch Hunt – The Deep State

Trey Gowdy Questions Fmr Sec of DHS Jeh Johnson!

The Latest from Trey Gowdy! Some About Loretta Lynch and James Comey!

JAY SEKULOW FULL EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW ON STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER (6/18/2017)

Lou Dobbs & Legal Expert Delineate The Number Of Crimes Comey & Mueller Have Already Committed

Robert Mueller named special counsel for FBI Russia probe – USA News

Jay Sekulow on The Laura Ingraham Show (6 /16/ 2017)

Mueller’s Empire: Legions of Lawyers, Bottomless Budget, Limitless Jurisdiction

By Andrew C. McCarthy| June 21, 2017

So I’ve been wondering: Why on earth does a prosecutor, brought in to investigate a case in which there is no apparent crime, need a staff of 14 lawyers?

Or, I should say, “14 lawyers and counting.” According to the press spokesman for special counsel Robert Mueller—yeah, he’s got a press spokesman, too—there are “several more in the pipeline.”

Concededly, none of Mueller’s recruits requires Senate confirmation, as do Justice Department officials—notwithstanding that the former may end up playing a far more consequential role in the fate of the Trump administration. But does it seem strange to anyone else that, by comparison, the president of the United States has managed to get—count ’em—three appointees confirmed to Justice Department positions in five months?

A special counsel, the need for whom is far from obvious, has in just a few days staffed up with four times the number of lawyers. And all for a single investigation that the FBI has described as a counterintelligence probe—i.e., not a criminal investigation, the kind for which you actually need lawyers.

The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction. Mueller is loosed—with 14 lawyers and more coming—to conduct what I’ve called a “fishing expedition.”

Oh, and about those three Justice Department appointees: One of them, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has already recused himself from the investigation in question—the department’s most high profile undertaking. Another, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, is reportedly weighing whether he, too, should bow out. Perhaps he figures he has already done quite enough, having sicced a special-counsel investigation on the Trump Administration by flouting both the regulation that requires a basis for a criminal investigation before a special counsel is appointed, and the regulation that requires limiting the special counsel’s jurisdiction to the specific factual matter that triggers this criminal investigation.

For now, Mueller appears utterly without limits, in his writ and in his resources. As the ease with which he has staffed up shows, it is not hard to recruit lawyers. All you need is money. Mueller has a bottomless budget, thanks to a bit of Treasury Department chicanery known as “permanent, indefinite appropriations.”

Under the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, no funding is supposed to be paid out of the treasury unless Congress has approved it in advance. Under the Framers’ design, with an eye toward limited, accountable government, every spending initiative must compete with every other one when Congress enacts a budget. Lawmakers must decide what we can and can’t afford when they draw on what is supposed to be the finite pot of money confiscated from taxpayers. We are supposed to know what we are underwriting and what it will cost.

These lawyers, overwhelmingly, are Democrats. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff and the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross have been tracking it: Mueller’s staffers contribute to Trump’s political opponents, some heavily.

Mueller’s special counsel investigation is somehow under no such restrictions, according to the Justice Department. He unilaterally decides how much staffing he needs. And unlike a normal prosecutor’s office, the special counsel does not have to apportion his resources over hundreds of cases. He can direct all of them at one investigative target.

In this instance, the target is Trump, and the resources—apart from what will be scores of FBI agents—include 14 lawyers (going on 15 … going on 16…).

These lawyers, overwhelmingly, are Democrats. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff and the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross have been tracking it: Mueller’s staffers contribute to Trump’s political opponents, some heavily. The latest Democratic talking-point about this unseemly appearance is that hiring regulations forbid an inquiry into an applicant’s political affiliation. That’s laughable. These are lawyers Mueller has recruited. They are not “applicants.” We’re talking about top-shelf legal talent, accomplished professionals who have jumped at the chance of a gig they do not need but, clearly, want.

The Democrats’ other rationalization is that Mueller, whose integrity is well established, is ultimately responsible for all prosecutorial decisions. I agree that Mueller’s personal probity entitles him to a presumption of ethical propriety. But a presumption is not a blank check.

Unlike many conservative commentators, I’ve contended that too much has been made of Mueller’s close personal friendship and longstanding professional ties to former FBI director James Comey. In drawing that conclusion, I have relied on Rosenstein’s description of the investigation assigned to Mueller. He said it is the same investigation Comey described in March 20 congressional testimony. That investigation is a counterintelligence probe—which is why I’ve never understood the need for a prosecutor. Since such investigations are not intended to build criminal cases, there seemed little prospect that Comey could become a critical prosecution witness. I reasoned that, in the unlikely event criminal charges became a possibility, Mueller could be trusted to consider the ethics of his participation.

Now, however, if reports are to be believed, Mueller is weighing whether the president is guilty of an obstruction crime. Putting aside my assessment that there would be no legal merit to such an allegation, there could be no doubting Comey’s importance as a witness in such a case. Mueller would then have to consider an ethical dilemma that the National District Attorneys Association, in its National Prosecution Standards (third edition), has described in the section on conflicts of interest (Standard 1-3.3, at p. 7):

The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation, prosecution, or other matter where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor’s neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised.

Notice that, consistent with the familiar ethical canon that lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the standard here is based not on the lawyer’s personal rectitude or his subjective belief that he can administer the law impartially. The issue is: What would this look like to fair-minded observers?

Consequently, if this boundless investigation careens into a criminal prosecution, Mueller could have some major soul-searching to do. I thus confess to being taken aback that he has exacerbated the problem, rather than trying to mitigate it, with his staffing decisions. Into an investigation that was already fraught with political tension, the special counsel has recruited partisans—donors to politicians who describe themselves not as a loyal opposition but as the Trump “Resistance.” What are fair-minded people to make of that?

Not just one or two recruits, but 14 lawyers, with more to come.

Some personal perspective, if you’ll allow me. I had the good fortune to be a prosecutor in two of the better known criminal cases in modern American history. The Pizza Connection case, which I believe remains our longest federal criminal trial, involved a vast narcotics and money-laundering enterprise, overseen for well over a decade by the mafia in Sicily and the United States. The years-long investigation required gathering evidence on three continents, coordinating with a parallel, massive Italian prosecution, and ultimately indicting 36 mafiosi. The subsequent 17-month trial of 22 defendants, starting in late 1985, featured hundreds of witnesses and more than 2,400 wiretap conversations (translated into English from Italian). I was the junior member of a five-prosecutor team, which many of our peers found to be excessive despite the prosecution’s success.

Consequently, if this boundless investigation careens into a criminal prosecution, Mueller could have some major soul-searching to do. I thus confess to being taken aback that he has exacerbated the problem, rather than trying to mitigate it, with his staffing decisions.

I was the lead government lawyer in the terrorism investigation of the so-called Blind Sheikh’s jihadist cell, following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and an unsuccessful plot to bomb New York City landmarks. The case involved extensive undercover investigations. We also probed the history of overseas jihadist movements, as well as that of covert American aid to the Afghan mujahideen’s war against the Red Army. There were classified-information challenges, including litigation over the admissibility in a criminal trial of evidence obtained under foreign-intelligence-gathering authorities. The eventual nine-month trial of 12 defendants, involved hundreds of witnesses and intercepted conversations (translated into English from Arabic).

We managed to get by with a team of three trial prosecutors and one appellate lawyer assigned to help us with the many novel legal issues. After all the defendants were convicted, I wrote the government’s appellate brief with the assistance of a single appellate editor. Not much staff, but the convictions and sentences were nevertheless upheld.

Why does special counsel Mueller need 14 lawyers (and more coming) for a counterintelligence investigation, as to which the intelligence professionals—agents, not lawyers—have found no “collusion with Russia” evidence after over a year of hard work? What will those lawyers be doing with no limits on their jurisdiction, with nothing but all the time and funding they need to examine one target, Donald Trump?

About the Author:

Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former chief assistant U.S. attorney best known for successfully prosecuting the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – a war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He is a recipient of the Justice Department’s highest honors, helped supervise the command-post near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks, and later served as an adviser to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. His several popular books include the New York Times bestsellers Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor at National Review. He is a frequent guest commentator on national security, law, politics, and culture in national media, and his columns and essays also appear regularly in The New Criterion, PJ Media, and other major publications.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 911, Breaking News: Story 1: Democrat Socialist, James Hodgkinson, Opened Fire With Semi-automatic Rifle On Republican Lawmakers Practicing For Annual Charity Baseball Game Shooting House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise, 2 Capital Police Officers, 1 Congressional Staffer and 1 Lobbyist and Two Others Had Secondary Injuries  — The Assailant Was Killed By Police Officers — Game On — Videos — Story 2: 24-Floor Grenfell Tower  London Apartment Building Fire — Towering Inferno — Videos

Posted on June 15, 2017. Filed under: American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Security, Success, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 911,  June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910,  June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909,  June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908,  June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907,  June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906,  June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905,  June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904,  June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903,  June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902,  May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901,  May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900,  May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899,  May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898,  May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897,  May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896,  May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895,  May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894,  May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893,  May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892,  May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891,  May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890,  May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889,  May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888,  May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887,  May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886,  May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885,  May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884,  May 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 883 April 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 865: March 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 864: March 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 863: March 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 862: March 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

 Image result for republican baseball game shooterImage result for republican baseball game shooter

 

Breaking News: Story 1: Democrat Socialist, James Hodgkinson, Opened Fire With Semi-automatic Rifle On Republican Lawmakers Practicing For Annual Charity Baseball Game Shooting House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise, 2 Capital Police Officer, 1 Congressional Staffer and 1 Lobbyist and Two Others Had Secondary Injuries  — The Assailant Was Killed By Police Officers — Game On — Videos —

Image result for republican baseball game shooter june 14, 2017 Image result for republican practice baseball game shooter june 14, 2017 Image result for president trump on republican practice baseball game shooter june 14, 2017

Graphic content: Gunman opens fire on GOP baseball practice

Published on Jun 14, 2017

A shooting at a park in Alexandria, Va., wounded five people, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.). Republican members of Congress were holding a morning baseball practice ahead of a scheduled charity game.

President Trump Reacts to Steve Scalise Shooting in Alexandria | Full Statement 6/14/17

President Trump addresses shooting at congressional baseball practice

Paul Ryan and Leader Nancy Pelosi address the House of Representatives

MUST WATCH: Rep. Pelosi Reacts to Alexandria, VA Shooting That Injured Rep. Steve Scalise

SPEAKER RYAN ADDRESSES HOUSE AFTER SHOOTING OF STEVE SCALISE & OTHERS

Paul Ryan and Leader Nancy Pelosi address the House of Representatives

“The Assailant Has NOW DIED!” President Trump Responds To Congressman Scalise Being Shot

Rush Limbaugh Predicted GOP Baseball Shooting Less Than 24 Hours Earlier

Link between Scalise shooting and hostile rhetoric at GOP town halls?

Virginia shooting: Gunman opens fire on top politicians – BBC News

LIVE: House majority whip, Steve Scalise, shot in the hip after a gunman opens fire

Rand Paul: It would have been a massacre without cops

This Had Been Building Since Election Night | Newt Gingrich reacts to Steve Scalise being shot |

Senator Jeff Flake speaks about congressional baseball game shooting

Trump-hating Bernie-supporter open-fires on many at Baseball ‘Game for Charities.’

Exclusive Interview – Witness to Congressional Ballgame Shooting in Alexandria, VA

Rand Paul describes shooting that injured Rep. Scalise

LIVE: Steve Scalise Shooting FBI Press Conference – Update GOP Baseball Shooting

Gunman opens fire on GOP congressional baseball practice; Rep. Scalise and others shot

Rep. Steve Scalise Shot By Radicalized Leftist, Anti-Trump Violence Continues

The Alexandria Shooting: Assessing Causation, Liability and Responsibility

“Out-of-Control Violence From the Left” Tucker and Mark Steyn Have Had Enough

FLASHBACK: Loretta Lynch calls for blood and death in the streets fighting against Trump.

 Loretta Lynch: Need more marching, blood, death on streets (What is she saying??) #DNN

REMEMBER When Loretta Lynch called for marching, blood, death in the streets to oppose Pres Trump?

Former AG Loretta Lynch Calls For Political Violence? | True News

News_Dianne Feinstein Calls For Loretta Lynch AG Investigation for Hillary “Cover” in Election.

Trump dropped biggest bombshell on Loretta Lynch: Judge Napolitano

 

Congressional baseball gunman was a Trump-hating Bernie supporter who hit women: Dead suspect’s violent history revealed after he opened fire on Republican lawmakers on the President’s birthday, leaving five injured

  • James Hodgkinson, 66, died in hospital after being shot by Capitol Police at the baseball field in Virginia 
  • He was a staunch Democrat who documented his hatred for President Trump on social media pages
  • Hodgkinson moved from his home in Illinois to Virginia two months ago and had been living out of his car
  • He has a long criminal history which includes an assault charge for punching his female neighbor as she tried to protect his daughter from him in 2006
  • Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip, is in a critical condition after being shot by the gunman at 7am
  • He was taking part in a GOP practice session with other politicians when Hodgkinson opened fire on them 
  • Two Capitol Police officers who were there to protect 51-year-old Scalise bravely returned fire on the gunman 
  • They were injured along with lobbyist Matt Mika and congressional staffer Zachary Barth but all are expected to recover
  • Thursday’s game, which the men were practicing for, will go ahead as planned despite the shooting  

The gunman who was killed by cops after opening fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice on Wednesday, the president’s 71st birthday, was a Trump-hating Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter with a long history of violence.

James T. Hodgkinson, 66, from Belleville, Illinois, was killed by Capitol Police after firing up to 100 rounds from an assault rifle at a baseball park in Alexandria, Virginia, leaving five injured including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise at 7am on Wednesday.

Scalise’s condition worsened throughout the afternoon and was deemed critical by hospital staff after he he was released from emergency surgery on his hip.

Two Capitol Police officers were shot as they bravely returned fire on Hodgkinson while the lawmakers scrambled across the field to safety. Congressional staffer Zachary Barth and lobbyist Matt Mika were shot but both are expected to recover.

Hodgkinson was a staunch Sanders supporter and campaigned for the left-wing senator to get the Democratic nomination for president last year. His family said he was distraught over Trump’s November election win and revealed that he had been living in Alexandria out of a gym bag and sleeping in his car for the last two months.

A married union tradesman with a home inspection business, Hodgkinson had threatened to ‘destroy’ the president and his administration on social media but was not known to Secret Service.

His criminal record included a 2006 arrest for punching his female neighbor in the face as she tried to shield his underage daughter from him.

Scroll down for video 

James T. Hodgkinson, 66, opened fire on the GOP baseball team on Wednesday. He was killed by Capitol Police 

Hodgkinson is seen above in 2012 protesting outside the United States Post Office in his hometown of Belleville, Illinois 

James T. Hodgkinson (pictured right campaigning against Republicans in 2012) was a hateful Trump opponent who threatened to ‘destroy’ the president on social media before attacking a GOP baseball practice on Wednesday

He dragged her out by the hair but she ran into her neighbor’s car. The female neighbor sat in the vehicle in the front seat.

Hodgkinson got access to them, slashing the seatbelt his daughter was wearing as he and his wife pulled her out. He then hit the neighbor in the face, The Washington Post reported, but was never convicted.

After he was identified as the shooter in Wednesday’s attack, his estranged brother told The New York Times that he learned through their sister that he had traveled to Virginia two months ago.

He signed up for a membership at the YMCA opposite the baseball field he attacked but cancelled it this week.

The brother said he believed Hodgkinson phoned his wife Sue in the days before the attack and told her he was coming home because he missed her and their dogs.  Former Alexandria mayor Bill Euille admitted meeting the man several times in the town.

‘He was a very friendly person, but what I did notice about this gentleman is he’d open up his gym bag and in it, he had everything he owned. He was living out of the gym bag. That, and he sat in the Y’s lobby for hours and hours.

‘Outside of myself, I don’t think he knew anyone else in town,’ he told The Washington Post, admitting that he also helped him try to find a job in the area after taking pity on him.

Hodgkinson documented his hatred for the president in Facebook and Twitter posts where he threatened to ‘destroy Trump & co’ and labeled the Republican billionaire a ‘traitor’.