Busloads of Illegal Immigrants Arrive at a Federal Prison in Victorville, Calif.

County officials expect federal immigration officers to conduct raids in the near future. (Photo Courtesy of ICE)

Busloads of illegal immigrants are arriving at a federal prison facility in California’s high desert region.
Around 1,000 detainees were transferred from over crowded ICE detention facilities, to a prison complex in Victorville, about 85 miles north east of Los Angeles.
Visitations at the prison have been put on hold for security measures.
Immigrants rights groups say, by placing detainees in prisons, they’re being treated like criminals, and may not be receiving the assistance they need.
According to ICE officials a total of five federal prisons will be housing detainees awaiting court hearings.
The move, however, is said to only be temporary.

Pres. Trump Offers Blistering Rebuke Of Canadian Pm’s Trade Threats

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before leaving the White House in Washington, Friday, June 8, 2018, to attend the G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, Canada. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

OAN Newsroom
June 9, 2018
President Trump issues a blistering tweet about Canada and its Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following his threat to impose tariffs on U.S. goods and his criticism of U.S. trade practices.

Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2018

Trudeau called recent U.S. tariffs “insulting” and said Canada will not be pushed around.
President Trump later responded saying Trudeau acted “meek and mild” during the G7 summit, calling his new statements “very dishonest and weak.”

PM Justin Trudeau of Canada acted so meek and mild during our @G7 meetings only to give a news conference after I left saying that, “US Tariffs were kind of insulting” and he “will not be pushed around.” Very dishonest & weak. Our Tariffs are in response to his of 270% on dairy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2018

He also noted the recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods are due to Canada’s 270 percent upcharge on U.S. dairy.

The New York Times wants to bury a reporting scandal -- and other examples of media madness

James Wolfe, left, the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and New York Times reporter Ali Watkins, right. Federal investigators had seized years' worth of Watkins’ email and phone records as part of a leak probe into Wolfe.  (AP)

Government documents were leaked to the press. A reporter’s communications were seized by the government without her knowing about it. And a former Senate aide was charged with “lying repeatedly to investigators about his contacts with three reporters.”
It sounds like the makings of the next Hollywood production about the news media’s war against President Trump. There’s only one problem. The reporter wasn’t just involved with her stories. She was involved for three years with the man the feds charged.
The man is James A. Wolfe, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s director of security for nearly 30 years – an important figure for a young journalist to befriend.
Wolfe and Times reporter Ali Watkins “exchanged tens of thousands of electronic communications, often including daily texts and phone calls,” according to The Washington Post.
The Post described it this way: “How a reporter’s romance with her source muddies the FBI’s seizure of her records.”
“President Trump's administration excels at muddying the water, and the arrest of a former Senate aide, following an inquiry in which federal agents seized records from a New York Times reporter, might be its best work yet,” wrote Callum Borchers in The Post.
Most outlets weren’t that obvious. Especially The Times. Here are just a few of its headline choices: “Press Groups Criticize the Seizing of a Times Reporter’s Records.” Or “Times Says Justice Seized Reporter's Email, Phone Records.” Perhaps, even, “Former U.S. Senate Staffer Charged With Lying to FBI Over Contacts With Media.”
Notice the difference? The Times practices the CYA strategy known as “hide in plain sight.” It addresses the issue, but not until several paragraphs into the story, where only true news junkies read. A couple of those stories were written by The Associated Press and Reuters. In the Times version, we don’t learn until the seventh paragraph that “She and Mr. Wolfe had been in a three-year relationship.”
But there’s more. According to The Times, the Justice Department told Watkins back in February that it seized her records. Only she didn’t tell her bosses about the news.
“Ms. Watkins, after consulting with her lawyer, decided not to disclose the letter to The Times, according to Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the newspaper.” Watkins waited until June. “Editors learned of the seizure from Ms. Watkins on Thursday, as reporters were working on an article about Mr. Wolfe’s impending arrest,” the Times wrote.
I bet Watkins’ editors were thrilled.
The Post story added several quotes defending Watkins, including those from when she worked at BuzzFeed and Politico.
Media ethics Professor Jane E. Kirtley tried to separate what was legal from “media ethics considerations” – for good reason. Then she used a unique public relations term for dating a source, calling it “a multidimensional relationship.”
The article even conveniently linked to the Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, which reads in part: “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Apparently, that disclosure involves bosses, eventually, just not readers.
Watkins’ Twitter comments have also come back to haunt her. Back in 2013, she was tweeting about getting involved with a source.
“I wanted to be Zoe Barnes...until episode 4. Sleeping with your source- especially a vindictive congressman? #badlifechoice #HouseofCards,” she wrote in April. By June she asked, “So on a scale of 1 to ethical, how does everyone feel about pulling a @RealZoeBarnes for story ideas? #TOTALLYKIDDING @HouseofCards.”
Totally not kidding.
Bee Is Back: Fresh off a calling Ivanka Trump the C-word the week before, TBS comedy show host Samantha Bee was back for more. This time it was a thoroughly insincere apology on a broadcast so radioactive that most of her advertisers fled for the exits. None of those who advertised on the previous show were back for another round.
Bee argued her use of the word was innocent.  She said she has used the word “on the show many times, hoping to reclaim it.” She took yet another swing at Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. (She once called him a “fish-faced, horses--- salesman.”) This time she said: “I never intended it to hurt anyone except Ted Cruz.”
Still, Bee tried to take the sting out of her apology, claiming the classic comedian exemption. “If you are worried about the death of civility, don’t sweat it. I’m a comedian.”
Even The Washington Post called Bee out. Erik Wemple wrote: “We can worry plenty about the ‘niceness of our actions’ and refrain from calling Ivanka Trump a ‘feckless c---’ at the same time. It’s not an either-or proposition.”
Then Bee ended the pretend apology by talking about being nicer. “Civility is just nice words. Maybe we should all worry a little bit more about the niceness of our actions.” She’s a “comedian,” not a hypnotist. We don’t have to believe her.
Do As We Say, Not As We Do: Doxing is bad, just ask journalists who … do doxing. Wired describes doxing as “the distribution of someone's personal information across the internet against their will.” It’s become an awful tool of online combat. It can result in threats and job loss. It’s been used by extremists of almost every political stripe.
Lately, it’s become a tool of so-called journalism. The Daily Beast used it to target the daughters of conservative Pamela Geller. This time it was used both by and against HuffPost staff. Reporter Luke O’Brien went digging into the woman behind a popular Twitter account with about 220,000 followers.
O’Brien’s subsequent article didn’t just attack the author of the account. It went after her family. Here’s the unsubtle headline: “Trump’s Loudest Anti-Muslim Twitter Troll Is A Shady Vegan Married To An (Ousted) WWE Exec.” Only at the time he wasn’t “ousted.”
The story mentioned the woman’s husband who worked for pro wrestling’s WWE by name. O’Brien didn’t stop at targeting the man’s wife. He went after the man’s employer, asking for comment about the Twitter account.
O’Brien wasn’t satisfied with what he heard the first time from the WWE, so he tried again. This time he got results. “Now that it has come to our attention” the man (who I am choosing not to name) is no longer an employee,” said a WWE spokesperson. The completed story mentioned the WWE 10 separate times.
O’Brien’s story even brought in the woman’s brother and his wife, though they had nothing to do with her activities.
“Her brother runs a popular restaurant and craft beer bar in Brooklyn that also bears the family name,” O’Brien wrote.
In the resulting battle, O’Brien was doxed, as were many others on the HuffPost staff. O’Brien was also suspended from Twitter for telling someone to “Go DDT himself,” which he claims believably was intended to reference a wrestling move. He also said less believably that his reporting was, “EXACTLY how ethical journalism works.”
HuffPost Editor-in-Chief Lydia Polgreen defended the story: “Doxing is revealing a person’s private information: home address, telephone number, etc. Identifying a popular anonymous troll by name is NOT doxing,” she wrote, seemingly forgetting the woman’s husband, as well as her brother and his wife.
Polgreen added that “private information of 10 of my colleagues – some of whom had no connection to this reporter – was also doxed.” She concluded with an ironic truism: “It’s scary stuff.”
It’s scary for everyone, not just journalists.

Kim Jong Un arrives in Singapore for summit with Trump

A motorcade carrying Kim Jong Un sped through the streets of Singapore on Sunday after the North Korean leader arrived for a scheduled summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.
The jet carrying Kim had landed earlier in the afternoon amid huge security precautions on the city-state island.
Kim's summit with Trump has captured intense global attention after a turn to diplomacy in recent months following serious fears of war last year amid North Korean nuclear and missile tests.
The North Korean autocrat's every move will be followed by 3,000 journalists up until he shakes hands with Trump.
Despite the initial high stakes of a meeting meant to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons, the talks have been portrayed by Trump in recent days more as a get-to-know meeting. He has also raised the possibility of further summits and an agreement ending the Korea War by replacing the armistice signed in 1953 with a peace treaty. China and South Korea would have to sign off on any legal treaty.

A motorcade believed to be carrying North Korean leader Kim Jong Un travels along Singapore's Orchard Road, June 10, 2018.  (Associated Press)

There has been widespread speculation about Kim's rare trip out of the North, where he enjoys supreme power. He will reportedly stay at the St. Regis Hotel, where China's President Xi Jinping once stayed. He may be bringing his own armored limousine and bodyguards. A throng of journalists stood outside the hotel.
It's not just the logistics of Kim's trip that are unclear. There's a flurry of speculation about what results might come from the summit.
It initially was meant to rid the North of its weapons, to forge the "complete denuclearization" of the country. North Korea has said it's willing to deal away its entire nuclear arsenal if the United States provides it with a reliable security assurance and other benefits. But many, if not all analysts, say that this is highly unlikely, given how hard it has been for Kim to build his program and that the weapons are seen as the only protection he has.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, right, arrives at the Changi International Airport, in Singapore, June 10, 2018.  (Ministry of Communications and Information of Singapore via Associated Press)

Any nuclear deal will hinge on North Korea's willingness to allow unfettered outside inspections of the country's warheads and radioactive materials, much of which is likely kept in a vast complex of underground facilities.
Another possibility from the summit is a possible deal to end the Korean War. North Korea has long demanded a treaty that may be aimed at getting U.S. troops off the Korean Peninsula and, eventually, paving the way for a North Korean-led unified Korea.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, is greeted by Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, at the Changi International Airport, June 10, 2018.  (Ministry of Communications and Information Singapore via Associated Press)

The fighting ended on July 27, 1953, but the war technically continues today because instead of a difficult-to-negotiate peace treaty, military officers for the U.S.-led United Nations, North Korea and China signed an armistice that halted the fighting. The North may see a treaty -- and its presumed safety assurances from Washington -- as its best way of preserving the Kim family dynasty. The ensuing recognition as a "normal country" could then allow sanctions relief, and later international aid and investment.
Trump's supporters have floated the idea that forging such a treaty, which would need a signoff from China and South Korea, would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Kim may be interested in getting aid and eventual investment to stabilize and then rebuild a crumbling economy. Just meeting with Trump will also give Kim recognition as the leader of a "normal" country and as an equal of the U.S. leader.

CBS Charlie Rose Cartoons

Charlie Rose reportedly invited to join media elite at Idaho retreat

Disgraced host Charlie Rose was fired from his CBS and PBS jobs, but he may still be welcome among some of the media elite.
Rose is reportedly included on the guest list for next month’s Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Idaho.
The annual week-long retreat, where the media and finance worlds come together, is known for its lovely scenery and its “potential for furtive deal-making,” Vanity Fair reported.
If he attends, Rose -- who lost his "CBS This Morning" gig and eponymous public-television talk show over allegations of sexual misconduct -- would find himself in the company of media giants such as Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, CBS CEO Les Moonves, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and others, the magazine reported.
The news of Rose's possible re-emergence followed rumors that he was being considered for a #MeToo-inspired comeback series, a report said.
Page Six reported in April that producers pitched the idea of a show on which the likes of Louis C.K., Matt Lauer and others implicated in high-profile sexual misconduct scandals would be interviewed.
Editor and women's advocate Tina Brown, who ultimately passed on the idea, said at the Time 100 Gala that she was approached about co-hosting the #MeToo show with Rose.
But after word got out, social media users quickly posted their disapproval.
In May, a report revealed an additional 27 women had accused Rose of inappropriate sexual behavior over the years. A lawsuit filed that month by three former colleagues claimed the journalist sexually harassed female underlings and threatened their jobs.
Rose didn’t respond to Vanity Fair’s request to confirm whether he would attend the Idaho event.

Stewing about Trump, California tech group bets on distant ‘purple’ candidates

Democratic candidate for Michigan's 8th Congressional District Elissa Slotkin, a former Defense Department official and intelligence analyst, poses for a picture on her family farm in Holly, Michigan, U.S., April 12, 2018. Picture taken April 12, 2018. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

June 9, 2018
By Heather Somerville
MILL VALLEY, California (Reuters) – Sipping California zinfandel, munching deviled eggs and fretting about President Donald Trump, the guests attending a political fundraiser at a Silicon Valley executive’s home were the usual assortment of tech entrepreneurs and investors.
But the congressional candidate they had come to meet that March evening in the hills north of San Francisco was anything but typical.
Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former defense official, is running for Congress in Michigan’s 8th District, a pocket of Detroit suburbs, college campuses and farmland more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away. She is a gun owner, a supporter of constitutionally enshrined gun rights and a critic of single payer health care – hardly the kind of far-left candidate voters in the San Francisco Bay Area generally embrace.
But Slotkin, 41, and the party guests shared a goal: wresting control of the House of Representatives from Republicans in November’s congressional elections.
With no Bay Area Democrats facing serious challenges from Republicans, the party host, Brian Monahan, and a group of fellow technology and marketing executives have decided to look farther afield for candidates in swing districts that need financial support.
To focus their efforts, Monahan, technology investor Chris Albinson, executive recruiter Jon Love and a handful of others have formed a loose-knit organization they call Purple Project.
So far, the group has raised at least $210,000 for Democratic candidates in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The sum is a pittance compared to the money being spent on key races by fundraising Political Action Committees (PACs), which represent corporations and political interest groups and contribute millions of dollars each election cycle. But in moderate districts with close races like Slotkin’s, such grassroots efforts can make a difference.
‘SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE’
Purple Project is one of a number of informal groups in solidly blue states such as California, Vermont and Massachusetts that have mobilized this year to back candidates in distant swing districts. So far, it has endorsed six candidates and plans to endorse 14 more by the end of July.
Love, a longtime executive recruiter for technology companies, spearheads candidate vetting. Many in the group have made the maximum allowable individual donation of $2,700 to each candidate.
For its participants, Purple Project is a way to channel months of political frustrations since Trump took office.
“Things are simply unacceptable and sitting on the sidelines just stewing on it isn’t helping anyone,” Monahan said. “You feel like out here in California your vote is worthless.”
That’s because House representatives from the San Francisco Bay Area are unwaveringly Democratic.
The group’s efforts could backfire, however, by opening candidates up to accusations of being beholden to outside interests and disconnected from their constituents, said Kyle Kondik, who studies House races for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
“You might be able to attack Slotkin as not having deep enough roots in the district,” Kondik said.
To re-take the House, Democrats would need to take 23 seats held by Republicans, as well as keep all the districts they now hold. That means races like Slotkin’s, in a competitive district with a mix of Republican and Democratic counties stretching from north of Detroit to the state capitol, Lansing, are pivotal.
She faces a bruising battle, however, trying to unseat two-term Congressman Mike Bishop, who won with 56 percent of the vote in 2016.
Out-of-state money has been the financial lifeblood of Slotkin’s campaign, putting her far ahead of her competitor for the Democratic nomination and nearly neck-and-neck with Bishop. Slotkin had raised $1.5 million as of March 31, with just $304,000 coming from Michigan donors, approaching Bishop’s $317,000 in home-state contributions, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Slotkin raised more than $120,000 from individuals in the San Francisco Bay Area.
(Graphic: https://tmsnrt.rs/2sjPBV1)
FEC filings generally do not include donations of $200 or less.
“Our campaign finance laws are so broken that in order to compete you have to raise a significant amount of money,” she told Reuters during a tour of her 400-acre farm in Holly, Michigan, when asked about Purple Project’s donations to her campaign. “If that means raising from outside the state I’d rather have that than the influence of a corporate PAC.”
At a house party in April in the small Michigan city of Brighton, about a dozen neighbors from a tidy middle-class neighborhood gathered to meet Slotkin and cheer her on, but not all were hopeful.
“I don’t give her much of a chance, but it’s good to have her there and maybe she’ll take a bite out of Bishop’s vote,” said Blake Lancaster, 74.
PERSONAL POLITICS
Purple Project is a political organization with a deeply personal origin. Albinson, co-founder of San Francisco technology investment firm Founders Circle, said he was unnerved to learn his father-in-law in Michigan, Jerry Smith, voted for Trump. After 18 years as a registered Republican, Albinson, also a Michigan native, became an independent voter following Trump’s nomination.
He set about finding moderate congressional candidates he and his friends in Silicon Valley could support, but who would also appeal to Smith.
After Albinson met Slotkin, he subjected her to a litmus test: she had to visit his father-in-law.
Smith, 72, describes himself as a “common-sense Republican” worried about his healthcare costs. A retired small business owner who lives on a 40-acre farm just outside the 8th District, Smith said he and his wife, Barb, fret about spending down their savings “just for the regular monthly bills.”
Slotkin won over Smith, who said he was impressed by her resume and decency, and her views on improving President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, the Affordable Care Act, to keep healthcare costs down. From there, Purple Project has grown, with members scattered across the country.
To win the group’s backing, candidates must be able to appeal to Trump supporters and must have past service in the military, government or non-profit sector. They also have to reject corporate PAC money and support affordable health care and infrastructure improvement, among other criteria.
The group offers more than money. Monahan, who was head of marketing at Walmart.com and an advertising executive at image-sharing and shopping website Pinterest, helps campaigns with digital marketing, for instance.
Last spring, Slotkin left Washington and a 15-year government career in defense and intelligence work to move back to the family farm in Holly. But some of her neighbors in this working-class town are not particularly interested in a newcomer Democrat.
Holly town supervisor George Kullis said he plans to vote for Bishop because the congressman helped him get federal funding for new signs for the national cemetery in town.
“Bishop has been good; he’s been ‘Johnny on the spot,'” Kullis said. “Besides, who is this Elissa Slotkin? I’ve never heard of her.”
(Reporting by Heather Somerville; Editing by Sue Horton and Ross Colvin)

President Trump: I’m Not Above the Law, No Reason to Pardon Myself

President Trump is doubling down on his claims there was no collusion between his 2016 campaign and Russia. He is accusing Democrats of using the Russia investigation to undermine his presidency.
While speaking to reporters outside the White House Friday, the president hit back against the media, saying he does not believe he is above the law, however, he does have the executive power to pardon himself.
He added, a self-pardon is not needed because he did nothing wrong.
The president called the Russia probe a total ‘witch hunt’ and suggested that Democrats should be investigated for corruption in reference to the FBI’s alleged mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and SPYGATE.
“I do have an absolute right to pardon myself, but I’ll never have to do it because I didn’t do anything wrong and everybody knows it,” said President Trump. “There’s been no collusion, there’s been no obstruction — it’s all a made up fantasy, it’s a witch hunt.”
The special counsel’s Russia investigation entered its second year last month, and has so far cost taxpayers around $17 million.

Bid to block Bernie Sanders? DNC adopts rule change, wants only avowed Democrats to run

The Democratic National Committee adopted a new rule Friday aimed at preventing non-Democrats, such as independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, from seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, reports said.
The rule change, adopted at a DNC meeting in Providence, R.I., requires all candidates for the party’s nomination to “run and serve” as Democrats, Yahoo News reported.
Some supporters of Sanders -- who caucuses with the Democrats despite declining to declare a party affiliation -- say the move was motivated by “spite” after Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money during the Democratic primaries in 2016.
But a source told Yahoo News it was actually part of a push to limit the power of so-called superdelegates -- which, ironically, has long been a goal of Sanders.'
Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, ultimately lost the nomination to Clinton when superdelegates from states he won chose not to vote for him at the party's 2016 convention in Philadelphia.
DNC Chairman Tom Perez on Tuesday floated a proposal to eliminate superdelegates on a presidential primary’s first voting ballot, the Washington Post reported. Party leaders would vote only if the contest required a second ballot.
“You had superdelegates voting for Hillary Clinton in states that I won pretty handsomely,” Sanders told Post this week. “And now there is agreement among Tom Perez and our people, and a lot of the Clinton people, to say we should reduce the number of superdelegates.”
Still, the rule change left some Sanders supporters puzzled as to why Democrats would want to make their party less inclusive.
“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016,” Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 campaign, told Yahoo News. “It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic Party. I, just for the life of me, don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite.”

"I just for the life of me don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite.”

A photo of a printout of the rule change was shared Friday in a Twitter message posted by DNC member Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
“At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat,” the printout says. "Each candidate must then affirm in writing that they: A. are a member of the Democratic Party; B. will accept the Democratic nomination; C. will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”
But Sanders may be protected from the change thanks to a resolution passed in his home state, by which he is considered a Democrat, “for all purposes and [is] entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level,” Politico reported.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton clashed in a heated presidential primary.  (Associated Press)

DNC members will meet in August for a final vote on the proposal to eliminate superdelegates, Yahoo News reported.

State-level Dems funneled $84M to Clinton's campaign, lawsuit alleges

As many as 40 state-level Democratic parties may have been involved in a scheme to funnel as much as $84 million to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, a campaign finance lawyer contends.
Dan Backer, an attorney based in Virginia, has filed a lawsuit alleging that a plan was in place to circumvent campaign contribution limits set by the federal government, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
“You had individuals giving $300,000,” Backer told the newspaper Friday. “They’re not doing it because they care about Nevada’s or Arkansas’ state party. They’re doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton.”

“You had individuals giving $300,000. They’re not doing it because they care about Nevada’s or Arkansas’ state party. They’re doing it to curry favor with and buy influence with Hillary Clinton.”

Nevada’s Democratic Party may become the latest pulled into a federal lawsuit that Backer has filed, the paper reported. Backer represents the Committee to Defend the President, a pro-Donald Trump political action committee that initially lodged a complaint in December with the Federal Election Commission, the report says.
Backer told the paper he filed his lawsuit because the FEC failed to meet a deadline for taking action.
He said the Hillary Victory Fund reported transferring more than $1.7 million to the Nevada Democratic Party between December 2015 and November 2016. But the party reported receiving only $146,200, which it transferred to the DNC.
The remaining $1.6 million was sent by the Hillary Victory Fund to the Nevada party and received by the DNC and never appeared on the Nevada party’s reports, Backer contends.
But Nevada's Democratic Party disputed Backer's claims.
“This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans’ disastrous agenda,” Helen Kalla, a spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party, told the Review Journal.

“This is nothing more than a bogus political stunt feebly designed to distract from vulnerable Republicans’ disastrous agenda.”
- Helen Kalla, spokeswoman, Nevada Democratic Party

In Idaho, Democrats allegedly contributed $1.6 million to the plan in a series of 13 transactions, the Idaho Statesman reported.
But local party officials might have been unaware of how the money was being handled, the paper reported.
It is "reasonably possible the Idaho State Democratic Party had no prior knowledge of, or control over, these transfers because they were handled entirely by HVF, the DNC, HFA, [Hillary Victory Fund, Democratic National Committee, Hillary for America] and/or their treasurers," states the 101-page complaint that Backer’s group filed in December, the Statesman reported.
The Idaho Democratic Party did not respond to the newspaper’s request for a comment.
In Delaware, the state Democratic Party received $2.4 million from the Hillary Victory Fund over 11 transactions, then transferred roughly the same amount to the DNC, WXDE-FM radio reported.
The handling of cash in Delaware “doesn’t pass the sniff test,” Backer told the station.