Steny Hoyer Cartoons (House Majority Leader)

Washington, D.C. statehood bill hearing slated for mid-summer

Early morning runners pass the Washington Monument as they run across the National Mall at daybreak on in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

The push for Washington, D.C. to achieve statehood is not new, but it’s gained new traction thanks to a bill in the House of Representatives. The bill is reportedly slated to have a hearing on July 24th before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
The bill was proposed by Democrat delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and seeks to have the city “admitted to the union on equal footing with the other states.” This would call for district-wide elections of two new senators and one new congressional representative. All the district territory would be included in the state with the exemption of specific federal buildings and monuments, such as the white house.
Residents in the city have complained about a lack of representation in the United States. They noted that while the district does get three electoral votes in national elections, it has no voting representation in the House or the Senate.
“We come full of optimism because of the progress we have made in only five-months in the new 116th Congress,” stated Holmes-Norton. “We come determined to become the 51st state of the United States of America.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer threw his support behind the bill in an a Washington Post op-ed, saying more than 700,000 Americans remain unable to cast votes for an equal voice in Congress. He also said he’s been hesitant to call for statehood in the district in the past, but now says it’s the only path to ensuring permanent representation. Hoyer noted he would be co-sponsoring the bill with Holmes-Norton.
Nearly 80-percent of voters in Washington, D.C. passed a measure in 2016 in favor of petitioning Congress to admit the district as the state of New Columbia.
Analysts say the bill does have the potential to pass through the House, but is not likely to receive support in the Senate. They explained that Republicans have long pushed back against the call for statehood due to the heavy Democrat population in the city.

Trump admin. weighs in on crisis at southern border, tariffs on Mexico

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks to reporters outside the White House, Friday, May 31, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump speaks during the 2019 United States Air Force Academy Graduation Ceremony at Falcon Stadium, Thursday, May 30, 2019, in Colorado Springs, Colo. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

President Trump along with members of his administration and his reelection campaign are all weighing in on the crisis at southern border, including U.S. relations with Mexico. As the crisis at the border continues, the word from the White House is — it’s time for Mexico to do its part.
While speaking to reporters Friday, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the president’s number one responsibility is national security and protecting Americans.
“…we don’t know who’s coming in, and we can’t process them, and we’re being totally overrun,”she explained. “As we’re seeing, the numbers get worse and worse — the president has a constitutional obligation to step up and do something.”
In a series of tweets Friday, the president highlighted the situation with Mexico. He said the country has “taken advantage of the U.S. for decades” due to what he says are bad immigration laws as well as the actions of Democrat lawmakers. President Trump also said it’s time for Mexico “to finally do what must be done” in order to address the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border. Those issues include drugs, weapons and human trafficking as well as the surge of illegal immigration, which Mexico has the legal authority to stop.
The tariffs could be a tool to bring Mexico to the negotiating table, and help reduce the trade deficit between the two nations. President Trump said companies, including the auto industry, will leave Mexico and come back to the U.S. to avoid paying the tariffs, which he says would also help stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S.

In order not to pay Tariffs, if they start rising, companies will leave Mexico, which has taken 30% of our Auto Industry, and come back home to the USA. Mexico must take back their country from the drug lords and cartels. The Tariff is about stopping drugs as well as illegals!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2019

The president also claimed 90-percent of the drugs coming into the U.S. do so through Mexico. He pointed out that thousands of people have died, and something needs to be done.

90% of the Drugs coming into the United States come through Mexico & our Southern Border. 80,000 people died last year, 1,000,000 people ruined. This has gone on for many years & nothing has been done about it. We have a 100 Billion Dollar Trade Deficit with Mexico. It’s time!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2019

Supreme Court to decide what happens when a U.S. border agent shoots someone on the other side

There is established Supreme Court precedent that a law enforcement official can be sued for damages if they violate a person’s constitutional rights, but what if the person suing is not an American and was in another country when they were harmed?
That is the question at the core of two federal cases involving border patrol agents in the United States who allegedly fired their weapons across the border, killing individuals in Mexico. One of those cases, Hernandez v. Mesa, will be heard by the Supreme Court during its next term.
Generally speaking, law enforcement officials are protected by qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of their official duty, but the 1971 case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents carved out an exception that allowed for civil claims against those federal officers who are accused of violating the Constitution under the color of their official authority.
The family of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca claims that they can make what's known as a Bivens claim against Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who is accused of fatally shooting their son. The family claims that the teen and his friends were playing a game where they ran to touch the border fence, then ran back. Mesa allegedly fired across the border while standing on the U.S. side, with Hernandez still in Mexico.
Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, the 15-year-old who was killed by a Border Patrol agent.
"The deadly practice of agents, standing in the United States and shooting innocent kids across the border must be stopped," Hernandez family attorney Bob Hilliard said in a statement. "It’s never right. It’s never constitutional. This is one of those times when morality and our U.S. constitution line up perfectly."
In April 2012, the Obama Justice Department told a different story. Following an investigation, they said that the shooting happened when smugglers were "attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at a CBP [Customs and Border Protection] agent who was attempting to detain a suspect."
The probe involved the FBI, Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General's Office, and prosecutors from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. Officials interviewed more than 25 witnesses and reviewed video and evidence from the scene. At the conclusion of the investigation, the DOJ said there was "insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal charges," and "that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued in this matter."
The DOJ noted that "on these particular facts, the agent did not act inconsistently with CBP policy or training regarding use of force." Officials also determined that they could not show that Mesa had the intent necessary for a civil rights violation, plus there was a lack of jurisdiction for a civil rights case because Hernandez was outside the U.S.
The Hernandez family's civil case, meanwhile, has bounced up and down the judicial system. The Supreme Court first heard the case in 2017, but after a 4-4 split, sent it back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case went before the full Fifth Circuit for an en banc hearing in 2018, which resulted in the Court of Appeals ruling against the Hernandez family.
The appellate court cited several issues that led to their decision. For starters, there was the argument that a foreign person on foreign soil does not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the court noted that because this is a matter involving the border, there are national security and foreign policy issues involved, which fall under the authority of the Executive and Legislative Branches, not the judiciary.
Speaking of the legislature, the Fifth Circuit stated that Congress has passed laws that lead them to believe that they would be against allowing civil claims in situations like this. The court pointed to the Civil Rights Act, which is limited to "citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof," the Federal Tort Claims Act, which excludes "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which gives federal officials exemption from liability.
With regards to national security, the Fifth Circuit referred to a Third Circuit case where the court denied a Bivens claim against a TSA agent who was accused of violating someone’s constitutional rights.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that a border patrol agent should not be able to shoot someone and get away with it simply because the other person was on the other side of the border. “For cross-border shootings like this one,” the court pointed out, “criminal investigations and prosecutions are already a deterrent.”
That being said, the court noted that government agencies had already investigated Mesa and did not bring any charges against him.
Mesa's attorney, Randy Ortega, believes the Fifth Circuit got it right.
"The case, in my opinion, is clear," Ortega told Fox News. "The Constitution only provides redress for acts occurring within the United States, thus the Fifth Circuit ruling is on point. To allow those injured in foreign jurisdictions to bring suit in the United States would result in a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on those protecting our borders."
The Mexican government got involved in the case, filing an amicus brief in support of the Hernandez family. Mexico argued that this case is far simpler than Mesa's defense and the Fifth Circuit make it out to be. This is a case where a law enforcement official is accused of using undue deadly force against someone, they argued.
“Agent Mesa was clearly on U.S. soil when he shot Sergio Hernández, and there are no practical or political difficulties in applying U.S. law regardless of which side of the border Sergio was on,” Mexico’s brief said.
Mexico also argued that this is not a case involving national security, as it “has nothing to do with international terrorism, espionage, or any other national security concerns.”
What it boils down to, they claimed, is a law enforcement agent shooting someone “in such a way that he could have hit nationals of any country on either side of the border.”
Siding with Agent Mesa, the Trump administration filed their own amicus brief in April 2019. They supported the Supreme Court hearing the case, in light of a similar Ninth Circuit case – Swartz v. Rodriguez – that was decided the opposite way. The government stated that the Fifth Circuit, in their ruling against Hernandez, “appropriately identified several special factors that counsel against implying a damages remedy here.”
The Supreme Court will hear the case, which was consolidated with the Swartz case, during the term beginning this October. Should they reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Hernandez family would be allowed to move forward with their lawsuit against Agent Mesa, but would still have to prove their case in court.

Ilhan Omar slammed for blaming NRA for Virginia shooting that left 12 people dead

This Muslim would love it if all Americans had to turned in their firearms.

National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch ripped Rep. Ilhan Omar after she blamed the gun rights group for the deaths inside a Virginia Beach municipal building on Friday.
The embattled Minnesota Democrat took a swipe at the NRA just hours after a disgruntled city employee went on a shooting spree that left 12 people dead and four more injured.
“I am outraged and heartbroken,” she wrote in a tweet. “How much longer will we ignore the pain of our communities? We need to immediately confront the power of the NRA and end the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”
DeWayne Craddock, the suspected shooter, died in a gunfight with police officers. He was a veteran employee of the Public Utilities Department who made multiple legal firearm purchases, including for a handgun and rifle, in recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal reported.
A police officer was also wounded, but was saved by his bullet-proof vest. The police didn’t reveal the motive for the shooting.
Omar’s comment about the NRA prompted the group’s spokeswoman to question how it was related.
“This was a heinous tragedy,” Loesch wrote in a tweet. “Your remarks move me to ask: What do 5 million members of the NRA have to do with this man’s crime? Was this man a card-carrying member? His purchases were legal, whose fault is that? Does he bear any blame at all? Serious questions.”
The Minnesota Democrat has long been opposed to the NRA, often decrying the supposed influence of the group on the gun control debate in the country.
After the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, Omar went to Twitter to decry the NRA as “the true enemy.”
“Prayers and condolences won’t keep our kids safe, sensible #GunLaws will. It’s time for you and Republicans to put the safety of Americans first and seek freedom from the NRA,” she wrote. “They are the true enemy!”

Lemon and Maddow Cartoons

New York Times bans reporters from CNN's Don Lemon, MSNBC's Maddow shows for being 'too partisan:' report

The New York Times is said to be cracking down on its reporters appearing on cable news shows it considers to be "too partisan," according to a new report.  (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

The New York Times is cracking down on its own reporters, stopping them from appearing on certain primetime cable news shows seen as being "too partisan," according to a new report.
Vanity Fair published the explosive report, which alleged MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, as well as CNN anchor Don Lemon, made the newspaper's no-go list.
The magazine began its report by alleging the Times' financial editor David Enrich had initially accepted an invitation to appear on "The Rachel Maddow Show" May 20 to discuss a report involving President Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner's transactions with Deutsche Bank, but had to ultimately turn down the appearance after he informed the communications department.
Vanity Fair's report is based on information from sources inside the "Gray Lady," according to the magazine.
"The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow," Vanity Fair's media correspondent Joe Pompeo wrote.
Sources told the magazine the Times' executive editor Dean Baquet Baquet expressed concerns certain primetime shows are becoming more opinionated and that reporters who appear on their shows would be "perceived as being aligned" with the show's politics.
“He thinks it’s a real issue,” one source said, another adding “Their view is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.”
Both MSNBC and CNN have hired several prominent New York Times reporters as contributors in recent years, but it is unclear from the Vanity Fair report if they would be discouraged from appearing on shows deemed "too partisan."

Dr. Drew says LA public health in 'complete breakdown': 'No city on Earth tolerates this'

The public health situation in the nation's second-largest city is in "a complete breakdown," Dr. Drew Pinsky said Thursday night on "The Ingraham Angle."
“We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now,” Pinsky told host Laura Ingraham. “We have the three prongs of airborne disease, tuberculosis is exploding, (and) rodent-borne. We are one of the only cities in the country that doesn’t have a rodent control program, and sanitation has broken down.”

“We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now.”
— Dr. Drew Pinsky

Pinsky’s comments followed news that Los Angeles police officer had contracted typhoid fever, a rare and life-threatening illness that fewer than 350 Americans contract each year.
Los Angeles had a typhus outbreak last summer and will likely have another this summer, Pinsky said. Meanwhile, bubonic plague – a pandemic that killed tens of millions of people during the 14th century – is “likely” already present in Los Angeles, Pinsky added.

Dr. Drew Pinsky (Getty Images)

“This is unbelievable. I can’t believe I live in a city where this is not Third World. This is medieval,” Pinsky said. “Third World countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on Earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk.”

“Third World countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on Earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk.”
— Dr. Drew Pinsky, referring to a public health crisis in Los Angeles

California can’t handle the current situation, let alone allow tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with no health records to flood its major cities, Pinsky added.

“[T]he government is somehow insisting that housing is the problem when in fact we have chronic mental illness, we have addiction, we have people who don’t want to leave the streets,” Pinsky said. “They literally won’t take the housing if we give it to them. And that’s the population that’s vulnerable, and is going to get so ill this summer. It scares me for their well-being.”
Asked why the liberal politicians aren’t doing more to alleviate these conditions, Pinsky said they are “disgustingly negligent.”

Hannity calls out the media for their coverage of Mueller's 'clarification'

Fox News' Sean Hannity took the media to task for not reporting on the 'clarifying remarks' Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office released following his news conference Wednesday.
"Ask yourself this, why didn't the media mob report with the same intensity, the release of the clarifying remarks of Robert Mueller after he botched it yesterday morning? Why didn't they put the same passion in it as the nine-and-a-half minutes of Robert Mueller? Here's another question. Why are they so lazy, so predictable, so partisan?" Hannity said on his "Hannity" television show Thursday.
The clarifying remarks addressed Mueller's comments that indicting President Trump was "not an option," which many in the media concluded was due to a policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, even though Mueller did not directly say that.
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement.
“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” they said.
Hannity believed Mueller contradicted himself.
"Mueller needed to walk back everything he said yesterday in a dramatic fashion because he totally contradicted everything that he had been saying," Hannity said.
The Fox News host continued to hammer the media.
"They say they are objective. They are anything but. But why are they choosing to put fake news narratives over the facts that after two-plus years of lying and choosing to relentlessly smear, slander, besmirch anybody who dares to question their lack of ethics and not objectivity," Hannity said.
Hannity also noted a report by Vanity Fair that the New York Times was steering its reporters and editors away from MSNBC and CNN appearances.
"They are now scared, taking notice, and they are realizing, uh oh, they've been duped by the conspiracy TV media mob. Look at this new report," Hannity said.

North Korea executes 5 officials over failed Kim-Trump summit: South Korean media

North Korea has executed five officials for their part in the failed second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, according to a South Korean newspaper.
Citing the newspaper, Bloomberg News reported that Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., was executed by firing squad in March for being "won over by the American imperialists to betray the supreme leader."
The paper also claimed that four other North Korean Foreign Ministry officials were executed that same month because of the breakdown of the February summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, but did not provide details.

Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special envoy to the U.S., and four other North Korean foreign ministry officials, were executed because of the breakdown of the February North Korea-U.S. summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. (REUTERS, File)

Trump’s much-anticipated summit with Kim ended abruptly and without the two leaders signing any agreements over nuclear disarmament.

Kim aide Kim Yong Chol is reportedly undergoing hard labor for his role in the breakdown. (REUTERS, File)

Top Kim aide Kim Yong Chol is reportedly undergoing hard labor for his role in the breakdown.
He had been Kim’s most trusted policy adviser and was removed from one of his posts.

President Trump meeting with Kim Yong Chol this past January 18 in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead, File)

He even was seen in photos with President Trump at the White House over the past year, delivering letters from the North Korean dictator.
Kim Yong Chol has been North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator and the counterpart of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo since Kim entered nuclear talks with the U.S. early last year.
Fox News' Bradford Betz contributed to this story.