EXCLUSIVE: The
Commerce Department on Thursday terminated its just-announced planned
partnership with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
after Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" asked about the arrangement --
given CAIR's reported ties to the terrorist group Hamas, and its
repeated attacks on the president.
"Based on further review, the Census Bureau is no longer partnering with CAIR," the Commerce Department said in a statement to "Tucker."
The
plan, according to the group, was to enhance outreach efforts to
Muslims using CAIR's network of local offices. The census, conducted
once a decade, has been used not only to determine congressional
apportionment, but also as a critical planning tool for state, local and
federal agencies.
However, CAIR and the Trump administration
would have been strange bedfellows -- and tension in the relationship
was evident earlier Thursday. Reached by Fox News prior to the Census
Bureau's decision, CAIR openly derided the Trump administration as
"white supremacist" despite the partnership.
"The Census Bureau,
like CAIR, is nonpartisan," the organization said. "CAIR is not
receiving any government funding as part of this project to promote
Muslim participation in the U.S. census. We continue to believe that
President Trump and his administration promote a white supremacist,
anti-immigrant and Islamophobic agenda."
In its official statement on Wednesday announcing the partnership, however, CAIR sounded a more positive note.
"CAIR
is proud to partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure American
Muslims are fairly and accurately counted in the 2020 Census," Nihad
Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, said in a news release earlier on Thursday. "Full
participation in the census ensures that American Muslims will be
better represented in Congress and that their communities receive an
equal share in state and federal programs."
The organization
added: "CAIR wants to ensure that not only are American Muslim
communities being fairly counted, but that their neighbors are getting a
fair share in federal and state funding."
In 2009, the FBI severed its once-close ties to CAIR amid mounting evidence that the group had links to a support network for Hamas.
Local
chapters of CAIR were shunned in the wake of a 15-year FBI
investigation that culminated in the conviction of Hamas fundraisers at a
trial in which CAIR itself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The U.S. government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Roula Allouch, the board chairwoman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, left, seen speaking in 2016.
(AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
The FBI
previously had invited CAIR to give training sessions for agents and
used it as a liaison with the American Muslim community.
CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, attended a post-Sept. 11 meeting with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, and he met with other top brass as
recently as 2006. That was before Awad was shown to have participated
in planning meetings with the Holy Land Foundation, five officials of
which were convicted in December of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas.
Prosecutors
identified CAIR's chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, as an unindicted
co-conspirator in that trial, and Special Agent Lara Burns testified
that CAIR was a front group for radical organizations operating in the
U.S.
CAIR denied it conspired in the case and has sued
unsuccessfully to have its name removed from the list of
co-conspirators. It also has protested the FBI's decision to sever
relations.
"This is an unfortunate legacy of the Bush
administration's misguided and counterproductive efforts to marginalize
mainstream American Muslim organizations," CAIR's national office said
in a statement to Fox News at the time. "It is not surprising that we
would be singled out by those in the previous administration who sought
to prevent us from defending the civil rights of American Muslims."
In a statement on its website in May 2013, CAIR similarly rejected suggestions it had links to terrorism.
"CAIR
is not is [sic] 'the Wahhabi lobby,' a 'front group for Hamas,' a
'fundraising arm for Hezbollah,' '...part of a wider conspiracy overseen
by the Muslim Brotherhood...' or any of the other false and misleading
associations our detractors seek to smear us with," the organization
said. "That we stand accused of being both a 'fundraising arm of
Hezbollah' and the 'Wahhabi lobby' is a significant point in
demonstrating that our detractors are hurling slander, not fact.
Hezbollah and the Salafi (Wahhabi) movement represent diametrically
opposed ideologies." "Tucker Carlson Tonight" investigative producer Alex Pfeiffer contributed to this report.
Rep. Ilhan Omar,
D-Minn., who is accused of improperly using political campaign funds to
reimburse her alleged lover for travel expenses, doesn’t need to worry
for now about a complaint filed against her with the Federal Election
Commission. Vacancies on the FEC make it impossible for the commission
to take any action.
The FEC,
where I served as a commissioner over a decade ago, is supposed to act
as a government watchdog against election law violations. But unless it
has four members, the watchdog is effectively muzzled and chained,
helpless to act. Right now there are three members and three vacancies
on the commission.
That’s good news for Omar, who refused
Wednesday to answer questions about the allegations filed against her
this week by a nonprofit group called the National Legal and Policy
Center, which describes itself as “a charitable and educational
organization” that seeks to “foster and promote ethics in government and
public life.”
Asked
by a reporter in Minneapolis why she is refusing to answer questions,
Omar said: “Because they’re stupid questions.” Later in the day the
married congresswoman told reporters: “I will just say I have no
interest in commenting on anything that you are about to ask about my
personal life, so you can chase me all you want.”
The
FEC will send Omar a copy of the complaint filed against her and she
will have 15 days to send a response. But the question of whether to
open an investigation of the congresswoman – who has been accused by
President Trump and others of anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish
state of Israel – will have to wait until there are four confirmed FEC
commissioners. No one knows when that will happen.
With at least
four members, the FEC could levy a fine against Omar if it finds she
committed a civil violation of campaign finance law. The commission has
the power to determine the amount of such a fine, based on whatever
commissioners believe is appropriate.
The complaint
filed with the FEC against Omar alleges that her election campaign paid
a consultant – Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group, LLC – $230,000 for
fundraising consulting, digital communications, Internet advertising and
travel expenses.
However, in a divorce case filed by Tim Mynett’s
wife, Beth Mynett, she alleges that her husband told her “he was
romantically involved with” Omar – a claim Omar denies.
Beth
Mynett’s divorce complaint alleges that her husband’s “recent travel and
long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep.
Omar than with his actual work commitments.”
The complaint filed
with the FEC points out that the payment of Tim Mynett’s travel expenses
started the same month that Mynett reportedly told his wife he was
having an extramarital affair with Omar.
Thus, according to the
complaint filed with the FEC, the travel expenses for Tim Mynett made
with funds collected as political campaign contributions “may have been
unrelated, or only partially related, to Omar’s campaign” and instead
may have been “so that Rep. Omar would have the benefit of Mynett’s
romantic companionship.”
If that is the case, then payments by
Omar to Tim Mynett were “personal in nature” and not related to the
campaign, according to the complaint.
If these allegations are
true, Omar may have run afoul of a federal law – specifically, 52 U.S.C.
§30114. This law bars the use of campaign funds “to fulfill any
commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist
irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
Examples of
what is prohibited for funding with campaign donations include such
items as a personal mortgage, clothing purchases, non-campaign-related
car expenses, and vacations and other non-campaign-related trips.
In
other words, if Mynett’s travel expense were unrelated to his actual
work for the campaign but in furtherance of an affair with Omar, those
would be personal expenses. Campaign funds couldn’t be used to pay them.
Omar’s attorneys have dismissed the complaint filed with the FEC as a “political ploy.”
But until the FEC gets another commissioner, neither this complaint nor
any others will be investigated by the commission to see if there is
actually any substance – and any credibility – to the allegations being
made.
So while the complaint against Omar is making headlines –
both because of the nature of the allegations and her prominence as one
of four far-left Democratic freshman congresswomen known as the “Squad”
– all political candidates are getting a free pass on any complaints
filed against them with the FEC as long as the commission has three
vacancies.
The resignation
of Commissioner Matt Petersen (who replaced me) from the FEC earlier
this month left the commission in its current state of paralysis, with
three vacancies.
The six FEC commissioners are nominated by the
president and confirmed by the Senate. There is a long tradition that
whenever a seat held by the political party not in control of the White
House opens up, the president asks the leader of that political party in
the Senate for his choice to fill the seat.
There are currently two empty Republicans seats and one empty Democratic seat on the commission.
The names of FEC nominees are sent to the Senate in pairs – one Republican and one Democrat.
President
Trump nominated a Texas lawyer, Trey Trainor, in 2017 to fill an open
Republican seat. But there has been no public report that Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has given Trump a nominee for the
Democratic seat that has been empty since 2017.
Without a quorum –
four commissioners on the six-member FEC – the commission can’t hold
meetings, initiate audits, vote on enforcement matters, issue advisory
opinions, or engage in rulemaking.
As a result, as the 2020
presidential election cycle heats up, the FEC remains unable to carry
out the most important duties it was created to perform.
The FEC
regulates all of the contributions and expenditures of federal
candidates for the presidency and Congress. When it has at least four
members, the commission is empowered to go after candidates, political
parties, political action committees and others who violate the law,
imposing civil penalties consisting of fines.
The
vast majority of campaign finance violations are civil matters because
they are usually inadvertent violations of the law. The Federal Election
Campaign Act is byzantine in its complexity and often ambiguous. Even
the commissioners sometime disagree on the proper interpretation and
application of the law.
The U.S. Justice Department retains
jurisdiction over criminal campaign finance violations, which are
“knowing and willful” violations of the law. However, criminal
prosecutions are very rare.
As an example, missing the deadline
for filing a required campaign finance report on contributions received
by a candidate is a civil violation, while knowingly spending campaign
funds on personal expenses unrelated to a campaign would be a criminal
violation.
That’s
why former Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to jail in 2013. He
pleaded guilty to spending $750,000 in campaign funds on everything from
personal travel and restaurant expenses to a Rolex watch, fur coats for
his wife, and memorabilia from Bruce Lee, Eddie Van Halen and Jimi
Hendrix, along with mounted elk heads for his office.
Right now
the ball is in Sen. Schumer’s court to nominate a Democratic FEC
commissioner, and for the Senate to then confirm a Democrat and a
Republican to the commission. Until that happens, Ilhan Omar has nothing
to worry about from the FEC.
Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates are essentially being forced out of the race by Democratic leaders.
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The
field has been too swollen in a way that creates overcrowded debate
stages and muffles the message of all but the top few contenders. A
party would be insane not to try to winnow the competition to those who
actually have a shot at the nomination.
Gillibrand was upfront in
saying she’s dropping out because she didn’t make the cut for what will
now be next month’s single ABC debate in Houston. Losing that visibility
makes a viable candidacy all but impossible.
The field, which once numbered two dozen, has already lost Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper.
Others
who didn’t make the debate cut—such as Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet,
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Hawaii
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard—are still hanging on. By a thread, I’d say.
As former DNC official Mo Elleithee, a Fox News contributor, told the New York Times:
“If
you are a few months before the Iowa caucuses and you can’t get 130,000
donors and can’t crack 2 percent in a couple of polls, that’s on you.
There is an appetite to start being able to focus on the candidates who
have demonstrated the most movement in this race.”
Some of those
beyond the 10 candidates who will be on the Houston stage are grumbling
about the Democratic Party pushing out credible politicians before they
have a chance to get traction in, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. But if
after several months you’re behind Andrew Yang (who did make the cut),
you’re going nowhere fast.
Some people in both parties run for
president as a branding exercise, to get a book deal or a cable gig,
knowing they have no real prospect of winning. Look how many profiles of
Marianne Williamson you’ve had to read.
But
Gillibrand is an incumbent senator who hoped she might catch fire by
putting women’s issues at the top of her agenda. It didn’t work. The New
York lawmaker never broke through the static.
Some, like Rachel
Maddow, hailed her mere presence in the race, along with that of
Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and the other female candidates, as a
gender breakthrough. And it’s good that a single woman no longer has to
carry that burden.
But Gillibrand herself blamed her low poll
numbers on sexism, telling CNN a few months ago: “I think people are
generally biased against women.”
How then to explain Warren’s
surge in the polls? Gillibrand also said in that interview that there’s
bias against “younger women.”
The Washington Post Magazine
recently assessed her struggling candidacy with this headline: “In 2019
It’s Unforgivable for a Presidential Candidate to be Boring.”
I’m
not saying Gillibrand was deadly dull, but she never quite had a
moment, on the stump or in the first two debates, where she said
something that was noteworthy or controversial enough to get voters to
take a closer look. I mean, she never even got a Trump nickname,
although he did tweet sarcastically about her exit.
The Post piece
put it this way: “Maybe it’s that her recalibration on guns and
immigration is often framed as pandering. Maybe it’s because her role in
Al Franken’s Senate resignation has been cast as inconvenient for
Democrats and convenient for her. Maybe it’s sexism: The careful,
methodical journey to the presidency seems to read as a natural
expression of ambition for the charismatics sweating through oxfords
under stadium lights, but somehow feels forced when paired with a
blowout.”
Maybe.
But look at how Pete Buttigieg managed to
catapult himself into serious contention with a series of provocative
interviews and speeches. When you think of the woman who was first
appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, no personal quality comes to
mind, no issue beyond her crusade against sexual harassment, and that
wasn’t enough.
Now that the DNC is forcibly shrinking the field,
voters—and the media—can focus more intently on those who might actually
win the nomination. Gillibrand told the Times that a woman nominee
would be “exciting and inspiring,” but didn’t rule out endorsing anyone
who could beat Donald Trump.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell said Thursday that she wished for Hurricane Dorian to make a "direct hit" on President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.
The
strengthening storm churned over the warm, open waters of the Atlantic
on Thursday, upgrading to Category 2 strength late in the day, with
maximum sustained winds of 105 mph, the National Hurricane Center
reported.
Forecasts showed Dorian tracking toward Florida's east coast — prompting Trump to warn Dorian "will be BIG!"
Forecasters
believe the storm will strengthen into a Category 3 hurricane by
Friday, and stay well east of the southern and central Bahamas before
making a turn toward Florida by Sunday afternoon.
At that time, the latest NHC forecast is for the storm to make landfall Monday as a Category 4 storm.
However, Campbell saw a silver lining in the potential damage that could be caused by the massive storm.
"I'm rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago!" she tweeted on Thursday.
The
president often makes visits to Mar-a-Lago when he's not in Washington
D.C. It has been reported that the resort is the hurricane's path.
Campbell,
who served fewer than five months as Canada's prime minister following
the resignation of Brian Mulroney in 1993, faced backlash for the tweet,
many calling it "embarrassing" and "disgusting."
Campbell doubled down amid the criticism, telling her critics to "get a grip."
"As there are in Puerto Rico- sorry you don’t get snark- but Trump’s indifference to suffering is intolerable!" Campbell said
to a critic who pointed out "real people" live and work in and
around Mar-a-Lago. "We'd also help if he tackled climate change which is
making hurricanes more destructive! Instead, he will remove limits on
methane! Get a grip!" Fox News' Travis Fedschun contributed to this report.
The mayor of St. Louis said Wednesday she’s asking Missouri lawmakers and the state’s Republican governor to reverse a 2017 law that makes it legal for gun owners without a felony record to carry guns without a permit in the state, according to a report.
Mayor Lyda Krewson, a Democrat, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch she
asked Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, to support new legislation that
would allow some cities over a certain size — or at least St. Louis ---
to require concealed weapons permits. She added that a measure at least
partially reversing the 2017 law would benefit the St Louis Police
Department and its officers.
“This is for our police department. Our police don’t have the tools they
need to take guns off the street,” Krewson told the newspaper
Wednesday. Krewson also brought up the law at a monthly board planning
meeting between St. Louis area political leaders earlier this month.
After the meeting, she told the Post-Dispatch: “Having a permit to carry
a gun is really not a big ask. It’s for our police officers.”
“Having a permit to carry a gun is really not a big ask. It’s for our police officers.” — St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson
Her
remarks Wednesday came a day after Parson rejected a request from the
Missouri Legislative Black Caucus to hold an emergency legislative
session to address gun violence following a bloody weekend in St. Louis
that left three children dead within 48 hours. At least 13 children have
been killed in shootings in St. Louis this year as the city grapples a
rising homicide rate, the newspaper reported.
Parson, who voted as a state senator to loosen concealed carry
requirements, did not address whether or not he’d work with Krewson in
reversing the 2017 statute, saying during a Wednesday news conference
that he’s leaving that up to legislative branch. He said he would
consider allocating resources from the Missouri State Highway Patrol to
help combat gun violence in St. Louis.
“I talked to the mayor about this --- we’ve got to find out some
solutions to these kids getting shot in the streets of St. Louis, and
Kansas City, or wherever it is in the state of Missouri,” Parson said.
“We all better put our best game on right now to find a solution to this
problem.”
"We’ve got to find out some solutions
to these kids getting shot in the streets of St. Louis, and Kansas
City, or wherever it is in the state of Missouri." — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson
The
leader of the state's GOP-run Senate addressed St. Louis gun violence
Monday but failed to propose a feasible solution to combatting the
issue.
“Obviously, anytime we see a rise in this kind of violence
it is a problem,” state Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz, a
Republican, told the Post-Dispatch. “But I don’t know if anything is on
the horizon. I don’t know if anyone has the answer.”
Also
Wednesday, the St. Louis comptroller slammed Krewson for allegedly
delaying the launch of an emergency crime prevention program within the
city. The city’s budgets allocated $500,000 to hire an outside
organization to run a crime prevention program under a one-year
contract.
“Only after a public outcry did the mayor’s office feel compelled to
address the people’s concerns ... another week has passed, and the
Comptroller’s Ofc has not received a contract for Cure Violence,”
Comptroller Darlene Green wrote on her personal Twitter account.
On Aug. 20, Krewson wrote Comptroller Darlene Green asking her office to
bypass the city’s lengthy contract selection process and fast-track a
contract for Cure Violence, a Chicago-based non-profit dedicated to
crime reduction. Krewson’s office said they submitted a proposed
contract to the non-profit for review and are waiting for a response
before sending it to the comptroller.
President Trump on Thursday blasted Lawrence O’Donnell and
the media at large after the MSNBC host was forced to retract an
unverified report he shared on his show this week that tied Trump’s
finances to Russia.
Calling the report "totally false," the president demanded that the media as a whole apologize for “inaccurate reporting.”
“Crazy
Lawrence O’Donnell, who has been calling me wrong from even before I
announced my run for the Presidency, even being previously forced by NBC
to apologize, which he did while crying, for things he said about me
& The Apprentice, was again forced to apologize, this time ... for
the most ridiculous claim of all, that Russia, Russia, Russia, or
Russian oligarchs, co-signed loan documents for me, a guarantee,” Trump
tweeted.
“Totally false, as is virtually everything else he, and
much of the rest of the LameStream Media, has said about me for years.
ALL APOLOGIZE!” he continued.
Minutes later, he added: “The
totally inaccurate reporting by Lawrence O’Donnell, for which he has
been forced by NBC to apologize, is NO DIFFERENT than the horrible,
corrupt and fraudulent Fake News that I (and many millions of GREAT
supporters) have had to put up with for years. So bad for the USA!”
The
president’s tweets come after O’Donnell and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow
discussed Tuesday night how Trump was “able to obtain loans when no one
else would loan him any money.”
O’Donnell then hinted that he “may have some information” that would “add understanding to that, if true.”
“I
stress ‘if true,’ because this is a single source who has told me that
Deutsche Bank obtained tax returns…this single source close to Deutsche
Bank has told me that Donald Trump’s loan documents there show he has
co-signers. That’s how he was able to obtain those loans and that the
co-signers are Russian oligarchs.”
Maddow, stunned, replied: “What? Really?”
O’Donnell
added “that would explain every kind word Donald Trump has ever said
about Russia and Vladimir Putin if his information is accurate.”
On
Wednesday morning the White House blasted the report, and later in the
day Trump’s legal team penned a letter to NBCUniversal demanding a
retraction and an apology for the “aforementioned false and defamatory”
reporting and threatened to take legal action.
“This is one of the
reasons that a majority of Americans have lost trust in the
media. Instead of applying ethics and standards to their reporting,
journalists and left-wing outlets have weaponized the media, using it to
attack and harass people with little to no regard for the truth,” White
House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
Later,
O’Donnell kicked off his Wednesday night show by apologizing for
running the unverified report, after earlier in the day walking it back
and referring to it as an “error in judgment.”
"Last night on this show, I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting," O'Donnell said.
“I
did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here
at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source,” he continued.
“Had it gone through that process, I would not have been permitted to
report it. I should not have said it on-air or post it on Twitter. I
was wrong to do so.” Fox News’ Brian Flood and Joseph Wulfsohn contributed to this report.
MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell kicked off his show Wednesday night by apologizing for running an unverified report that directly tied President Trump's finances to Russia, which he retracted.
"Last
night on this show, I discussed information that wasn't ready for
reporting," O'Donnell said. "I repeated statements a single source told
me about the president's finances and loan documents with Deutsche Bank
saying 'if true'-- as I discussed the information-- was simply not good
enough. I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards
process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had
it gone through that process, I would not have been permitted to report
it. I should not have said it on-air or post it on Twitter. I was wrong
to do so."
He went on to acknowledge the letter he and NBCUniversal received by Trump's legal counsel
demanding a retraction and an apology for the "aforementioned false and
defamatory" reporting and threatened to take legal action.
"This
afternoon, attorneys for the president sent us a letter asserting the
story is false. They also demanded a retraction. Tonight, we are
retracting the story," O'Donnell continued. "We don't know whether the
information is inaccurate. The fact is we do know it wasn't ready for
broadcast and for that I apologize."
On Tuesday night,
O’Donnell and fellow far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow discussed how
Trump was “able to obtain loans when no one else would loan him any
money” when he tossed out the unverified speculation.
“I
may have some information, in this next hour, which would add a great
deal to their understanding of that, if true, and I’ll be discussing it
here,” O’Donnell said. "I stress ‘if true,’ because this is a single
source who has told me that Deutsche Bank obtained tax returns… this
single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that Donald Trump’s
loan documents there show that he has co-signers. That’s how he was able
to obtain those loans and that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs."
A stunned Maddow leaned back in her chair and responded, “What? Really?”
O’Donnell added
“that would explain every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about
Russia and Vladimir Putin” if his information is accurate.
The "Last Word" host and MSNBC were widely panned by critics for running the story, calling it "grossly irresponsible." The White House blasted the report, pointing to "left-wing outlets" that have "weaponized the media.
“This
is one of the reasons that a majority of Americans have lost trust in
the media. Instead of applying ethics and standards to their reporting,
journalists and left-wing outlets have weaponized the media, using it to
attack and harass people with little to no regard for the truth,” White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
O'Donnell took to Twitter earlier in the day and walked back the report, referring to it as an "error in judgment." Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.
Roula Allouch, the board chairwoman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, left, seen speaking in 2016.
(AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
