Trump-appointed federal judge upholds legal challenge to administration asylum rule

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s rule requiring asylum seekers to request asylum in another country before coming to the United States.
Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly,  who was appointed by Trump in 2017, ruled that the administration’s “Third-Country Asylum Rule” violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows most people who have reached the U.S. border to apply for asylum, according to Axios.
The ruling is a blow to the administration’s immigration policy and comes less than a week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), allowing nearly 800,000 people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to stay without fear of deportation.
Kelly described the administration’s asylum rule as rendering “aliens seeking to enter the United States at its southern border categorically ineligible for asylum unless they first applied for similar protection in a third country they transited through."
Neal Katyal, who is involved in the challenge, said the ruling goes into effect immediately.
Kelly said the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security “unlawfully dispensed” with requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and issued the rule “without observance of procedure required by law.”
The APA governs how federal agencies issue regulations and gives the public an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations.
"There are many circumstances in which courts appropriately defer to the national security judgments of the Executive," Kelly wrote. "But determining the scope of an APA exception is not one of them."
The rule mainly focused on Central Americans, making them seek asylum in Mexico before coming to the U.S., according to NBC News. 

Tucker Carlson calls on GOP voters to 'demand three things from their candidates' this November

Tucker Carlson called on voters to hold Republicans accountable Tuesday in the aftermath of his Monday interview with Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., about Braun's introduction of a bill that would limit qualified immunity for law enforcement officers.
"An awful lot of Republican officeholders look very much like Mike Braun right now. Probably most of them. That's a problem. In a moment like this, it is a severe and dangerous problem ... " the "Tucker Carlson Tonight" host. "Republicans at all levels could lose this fall. If they do, there will be profound consequences for you. People who supported Donald Trump will be punished, there's definitely no question about that. There's never been an American political party as radical and as angry as the Democrats are now."
"Imagine them with unlimited power and that's what they plan to get in their first year," Carlson went on. "The point is, and it could not be clearer: Non-Democrats in America are in peril."
Carlson said his interview with Braun was meant to remind viewers that Republicans were the only "shield" for non-Democrats.
"Yes, the Republican Party, flawed and infuriating though it often is. The fact remains, the GOP is the only institution still open to the rest of us, to Americans who want to live as they did just 15 years ago, quietly, productively, without being harassed and harangued by self-righteous lunatics who mean them harm. And they do," Carlson said. "If you want to be left alone to do your job and raise your family in this country, you will need a protector. That protector must be the Republican Party. There are no other options, but it must be a very different kind of Republican Party."
The host called on Republican voters to "demand three things from their candidates. And if they don't provide them, don't vote for them.
"First is vigorous defense of total equality under the law. We are equal because we are citizens. Every American has precisely the same rights as every other American. Period. That is the promise of America," Carlson said. "It's why millions of people move here for a long time ... It was obvious, but it no longer is obvious. And there are many who are working in the opposite direction. Republicans must counterbalance this. They must work as hard as they can to make America fair again."
"Don't get caught in pointless debates about whether or not this is a racist country," Carlson added. "Clearly it isn't. Prove it by making it less racist by making it a colorblind meritocracy. That's our promise."
Carlson next called on Republicans to "defend our freedom of speech."
"We are not a free society without that," Carlson said. "This is not simply a debate about the First Amendment and its limits. It's bigger than that and more important. If you can't articulate something, if you're not allowed, you can't think. And that's precisely why authoritarians try to control language. They're trying to control your mind. Republicans should lead the fight against this without shame. Americans have the absolute right to tell the truth. This is not negotiable.
"Nor, by the way, is it a theoretical concern of interest only to intellectuals. Everything depends on it. If you can't think freely, you can't solve problems. Try to build a hydro plant or fly a commercial airplane. If certain categories of thought are off limits to you, it doesn't work. The power grid collapses. Planes crash. Society degrades. No speech means no science, no art, no civilization.
Carlson's final point was "we must never forget that in the end, the Republican Party exists to serve the interests of normal people."
"Can Republican officeholders change their party?" Carlson asked. "Yes, they can. We just have to make them."

Trump congratulates Boebert for win in Colorado primary

President Trump congratulated Lauren Boebert late Tuesday night after the pro-gun businesswoman defeated Rep. Scott Tipton, who represented his Colorado district for five terms in Congress.
“Congratulations on a really great win!” Trump tweeted. Trump’s tweet linked to a post from her Twitter account from back in May where she described herself as a tough fighter against socialism and advocate for the Second Amendment.
“I refuse to send my children into a socialist nation," the mother of 4 said. "Their freedom IS my motivator! Threaten the liberty of Americans, and I’ll be there to hold you accountable! #USHouse #CO03 #HELLNObeto @BetoORourke.”
Boebert, the owner of Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colo., confronted Beto O'Rourke when he was a Democratic presidential candidate. He stopped in the Denver suburb of Aurora, and she questioned him on suggestions that he made that he would confiscate guns.
She told Fox News in an interview at the time that she drove for three hours to see O'Rourke with her "Glock on her hip" and told him, "'Hell no, you're not going to take our guns.'"
The Associated Press reported that Boebert accused Tipton of not being sufficiently pro-Trump even though the president had endorsed her opponent.
Trump took to Twitter on Monday to call Tipton a “great supporter of the #MAGA Agenda! He fights for your #2A rights and the Border Wall. Scott is working hard for Colorado and has my Complete and Total Endorsement!”
She will run in November's general election against Diane Mitsch Bush, who won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday by defeating James Iacino.
Tipton conceded in an email sent by his longtime campaign consultant Michael Fortney.
"(Third) District Republicans have decided who they want to run against the Democrats this November," Tipton wrote. "I want to congratulate Lauren Boebert and wish her and her supporters well."
This is not the first time that a Republican, who did not secure Trump’s endorsement, won in a primary.
Madison Cawthorn, who beat his Trump-endorsed opponent last week, told  Fox News his primary victory was "by no means" a referendum on Trump.
"I by no means believe that my victory was a referendum on his influence in this district, because I will stress that over 99 percent of my voters will be voting for President Trump," Cawthorn said Monday on Fox Business Network's "Mornings with Maria."
Fox News' Evie Fordham, Julia Musto and the Associated Press contributed to this report

NY City Council approves slashing $1B from NYPD budget

New York City lawmakers voted Tuesday on budget changes that shifted $1 billion from the New York Police Department to programs that assist in youth and community development, a number that fell short of what many protesters in the city have demanded.
The City Council said in a statement that the city's 2021 budget will include $837 million in cuts and transfers to the New York Police Department (NYPD) expense budget, which removes $1 billion from the NYPD’s spending when combined with associated costs.
The amount was far less than what some protesters demanded. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said earlier that $1.5 billion in cuts would not be enough.
AOC SAYS PROPOSED $1B BUDGET CUT TO NYPD ISN'T ENOUGH: 'DEFUNDING POLICE MEANS DEFUNDING POLICE’
“Defunding police means defunding police. It does not mean budget tricks or funny math," she said. One Twitter user wrote, "This is like putting the NYPD budget in Groucho Marx glasses and calling it a day."
Corey Johnson, the city council speaker, said, "The Council fought hard to get where we are, but I know this is just a starting point, not an ending point. We need to go farther."
He added the budget agreement "was negotiated with a focus on police reform, youth services, and achieving equity, particularly for low-income communities of color."
New York City Council Minority Whip Joseph Borelli voted no against the budget cuts and said, "know what we're doing will create a more violent city."
Borelli added that there were "72 shootings last week alone, and not one shot by [a] NYPD officer."
“We must always have safety and we will in this city, but we are also going to amplify both safety and fairness by reaching our young people more deeply than ever before,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said speaking from a press conference Tuesday. “And that’s what this budget is all about.”
Many demonstrators feel the budget changes weren't enough, and some plan on staying camped outside City Hall indefinitely.
“We are being gaslit," said activist Jawanza James Williams. “This movement is about so much more than the $1 billion, and this means they don’t understand what we’re saying.”
City lawmakers agreed to shift the funds away from the NYPD, but police reform activists are worried these funds will be moved around in a manner that still benefits the police department.
"To the thousands of New Yorkers who so admirably fought for budget justice over the past several weeks: we heard you and we stand with you," Johnson said Tuesday. "We recognize that the City must move away from failed racist policing policies of the past."
An encampment of protestors set up outside City Hall last week to demand the city “defund the police” -- a movement demonstrators have been calling for across the country, since the death of George Floyd in police custody in late May.
Several other cases of police brutality and alleged systemic racism sparked the nationwide conversation by U.S. lawmakers attempting to implement police reforms.
Demonstrators calling to “defund the police” want taxpayer funds diverted from policing systems to support initiatives that focus on community and youth programs. Activists say the move would help prevent racial injustices by providing opportunities for underprivileged communities.
Under the new plan described by de Blasio, a 1,200-person recruiting course set for next month has been canceled, school safety, crossing guards and homeless outreach will no longer be the responsibility of the NYPD, and overtime spending will also be curtailed.
“We must always have safety and we will in this city, but we are also going to amplify both safety and fairness by reaching our young people more deeply than ever before,” de Blasio said. “And that’s what this budget is all about.”
The funds will instead be diverted to aid communities hardest hit by the coronavirus, as well as summer youth programs that will assist 100,000 youth in the city.
“We’re acting on that call for justice,” de Blasio told reporters.  “I believe it is our mission to redistribute resources to those who need them the most.”
Other cuts are reportedly being made to the NYPD budget. A new police precinct that was supposed to be built in Queens will instead be a new community center, and broadband internet service will be made available to some public housing units.
“It was a challenge…to figure out the priorities, it’s not easy,” de Blasio said referring to the massive costs incurred by the coronavirus and in reconfiguring the new annual city budget.
“Nine-billion dollars evaporated, just gone in the course of just a few months” the democratic mayor told reporters, describing the devastating financial effects of the coronavirus.
De Blasio noted that the city would make adjustments to the allotted funds in the event of a catastrophe, but that the new budget aims to cut day-to-day costs such as overtime expenditures from police officers attending court or completing paperwork.  The overtime costs alone incurred from the recent George Floyd protests amounted to $115 million.
The budget agreed upon Tuesday amounts to $88 billion, which is $7 billion less than what de Blasio had previously proposed prior to the coronavirus outbreak, and $5 billion less than the allotted budget for 2020.
“We need to think differently about how we support young people in this city. We’ve made a lot of changes before but we need to go a lot farther,” de Blasio said. “The NYPD is going to refocus on helping young people”
“Our young people need to be reached, not policed, reached.”
Fox News' David Aaro, Edmund DeMarche, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Failing New York Times Cartoons

Supreme Court’s abortion ruling raises stakes for election

NEW YORK (AP) — Supporters of abortion rights are elated, foes of abortion dismayed and angry, but they agree on one consequence of the Supreme Court’s first major abortion ruling since President Donald Trump took office: The upcoming election is crucial to their cause.

Both sides also say Monday’s ruling is not the last word on state-level abortion restrictions. One abortion rights leader evoked the image of playing whack-a-mole as new cases surface.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down a Louisiana law seeking to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. For both sides in the abortion debate, it was viewed as a momentous test of the court’s stance following Trump’s appointments of two conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Both justices joined the conservative bloc’s dissent that supported the Louisiana law. But they were outvoted because Chief Justice John Roberts concurred with the court’s four more liberal justices.

The ruling was yet another major decision in which the conservative-leaning court failed to deliver an easy victory to the right in culture war issues during an election year; one ruling protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, and the other rejected Trump’s effort to end protections for young immigrants.

Now, anti-abortion leaders say there’s an urgent need to reelect Trump so he can appoint more justices like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Abortion rights activists, with equal fervor, say it’s crucial to defeat Trump and end Republican control of the Senate, where the GOP majority has confirmed scores of conservative judges during Trump’s term.

The Louisiana law “was an obvious challenge to our reproductive freedom, and it points to the urgent need to vote for pro-choice candidates from the top of the ballot all the way down,” said Heidi Sieck of #VOTEPROCHOICE, an online advocacy group. “Do this in primaries, do this in runoffs, do this in special elections and do this in the general in November.”

James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life, made a similar appeal, from an opposite vantage point.

“This decision demonstrates how difficult it is to drain the D.C. swamp and how important it is that President Trump gets reelected so that he may be able to appoint more pro-life justices,” Bopp said.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and a member of the Trump campaign’s Catholic voter outreach project, noted that two of the liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer — are the oldest members of the court.

“Nobody can predict the future, but who’s going to name their replacements when the time comes? That is a question that motivates a lot of voters,” Pavone said.

Anti-abortion activists swiftly made clear that Monday’s ruling would not dissuade them from continuing to push tough abortion restrictions through state legislatures.

In recent years, several states have enacted near-total bans on abortion only to have them blocked by the courts. However, Texas Right to Life urged lawmakers there to press ahead with a proposed three-pronged measure that would start with a ban on late-term abortions and proceed to a total ban.

Monday’s ruling “highlights the need for pro-life states to pass laws that directly protect pre-born children in new and dynamic ways rather than get distracted on regulating the corrupt abortion industry,” a Texas Right to Life statement said.

Mike Gonidakis, the president of Ohio Right to Life, questioned the wisdom of pushing now for sweeping bans. He noted that an Ohio bill sharply restricting late-term abortions had taken effect, while the courts blocked a measure passed last year that would ban most abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

“We have to be methodical, strategic, and take an incremental approach,” he said. “A lot of people want to go from 0 to 60 — you usually end up with nothing.”

The president of a national anti-abortion group, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, said she and her allies would encourage states to continue pressing forward with proposed restrictions that stopped short of near-total bans.

“These measures are extremely popular in some battleground states,” she said. “Prioritizing them is part of our electoral strategy.”

Abortion rights advocate Nancy Northup, the CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, acknowledged that Monday’s ruling “will not stop those hell-bent on banning abortion.”

“We will continue to fight state by state, law by law to protect our constitutional right to abortion,” she said. “But we shouldn’t have to keep playing whack-a-mole.”

She urged Congress to pass a bill called The Women’s Health Protection Act, which seeks to bolster women’s ability to access abortion even in states that pass laws seeking to restrict that access. The measure was introduced in May 2019 and has strong Democratic support — but no chance of passage for now due to Republican opposition.

From the other side of the debate, there also are dreams of a congressional solution.

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, said some legal experts in the anti-abortion community believe Congress could find ways to restrict or ban abortion while circumventing the courts — for example by establishing constitutional legal protections for unborn children.

But any such measures are nonstarters for now, given that Democrats in Congress would overwhelmingly oppose them.

Whatever the strategy, New said, it would be important for the anti-abortion movement to be unified. He recalled that internal debates decades ago over how to draft a human life amendment to the Constitution did a great deal of damage to the anti-abortion cause.

Johnnie Moore, an evangelical adviser to the Trump administration, said Monday’s court ruling would intensify interest in the election among religious conservatives who are a key part of Trump’s base.

“Conservatives know they are on the one-yard-line,” Moore tweeted. “Enthusiasm is already unprecedented, evangelical turnout will be too.”

___

Associated Press writer Elana Schor contributed to this report.

Dems tweet then delete post linking Trump's Mt. Rushmore event to ‘glorifying white supremacy’

The Democrats, the official Twitter account of the Democratic National Committee, raised eyebrows on Monday night for accusing President Trump of "glorifying white supremacy" after he scheduled a Fourth of July celebration at Mount Rushmore.
Trump is set to attend a fireworks display at the iconic landmark that honors George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.
But a tweet from the Democrats' official Twitter page took issue with the president for holding the event there and shared a link to an article published by The Guardian last week about the criticism he has received from the Native American community.
"Trump has disrespected Native communities time and again," The Democrats wrote. "He's attempted to limit their voting rights and blocked critical pandemic relief. Now he's holding a rally glorifying white supremacy at Mount Rushmore- a region once sacred to tribal communities."
Critics pounded the Democrats for the tweet, which has since been deleted.
"Would be curious to hear @TheDemocrats explain what part of shooting off fireworks at Mt. Rushmore for the 4th of July "glorifies white supremacy". The fireworks? Mt. Rushmore itself? The 4th of July?" GOP pollster Logan Dobson asked. "Like I think I know what they're implying here, and the tweet was obviously designed to tell their base something, but it would be really instructive if they were actually made to answer the question."
"The Democrats think Mt Rushmore is a display of white supremacy. There’s no saving this country if Biden gets elected," radio host Jason Rantz tweeted.
"4th of July festivities at Mt. Rushmore = “a rally glorifying white supremacy” 2020 Democrats have lost it," National Republican Senatorial Committee senior adviser Matt Whitlock wrote.
"Pretty disappointing that when Democrats held the WH and Congress a few years back, they left up this monument 'glorifying white supremacy,'" writer Jeryl Bier quipped.
"All the Republicans have to do is run on a 'Hey, at least we’re not the Democrats' platform," author and "The Rubin Report" host Dave Rubin said.
The DNC did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Sean Hannity asks if Biden has strength, stamina and mental alertness to perform 'hardest job in the world'

Sean Hannity began Monday's program by urging Americans to ask themselves, "What has [Joe] Biden done to improve the lives of all Americans?"
"Did Biden pass criminal justice reform? No. Did he pass police reform? No. After Baltimore, after Ferguson, what did they do? Nothing. Who changed it? President Trump changed it," the host said.
Hannity contrasted Biden's record with President Trump's, highlighting the current administration's commitment to criminal justice reform and efforts to increase funding to historically black colleges and communities.
"Did Barack and Joe create opportunity zones in struggling neighborhoods?" Hannity asked. "No, that would be President Trump. President Trump has been in office less than four years and during that time, pre-coronavirus, [there was] record-low unemployment for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans youth unemployment and African-American youth unemployment. That is great for our collective American family."
"Recently," Hannity went on, "the president took important steps to restore order in American cities, including those tough measures against vandals -- those who have been attempting to tear down any and every statue across the country. By the way, where does Joe stand on these issues?"
Addressing his viewers directly, Hannity urged voters to ask themselves whether Biden is "really fit to serve as a commander in chief."
"Does Joe Biden have the mental alertness, does he have the stamina, does he have the strength to take on what is the hardest job in the world?" the host asked. "And what is going to happen when he finally has to leave his basement bunker for good?
"Will the mob and the media asked Biden the same questions they asked [Ronald] Reagan about age and mental acuity?" he concluded. "Don't hold your breath.
"Don't expect Biden to leave the basement."

The Defense Department said late Monday that there is “no corroborating evidence” to support the explosive New York Times

The Defense Department said late Monday that there is “no corroborating evidence” to support the explosive New York Times report last week that said the Russian military offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The report sent shock waves through Washington and prompted President Trump to outright deny knowing anything about the intel cited in the report.
“To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports. Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan—and around the world—most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats,” Jonathan  Hoffman, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.
The New York Times, citing unnamed officials, reported Friday that it is believed that some “Islamist militants” or “criminal elements” collected payouts. The report pointed out that 20 Americans were killed there in 2019. It was not clear if any of those deaths were the result of a bounty.
Robert O’Brien, the national security adviser, said in a statement that since the allegations in the report were not verified by the intelligence community, Trump has not been briefed on the matter.
“Nevertheless, the administration, including the National Security Council staff, have been preparing should the situation warrant action,” he said. He said that Trump’s top priority is the security of Americans and the safety of the men and women who serve in the military.
Rep. Michael McCaul, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger were in the briefing led by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and national security adviser Robert O'Brien. McCaul and Kinzinger said in a statement that lawmakers were told "there is an ongoing review to determine the accuracy of these reports."
"If the intelligence review process verifies the reports, we strongly encourage the Administration to take swift and serious action to hold the Putin regime accountable," they said.
The White House has maintained that neither Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence was briefed on such intelligence. “This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,” press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
A White House official told Fox News on Monday that Trump has now been briefed on the issue. It’s unclear exactly when this briefing took place, but the official says it took place sometime “after the NY Times reported on unverified intelligence.”
The statement is at odds with the White House, which insisted that Trump has still not been briefed.
Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank, told the Wall Street Journal that “Moscow’s willingness to embrace the Taliban openly and publicaly dates back several years” and he would not be surprised if there is truth to the report.
Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Crying Democrat Cartoons