Groups call for censorship of popular social media app on college campuses

A new call for the federal government to crack down on a social media app popular with college students, but sometimes used to spread hate, is a study in how to violate the First Amendment, according to one legal expert.
A coalition of advocacy groups penned a letter Oct. 20 to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights demanding more monitoring and regulation of the popular free app, Yik Yak, by college administrators -- claiming the app is being used for sexual and race-based online harassment and intimidation that is prohibited on college campuses by Title IX.
Yik Yak, which launched in 2013 and is popular on about 1,600 college campuses, allows smartphone users to anonymously create and view "Yaks" within a 1.5-mile radius. The intimacy of the network allows for students in close proximity to comment on shared experiences, like a particular college course or sporting event, and write messages of support or jokes or anything related to the topic under discussion.

"The speech to which this letter objects includes a great deal of speech protected under the First Amendment."
- Eugene Volokh, law professor

"Share your thoughts and keep your privacy on Yik Yak," the app, named after the '50s song, "Yakety Yak," promises on its website.
But the anonymity of Yik Yak has also created a forum for hateful, sexist and racist comments. In some instances, the speech has crossed the line to actual threats -- like those reported within the past year at the University of Mary Washington, where female students were threatened with rape and murder via the social media app. The groups' letter cites hate-filled comments, such as, "Jesus I hate black people," as well as sexually explicit speech.
In its effort to censor Yik Yak on college campuses, the coalition -- which includes the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Organization for Women as well as the Human Rights Campaign and the National LGBTQ Task Force -- cites a 1969 Supreme Court case applicable to kindergarten through 12th grade students. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the high court ruled that certain speech in schools could be restricted if deemed disruptive -- though that Supreme Court ruling does not apply at colleges and universities.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, roundly criticized the letter Tuesday, saying any crackdown on Yik Yak -- now the ninth-most popular social media app -- is blatantly unconstitutional.
"The speech to which this letter objects includes a great deal of speech protected under the First Amendment," Volokh told FoxNews.com.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that at the college and university level, this kind of speech is constitutionally protected," he said. "The breadth of the restriction just shows how little concern this coalition has for free speech rights."
Even racist and sexist comments are typically protected under the Constitution, said Volokh, who called the movement to chill free speech on campus "the great firewall of American higher education" in a Washington Post op-ed.
The coalition claims its purpose is to call for federal guidelines on how schools can deal with the harassment and discriminatory comments they say are pervasive on Yik Yak -- and not to bar the app. But Volokh said the letter makes suggestions that, if approved, would effectively ban the use of it on college campuses.
"As the perpetrators of harassment and intimidation on applications like Yik Yak are anonymous, OCR should also clarify the steps an academic institution can take to satisfy its civil rights obligations," the letter states. "OCR should reiterate that 'if harassment has occurred, doing nothing is always the wrong response,' and also provide concrete examples of what kinds of actions might be appropriate."
The letter goes on to state that examples of such actions could include "initiating campus disciplinary proceedings against individuals engaging in online harassment" or "barring the use of campus wi-fi to view or post to these applications."
The Oct. 20 letter by the coalition of advocacy groups is not the first time serious concerns have been raised about Yik Yak. The app has a "geo-fence" feature that disables its use around high schools and middle schools in response to bullying. In May, the student senate at College of Idaho voted to ban Yik Yak from campus after seven students reported feeling personally threatened by posts on the app.
"If someone puts a racist epithet on a Latino's door, or a black person's door, there's at least a potential evidence thread that can be investigated," college president Marv Henberg told the Idaho Statesman last May. "Not with Yik Yak."
On Sunday, a threat made via Yik Yak put administrators on high alert at the Des Moines Area Community College's Ankeny Campus. A person on the app asked for places in the area to go deer hunting, when another user suggested looking at the Ankeny DMACC Campus, a school official told the Des Moines Register. An e-mail was sent out Monday notifying students about the threat, which was investigated by the local police and the Department of Homeland Security.
Volokh said legitimate threats made over Yik Yak are another matter -- and must be investigated like any other.
"True threats of violence are not constitutionally protected and they should be punished," he said. "If there are these threats, you actually want them to be out there visible."
But, Volokh said, the threats and hateful speech made by some does not give the government or schools license to shut down the speech of all.
"Universities are places where people go in order to be exposed to a wide range of ideas and university students are expected to deal with speech that is offensive," added Volokh. "To say you can't access these materials [Yik Yak] from the university is to pretend there isn’t this big world outside the university where people will be able to post and read the same things."

Trump and the Media Cartoon

Inside the world of Donald Trump’s superfans

ANDERSON, S.C. — Paulette Del Casale and a friend drove nearly three hours last week from the Atlanta suburbs to this rural, northwest corner of South Carolina to experience a Donald Trump rally — again.
It was Del Casale’s fourth Trump event in three states, and for the first time she was going to work as a volunteer for a political campaign. She cheered through the Republican presidential candidate’s hour-long speech and, afterward, posed for photos with new friends and plugged a private Facebook group she helps moderate, “Trump Defeats the Establishment.”
“I feel, for the first time in my life, that I am not invisible,” said Del Casale, who decorated her campaign T-shirt with 14 large pro-Trump buttons. “For the first time, I feel like there’s actually somebody running for president who is speaking on behalf of myself and others like me.”
Del Casale is a prime example of the superfans who flock to Trump. They drive hours to campaign events and wait in Black Friday-like lines to get a spot close to the front. Many have never attended a political rally or regularly voted. Yet they devote hours each week to pro-Trump Facebook clubs and Twitter accounts and try to convince their relatives, friends and neighbors that the bombastic billionaire should be the leader of the free world.
“He hits the sore points that everybody kind of wants to steer around,” said Brett Hevner, a newly married 25-year-old who lives in Anderson and works for Pepsi. “That’s what I like about him — he’s not afraid to get in there and take the bullet. He’s not scared of anything, and that’s what we need.”
Trump’s campaign is not like most — and neither are Trump crowds. A recent speech in North Charleston attracted a group of middle-aged moms wearing homemade pro-Trump T-shirts and carrying elaborate signs. There was also a 71-year-old woman who said she watches cable television 15 hours a day to keep up with all of Trump’s comments. An appearance in rural Massachusetts attracted a man who has wanted Trump to run since 2012, as documented in a faded T-shirt featuring a cartoon Trump telling President Obama he is fired.
At a rally in Las Vegas, Trump invited onto the stage a star-struck fan clutching a copy of People magazine featuring his face. “I love Mr. Trump!” yelled Myriam Witcher, an immigrant from Colombia who bounced with the excitement of a teenaged girl meeting a boy-band heartthrob. “I am Hispanic, and I vote for Mr. Trump!”
At the rally in Anderson, cars in the parking lot were more likely to have a bumper sticker plugging a university, sports team or honors student than a political campaign. Inside were military veterans who were given seats of honor, high school students who won’t be old enough to vote next year and a 68-year-old retiree who attends as many Trump rallies as he can wearing a black and gold sombrero.
“I wear this in support because I feel like some Mexican people do support him and everything,” said Jim Yates of Laurens, S.C., a veteran of the Vietnam War and retired toolmaker whose favorite politicians are the ones who challenge longtime incumbents. “What I like about Trump is he tells it like it is. . . . We gonna hopefully build that wall, 25 or 30 feet. I’m gonna go down there and help him.”
Trump’s operation has been trying to identify his most passionate fans and funnel their energy into traditional campaign activities. Del Casale connected with one of Trump’s organizers on Facebook and agreed to help at last week’s rally. Wearing a laminated volunteer pass, she handed out yard signs, greeted the more than 5,500 people who arrived and cheered until she was hoarse.
When Trump said Republicans haven’t done enough to confront illegal immigration, Del Casale shouted, “We’re going to build a wall!” As he promised to get rid of the Common Core education standards, she agreed: “It’s child abuse!” And as Trump acknowledged that sometimes his tone can be a bit rough, she shouted, “We don’t need nice!” As Trump left the stage and rock music blared, she began to dance.

Thousands of Israelis join lawsuit against Facebook over pages inciting violence

Thousands of Israeli Jews took legal action against Facebook in a New York court Monday, alleging it allowed jihadists to openly recruit and train terrorists and plan terror attacks on its pages.
Some 20,000 Israelis, organized by the Israel-based non-profit Shurat HaDin -The Israel Law Center - joined a civil lawsuit filed Monday in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, seeking an injunction against Facebook.
The law center wants to force Facebook not only to remove the terrorists' pages, but also to better monitor and block users who post videos glorifying and encouraging terrorist attacks, and publish messages with instructions on how to carry out an attack.
“The terrorists do not come on their own; they write posts and encourage their friends to kill Jews,” said Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of Shurat HaDin. “Facebook has been transformed into an anti-Semitic incubator for murder.”
While Facebook is accused in the suit of “intentionally disregarding the widespread incitement and calls for murder of Jews posted on its web pages by Palestinians,” a spokesman for Facebook said the lawsuit is without merit.
“We want people to feel safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on Facebook,” the company said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “As a community of nearly 1.5 billion people, we have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate and take swift action.”
The company maintains it encourages users to report inappropriate or dangerous messages linked to pages, profiles or individual content and a team of safety experts prioritizes investigations by reviewing the most serious first.
But Israelis involved in the lawsuit believe more needs to be done, especially on the heels of a “wave of terror” that resulted in seven Israelis being brutally murdered and several dozen others victims of stabbings.
They point to lead plaintiff Richard Lankin, 76, who was shot in the head and stabbed multiple times Oct. 13, 2015 by Palestinian terrorists armed with guns and knives from East Jerusalem as he rode on a crowded Jerusalem bus.
Lankin, in critical condition, is being treated for life-threatening injuries in a Jerusalem hospital.Two other Israelis were murdered and more than 20 were wounded in that bus attack.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys Robert Tolchin of New York, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner the director of the Shurat HaDin civil rights organization, and Asher Perlin of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, claims the plaintiffs "have been living in the crosshairs of a murderous terrorist rampage carried out by killers who attack people with knives, axes, screwdrivers, cars and Molotov cocktails for no reason other than that the attacker perceives the victims to be Jewish.
“Many of these murderers were motivated to commit their heinous crimes by incitement to murder they read on Facebook—demagogues and leaders exhorting their followers to ‘slaughter the Jews,’ and offering instruction as to the best manner to do so, including even anatomical charts showing the best places to stab a human being,” the complaint states.
Since Facebook uses algorithms that match users with personalized ads and connect them to potential “friends,” the company should have the ability to monitor and block such postings, the lawsuit said.
U.S. based software company GIPEC has developed software to monitor illegal activity on social media, which is used by law enforcement to identify terrorist-related pages and track piracy, counterfeiting and pornography.
A GIPEC company spokesman said there is no excuse for social media companies not to be pro-active in removing terrorist-related content immediately.
“Terrorist organizations are spending time and money and using American social media platforms to recruit and incite sympathizers and ‘lone wolves’ here in the United States and Israel and around the world,” said the GIPEC spokesperson. “The social media companies supported by advertising revenue have a moral responsibility to make their platforms safe from these horrific and directional posts that call for terrorist behavior that we have been witnessing over the past months.”
Hanan Yadin, an Israeli whose Texas-based company, Instinctive Shooting Int'l, LLC, trains military and law enforcement about terrorism related conflicts, said combating terrorism, both on the ground and virtually, is an ongoing challenge.
“I am not sure that anyone can stop this completely,” Yadin said, noting as one terrorist page is pulled down, another goes up. “This is a warfare game, psychological warfare – to instill fear and intimidation among the targets. It is also an effective and cheap tool to instigate and to recruit.”
Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), said Facebook is just one of many social media outlets being utilized by terrorists to spread their message of hate.
Others allegedly include YouTube, Twitter, MySpace, Instagram, Pinterest, Ask.FM, Tumblr, SendVid, Dump.to, Just Paste.it, Nasher.me, Scribid and a new web site, Telegram.
Terrorists have used these networks to release 19 different videos since Friday calling for attack on Jews in Israel, she said.
Khan believes Facebook is doing its best to monitor dangerous activity, but the challenge is that like playing the game “whack-a-mole,” as soon as one account is taken down, another opens.
Darshan-Leitner told FoxNews.com that Facebook is just the first of several social media companies that may be targets of future lawsuits by her group unless they begin to better counter terrorist postings and activities.

Business, states open legal fire on EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule

The legal barrage to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical Clean Power Plan has begun.
A broad coalition of U.S. industry and business, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,  the National Association of Manufacturers, and an armada of other business and industry organizations, has  asked the D.C. District of the federal Court of Appeals to prevent any further action on the Plan until the court can decide its overall legal status.
The coalition filed a motion at their first opportunity on Friday to stay EPA’s long-awaited final rule governing the  plan, immediately after the agency published the rule in the Federal Register—the official birth notice of the long-gestating plan to drastically remake the entire U.S. electrical system, and among other things  create a nationwide trading system for carbon emissions that was blocked by the Senate in 2009.
The business coalition argues that a huge, unprecedented and illegal expansion of EPA authority over the country’s entire electrical power system  will cause “irreparable harm” unless complicated planning process ordained by the rule is halted  while that legal battle over the entire program is  fought, a process likely to last through most of 2016, if not longer.
In support of their argument they provided testimony not only from business groups but also trade unions and even school boards to buttress their concerns about the disastrous potential effects of failing to halt the process while the legal battles continue.
CLICK HERE FOR THE BUSINESS GROUP MOTION TO THE COURT
At  least 26 state Attorneys General  associations and as-yet uncounted numbers of individual companies separately asked the appeals court for a stay of  the rule on roughly similar grounds.
As a motion by 24 states to the appeals court puts it,  an  “unprecedented, unlawful attempt by an environmental regulator to reorganize the nation’s energy grid” is  intended to force the States and other bodies to make “immediate” and irreversible decisions  to plan compliance with EPA’s rule before courts have ruled whether the plan is legal or not.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STATE MOTION TO THE COURT
“Every American industry is affected by the rule,” declared Karen Harbert, president and CEO  of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21^st Century Energy, at a call-in press conference today to explain the action.
The opponents argue that in broad legal terms, EPA’s plan depends on the selective misinterpretation of some 300 words in the Clean Air Act that have never previously been used to regulate carbon emissions in such sweeping fashion.
The interpretation of little-known section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act extends far beyond the setting of standards for individual sources—which the opponents argue is the sole basis of the law—to push states and regions into enforcing the cuts on a much more sweeping basis.
Under the rule, U.S. states have until September 2016 to create plans that implement customized levels of carbon emission reductions established by EPA, or seek a 2-year extension if that proves impossible. EPA decides if they get the extension, but adds that those granted the reprieve must provide an update of their plans in 2017.
Full compliance with the emissions reductions goes into effect in 2022—two years later than EPA originally declared it would-- and they are supposed to produce 32 per cent reductions in emissions from existing power plants by 2030.
States that do not come up with plans that EPA deems satisfactory, or choose not to follow the new rules, will get EPA-designed plans instead—none of which have so far been seen.
Those deadlines, both states and business groups argue, are largely intended to force states to choose  in advance to shut down at a minimum roughly 11,000 megawatts of U.S. coal-fired power states by 2016, force mammoth reliance on new and unproven sources of renewable energy, and likely undercut the stability of the entire national U.S. electricity supply—and even then force suppliers to use a cap-and-trade system of emissions reduction certificates to stave off some of the drastic changes.
As one piece of evidence, the business petitioners  point out that the final version of EPA’s rule sets emission levels for existing U.S. power plants that are about 7 per cent lower, for existing coal-fired plants, and  22 per cent lower, for existing natural gas-fired plants—that for brand-new facilities of either type.
Indeed, the business groups argue that under the published rule,” a new coal or gas plant with state-of-the-art controls could not achieve the emission rate [it] demands.”
“This disparity makes clear that the ‘existing source’ ceilings cannot be achieved by existing sources themselves,”  but business groups argue, but essentially are pushing energy providers into deep reliance on renewables and a cap-and-trade regime that was turned down in the U.S. Congress in 2009, something that EPA Administrator McCarthy has denied.
“Bottom line: the EPA has dramatically overstepped its authority,” said Karen Harned,  executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’  Small Business Legal Center, which joined the 300,000-member Chamber in opposing the rule.
In response to questions, Linda Kelly, senior vice-president of the National Association of Manufacturers, charged that it was “pretty clear” that the timing of EPA’s publication of the final rule  was “related” to the Obama Administration’s desire to show leadership at the upcoming, United Nations-sponsored climate change summit in Paris, where world leaders intend to adopt a nation-by-nation approach to setting global carbon emission standards.
Said Kelly:  “The Clean Air Act was not designed as a tool for climate negotiations.”
For its part, EPA has argued, in the words of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, that its new rule “has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.”
The agency has also declared that it “provided unprecedented outreach before and after the proposed Plan was issued,”  and considered 4.3 million comments in response to the proposal.
McCarthy has pointed to the two-year extension in the planning process for the huge energy makeover as proof of EPA’s flexibility and the reasonableness of the planning process.
“States and utilities told us they needed more time, and we listened,” she declared on an in-house blog.
The business groups rejoinder is  that while their comments were filed, they weren’t taken into account. Evidently, a majority of U.S. states—at least 26 out of 49 affected—to a significant extent agree.
Whether the opponents get the breathing space they say they need is itself going to take time to discover. Even an expedited appeals court hearing of the arguments for a stay of EPA’s timetable of execution could spill over into early 2016.
The business opponents to EPA’s plan would not second-guess the appeals court by saying whether they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court if their plea for a stay fails.
Speaking for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, Institute for 21^st Century Energy  CEO Harbert declared that her group “preserves all legal options through the entirety of the process.”

House GOP unveils two-year budget deal with White House

House Republican leaders have unveiled a tentative two-year budget agreement with the Obama White House aimed at preventing a partial government shutdown and and forestalling a debt crisis.
The text of the deal was posted to the House Rules Committee's website late Monday, setting up a final House debate and vote on the plan Wednesday. Sources told Fox News the House GOP leadership will likely require the support of almost all House Democrats and between 90 and 100 Republicans to see the agreement through.
The budget pact, coupled with a must-pass increase in the federal borrowing limit, would solve the thorniest issues awaiting Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who is set to be elected Speaker of the House on Thursday. However, sources told Fox that conservatives opposed to Ryan as speaker may use the proposed budget as a reason to vote against the House Ways and Means committee chair. Not enough members were expected to defect to imperil Ryan's election.
The deal would also take budget showdowns and government shutdown fights off the table until after the 2016 presidential election, a potential boon to Republican candidates who might otherwise face uncomfortable questions about messes in the GOP-led Congress.
Congress must raise the federal borrowing limit by Nov. 3 or risk a first-ever default, while money to pay for government operations runs out Dec. 11 unless Congress acts. The emerging framework would give both the Pentagon and domestic agencies two years of budget relief of $80 billion in exchange for cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Outlined for rank-and-file Republicans in a closed-door session Monday night, the budget relief would total $50 billion in the first year and $30 billion in the second year.
"Let's declare success," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told Republicans, according to Rep. David Jolly, R-Fla., as the leadership sought to rally support for the emerging deal.
A chief selling point for GOP leaders is that the alternative is chaos and a stand-alone debt limit increase that might be forced on Republicans. But conservatives in the conference who drove Boehner to resign were not ready to fall in line.
"This is again just the umpteenth time that you have this big, big, huge deal that'll last for two years and we were told nothing about it," said Rep. John Fleming, R-La.
"I'm not excited about it at all," said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz. "A two-year budget deal that raises the debt ceiling for basically the entire term of this presidency."
The measure under discussion would suspend the current $18.1 trillion debt limit through March 2017.
The budget side of the deal is aimed at undoing automatic spending cuts which are a byproduct of a 2011 budget and debt deal and the failure of Washington to subsequently tackle the government's fiscal woes. GOP defense hawks are a driving force, intent on reversing the automatic cuts and getting more money for the military.
The focus is on setting a new overall spending limit for agencies whose operating budgets are set by Congress each year. It will be up to the House and Senate Appropriations committees to produce a detailed omnibus spending bill by the Dec. 11 deadline.
The tentative pact anticipates designating further increases for the Pentagon as emergency war funds that can be made exempt from budget caps. Offsetting spending cuts that would pay for domestic spending increases included curbs on certain Medicare payments for outpatient services provided by hospitals and an extension of a 2-percentage-point cut in Medicare payments to doctors through the end of a 10-year budget.
There's also a drawdown from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, reforms  to crop insurance, and savings reaped from a Justice Department funds for crime victims and involving assets seized from criminals.
Negotiators looked to address two other key issues as well: a shortfall looming next year in Social Security payments to the disabled and a large increase for many retirees in Medicare premiums and deductibles for doctors' visits and other outpatient care.
The deal, which would apply to the 2016-17 budget years, resembles a pact that Ryan himself put together two years ago in concert with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that eased automatic spending cuts for the 2014-15 budget years. A lot of conservatives disliked that measure.
"It is past time that we do away with the harmful, draconian sequester cuts," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We must also ensure that there are equal defense and nondefense increases."
Just days are left for the deal to come together before Ryan is elected Thursday to replace Boehner, R-Ohio, who is leaving Congress under pressure from conservative lawmakers angered by his history of seeking Democratic votes on issues like the budget.
The deal would make good on a promise Boehner made in the days after announcing his surprise resignation from Congress last month. He said at the time: "I don't want to leave my successor a dirty barn. I want to clean the barn up a little bit before the next person gets there."
Some of the more moderate Republican members welcomed the emerging deal and applauded Boehner.
"The outline that was presented seems like a path forward," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa. "He said he was going to try to clean the barn and this is a good start."

Safety concerns prompt Border Patrol to pull out of college job fair amid protests

The Border Patrol is looking for a few good men and women -- but not angry confrontation, and that concern is what prompted the agency to back out of a college job fair.

Accusing the federal agency charged with protecting U.S. borders of  “unjust killings, …. racial profiling, use of force, and unjust violence,” protesters at University of California-Irvine succeeded in stopping the Border Patrol from taking part in a weekend career fair - and blocked students from learning more about a possible job opportunity.

"We regret to inform the community that out of concern for the safety of CBP Recruitment Officers, U.S. Customs & Border Protection will no longer be participating in the UCI Fall Career Fair,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Ralph DeSio told FoxNews.com, instead referring students to theagency’s recruitment website.

“If you don't like the Border Patrol, it still doesn't give you license to demand their removal."

- Rob Petrosyan, UC Irvine’s College Republicans

DeSio did not say what specific threats prompted the decision. But the move followed a Change.org petition drive that some 600 people backed demanding the agency be banned from the Oct. 22 job fair at UC Irvine’s Student Center. The petition claimed “having Border Patrol agents on campus is a blatant disregard to undocumented students’ safety and well-being” and is insulting to “mixed-status families.”

UCI’s administration was “prepared to take every step necessary to ensure their safety and the safety of the attendees,” said school spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon, adding that the university never received any threats to safety.

“The Change.org petition and comments on the petition were not threatening,” Lawhon said.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Some 30,000 students attend the Orange County campus, but a petition signed by just over 600 people was enough to prompt the pullout. (FoxNews.com)

The petition claimed the mere presence of Border Patrol representatives could prove traumatic for students.

"The fact that UCI has invited an agency known for racial profiling, use of force, and unjustified violence is an act of disrespect and insensitivity and ignores the struggles and needs of the undocumented student community on campus," it read in part.

Ironically, most of the people who signed the petition weren’t students from the university, said UC Irvine’s College Republicans President Rob Petrosyan. He said the campaign was organized by outsiders “politicizing a jobs fair aimed at helping college students find work once they graduate.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

After the decision, protesters declared victory on their online petition.

“I haven't seen that petition distributed around the UCI class pages, and it seems like most of the signatures are from outside UCI,” Petrosyan said.

Even if the 640 people who signed the petition were in fact enrolled at the 30,000-student campus, that’s just 2 percent of the student body, some noted.

Whoever was behind the campaign to bar the Border Patrol showed ignorance about the important role the agency plays, according to DeSio, who said new recruits to the agency have an opportunity to save lives as well as protect U.S. sovereignty.

“The Border Patrol in San Diego conducted 37 rescue missions and saved 96 people from Oct. 1, 2014 to Aug. 31, 2015, rescuing them from the elements and environment when they attempted to cross into the U.S. illegally,” DeSio said.

On the UC Irvine student Facebook page, students and people unaffiliated with the public university carried on the debate.

“Students didn't want Border Patrol there because it is an immoral, human rights-violating institution,” wrote a commenter identified as ‪Levi Vonk‪. “This is about denouncing an organization that has ruined literally millions of people's lives through detention and deportation, and has deported unknown thousands to their deaths in their home countries. This is a civil rights movement for everyone, regardless of citizenship. This is bravery.”

However, college is supposed to be about peaceful interaction and respect, Petrosyan countered, echoing what many others said on the UC Irvine student social media page.

“If you don't like the Border Patrol, it still doesn't give you license to demand their removal. Especially since they were there to recruit for jobs as opposed to running patrols,” Petrosyan said.

Border Patrol, which has participated in several student fairs since 2010, was refunded its $600 vendor fee. More than 90 groups posted displays at the event, including the U.S. Marine Corps, Navy and Army, agencies that have been targets of protesters at other universities, but escaped the ire of protesters this time around.

The university had refused to ban Border Patrol from the campus, saying “UCI is committed to bringing a full spectrum of employers to campus to meet with our student population.”

“It’s up to individual students to determine which employers may or may not align with their diverse talents, values and interests,” Lawhon said.

UC Irvine is the same University that garnered national attention March 3, when The Associated Students of University of California supported a resolution to ban the American flag in some spaces on campus because it represented “hate speech” and “made people feel very uncomfortable and unsafe.”

Chris Christie Cartoon

Christie has to leave Amtrak 'quiet' car after talking on cell phone

GOP presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had to leave an Amtrak “quiet” car for talking on his cellphone Sunday morning, shortly after boarding a north-bound train from Washington, D.C.
A fellow passenger told the website Gawker that Christie boarded the 9:55 a.m. train at the last minute and had a loud discussion with his two-man security detail about seating, then had an “intense” talk on his cellphone before being approached by a conductor.
The conductor purportedly asked Christie, known for his bombastic manner, to either concluded the call or move to a talking-permissible car.
Campaign official Samantha Smith acknowledged the incident but said Christie mistakenly sat in the no-talking car “on a very full train” and apologized for the mistake and inconveniencing fellow passengers
“After breaking the cardinal rule of the quiet car, the governor promptly left once he realized the serious nature of his mistake and enjoyed the rest of his time on the train from the cafe car,” Smith said in a statement. “Sincere apologies to all the patrons of the quiet car that were offended.”
She also said Christie wasn't asked to leave and referred FoxNews.com to a Twitter feed of a purported female passenger who said the conductor only pointed out to Christie that he was in a quiet car.
The passenger also told Gawker that Christie was drinking a McDonald’s strawberry smoothie and kept repeating into his phone: “This is frickin’ ridiculous” and “seriously?”
Amtrak conductors generally urge passengers to maintain a "library-like atmosphere" in the quiet car. It's not uncommon for conductors to ask noisier passengers to change cars.
The Republican presidential hopeful had appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" earlier in the morning.

Ryan gets more, key support ahead of big vote this week to become next GOP House speaker

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan

Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan got added support Sunday from a key part of the chamber’s Republican conference when the leader of the House Freedom Caucus said he was the “right guy” to be the next speaker.
“We think Paul has the kind of vision and is the kind of messenger our party needs to accomplish the things we told the voters we’re going to accomplish,” group Chairman Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said on "Fox News Sunday."
Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee chairman and 2012 vice presidential candidate, was recruited by Capitol Hill Republicans to become the next House speaker.
Ryan agreed to run for the post after talking last week with members of the Freedom Caucus -- part of the chamber’s most conservative wing, which largely forced House Speaker John Boehner to resign in late-September.
“He didn’t quite get the endorsement threshold we have in our group, but a super majority of our members said we think Paul Ryan is the right guy at the right time to lead our conference,” Jordan also said Sunday.
The small-but-powerful wing continuously disagreed with Boehner and members of the leadership team, accusing them of not digging in hard enough on spending cuts, repealing ObamaCare and other important conservative issues.
Ryan in talking with the caucus members reportedly agreed to address their concerns including committee leadership assignments and legislation from rank-and-file members not getting more consideration.
The speaker vote is expected later this week.
“We have a commitment from Paul to work on changing the rules and we may even get a change before the vote this coming Wednesday and Thursday,” Jordan said.
Ryan was recruited after a couple of wild weeks after Boehner’s resignation. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the second-in-command, dropped out of the race after suggesting the House Select Committee on Benghazi was responsible for damaging the campaign of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. And South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi committee, was mentioned for the job, but he quickly and emphatically declined.
Ryan needs 218 votes from the chamber’s 434 members, including 246 Republicans.
He has made clear he doesn't want to squeak by in the vote. Last week, he got support from the Republican Study Committee and the Tuesday Group, two key groups that should help him get enough votes.

NYPD union calls for boycott of Quentin Tarantino films after director's anti-cop protest

The head of the New York Police Department's union has called for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino's films after the director took part in an anti-police protest Saturday, four days after one of New York's Finest was murdered by a suspect he was pursuing. 
Tarantino, whose oeuvre includes the notoriously violent films "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", and "Django Unchained", flew in from California to take part in the event with hundreds of other demonstrators.
"I'm a human being with a conscience," Tarantino said. "And if you believe there's murder going on then you need to rise up and stand up against it. I'm here to say I'm on the side of the murdered."
"It’s no surprise that someone who makes a living glorifying crime and violence is a cop-hater, too," Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association, said Sunday in response to Tarantino. "The police officers that Quentin Tarantino calls ‘murderers’ aren’t living in one of his depraved big-screen fantasies — they’re risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to protect communities from real crime and mayhem."
Saturday's rally, which gathered in Manhattan's Greenwich Village neighborhood at Washington Square Park before marching about 2 miles along Sixth Avenue, came in the wake of the shooting death of 33-year-old Officer Randolph Holder. Holder was shot to death in the city's East Harlem neighborhood while pursuing a bicycle thief. A suspect has been charged with murder and robbery in the case.
"I think it’s very disrespectful,” Holder's cousin Shauntel Abrams told the Post. "Everyone forgets that behind the uniform is a person."
The New York Post reported that Tarantino acknowledged the timing of Saturday's rally was "unfortunate." But the director, whose latest film "The Hateful Eight," is due out early next year, said the rally had to go ahead because people had traveled long distances to attend.

Biden opted out on 2016 Dem race because he 'couldn't win'

WASHINGTON –  Vice President Joe Biden says he decided against running for president because he "couldn't win," not because he would have had too little time to get a campaign up and running.
"I'll be very blunt. If I thought we could've put together the campaign ... that our supporters deserve and our contributors deserved, ... I would have done it," he said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes."
In the wide-ranging interview, in which Biden took questions for a time joined by his wife, Jill, the vice president also said he would not have gotten into the race just to stop Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"I've said from the beginning, 'Look, I like Hillary. Hillary and I get along together," he said. "The only reason to run is because ... I still think I could do a better job than anybody else could do."
He used the interview to play down suggestions his announcement not to run, made at the White House Wednesday with President Barack Obama standing at his side, included a jab at Clinton.
At the White House event, Biden lamented partisan bickering in Washington politics and said, "I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies." Clinton had made a statement to that effect during the Democratic presidential debate earlier this month.
"That wasn't directed at Hillary," Biden told "60 Minutes."
"That was a reference to Washington, all of Washington," he said.
The 72-year-old Biden also sought in the interview to dispel recurrent rumors that his late son Beau, who died earlier this year at age 46 of brain cancer, had made a last-minute plea to his father to run for president.
Biden said there was no such "Hollywood moment ... Nothing like that ever, ever happened," he said. "Beau all along thought that I should run and I could win."
"But there was not what was sort of made out as kind of this Hollywood-esque thing that, at the last minute, Beau grabbed my hand and said, 'Dad, you've got to run,' like win one for the Gipper," Biden said.
The vice president did say he wants to continue to have a voice in party affairs and will speak up whenever he wishes. He has not endorsed a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"I will make no bones about that," he said. "I don't want the party walking away from what Barack and I did."
Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley are still in the race.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice

Judge who signed off on treatment deal for suspected cop killer says she is ‘truly sorry’

Cop Killer

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Patricia Nuñez, accessory after the fact.

One of the New York judges who helped send a suspected cop killer to rehab instead of jail five months ago said Friday that the deadly shooting "breaks her heart" and that she is "truly sorry."
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Patricia Nuñez told The New York Post that she will address the issue further at a Nov. 12 court date for the suspect, Tyrone Howard. The paper reported that  Howard was freed despite a history of three felony sale convictions and the urging of prosecutors in the drug case.
Officer Randolph Holder's killing Tuesday has raised questions about the risks and potential shortcomings of drug courts, or drug diversion programs, which have been embraced nationwide as a way to ease jail overcrowding and reduce crime by attacking it at one of its sources: drug abuse.
New York's mayor and police commissioner have branded Howard a career criminal who had once been arrested in a 2009 gunfight on an East Harlem basketball court and should not have been out on the streets.
"He would have been the last person in New York City I would've wanted to see in the diversion program," Police Commissioner William Bratton said.
Yet another judge who handled the case said Howard — a longtime PCP user who despite his long rap sheet had no convictions for violent crimes — was a compelling candidate for drug court.

More on this...

• Mom of slain officer: Killing must stop, Blue lives matter

"I don't get a crystal ball when I get the robe," said state Supreme Court Justice Edward McLaughlin. He defended his decision as "accurate and appropriate," saying that doing time hadn't helped Howard before.

"He would have been the last person in New York City I would've wanted to see in the diversion program"
- Police Commissioner William Bratton

He also said he was never made aware of the 2009 shooting case, which records show ultimately wasn't prosecuted against Howard. A law enforcement official who is familiar with the prosecution of the other defendant in that shooting, and who wasn't authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was no eyewitness testimony placing Howard as the shooter.
Since their start in Miami in 1989, drug diversion programs have multiplied to 2,500 courts across the country, together handling about 120,000 cases a year, according to the federal National Office of Drug Control Policy.
The agency calls the programs "a proven tool for improving public health and public safety." President Obama mentioned them approvingly in a July speech, saying such programs can save taxpayer dollars.
Drug courts generally target nonviolent offenders who commit crimes to feed their addictions. The courts use treatment, drug testing, incentives and penalties to try to get defendants sober and straightened out.
"Drug courts are the most effective intervention in the justice system for individuals with substance abuse histories," Carson Fox, executive director of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, said Wednesday.
Studies have credited drug courts with reducing recidivism and drug-use relapses. Some research estimates those reductions save society more money than the treatment costs, though some studies have found the opposite, according to a 2011 congressional report.
But some research has also found drug-court dropout rates of 60 percent, said David Lilley, a criminal justice professor at the University of Toledo.
And some prosecutors and police fear diversion sometimes ends up giving breaks to drug dealers who claim they're addicts to avoid prison.
"It's critically important that you get the right people" into drug court, said Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police. "You're making life-changing decisions for the subject and potentially life-threatening decisions for the public."
At 30, Howard has been arrested more than two dozen times since he was 13 and sentenced to state prison twice since 2007 for drug possession and sale. One term came after he tried unsuccessfully for drug court in a 2011 case charging him with smoking PCP while carrying 22 bags of crack cocaine. Howard eventually pleaded guilty to drug possession.
In October 2014, he was charged with selling crack to an undercover officer. He was swept up as part of a larger drug case. Prosecutors sought six years behind bars.
But after reviewing Howard's record, troubled home life and longtime addiction, McLaughlin agreed to refer his case for evaluation for drug court, where another judge OK'd Howard for the program.
McLaughlin said he didn't learn about the 2009 gunbattle until this week. Howard was believed to have shot and wounded another man, Dan Evans, according to court papers. Evans was eventually convicted in the wounding of two bystanders, plus a 2006 murder.
The record doesn't explain why the case against Howard was dropped, and the district attorney's office hasn't commented. But the law enforcement official said no one identified Howard as a shooter except Evans, the defendant.
After being approved for drug court, Howard was released on $35,000 bail in February and pleaded guilty to the drug charge in May.
He started missing monthly status meetings and various court dates in August, then became a suspect in a Sept. 1 shooting. An arrest warrant was issued Sept. 17, and police tried 10 times to locate him, authorities said.
Then, on Tuesday, Holder and his partner caught up with him while chasing after a bicycle thief, police said. Holder, 33, was shot in the head; Howard was wounded in the leg as police returned fire.
Howard's lawyer, Brian Kennedy, has said there are "a lot of missing details" in the case.

Trailing in Iowa, Trump now battling like a true outsider

Jeb Bush

Ben Carson

New polls show Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is trailing in first-voting state Iowa but his strategy so far appears unchanged -- touting his outsider status and attacking rivals like a scrappy up-and-comer.
Trump on Friday attacked primary rival Ben Carson, whom he described as “super low energy” but who leads him in Iowa, according to the polls.
“The press was going crazy,” Trump said at an event in Miami. “We have a ‘breaking story,’ Donald Trump has fallen to second place to Ben Carson. We informed Ben, but he was sleeping.”
The remark repeats a familiar Trump complaint that the news media doesn’t like him and included his signature tagline for political opponents whom he bashes, “But I think he’s a nice guy.”
The New York real estate mogul and first-time candidate still leads in national polls.
However, a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released Friday shows Trump now trailing Carson by 9 percentage points. And a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows him trailing Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon and social conservative, by 8 percentage points among Iowa Republican voters.

More on this...

• Are attack ads by Club for Growth causing a 'Trump slump?'

“I have a feeling we’re doing much better in Iowa than the polls are showing,” Trump said on the Hugh Hewitt Show after the release of the Quinnipiac poll.
Trump also argued that he was “very, very surprised” by the poll numbers, considering the large and enthusiastic crowds he’s drawing in Iowa.
After continuously rising in the polls despite a series of controversial remarks, Trump is now in the unusual position of dropping and having what political and campaign reporters deem “a bad week.”
Jeb Bush, the GOP establishment candidate and once-presumptive party frontrunner, is also having a tough week.
Amid sluggish poll and fundraising numbers, the Bush campaign on Friday announced several reductions including payroll cuts of roughly 40 percent.
The Iowa primary is now about just three months away. The Quinnipiac poll has Bush tied for sixth place in Iowa with 5 percent of the vote.
Trump’s so-called bad week began in part with a story Sunday in The Washington Post about a super PAC with ties to his campaign, a problem considering his opposition to such groups, criticizes for having too much money and influence in elections.
On Thursday, he issued a statement calling for pro-Trump super PACs to disband and reiterating that his self-funded campaign, unlike others, will not be controlled by lobbyists, special interest groups and others, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“We don’t want super PACs,” Trump also said in Miami. “Close them up ideally, hopefully to give money back.”

Obama calls for less standardized testing in schools, addressing nationwide concerns

President Obama on Saturday called for limiting the amount of standardized educational testing to two percent of classroom time, addressing the growing concern across the county about an over emphasis on test taking.  
The president called on a wide range of Americans -- from state officials to parents and teacher -- to help ensure that the country’s school systems haven’t become mired in standardized test taking.
"Learning is about so much more than just filling in the right bubble," Obama said in a video released on Facebook. "So we're going to work with states, school districts, teachers and parents to make sure that we're not obsessing about testing."
Obama and outgoing Education Secretary Arne Duncan plan an Oval Office meeting Monday with teachers and school officials who are working to reduce testing time.
Mandatory testing as an effort to make teachers accountable and to help students improve and keep pace with their foreign counterparts dates back most recently to the Bush administration with “No Child Left Behind,” then the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top.”
Support or opposition to the recent major initiative known as Common Core has essentially become a conservative litmus-test question for Republicans in the 2016 presidential race.
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton embraced the principles laid out by Obama on Saturday.
"We should be ruthless in looking at tests and eliminating them if they do not actually help us move our kids forward," she said in a statement.
The vast majority of states agreed to the Common Core standards when they were released in 2010, with the backing of the National Governors Association. However, there has since been a growing criticism among Republicans and Democrats that the federal government is now too involved in what should be state- and local-level educational decisions.
Students spend about 20 to 25 hours a school year taking standardized tests, according to a study of the nation's 66 largest school districts that was released Saturday by the Council of Great City Schools.
In all, between pre-K and 12th grade, students take about 112 standardized exams, according to the council report. It said testing amounts to 2.3 percent of classroom time for the average 8th-grader.
Obama’s efforts should be welcome news for teachers and their powerful and largely pro-Democrat unions that say educators’ performance evaluations shouldn’t be tied to standardized test scores.
Among parents with children in public schools, 63 percent were opposed to linking teacher evaluations to their students' test scores in a recent Gallup Poll.
Still, the president’s effort is also being met with doubt and skepticism.
"How much constitutes too much (testing) time is really difficult to answer," said Michael Casserly, the council's executive director.
Obama cannot force states or districts to limit testing, which has drawn consternation from parents and teachers. But he directed the Education Department to make it easier for states to satisfy federal testing mandates and he urged states and districts to use factors beyond testing to assess student performance.
In addition, The New York Times reports Obama will ask Congress make his plan into legislation.
The administration said it still supports standardized tests as a necessary assessment tool, and there are no signs they are going away soon.
Both the House and Senate versions of an update to No Child Left Behind would preserve annual reading and math exams, although the House version would diminish their significance in determining whether schools are up to par. The legislation is in limbo while House and Senate negotiators figure out how to reconcile the competing versions.
Administration officials said that in many cases, testing is redundant, poorly aligned with curriculum or simply overkill. They said the administration supports legislative proposals to cap testing time on a federal level, but wanted to offer states a model for how to cut down on testing absent congressional action.
"There's just a lot of testing going on, and it's not always terribly useful," Cecilia Munoz, the director of the White House's Domestic Policy Council, said in an interview. "In the worst case, it can sap the joy and fun out of the classroom for students and for teachers."
Casserly said his group found examples of testing redundancy that could be cut to create more instructional time. For example, some states and school districts were requiring both end-of-year tests and end-of-course tests in the same subjects in the same grade.
To ease the testing burden, the administration will provide states with guidance about how they can satisfy federal testing requirements in less time or in more creative ways, including federal waivers to No Child Left Behind that the Education Department readily has handed out.
For example, some 8th-grade students who take high school-level coursework currently take both 8th-grade and high school assessments, but the administration will allow them to opt out of the 8th-grade tests.
The value of standardized tests taps into the national debate about the federal government's role in local schools; both political parties generally support scaling back Washington's reach.
Central to that debate is Common Core. The federal government doesn't require Common Core, but the administration has backed it with financial incentives. About 12 million students last spring took tests based on the curriculum.

Missing Money? Report questions how states spent ObamaCare funds

 Obama Care

Oh Well, it's only taxpayer money.

The federal government awarded over $5 billion to help states set up ObamaCare exchanges, with the vast majority – $4.6 billion – going to 16 states and Washington, D.C. 
But, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, much of that money has not been accounted for – and yet not returned, either.
So where did those taxpayer dollars go?
That’s the billion-dollar question.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) required the establishment of health insurance exchanges – known as marketplaces – to help small employers and consumers compare and purchase insurance plans. States opted to either develop their own state-based exchanges or hand authority to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). And between 2010 and 2014, CMS awarded federal grants mostly to states setting up their own marketplaces, to help them get started.
About $4.6 billion was given to these 17 recipients, including California, New York, Washington state and Kentucky.
But the GAO report found that so far, just $1.4 billion of that has been spent on IT projects, and a total of $3 billion has been “spent or drawn down,” though not all the spending is detailed.
That, then, leaves at least $1.6 billion unaccounted for. Yet only three states returned any portion of the money – a total of just over $1 million was given back.
“[T]he specific amount spent on marketplace-related projects was uncertain, as only a selected number of states reported to GAO that they tracked or estimated this information,” the report said.
Even though states were supposed to set up their marketplaces by the end of last year, they are not yet legally required to return unused funds.
Chuck Young, with the GAO, explained that the grants also could have covered non-IT costs not addressed in the study, and the funding devoted to IT projects will generally remain available for states’ use until December – albeit with restrictions. “CMS said that, since March 2015, states may have spent additional grant funds for IT projects, re-purposed those funds for non-IT costs, or returned funds,” he said, adding that the office expects to conduct a follow-up to this report.
But in an article on the GAO report by the American Spectator, health care adviser and contributor to the publication David Catron highlighted the monetary discrepancy and raised the question of whether Democratic officials improperly diverted or spent more than $3 billion in taxpayer grant money.
“It’s hard to know with any degree of certainty where the money went,” he told FoxNews.com. “So all we know with any confidence is how much was awarded, how much went to IT and what the difference is.”
Catron pointed out that 85 percent of federal funds went to Democrat-controlled states, and that only three states returned any money to CMS while the remaining 13 states and D.C. have yet to return any funds.
The spending is different from state to state. Oregon has withdrawn just over $293 million of its $305 million and spent almost all of the $78.5 million authorized for its IT expenses – but based on the report, has not returned any leftover funds. California was given over $1 billion and spent $709 million. GAO found that less than a half-million dollars has been returned to the federal government.
Representatives for the Department of Health in Oregon told FoxNews.com that the IT funds listed on the report were only one part of setting up the exchange, implying that remaining funding was directed elsewhere. A spokesperson for the ObamaCare marketplace Covered California said that when they released the 2015-2016 budget in June, there was approximately $100 million in federal funds left and carried it over thanks to an extension by the federal government; they now have until the end of December to draw on the funds for the program.
A representative for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services insisted that if any funds are misallocated the CMS “will work to recover the funds using remedies available under law and regulation.”
“To safeguard taxpayer funds, HHS has also put in place additional program integrity regulations and has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, the GAO’s recommendations,” said HHS senior adviser Meaghan Smith.
In examining how states have used federal funds for IT projects and CMS’s role in overseeing them, the non-partisan GAO found that marketplaces reported spending nearly 89 percent of the funds on “IT contracts,” but that the CMS is still trying to track states’ IT spending in more detail.
The GAO urged CMS to improve its existing oversight roles and responsibilities and ensure that senior executives adequately review and approve funding decisions.
And despite all the money issued to states specifically for IT use, the GAO underscored an array of problems – from poor system performance to software and hardware problems – plaguing the state-based and federally run marketplaces.
According to Dennis Santiago, risk analyst and director of the Bank Monitor Division for Total Bank Solutions, the uncertainty doesn’t necessarily mean the money was misused.
“What is missing is the proof that diversions did or did not occur, and if so where,” he said. “IT costs are only part of the process. It could be legitimate, classic pocket lining at work – or some of both.”

Jorge Ramos Cartoon

Univision Crew Booted From Donald Trump Campaign Event

Univision crews were ordered to leave Donald Trump’s campaign event at the Trump National Doral hotel in Florida on Friday.

Univision said crews from both the network and local affiliate were asked to leave Trump’s event, according to Doral’s Local 10 News. The station was reportedly cleared to cover the event, but crew members were told upon arrival by someone who appeared to be an off-duty police officer that they were not allowed on the property, which is owned by Trump, according to Local 10 News.

The event at the Trump National Doral is being held near Univision’s South Florida headquarters. Univision has battled publicly with Trump, the leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, since July when it pulled out of broadcasting the Trump-owned Miss USA beauty pageant because of Trump’s disparaging comments about Mexican immigrants.

Trump filed a $500 million lawsuit against Univision for backing out of the five-year contract to carry the Miss Universe francise. That lawsuit was the reason the Univision crews were turned away from the campaign rally, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks.

“Mr. Trump is suing Univision for $500 million and until that is resolved it is a conflict of interest,” she said.

Hours before the event, pro-immigration organizations and members of the South Florida Hispanic community showed up to protest.

Friday’s incident comes after Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was thrown out of another Trump event in August when he tried to ask the presidential hopeful a question.

Ramos tweeted about Univision being booted out of Trump’s Friday event, writing, “Journalists from Univision were not allowed to cover a Donald Trump political event today in Doral, Florida.”

At the time that Univision dropped the Miss USA pageant, Univision also issued a ban on any of its employees conducting company business at Trump-owned hotels or resorts, including the National Doral, which is adjacent to Univision’s Florida headquarters.

At the time, a Univision spokeswoman said the company’s “decision to end our business relationship with Mr. Trump was influenced solely by our responsibility to speak up for the community we serve.”