Men cleared of terrorism ties in high-profile border case

PHOENIX –  The arrests of six Middle Eastern men caught entering the United States illegally from Mexico two years ago set off alarm in border states and in some right-wing blogs and other media outlets.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey called it a matter of national security and invoked the Islamic State group in a statement calling for stepped-up border security in response to the arrests. Conservative publications like the Washington Examiner reported on the men from "Middle East terror hotbeds," while Fox News questioned whether "Islamic State militants could be probing security."
Now, documents obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request reveal the men were fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands and were cleared of any terrorism ties. They also were physically and verbally abused by two Mexican smugglers with a history of crossing the border illegally and went days without food and water, the records show.
The case highlights the highly politicized nature of the U.S.-Mexico border as hysteria sometimes overtakes facts in an era where President Donald Trump, during his campaign, labeled Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. Some blogs incorrectly reported the men were released. Others tied them to the Islamic State.
In fact, the men cooperated with the government, and four have been deported. The remaining two are in removal proceedings, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe.
The five men from Pakistan and one from Afghanistan were arrested at a time when the Islamic State group was committing some of its bloodiest acts, just days after coordinated bombings and shootings in Paris heightened fears about attacks in the U.S.
The arrests also came around the same time as two Syrian families with children presented themselves at the border seeking asylum. The families were Christian and fleeing persecution. Still, the incident prompted a tweet from Trump that said, "Eight Syrians were just caught on the southern border trying to get into the U.S. ISIS maybe? I told you so. WE NEED A BIG & BEAUTIFUL WALL!"
But none of the cases had any ties to terrorism.
Government officials have long denied there have been any arrests of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border with ties to the Islamic State, and private security analysts agree.
Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical analysis for Texas-based intelligence firm Stratfor, said he knows of no instances of terrorists sneaking into the U.S. through the southern border.
He says it's much more likely a terrorist would use the Canadian border to sneak into the country, as Ahmed Ressam did in 1999. Ressam planned to bomb the Los Angeles airport and used false documents to enter the U.S. from Canada. Border authorities caught him with a car full of explosives.
Stewart added it's highly unlikely the Mexican cartels, which control smuggling corridors, would help a terrorist enter the United States.
"The last thing they want is to be labeled as narco-terrorists. That's just terrible for business," Stewart said. "I'm honestly much more concerned about meth, fentanyl and heroin than I am of Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State coming across."
Despite most border crossers being from Latin America, a small number come from far-away places like China, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Investigative files obtained by the AP show the Middle Eastern men completed a long and costly journey to America.
The Afghan man told Border Patrol agents he left his home seven months earlier and traveled through at least 10 countries before making it to the U.S. He was detained for weeks in Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico and paid nearly $15,000 in smuggling fees along the way.
Once the men reached the U.S. border, the smugglers told them crossing illegally into Arizona would be a matter of a few easy hours.
But their trip took several days in treacherous conditions.
The men spent three or four days walking through the desert. They ran out of water on the first night and food on the second, and then trekked through mountains near the border in snow and rain. The men said they had no jackets.
They said the smugglers verbally accosted them and threw rocks at them if they walked too slowly. The Afghan man said one of the smugglers punched him in the chest. When one man injured his ankle, a smuggler said "Bye-bye" and kept walking. Another man who couldn't keep up said he paid the smugglers more to slow down.
The men were arrested in November 2015 after triggering a Border Patrol sensor about 15 miles (24 kilometers) north of the border.
The arrests were first reported by right-wing blogs, then other news organizations. Three days after the Middle Eastern men were taken into custody, Ducey issued a statement saying their arrests were troubling, "especially in light of new threats on the United States from ISIS in a video released in just the last 24 hours."
But the FBI had already cleared the men, finding they had no ties to terrorism, according to the documents.
When asked about the governor's tweet, Ducey's spokesman issued a statement that touted the Republican's border efforts but did not address the issue of invoking the Islamic State when the men had no terrorism ties.
"The governor continues to put public safety at the forefront," spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said.
The men were interviewed separately, and all told authorities about abuses at the hands of the two Mexican smugglers. They became witnesses in the case against Ernesto Dorame-Gonzalez and Martin Lopez-Alvarado, who had committed prior immigration offenses and pleaded guilty to smuggling charges.
"We find smugglers are more interested in treating people as a commodity instead of human beings," said Stephanie Dixon, a spokeswoman with the Border Patrol's Tucson sector. "Many people are being lied to by smugglers, which leads to deaths and illnesses, for the sole purpose of criminal profiting."

Record amount of background checks for guns on Black Friday

The FBI on Friday received 203,086 requests for instant gun background checks, which would mark almost a 10 percent increase from 2016 and sets a new record for the most ever in one day, USA Today reported.

Authorities did not speculate on why so many Americans are seeking guns this holiday season, but the theory is that there is a fear about tougher gun laws in the future.

The FBI received 185,713 requests on Black Friday last year.
USA Today pointed out that background checks do not indicate the number of guns actually sold because a buyer could purchase more than one gun in a check.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, earlier this week, ordered a far-ranging review of the FBI database used to check the backgrounds of prospective gun buyers, after the Air Force failed to report the criminal history of the gunman who slaughtered more than two dozen people at a Texas church.
The failure enabled him to buy weapons, purchases his domestic violence conviction should have barred.
Sessions directed the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to determine if other government agencies are failing to report information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. He also wants a report detailing the number of times the agencies investigate and prosecute people for lying on their gun-purchase applications and a closer look at the format of the application itself.

The database “is critically important to protecting the American public from firearms-related violence,” Sessions wrote in his memo. “It is, however, only as reliable and robust as the information that federal, state, local and tribal government entities make available to it.”
The Pentagon’s inspector general launched a separate review of the Texas gunman, Devin P. Kelley, after the Air Force revealed it had failed to submit his domestic abuse case to the database. Kelley was able to buy four guns despite the conviction. He used a Ruger AR rifle with a 30-round magazine during the Nov. 6 shooting, going from aisle to aisle as he shot parishioners.
Sessions said the revelation was “alarming.” But the Pentagon has long known about failures to give military criminal history information to the FBI.

Franken will not resign, but 'embarrassed and ashamed' over misconduct allegations

Sen. Al Franken broke his silence Sunday on sexual misconduct allegations, reportedly saying he’s “embarrassed and ashamed” but will not resign from the Senate.

“I've let a lot of people down and I'm hoping I can make it up to them and gradually regain their trust," Franken, a two-term Democratic Minnesota senator, told the Star Tribune of Minnesota.

Franken spoke to Minnesota news media eight days after the first allegations surfaced.
"I am just very sorry," Franken told WCCO in an interview Sunday, reiterating that he has "a long way to go to win back the trust of the people of Minnesota."
Four women have publicly said Franken groped them, including one who said he forcibly kissed her.
"I'm looking forward to getting back to work tomorrow," Franken, on Congress’ week-long Thanksgiving break, also said in the phone interview with the newspaper.
The first claim against Franken emerged nearly two weeks ago, when Leeann Tweeden, a Los Angeles radio host, said the senator forcibly kissed and groped her during a 2006 USO tour, before he was elected to the Senate.
She said Franken kissed her while rehearsing a sketch. And later on the tour, Franken was photographed with his hands over Tweeden’s breasts, grinning at the camera, as she slept.
Franken told Minnesota Public Radio on Sunday that he apologized to Tweeden, and called the photo "inexcusable."
"She ... didn't have any ability to consent. She had every right to feel violated by that photo," Franken said. "I have apologized to her, and I was very grateful that she accepted my apology."
A second allegation was reported Monday. Lindsay Menz told CNN that Franken grabbed her buttocks in 2010 when they posed together for a picture at a Minnesota state fair, while he was a senator.
Two other women have since anonymously reported such incidents to the Huffington Post. One woman said Franken groped her in 2007, during a photo at the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus. The other said he cupped her backside with his hand in 2008 and suggested that they go to the bathroom together at a Democratic fundraiser in Minneapolis.
Franken’s office said last weekend that the senator will not resign, amid calls for him to step down.
The senator has repeatedly apologized to Tweeden. He also said he feels badly that Menz felt “disrespected” but that he does not remember the photograph being taken.
Franken has said he has posed for "tens of thousands of photos" over the years but does not remember any in which he cupped a woman's backside, as several women have alleged.
The senator also told the newspaper on Sunday that he has spent the past week "thinking about how that could happen and I just recognize that I need to be more careful and a lot more sensitive in these situations."
He said he didn’t expect such allegations would follow the first one. “I certainly hope not,” he said about the possibility of similar allegations surfacing.

Congress faces pressure to come clean on sex harassment payouts

Both Democrat and Republican politicians on Sunday called for increased transparency on how lawmakers handled allegations of sexual misconduct in the past.

There is a bipartisan effort to pass legislation that would require all sexual harassment claims to be handled in the public, The New York Times reported. It is unclear if the legislation would expose payouts in the past. 

Some politicians are in favor of exposing these older cases, while others warn of potential issues with victims who've had no interest of going public with their claims.
“I think it should be more transparent,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I certainly think that if you accept taxpayer funds for settlement, that should be transparent.”
The call comes amid recent allegations against two high-profile politicians: Michigan Rep. John Conyers and Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.
Conyers is under investigation over allegations he sexually harassed female staff members. He said Sunday that he will step aside as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee while fiercely denying he acted inappropriately during his long tenure in Congress.
Denying the allegations, Conyers, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who was first elected to the House in 1964, urged lawmakers to allow him “due process.”
“I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family,” Conyers said.
Franken broke his silence Sunday after being swept into a nationwide tide of sexual harassment allegations, saying he feels "embarrassed and ashamed," but looks forward to returning to work on Monday and gradually regaining voters' trust.
Three women allege that Franken grabbed their buttocks while taking photos with them during campaign events. Franken told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that he doesn't remember the photographs but that such behavior is "not something I would intentionally do."
Asked whether he expected any other women to step forward with similar allegations, Franken said: "If you had asked me two weeks ago, 'Would any woman say I had treated her with disrespect?' I would have said no. So this has just caught me by surprise ... I certainly hope not."
The Times reported Sunday that the House is expected to adopt a resolution that all representatives and their staffs must take anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training.

Palestinian Terrorist Cartoons

Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient treatment for young terrorists who murder Israelis

Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know the Israeli legal system treats children more leniently than adults. Now 10 Democrats belonging to the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to give terrorist leaders yet another reason for using young people to murder even more innocent civilians.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., introduced legislation Nov. 14 – co-sponsored by nine other Democrats – calling on the State Department to “prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli military’s ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children.”

In a news release about the proposed legislation, McCollum said: “This legislation highlights Israel’s system of military detention of Palestinian children and ensures that no American assistance to Israel supports human rights violations …. Peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. Congress must not turn a blind eye the unjust and ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation.”
It is well established that recruiting and using young Palestinians to wage terror on Israeli civilians is part of the modus operandi of Palestinian terrorist leaders. For decades, members of the radical Palestinian political and religious leadership have been stirring up young people to wage war against the Jews and the Jewish State.
This was seen in the gruesome intifada that began in 2000, in which Palestinian teenagers committed dozens of attacks against Jewish Israelis on buses, in cafes and at nightclubs.

The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.

More recently – in what has become known as the “lone-wolf” intifada – children as young as 13 have stabbed Israelis with scissors, screwdrivers and knives.
Legislation proposed by the 10 Democrats is titled the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. The bill does not explicitly define at what age a person moves from childhood to adulthood.
While noting that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are held and prosecuted by Israeli military courts, the bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens.
Consider the terrorist attack that took place over this past summer in Halamish, about an hour outside Jerusalem. A Palestinian in his late teens – from a nearby village controlled by the Palestinian Authority – chose a Jewish house at random and fatally stabbed three members of a family as they ate their Sabbath dinner.
The Palestinian “child” murderer also wounded several other family members, while one mother hid her young children in an upstairs room until the terrorist left.
The triple-murder is reminiscent of a similar attack that occurred only six years earlier when two Palestinian teens armed with knives broke into the Fogel family home in Itamar as they slept on Friday night. The “children” butchered the mother, father and three of their children – including a 3-month-old baby as she slept in her crib.
As a result of such deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinian teenagers, Israel has had to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In August 2016, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a bill allowing imprisonment of terrorists as young as 12.
The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.
In introducing the bill, Knesset Member Anat Berko said: “This law was born of necessity. We have been experiencing a wave of terror for quite some time. A society is allowed to protect itself. To those who are murdered with a knife in the heart it does not matter if the child is 12 or 15. We’ve witnessed numerous cases where 11-year-old children were suicide bombers. Perhaps this law will also do something to protect these children from being used to slaughter people.”
In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation, Rep. McCollum argued that “peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children.”
McCollum’s hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for “the rights of children.” Yet she refuses to acknowledge or condemn Palestinians who perpetrate acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks on Jews.
McCollum expressed no outrage when Palestinian leaders were caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to stab Israelis.
And the Minnesota member of Congress failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps – under the mantra “Vanguards of Liberation” – aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel. Nor did she speak up when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited by the Hamas leadership to build collapsed on their bodies. 
So I ask: What do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would the Democrats protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not.
No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists.
Israel has a right – according to international law – to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, including those committed by young Palestinians. It actually has an obligation to do so.
If Israel is punished for trying to protect its citizens from teen terrorists, this would incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their goal of wiping the Israel off the map.
But rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as terrorist pawns, the 10 congressional Democrats chose to single out Israel for punishment.
People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and the Jewish State.
For Shame on this group of biased anti-Israel Democrats, which includes the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: André Carson of Indiana: John Conyers of Michigan; Danny K. Davis of Illinois; Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon;  Raul Grijalva and Luis V. Gutiérrez  of Arizona; and Chellie Pingree of Maine. They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.  

California hands out millions of dollars in tax credits to filmmakers. Can the rest of us get some too?

In this Oct. 8, 2016 file photo, director Quentin Tarantino poses for photographers at the opening ceremony of the 8th Lumiere Festival, in Lyon, central France.

I think Quentin Tarantino is a fine filmmaker. From “Reservoir Dogs” to “Jackie Brown” to “Inglourious Basterds,” he delivers. ”Pulp Fiction” may just be the greatest movie of its era.

But, as a resident of California, I’ve got a problem. Not with him personally, but with the financing of his latest film.

He recently had to drop his longstanding business relationship with Harvey Weinstein (for obvious reasons) and shop his ninth feature, a story related to the Charles Manson murders, to the major studios.
Sony got the project. But, in addition, his film will receive an $18 million production tax credit from the California Film Commission, for which it will be shot in-state.
Tarantino’s project is only one of several films getting a big break. They’re all part of a tax credit program created by the California Legislature that, over the years, will offer hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits.
The Film Commission justifies its actions by claiming California needs the program to compete for projects.
Really? Then how does the state justify hitting up its taxpayers for so much? We residents do even more business in the state than film companies, but we’re not getting any breaks.
Quite the opposite. California has the highest income tax rate in the nation. The state’s top rate is 13.3 percent. Some dismiss it, saying that’s just for millionaires, but if you make just $43,000 the rate is 8 percent, and if you make $54,000 it’s 9.3 percent.
California also has a huge gasoline tax and the highest state-level sales tax in the nation. Overall, Californians shoulder one of the largest tax burdens in our country. And while we’re at it, the state also ranks high in the burden it places on businesses.
So I have to ask: If Golden State leaders believe giving a tax break to filmmakers is good for the local economy, why don’t they want to give a break in general to all residents? Sauce for the goose and all that.
My guess is that Tarantino was going to film in-state anyway. The Manson murders took place here, and when he’s got a story set in California, he shoots here.
But even if he might have gone elsewhere for a better deal, guess what? It’s not that hard for an individual citizen to pack up and leave a state if another one offers a better deal. That goes double for businesses.
On top of which, high taxes can discourage people from moving here, and from locating their business here. (The numbers seem to bear this out. In recent years, the rate of population growth has been cut to less than half of what it was.)
So if the state wants to make it easier on Tarantino, can’t they also try to take it easier on me, and tens of millions of my fellow Californians?
In effect, my tax money is going to subsidize Tarantino’s film. I’ll be the first in line to buy a ticket when it opens, but don’t make me an unwilling investor. Not unless I get to own a piece of it.

George HW Bush now longest-living president

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush arrives on the field to do the coin toss ahead of the start of Super Bowl LI, in Houston, Feb. 5, 2017.  (Reuters)

Former President George H.W. Bush reached another milestone Saturday when he became the longest-living commander-in-chief in U.S. history.

Bush, who was born June 12, 1924, reached the age of 93 years and 166 days, meaning he has now lived longer than the previous record holder, former President Gerald R. Ford, who died in December 2006 at the age of 93 years and 165 days, the Washington Times reported.

But Jimmy Carter is a close No. 2 behind Bush among living former presidents. Carter was born Oct. 1, 1924, only four months after Bush, and ranks at No. 4 overall -- at age 93 years and 55 days as of Saturday.
Remarkably, founding father John Adams – the nation’s second president – ranks No. 5 on the list, having lived to age 90 years, 247 days, according to political writer Gabe Fleisher.
Unlike his high-ranking counterparts from the 20^th and 21^st centuries, Adams, who lived mostly in the 18^th century, lacked access to many modern medical advances.
After Bush and Carter, the other living presidents have a long way to go before attempting to set a new mark for longevity. Here are their ages and birth dates:
Donald Trump: 71 (June 14, 1946)
George W. Bush: 71 (July 6, 1946)
Bill Clinton: 71 (Aug. 19, 1946)
Barack Obama: 56 (Aug. 4, 1961)

Democrats' 'DREAMer' demands threaten spending bill, gov shutdown in coming weeks

A showdown could loom in December.

Not over tax reform, but over funding the government.

The federal government is funded through December 8. Republicans control the House and Senate. But historically, the GOP has failed on its own to provide the necessary votes to avert a government shutdown.
The party required a bailout from Democrats as recently as Sept. 2015 to help make up the vote deficit and pass those spending bills. Republicans sometimes balk for a variety of reasons. They don’t like stopgap appropriations packages. They’re disgusted by the process. They demand more for defense. What about entitlement spending? Where’s the plan to reduce the national debt?
As an aside, the answer to the final question wasn’t really addressed in the recent budget framework approved by the House and Senate to muscle through tax reform. And deficits are forecast to balloon by at least $1.5 trillion in the Republican tax bill.
But back to government funding …
When Republicans find themselves short in these government funding crises, they turn to Democrats. But Democratic votes could prove even more valuable in this December’s scenario.
It all has to do with DACA and DREAMers.
DACA is the abbreviation for an Obama administration-era program “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Democrats and some Republicans often refer to undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. as minors as DREAMers. That’s derived from the bipartisan DREAM Act, short for “The Development, Relief, Education for Minors” bill.
A coalition of liberal Democrats is now flexing its muscles on the upcoming government spending bill. Many Democrats insist that congressional leaders attach the DREAM Act to the spending package, or else.
“If there’s no clean DREAM Act in the budget, we’re not voting for it,” threatened Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y. 
Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently challenged House Republicans to pass the spending bill on their own.
“But if … you need our votes, include a clean DREAM Act,” the Washington Democrat said.
“Republicans are the majority until it comes to governance,” argued Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. “Oh. You don’t have 218 votes? We’re happy to help keep the government open.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., head to the White House Tuesday afternoon to discuss “end-of-year legislative issues,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters.
Pelosi favors attaching a DACA fix to the spending package. Schumer also believes that’s a possible legislative path for DACA.
“We believe we’ll get it in the omnibus (spending) bill because both Republicans and Democrats want it,” Schumer said. “If DACA is in the bill, (President Trump) won’t veto it.”
Is there a risk of a government shutdown if Democrats insist on shoving DACA into the spending measure despite possible presidential objections?
“It won’t come to that,” Schumer replied.
Tell that to those on the right -- and maybe even those in the White House.
“DACA will not be in the government funding bill,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Including DACA in the spending plan could be the only way for Republicans to obtain necessary Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown.
And Schumer appears correct:  There are Republicans who want to advance a DACA solution. A group of moderate House Republicans held a press conference last week calling for just that. But immigration politics are dicey for the right.
Latching the DACA plan to the spending bill poses tremendous risk for Republicans. Ryan and McConnell are sure to draw the ire of the hard right and lawmakers who fret about border security, a border wall or “amnesty.”
“He won’t be speaker for long if he does that,” a conservative House Republican predicted about Ryan if he allows a DACA provision in the spending legislation.
Ryan’s wants to cleave DACA from the spending bill. When asked if he would consider a DACA attachment in the spending legislation, he replied, “I don’t.”
The speaker also said the DACA fix should be considered “on its own merits.” And he questioned whether Congress had to address the issue by the end of the year.
“We have until, I believe, March,” Ryan said. “So I don’t think we need to have artificial deadlines within the one we already have.”
It could be time to horse trade. Democrats hold many of the cards in this poker game. But the administration has cards to play, too.
Trump may not like the idea of an immediate DACA fix. But how about a DACA deal in exchange for extra money for a border wall.
“As the president explained in his letter to the House and Senate leadership, the administration’s reform priorities ‘must be included as a part of any legislation addressing the status of DACA recipients,’ ” said a White House official to Fox.
“These reforms have been identified by our nation’s law enforcement professionals as a vital safeguard for the American people to both prevent new illegal immigration (border wall, legal loopholes) and to end chain migration.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has said since summer he wants a DACA fix soon. But Hoyer demurred when asked whether Democrats would demand a DACA link to the spending bill in exchange for Democratic votes.
“I don’t want to get there,” he said.
Why should Democrats cede their demands on DACA just to help keep the government open in a bill without an arrangement for DREAMers? Hoyer has said for years that when it comes to funding the government, Democrats will always do “the right thing.” But Hoyer also believes it’s incumbent for Democrats and the rest of Congress to do “the right thing” for DREAMers.
“We do the right thing,” he said. “It is unacceptable, because we do the right thing, to be held hostage to bad policies because ‘you Democrats will do the right thing and while we do, we Republicans, will do the wrong thing. We will shut down the government as they have.’ We are not going to be held hostage by doing the right thing, either.”
The latest wrinkle is that Trump and congressional leaders may try to load up the spending package with hurricane relief for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Congress has already forked over $52 billion in disaster relief. The administration submitted its third disaster spending request to Congress late last week: $44 billion. But the plan includes offsets to counteract the new spending.
Just a few weeks ago, some lawmakers thought the key to courting Democratic votes for the government spending legislation was to add on disaster relief.
“You mean to tell me they (Democrats) won’t vote for the spending? All of the disaster aid and Puerto Rico?” Meadows asked rhetorically.
But members of both parties excoriated the hurricane plan.
The OMB request "is very disappointing. Not only is it completely inadequate, it shows OMB’s complete lack of understanding of the fundamental needs of Texans,” groused Texas GOP Rep. John Culberson, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and potentially a vulnerable GOPer next election cycle. “Our community is still trying to recover, and this request is a nightmare for those who are trying to rebuild their lives.”
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said, “The administration’s third disaster supplemental request is an insult. This request’s stinginess is both contemptable and ineffectual.”
So all eyes are trained on the big White House meeting Tuesday afternoon with the president and top Congressional leaders.
Congressional Republicans are racing to complete tax reform. But one thing is for certain: The GOP faces disaster if they fail to fund the government.
Democrats again hold many of the cards. And Trump and congressional Republicans may have to cede a lot of ground on DACA and disaster relief if they don’t want a government shutdown tussle to sideline their tax reform efforts in December.

Pro Gun Cartoons

'Ghost gun' kits targeted by anti-gun group

A gun control group on Friday asked two web hosting companies to shut down websites selling devices that are used to make untraceable homemade firearms -- also known as ghost guns.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked that Shopify and DreamHost -- hosts of GhostGunner.net and GhostGuns.com -- disable the websites for violating the hosting companies’ terms of service.

The sites sell kits that help create homemade semi-automatic weapons and can be purchased legally for a few hundred dollars without the kind of background check required for traditional gun purchases.
But Cody Wilson, who runs GhostGunner.net, said the products he sells on his website are legal and in compliance with federal regulations. He said although there is no legal requirement that he conduct background checks, he tries to take precautions to make sure the weapons aren’t used nefariously.
“This is an attempt to apply pressure to deplatform a legal, American business selling legal products to law-abiding customers,” he said.

"This is an attempt to apply pressure to deplatform a legal, American business selling legal products to law-abiding customers."

- Cody Wilson, operator of GhostGunner.net

The Giffords Law Center was founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who made headlines in January 2011 when she survived an assassination attempt in Tuscon, Ariz.
Attorneys for the gun control group said that homemade weapons are increasingly being used in crimes and asked each of the companies to “invoke its policies to help stem the tide of this illegal, deadly behavior.”
They argue that Shopify and DreamHost should use their ability to terminate the websites, arguing that the two sites sell “the sort of products that have already caused scores of senseless deaths — and are likely to cause many more, unless taken off the market.”
Authorities say that the gunman who killed his wife and four others earlier this month in Northern California built two semi-automatic rifles at his home despite having been barred from owning guns.
Representatives for GhostGuns.com, Shopify and DreamHost did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

Trump says he passed on being TIME's 'Person of the Year'

In a tweet on Friday, President Trump claimed he “took a pass” on being TIME Magazine’s 2017 “Person of the Year” after the publication reportedly called and said they’d “probably” offer him the spot.

“Time Magazine called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be named “Man (Person) of the Year,” like last year, but I would have to agree to an interview and a major photoshoot,” Trump said in the tweet. “I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!”

But in a tweet from TIME Friday night, the company said, "The President is incorrect about how we choose Person of the Year," and that the recipient will not be announced until Dec. 6.
Trump was awarded the title last year after he won the 2016 presidential election.
The magazine’s managing editor, Nancy Gibbs, said last year that the choice of Trump was “straightforward.”
In 2015, Trump made the short-list for the award but it was instead offered to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At the time, Trump said in a tweet that he had predicted he wouldn’t win and referred to Merkel as the “person who is ruining Germany.”
TRUMP DENOUNCES ATTACK IN EGYPT, CALLS AGAIN FOR TRAVEL BAN
TIME recently defined its “Person of the Year” as “a person (or people) who has had the most influence over the news in the last 12 months.”
While the magazine’s editors make the final choice, they reportedly take into consideration the opinions of their readers and let them vote, TIME said.
According to their posted results as of Friday night, Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was leading the pack, followed by Trump, “The Dreamers” and “#MeToo.”

Earliest Trump mention in Panama Papers dates to 1990s: Report

A reference to a Trump Corporation condo purchase and sale in the 1990s appears in the Panama Papers, a report says.  (Reuters)

A reference to a mysterious condominium purchase and sale in the 1990s is the earliest mention of Donald Trump in the notorious Panama Papers, according to a report published Friday.

A Panamanian company called Process Consultants Inc., which was owned through bearer shares, purchased a residential unit in the Trump Palace skyscraper in New York City in 1991, investigative journalist Jake Bernstein reported, citing the documents.

Bernstein is the author of "Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite."
Bearer shares, which provide a convenient means to transfer property anonymously, have been tightly regulated in recent years because they are frequently used in money-laundering and other illicit ventures.
The directors of Process Consultants (which is sometimes spelled “Process Consultans” in the documents) were employed by Mossack Fonseca, the once-obscure law firm whose clients were exposed by the massive Panama Papers leak.
But these directors were in reality “nominee directors,” Bernstein wrote, meaning that they were not the real decision-makers. Companies sometimes name nominee directors to obfuscate who is really running operations.
Jürgen Mossack, founder of the firm, was one of the nominee directors of Process Consultants, Bernstein reported.
In 1994, Process Consultants sold the apartment for $355,000 to a woman from Hong Kong, using the Trump Corporation as its broker.
While there is no indication that the sale was illegal, the quick turnaround on the condo and the secretive nature of Process Consultants spurred some concern that money laundering may have been involved, the New York Daily News reported.
Trump's name pops up elsewhere in the Panama Papers, but Bernstein’s find marks the president's earliest known appearance.
The 2016 leak of the Panama Papers, a trove of nearly 12 million financial documents tracing Mossack Fonseca's efforts to help politicians and celebrities shield their money from taxes, led to the removal of Pakistan and Iceland’s prime ministers and numerous high-level investigations around the world.
Early in November, Trump's Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, was revealed in the so-called “Paradise Papers” to have conducted large business deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law.

Conyers accused of taking staff meeting in his underwear, ordering subordinate to babysit his kid

No one had to guess whether Rep. John Conyers wore boxers or briefs, according to a former key staffer, who said the embattled Michigan lawmaker once called her into a meeting while sporting only his skivvies.

Melanie Sloan, a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee, said she was called up to the long-serving congressman's office to discuss an issue only to find him “walking  around in his underwear.”

Sloan is the third woman to accuse Conyers of inappropriate behavior.
“It made me increasingly anxious and depressed about going to work every day,” she said, adding that “there was no way to fix it.”

“It made me increasingly anxious and depressed about going to work every day."

“There was no mechanism I could use, no person I could go to,” she said.
Sloan was a well-known Washington lawyer when she worked as Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1990s. It was not clear exactly when the strange encounter with the lawmaker, now 88, occurred.
During her time working for the committee, she claims Conyers often screamed at her, fired her then re-hired her, criticized her for not wearing stockings and once even ordered her to babysit one of his children.
While those revelations came out earlier this week, word of Conyers, who was first elected to Congress in 1964, taking a meeting in his underwear came this week in a Detroit Free Press article.
Though Sloan maintains Conyers did not sexually assault her, she told the Detroit Free Press that “his constant stream of abuse was difficult to handle and it was certainly damaging to my self-respect and self-esteem.”
Conyers’ hometown newspaper earlier this week called for his resignation in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against him as well as a questionable payout to one alleged victim.
Conyers is accused of using taxpayer dollars to settle a claim in secret, after a former staff reportedly claimed she was fired for rejecting his advances.
In a scathing editorial published late Tuesday, the Detroit Free Press demanded the Democrat step down immediately.
The paper called Conyers' actions “the kind of behavior that can never be tolerated in a public official, much less an elected representative of the people.”
“He should resign his position and allow the investigation into his behavior to unfold without the threat that it would render him, and the people he now represents, effectively voiceless,” the board wrote.
BuzzFeed reported Monday that Conyers settled a wrongful termination complaint in 2015 with a staffer who claimed she was dismissed because she did not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”
Conyers acknowledged in a statement that his office paid his accuser the money -- reportedly a $27,000 sum -- but “vehemently” denied the underlying claims.
“I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so,” Conyers, who has spent 53 years in Congress, said. “My office resolved the allegations – with an express denial of liability – to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative.”
But the Detroit Free Press, which described Conyers as an “undisputed hero of the civil rights movement,” took issue with how Conyers’ office chose to handle the issue.
After the alleged victim made a formal complaint through Congress' Office of Compliance, Conyers’ office reportedly pushed to handle the situation on its own. If the woman dropped her complaint, signed a legal document saying Conyers had done nothing wrong and promised not to make any additional claims against him, she would be re-hired as a temporary “no-show” employee and paid $27,111.75 for three months, according to reports. The accuser agreed to the terms.
Conyers’ office defended the agreement as a way to avoid litigation – though House ethics rules bar lawmakers from keeping an employee on the payroll who isn’t doing anything.
"A House member can’t retain an employee who isn’t performing work commensurate with the pay, and regardless, can’t give back pay for work that stretches further than a month," the editorial board wrote.
While acknowledging that payoffs happen in the private sector, the board said “it should never, ever happen where public dollars (and public accountability) are concerned.”
Calling it a “public betrayal,” the board wrote it’s impossible to know how often the practice takes places in Congress but added Conyers should have known better.
Even though resigning would end his otherwise “stellar career,” the paper wrote that it’s “the appropriate consequence for the stunning subterfuge his office has indulged here, and a needed warning to other members of Congress that this can never be tolerated.”
The House Ethics Committee announced Tuesday it has opened an investigation into the matter.

Bill Clinton and Monica Cartoons

Sex scandal boomerang: Is the left ready for a Bill Clinton 'reckoning'?

When Jeff Sessions testified on the Hill yesterday, he was grilled about the Justice Department's disclosure that it may seek a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton.

Was it political retribution? Perhaps there should be a probe of whether donations to the Clinton Foundation were tied to a 2010 Obama administration decision, in which Clinton participated, to allow a Russian agency to buy a company that had uranium rights in America.

But after President Trump repeatedly urged such an investigation, critics say that naming a prosecutor would undermine DOJ’s independence. The attorney general said the decision would not be made on political grounds.
There is, at the moment, another drive under way to look back at Clinton — in this case, Bill Clinton.
In light of the intense focus on sexual assault and harassment allegations involving Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., business leaders and prominent journalists, the question arises: What about Bubba? And that question is being posed by liberal commentators.
Having covered all the Clinton sex controversies, it's generally not true that the mainstream media gave the 42nd president a pass. The Washington Post investigated the Paula Jones story and broke the news about the Monica Lewinsky probe. Kathleen Willey appeared on "60 Minutes." The Post and Wall Street Journal reported on Juanita Broaddrick, although NBC held an interview with her until after Clinton was acquitted at his Senate impeachment trial.
But a number of liberals defended Clinton during the 1990s against the allegations, blaming them on what Hillary famously called a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Chris Hayes, the liberal prime-time host on MSNBC, tweeted the other day: "As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s 'what about Bill Clinton' stuff is, it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him."
In a piece called "The Reckoning," Atlantic contributing editor Caitlin Flanagan wrote Monday that we should "not forget the sex crimes" of which "Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied.
At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones says, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.
"It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism."
As Exhibit A, Flanagan points to this 1998 New York Times op-ed by feminist leader Gloria Steinem.
If the allegations were true, Steinem wrote, "President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy. But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the media to call for his resignation or impeachment."
On Kathleen Willey’s tale of Oval Office groping, Steinem said: "Even if the allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took 'no' for an answer."
In the case of Paula Jones, "Mr. Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection." His relationship with Lewinsky, despite the "power imbalance," was not coerced.
And he should stay in office, writes Steinem, because he was "vital" to "reproductive freedom."
This is hugely embarrassing to read now, nearly two decades later.
New York Times liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg now writes that she believes Juanita Broaddrick, that revisiting the Clinton scandals is "painful," and that "Democrats are guilty of apologizing for Clinton when they shouldn’t have."
With a lament that Hillary had to pay the price for Bill’s misdeeds, Goldberg says:
"It's fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick's allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society."
In the cauldron of impeachment politics, some liberals were as wedded to defending Clinton despite the mounting evidence as some conservatives today are to defending Roy Moore.
But there is a defend-our-guy-at-all-costs mentality in such cases that at least some liberals are belatedly attempting to confront.
Footnote: Sessions, whose old Senate seat is at stake in the Roy Moore race, made no attempt to defend his fellow Alabamian at yesterday’s hearing. "I have no reason to doubt these women," he said.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.