FBI Trump Bias Cartoons

Report: FBI Deputy Director Mccabe To Retire Amid Allegations Of Bias

FILE –   In this June 7, 2017, file photo, FBI acting director Andrew McCabe listens during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington. On Dec. 21, Republicans brought the topic back to Clinton as two committees began conducting interviews in a new investigation of the FBI and its 2016 inquiry into Clinton’s email server. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

As FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe faces accusations of political bias, new report he is also planning to retire early next year.
The report, published on Saturday suggests McCabe plans to leave his role in early march when he is eligible for pension benefits.
The former right hand man of fired FBI Director James Comey has dealt with criticism from lawmakers on capitol hill, for the FBI’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and more recently the Russia probe.
This comes after McCabe faced hours of questioning behind closed doors on capitol hill this week as GOP leaders continue to investigate alleged political bias from McCabe and the agency.
Meanwhile, President Trump slams the FBI Deputy Director, saying he is racing the clock to retire.
In what appears to be a response to reports Andrew McCabe is stepping down next year, the President fired off a series of tweets Saturday claiming McCabe is waiting until he receives full benefits to quit.

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

Additionally, The President blasted McCabe for alleged political bias, questioning how his wife can be given $700,000 for her campaign by Clinton puppets during the investigation.

Homeland Security says chain migration let terrorism-related suspects into U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security said chain migration is the common element in two cases allegedly tied to terrorism activities, according to a statement released Saturday.

In the statement on Twitter, Acting Press Secretary Tyler Houlton said DHS “can confirm the suspect involved in a terror attack in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and another suspect arrested on terror-related money laundering charges were both beneficiaries of extended family chain migration.”

BREAKING: My statement on Immigration Backgrounds of Recent Terror-Related Suspects: pic.twitter.com/I3JfZOfuBh

— Tyler Q. Houlton (@SpoxDHS) December 24, 2017

Chain migration is when an immigrant gains legal entry into the U.S. via sponsorship by a family member who’s already a legal resident or citizen. The Trump administration launched a campaign against the immigration system, in favor of a more merit-based structure, favoring education and job potential as factors.
WHITE HOUSE TO PUSH MERIT-BASED IMMIGRATION IN NEW CAMPAIGN
The memo referred to Ahmed Aminamin El-Mofty, 51, who it said was a naturalized U.S. citizen admitted to the U.S. from Egypt on a family-based visa. El-Mofty went on a shooting spree Friday in Harrisburg and was reportedly targeting police officers.
The gunman, carrying two rifles and a shotgun, fired at officers in multiple locations.
"He fired several shots at a Capitol police officer and at a Pennsylvania state police trooper in marked vehicles," Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico said. The state trooper was injured but is “doing well,” he said.
El-Mofty pursued the trooper to a residential neighborhood and encountered law enforcement officers, who ultimately killed him after he fired “many shots” at them.
The statement also mentioned Zoobia Shahnaz, who DHS said was a naturalized U.S. citizen who entered from Pakistan, also on a family-based visa. Shahnaz was indicted on Dec. 14 after she allegedly laundered more than $85,000 through Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies overseas to the Islamic State.
END CHAIN MIGRATION, AS TRUMP WANTS, AND SWITCH TO MERIT-BASED IMMIGRATION
Acquiring the money through fraudulently obtained credit cards and a bank loan, Shahnaz laundered the funds to people in Pakistan, China and Turkey and “planned to travel to Syria and join ISIS,” federal officials said.
Shahnaz was charged in federal court with bank fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and three counts of money laundering, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
In the DHS statement Saturday, Houlton said, “These incidents highlight the Trump administration’s concerns with extended chain migration.”
“Both chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program have been exploited by terrorists to attack our country,” Houlton said. “Not only are the programs less effective at driving economic growth than merit-based immigration systems used by nearly all other countries, the programs make it more difficult to keep dangerous people out of the United States and to protect the safety of every American.”

With immigrant pardons, Gov. Brown butts heads again with White House

Idiot

Diablo

Diablo

Butting heads once again with the White House on immigration, California Gov. Jerry Brown used a Christmas holiday tradition to grant pardons Saturday to two men who were on the verge of being deported for committing crimes while in the U.S.

Brown characterized the pardons as acts of mercy, according to an article on Saturday in the Sacramento Bee.

The Democratic governor moved as federal officials in recent months have detained and deported immigrants with felony convictions that resulted in the loss of their legal residency status, including many with nonviolent offenses from years ago.
With the pardons, the reason for deportation may be eliminated, lawyer Kevin Lo of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, which represented some of the men in a recent class-action lawsuit, said in the Bee. The pardoned immigrants will still need to ask immigration courts to reopen their cases, he said.
In all, Brown pardoned 132 people for mostly nonviolent and drug-related crimes, and commuted the sentences of 19 others, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Brown’s pardons involved two Northern California Cambodian men picked up in October in immigration sweeps, Mony Neth of Modesto and Rottanak Kong of Davis.
Kong was convicted on felony joyriding in 2003 in Stanislaus County at age 25 and sentenced to a year in jail. Neth was convicted on a felony weapons charge with a gang enhancement and a misdemeanor charge of receiving stolen property with a value of $400 or less in 1995 in Stanislaus County, The Bee said.
Both men came to the U.S. as children after their families fled the Khmer Rouge.
Brown last defied the White House in October by signing into law so-called “sanctuary state” legislation, placing limitations on state and local law enforcement’s ability to help federal officials enforce immigration violations.

North Korea calls UN sanctions 'an act of war,' 'rigged up by the US'

North Korea on Sunday condemned the latest U.N. sanctions as “an act of war and tantamount to a complete economic blockade” and threatened to “punish those who support the measure.”

The response follows a unanimous vote Friday by the U.N. Security Council for tougher measures against Kim Jong Un's regime for its November test of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

With the resolution, the U.N. aims to limit North Korea’s access to refined petroleum products and crude oil. In addition, the U.S.-backed resolution threatens to impose further restrictions if North Korea conducts another nuclear test or launches another ICBM, Reuters reported.
North Korea responded with a statement published by the state-run Korean Central News Agency: “We define this ‘sanctions resolution’ rigged up by the U.S. and its followers as a grave infringement upon the sovereignty of our Republic, as an act of war violating peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and the region and categorically reject the ‘resolution.’”

KCNA: "Those countries that raised their hands in favor of this 'sanctions resolution' shall be held completely responsible for all the consequences to be caused by the 'resolution' and we will make sure for ever and ever that they pay heavy price for what they have done."

— Jonathan Cheng (@JChengWSJ) December 24, 2017

After the country’s latest ICBM test Nov. 29, Kim declared the country's nuclear force to be complete, and boasted of having all of the U.S. mainland within range.
But North Korea’s foreign ministry insisted that the weapons were for self-defense and were not in violation of international law. However, North Korea has been pursuing its nuclear and missile programs for years in defiance of U.N. sanctions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been critical of China – North Korea’s biggest trading partner – for not playing a bigger role in easing tensions. China has preferred to address North Korea with more measured solutions.
China said that the latest U.N. resolution highlights the need for a diplomatic solution to reduce tensions. A state-run tabloid in China suggested that the U.S. had pushed for even harsher sanctions, and that there was no way the U.N. would allow the U.S. to pursue military action on the Korean Peninsula.
“The difference between the new resolution and the original U.S. proposal," the tabloid said in an editorial, "reflects the will of China and Russia to prevent war and chaos on the Korean Peninsula. If the U.S. proposals were accepted, only war is foreseeable.”

New World Order Cartoons

Trump's national security strategy shows he is willing to champion American values around the world

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump presented a revised version of U.S. foreign policy that was a departure from the “New World Order” espoused by President George W. Bush and modified by President Obama.

With the release of his National Security Strategy report this week, it is obvious that President Trump has a handle on “realism” and a belief – justified in my view – that the world is an increasingly dangerous place.

In naming China and Russia as disruptive forces on the world stage, the president’s strategy notes that the two nations are rivals that must be challenged – but not necessarily enemies that must be defeated. That’s a distinction important for future tactics.
The report identifies Iran and North Korea as rogue states clearly interested in regional destabilization. It also identifies transnational threats such as jihadists and cyber warriors.
While these designations yield to the obvious, they also depart from the Obama narrative that the arc of history is moving inexorably toward stabilization.
Some critics of President Trump agree that there isn’t an arc of history that assures U.S. dominance. That’s correct, but it is wrong to argue that the Obama team didn’t employ this argument through its continuing assertions such as “the tide of war is receding.”
Since the Obama foreign policy mission was disengagement, President Obama underestimated the role unpleasant actors might play in the vacuum he left behind.
President Trump’s newly stated national security strategy is a clear corrective to that misguided vision. He puts the threats we face in perspective, indicating his desire to marshal “our will and capabilities” to compete and prevent unfavorable shifts in various regions of the world.
In the past, it was conventional wisdom to contend that China and Russia were invited into the global forums so that they would be tied down by a rules-based order. But this did not happen and was a further extension of Obama naiveté.
President Trump recognizes the return of “great power competition” that belies ideological commitments. He embraces the view of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger regarding a world of balance of power that relies on clearly viewed national interest.
President Trump’s assessment of Russia demonstrates this point: “Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners.” So much for friendly rhetoric.
From my point of view, the most newsworthy portion of the report is the willingness of the Trump administration to “champion American values” around the globe, including fair treatment for religious minorities and “the dignity of individuals.”
Rather than hide behind the gilded belief that America is widely detested, the president is sending out the message the U.S. is an unequivocal defender of Western Civilization and has the inner strength to defeat the dark impulses of totalitarianism.
President Trump is unquestionably a realist; yet there is a decidedly romantic dimension to his vision as well. His leap away from “perfection” to stability is one thing. On the other hand, the president wants to win because he believes in American principles.
As a result, President Trump envisions our military prowess and economic muscle as offering distinct advantages. These conditions must be nurtured and cared for, but when competition emerges our side should prevail.
America rose to the occasion when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, believing at that time that our “edge” was lost. But we rose to new heights in our schools and factories. We accepted the challenge and in a decade we had reacquired our national confidence. That is the romantic side of the strategic story in this 68-page document that sets the stage for the Trump doctrine.

Trump's travel ban exceeds presidential authority, court rules

Doesn't Work here anyway.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order at the White House, June 15, 2017.  (Reuters)

A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled late Friday that President Donald Trump exceeded his presidential powers with the third version of his controversial travel ban.  

The panel ruled unanimously in a 77-page decision that read, “We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once against exceeds the scope of his delegated authority.”

But the ruling by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will have no immediate effect because the Supreme Court decided earlier this month that Trump's ban could be fully implemented while the administration appeals a pair of injunctions against the policy, Politico reported.
Presidential Proclamation 9645, signed in September, is the third iteration of the Trump administration’s controversial travel ban this year, after previous versions in March and January.
The latest version restricts nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen from traveling to the U.S. Unlike the previous versions, the latest installment of the travel ban has no definitive expiration date.
According to the Trump administration, the countries were chosen because they don’t do a good job of verifying or sharing information about their citizens and thus the U.S. government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they might pose to the U.S.
Judges have previously ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives Trump broad powers to regulate immigration. But in order for the travel ban to be upheld, the Trump administration would have to legally prove that a person’s entry from the list of banned countries would be harmful to the interests of the United States.

Trump era brings changes to presidential coin

A U.S. Army officer holds a zippered pouch with "Challenge Coins" for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to hand out to U.S. military personnel stationed at Yokota Air Base in Japan, Sept. 17, 2012.  (Reuters)

Now that Donald Trump is president, the traditional presidential challenge coin has undergone major changes, including the addition of his "Make America Great Again" slogan.

In addition, the presidential seal has been replaced with an eagle bearing Trump's signature, the Washington Post reported.

The 13 arrows representing the original states are also gone. The national motto, "E pluribus unum" -- a Latin phrase that means "Out of many, one" -- also has been removed.
Some ethics experts questioned the unprecedented decision to include a campaign slogan on the coins, which are often given to members of the military, the newspaper reported.
“For the commander in chief to give a political token with a campaign slogan on it to military officers would violate the important principle of separating the military from politics, as well as diminishing the tradition of the coin,” Trevor Potter, a Republican and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, told the Post.
In addition to his signature, Trump’s name appears three times on the coin, which is nearly twice as thick as its predecessors, while the traditional subdued silver and copper coloring is replaced with gold, the report said.
Challenge coins originated from military baubles bearing division insignia and presented by officers to troops for exemplary service, the Post reported.
Not everyone in the Trump administration has created their own challenge coin; among them is Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general.
“It’s not about him. It’s about the person whose hand he is shaking,” Mattis' spokeswoman told the Post.
White House officials declined to say how much the coins cost or who designed them, according to the report.

Democrats 'manufacturing a crisis' over prospect of Mueller firing, sources say

Democrats are “manufacturing a crisis” with their drumbeat of warnings about the possible firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, sources familiar with the relationship between Mueller’s office and President Trump’s legal team say.

The sources insisted to Fox News that Mueller is not going to be fired, and the discussion is nothing more than speculation and rumor. Further, they said the legal team has an “excellent” and “very professional” relationship with Mueller and his team.

“The fact is [Democrats] have been caught red handed manufacturing a crisis and all the phony allegations,” one source said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is among Democrats warning about a Mueller firing -- despite Trump denials.  (AP)

Over the past couple weeks, Democratic lawmakers and liberal activists have ramped up warnings about a potential Mueller firing and called for protests to defend the “Republic” if Trump takes that step.
KURTZ: TRUMP SAYS HE WON'T FIRE MUELLER, BUT MEDIA WON'T LISTEN
GOP frustration over Mueller’s probe has indeed intensified in recent weeks amid allegations of bias on his investigative team. Complaints have focused lately on the disclosure of anti-Trump text messages between two former Mueller investigators. Trump’s team also alleged last weekend that Mueller and his investigators improperly accessed emails from the transition team before the start of the administration.
But Trump recently denied any plans to fire Mueller, as did legal counsel Ty Cobb.
The only sign of a looming firing any lawmaker cited was an unconfirmed rumor. Democratic California Rep. Jackie Speier claimed a week ago that “the rumor on the Hill” was Trump would fire Mueller at the end of this week, after lawmakers leave D.C. for the recess – which has not happened as of Friday afternoon.
“It would be a Saturday massacre – worse than that,” Speier said on KQED Newsroom last week. “Without a doubt there will be an impeachment effort.”
Despite denials from the Trump team, more and more Democratic lawmakers amplified their warnings in the run-up to the recess.
“If the president were to fire special counsel Mueller, our country would face a constitutional crisis,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., delivered a letter advising the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee to be prepared to call the panel back to Washington – and consider impeachment – if Trump ousts Mueller.
“Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee should be ready to launch an immediate investigation into obstruction of justice if the President takes this action over the holidays and be prepared to fight to impeach him,” he wrote.
Fox News’ Judson Berger and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
John Roberts currently serves as the chief White House correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network as a senior national correspondent in January 2011, based in the Atlanta bureau.

Illegal Voter Cartoons

Trump says he's not firing Mueller, but the media keep insisting he might

The media are constantly warning that President Trump might fire Robert Mueller, triggering a political firestorm and a constitutional crisis.

There is, however, a small problem with this story line: Trump and his top aides keep denying it.

Not that journalists are letting that spoil the fun.
A reporter asked the president days ago if he was considering firing Bob Mueller.
"No I'm not," Trump said.
On "America’s Newsroom" yesterday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: "We have no intention of firing Bob Mueller. We are continuing to work closely and cooperate with him. We look forward to seeing this hoax wrap up very soon."
Now an investigation that has led to an indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager and a guilty plea from his former national security adviser is not exactly a hoax. But Sanders was unambiguous on the firing question.
Still, the pundits keep pounding away. On MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" yesterday, John Heilemann told Republican Sen. Bob Corker: "I want to ask you personally what your reaction would be if the president did try to fire the special prosecutor."
Corker said "there would be an uprising and a revolt."
In fairness, Heilemann was reacting in part to a Senate floor speech by Democrat Mark Warner, who declared that any attempt by Trump to dump Mueller or shut down the Russia probe "would be a gross abuse of power" and that these were "red lines" that could not be crossed.
Was Warner just taking a partisan shot? He gave no indication that he believes such a move is in the works.
Now no one can say it's impossible that Trump won't change his mind and try to get rid of Mueller. The prosecutor could bring new charges or make sweeping demands for evidence that would anger the president and prod him into action.
But the administration isn't sending such signals. In fact, the firing would have to be carried out by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recently testified that he thinks Mueller is doing a good job and could only be removed for valid reasons.
So at the moment, all this amounts to an orgy of speculation.
The Washington Post, jumping on Warner’s remarks, ran a story yesterday titled "The Growing Specter of Robert Mueller’s Firing." The article declares that “the environment for attempting to fire Mueller is clearly improving.”
Here’s a Bloomberg piece titled "What Might Happen If Trump Orders Mueller Fired."
The media mindset was perfect captured by a Chicago Tribune column with the headline: "Trump Says He Won’t Fire Bob Mueller. Don’t Believe Him."
Why not? Eric Zorn wrote that "the big reason is that I simply don't believe it, just as I didn't believe Trump’s assurance that he had a plan to provide 'great health care, at a tiny fraction of the cost.' I didn’t believe him when he said super-wealthy people wouldn't benefit from a Republican tax overhaul, that it would personally cost him a fortune and that someday he'd release his tax returns."
In other words, he doesn't trust the guy and disagrees with his policies.
The media will have every right to go bonkers if Trump tries to oust the prosecutor investigating him. But for now, it may be the most overcovered hypothetical question in politics.
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. 

Border wall contractors face growing boycotts from Dem-led cities

As President Trump pushes forward with his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall, companies competing for the chance to work on the multi-billion-dollar project are facing mounting boycotts from local Democratic lawmakers moving to blacklist the border builders.

Coordinated efforts have been launched in California, Arizona, Illinois, New York and Rhode Island that would prohibit cities and towns from doing any official business with the companies as part of a larger resistance strategy to delay construction of the controversial wall.

Most recently, Berkeley’s City Council in California approved an ordinance that would ban it from contracting with companies involved in the construction.
The proposal, drafted by Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Councilmembers Ben Bartless, Sophie Hahn and Cheryl Davila, argues that the wall would harm California’s prosperity.
Arreguin called the border wall a “highly impractical response to America’s broken immigration system, and a symbol of hatred that will only further demonize the people of Mexican and Latin American descent.”
This follows a March measure approved by the council that would vet contracts to avoid business with border wall-affiliated companies. Earlier this month, the council expanded the policy to prohibit investment with companies involved in the “designing, building or financing” of the wall. The latest ordinance formalizes those rules.

'This is the worst kind of populism.'

“Our divestment policy is a message that we don’t want to do business with companies that seek to profit off of separating families, degrading the environment and heightening tensions with long-time partners such as Mexico,” Arreguin told Fox News.
Berkeley’s new mandate comes on the heels of a similar economic boycott that passed in Oakland last month.
In that case, the Oakland City Council barred the city from entering into new or amended contracts with companies that work with the federal government to build the border wall.
Construction, engineering, planning and information technology businesses are all subject to the ban. So are subcontractors and financial institutions.
Councilmember Abel Guillen said it is important to put “our dollars where our values are.”

Companies involved in a planned U.S.-Mexico border wall are facing boycotts in several cities.  (AP)

A December committee proposal in Los Angeles -- still under consideration -- requires anyone wanting to do business with the city to disclose any bids they have made. However, it does not prohibit the city from entering into contracts with border builders.
It so happens that some of the cities boycotting these contractors have the kind of 'sanctuary' policies that the Trump administration is aggressively fighting.
"It's just amazing to me why any city would not want to rid itself of criminals who are also in the country illegally," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said earlier this month.
The Associated General Contractors of America told Fox News it has gone to the White House and Sessions, asking that they apply pressure and sue states and localities trying to deny contractors work based on their involvement building the border wall.
“This is the worst kind of populism,” Brian Turmail, spokesman for the AGCA, said. “Given the fact that this administration has been aggressively pursuing sanctuary cities, this seems like an easy slam dunk.”
He also accuses ambitious state and local lawmakers of trying to score political points off of contractors and says it sets a dangerous precedent.
“Today, it’s you don’t like the border wall while tomorrow you could have an anti-war mayor who refuses to work with defense contractors,” Turmail said.
At the center of the sanctuary city debate is California, which has also considered going after border wall companies at the state level.
Earlier this year, three Democratic state senators introduced a bill that would require California’s pension funds to divest from any company involved in building the wall. It would also require the California Public Employee Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System to liquidate any investments in companies that aid in construction.
“This is a wall of shame and we don’t want any part of it,” Assemblyman Phil Ting said in a written statement. “Californians build bridges not walls.”
Nearly 100 of the roughly 600 companies interested in bidding on the border project are based in California.
On the East Coast, Rhode Island state Rep. Aaron Regunberg introduced legislation in May requiring the state divest any funds from companies involved in Trump’s border wall.
“We’re saying he shouldn’t be creating this symbol of xenophobia and hate using Rhode Island state dollars,” Regunberg said.
During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump said he might soon head to San Diego where six construction companies have built eight border wall prototypes for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“I may be going there very shortly to look at them in their final form,” Trump told members of his Cabinet.
It remains unclear when the wall might actually go up. Trump campaigned on building it and set an ambitious timetable for construction. But aside from potential funding and political complications, there have been court challenges from geologists.
Critics also say the barrier would be ineffective and costly. On the campaign trail, Trump said Mexico would pay for the bill. That’s not happening. He also said the cost to build the wall would be $4 billion. Estimates have ranged wildly, but have since soared as high as $70 billion, though the actual cost is not clear.

Trump administration considering to separate families who illegally cross U.S.-Mexico border

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen speaks during a news conference, after a US-Mexico bilateral meeting on disrupting transnational criminal organizations at State Department in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 14, 2017. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The Trump administration is weighing a policy that would separate families who are caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally as a way to discourage more arrivals, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

The policy, developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Officials and other Department of Homeland Security agencies, would place children in protective custody or with an approved sponsor while their parents would be placed in a detention facility to await deportation, officials told the Post.  

“People aren’t going to stop coming unless there are consequences to illegal entry,” a DHS official told the paper.
Under current policy, families caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are held together at detention centers or released with a court date while awaiting a decision on their deportation.
The idea to separate families had been circulating earlier this year in the DHS, but was canned after the proposal received backlash and illegal migration levels dropped. 
According to Customs and Border Protection, when Trump took office in January, the number of people illegally crossing the border dwindled to the lowest number in 17 years.
But the controversial measure is being considered once again after the number of illegal border crossings has climbed back up. In November, immigration authorities apprehended 7,000 family units and 4,000 unaccompanied minors – a 45 percent increase from the previous month according to DHS statistics.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has final approval power, however. DHS officials told the Post that Nielsen has not yet signed off on the plan. 

Jill Stein says Americans need to 'see the evidence of Russian culpability' in election meddling

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein told Fox News Thursday night that Americans "have yet to see the proof" that Moscow meddled in last year's election.
Stein confirmed earlier this week that the Senate Intelligence Committee had contacted her campaign to request documents, including emails, as part of its investigation into Russian activities and alleged collusion between campaigns and foreign interests.
"I think there are legitimate aims here in the investigation," Stein told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight." "Interference in our election is much bigger than the Russians and ... I would like to see the evidence of Russian culpability here."
Stein compared the Russia investigation to the run-up to the Iraq War, saying, "We didn’t get to really see the evidence [then] ... We are still paying that price -- $5.5 trillion and counting. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a gazillion times, shame on all of us."
Stein also addressed her attendance at a now-infamous dinner in Moscow marking the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian state-run news and propaganda channel. She was photographed sitting at a table with Russian President Vladimir Putin and future national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is now cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
"The dinner ... was really a non-event," Stein said. "At one point, Putin came in with a couple of guys that I assumed were his bodyguards. Turns out they were actually his inner circle, but you would have never known it. Nobody was introduced to anybody ... At one point, Putin made a very rapid turn around the table and shook everybody’s hand, but without any exchange of names, so that’s about as significant as this was."

Chain Migration Cartoons 2017

Hell freezes over: Media start admitting that Trump's first year isn't a flop

I have sensed for weeks now that some in the media were on the verge of rolling out a contrary take on President Trump’s first year in office.

And in the wake of yesterday’s final passage of massive tax cuts, that moment has arrived.

The dominant media narrative, of course, is that Trump hasn’t gotten much done, that he’s in over his head, that he doesn’t understand government, that he keeps picking petty fights rather than winning big battles.
But the thing about the pundits is that they get tired of pushing the same line, week after week, month after month. Some inevitably want to seize credit for a new insight, for getting ahead of the pack with a burst of contrarian wisdom.
And that hot take is, hey, maybe Trump has gotten some important things done after all.
It’s true that the president had not gotten much from the Republican Congress this year. But a new law that cuts taxes for businesses and individuals—even though the measure polls poorly and is not mainly aimed at the middle class—puts an end to the verdict that Trump doesn’t know how to work the Hill. Like it or not, this is a sprawling piece of legislation that was quickly pushed through the House and Senate in a show of party-line muscle.
Trump hasn’t gotten much credit for the record-breaking stock market, but there is now some recognition that Dow-Almost-25,000 can’t be completely divorced from his policies. And there’s starting to be a greater appreciation for the president’s progress on slashing regulations and appointing judges (even though three nominees recently had to withdraw, one because he couldn’t answer a Senate panel’s questions about basic court procedures).
On Axios, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen stake out the new ground:
"The media often appraises presidencies and politics through liberal-tinted glasses. But the vast majority of the Republican Party like, even love, these policies ...
"We have been saying all year: Watch what he does, not what he says. Until recently, he hasn't done much. But these wins are substantial, with consequences for millions of people and many years to come."

They note that Trump has won approval not just for Neil Gorsuch but for a dozen Circuit Court judges.
And while Trump failed in repeated attempts to scrap ObamaCare, he boasted yesterday abolishing the individual mandate—a provision added to the tax bill—amounts to repealing the health care program. That’s an overstatement, but letting people wait until they get sick to buy insurance could well undermine the exchanges created by Barack Obama.
On foreign policy, there is a telling New York Times piece by conservative columnist Ross Douthat, a harsh critic of Trump. He says the decimation of ISIS has drawn scant media attention:
"There is nothing more characteristic of the Trump era, with its fire hose of misinformation, scandal and hyperbole, than that America and its allies recently managed to win a war that just two years ago consumed headlines and dominated political debate and helped Donald Trump himself get elected president — and somehow nobody seemed to notice."

It’s true there was no surrender ceremony and ISIS still exists, but it has lost physical stronghold in Iraq.
Says Douthat: “This is also a press failure, a case where the media is not adequately reporting an important success because it does not fit into the narrative of Trumpian disaster in which our journalistic entities are all invested.”
But the narrative is changing a bit. While Trump remains quite unpopular, at least according to the polls, the media are reluctantly starting to acknowledge that his presidency is having a significant impact.
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. 

From Omarosa and Huckabee to Joe and Mika, politics of feuding takes center stage

Media Buzz

6 days ago

In Washington, politics is personal. And lately it’s been getting intensely personal.

Kind of like when you were in high school.

Omarosa's departure from the White House was always going to attract an unusual degree of attention—since she was not exactly a major policymaker—because Donald Trump had fired her on "The Apprentice." But yesterday it became about a feud.
While Omarosa Manigault insists she resigned, White House correspondent April Ryan reported that she was fired in a nasty confrontation—and was escorted off White House grounds.
Omarosa denied that on "Good Morning America," blaming the report on "one individual who has a personal vendetta against me"—meaning Ryan.
Ryan, a CNN contributor who also works for American Urban Radio Networks, pushed back on the air, saying she was a beat reporter doing her job. "That’s what a White House correspondent does: listens to sources inside the White House and outside of the White House," she said on CNN.
The Secret Service took the unusual step of denying any role in removing Omarosa from the White House. But several news outlets, including The New York Times, said she was hustled off the premises and was leaving after a clash with John Kelly, the chief of staff, who limited her access to Trump.
Omarosa did seem to hint at a coming book, or something, in telling Michael Strahan on "GMA" that as "the only African American woman in this White House senior staff, I have seen things that have made me uncomfortable, that have upset me and affected me deeply and emotionally and affected my people and my community."
Over the summer, Ryan said she and Omarosa had been friends but she was "screaming at the top of her lungs" about a false rumor involving the reporter, and "I embarrassed her in front of reporters and people in that office ... I made mincemeat of her."
See? Politics is personal.
And that also applies to the case of the Scarboroughs vs. the Huckabees.
To recap: Kirsten Gillibrand called on Trump to resign. The president ripped her in a tweet, saying she had been begging him for campaign contributions "and would do anything for them."
That set off a wave of media criticism, and Mika Brzezinski led the chorus. She’d had her own very personal clash with Trump, a onetime friend, when he claimed in a tweet that she was bleeding from a face lift. (Got it so far?)
So Brzezinski denounced the president on "Morning Joe" for what she described as a "reprehensible" attack on a woman. And then she turned to his press secretary, saying Sarah Huckabee Sanders should not defend her boss’s tweet (though that is sort of her job).
"Don’t lie," Brzezinski said. "And do not defend the president of the United States for what he did. If you do ... you should resign."
That didn’t sit well with the former governor of Arkansas, who of course is Sanders' dad.
Mike Huckabee said on Fox that "I was stunned that of all the people who are going to give a lecture on morality and family, and marriage, it’s going to be Mika?"
Huckabee defended the presidential tweet, said his daughter "deserves better from other women" and added, "Mika can go pound sand somewhere as far as I’m concerned."
Now that brought a blast from Mika’s partner and fiancé, Joe Scarborough, who was understandably upset at the reference to their romance, which became public only when they announced their engagement.
"What a sleazy thing to do," Morning Joe said, adding: "Mika never talked about marriage. She never lectured on the morality of any of that…What a judgmental, predictably stupid thing to do."
There are serious issues here—about the president and women, his battle with a leading senator, the responsibility of his press secretary. But with fathers and fiances getting involved, it became, like so much inside the Beltway, brutally personal.

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. 

Trump administration can retain DACA documents, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted an order requiring the Trump administration and federal agencies to release internal documents related to the withdrawal of an Obama-era program that offered a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

In a unanimous ruling, the high court ordered lower courts to hold off any demands of documents from federal agencies until a ruling is reached on the Trump administration's attempts to dismiss five lawsuits in California that challenge the legality of the order to rescind DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), Politico reported.

The lawsuits argue that the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determination to completely rescind the limited amnesty program by March 2018 was unlawful because “It violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
After the government provided only 250 pages of documents related to the program’s termination, the challengers accused the administration of concealing records, claiming the termination of such program would have created a large volume of documents.

Protesters demonstrating against the decision to rescind an Obama-era program that offered a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.  (Associated Press)

U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with the plaintiffs and ordered DHS and the Justice Department to turn over more documents related to the DACA reversal. This order, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion, was wrong and should have not been made.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised the high court’s ruling, saying it was “a crucially important ruling” and vowed to “continue to defend the Trump Administration’s lawful actions.”
“The discovery order in the DACA cases was dramatically intrusive and premature, and I am pleased with tonight’s decision that the district court’s order was ‘overly broad,’” Sessions said.
He added: “Make no mistake, this was a crucially important ruling, and the fact it was granted by a unanimous Supreme Court cannot be overstated. We will continue to defend the Trump administration’s lawful actions.”
But California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who brought one of the five lawsuits challenging the White House over the DACA decision, told Politico that the ruling was not a win for the administration as it left the possibility that the challengers were eligible to more information.
"Today the Supreme Court has essentially told us that no one — not even the president — can hide the facts," he said.
Both the White House and leaders in Congress were working on legislation to address the issue and replace the legally contentious DACA program with a legal status for those who are or were covered by the program, Fox News reported.
It is likely that a bipartisan deal will emerge in January and include border security measures at the request of the White House in exchange for a deal on DACA.