Did Senator Richard Blumenthal Misrepresent His Military Service?

Senator Richard Blumenthal misrepresented his record of military service during the Vietnam War.

What's True

Blumenthal made a handful of false and misleading statements about having served in Vietnam during the period of American involvement in the war there.

What's False

Blumenthal insisted that those misrepresentations were "totally unintentional," as he has also more accurately and modestly represented his military service at other times.

President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court prompted a fierce, largely partisan battle that reached a fever pitch in September 2018 when two women accused the U.S. Court of Appeals judge of having engaged in sexual assault and misconduct while he was in high school and university.
Kavanaugh denied the allegations, but the controversy dominated political debate in the U.S. for weeks and threatened to derail the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice.
Some supporters of President Trump and his nomination of Kavanaugh have attempted to discredit the women and their associates, and the intense scrutiny associated with the saga meant that some who expressed opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination faced a backlash of their own.
That was the case for Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who told MSNBC on 17 September that proceeding with Kavanaugh’s nomination would “forever stain the Supreme Court”:

Going forward with this nomination will cast a shadow and stain on an institution that depends, for its power, on credibility and trust … This nomination would forever stain the Supreme Court in a way that I think may well be irreparable.
<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

In response, a viral Facebook post termed Blumenthal himself a “stain on the Senate” and maintained that he “lied about serving in Vietnam”:
During his successful 2010 U.S. Senate campaign, Blumenthal said that he had “misspoken” about his military service during the Vietnam War after the New York Times obtained his Selective Service Record, which showed he received five separate draft deferments while a college student and then, when those deferments ran out, secured a spot in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves (serving stateside, not in Vietnam).
In a May 2010 investigation, the Times reported that Blumenthal, then Connecticut’s attorney general, had on a handful of occasions given a misleading or inaccurate picture of his military service during the Vietnam War, including stating that “I served in Vietnam”:

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life. “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”
There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.
The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House. In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

After checking an archive of Connecticut newspapers, we confirmed two separate statements in which Blumenthal either claimed or strongly implied that he had played a role in combat operations in Vietnam.
In May 2003, the Bridgeport News reported on a rally in support of American troops in Iraq which had been organized by a local veterans council. During his speech at that rally, Blumenthal contrasted the support shown for troops in 2003 with that shown to American military personnel returning from Vietnam. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Blumenthal said, suggesting that he had personally been among those troops who served in the country of Vietnam, which he was not:

Blumenthal said what he was observing at City Hall moved him. “I can’t match the elegance of this picture,” he told the crowd. “I’m so proud to see the American flag, veterans, families, people whose hearts are with those fighting overseas.” Blumenthal served in the Marines during the Vietnam era. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” he said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

In May 2007, the Milford Mirror reported on that year’s Memorial Day parade in the city. Blumenthal again suggested that he was among those troops subjected to abuse and harassment upon their return to the United States from Vietnam:

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Milford was possibly the most beautiful spot in the state Sunday afternoon as people stood around the bandstand to salute fallen veterans. “In Vietnam,” Blumenthal said, “we had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said ‘Welcome home’. I say welcome home.” Blumenthal said the country has learned a lesson since Vietnam, realizing that despite opinions about the ongoing war in the Middle East, military personnel there deserve respect and support.

As reported by the New York Times, in March 2008 Blumenthal told a group of veterans in Norwalk, Connecticut, that “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.”
However, Blumenthal has also at times described his military service in more accurate and modest terms. As shown in the MSNBC video above, in March 2010 (two months before the New York Times article) the then-Senate candidate directly contradicted his 2008 statement, saying that “Serving in the United States military gave me a perspective as well, even in the reserves, although I did not serve in Vietnam.”
In response to the 18 May Times article, Blumenthal arranged a press conference for the following day, during which he admitted that he had “misspoken” in the past when describing his military service:

On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that and I take full responsibility. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country. I served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and I am proud of it.

In response to a question about allegations that he had misrepresented his military record, Blumenthal added:

I may have misspoken — I did misspeak — on a few occasions out of hundreds that I have attended, whether events or ceremonies, and I will not allow anyone to take a few of those misplaced words and impugn my record of service. I regret that I misspoke on those occasions. I take full responsibility for it.

Confirming the authenticity of the 2008 remarks attributed to him by the New York Times, Blumenthal asserted that he had intended to say “since the days that I served during Vietnam,” rather than “since the days that I served in Vietnam”:

A few misplaced words — “in” instead of “during” — totally unintentional.

Blumenthal did not apologize for what he presented as his misstatements about his record. When invited to do so at the press conference, he merely repeated, “I regret that I misspoke and I take full responsibility.”
Blumenthal’s remarks at the May 2010 press conference can be viewed below:
It is true that Blumenthal has made a handful of recorded statements that were false or misleading about his own military service during the Vietnam War and admitted as much after the publication of the New York Times‘ investigation in 2010. However, Blumenthal insisted that these falsehoods were “totally unintentional” and claimed that he had “misspoken” rather than being deliberately or knowingly untruthful.
Blumenthal did not always describe his military service in false or misleading terms. At times he spoke more accurately and modestly about his time in the Marine Reserves, and in a 2010 campaign speech (given before the New York Times report was published), he stipulated that “I did not serve in Vietnam.”

• Farrow, Ronan amd Jane Mayer.   “Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of of Sexual Misconduct, From Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years.”
      The New Yorker.   23 September 2018.
  
• Hernandez, Raymond.   “Richard Blumenthal’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ from History.”
      The New York Times.   17 May 2010.
  
• Durrell, Brad.   “Bridgeport Shows Support for Troops.”
      The Bridgeport News.   1 May 2003.
  
• Dion, Jill Kaiser.   “Parade Turnout Is Double Past Years’ Attendance.”
      The Milford Mirror.   31 May 2007.
  

Published 24 September 2018

Cory Booker is not your friend. Blast from the past written 2 years ago.

Sarah Jones

2 years ago

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

 Fresh off a rousing speech against Jeff Sessions’s nomination to become attorney general, Booker voted against an affordable drug proposal from Senators Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders on Wednesday evening. Had it passed, the bill would have created a reserve fund to allow Americans to import inexpensive prescription drugs from Canada. Booker was one of 13 Democrats to reject it, a boon to Big Pharma.

Booker had earned liberal acclaim earlier on Wednesday for his testimony against Sessions’s nomination:

“Senator Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requirement of the job—to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of justice for all,” he said. “At numerous times in his career, he has demonstrated a hostility toward these convictions, and has worked to frustrate attempts to advance these ideals.”

Booker is exactly right about Sessions’s record, and his decision to violate Senate norms is admirable. But his rejection of the Sanders-Klobuchar proposal is the latest entry in a legislative record that should worry progressives.
As Newark mayor, he accepted a $100 million donation from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to implement a series of drastic reforms in city schools. According to investigative reporter Dale Russakoff, the people of Newark found out about it from Oprah: Zuckerberg and Booker appeared on the show to announce the grant. Most of the funds later went to charter schools. He’s long been a proponent of school vouchers, despite evidence that voucher programs don’t actually create better educational outcomes for students.
He also has close ties to Silicon Valley and Wall Street. In 2013, this magazine reported that Booker had been late to disclose the extent of his stake in Waywire, a tech startup he helped found during his tenure as mayor. There were other troubles; Waywire also employed Booker’s associates, and CNN’s Jeff Zucker’s then-14 year old child sat on its board. (Booker eventually stepped down from the startup.)
And he handed Mitt Romney an unexpected favor in 2012. On Meet the Press, he called attacks on Romney’s ties to Bain Capital and private equity “nauseating.” It apparently paid off: In 2014, WNYC reported that Booker received more Wall Street funding than any other U.S. senator that election cycle.
Booker clearly has national ambitions. His connections and public image could translate to a viable run for the presidency in 2020. But unless he drastically rethinks his politics, he isn’t the progressive candidate America will need after four years of Donald Trump.

Comey says Trump wasn't among 'four Americans' targeted in FBI probe

Former FBI Director James Comey, with his attorney, David Kelley, right, speaks to reporters after a day of testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 7, 2018. (Associated Press)

An FBI counterintelligence probe into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election initially targeted "four Americans," but not Republican nominee Donald Trump nor his campaign, according to former FBI Director James Comey.
The news was revealed Saturday in a 235-page transcript published by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., after hours of closed-door testimony by Comey on Friday.
Comey said "at least some" of the people targeted were affiliated with the Trump campaign in some form, but Trump himself was not under investigation into whether the four individuals colluded with Russia to tip the election in Trump's favor.
“We opened investigations on four Americans to see if there was any connection between those four Americans and the Russian interference effort,” Comey told Gowdy. “And those four Americans did not include the candidate. At least some of them were. The FBI and the Department of Justice have not confirmed the names of those folks publicly, which is why I'm not going into the specifics.”
Comey told Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, that the FBI suspected the four individuals may have helped Russia interfere in the election.
“[A]t the time a defensive briefing was done for candidate Trump, do you know if the FBI had any evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign had colluded or conspired or coordinated with Russia in any way?” Ratcliffe asked.
“I don't know the dates. ... I don't know whether it was before late July when we opened the four counterintelligence files, or not,” Comey replied. “And so, if it was after July 29th, then the answer would be, yes, we had some reason to suspect that there were Americans who might have assisted the Russians.”
LAWYERS STOPPING COMEY FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN HILL TESTIMONY, ISSA SAYS
Though the four individuals have not been named publically, ex-Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos was prosecuted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and was released from prison Friday after serving 12 days. Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents.
Other Trump associates, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, have pleaded guilty to lying about their interactions with Russians during the campaign and presidential transition period.
During questioning, Comey also defended Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who helped lead the bureau’s investigation. He revealed that Strzok edited a letter sent to Congress days before the election disclosing that an investigation into Hillary Clinton had been reopened.
Clinton and many Democrats have blamed the letter for her election loss to Trump.
Comey said he never saw any bias from Strzok after questioning from U.S. Rep. Steven Cohen, D-Tenn. Strzok was fired after anti-Trump texts sent by him had surfaced. Trump has seized on the messages as evidence of a conspiracy to dismantle his presidency.
“So it's hard for me to see how he was on Team Clinton secretly at that point in time,” Comey said. “If you're going to have a conspiracy theory, you've got to explain all the facts. And it's hard to reconcile his not leaking that Trump associates were under investigation and his drafting of a letter to Congress on October 28th that Secretary Clinton believed hurt her chances of being elected.”
When asked if former President Barack Obama obstructed justice when he commented that Clinton's use of a private email server lacked criminal intent, Comey said he didn’t see it that way, but it did concern him.
“So, if it doesn't rise to the level of obstruction, how would you characterize the Chief Executive saying that the target of an investigation that was ongoing simply made a mistake and lacked the requisite criminal intent?” Gowdy asked.
“It concerns me whenever the Chief Executive comments on pending criminal investigations, something we see a lot today, which is why it concerned me when President Obama did it," Comey replied.
TRUMP TAKES AIM AT MUELLER TEAM’S ‘CONFLICTS OF INTEREST’ AS MAJOR FILINGS LOOM 
Asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey referred to Mueller’s investigation as to why he couldn’t answer.
“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server?” Comey asked rhetorically. “I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”
He noted that anything related to Mueller’s investigation was “off-limits,” because it is an ongoing investigation.
When asked how confident was he that Mueller would conduct his investigation thoroughly, Comey replied, “There are not many things I would bet my life on. I would bet my life that Bob Mueller will do things the right way, the way we would all want, whether we're Republicans or Democrats, the way Americans should want.”

Crooked Untouchable Democrat Cartoons

Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server among ‘gravest’ offenses to transparency, judge says

Federal Judge Royce Lamberth says Judicial Watch should be allowed to demand documents and additional testimony into whether Hillary Clinton's use of a private email system was a deliberate effort to thwart the Freedom of Information Act; reaction from Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

A conservative group won a court victory this week when a federal judge ordered more fact-finding in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth assailed Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
Conservative group Judicial Watch had filed a Freedom of information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the State and Justice departments, alleging that Clinton’s email practices represented a deliberate effort to violate the FOIA, Politico reported.
On Friday, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton praised Lamberth’s ruling, telling Fox News it showed the court was “not terribly convinced” that former FBI Director James Comey adequately investigated Clinton’s use of the private server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
As a result of the judge’s ruling, “Some people like Mrs. Clinton potentially will have to answer further questions,” Fitton said.
On Thursday, Lamberth ordered the State and Justice departments to work with Judicial Watch on a discovery plan to determine whether Clinton used the server to circumvent FOIA requirements, the Hill reported.
President Trump and Republicans have repeatedly slammed Clinton’s use of the private email server, arguing in part that the practice potentially placed classified government information at risk.
Clinton was found to have deleted emails that she said were personal and not related to her State Department work. Comey announced during the 2016 presidential campaign that Clinton’s handling of emails was “extremely careless” but did not warrant criminal charges.

Trump condemns 'disgraceful' 9th Circuit, dubbing it rubber-stamp for his foes

In lengthy and fiery comments to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, President Trump excoriated the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a "disgrace" hours after an Obama-appointed federal judge there issued a nationwide injunction against his newly announced emergency restrictions on asylum claims.
The president vowed immediate action and said he was "going to put in a major complaint" about the appellate court, based in San Francisco, without elaborating.
He also broadly criticized the increasingly common practice of individual federal judges bringing unilateral halts to executive branch policy, which has already happened more than two dozen times under the Trump administration. The president specifically cited the Ninth Circuit's injunction against his ban on travel from several Muslim-majority nations, which was ultimately ruled a constitutional exercise of presidential authority this year by the Supreme Court.
"You go to Ninth Circuit and it's a disgrace, and I'm going to put in a major complaint. Because you cannot win, if you're us, a case in the Ninth Circuit," Trump said. "Every case gets filed in the Ninth Circuit. ... We get beaten, and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court -- like the travel ban -- and we won. We're gonna have to look at that."
He added: "That's not law. That's not what this country stands for."
When pardoning the National Thanksgiving Turkey earlier in the day, Trump joked, "Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee your pardon will not be enjoined by the Ninth Circuit. Always happens."
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, who was nominated by President Obama in 2012 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order late Monday against Trump's plan to refuse asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally if they do not arrive at a port of entry.
TRUMP SNUBS HARRIS, FEINSTEIN AND APPOINTS SEVERAL REPUBLICAN JUDGES TO NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote.
Trump took aim at Tigar in his comments on Tuesday and predicted he would win an appeal in the case at the Supreme Court, where conservatives command a narrow majority. Republicans have argued that presidents have plenary authority over immigration, and can close the southern border with Mexico for national security reasons if they wanted.

"You cannot win, if you're us, a case in the Ninth Circuit."
— President Trump

"This was an Obama judge, and I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore," Trump said. "Everybody that wants to sue the U.S. -- almost -- they file their case in the Ninth Circuit, and it means an automatic loss. No matter what you do, no matter how good your case is. And the Ninth Circuit is really something we have to take a look at, because it's not fair."
He added: "People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case. It's a disgrace, in my opinion, what happens with the Ninth Circuit. We will win that case in the Supreme Court of the United States."

Demonstrators with signs that read in Spanish: "No more Caravans", and "Let's save Tijuana, no more caravans," stand under an statue of indigenous Aztec ruler Cuauhtemoc to protest the presence of thousands of Central American migrants in Tijuana, Mexico, on Sunday. (AP)

During his confirmation hearings earlier this year, Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was asked by Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy about the constitutionality of individual federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential action -- a phenomenon that has attracted scrutiny after district court judges unilaterally brought temporary halts to Trump's travel ban and other initiatives. Kavanaugh demurred, saying he could not discuss potential pending issues before the Supreme Court. (Justice Clarence Thomas had suggested taking action against the injunctions in a dissent this year.)
Separately, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in October that the 28 nationwide federal injunctions issued by individual judges during the Trump administration so far constitute an unprecedented "judicial encroachment."
WATCH: MIGRANT CARAVAN CLASHES WITH RESIDENTS OF TIJUANA
"It is emphatically not the duty of the courts to manage the government or to pass judgment on every policy action the Executive branch takes," Sessions said. "In the first 175 years of this Republic, not a single judge issued one of these orders."
Trump's new asylum policy was designed to prevent many members of the Central American migrant caravans -- many of whom have arrived at the U.S. border and clashed with locals in Mexican border towns -- from illegally flooding into the U.S., and was intended to instead direct them to legal crossings for expedited and orderly asylum reviews.

Central American migrants, part of the Central American caravan trying to reach the United States, continue their journey as they prepare to leave Mexicali, Mexico, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2018. Tensions have built as nearly 3,000 migrants from the caravan poured into Tijuana in recent days after more than a month on the road, and with many more months likely ahead of them while they seek asylum in the U.S. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

A joint statement by Homeland Security and the Justice Department said the Supreme Court had already shown the president had the legal right to restrict asylum.
"Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year," the departments said. "We look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch's legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border."
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, speaking Tuesday at the border, vowed to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling immediately.  "Let me be clear: this court from a chamber in San Francisco has replaced the president’s judgment with regard to the fully delegated authority to determine what is a true national security threat to our nation’s sovereignty," Nielsen said, arguing that the ruling will "unequivocally make the United States less secure."
"We will follow all laws and judicial rulings, but we will also be appealing it as quickly as possible," she added. "I have no doubt we will be successful."
Nielsen added that DHS has confirmed that there are at least 500 criminals and known gang members in the caravan, and that "most of the caravan members" plan to make "frivolous" claims of asylum in the hopes of disappearing while their claims are pending.
"Wanting a job is not a basis for asylum under U.S. law," Nielsen said. "Wanting to be united with your family is not a basis for asylum under U.S. law."
WATCH: TUCKER CARLSON DISCUSSES WHY MIGRANT CARAVAN IS RECEIVING A HOSTILE RECEPTION IN TIJUANA
The legal standard for obtaining asylum in the U.S. is strict, and ordinarily requires that people from foreign countries demonstrate they face serious, legitimate risks of persecution by their government if they remain in their homeland.
Not all forms of persecution are relevant for asylum consideration. Under federal law, applicants must demonstrate that their risk for persecution is based on their national origin, race, religion, political views or membership in a particularly vulnerable social class -- a category that was expanded in 2014, when the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that domestic abuse could form the basis for an asylum claim. The Trump administration reversed that expansion this year.
Around 3,000 people from the first of the caravans have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego, California. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that it closed off northbound traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro crossing to install movable, wire-topped barriers after reports that some migrants were planning to rush through the lanes.

Central American migrants, part of the Central American caravan trying to reach the United States, continue their journey as they leave Mexicali, Mexico, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2018. Tensions have built as nearly 3,000 migrants from the caravan poured into Tijuana in recent days after more than a month on the road, and with many more months likely ahead of them while they seek asylum in the U.S. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

As of Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said it had referred 107 people to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — people who had sought asylum between official crossings since Trump's order went into effect. Officials didn't say whether those people's cases were still progressing through other, more difficult avenues left to them after the proclamation.
MIGRANT CARAVAN JUST OUTSIDE U.S. IS HARBORING AT LEAST 500 CRIMINALS, DHS SAYS, AS CARAVAN CLASHES WITH MEXICAN LOCALS
More than 500 criminals are traveling with the migrant caravan that’s massed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing, homeland security officials said Monday afternoon.
The asylum clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act says that anyone who arrives to the U.S. may apply for asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution, regardless of where they arrive. Tigar said Trump's policy flatly contradicted that law passed by Congress.

Central American migrants look through the border structure expecting top make an illegal crossing into the U.S., seen from the Mexican side where the border meets the Pacific Ocean, Friday, Nov. 16, 2018. As thousands of migrants of asylum-seekers converge on the doorstep of the United States, what they won't find are armed American soldiers standing guard, that's because U.S. military troops are prohibited from carrying out law enforcement duties. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

But the Executive Branch has considerable authority in determining the scope of potential asylum claims. Earlier this year, Sessions used his authority as head of asylum courts to rule that domestic violence and gang-related attacks no longer necessarily can form the basis of an asylum claim.
TRUMP DOJ SHARPLY LIMITS ASYLUM CLAIMS, SAYING SYSTEM IS OVERWHELMED WITH FRAUD
Declaring that his decision "restores sound principles of asylum and long-standing principles of immigration law," Sessions indicated that the move would help reduce the backlog of asylum claims that has risen sharply in recent years -- with many of the claims illegitimate.
"The vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid," Sessions said in remarks this summer. "For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an immigration judge."
Sessions added that the system is simply overwhelmed with claims, and that bogus applications are crowding out legitimate ones.

Jonathan Turley: Michael Cohen made a big mistake thinking he could avoid prison by turning on Trump

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen – who prides himself on being a street-wise fixer and hustler – ran into a problem he couldn't fix Friday when he was denied the "get out of jail free" card he desperately sought in return for admitting his crimes.
Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced next week for his guilty pleas to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. He also pleaded guilty to making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign and to making false statements to Congress regarding Trump’s business dealings in Russia.
Federal prosecutors in New York City and Special Counsel Robert Mueller – who is investigating whether President Trump and/or members of his presidential election campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election – filed sentencing memos Friday recommending prison time for the former Trump lawyer.
According to a sentencing memo from the New York prosecutors, Cohen built his entire professional life through a “pattern of deception” and unrivaled greed.
Cohen’s belated effort to cooperate with prosecutors without a formal agreement was an effort to play Mueller the way he played Trump – making himself useful in the hope of becoming indispensable.
But it looks like this time Cohen will come up one hustle short.
In the 1961 movie classic “The Hustler,” a young pool shark named Fast Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) sought to topple legendary veteran Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) in a high-stakes pool game. A smug Fast Eddie bragged to Minnesota Fats that he “didn’t leave much” on the table, but the seasoned Minnesota Fats dryly responded “you left enough.”
By declaring himself a redemptive sinner, Cohen clearly thought that he had left little on the table to deny him a zero jail time sentence. Earlier, he decided to give up on a chance for a pardon from President Trump and made the play for Mueller.
Cohen publicly implicated Trump in campaign finance violations in the payment of hush money to women Trump allegedly had affairs with (affairs Trump denies).
Cohen apparently thought that delivering on Trump would wipe away a lifetime of deception and fraud. Instead, prosecutors grudgingly accepted a modest reduction in sentencing, but still demanded a “substantial term of imprisonment.”
Cohen is now looking at the loss of this law license, business and freedom. He could spend as much as five years in prison for what the government described as “Cohen’s extensive, deliberate, and serious criminal conduct.”
Cohen ultimately lacked two essential things to make this hustle work.
First and foremost, he lacked credibility. In an earlier column, I called Cohen’s play for no jail time a plea of leniency bordering on lunacy.

Cohen is now looking at the loss of this law license, business and freedom. He could spend as much as five years in prison for what the government described as “Cohen’s extensive, deliberate, and serious criminal conduct.”

As predicted in the column, the prosecutors played back Cohen’s own words when he threatened journalists, students, and others who were deemed as threats to Trump. For example, in 2015 Cohen threatened Daily Beast reporter Tim Mack for running a story critical of Trump.
On a recorded call, Cohen tells Mack: “Mark my words for it, I will make sure that you and I meet one day over in the courthouse and I will take you for every penny you still don’t have, and I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. Do not even think about going where I know you’re planning on going. And that’s my warning for the day.”
Cohen then goes full mob heavy and warns the reporter to “tread very f------ lightly because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f------ disgusting. … Do you understand me? Don’t think you can hide behind your pen because it’s not going to happen. … I’m more than happy to discuss it with your attorney and with your legal counsel because motherf----- you’re going to need it.”
Prosecutors clearly did not buy the months of public spin by Cohen and his lawyer, Lanny Davis, including raking in almost $180,000 in donations on a GoFundMe page.
The page says: “On July 2, 2018 Michael Cohen declared his independence from Donald Trump and his commitment to tell the truth. .… Michael decided to put his family and his country first. Now Michael needs your financial help.”
On both Fox News and MSNBC, Davis said that Cohen’s moral epiphany came after watching the Helsinki news conference last July in which President Trump appeared to side with Russian President Vladimir Putin in believing Russia’s denial of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election that Trump won.
“That shook up Mr. Cohen,” Davis said.
OK, so we are supposed to believe that when President Trump repeated his prior position on Russian interference in 2016 presidential election Cohen suddenly decided that it was time for him to tell the truth about his dealings with a porn star and a Playboy model.
This makes as much sense as mob boss Joe Valachi saying that he decided to flip on the Lucchese crime family after watching “The Sound of Music.”
The prosecutors stated that Cohen’s “description of his actions as arising solely from some ‘personal resolve’ – as opposed to arising from the pendency of criminal charges and the desire for leniency – ignores that Cohen first reached out to meet with (the special counsel) at a time when he knew he was under imminent threat of indictment in this District. As such, any suggestion by Cohen that his meetings with law enforcement reflect a selfless unprompted about-face are overstated.”
Cohen needed a Section 5K1.1 letter. That is what a fully cooperating witness receives when he has a deal with prosecutors. However, prosecutors state that Cohen made the “affirmative decision not to become” a true cooperating witness.
Without that letter, Cohen’s modest reduction in his sentence for cooperation has to be partially or wholly erased by two “enhancements” tied to his status as a lawyer and the sophistication of his fraudulent conduct.
The enhancements could still leave Cohen serving most of the five-year sentence. In other words, even with his cooperation, he still left enough for a “substantial” sentence of prison time.
In what Fast Eddie described as his “Church of the Good Hustler,” the only thing that matters in the end is putting balls in the right pockets. However, hubris is often the ruin of many a good player.
Fast Eddie told Minnesota Fats: “You know, I got a hunch, fat man. I got a hunch it’s me from here on in.”
Like Fast Eddy, Cohen was wrong. It never was his game. It was (and remains) Mueller’s game.

French Yellow Vest protesters tear gassed in violent clashes with riot police in Paris

A demonstrator wearing a yellow vest grimaces through tear gas Saturday, Dec. 8, 2018 in Paris. Crowds of yellow-vested protesters angry at President Emmanuel Macron and France's high taxes tried to march Saturday on the presidential palace, surrounded by exceptional numbers of police bracing for outbreaks of violence after the worst rioting in Paris in decades. (AP Photo/Rafael Yaghobzadeh)

PARIS - Heavily armed French police deployed tear gas and stun grenades against an army of Yellow Vests gathered in central Paris demanding Emmanuel Macron's head.
Up to 5,000 demonstrators gathered in the center of Paris Saturday morning, where they were met by some 8,000 police officers and at least 12 armored vehicles. More than 250 people have been arrested.
"We are not here to destroy Paris, we are here to tell Macron we are f--king fed up," said one protester before the clashes with the police began, adding that the people are protesting ever-increasing taxes on the working class.
French police, wearing riot gear, tried to stop and search protesters entering the Champs Elysees, but such efforts were eventually abandoned with the flow of thousands of demonstrators.
Police deployed tear gas and stun grenades after getting cornered, with some agitators starting to throw plastic bottles.
FRENCH STUDENTS JOIN MOUNTING FURY AFTER VIDEO EMERGES OF SCHOOL KIDS ON THEIR KNEES IN FRONT OF RIOT POLICE

Protesters threw back the tear gas and the police, only to escalate the clashes and pushback throw the authorities.
(AP Photo/Rafael Yaghobzadeh)

Protesters threw back the tear gas at the police, only to escalate the clashes.
Many protesters slammed the French media for portraying the protests as led by violent agitators and for siding with Macron's government.
"We are not black bloc [black clad anarchists], we are ordinary people voicing our anger," said a protester who did not want to be identified.
Shops and tourist destinations, including the Eiffel Tower, were to be closed and soccer matches were canceled as authorities looked to maintain order.
The U.S. Embassy requested that Americans in the French capital "keep a low profile and avoid crowds," the report said.
As a precaution, nearly 300 people were arrested ahead of Saturday's expected disturbances, the report said. Just a week earlier some 200 cars were torched and the famed Arc de Triomphe was vandalized as protesters expressed opposition to Macron's government, according to the report.
Rising fuel prices triggered the initial protests, but some officials claimed that "ultra-violent" demonstrators took advantage of the situation, according to the BBC.
Meanwhile, Macron seemingly has gone missing as his government tries to curb the chaos caused by his unpopular gas-tax plan.
Macron swept into power in 2017, having emerged out of obscurity less than a year earlier. Espousing his own brand of centrism, he has presented himself on the world stage as a spokesman for multilateralism and internationalism against a nationalist wave moving through Europe.
While he has regularly been seen on world stages, including the United Nations and the U.S. Congress, his absence has been conspicuous this week, choosing to keep away from the limelight as his government attempts to deal with protesters' concerns.