Kamala Harris protester interrupted Bernie Sanders rally in 2016, report says

A protester who grabbed the microphone from U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris on Saturday at the California Democratic Party State Convention reportedly also interrupted a Bernie Sanders rally in 2016.
The protester, identified as Aiden Cook, 24, hopped onto the convention stage in San Francisco and snatched the microphone from Harris, saying he wanted to discuss “a much bigger issue,” the Mercury News of San Jose reported.
Harris look startled as the protester approached. The California Democrat, who is seeking the national party's 2020 presidential nomination, had been speaking about gender pay equality during a discussion sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn.org.
Moderator Karine Jean-Pierre quickly stood up, yelling, “Hey, hey!,” and attempted to grab the microphone back from Cook when security personnel suddenly intervened and took Cook away.
“It’s OK, folks. People have their own big ideas but we also want to make sure we are being respectful,” DJ Carmen Spindiego said as Harris briefly left the stage.
The candidate soon returned, laughing to cheers of “Kamala!”
“It’s all good, don’t worry,” Harris reassured the audience.
After the event, MoveOn posted an apology to Harris on Twitter.
"We sincerely regret that a protestor was able to gain access to the stage at our forum today & we apologize to Sen. @KamalaHarris," the message said. "The protestor was removed & the program resumed. MoveOn members were excited to hear Harris continue to discuss her Big Idea to achieve pay equity."
Animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere said afterward that Cook wanted to "call on Harris to support ordinary citizens rescuing animals,” the Bay Area's FOX 2 reported.
A total of 14 presidential candidates congregated at the convention Saturday, drawing both by cheers and some heckling at their respective appearances. The event represented an opportunity to win support from voters and party activists in the nation's most populous state.
While Harris had a strong start in January, her campaign has stalled in recent weeks as other Democrats have raised their profiles.
Cook told reporters he was not being charged with a crime, according to the Mercury News.

AOC's Green New Deal could have Dems facing blue-collar backlash at polls

California knows about fault lines. And political observers in the Golden State say the Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal may be a fault line that splits the party’s support – in California and elsewhere.
The environmental high-mindedness of the plan for combatting climate change – put forth by Democratic U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ed Markey of Massachusetts – appeals to the “elite” professionals the party has been courting for years.
But the potential disruption for the American labor, in which untold numbers of employees might have to transition from “old economy” jobs to “green economy” jobs, may be offputting for many blue-collar workers – potentially turning many of them away from Democratic candidates at the polls, some political observers say.
“Unlike the Mueller report --- and impeachment and indictment — people vote on whether or not they’re going to lose their job,” Jessica Levinson, a professor of politics and ethics at Loyola Law School, told Politico.

“Unlike the Mueller report --- and impeachment and indictment — people vote on whether or not they’re going to lose their job.”
— Jessica Levinson, professor of politics and ethics, Loyola Law School

In addition, Levinson said, many people who’ve spent years working in blue-collar union jobs “don’t necessarily want to be retrained” for so-called “green jobs.”
Signaling a potential blue-collar backlash, chants of “Garcetti’s gotta go” greeted Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in April when he launched his “Green New Deal LA” plan, Politico reported.
“[Garcetti's] got the big corporations with him, and he’s not thinking of the effects on the common people,’’ Paul Valdez, 58, a building trades worker from Thousand Oaks, told Politico. “If they start taking away our jobs, who’s going to pay our bills?”

“[Garcetti's] got the big corporations with him, and he’s not thinking of the effects on the common people.’’
— Paul Valdez, 58, building trades worker

Similarly, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio – a Democrat who’s now running for president – was openly mocked in May when he launched his local version of the Green New Deal.
The mayor was forced to shout for much of his speech amid jeers from a crowd of about a dozen protesters inside the lobby of Trump Tower, which also had music blasting over the speakers. A number of protesters rode up and down the escalator behind de Blasio carrying cardboard signs with slogans like “Worst Mayor Ever,” “Failed Mayor,” and “Trump 2020.”
“They’re scared of the truth,” the mayor said. “Anyone that has a problem with saving the planet, I have a problem with them.”

“They’re scared of the truth. Anyone that has a problem with saving the planet, I have a problem with them.”
— Bill de Blasio, Democrat running for president

The Garcetti and de Blasio plans were part of an effort by Green New Deal backers to push the effort through left-leaning local and state governments rather than face the Republican-led U.S. Senate and the veto pen of President Trump.
In New Mexico, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed her state’s version of the plan, the Energy Transition Act, into law in March.
“This is a really big deal,” Grisham said in a statement at the time. “In every corner of this state, advocates, utilities, young adults, unions, elected officials and families came together to push for and, today, enact this transformational law. The Energy Transition Act fundamentally changes the dynamic in New Mexico. This legislation is a promise to future generations of New Mexicans, who will benefit from both a cleaner environment and a more robust energy economy with exciting career and job opportunities."

"The Energy Transition Act fundamentally changes the dynamic in New Mexico. This legislation is a promise to future generations of New Mexicans, who will benefit from both a cleaner environment and a more robust energy economy with exciting career and job opportunities."
— Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-New Mexico

But not all workers find a potential transition to be exciting.
On Saturday, dozens of members of California’s Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents more than 400,000 workers, planned a “Blue Collar Revolution” demonstration at the California Democratic Party Convention site in San Francisco.
Robbie Hunter, president of the labor group, told Politico what the Green New Deal represented to the group’s members.
“All it does is do what the Democratic Party seems to be very good at lately — which is export our jobs, while doing nothing for the end game, which is the environmental,’’ Hunter said.
Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California, says Democrats should heed a lesson from West Virginia.
“West Virginia, until 2000, was considered solidly blue,” Pitney told Politico, until the George W. Bush campaign reminded the state’s coal miners of opponent Al Gore’s ties to the environmental movement, which the miners viewed as a threat to their jobs. The state’s voters ended up backing Bush, 52 percent to 46 percent.
“So yes,” Pitney told the magazine, “this is a real hazard for Democrats, something that somebody from a state with extractive industries may want to recognize.”
Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly contributed to this report.

Steny Hoyer Cartoons (House Majority Leader)

Washington, D.C. statehood bill hearing slated for mid-summer

Early morning runners pass the Washington Monument as they run across the National Mall at daybreak on in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

The push for Washington, D.C. to achieve statehood is not new, but it’s gained new traction thanks to a bill in the House of Representatives. The bill is reportedly slated to have a hearing on July 24th before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
The bill was proposed by Democrat delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton, and seeks to have the city “admitted to the union on equal footing with the other states.” This would call for district-wide elections of two new senators and one new congressional representative. All the district territory would be included in the state with the exemption of specific federal buildings and monuments, such as the white house.
Residents in the city have complained about a lack of representation in the United States. They noted that while the district does get three electoral votes in national elections, it has no voting representation in the House or the Senate.
“We come full of optimism because of the progress we have made in only five-months in the new 116th Congress,” stated Holmes-Norton. “We come determined to become the 51st state of the United States of America.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer threw his support behind the bill in an a Washington Post op-ed, saying more than 700,000 Americans remain unable to cast votes for an equal voice in Congress. He also said he’s been hesitant to call for statehood in the district in the past, but now says it’s the only path to ensuring permanent representation. Hoyer noted he would be co-sponsoring the bill with Holmes-Norton.
Nearly 80-percent of voters in Washington, D.C. passed a measure in 2016 in favor of petitioning Congress to admit the district as the state of New Columbia.
Analysts say the bill does have the potential to pass through the House, but is not likely to receive support in the Senate. They explained that Republicans have long pushed back against the call for statehood due to the heavy Democrat population in the city.

Trump admin. weighs in on crisis at southern border, tariffs on Mexico

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks to reporters outside the White House, Friday, May 31, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump speaks during the 2019 United States Air Force Academy Graduation Ceremony at Falcon Stadium, Thursday, May 30, 2019, in Colorado Springs, Colo. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

President Trump along with members of his administration and his reelection campaign are all weighing in on the crisis at southern border, including U.S. relations with Mexico. As the crisis at the border continues, the word from the White House is — it’s time for Mexico to do its part.
While speaking to reporters Friday, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the president’s number one responsibility is national security and protecting Americans.
“…we don’t know who’s coming in, and we can’t process them, and we’re being totally overrun,”she explained. “As we’re seeing, the numbers get worse and worse — the president has a constitutional obligation to step up and do something.”
In a series of tweets Friday, the president highlighted the situation with Mexico. He said the country has “taken advantage of the U.S. for decades” due to what he says are bad immigration laws as well as the actions of Democrat lawmakers. President Trump also said it’s time for Mexico “to finally do what must be done” in order to address the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border. Those issues include drugs, weapons and human trafficking as well as the surge of illegal immigration, which Mexico has the legal authority to stop.
The tariffs could be a tool to bring Mexico to the negotiating table, and help reduce the trade deficit between the two nations. President Trump said companies, including the auto industry, will leave Mexico and come back to the U.S. to avoid paying the tariffs, which he says would also help stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S.

In order not to pay Tariffs, if they start rising, companies will leave Mexico, which has taken 30% of our Auto Industry, and come back home to the USA. Mexico must take back their country from the drug lords and cartels. The Tariff is about stopping drugs as well as illegals!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2019

The president also claimed 90-percent of the drugs coming into the U.S. do so through Mexico. He pointed out that thousands of people have died, and something needs to be done.

90% of the Drugs coming into the United States come through Mexico & our Southern Border. 80,000 people died last year, 1,000,000 people ruined. This has gone on for many years & nothing has been done about it. We have a 100 Billion Dollar Trade Deficit with Mexico. It’s time!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2019

Supreme Court to decide what happens when a U.S. border agent shoots someone on the other side

There is established Supreme Court precedent that a law enforcement official can be sued for damages if they violate a person’s constitutional rights, but what if the person suing is not an American and was in another country when they were harmed?
That is the question at the core of two federal cases involving border patrol agents in the United States who allegedly fired their weapons across the border, killing individuals in Mexico. One of those cases, Hernandez v. Mesa, will be heard by the Supreme Court during its next term.
Generally speaking, law enforcement officials are protected by qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of their official duty, but the 1971 case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents carved out an exception that allowed for civil claims against those federal officers who are accused of violating the Constitution under the color of their official authority.
The family of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca claims that they can make what's known as a Bivens claim against Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who is accused of fatally shooting their son. The family claims that the teen and his friends were playing a game where they ran to touch the border fence, then ran back. Mesa allegedly fired across the border while standing on the U.S. side, with Hernandez still in Mexico.
Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, the 15-year-old who was killed by a Border Patrol agent.
"The deadly practice of agents, standing in the United States and shooting innocent kids across the border must be stopped," Hernandez family attorney Bob Hilliard said in a statement. "It’s never right. It’s never constitutional. This is one of those times when morality and our U.S. constitution line up perfectly."
In April 2012, the Obama Justice Department told a different story. Following an investigation, they said that the shooting happened when smugglers were "attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at a CBP [Customs and Border Protection] agent who was attempting to detain a suspect."
The probe involved the FBI, Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General's Office, and prosecutors from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. Officials interviewed more than 25 witnesses and reviewed video and evidence from the scene. At the conclusion of the investigation, the DOJ said there was "insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal charges," and "that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued in this matter."
The DOJ noted that "on these particular facts, the agent did not act inconsistently with CBP policy or training regarding use of force." Officials also determined that they could not show that Mesa had the intent necessary for a civil rights violation, plus there was a lack of jurisdiction for a civil rights case because Hernandez was outside the U.S.
The Hernandez family's civil case, meanwhile, has bounced up and down the judicial system. The Supreme Court first heard the case in 2017, but after a 4-4 split, sent it back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case went before the full Fifth Circuit for an en banc hearing in 2018, which resulted in the Court of Appeals ruling against the Hernandez family.
The appellate court cited several issues that led to their decision. For starters, there was the argument that a foreign person on foreign soil does not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the court noted that because this is a matter involving the border, there are national security and foreign policy issues involved, which fall under the authority of the Executive and Legislative Branches, not the judiciary.
Speaking of the legislature, the Fifth Circuit stated that Congress has passed laws that lead them to believe that they would be against allowing civil claims in situations like this. The court pointed to the Civil Rights Act, which is limited to "citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof," the Federal Tort Claims Act, which excludes "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which gives federal officials exemption from liability.
With regards to national security, the Fifth Circuit referred to a Third Circuit case where the court denied a Bivens claim against a TSA agent who was accused of violating someone’s constitutional rights.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that a border patrol agent should not be able to shoot someone and get away with it simply because the other person was on the other side of the border. “For cross-border shootings like this one,” the court pointed out, “criminal investigations and prosecutions are already a deterrent.”
That being said, the court noted that government agencies had already investigated Mesa and did not bring any charges against him.
Mesa's attorney, Randy Ortega, believes the Fifth Circuit got it right.
"The case, in my opinion, is clear," Ortega told Fox News. "The Constitution only provides redress for acts occurring within the United States, thus the Fifth Circuit ruling is on point. To allow those injured in foreign jurisdictions to bring suit in the United States would result in a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on those protecting our borders."
The Mexican government got involved in the case, filing an amicus brief in support of the Hernandez family. Mexico argued that this case is far simpler than Mesa's defense and the Fifth Circuit make it out to be. This is a case where a law enforcement official is accused of using undue deadly force against someone, they argued.
“Agent Mesa was clearly on U.S. soil when he shot Sergio Hernández, and there are no practical or political difficulties in applying U.S. law regardless of which side of the border Sergio was on,” Mexico’s brief said.
Mexico also argued that this is not a case involving national security, as it “has nothing to do with international terrorism, espionage, or any other national security concerns.”
What it boils down to, they claimed, is a law enforcement agent shooting someone “in such a way that he could have hit nationals of any country on either side of the border.”
Siding with Agent Mesa, the Trump administration filed their own amicus brief in April 2019. They supported the Supreme Court hearing the case, in light of a similar Ninth Circuit case – Swartz v. Rodriguez – that was decided the opposite way. The government stated that the Fifth Circuit, in their ruling against Hernandez, “appropriately identified several special factors that counsel against implying a damages remedy here.”
The Supreme Court will hear the case, which was consolidated with the Swartz case, during the term beginning this October. Should they reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Hernandez family would be allowed to move forward with their lawsuit against Agent Mesa, but would still have to prove their case in court.

Ilhan Omar slammed for blaming NRA for Virginia shooting that left 12 people dead

This Muslim would love it if all Americans had to turned in their firearms.

National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch ripped Rep. Ilhan Omar after she blamed the gun rights group for the deaths inside a Virginia Beach municipal building on Friday.
The embattled Minnesota Democrat took a swipe at the NRA just hours after a disgruntled city employee went on a shooting spree that left 12 people dead and four more injured.
“I am outraged and heartbroken,” she wrote in a tweet. “How much longer will we ignore the pain of our communities? We need to immediately confront the power of the NRA and end the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”
DeWayne Craddock, the suspected shooter, died in a gunfight with police officers. He was a veteran employee of the Public Utilities Department who made multiple legal firearm purchases, including for a handgun and rifle, in recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal reported.
A police officer was also wounded, but was saved by his bullet-proof vest. The police didn’t reveal the motive for the shooting.
Omar’s comment about the NRA prompted the group’s spokeswoman to question how it was related.
“This was a heinous tragedy,” Loesch wrote in a tweet. “Your remarks move me to ask: What do 5 million members of the NRA have to do with this man’s crime? Was this man a card-carrying member? His purchases were legal, whose fault is that? Does he bear any blame at all? Serious questions.”
The Minnesota Democrat has long been opposed to the NRA, often decrying the supposed influence of the group on the gun control debate in the country.
After the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, Omar went to Twitter to decry the NRA as “the true enemy.”
“Prayers and condolences won’t keep our kids safe, sensible #GunLaws will. It’s time for you and Republicans to put the safety of Americans first and seek freedom from the NRA,” she wrote. “They are the true enemy!”

Lemon and Maddow Cartoons