Tear gas, water cannon in Hong Kong police-protester faceoff

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong police fired blue-colored water from water cannons and tear gas on Saturday in a standoff with protesters outside government headquarters.
While other protesters marched back and forth elsewhere in the city, a large crowd wearing helmets and gas masks gathered outside the city government building. Some approached barriers that had been set up to keep protesters away and appeared to throw objects at the police on the other side. Others shone laser lights at the officers.
Police fired tear gas from the other side of the barriers, then brought out a water cannon truck that fired regular water and then colored water at the protesters, staining them and nearby journalists and leaving blue puddles in the street.
Earlier, large crowds of protesters gathered in central Hong Kong as police readied for possible confrontations near the Chinese government’s main office and elsewhere in the semiautonomous territory.
A march to mark the fifth anniversary of China’s decision against fully democratic elections in Hong Kong was not permitted by police, but protesters took to the streets anyway in the 13th straight weekend of demonstrations.
The mostly young, black-shirted protesters took over roads and major intersections in shopping districts as they rallied and marched. Police erected additional barriers and brought out two water cannon trucks near the Chinese government office and deployed at various locations in riot gear.
Democratic Party lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting said Hong Kong citizens would keep fighting for their rights and freedoms despite the arrests of several prominent activists and lawmakers in the past two days, including activist Joshua Wong.
The protests were sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill. Protesters are demanding its full withdrawal, democratic elections and an investigation into alleged police brutality in what have been pitched battles with hard-line demonstrators.
“I do believe the government deliberately arrested several leaders of the democratic camp to try to threaten Hong Kong people not to come out to fight against the evil law,” Lam said at what was advertised as a Christian march earlier in the day.
About 1,000 people marched to a Methodist church and police headquarters. They alternated between singing hymns and chanting the slogans of the pro-democracy movement. An online flyer for the demonstration called it a “prayer for sinners” and featured images of a Christian cross and embattled Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, who had proposed the extradition bill.
Authorities rejected an application from the Civil Human Rights Front, the organizer of pro-democracy marches that have drawn upward of a million people this summer, for a march to the Chinese government office. Police said that while previous marches have started peacefully, they have increasingly degenerated into violence in the end.
The standing committee of China’s legislature ruled on Aug. 31, 2014, that Hong Kong residents could elect their leader directly, but that the candidates would have to be approved by a nominating committee.
The decision failed to satisfy democracy advocates in the city and led to the 79-day long Occupy Central protests that fall, in which demonstrators camped out on major streets in the financial district and other parts of Hong Kong.
The participants in the religious march Saturday were peaceful and mostly older than the younger protesters who have led this summer’s movement and, in some cases, blocked streets and battled police with bricks, sticks and gasoline bombs
Religious meetings do not require police approval, though authorities said late Friday that organizers of a procession with more than 30 people must notify police.
The government shut down streets and subway service near the Chinese government’s office, about 5 kilometers (3 miles) west of the religious march.
“A public event is expected on Hong Kong Island this afternoon which may cause severe disruptions,” police said. “Text messages have been sent to alert members of the public to mind their personal safety.”
___
Associated Press videojournalists Alice Fung and Johnson Lai contributed to this report.

EPA cutting back on Obama-era methane regulations

FILE – In this April 24, 2015, file photo, pumpjacks work in a field near Lovington, N.M. Oil industry and environmental groups say they expect the Environmental Protection Agency to release a proposed rule over the next few days that will roll back requirements on detecting and plugging methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

The Environmental Protection Agency is cutting back on energy regulations created by the Obama administration, some of which are just copies of other rules.
The latest decision by President Trump’s administration is expected to help oil and gas companies, possibly boosting profits by hundreds of millions of dollars into the next decade.
This includes changing how methane is regulated. Small companies have argued against the installation of technology designed to look for and fix leaks because they say it costs them too much. The president is also planning a rollback of ethanol regulations that are expected to help American farmers.

The Farmers are going to be so happy when they see what we are doing for Ethanol, not even including the E-15, year around, which is already done. It will be a giant package, get ready! At the same time I was able to save the small refineries from certain closing. Great for all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2019

President Trump talked about what his policies are doing for the future of the industry during a joint news conference with France at the G7 summit.
“We are now the number one energy producer in the world,” he stated. “Soon it will be, by far, the number one — it’s tremendous wealth.”
A few weeks before that speech, the president told a crowd in Pennsylvania his administration was clearing a path for energy and manufacturing companies to grow.
A public comment period will be implemented before the EPA’s new methane policy can take effect. This is just the latest effort by the president to cut regulations. He has opened the door for drilling in Alaska and for mining on public land. Additionally, there are reported plans by the EPA in regards to the Endangered Species Act as well as cutting regulations related to streams and wetlands.

CNN touts OANN during anti-Fox news panel

One America News Network received a shout from one of the most outspoken anti-Trump talk show hosts on TV. Earlier this week on CNN, anchor Don Lemon held a panel on the president’s anti-Fox News tweets. During the discussion, a Daily Beast columnist brought up the president’s new favorite news channel — One America News.
While some critics on the panel tried to downplay One America’s rise, others gave the channel some free publicity. One America News CEO Robert Herring took to Twitter in response to the discussion:

Isn't it nice how generous @CNN is?@OANN @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/MTerQo9vKG

— Robert Herring (@RobHerring) August 29, 2019

CBP agents say new border wall in ‘smuggler’s gulch’ makes a difference

Workers break ground on new border wall construction about 20 miles west of Santa Teresa, New Mexico, Aug. 23, 2019. The wall visible on the left was built in 2018 with money allocated by Congress, while the new construction is funded by money reallocated from Department of Defense funding. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

According to California Border Patrol agents, new infrastructure in an area known as “smuggler’s gulch” is making a difference. On Thursday, the agent in charge — Justin De La Torre — stated a steep, open canyon between Tijuana and San Diego has been used for decades by immigrants attempting to smuggle drugs into the U.S. from Mexico.
The agent said when he first started working in “smuggler’s gulch” there needed to be at least five agents on patrol. He also noted that effective infrastructure there was lacking. However, De La Torre now says the wall’s formidable features have successfully bolstered Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) security efforts.
“It has an anti-climb feature, it’s made of steel, it also has a concrete base that prevents digging from underneath, and now we’re able to control this area with the new infrastructure,” he stated.
De La Torre added, the agents who patrolled “smugglers gulch” in the past only had a fence made out of landing mat to aid security efforts. He said the fence helped, but it was easy to climb.
President Trump moved to replace the fencing along the San Diego border earlier this year as his administration sped up moves to build taller, stronger border reinforcement. During the State of the Union address, the president stated CBP agents are the ones who see how the wall is helping mitigate the crisis at the border first-hand.
“This is a smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier — not just a simple concrete wall,” said the president. “It will be deployed in the areas identified by border agents as having the greatest need, and as these agents will tell you, where walls go up, illegal crossings go way down.”
Border officials stated they are continuing their efforts to construct several miles of wall along the southwest border. The CBP confirmed several wall construction projects are underway in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Numerous wall construction projects are underway across the Southwest border, including projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. pic.twitter.com/43OrCdw8J2

— CBP (@CBP) August 25, 2019

CAIR Cartoons

Census Bureau abruptly ends just-announced partnership with Muslim advocacy group CAIR

EXCLUSIVE: The Commerce Department on Thursday terminated its just-announced planned partnership with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, after Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" asked about the arrangement -- given CAIR's reported ties to the terrorist group Hamas, and its repeated attacks on the president.
"Based on further review, the Census Bureau is no longer partnering with CAIR," the Commerce Department said in a statement to "Tucker."
The plan, according to the group, was to enhance outreach efforts to Muslims using CAIR's network of local offices. The census, conducted once a decade, has been used not only to determine congressional apportionment, but also as a critical planning tool for state, local and federal agencies.
However, CAIR and the Trump administration would have been strange bedfellows -- and tension in the relationship was evident earlier Thursday. Reached by Fox News prior to the Census Bureau's decision, CAIR openly derided the Trump administration as "white supremacist" despite the partnership.
"The Census Bureau, like CAIR, is nonpartisan," the organization said. "CAIR is not receiving any government funding as part of this project to promote Muslim participation in the U.S. census. We continue to believe that President Trump and his administration promote a white supremacist, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic agenda."
In its official statement on Wednesday announcing the partnership, however, CAIR sounded a more positive note.
"CAIR is proud to partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure American Muslims are fairly and accurately counted in the 2020 Census," Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, said in a news release earlier on Thursday. "Full participation in the census ensures that American Muslims will be better represented in Congress and that their communities receive an equal share in state and federal programs."
The organization added: "CAIR wants to ensure that not only are American Muslim communities being fairly counted, but that their neighbors are getting a fair share in federal and state funding."
In 2009, the FBI severed its once-close ties to CAIR amid mounting evidence that the group had links to a support network for Hamas.
Local chapters of CAIR were shunned in the wake of a 15-year FBI investigation that culminated in the conviction of Hamas fundraisers at a trial in which CAIR itself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The U.S. government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Roula Allouch, the board chairwoman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, left, seen speaking in 2016. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

The FBI previously had invited CAIR to give training sessions for agents and used it as a liaison with the American Muslim community.
CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, attended a post-Sept. 11 meeting with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, and he met with other top brass as recently as 2006. That was before Awad was shown to have participated in planning meetings with the Holy Land Foundation, five officials of which were convicted in December of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas.
Prosecutors identified CAIR's chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, as an unindicted co-conspirator in that trial, and Special Agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a front group for radical organizations operating in the U.S.
CAIR denied it conspired in the case and has sued unsuccessfully to have its name removed from the list of co-conspirators. It also has protested the FBI's decision to sever relations.
"This is an unfortunate legacy of the Bush administration's misguided and counterproductive efforts to marginalize mainstream American Muslim organizations," CAIR's national office said in a statement to Fox News at the time. "It is not surprising that we would be singled out by those in the previous administration who sought to prevent us from defending the civil rights of American Muslims."
In a statement on its website in May 2013, CAIR similarly rejected suggestions it had links to terrorism.
"CAIR is not is [sic] 'the Wahhabi lobby,' a 'front group for Hamas,' a 'fundraising arm for Hezbollah,' '...part of a wider conspiracy overseen by the Muslim Brotherhood...' or any of the other false and misleading associations our detractors seek to smear us with," the organization said. "That we stand accused of being both a 'fundraising arm of Hezbollah' and the 'Wahhabi lobby' is a significant point in demonstrating that our detractors are hurling slander, not fact. Hezbollah and the Salafi (Wahhabi) movement represent diametrically opposed ideologies."
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" investigative producer Alex Pfeiffer contributed to this report.

Hans von Spakovsky: Ilhan Omar protected – for now – against accusations of campaign finance law violations

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who is accused of improperly using political campaign funds to reimburse her alleged lover for travel expenses, doesn’t need to worry for now about a complaint filed against her with the Federal Election Commission. Vacancies on the FEC make it impossible for the commission to take any action.
The FEC, where I served as a commissioner over a decade ago, is supposed to act as a government watchdog against election law violations. But unless it has four members, the watchdog is effectively muzzled and chained, helpless to act. Right now there are three members and three vacancies on the commission.
That’s good news for Omar, who refused Wednesday to answer questions about the allegations filed against her this week by a nonprofit group called the National Legal and Policy Center, which describes itself as “a charitable and educational organization” that seeks to “foster and promote ethics in government and public life.”
Asked by a reporter in Minneapolis why she is refusing to answer questions, Omar said: “Because they’re stupid questions.” Later in the day the married congresswoman told reporters: “I will just say I have no interest in commenting on anything that you are about to ask about my personal life, so you can chase me all you want.”
The FEC will send Omar a copy of the complaint filed against her and she will have 15 days to send a response. But the question of whether to open an investigation of the congresswoman – who has been accused by President Trump and others of anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish state of Israel – will have to wait until there are four confirmed FEC commissioners. No one knows when that will happen.
With at least four members, the FEC could levy a fine against Omar if it finds she committed a civil violation of campaign finance law. The commission has the power to determine the amount of such a fine, based on whatever commissioners believe is appropriate.
The complaint filed with the FEC against Omar alleges that her election campaign paid a consultant – Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group, LLC – $230,000 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, Internet advertising and travel expenses.
However, in a divorce case filed by Tim Mynett’s wife, Beth Mynett, she alleges that her husband told her “he was romantically involved with” Omar – a claim Omar denies.
Beth Mynett’s divorce complaint alleges that her husband’s “recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than with his actual work commitments.”
The complaint filed with the FEC points out that the payment of Tim Mynett’s travel expenses started the same month that Mynett reportedly told his wife he was having an extramarital affair with Omar.
Thus, according to the complaint filed with the FEC, the travel expenses for Tim Mynett made with funds collected as political campaign contributions “may have been unrelated, or only partially related, to Omar’s campaign” and instead may have been “so that Rep. Omar would have the benefit of Mynett’s romantic companionship.”
If that is the case, then payments by Omar to Tim Mynett were “personal in nature” and not related to the campaign, according to the complaint.
If these allegations are true, Omar may have run afoul of a federal law – specifically, 52 U.S.C. §30114. This law bars the use of campaign funds “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
Examples of what is prohibited for funding with campaign donations include such items as a personal mortgage, clothing purchases, non-campaign-related car expenses, and vacations and other non-campaign-related trips.
In other words, if Mynett’s travel expense were unrelated to his actual work for the campaign but in furtherance of an affair with Omar, those would be personal expenses. Campaign funds couldn’t be used to pay them.
Omar’s attorneys have dismissed the complaint filed with the FEC as a “political ploy.” But until the FEC gets another commissioner, neither this complaint nor any others will be investigated by the commission to see if there is actually any substance – and any credibility – to the allegations being made.
So while the complaint against Omar is making headlines – both because of the nature of the allegations and her prominence as one of four far-left Democratic freshman congresswomen known as the “Squad” –  all political candidates are getting a free pass on any complaints filed against them with the FEC as long as the commission has three vacancies.
The resignation of Commissioner Matt Petersen (who replaced me) from the FEC earlier this month left the commission in its current state of paralysis, with three vacancies.
The six FEC commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There is a long tradition that whenever a seat held by the political party not in control of the White House opens up, the president asks the leader of that political party in the Senate for his choice to fill the seat.
There are currently two empty Republicans seats and one empty Democratic seat on the commission.
The names of FEC nominees are sent to the Senate in pairs – one Republican and one Democrat.
President Trump nominated a Texas lawyer, Trey Trainor, in 2017 to fill an open Republican seat. But there has been no public report that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has given Trump a nominee for the Democratic seat that has been empty since 2017.
Without a quorum – four commissioners on the six-member FEC – the commission can’t hold meetings, initiate audits, vote on enforcement matters, issue advisory opinions, or engage in rulemaking.
As a result, as the 2020 presidential election cycle heats up, the FEC remains unable to carry out the most important duties it was created to perform.
The FEC regulates all of the contributions and expenditures of federal candidates for the presidency and Congress. When it has at least four members, the commission is empowered to go after candidates, political parties, political action committees and others who violate the law, imposing civil penalties consisting of fines.
The vast majority of campaign finance violations are civil matters because they are usually inadvertent violations of the law. The Federal Election Campaign Act is byzantine in its complexity and often ambiguous. Even the commissioners sometime disagree on the proper interpretation and application of the law.
The U.S. Justice Department retains jurisdiction over criminal campaign finance violations, which are “knowing and willful” violations of the law. However, criminal prosecutions are very rare.
As an example, missing the deadline for filing a required campaign finance report on contributions received by a candidate is a civil violation, while knowingly spending campaign funds on personal expenses unrelated to a campaign would be a criminal violation.
That’s why former Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to jail in 2013. He pleaded guilty to spending $750,000 in campaign funds on everything from personal travel and restaurant expenses to a Rolex watch, fur coats for his wife, and memorabilia from Bruce Lee, Eddie Van Halen and Jimi Hendrix, along with mounted elk heads for his office.
Right now the ball is in Sen. Schumer’s court to nominate a Democratic FEC commissioner, and for the Senate to then confirm a Democrat and a Republican to the commission. Until that happens, Ilhan Omar has nothing to worry about from the FEC.

How the DNC is forcing Gillibrand and others to fold their tents

Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates are essentially being forced out of the race by Democratic leaders.
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The field has been too swollen in a way that creates overcrowded debate stages and muffles the message of all but the top few contenders. A party would be insane not to try to winnow the competition to those who actually have a shot at the nomination.
Gillibrand was upfront in saying she’s dropping out because she didn’t make the cut for what will now be next month’s single ABC debate in Houston. Losing that visibility makes a viable candidacy all but impossible.
The field, which once numbered two dozen, has already lost Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper.
Others who didn’t make the debate cut—such as Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard—are still hanging on. By a thread, I’d say.
As former DNC official Mo Elleithee, a Fox News contributor, told the New York Times:
“If you are a few months before the Iowa caucuses and you can’t get 130,000 donors and can’t crack 2 percent in a couple of polls, that’s on you. There is an appetite to start being able to focus on the candidates who have demonstrated the most movement in this race.”
Some of those beyond the 10 candidates who will be on the Houston stage are grumbling about the Democratic Party pushing out credible politicians before they have a chance to get traction in, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. But if after several months you’re behind Andrew Yang (who did make the cut), you’re going nowhere fast.
Some people in both parties run for president as a branding exercise, to get a book deal or a cable gig, knowing they have no real prospect of winning. Look how many profiles of Marianne Williamson you’ve had to read.
But Gillibrand is an incumbent senator who hoped she might catch fire by putting women’s issues at the top of her agenda. It didn’t work. The New York lawmaker never broke through the static.
Some, like Rachel Maddow, hailed her mere presence in the race, along with that of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and the other female candidates, as a gender breakthrough. And it’s good that a single woman no longer has to carry that burden.
But Gillibrand herself blamed her low poll numbers on sexism, telling CNN a few months ago: “I think people are generally biased against women.”
How then to explain Warren’s surge in the polls? Gillibrand also said in that interview that there’s bias against “younger women.”
The Washington Post Magazine recently assessed her struggling candidacy with this headline: “In 2019 It’s Unforgivable for a Presidential Candidate to be Boring.”
I’m not saying Gillibrand was deadly dull, but she never quite had a moment, on the stump or in the first two debates, where she said something that was noteworthy or controversial enough to get voters to take a closer look. I mean, she never even got a Trump nickname, although he did tweet sarcastically about her exit.
The Post piece put it this way: “Maybe it’s that her recalibration on guns and immigration is often framed as pandering. Maybe it’s because her role in Al Franken’s Senate resignation has been cast as inconvenient for Democrats and convenient for her. Maybe it’s sexism: The careful, methodical journey to the presidency seems to read as a natural expression of ambition for the charismatics sweating through oxfords under stadium lights, but somehow feels forced when paired with a blowout.”
Maybe.
But look at how Pete Buttigieg managed to catapult himself into serious contention with a series of provocative interviews and speeches. When you think of the woman who was first appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, no personal quality comes to mind, no issue beyond her crusade against sexual harassment, and that wasn’t enough.
Now that the DNC is forcibly shrinking the field, voters—and the media—can focus more intently on those who might actually win the nomination. Gillibrand told the Times that a woman nominee would be “exciting and inspiring,” but didn’t rule out endorsing anyone who could beat Donald Trump.