Presumptuous Politics

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Obama downplays tarmac row between US, China officials at G20 summit

WH aide, China official have heated words on Obama Asia trip

President Barack Obama said Sunday his talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping were “extremely productive” and that the row between U.S. and Chinese officials at the airport upon his arrival shouldn’t be over blown.
Obama said tensions always arise when the White House negotiates how much access the American press will get to the president and foreign leaders overseas. The White House didn’t apologize for pushing to press access because "we don't leave our values and our ideals behind when we take those trips."
"I wouldn't overcrank the significance" of the tensions at the airport, Obama said in a news conference in Hangzhou where global leaders are meeting for a G20 summit.
The summit got off to a contentious start Saturday with Chinese officials reportedly confronting National Security Advisor Susan Rise and other U.S. officials in at least three separate incidents. Reporters on the tarmac said that as soon as Air Force One arrived, a member of the Chinese delegation started screaming at the White House stff.
One reporter described the scene as “a bit of chaos,” as the Chinese official appeared furious about journalists being so near Obama’s arrival, though they purportedly were standing in the area Chinese officials had designated for them.
White House officials reportedly told the Chinese official that the U.S. press corps was staying for the American president arriving on a U.S. aircraft.
When the White House official insisted the U.S. would set the rules for its own leader, her Chinese counterpart shot back, the Associated Press reported.
"This is our country! This is our airport!" the Chinese official yelled.
The exchange with Rice reportedly happened when the Chinese official attempted to prevent her from walking to the U.S. motorcade, as she crossed a media rope line. The official purportedly spoke angrily to her before a Secret Service agent intervened.
Rice responded, but her comments were inaudible to reporters standing underneath the wing of Air Force One. It was unclear if the official, whose name was not immediately clear, knew that Rice was a senior official, not a reporter.
Foreign reporters are often physically prevented from covering sensitive stories, but altercations involving foreign government officials are rare.
U.S. officials also apparently got into a heated exchange with Chinese security official before Obama arrived at China’s West Lake State Guest House, where he met with Chinese President Xi to formally enter their respective countries -- the world's two biggest carbon emitters -- into last year's Paris climate change agreement.
The ceremony included U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and took place ahead of the summit, which officially starts Sunday.
White House staffers and Secret Service officers trying to enter the state guest house separately from reporters were stopped at a security gate and purportedly argued about how many members of the U.S. delegation would be allowed to enter.
"The president is arriving here in an hour," one White House staffer was overheard saying in exasperation.
However, the most heated exchange purportedly occurred between a Chinese security official and a Chinese official helping Americans who got angry about how the guards were treating the White House staff.
“You don't push people,” the Chinese official purportedly yelled in Chinese. “No one gave you the right to touch or push anyone around."
Another Chinese official stepped between the two when the security official purportedly looked ready to throw a punch.
"Calm down please. Calm down," White House official purportedly said.
A foreign ministry official said in Chinese: "Stop, please. There are reporters here.”
Another heated exchange between White House press officers and Chinese officials purportedly occurred minutes later -- over how many American print reporters would be allowed inside the building.
The disagreement continued until about 20 minutes before Obama arrived and purportedly ended with 10 of the reporters being allowed inside, despite White House officials arguing there was plenty of empty space for them to stand at the back of the room.

Fired Mizzou professor Melissa Click hired at Gonzaga University

Once you've had them, cockroaches are hard to get rid of :-)

Former University of Missouri professor Melissa Click has landed a new job nearly 1,600 miles away in Spokane, Wash, according to Gonzaga University's website.
Click is listed on the faculty page of the university's website as a lecturer.
Click was fired from her position as an assistant professor of communications in February, and her appeal of the decision was denied in March. She achieved national attention after video footage of her assaulting a student journalist went viral. Later, video emerged of her yelling profanities at a police officer.
Her confrontation with a student journalist attempting to cover campus protests last November was caught on the journalist’s camera.
Elisabeth Mermann-Jozwiak, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga, told the Kansas City Star in a written statement that Gonzaga officials knew of Click’s recent history and were confident in welcoming her to the university. The Kansas City Star first reported the hiring.
Click was hired for a one-year, non-tenure track position as a lecturer in the university’s communication studies department, Mermann-Jowiak told the newspaper.
“Dr. Click was hired through an extensive national search process that revealed her to be the most qualified and experienced candidate for the position,” the statement obtained by the newspaper read. “Dr. Click has excellent recommendations for both her teaching and scholarship, which includes an extensive record of publication. We are confident she has learned much from her experiences at the University of Missouri and believe she will uphold the rigorous standards of academic excellence demanded of Gonzaga faculty and students.”

Don't send your kid here unless you want them to be taught by a bunch of IDIOTS.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Loretta Lynch & James Clapper Cartoons

35 times Hillary Clinton 'could not recall' when the FBI asked about her emails

FBI notes: Clinton does not recall classification training

The FBI has released new documents surrounding its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices as Secretary of State. Not surprisingly, they were released on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend.
The FBI’s summary of its agents’ interview with Hillary Clinton, which took place on July 2, reveals that Hillary experienced memory struggles throughout. According to the summary, Hillary “could not recall” or “did not recall” various details about her emails on at least 35 occasions during the interview. The report also reveals that Clinton’s doctors told her she could only work a few hours a day at the State Department, due to her health.
From the FBI report:
1) CLINTON could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to State via reciprocity from her time in the Senate.
2) CLINTON could not recall how often she used [Original Classification Authority] or any training or guidance provided by State.
3) CLINTON could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike…
4) CLINTON did not recall how any data stored on [her BlackBerry] device was destroyed.

'Gross injustice': Of 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US, 56 are Christian

US to accept 10,000th Syrian refugee

The Obama administration hit its goal this week of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees -- yet only a fraction of a percent are Christians, stoking criticism that officials are not doing enough to address their plight in the Middle East.
Of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from the war-torn country, 56 are Christians, or .5 percent.
A total of 10,722 were Muslims, and 17 were Yazidis.
The numbers are disproportionate to the Christian population in Syria, estimated last year by the U.S. government to make up roughly 10 percent of the population. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have fled the country, while many have been targeted and slaughtered by the Islamic State.
In March, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had determined that ISIS has committed genocide against minority religious groups, including Christians and Yazidis.
“In my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in territory under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims,” Kerry said at the State Department, using an alternative Arabic name for the group.
He also accused ISIS of “crimes against humanity” and "ethnic cleansing."
Yet, despite the strong words, relatively few from those minority groups have been brought into the United States. A State Department spokesperson told FoxNews.com that religion was only one of many factors used in determining a refugee’s eligibility to enter the United States.
Critics blasted the administration for not making religion a more important factor, as the U.S. government has prioritized religious minorities in the past in other cases.
“It’s disappointingly disproportional,” Matthew Clark, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), told FoxNews.com. “[The Obama administration has] not prioritized Christians and it appears they have actually deprioritized them, put them back of the line and made them an afterthought.”
“This is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” said Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.
Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the make-up of the refugees is the make-up of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.
“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”
“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous, there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.
However, Kristin Wright, director of advocacy for Open Doors USA – a group that advocates for Christians living in dangerous areas across the world – told FoxNews.com that another reason is many Christians are choosing to stick it out in Syria, or going instead to urban areas for now.
“Many have fled to urban areas instead of the camps, so they may be living in Beirut instead of living in a broader camp, meaning many are not registering as refugees,” Wright said. “They may still come to the U.S. but may come through another immigration pathway.”
However, others called on the Obama administration, in light of its genocide declaration, to do more to assist Christians, including setting up safe zones in Syria or actively seeking out Christians via the use of contractors to bring them to safety.
In March, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced legislation that would give special priority to refugees who were members of persecuted religious minorities in Syria.
“We must not only recognize what's happening as genocide, but also take action to relieve it," Cotton said.
“The administration did the right thing by recognizing genocide, but by not taking action, it deflates it and makes it so Christians and others are not receiving any help,” Clark said. “So it’s all words and no actions, it’s just lip service on the issue of the genocide.”
This week, the ACLJ filed a lawsuit against the State Department for not responding to Freedom of Information Act requests about what the administration is doing to combat the genocide.
For Shea, the question is not just about helping refugees, but the very survival of Christianity in the 2,000-year community that has existed since the apostolic era of Christianity.
"This Christian community is dying," she said. "I fear that there will be no Christians left when the dust settles."

James R. Clapper oversees the FBI & Loretta E. Lynch oversees the Department of Justice. And your still wondering why it's taking so long to indict Hillary Clinton?

James R. Clapper. The Honorable James R. Clapper was sworn in as the fourth Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on August 9, 2010. As DNI, Mr. Clapper leads the United States Intelligence Community and serves as the principal intelligence advisor to the President.

The FBI’s activities are closely and regularly scrutinized by a variety of entities. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI’s budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations. The results of FBI investigations are often reviewed by the judicial system during court proceedings. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence activities are overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.

Loretta E. Lynch was sworn in as the 83rd Attorney General of the United States by Vice President Joe Biden on April 27, 2015. President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Ms. Lynch on November 8, 2014.

BREAKING: Justice Department Just Filed For ACTION Against Hillary

A new filing by the Department of Justice contains a key phrase that some might construe as a hint at criminal prosecution being planned for Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Vice News reporter Jason Leopold formally protested the classification of an FBI declaration that provided details about the investigation into how sensitive information ended up on Clinton’s private email server.
The Justice Department submitted the declaration as part of “a secret filing,” but a U.S. District Court Judge ordered them to publicly submit a redacted copy of the document or at least “show cause why” that isn’t possible.
They responded in kind by saying they couldn’t make the document public because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Clinton’s private email server.
Fair enough, but it is two words further into the DOJ memorandum that will be sure to raise some eyebrows. They claim they can’t reveal the document because it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
Via Law Newz:

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Enforcement proceedings? Does this mean the FBI has found enforcement to be necessary?
It should be noted that this particular phrase is used in federal law on disclosing public information “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” in tandem with another set criteria – when “the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law.”
The Legal Information Institute writes:

(1)Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and—

(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and

(B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.

That’s a far cry from the “security review” Clinton has claimed the FBI is undertaking.

FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification

FBI and DOJ to make some Clinton email documents public

Several dozen pages of documents released Friday from the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email probe show the former secretary of state repeatedly claimed to have little training or understanding about the classification process – despite leading the department that handled such information on a regular basis and having a security clearance.
The document dump also revealed the gaps that remain in the record. Not only were numerous sections – and entire pages – redacted, but the files showed the FBI could not obtain 13 Clinton mobile devices that may have been used to send emails from her personal email address, in addition to two iPads. And they showed Clinton claiming she could not recall numerous details.
But perhaps most striking were Clinton’s repeated statements regarding her grasp of the classification process. In response to the release, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton’s claims suggest she either is “incompetent” or “lied.”
CLICK TO READ THE DOCUMENTS HERE AND HERE
According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators -- when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”
The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”
The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”
Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.
Clinton's server was found to have more than 2,000 emails with classified material. Most were retroactively classified, but Comey has disputed Clinton’s insistence that none of them were marked as such at the time.
The FBI ultimately did not pursue charges against Clinton for her use of personal email while secretary of state, with Comey saying there was no evidence anyone intentionally mishandled classified information. He did, however, call Clinton “extremely careless.”
The FBI took the rare step Friday of publishing pages from the investigation after pressure to release the materials. They released a summary of Clinton’s July 2 FBI interview and a summary of the FBI investigation itself.
Despite Clinton’s apparent claims of ignorance on the classification process, Republicans said the files show how reckless she was.
"These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.
Donald Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement that the files “reinforce her tremendously bad judgment and dishonesty.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Priebus called the documents a “devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency,” adding that her interview answers “either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public. Either way it’s clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency.”
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon defended the candidate in a statement: “We are pleased that the FBI has released the materials from Hillary Clinton's interview, as we had requested. While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the Justice Department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case.”
Regarding Clinton’s own authority to classify, the files stated she “could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”
The FBI's investigation also concluded Clinton never sought or asked permission to use a private server or email address during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, which violated federal records keeping policies.
Clinton has repeatedly said her use of private email was allowed. But in July she told FBI investigators she "did not explicitly request permission to use a private server or email address," the FBI wrote. They said no one at the State Department raised concerns during her tenure, and that Clinton said everyone with whom she exchanged emails knew she was using a private email address.
The documents also include technical details about how the server in the basement of Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York, was set up. Large portions of the documents were redacted.
Friday's release of documents involving the Democratic presidential nominee is a highly unusual step, but one that reflects extraordinary public interest in the investigation into Clinton's server.
“We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” the FBI said in a statement. “Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. “
After a yearlong investigation, the FBI recommended against prosecution in July, and the Justice Department then closed the case.
The notes show Clinton was pressed for information on specific sensitive emails. She was asked, among other details, about an email that mentioned a report about an Afghan national. As Fox News previously reported, this chain discussed the individual’s ties to the CIA.
The notes also show an unnamed individual told the bureau he deleted Clinton’s “archive mailbox” in late March 2015 using a program known as BleachBit, which would have been shortly after the original New York Times story on her private server.
“In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ---- indicated he believed he had an 'oh sh-t' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails,” the FBI notes said.
Meanwhile, the documents said the FBI identified 13 mobile devices associated with her two phone numbers. The Justice Department was unable to obtain any of them.
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, of South Carolina, continued to press the FBI to release more, saying the summaries released Friday are of “little benefit” by themselves.
“The public is entitled to all … information, including the testimony of the witnesses at Platte River Networks, the entity which maintained the private server. The public will find the timeline and witness responses and failures to respond instructive,” he said in a statement.

Santa Clara police threaten to boycott 49ers games in wake of Kaepernick controversy


Time for 49ers to cut Kaepernick, besides he's not all that good of a player.

Authorities in Northern California have threatened to stop working San Francisco 49ers games in response to Colin Kaepernick sitting during the national anthem in protest of police brutality and racial injustice.
In a letter obtained by KNTV, the Santa Clara police union told the 49ers organization that officers wouldn’t work at the stadium if it doesn’t “take action” against Kaepernick over his protest. The station noted that about 70 Santa Clara police officers work eight home games per year.
"The board of directors of the Santa Clara Police Officer's Association has a duty to protect its members and work to make all of their workings environments free of harassing behavior,” the letter added.
Kaepernick’s decision to sit for the national anthem and to wear socks in practice depicting pigs as cops has drawn much scrutiny from the Santa Clara officers. Police said they are angered and frustrated with the 6-year veteran.
The 49ers released a statement in support of Kaepernick’s freedom of expression as soon as the backlash started to begin.
"In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem,” the organization said.
Kaepernick’s has caused a firestorm on social media and throughout the nation, including fans, media and veterans.
His protest continued Thursday night when he decided to kneel for the national anthem in San Diego during the Chargers’ Salute to the Military. He was joined by defensive back Eric Reed in his protest.
Seattle Seahawks player Jeremy Lane also sat for the national anthem when the Seahawks played the Oakland Raiders.
Kaepernick pledges to donate the first $1 million he makes this season to communities that help people.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Black Lives Matter Cartoons

Black Lives Matter accuses Dems of 'placating' group, after memo leaked

Black Lives Matter slammed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after a memo leaked late Wednesday seemed to show the group carefully coaching candidates on how to avoid angering the "radical" activists.
The November 2015 memo included tips like: Do not offer “support for concrete policy positions;” be sure to "lead from behind;" stick to "small" meetings; and avoid mentioning terms like "black-on-black crime."
On its Facebook page, BLM said officials should "stop pacifying" them.
“We are disappointed at the DCCC’s placating response to our demand to value all Black life. Black communities deserve to be heard, not handled. People are dying,” the organization said, in response to the leaked document.
The leaked files were posted along with other Democratic documents by Guccifer 2.0, a hacker of unknown origin who the U.S. says could be working out of Russia and is intent on disrupting the U.S. presidential election. Guccifer 2.0 claims the documents were taken from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s personal computer.
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill, in a statement, called the leak an “attempt by Russia to influence our election,” while saying Pelosi “does not support the content or attitude of this memo. On many occasions, Leader Pelosi has publicly supported the ideals embraced by the Black Lives Matter movement and continues to do so.”
He also noted Pelosi “does not have a personal computer at the DCCC so no hacked, dumped or doctored documents can be attributed to her computer.”
It's the latest leak to dog Democrats, after another document dump exposed discussions in the upper reaches of the party about undermining Hillary Clinton primary foe Bernie Sanders.
The Nov. 19, 2015, memo was sent to DCCC staff by Troy Perry, who was the DCCC director of diversity but now works for the Clinton campaign. The DCCC is House Democrats' campaign arm.
In the email, he lays out the “best practices” for dealing with Black Lives Matter members.
“If approached by BLM activists, campaign staff should offer to meet with local activists. Invited BLM attendees should be limited,” the email said. “Please aim for personal or small group meetings. Listen to their concerns, don’t offer support for concrete policy positions.”
The memo also urged against mentioning "black on black crime" or "all lives matter."
"This response will garner additional media scrutiny and only anger BLM activists," the memo said.
Meredith Kelly, national press secretary for the DCCC, said in a statement Wednesday that the organization “highly respects and values the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement.”
“In less than two years, BLM has evolved from three words into a political force that is changing and waking our nation,” she said. “At the DCCC, we highly encourage our candidates to not only embrace the importance of this movement, but to meet with and listen to community activists to partner social change.”
Black Lives Matter is a national organization that was created in 2012 after the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The movement has since grown and the group has been at the forefront of documenting and protesting the killings of Alton Sterling, a black man shot several times during an encounter with police officers outside a convenience store, and Philando Castile, a Minnesota man whose death was livestreamed on the Internet.
Its members have also gotten into confrontations with political candidates, including Democrats.

State Department to release all Clinton schedules before election

The State Department agreed Thursday to turn over all the planning schedules from Hillary Clinton's time serving as secretary of state to The Associated Press by mid-October in an abrupt reversal from U.S. government lawyers' warning last week that hundreds of pages would not be released until after the presidential election.
The decision will make available all of Clinton's minute-by-minute schedules before the presidential election.
Those planning documents offer a detailed look at Clinton's daily routine during her four-year tenure as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013.
The State Department provided the AP some of the Democratic presidential nominee's official calendars from her time at the department, but some of those calendars had been edited after her events and, in some cases, names of those who met with her had been omitted.
The department has so far released about half of her more complete daily schedules.
"As stated in today’s court filing, the Department had no objection to shifting its resources as long as its overall processing burden was not increased," State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said in a statement. "Consequently, the Department plans to complete its production of former Secretary Clinton’s schedules not later than October 17.”
The new agreement Thursday was drawn up after government lawyers told the AP last week that the department expected to release the last of the detailed daily schedules around Dec. 30, weeks after the election. The AP had objected to the delays.
The daily schedules drew attention last week after the AP reviewed the two years of schedules released so far, plus Clinton's official calendars. From those, the AP determined that more than half the people who Clinton met or spoke with — outside of members of the U.S. or foreign governments — had donated to the Clinton Foundation either personally or through companies or groups.
The AP's review focused on Clinton's discretionary contacts with outside interests and excluded her meetings or calls with federal officials or foreign government representatives, because those contacts were part of her regular diplomatic obligations.
Clinton has said the AP's analysis was flawed because it did not account fully for all meetings and phone calls during her entire term as secretary. She also said the analysis should have included meetings with federal employees and foreign diplomats.
The State Department's decision Thursday to turn over all of the more-detailed daily schedules by Oct. 17 means it will have to triple its pace of producing 600 pages a month. That production schedule was ordered last January by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon.
The AP first asked for all Clinton's calendars in 2010 and again in 2013 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, but the State Department did not release them. After further delays, the AP sued the State Department in federal court in March 2015 to obtain the planning materials and other records, leading to Leon's order.

Watchdog: Foundation exec sought help from Clinton aide on diplomatic passports

Emails shed light on Huma involvement in Clinton Foundation

A new batch of emails released Thursday allegedly shows a top Clinton Foundation official asking Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin for help obtaining diplomatic passports – though Clinton officials say the request was related to the effort to secure the release of two American journalists held in North Korea.
The July 2009 exchange was included in the release of 510 pages of State Department documents obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch, which had sued in court for records.
In the exchange, then-Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band says he needs the special passports for himself and others.
“Need get me/ justy and jd dip passports,” he writes. “We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them.”
“Ok will figure it out,” Abedin replies.
Bill Clinton spokesman Angel Urena said in response Thursday that the exchange does not tell the whole story.
“The trip led to the successful release of two American journalists who were being held in North Korea,” Urena said. “This request turned out to be unnecessary and the trip was able to occur without diplomatic passports.”
But Judicial Watch noted that federal law “strictly limits” such passports to certain individuals, including Foreign Service officers and those “having diplomatic status or comparable status because he or she is traveling abroad to carry out diplomatic duties on behalf of the U.S. Government.” Their family members and government contractors also are eligible.
“The idea that the State Department would even consider a diplomatic passport for Clinton Foundation executives is beyond belief,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.
Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin also said the request was related to freeing the journalists.
“Judicial Watch is now attacking State Department officials and the 42^nd President of the United States for rescuing two American journalists from North Korea,” Schwerin said in a written statement. “This is a new low even for this right-wing organization that has been going after the Clintons since the 1990s.”
The State Department referred Fox News back to the federal regulations, saying they could not comment on individual cases.
Judicial Watch said the new documents include 37 email exchanges not in the original 30,000 handed over to the State Department.
The Judicial Watch release comes on the heels of another release earlier this week between Band and Abedin.
In that exchange of emails -- released as part of a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative group Citizens United -- Band suggested individuals from companies that had donated to the foundation be included at a State Department lunch with then-Chinese President Hu Jintao scheduled for January 2011, according to ABC News.

Trump changed immigration policy speech after Mexican president's tweet

As Donald Trump arrived in Phoenix late Wednesday, fresh from a visit to Mexico City’s presidential palace, he had in his hands a big immigration speech that omitted the usual line that Mexico would have to pay for his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border.
Just after landing, though, Mr. Trump discovered that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto had tweeted that he had told the Republican presidential nominee during their private meeting earlier that day that his country would refuse to pay for the wall.
Mr. Trump was peeved that Mr. Peña Nieto had gone public with the fact that the Mexican president had broken what Mr. Trump considered a deal to keep the question of paying for the wall off the table at their initial meeting.
So Mr. Trump hurriedly inserted a new sentence in his immigration speech, and he soon boomed out from the podium his traditional declaration that the wall would be paid for by Mexico—adding, “They don’t know it yet but they’re going to pay for the wall.”
“I had no choice,” Mr. Trump said in an interview on Thursday. But he also said of the Mexican president, “I liked him very much.”
All told, Wednesday was a day of exceptional twists and turns, spanning multiple time zones and two countries, on the trade and immigration issues that have become signatures of the Trump presidential campaign.
The day wasn't only one of the most unusual in the campaign, but one of the most controversial. Many Mexicans were incensed that their president invited Mr. Trump. A poll published in the Reforma newspaper Wednesday showed 85% of Mexicans disapproved of the invitation, and 72% thought it weakened the Mexican government.
As the dispute between Mr. Trump and Mr. Peña Nieto over paying for the wall escalated, John Podesta, the chairman of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, tweeted late Thursday: “What a mess.”
The high-stakes day, which seemed to have been put together at the last minute, actually had been discussed internally for weeks, according to Trump campaign advisers. The campaign saw the meeting in Mexico as a chance to appeal to moderate voters, and the immigration speech as a chance to motivate Mr. Trump’s core voters.
A person close to Mr. Peña Nieto said that “since there was such a clear disagreement in preparatory conversations over issues about the wall and its payment, both parties agreed not to discuss them at the meeting, and instead talk about other topics, such as the great contribution that the Mexican community makes in the U.S., illegal drugs and weapons trafficking, bilateral trade, within North America and the rest of the world.” The person added: “Before the conversation began, Mr. Peña Neto reiterated to Mr. Trump that Mexico won’t pay for any wall, and as agreed, they discussed other topics.”
At the press conference after the meeting, the Trump campaign got the photo op it wanted of Mr. Trump and a world leader. The size of the press turnout pleased the candidate. When asked if they discussed the GOP nominee’s proposed wall, Mr. Trump said they did, but not who would pay for it. Mr. Peña Nieto stayed silent. It wasn’t until landing in Phoenix that Mr. Trump saw the Mexican’s tweet about not paying.
Mr. Trump and his team were stunned, advisers said. News reports were questioning why Mr. Trump didn’t discuss the payment issue at the joint press conference.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Vicente Fox Cartoons

Trump gets into Twitter feud with former Mexican president

Even before Donald Trump landed in Mexico Wednesday, he found himself in a Twitter war with former Mexican President Vicente Fox – who went on a tear declaring the Republican nominee “not welcome” in the country.
Fox, an outspoken critic of Trump, started the fight when he said on CNN that he disagreed with current President Enrique Pena Nieto’s decision to invite the billionaire to the country to meet with him.
“He is not welcome to Mexico,” Fox told CNN. “We don’t like him. We don’t want him. We reject his visit.”
"I think President Peña is taking an enormous political risk by hosting Trump,” he said. “He will even be considered like a traitor because we don't accept to be offended like we just heard, and it should not happen that he comes here with a smile on his face. I think this is a big mistake on the part of President Peña."
Trump, as is often his way, fired back on Twitter.
“Former President Vicente Fox, who is railing against my visit to Mexico today, also invited me when he apologized for using the ‘f bomb,’” he said, referring to when Fox said he wasn't going to pay for "that f-----g wall."
This triggered a fiery response from Fox, also on Twitter, as he called on Trump to apologize and “stop lying.”

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox

Krauthammer on Trump's trip to Mexico: 'He took a risk, and he pulled it off'

Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said Wednesday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s impromptu trip to Mexico to meet with that country’s president paid off, and could be a boon for his campaign.
“He took a risk, and he pulled it off. Look, the big negative about Trump, the thing that the Clinton campaign plays on, is the fact that it's hard to imagine him as president,” Krauthammer said, adding, “Now, here he is standing on the world stage with a world leader. This is a big step.”
Krauthammer went on to say that Trump took control of the joint appearance and “spoke well.”
“He not only held his own, I think, in some ways, he sort of dominated… At the very end when they took questions, it was Trump who took charge,” Krauthammer said. “He's sitting in the palace of the president of Mexico. This never happens. Normally, it's the host who picks the journalist. Trump took charge naturally, walked off the stage as the dominant guy.”
He added that Trump’s behavior in Mexico could pay dividends for the candidate.
“I think he really helped himself,” he said.

Trump's Mexico gamble pays off as he tries his hand at insta-Diplomacy

Donald Trump’s critics said his hastily arranged visit to Mexico was an act of desperation, a Hail Mary pass, the sign of an erratic campaign.
But he got the world’s attention.
And the gamble paid off.
Trump used his showman’s instincts to create a television moment, setting the stage for his Arizona speech on immigration. Once President Enrique Pena Nieto extended the invitation (with Hillary Clinton declining), Trump had a chance to portray himself as a dealmaker, a bold negotiator willing to meet the adversary on his foreign turf.
What was the downside? I suppose Pena Nieto could have used the occasion to rip Trump (as the out-of-office Vicente Fox did). But a guy with a 23 percent approval rating would probably want to show that he could do business with a potential American president.
Just having a bland we-agreed-to-disagree statement would help Trump by showing him doing business on the international stage. And he got more than that.
Pena Nieto was gracious in his remarks, saying he and Trump had an “open and constructive” conversation. And when he said both countries should invest more to make the border safe, well, it wasn’t exactly thumbing his nose at Trump’s oft-repeated demand that Mexico would pay for the wall. (Trump said they didn’t discuss that, but Pena Nieto contradicted his account, saying he made clear Mexico wouldn’t pay.)
And Trump not only moderated his tone, talking about the two countries “working beautifully together,” he said he had told Pena Nieto that illegal immigration must end and NAFTA must be renegotiated. He even called the Mexican leader a “friend.” So the Republican nominee didn’t back off his positions, but showed he could calibrate his language and play in this arena.
It’s hard to imagine that the excursion could have gone better for Trump. It’s not that his insta-diplomacy will suddenly make Trump popular among Hispanic voters, but it adds to the sense that he can be reasonable, that he isn’t some hothead who will drag us into a trade war.
Clinton, as a former secretary of State, doesn’t need to do this sort of thing. But she is also too risk-averse to stage such a meeting without the details having been negotiated in advance.
Trump’s challenge in his Arizona speech was just as great: how to reconcile his tough primary rhetoric, especially about kicking out all the people who are in this country illegally, with the electoral reality that he needs to expand his base.
The problem is that there were a cacophony of sometimes contradictory voices speaking on his behalf, and it fueled a sense of confusion on what Trump himself described as a “softening” of his approach.
It also didn’t help that Trump’s people kept denying there was any change in policy on deportation, even as they kept using language that signaled such a change.
On Sunday’s “Media Buzz,” Mike Huckabee, a top Trump surrogate, told me Trump “realizes it’s utterly impractical to try to deport 11 million people, just to round them up. That’s not going to happen.” That seemed pretty clear.
Such mass roundups were never realistic, and probably less important than Trump’s signature plan for a border wall. But pressure built to the point that Trump had to make the once-delayed speech last night. But pressure built to the point that Trump had to make last night’s much-anticipated speech.
After announcing a series of get-tough measures, Trump essentially rescinded his previous policy of mass deportations of illegal immigrants, except for those who have committed crimes. He said he would figure out what to do with them after all the other steps have been implemented, which he acknowledged would take "several years."
In effect, he kicked that can down the road—which amounts to a bow to reality—while vowing to be more aggressive across the board on the immigration problem.
Will that matter? It wasn’t even the day’s biggest story. Some of Trump’s strongest detractors, including Charles Krauthammer and Steve Hayes with me on the “Special Report” panel, were praising not only Trump’s demeanor in Mexico but calling it the best day of his campaign. That visual will overshadow the retreat from a deportation plan that even many supporters thought would never be carried out. So with Hillary Clinton’s American exceptionalism speech all but blotted out, Trump, in Beltway parlance, won the day.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). 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 doubles down on 'impenetrable, physical' wall during immigration speech

Donald Trump, fresh off a hastily-arranged visit to Mexico where he met with the country's president, doubled down Wednesday night on his vow to build a "great wall" along the southern border -- and make Mexico pay for it -- while outlining a more focused mission for the deportation force he's promised to create.
In a speech in Phoenix meant to clarify his immigration positions after appearing to soften his stance, the Republican presidential nominee outlined a hardline set of proposals for tackling illegal immigration. He did not, however, definitively call for removing all illegal immigrants in the country.
Rather, Trump vowed to focus first on deporting the estimated 2 million "criminal aliens" on day one, while also prioritizing certain groups like gang members and visa overstays for removal. He said, though, that any illegal immigrant could be subject to deportation under his administration.
"There will be no amnesty," he said, adding that no illegal immigrant would be legalized without first leaving and coming in through the front door.
"For those here illegally today, who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only. To return home and apply for reentry like everybody else under the rules of the new legal immigration system I outlined above," he said.
Trump said that America’s current immigration system “serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful politicians."
“Let me tell you who it does not serve, it does not serve you the American people. It doesn’t serve you,” he said.
In his speech, Trump also promised to end "catch and release," to increase the number of ICE and border patrol agents, block funding for sanctuary cities, and create a deportation task force that he said would be focused on deporting criminal aliens.
He also promised to cancel President Obama's "illegal" executive actions, and to enforce current immigration laws and accused Democratic rival Hillary Clinton of not having a plan on immigration, saying she would give "ObamaCare, Social Security and Medicare to illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget."
When he talked about deporting criminal aliens who had "evaded justice," he also said Clinton had evaded justice.
"Maybe they'll be able to deport her too," he quipped.
He told the vibrant crowd that there are some immigrants who will be unable to assimilate into American society.
“It’s our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us,” he said.
Amid rumors he was considering softening his trademark position on building a wall on the southern border, Trump made his position very clear.
"We will build a great wall along the southern border," he said to cries of "build the wall" from the boisterous crowd. "And Mexico will pay for the wall."
He later said the wall would be "impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful."
Trump’s speech comes after he met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto earlier in the day and asserted America’s “right” to build a border wall during a hastily-arranged visit to Mexico City.
While both leaders adopted a measured and respectful tone, with Trump calling it a "substantive, direct and constructive exchange of ideas," there was disagreement on the question of the wall.
While Trump told reporters “we didn’t discuss payment of the wall,” Pena Nieto later contradicted Trump and said the subject was among those discussed. He also tweeted that he made it clear "that Mexico will not pay for the wall."
Trump has been accused of stoking tensions on the subject ever since he announced his campaign in June of last year in which he accused Mexico of not sending their best people across the border.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” he said.
In recent weeks, Trump has been accused of softening his tone on the subject, and had been forced to clarify whether he favored a path to citizenship for those here legally, and whether he still planned to build a wall.