Thursday, April 27, 2017
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday tweeted out support for free speech after Ann Coulter cancelled her speech at the University of California, Berkley, over security concerns.
The ACLU said in a Twitter post that “the heckler’s veto of Coulter’s Berkeley speech is a loss for the 1st Amendment. We must protect speech on campus. Even when hateful.”
In an email to The Associated Press, the conservative pundit wrote "Berkeley canceled" when asked to confirm her planned appearance on the campus Thursday. She added, however, "I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment."
Coulter was invited by the campus Republicans to speak at Berkeley. UC Berkeley officials say they are bracing for possible violence on campus whether the conservative pundit comes to speak or not.
University officials say they are preparing for possible violence on campus whether Coulter comes to speak or not.
The conservative pundit had hinted she might cancel her planned appearance Thursday amid growing concerns of violence. She told Florida-based radio station 850 WFTL on Wednesday, "I still wanted to do it but I'm running out of options here."
Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said UC Berkeley officials had not heard directly from Coulter on Wednesday. But he said even if she cancels, some groups that support or oppose her could still turn out on campus.
He said police were taking necessary steps to protect the campus but he declined to elaborate.
Trump agrees to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada, Mexico leaders
President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Canada agreed Wednesday to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the White House said Wednesday night.
"it is my privilege to bring NAFTA up to date through renegotiation," Trump said in a statement. "It is an honor to deal with both [Mexican] President [Enrique] Peña Nieto and [Canadian] Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau, and I believe that the end result will make all three countries stronger and better."
The White House added that Trump "agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time" and that all three leaders ""agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation" of the trade deal to "the benefit of all three countries."
Trump repeatedly railed against the two-decade-old trade agreement on the campaign trail, describing it repeatedly as a "disaster."
Earlier Wednesday, sources told Fox News that the White House had drafted a notification signaling the United States' intention to withdraw from NAFTA. The document would have given the leaders of Canada and Mexico six months' notice of the administration's decision to exit from the agreement.
On Monday, the administration announced it would slap hefty tariffs on softwood lumber being imported from Canada. Trump has also been railing against changes in Canadian milk product pricing that he says are hurting the American dairy industry.
Trump told The Associated Press in an interview last week that he plans to either renegotiate or terminate NAFTA, which he and other critics blame for wiping out U.S. manufacturing jobs because it allowed companies to move factories to Mexico to take advantage of low-wage labor.
"I am very upset with NAFTA. I think NAFTA has been a catastrophic trade deal for the United States, trading agreement for the United States. It hurts us with Canada, and it hurts us with Mexico," he said.
The Trump administration last month submitted a vague set of guidelines to Congress for renegotiating NAFTA, disappointing those who were expecting Trump to demand a major overhaul.
In an eight-page draft letter to Congress, acting U.S. Trade Representative Stephen Vaughn wrote that the administration intended to start talking with Mexico and Canada about making changes to the pact, which took effect in 1994.
The letter spelled out few details and stuck with broad principles. But it appeared to keep much of the existing agreement in place, including private tribunals that allow companies to challenge national laws on the grounds that they inhibit trade — a provision that critics say allows companies to get around environmental and labor laws.
Reports Wednesday of the possible move drew objections from some in Congress, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"Withdrawing from #NAFTA would be a disaster for #Arizona jobs & economy," he tweeted. "@POTUS shouldn't abandon this vital trade agreement."
Sen. Ted Cruz: 'It's only fitting' cartel money be used for border wall
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that "there's a justice" to his proposal that money seized from drug cartel capos be used to pay for President Trump's promised border wall.
"These drug cartels are the ones crossing the border with impunity, smuggling drugs, smuggling narcotics, engaged in human trafficking," the Republican told host Tucker Carlson. "They’re the ones violating our laws and it’s only fitting that their ill-gotten gains fund securing the border."
Federal prosecutors are looking to seize $14 billion in drug profits from the Sinaloa Cartel leader, who is facing trial in the U.S. on a multitude of federal charges.
"Now, it so happens, coincidentally, that the estimated cost of the wall is between $14-20 billion," Cruz said. "So, the legislation I filed yesterday was very simple."
On Monday, Cruz introduced the Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order (EL CHAPO) Act.
"It said any proceeds that are forfeited from El Chapo and from other drugs lords shall be spent building the wall and securing the border," said Cruz, who also praised the Trump administration for their willingness to enforce immigration laws.
"I visited with about 150 Border Patrol agents [in January]," Cruz said. "The relief these men and women had at the election results, it was palpable ... And I asked the agents, ‘What’s changed?’ And they said, ‘The only thing that’s changed is the cartels understand now we have an administration that will enforce the law.’ That matters."
Insulting Ivanka: Why the media are turning on the First Daughter
Why is there suddenly so much media hostility toward Ivanka Trump?
Her visit to Germany has unleashed a wave of insults and snarkiness that seems wildly out of proportion to what actually happened on the trip.
The short answer, of course, is that she is a target of animosity that is really aimed at her father.
But it goes deeper than that. Some pundits seem to blame her for not transforming the president’s policies, despite the fact that he’s the one who got elected. Even more strangely, some blame her for not speaking out against her dad.
During the campaign, when I happened to chat with her a few times, Ivanka was getting pretty good press. And why not? She is a poised and accomplished entrepreneur who handles herself with grace.
I get that it’s strange for Ivanka Trump to be a top White House aide, and that some people can’t accept that. She originally just wanted to be an informal adviser. But with critics raising conflict questions about her business, Ivanka decided to relinquish that role and take an office in the White House, working with her husband, Jared Kushner, whose role in the administration keeps expanding. (Neither is drawing a salary.)
I understand that her detractors say Ivanka owes her business opportunities, and now her political opportunity, to her dad. Fine. The president knew he would face nepotism charges when he made the appointments. And she had to know she was putting herself in the line of fire when she took an official title.
But compare this to the situation faced by every first lady—and it’s an apt analogy because Ivanka’s high profile is partially due to Melania’s low-key role as she remains, for now, in New York.
Each first lady gets a government staff and an international platform, simply by virtue of the fact that her husband won high office. And every first lady is widely admired, although there has been criticism of some (especially Hillary Clinton, who later sought the top job) for wading too deeply into policy.
So is a first daughter really that different from a first lady?
When Ivanka, noting that the president has employed thousands of women, drew some boos on the Berlin stage with Angela Merkel and Christine Lagarde, that opened the floodgates.
Asked by NBC’s Hallie Jackson how she feels about being called an “accomplice” to her father, Ivanka said she didn’t like the word. “I think one of the things I value about my father as first a businessman and now as a leader of the country, is that he creates ideas and he likes to hear from people with divergent viewpoints. And that’s not always true in politics.”
Still, we’re seeing headlines like this one in the liberal Huffington Post: “Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World.”
CNN commentator and former Ted Cruz aide Amanda Carpenter said that “when I see Ivanka taking on this role, I really see her becoming like Hillary Clinton in the worst ways. She’s sort of becoming increasingly unlikable. She’s trying to get these jobs she’s not qualified for based on family connections.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compared the Trumps to “the Romanovs,” saying the president envisions a royal family and “it is un-American. It is untraditional. It’s somewhat weird.”
Matthews wrote a book about JFK, who of course named his brother attorney general. Times have changed, but it’s not like Ivanka is running a major department. When Joe Scarborough brought up Bobby Kennedy and Mika Brzezinski asked whether he was comparing RFK to Ivanka, he accused her of being “snotty” and taking a “cheap shot.”
The Guardian ran a snarky column saying that “Trump invoked her own impressive achievements as an example of her father’s commitment to equality. ..Trump is, indeed, a wonderful example of what women can achieve with just perseverance, tenacity and millions of inherited dollars.”
Some of this is so personal that it’s obviously not really about Ivanka.
She is clearly more moderate than her father and has been an advocate for women’s rights, family leave and child care. Yet her detractors had unrealistic expectations about her role and insist on holding her accountable for his past “Access Hollywood”-type comments about women.
Maybe a truly feminist approach would be to judge Ivanka Trump on what she actually does in the White House, not on their distaste for her dad.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Her visit to Germany has unleashed a wave of insults and snarkiness that seems wildly out of proportion to what actually happened on the trip.
The short answer, of course, is that she is a target of animosity that is really aimed at her father.
But it goes deeper than that. Some pundits seem to blame her for not transforming the president’s policies, despite the fact that he’s the one who got elected. Even more strangely, some blame her for not speaking out against her dad.
During the campaign, when I happened to chat with her a few times, Ivanka was getting pretty good press. And why not? She is a poised and accomplished entrepreneur who handles herself with grace.
I get that it’s strange for Ivanka Trump to be a top White House aide, and that some people can’t accept that. She originally just wanted to be an informal adviser. But with critics raising conflict questions about her business, Ivanka decided to relinquish that role and take an office in the White House, working with her husband, Jared Kushner, whose role in the administration keeps expanding. (Neither is drawing a salary.)
I understand that her detractors say Ivanka owes her business opportunities, and now her political opportunity, to her dad. Fine. The president knew he would face nepotism charges when he made the appointments. And she had to know she was putting herself in the line of fire when she took an official title.
But compare this to the situation faced by every first lady—and it’s an apt analogy because Ivanka’s high profile is partially due to Melania’s low-key role as she remains, for now, in New York.
Each first lady gets a government staff and an international platform, simply by virtue of the fact that her husband won high office. And every first lady is widely admired, although there has been criticism of some (especially Hillary Clinton, who later sought the top job) for wading too deeply into policy.
So is a first daughter really that different from a first lady?
When Ivanka, noting that the president has employed thousands of women, drew some boos on the Berlin stage with Angela Merkel and Christine Lagarde, that opened the floodgates.
Asked by NBC’s Hallie Jackson how she feels about being called an “accomplice” to her father, Ivanka said she didn’t like the word. “I think one of the things I value about my father as first a businessman and now as a leader of the country, is that he creates ideas and he likes to hear from people with divergent viewpoints. And that’s not always true in politics.”
Still, we’re seeing headlines like this one in the liberal Huffington Post: “Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World.”
CNN commentator and former Ted Cruz aide Amanda Carpenter said that “when I see Ivanka taking on this role, I really see her becoming like Hillary Clinton in the worst ways. She’s sort of becoming increasingly unlikable. She’s trying to get these jobs she’s not qualified for based on family connections.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compared the Trumps to “the Romanovs,” saying the president envisions a royal family and “it is un-American. It is untraditional. It’s somewhat weird.”
Matthews wrote a book about JFK, who of course named his brother attorney general. Times have changed, but it’s not like Ivanka is running a major department. When Joe Scarborough brought up Bobby Kennedy and Mika Brzezinski asked whether he was comparing RFK to Ivanka, he accused her of being “snotty” and taking a “cheap shot.”
The Guardian ran a snarky column saying that “Trump invoked her own impressive achievements as an example of her father’s commitment to equality. ..Trump is, indeed, a wonderful example of what women can achieve with just perseverance, tenacity and millions of inherited dollars.”
Some of this is so personal that it’s obviously not really about Ivanka.
She is clearly more moderate than her father and has been an advocate for women’s rights, family leave and child care. Yet her detractors had unrealistic expectations about her role and insist on holding her accountable for his past “Access Hollywood”-type comments about women.
Maybe a truly feminist approach would be to judge Ivanka Trump on what she actually does in the White House, not on their distaste for her dad.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Miffed over border wall talk, top Mexican official floats American entry fee
A top Mexican official on Tuesday said that Mexico may consider charging a fee for Americans entering the country in what could be seen as a retaliation to President Trump's call for a border wall.
Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray, in a meeting with Mexico's top legislators, called Trump's plan an "unfriendly, hostile" act, and called on his colleagues to consider the entry fee.
"We could explore — not necessarily a visa, that could impede a lot of people from coming to Mexico — but we could perhaps (have) a fee associated with entry,” Videgaray said. “This is something that I'm sure will be part of our discussion, and I believe we can find points of agreement."
Videgaray went on to say that Mexico would not pay a cent towards the wall. He said if talks between the U.S. and Mexico fail to satisfy both countries, the Mexican government would consider reducing security cooperation.
"If the negotiation on other themes — immigration, the border, trade — isn't satisfactory to Mexico's interests, we will have to review our existing cooperation," Videgaray said. "This would be especially in the security areas ... and that involves the national immigration agency, the federal police and of course, the armed forces."
Trump has asked congress to include a down payment on the wall in the spending bill but because of scrutiny from both sides, the President announced Monday that he’d be willing to wait until September to revisit the issue of funding; however, his stance on Mexico’s role in paying for the wall hasn’t changed.
Judge William Orrick III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
1
Judge William Orrick was appointed to his current position by President Barack Obama.
At the time of the appointment, Orrick was working at the law firm Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP. He has previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.
Obama nominated Orrick in June 2012, but Orrick was not approved until February 2013. This was mainly a party line vote, though Republican Jeff Flake broke with his party to vote to confirm Orrick.
2
When Barack Obama was running for president, Judge William Orrick reportedly helped raise money for him and donated some of his own money as well.
According to Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick donated approximately $30,000 to committees supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president. In addition, he helped raise $200,000 in contributions to the Obama campaign.
This had not been Orrick’s first time raising money for a Democratic politician. During the 2004 election, he helped raise funds for John Kerry, according to Public Citizen.
3
In 2010, Arizona passed a controversial immigration law known as SB 1070.
This was a strict immigration bill which required that police officers attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when they are stopped for unrelated reasons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be undocumented. It also barred state and local officials from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The Department of Justice ultimately filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because of this bill. Orrick, who worked at the Justice Department at the time, was involved in coordinating the Obama administration’s argument against SB 1070, according to the Washington Examiner.
Orrick himself said during his Senate confirmation process, “Regarding Arizona, I attended meetings where the impact of SB 1070 on the operations of DHS and law enforcement was discussed [and] where the preemption analysis of the lawyers working on this issue was discussed.”
4
In 2015, Judge William Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against a pro-life group that had been releasing undercover videos about Planned Parenthood.
At the time, The Center for Medical Progress had been putting out highly-edited videos that they claimed showed Planned Parenthood had been illegally selling fetal tissue. Orrick issued a restraining order, saying that he reached this decision due to concerns over the safety of the leaders of the National Abortion Federation.
“NAF would be likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest,” Orrick said at the time, according to CNN.
The National Abortion Federation said in their restraining order request that the videos had been illegally recorded.
At the time that this decision was reached, conservative website The Federalist found that Orrick’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, is pro-choice.
5
During his Senate confirmation process, Judge William Orrick promised to never let his political views influence the way he rules on cases.
“My varied legal background is evidence that I will treat all litigants fairly and with respect, and that I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice,” he said. “… I have great respect for every type of client I have represented. I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”
Orrick went on to say that district judges must “bind themselves tightly” to precedent.
When asked what his policy on immigration-related cases would be, Orrick said he would recuse himself “from any case that was pending in OIL [Office of Immigration Litigation] while I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from any other case as required by the Code of Conduct for United States Judge as well as other relevant Canons and statutory provisions.”
Judge William Orrick was appointed to his current position by President Barack Obama.
At the time of the appointment, Orrick was working at the law firm Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP. He has previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.
Obama nominated Orrick in June 2012, but Orrick was not approved until February 2013. This was mainly a party line vote, though Republican Jeff Flake broke with his party to vote to confirm Orrick.
2
When Barack Obama was running for president, Judge William Orrick reportedly helped raise money for him and donated some of his own money as well.
According to Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick donated approximately $30,000 to committees supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president. In addition, he helped raise $200,000 in contributions to the Obama campaign.
This had not been Orrick’s first time raising money for a Democratic politician. During the 2004 election, he helped raise funds for John Kerry, according to Public Citizen.
3
In 2010, Arizona passed a controversial immigration law known as SB 1070.
This was a strict immigration bill which required that police officers attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when they are stopped for unrelated reasons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be undocumented. It also barred state and local officials from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The Department of Justice ultimately filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because of this bill. Orrick, who worked at the Justice Department at the time, was involved in coordinating the Obama administration’s argument against SB 1070, according to the Washington Examiner.
Orrick himself said during his Senate confirmation process, “Regarding Arizona, I attended meetings where the impact of SB 1070 on the operations of DHS and law enforcement was discussed [and] where the preemption analysis of the lawyers working on this issue was discussed.”
4
In 2015, Judge William Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against a pro-life group that had been releasing undercover videos about Planned Parenthood.
At the time, The Center for Medical Progress had been putting out highly-edited videos that they claimed showed Planned Parenthood had been illegally selling fetal tissue. Orrick issued a restraining order, saying that he reached this decision due to concerns over the safety of the leaders of the National Abortion Federation.
“NAF would be likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest,” Orrick said at the time, according to CNN.
The National Abortion Federation said in their restraining order request that the videos had been illegally recorded.
At the time that this decision was reached, conservative website The Federalist found that Orrick’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, is pro-choice.
5
During his Senate confirmation process, Judge William Orrick promised to never let his political views influence the way he rules on cases.
“My varied legal background is evidence that I will treat all litigants fairly and with respect, and that I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice,” he said. “… I have great respect for every type of client I have represented. I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”
Orrick went on to say that district judges must “bind themselves tightly” to precedent.
When asked what his policy on immigration-related cases would be, Orrick said he would recuse himself “from any case that was pending in OIL [Office of Immigration Litigation] while I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from any other case as required by the Code of Conduct for United States Judge as well as other relevant Canons and statutory provisions.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...