Report that North Korean dictator killed his nuclear negotiator

North Korea executes envoy in a purge after failed U.S. summit: media

By Hyonhee Shin and Joyce Lee,Reuters 14 hours ago

• 
  
Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea's special representative for U.S. affairs, leaves the Government Guesthouse in Hanoi

By Hyonhee Shin and Joyce Lee

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea executed its nuclear envoy to the United States as part of a purge of officials who steered negotiations for a failed summit between leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump, a South Korean newspaper said on Friday.

Kim Hyok Chol was executed in March at Mirim Airport in Pyongyang, along with four foreign ministry officials after they were charged with spying for the United States, the Chosun Ilbo reported, citing an unidentified source with knowledge of the situation.

"He was accused of spying for the United States for poorly reporting on the negotiations without properly grasping U.S. intentions," the source was quoted as saying.

The February summit in Vietnam's capital Hanoi, the second between Kim and Trump, failed to reach a deal because of conflicts over U.S. calls for complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and North Korean demands for sanctions relief.

Reuters was unable to independently confirm the report. Previously, North Korean officials have been executed or purged only to reappear with a new title, according to media reports.

A spokeswoman at South Korea's Unification Ministry declined to comment. An official at the presidential Blue House in Seoul said it was inappropriate to comment on an unverified report.

The United States is attempting to check on the reports of the envoy's execution, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during his visit to Berlin on Friday

When asked about reports of a "shakeup" of Kim Jong Un's negotiating team in a May 5 interview with ABC News, Pompeo said it did appear that his future counterpart would be somebody else "but we don't know that for sure."

A diplomatic source told Reuters there were signs Kim Hyok Chol and other officials were punished, but there was no evidence they were executed and they may have been sent to a labor camp for re-education.

The newspaper reported that other officials had been punished, but not executed.

Kim Yong Chol, Kim Jong Un's right-hand man and the counterpart to Pompeo before the Hanoi summit, had been sent to a labor and reeducation camp in Jagang Province near the Chinese border, the Chosun Ilbo reported.

Officials who worked with Kim Yong Chol have been out of the public eye since the summit, while seasoned diplomats who appeared to have been sidelined, including vice foreign minister Choe Son Hui, were seen returning to the spotlight.

A South Korean lawmaker told Reuters in April that Kim Yong Chol had been removed from a key party post.

RISE AND FALL

Kim Hyok Chol was seen as a rising star when he was appointed to spearhead working-level talks with U.S. nuclear envoy Stephen Biegun weeks before the Hanoi summit.

However, little was known about his expertise or his role in the talks. The four executed alongside him included diplomats working on relations with Vietnam, the Chosun report said.

"This is a man who might provide some tactical advice to the leader but is otherwise a message bearer with little negotiating or policymaking latitude," said Michael Madden, a North Korea leadership expert at the Washington-based Stimson Center.

"Instead, they put in someone like Kim Hyok Chol to insulate Choe Son Hui and more substantive diplomatic personnel, to a certain degree he is expendable and his superiors are not."

The penalized members of Kim Yong Chol's team included Kim Song Hye, who led the preparations, and Sin Hye Yong, a newly elevated interpreter for the Hanoi summit. They were said to have been detained in a camp for political prisoners, the newspaper said.

The diplomatic source said Kim Song Hye's punishment seemed inevitable because she was a "prime author" of the North's plan to secure sanctions relief in return for dismantling the Yongbyon main nuclear complex.

The idea was rejected by the United States which demanded a comprehensive roadmap for denuclearization.

Kim Song Hye had also worked closely with Kim Yo Jong, the North Korean leader's younger sister and a senior party official whom Kim Song Hye accompanied to South Korea for the Winter Olympics last year.

Kim Yo Jong was also lying low, the paper reported, citing an unidentified South Korean government official.

Madden, however, said Kim Yo Jong's status was unchanged as Kim Jong Un's top aide, citing her attendance at key party meetings in April and appearance in state media reports.

Sin Hye Yong was charged with making critical interpretation mistakes that included missing an unspecified "last-minute offer" the North Korean leader supposedly made as Trump was about to walk out, Chosun reported.

'TWO-FACED'

North Korea's official party mouthpiece Rodong Sinmun warned on Thursday that "two-faced" officials would face the "stern judgment of the revolution".

"It is an anti-Party, anti-revolutionary act to pretend to be revering the leader in front of him when you actually dream of something else," it said in a commentary.

Hong Min, a senior fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul, said it was possible Kim Hyok Chol and other officials faced some penalty but further verification was needed.

"Executing or completely removing people like him would send a very bad signal to the United States because he was the public face of the talks and it could indicate they are negating all they have discussed," Hong said.

(Reporting by Joyce Lee and Hyonhee Shin; Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom in BERLIN and Hyunjoo Jin in SEOUL; Editing by Paul Tait, Lincoln Feast and Darren Schuettler)

Above is from:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-230019893.html

WTO may rule against Trump auto tariff

Adjudicator says any security defense of U.S. auto tariffs at WTO 'very difficult'

Tom Miles

4 MIN READ

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States will find it “very difficult” to defend President’s Donald Trump’s proposed car tariff against any challenge at the World Trade Organization, a veteran trade adjudicator who has ruled on a related case told Reuters.

FILE PHOTO: Workers assemble vehicles on the assembly line of the SEAT car factory in Martorell, near Barcelona, Spain, October 31, 2018. REUTERS/Albert Gea/File Photo

Trump said this month that some imported vehicles and parts pose a “national security” threat, justifying tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the basis for tariffs put on steel and aluminum last year.

The car tariff of up to 25 percent, applying to vehicles and components from everywhere else in the world, would be automatically illegal were it not for a WTO exception granted in cases of national security.

Until 2016, using the national security clause was taboo because trade experts feared it could become a common way to get around the rules and erect the kind of trade barriers the WTO was designed to remove.

But it has arisen in disputes between Russia and Ukraine and between Qatar and several of its neighbors, as well as in Trump’s tariffs.

In a rare comment by a senior trade arbitrator, Georges Abi-Saab, a former chairman of the WTO’s Appellate Body, the world’s top trade court, said he doubted the national security argument for cars would withstand a legal challenge.

“Frankly I think, if I were a lawyer (working on the case) I wouldn’t accept to take such a case – not only on moral aspects, but I think it would be very difficult to make it prevail,” he said.

The car tariffs have not yet materialized, since Trump has given the European Union, Japan and other major exporters 180 days to negotiate. A legal challenge from any of the parties cannot be considered until tariffs are active.

ACTUAL WAR

Last month Abi-Saab chaired a dispute panel which issued the only ruling in WTO history on the national security question, settling the dispute in favor of Russia, which was found to have a bona fide legal defense against Ukraine because of an armed conflict recognized by the United Nations.

But the ruling set a high bar for national security claims, saying they needed to be based “objectively” on an emergency in international relations, and the less a claim had to do with actual war, the harder it would be to make the case.

“I would say strategic raw materials may be easier to prove than a final product like a car,” Abi-Saab said. “The further you get away from it (armed conflict and the breakdown of law and civil order), the more you have to prove how this relates to national security.”

That contrasts with the U.S. view that national security claims are “self-judging” and WTO adjudicators must automatically dismiss any challenge.

WTO rulings do not set formal precedents, but adjudicators routinely refer back to previous cases, so the Russia-Ukraine ruling could influence the handling of ongoing challenges to the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs by China, Turkey, Switzerland, Norway, the EU and India.

They reject U.S. claims that protecting metals output is needed for “defense requirements and critical infrastructure”.

Two other complainants, Canada and Mexico, lifted their opposition this month after reaching a deal with Trump.

Above is from:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-autos-wto/adjudicator-says-any-security-defense-of-u-s-auto-tariffs-at-wto-very-difficult-idUSKCN1SX1I7

Crazy Gasoline Prices

The biggest U.S. gasoline price surge in years is running out of steam just in time for the start of the summer driving season.
Heading into Memorial Day weekend, the national average for gas prices is coming off the year’s high and sitting just above $2.80 per gallon, CNBC’s Tom DiChristopher reports. The national average has climbed 67 cents a gallon from the start of the year through May 4, when pump prices peaked, according to price-tracking firm GasBuddy. That’s the second biggest jump on record for the start of a year.

Gas prices shot up in 2019 as oil prices rallied roughly 40% through last month, bolstered by tighter supply and better-than-expected demand. Oil accounts for 50% to 60% of gas prices. Drivers also found themselves paying more due to disruptions at the nation’s refineries.
Oil prices posted their worst week of the year, as the U.S.-China trade war adds to concerns about economic growth and demand for fuel. But with Middle East tensions still simmering and threatening to push up crude costs, the national average gasoline price is likely to stay near $2.80 per gallon, according to Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates.

Kate Rooney | CNBC Markets Reporter

North Korea: Worse drought in a century

South Korea Vows to Quickly Send Aid to Drought-Hit North Korea

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" />

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un (L) and South Korean President Moon Jae-in (R) walk on a bridge during the Inter-Korean Summit in Panmunjom, South Korea on April 27, 2018.

Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

UPDATED: MAY 20, 2019 4:31 AM ET

(SEOUL, South Korea) — South Korea vowed Monday to move quickly on its plans to provide $8 million worth of humanitarian aid to North Korea while it also considers sending food to the country that says it’s suffering its worst drought in decades.

Lee Sang-min, spokesman of Seoul’s Unification Ministry, said the government will discuss its plans with the World Food Program and the United Nations Children’s Fund, through which the aid would be provided, so it reaches North Korean children and pregnant women quickly. South Korea is also trying to build public and political support for providing food aid to the North, either directly or through an international organization.

North Korea’s state media said last week that the country was suffering its worst drought in more than a century amid reported food shortages.

“The government will first discuss with international organizations over the provision of aid and take measures so that the support arrives (in the North) quickly,” Lee said. “On the matter of direct aid, we will consider the matter while sufficiently garnering the opinions of our citizens.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in has expressed hopes that aid will help revive diplomacy and engagement with Pyongyang, which tapered off following a high-stakes nuclear summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump in February that broke down over mismatched demands in sanctions relief and disarmament.

But Moon’s government has yet to decide on concrete plans amid growing public frustration over North Korea, which resumed short-range missile tests recently that were apparently aimed at pressuring Washington and Seoul.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said last Wednesday that an average of 54.4 millimeters (2.1 inches) of rain fell in North Korea from January to early May in 2019, which it said represented the lowest level since 1982. That was two days before the state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper said the average precipitation of 56.3 millimeters (2.2 inches) from January to May 15 was the country’s lowest since 1917.

U.N. food agencies said earlier this month that about 10 million people were facing “severe food shortages” after one of the North’s worst harvests in a decade.

North Korean state media are currently campaigning to urge farmers to do their best with what they have, to grow as much as possible this year. The Rodong Sinmun on Saturday urged North Korean farmers to meet state goals in food production in face of “hostile forces who don’t want us to become prosperous and … are seeking to make our people undergo shortage of food, bring to collapse their faith in socialism.”

“At our farm, we got an announcement about the dry weather conditions from our party and our state authorities, so we have taken advance measures to save water, like preparing the fields earlier than before, because we have to save water as much as we can,” said Kim Chang Jun, vice chairman of a cooperative farm in the village of Sambong, just outside the capital.

The last time South Korea provided humanitarian aid to North Korea through an international agency was in 2015, when it gave $800,000 to the U.N. Population Fund project to evaluate North Korean public health conditions.

The South has not provided direct food aid to the North since 2010.

Moon’s government first proposed providing $8 million to the WFP and UNICEF to help North Korean children and pregnant women in 2017, but the plans were halted amid a torrid run in North Korean weapons tests that year. An abrupt turn toward diplomacy in 2018 saw Kim meet with Trump twice and three times with Moon.

Above is from:  http://time.com/5591918/south-korea-aid-north-korea/

US Base at Diego Garcia may change ownership

Chagos Islands dispute: UN backs end to UK control

• 5 hours ago

• Share this with Facebook
• Share this with Messenger
• Share this with Twitter
• Share this with Email
• Share

Image copyrightSCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARYImage captionOne of the Chagos Islands - Diego Garcia - is home to a US military base

The UN has passed a resolution demanding the UK return control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

In the non-binding vote in the General Assembly in New York, 116 states were in favour and only six against, a major diplomatic blow to the UK.

Fifty-six states, including France and Germany, abstained.

Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence.

In a statement to the BBC, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said Britain did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

• Mauritius country profile
• UK 'threats' over Indian Ocean islands
• UK defeated in UN vote on Chagos Islands

The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives were the states voting with the UK against the resolution.

It comes months after the UN's high court advised that the UK should leave the islands "as rapidly as possible".

UK warns of setting precedent

Nada Tawfik, BBC News, New York

The fundamental question before the General Assembly was whether the decades-long dispute was at its heart a matter of decolonisation, or a bilateral sovereignty issue to be worked out between the UK and Mauritius alone.

The vote was decisive, with 115 countries standing with Mauritius.

Former colonies were also clear in their position. India said support for decolonisation was one of the most significant contributions that the UN had made towards the promotion of fundamental human rights.

UK Ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce, along with the United States, warned that the vote would set a precedent that should be of concern to all member states with their own sovereignty disputes.

Britain purchased the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 for £3m, creating a region known as the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Between 1967 and 1973, it evicted the islands' entire population to make way for a joint military base with the US, which is still in place on Diego Garcia.

US planes have been sent from the base to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq. The facility was also reportedly used as a "black site" by the CIA to interrogate terrorism suspects. In 2016, the lease for the base was extended until 2036.

"The joint UK-US defence facility on the British Indian Ocean Territory helps to keep people in Britain and around the world safe from terrorism, organised crime and piracy," the FCO said.

Before Wednesday's vote, Mauritian Prime Minister Pravid Kumar Jug-Nauth told the General Assembly the forcible eviction of Chagossians was akin to a crime against humanity.

However, he said Mauritius would allow the military base to continue operating "in accordance with international law", if it were given control of the islands.

Mr Jug-Nauth said this would give the facility a "higher degree of legal certainty" for the future.

The UK has maintained that Mauritius gave up the territory freely in return for a range of benefits.

Ambassador Pierce has insisted that the issue should be resolved only by the countries involved.

Above is from:  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48371388

Five things to know about Morehouse donor Robert F. Smith

Education

Five things to know about Morehouse donor Robert F. Smith

By Rachel Siegel
The Washington Post

Updated5/20/2019 9:30 AM

• 
  


• Billionaire philanthropist Robert Smith is pictured in 2016. Washington Post

Billionaire Robert F. Smith woke up the crowd at Morehouse College commencement ceremony Sunday when he veered off script to share a surprise: He'd be paying off all the student loans for the Class of 2019′s nearly 400 graduates.

There was a moment of stunned silence before the grads and their families burst into a joyous applause. Within minutes, praise for Smith spread beyond Morehouse and turned into one of the weekend's most inspiring stories.

The billionaire tech executive and philanthropist has kept under the radar much of his career, even in Austin, where he lives and works. He rarely grants interviews and is so low-profile that when the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture put a call out for major donors in 2013, the museum's directors wondered, "Who is this Robert F. Smith?" They got their answer in spectacular fashion.

Here are five things you need to know about Robert F. Smith:

A knack for computers led to his fortune

As a junior in high school, Smith landed an internship at Bell Labs -- by calling the company every week for five months until he got a slot. Smith tinkered with computers during his summer and Christmas breaks, and went on study chemical engineering at Cornell. He earned an MBA from Columbia, followed by an investment banking job at Goldman Sachs. After advising billion-dollar mergers for tech companies like Microsoft and Apple, he left Goldman to found Vista Equity Partners 2000. He is still the chairman and CEO.

The firm invests in software and data companies and now has more than $46 billion in assets, according to Forbes. As of Monday, Forbes put Smith's net worth at $5 billion. He is the nation's richest black man.

Major donor to the National Museum of African American History and Culture

Before the museum opened, Smith pledged a $20 million gift (behind Oprah's $21 million pledge). In an exclusive interview with The Washington Post in 2016, Smith said he had become afraid of escalating racial tensions that threatened the very opportunities once sought by him and his parents. Smith specifically pointed to protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the 2014 fatal shooting of Michael Brown and the unrest after Freddie Gray's funeral in Baltimore.

"The vision I was sold as a kid is unraveling. I see the little tears in the fabric of society every day. This cannot be," Smith told The Post.

Smith's donation to the African American history museum was earmarked to digitize photographs, videos and music -- and help foster an interactive experience for a 21st-century museum. The gift also allows the museum to act as a hub to archive photographs from other institutions, like museums, funeral homes or personal collections.

"We wanted it to be a living, interactive museum where we tell our own stories of ourselves our way," Smith said at the time.

Other major donations

Before Sunday's graduation speech, Smith had donated $1.5 million to Morehouse for scholarships and a new park. In 2016, he gifted $50 million to Cornell University for its chemical and biomolecular engineering school, and to support black and female engineering students. (Cornell renamed the school after Smith.)

In 2017, Smith also put his name on The Giving Pledge -- a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to donate most of their wealth.

A musical upbringing

Smith grew up in a mostly black neighborhood in Denver. Both of his parents had doctorates in education and insisted that the house be filled with music -- be it a live show on the house's piano or Leontyne Price's arias on the stereo. Smith brought that early musical influence to his eventual tech career.

"A beautifully written software code is a lyrical concerto," he told The Post in 2016.

Smith was also the first African American to be named chairman of Carnegie Hall in New York in 2016.

An under-the-radar personal life ... in some ways

Though Smith has largely stayed out of the spotlight, he lives it up in other ways. In 2015, during his nuptials to actress and former Playboy model Hope Dworaczyk on the Amalfi Coast, the wedding singers included John Legend, Seal and Brian McKnight.

His love of music is reflected in the names of two of his sons, Hendrix and Legend -- an homage to music icons Jimi Hendrix and John Legend.

Smith reportedly owns one of Elton John's old pianos.

Above is from:  https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190520/five-things-to-know-about-morehouse-donor-robert-f-smith

Civic Federation says Pritzker budget plan is ‘workable’

By Doug Finke
State Capitol Bureau

Posted May 16, 2019 at 12:01 AMUpdated May 16, 2019 at 3:02 PM

The Civic Federation said Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s budget plan for next year “represents a workable short-term plan to move Illinois forward” in a report that will be issued Thursday.

The budget watchdog group said, however, it still has “significant concerns” the fiscal year 2020 spending plan relies on aggressive estimates for revenues and also may not adequately provide a long-term solution to the state’s bill backlog and pension funding.

“As proposed, the budget represents a relatively rickety financial bridge, though it has been significantly strengthened in recent days,” said Civic Federation President Laurence Msall in a statement. “The General Assembly is approaching the deadline to pass several components upon which this budget and the governor’s long-term plan rely and revenue projections attached to many of the proposals remain uncertain.”

Consequently, the federation’s Institute for Illinois’ Fiscal Sustainability, which prepared the budget analysis, suggested Pritzker and lawmakers have a backup plan ready that doesn’t short the pensions or further run up the bill backlog.

The federation gave Pritzker credit for using a projected increase in state tax collections next year to pay down pension debt. Pritzker’s original budget plan called for the state to extend the payment schedule to the pension systems by seven years, shorting the systems by hundreds of millions of dollars. The federation said it couldn’t support that idea “because it would have further jeopardized the financial condition of Illinois’ severely underfunded retirement systems.”

The federation said it is opposed to Pritzker’s idea of borrowing $2 billion to put into pensions because it will have a minimal effect on the pension debt while exposing the state to interest rate risk.

Pritzker deserves credit for introducing new revenues, the federation said, while also sounding a note of caution. Pritzker is banking on revenue from recreational marijuana and legalized sports betting to help balance next year’s budget. However, with just two weeks left in the spring session, both of those proposals remain works in progress that could be difficult to pass.

Pritzker has also put a lot of reliance on approval of a graduated income tax as a long-term solution to the state’s financial problems. However, the earliest that could be implemented is 2021, assuming voters approve the idea during the 2020 election.

The federation said the governor and legislature might be better off focusing on passing a budget by the end of May and leaving a capital plan — and the tax hikes to pay for it — until another time.

As it has before, the federation repeated its suggestions for the state to finally resolve its financial problems, including limiting spending growth, expanding the sales tax to some services and taxing the same retirement income that is subject to federal taxation. Pritzker has said he’s opposed to taxing retirement income.

Contact Doug Finke: doug.finke@sj-r.com, 788-1527, twitter.com/dougfinkesjr.

Above is from:  https://www.sj-r.com/news/20190516/civic-federation-says-pritzker-budget-plan-is-workable?rssfeed=true

Prostitution sting causes Sandwich Mayor to resign

Update: Sandwich Mayor to resign in wake of prostitution sting

Informant worked with LaSalle County deputies in operation; charged include public defender, hospital executive

By Derek Barichello

OTTAWA – The La Salle County Sheriff's office used a female informant posing as a prostitute named "Nicky" in a sting operation that led to charges against nine men, some of them high-profile community members, court records show.

Those who have been issued notices to appear in court on charges of solicitation of a sex act include the mayor of Sandwich, a Putnam County public defender and a Peru hospital administrator.

The men charged were not arrested immediately during the operation, so there are no police booking photos available. Investigators interviewed the men afterward and then sent them on their way, according to a press release issued by the La Salle County Sheriff's Office. The nine men on Friday were mailed notices to appear in court on solicitation of sex charges, according to documents. None have entered a plea. They are to appear for a first court appearance on May 31.

Solicitation of a sexual act is punishable by probation or up to a year in jail, and a maximum fine of $2,500.

According to court documents, Sandwich Mayor Richard A. "Rick" Olson, 66, was among those accused of offering money to a woman who went by "Nicky" on March 14 in exchange for sex.

James G. Schaefer, 53, of Peru, also is charged with solicitation, police said. He is the vice president of operations and physician services at Illinois Valley Community Hospital.

The encounters that led to most of the charges occurred on March 14, in Ottawa and Peru hotels. The hotel operators cooperated with authorities, so those locations were not being released by police. Putnam County public defender Roger C. Bolin, 65, of Hennepin, was charged in connection with an incident that occurred on April 4.

"Nicky" was involved in encounters that led to charges against eight of the nine people accused. A ninth man was charged through the work of agent Sherry Barto, according to court documents.

Websites were used to set up meetings at the hotels. Police declined to say what websites were used.

In addition to a soliciting charge, Bolin, 65, of Hennepin, also was charged with battery. Police say in court records that Bolin grabbed Nicky's shoulder and tried to pull her toward him, according to court documents.

Bolin also is said to have made phone calls with Nicky to discuss rates for various sexual acts, records show.

Others charged with solicitation of a sexual act in the operation include: Raul Barajas, 40, Peru; Dustin A. Meredith, 29, Streator; Joseph P. Hanley, 57, Earlville; Wiley M. Sawyer, 18, Waterman; Richard Peradotti, 55, Peru; Alphonso T. Thompson, 33, Streator.

Mayor to resign, other fallout from charges

Sandwich officials on Monday confirmed Olson, who was the city's police chief for 16 years before becoming mayor in 2013, plans to resign. He is two years into his second term as mayor, which expires in 2021.

Sandwich City Clerk Denise Ii said her office had received a resignation letter from Olson.

“However, it is not compliant in that it is not notarized,” Ii said.

Ii said that if the clerk's office receives a notarized letter in time, it will be read at the Sandwich City Council meeting at 7 p.m. Monday.

Kevin Kelleher, Ward 2 alderman for Sandwich, said he wasn't sure whether Olson has officially resigned.

"I know he said he's going to," Kelleher said. Kelleher declined to comment about his personal reaction on the matter.

Olson did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday.

Ward 1 Alderman Les Redden said had spoken to Olson in the wake of the news, though he declined to say what they had talked about. He said he expects the matter will be addressed at the Sandwich City Council meeting tonight.

"It's kind of the elephant in the room," Redden said.

Redden said the City Council doesn't officially have an appointed mayor pro tem listed, nor does the city have a vice mayor.

He said he recalls Olson being absent from council meetings only twice, with Alderman Rich Robinson usually acting in that role whenever Olson was gone. "We've done it on an individual basis," Redden said.

Robinson could not be reached for comment.

Bolin, a Putnam County public defender, is a partner in the Hennepin law firm of Boyle & Bolin. According to the Better Government Association, Bolin made $29,547 in his public role in 2017.

Bolin's office was contacted Monday but had made no statement as of Monday afternoon concerning the charges.

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois is the governing body overseeing Illinois' attorneys. According to the commission's office, Bolin is currently in good standing with no complaints against him.

If a complaint were filed, Bolin's conduct would be reviewed, and he could face discipline including censure, probation, suspension or disbarment.

A spokeswoman for Illinois Valley Community Hospital declined to comment Monday regarding the solicitation charge against Schaefer, or say whether Schaefer still is employed at the hospital, citing a policy not to comment on personnel matters.

• Shaw Media news reporters Katie Finlon out of Record Newspapers and Dave Cook out of the Bureau County Republican contributed to this story.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Above is from:  https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2019/05/13/update-sandwich-mayor-to-resign-in-wake-of-prostitution-sting/ako1is0/

Belvidere Police sued over 2018 incident

Belvidere man sues city police officer, alleges false arrest, excessive force

By Ken DeCoster
Staff writer

Posted May 9, 2019 at 5:34 PMUpdated May 9, 2019 at 9:02 PM

BELVIDERE — A Belvidere man has filed a federal lawsuit alleging a city police officer arrested him under false pretenses and used excessive force in doing so.

The lawsuit stems from a Father’s Day 2018 incident at the home of Paul Ainley and involves a custody dispute between Ainley’s daughter and the father of Ainley’s 5-year-old grandson.

According to the complaint, Belvidere police officer Matthew Korn demanded that Ainley hand over his grandson to the boy’s father, despite the fact the father’s custody rights were revoked the previous month. Ainley asked police to get a search warrant and went back inside his house.

The complaint states Korn dragged Ainley out of his house by his shirt, shoved Ainley to the ground, jumped on his back and repeatedly struck him in the face.

Ainley, who was hospitalized for his injuries, was charged with battery and resisting arrest.

“Despite convincing evidence of false arrest and excessive force, Boone County law enforcement is prosecuting Mr. Ainley instead of investigating Officer Korn,” Chicago Attorney Christopher R. Smith said in a news release. “I invite the Boone County prosecutor to do the right thing, investigate Matthew Korn, and make sure that police officers know how to conduct a proper arrest.”

The lawsuit states that Ainley suffered injuries including pain and suffering, emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of Korn’s actions.

“Instead of protecting child welfare, defendant Korn put a whole family in danger,” Smith said. “If the Boone County State’s Attorney cannot address the issue themselves, they should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate.”

Boone County State’s Attorney Tricia Smith said she would not comment because the criminal charges against Ainley are still pending in court.

Belvidere city attorney Mike Drella and Police Chief Shane Woody were unavailable for comment Thursday.

Ken DeCoster: 815-987-1391; kdecoster@rrstar.com; @DeCosterKen

Above is from: https://www.rrstar.com/news/20190509/belvidere-man-sues-city-police-officer-alleges-false-arrest-excessive-force?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GHM_Daily_NL%20-%20Pre%20Fix&utm_content=GTDT_RRS&utm_term=051119

New Job for US Rep Kinzinger?

Kinzinger interested in Air Force job

• David Giuliani | dgiuliani@daily-journal.com | 815-802-5144
• May 2, 2019

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., speaks to the media in March at the White House in Washington.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

• 
  
U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger didn’t vote for Donald Trump and once compared the billionaire to a child, but now says he is open to joining the president’s administration as Air Force secretary.

“If the president would determine I would be the candidate, the person that he wanted to lead the Air Force, I would strongly consider it,” Kinzinger, R-Channahon, told Fox News during the weekend.

Kinzinger, whose district includes Iroquois County, belongs to the Wisconsin Air National Guard and has flown missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These days, Kinzinger is mostly supportive of Trump, including backing the president’s proposal to build a southern border wall. But he has been known to criticize some of Trump’s decisions, including the one to pull out troops from Syria.

In his successful 2010 election to Congress, Kinzinger criticized incumbent Democrat Debbie Halvorson for failing to hold town halls with constituents. In recent years, Kinzinger rarely holds such events with constituents, saying the “radical left” would disrupt them.

In March 2016, Kinzinger blamed the tone of the Republican presidential race on Trump, accusing him of “fourth-grade rhetoric” and “fourth-grade tweets.”

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, a former New Mexico congressman, is resigning May 31.

“The Air Force is going through a lot of transition,” Kinzinger, 41, told Fox News. “I think new-generation leadership would be great for it; as a military member myself, I understand why there’s a retention issue on pilots and stuff.”

After the 2016 election, Kinzinger said he didn’t vote for Trump, but refused to say who got his support. In an interview with the Ottawa Times last year, Kinzinger endorsed Trump.

Above is from:  https://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/kinzinger-interested-in-air-force-job/article_9f61eb8c-6c43-11e9-8cc6-f36257256090.html

Personal stories regarding Belvidere Assembly Plant lay off

Nearly 1,400 autoworkers are about to lose their jobs at Illinois plant

• ROBERT CHANNICK Chicago Tribune
• 20 hrs ago

BELVIDERE — When the final whistle blows this weekend for workers on the third shift at the Belvidere Assembly Plant near Rockford, the nearly 1,400 members of "C Crew" will punch out for the last time, downsized out of a job because of slowing demand for the plant's only product _ the Jeep Cherokee.

It is a straightforward business decision for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, which is scaling back to a traditional two-shift schedule at the plant amid softening sales and a glut of competitors.

But for residents of Belvidere, a small river city situated amid sprawling cornfields about 75 miles northwest of Chicago, Monday will be anything but business as usual.

"I'm scared," said Mike Dovey, 57, of Poplar Grove, whose two years at the plant end Saturday. "There's a lot of uncertainty. You don't have a job, you've still got to pay all your bills."

Dovey was among the 1,371 least-tenured union workers at the plant who received notice from Fiat Chrysler in February that the third crew _ and their jobs _ would be eliminated in May. In addition, hundreds of employees at nearby suppliers like Syncreon and Android have been permanently laid off as well, according to state filings.

The anxiety among residents here is palpable, even as the plant, which employed 5,464 at the start of 2019, will likely remain the region's largest employer. Fiat Chrysler declined to say what the actual Belvidere employee count will be after the layoffs, but it's not lost on people here that the automaker is investing billions in new production capacity elsewhere.

Hundreds of displaced Chrysler workers attended a recent UAW Local 1268 severance meeting at the Belvidere community center, filing through a gray rain to face a grim choice: They have until May 13 to decide if they want temporary positions at the Belvidere plant, and whether to sign up for full-time openings down the road at either their home plant or Chrysler facilities in other markets such as Detroit and Toledo, Ohio.

The laid-off autoworkers are also eligible to receive $13,000 worth of federally funded job training if they want to change careers.

Dovey, who attended the meeting, said he was considering going back to school to become either a truck driver or a correctional officer, but had no interest in relocating for Chrysler. He already moved, from Boston, 17 years ago.

"I own a home. Now I've got to sell my house, move all my stuff," he said, before adding, "Why do I want move there?"

Brian Pasch, 33, of Rockford, who also attended the UAW information session, worked in the chassis department at Belvidere for two years, putting seats in the cars. He previously worked for a supplier to the plant.

While the layoff put plans to buy a house for his wife and stepson on hold, Pasch said he would be willing to take temporary work at the Belvidere plant on the two shifts that will remain, or relocate to Chrysler plants in Toledo or Detroit if he could land full-time work.

He's not being fussy.

"This is all I know, so whatever they offer me, I'll take," Pasch said.

An auto town

A stroll on State Street in Belvidere, a city of 25,000 that straddles the Kishwaukee River, reveals a quaint downtown with eclectic ma-and-pa retailers, some vacant storefronts and an assortment of colorful murals adorning the sides of its brick buildings. One of them features Jeanne Gang, a native daughter whose architecture firm is reshaping Chicago's skyline.

For more than half a century, Belvidere has been an auto town, its fortunes inextricably tied to the Chrysler auto plant, which brought hope, jobs and a succession of new car models _ some more popular than others.

The first car that rolled off the line on July 7, 1965, was a snazzy, white, four-door Plymouth Fury II sedan, which is proudly displayed at the Boone County Museum of History in downtown Belvidere. The original sticker remains affixed to the window: The car had a base price of $2,684. Extras, like an AM radio ($57.35), an electric clock ($15.30) and the always dubious undercoating ($15.40), brought the total to $3,206.90.

Over the years, the plant was retooled several times, and made everything from the compact Dodge Omni to the land-yacht Chrysler New Yorker. All the while, it was a survivor. During Chrysler's painful bankruptcy in 2009, the plant was down to 200 employees before Fiat and a government bailout rescued it and the company.

By 2012, the plant had new life. Fiat Chrysler's dynamic chairman, Sergio Marchionne, visited the plant, fresh off a $700 million investment to gear up for production of the Dodge Dart. To an exuberant crowd standing amid the retooled assembly lines, he announced that the plant would add a third shift and 1,800 workers.

As recently as 2017, the plant's future seemed secure when it became the exclusive home for the Jeep Cherokee, the sweet spot in an auto industry where SUVs have supplanted cars in many family garages. Last year, when GM announced it would close plants because of flagging sedan sales, Belvidere was humming along, producing nearly 270,000 Jeep Cherokees _ up 27 percent from 2017.

Shifting winds

Now Fiat Chrysler is applying the brakes on Cherokee production and eliminating the third shift at Belvidere. Fiat Chrysler has given no indication of further cutbacks, but there are reasons for concern, according to Michelle Krebs, a Detroit-based analyst for Autotrader.

"The third shift is always the first to go when sales begin slumping," Krebs said.

Fiat Chrysler sales fell 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019, outpacing the 2.5 percent year-over-year decline across the broader auto industry, according to Edmunds.

But beyond industry trends, Krebs said the Belvidere plant faces an uphill climb with its reliance on the Jeep Cherokee, an older nameplate relaunched as an all-new model in 2013.

A redesigned Cherokee won't arrive until 2022, according to Fiat Chrysler spokeswoman Jodi Tinson.

A bigger concern for Belvidere's future may be something it cannot control: its location. While Fiat Chrysler is laying off employees in Illinois, it announced plans to build a new $4.5 billion assembly plant in Detroit, and to retool five existing facilities in Michigan, creating nearly 6,500 jobs.

"One disadvantage a plant like Belvidere has is it's kind of out of the way from all the other plants," Krebs said. "It's one of the things considered when they decide where to put products into plants."

Krebs pointed to location as a key reason GM pulled the plug on its plant in Janesville, Wis., during the Great Recession in December 2008. That decision, once unthinkable, ended a 90-year run for the auto plant, displacing 1,200 remaining workers.

Economic impact

Even if the Belvidere plant maintains a two-shift operation, the elimination of the third crew may have far-reaching consequences.

An economic impact analysis by Northern Illinois University projected that more than 3,600 auto industry and other jobs could be lost in the wake of the plant layoffs, reducing the region's annual gross domestic product by $467 million.

"This is a serious event in the regional economy up here," said Brian Harger, a researcher at the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies who conducted the analysis.

Job one is, of course, finding work for thousands of displaced employees, who made between $17 and $28 per hour at the Belvidere plant, according to Tinson.

Some development officials point to low unemployment and a diverse manufacturing economy led by a booming aerospace industry as reasons for optimism. Leading aerospace companies include Collins, which has 1,700 local employees, and Woodward, which has 2,000 employees.

"I'm not overly worried about our area's ability to pull the slack right back," said Nathan Bryant, president and CEO of the Rockford Area Economic Development Council. "Although it is a blow, it's not an insurmountable challenge for our market to begin to reabsorb a lot of those positions over time."

But others are skeptical, saying it will be difficult to place so many autoworkers in comparable positions anytime soon.

"We've done some research on available manufacturing positions," said John Strandin, a spokesman for the Workforce Connection, a state and federally funded Rockford-based organization providing employment training programs. "A lot of them are engineering-type positions _ it's not an exact match."

The Workforce Connection held a hiring event Wednesday for displaced Chrysler, Android and Syncreon workers at the UAW Hall in Belvidere, with about 100 job seekers and 36 employers attending. Offerings included second-shift chip cook at Kettle Foods in Beloit, Wis.; warehouse delivery at Choice Furniture in Rockford; and machinist at Rockford-based Kaney Aerospace.

Pam Lopez-Fettes, executive director of Growth Dimensions, the economic development organization for Belvidere and Boone County, said it will be hard for laid-off Chrysler workers to find jobs that pay as well.

"It's going to be a challenge to find somebody with competitive wages," Lopez-Fettes said.

Deep anxiety

In Belvidere, as the third crew departs, everybody from retired autoworkers to a local barber has an opinion on the fate of the plant and the city .

Jeff Hale, 53, of Rockford, a 22-year veteran of the Belvidere plant, didn't lose his job, but he attended the UAW informational session with his less-tenured brother, Jerry, 49, who was laid off.

"It's going to hurt the economy," Hale said. "They're going to feel it. I've seen places close when we've cut shifts _ restaurants, bars, small businesses around the area."

Then there's James Emanuel, owner of Hub Barber Shop, a downtown Belvidere institution dating back more than a century. He was philosophical about the layoffs as he pulled out a straight razor to do the final trims for his lone customer.

"That's just the nature of the automobile industry. It's always going up and down," Emanuel said. "There's been a lot of people that have been fortunate to work out there during the good times, put their 30 (years) in and now they're done."

One such worker was Jerry Hall, 73, a lifelong Belvidere resident who was employed at the plant from its opening in 1965 until his retirement in 2001, and later ran a coin shop on State Street.

Hall ruminated on the fallout from the layoffs after a late-afternoon meal at Grandma's Family Restaurant, a Belvidere diner which has been serving workers from the nearby Chrysler plant for 25 years.

"It worries everybody, if you have anything invested in this town," said Hall, whose wife of 53 years died last August. The UAW sent him a "very nice" plant.

Hall, who recently bought a new Ram truck to support the company that employed him throughout his career, said the Chrysler plant brought growth and development to Belvidere.

At the same time, he remembered what happened when Belvidere's previous manufacturing giant, the National Sewing Machine Co., closed up shop in the 1950s, putting his own father out of a job.

"He went to Rockford, did machinist work for a while," Hall said. "Then he came back to Belvidere and he was a janitor before he retired."

Dovey, a Boston transplant who has "put down roots" in Illinois in a home he owns with his wife, said the outlook for Belvidere and the plant appeared bleak on the eve of his layoff, worrying aloud about the future of Fiat Chrysler itself.

But more than anything, he pondered a question for which he had no answer:

"I'm 57. How employable am I going to be after this?"

Above is from:  https://herald-review.com/news/state-and-regional/nearly-autoworkers-are-about-to-lose-their-jobs-at-illinois/article_4ffe9b3c-f6a1-5bde-873e-67ff40df3b6c.html

'no way to link' separated migrant children to parents

Emails show Trump admin had 'no way to link' separated migrant children to parents

"What you are requesting," said a top ICE official, "is not something that we are going to be able to complete in a rapid fashion."

Children walk in a line at a tent encampment in Tornillo, Texas on June 19, 2018.Mike Blake / Reuters file

May 1, 2019, 6:29 PM CDT / Updated May 1, 2019, 6:30 PM CDT

By Jacob Soboroff

LOS ANGELES — On the same day the Trump administration said it would reunite thousands of migrant families it had separated at the border with the help of a "central database," an official was admitting privately the government only had enough information to reconnect 60 parents with their kids, according to emails obtained by NBC News.

"[I]n short, no, we do not have any linkages from parents to [children], save for a handful," a Health and Human Services official told a top official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 23, 2018. "We have a list of parent alien numbers but no way to link them to children."

In the absence of an effective database, the emails show, officials then began scrambling to fill out a simple spreadsheet with data in hopes of reuniting as many as families as they could.

Click here:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5985515-Redacted-Email-1.html  and here:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5985516-Redacted-Email-2.html to read the emails.

The gaps in the system for tracking separations would result in a months-long effort to reunite nearly 3,000 families separated under the administration's "zero tolerance" policy. Officials had to review all the relevant records manually, a process that continues.

Emails: DHS had no way to link separated families

MAY 1, 201903:37

Nearly a year later, as many as 55 children separated last year under zero tolerance are still in Health and Human Services (HHS) custody at shelters around the country. The shortage of data has also complicated efforts to find many other children, potentially thousands, separated prior to zero tolerance. The administration's lawyers have said in court filings that reunification could take years.

'WE MAY NOT HAVE SOME OF IT'

On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump ended his separation policy by executive order amidst immense public pressure. Three days later, the Department of Homeland Security issued a fact sheet proclaiming the "United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families."

The document said that DHS and HHS, the agency that cares for undocumented children when they are separated from their parents, "have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their children," with "a central database which HHS and DHS can access and update."

But at the time, there was no database with information for both parents and children. Some of the necessary information was missing altogether. Behind the scenes, officials began exchanging emails, provided to NBC News by the House Judiciary Committee, that revealed how unprepared the agencies were to reunite families.

On the afternoon of June 23, Thomas Fitzgerald, a data analyst at HHS, e-mailed Matthew Albence, then the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's enforcement and removal operations and now the acting head of ICE. ICE was and remains the agency responsible for detaining, releasing or deporting separated parents.

Fitzgerald asked for "alien numbers" of separated parents to be filled into a spreadsheet of 2,219 children, along with whether or not the parent was already deported, among other information. Alien numbers are assigned to every migrant apprehended by Border Patrol and are how the government tracks them.

A child watches as a Border Patrol agent searches a Central American immigrant after they crossed the border from Mexico in El Paso, Texas on February 1, 2019.John Moore / Getty Images file

Albence replied several hours later. The first line of his email asks, "[A]re you saying you don't have the alien number for any of the parents?"

"[T]he type and volume of what you are requesting," Albence said, "is not something that we are going to be able to complete in a rapid fashion, and in fact, we may not have some of it."

Fitzgerald wrote back to Albence, confirming HHS did not have a way to connect the thousands of children to their parents. He said he had information for a handful of parents, "about 60."

The emails confirm a finding by the DHS Office of Inspector General last September. In a report on family separations, the IG said that conversations with ICE employees indicated there was "no evidence" of a centralized database "containing location information for separated parents and minors."

A former administration official told NBC News that there was a central database, "but the database did not contain enough information to successfully reunite parents and kids. …The information sharing from DHS provided initially was not enough to be able to quickly reunite parents and kids."

Former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other government officials repeatedly claimed that the Trump administration was keeping track of separations. In a June 19, 2018, press conference at the White House, Nielsen insisted all separated children were being tracked.

"It is not that I don't know where they are," said Nielsen. "I'm saying that the vast majority of children are held by Health and Human Services."

Albence did not respond to a request for comment. Fitzgerald referred questions to DHS. DHS said that DHS and HHS took the information about parents entered on spreadsheets and added it to a SharePoint site already populated by HHS with information about unaccompanied children.

Acting DHS Chief says family separations are 'not worth it'

APRIL 24, 201905:41

HHS referred NBC News to a June 26, 2018 quote from Secretary Alex Azar: "There is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located. I've sat on the ORR portal with just basic keystrokes, within seconds could find any child in our care for any parent."

In a statement, HHS spokesperson Evelyn Stauffer said, "HHS knows where each and every unaccompanied child in HHS custody is at any given time, and that was true during the summer of 2018. What Secretary Azar said was true and is still true today."

'THEY DIDN'T COMMUNICATE'

Three days after the emails between Fitzgerald and Albence, Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California ordered the Trump administration to reunite families within 30 days.

Once that deadline passed with hundreds of families still waiting in limbo, Sabraw expressed his frustration with the government agencies responsible for reunifying families.

"Each had its own boss," Sabraw said in his San Diego courtroom. "And they didn't communicate, so what was lost in the process was the family. The parents didn't know where the children were, and the children didn't know where the parents were. And the government didn't know, either."

Lee Gelernt, lead lawyer for the ACLU in the separations case, said Wednesday, "It is now clear beyond doubt that the government never had a proper tracking system but unfortunately they pretended in the beginning that they did. It is likely there's still much more for the public to learn about how bad things really were."

Above is from:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/emails-show-trump-admin-had-no-way-link-separated-migrant-n1000746

Congressional Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit can proceed

Politics

Congressional Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit targeting President Trump’s private business can proceed, judge says

The Trump International Hotel in Washington in March. (Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images)

By Jonathan O'Connell ,

Ann E. Marimow and

Carol D. Leonnig

April 30 at 7:09 PM

Democrats in Congress can move ahead with their lawsuit against President Trump alleging that his private business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The decision in Washington from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan adopted a broad definition of the anti-corruption law and could set the stage for Democratic lawmakers to begin seeking information from the Trump Organization. The Justice Department can try to delay or block the process by asking an appeals court to intervene.

In a 48-page opinion, the judge refused the request of the president’s legal team to dismiss the case and rejected Trump’s narrow definition of emoluments, finding it “unpersuasive and inconsistent.”

The lawsuit is one of two landmark cases against Trump relying on the once-obscure emoluments clauses of the Constitution.

In a case brought in Maryland by the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland, Justice Department lawyers representing the president have succeeded in temporarily blocking subpoenas for financial records and other documents related to Trump’s D.C. hotel.

The congressional case, brought by about 200 Democrats, extends beyond the hotel and provides a potential new avenue for investigators to gain access to a broader array of Trump’s closely held finances.

What you need to know about Trump and the emoluments clause

D.C. and Maryland are suing President Trump for violating a little-known constitutional provision called "the emoluments clause." (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

[D.C., Maryland begin seeking Trump financial documents in case related to his D.C. hotel]

Trump’s lawyers argued that the prohibition applies only to payments received for government action taken by a president in his official capacity. The clause, they argue, should not be considered a blanket bar on private business transactions with foreign governments.

Sullivan noted that the lawsuit alleges the president — without seeking permission from Congress — has received payments for hotel rooms and events from foreign governments, as well as licensing fees paid by foreign governments for his show “The Apprentice” and intellectual property rights from China.

[Read the opinion here:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/federal-court-opinion-on-trump-emoluments-case-brought-by-democrats/bf8ea41e-6cb7-4425-85ba-657f4fc11e60/?utm_term=.85ac1216cc3d

The emoluments cases, which could eventually end up at the Supreme Court, appear to mark the first time federal judges have interpreted these clauses and applied their restrictions to a sitting president. The lawsuits were early arrivals to what is now a wide range of investigations and legal battles over the president’s business interests and what information he and his family will be required to provide about them.

A side entrance of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. (Astrid Riecken/For The Washington Post)

While special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has wrapped up his inquiry on Russian interference in the 2016 election, a half-dozen House committees are seeking financial information related to the Trump Organization, its accountants and lenders. The president and his family filed suit late Monday in New York against their biggest lender and one of their banks, to try to stop them from complying with subpoenas from congressional committees.

[Trump Organization and family sue Deutsche Bank and Capital One to block congressional subpoenas]

Led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the Democrats filed their suit last year asking the court to force Trump to stop accepting payments they consider violations of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause. They say the provision was designed to guard against undue influence by foreign governments by barring any “emolument” — meaning a gift or payment — without prior approval from Congress.

Sullivan agreed, writing that dictionaries from the era of the Founding Fathers, as well as legal historians and government practice, point to the broader definition backed by the congressional Democrats that “ensures that the clause fulfills this purpose” of excluding the possibility of corruption and foreign influence. Sullivan described the record as “overwhelming evidence” from “over two hundred years of understanding the scope of the clause to be broad.”

“The Court is persuaded that the text and structure of the Clause, together with the other uses of the term in the Constitution, support plaintiffs’ definition of ‘Emolument’ rather than that of the President,” the judge wrote.

Although the president gave up day-to-day management of his businesses — including residential, office, hotel and golf properties in the United States, Europe and South America, he still owns them and can withdraw money from them at any time. A number of foreign embassies and leaders have stayed in or held events at Trump’s D.C. hotel.

Congressional Democrats and their attorneys from the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center have argued the payments from foreign governments received by Trump through his extensive enterprises ought to be considered emoluments under the Constitution and thus deemed illegal.

In a tweet, Blumenthal called the opinion a “tremendous victory & vindication of a commonsense reading of the Constitution.” He added that “the next step should be discovery & full disclosure.” Nadler called the ruling “an important milestone in seeking to hold the President accountable” for what he called ongoing violations of the clause.

Justice Department attorneys have argued the case should be dismissed, saying the payments Trump receives for market-rate transactions are not emoluments.

One government attorney described the issue as “a political dispute,” arguing in court that members of Congress had additional ways of pressuring the president to change his behavior, such as holding hearings, passing legislation or withholding funding.

“We will continue to defend the president in court,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in statement Tuesday in response to the ruling.

A Trump Organization spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Emoluments lawsuit alleging Trump’s private business is violating the Constitution can proceed, federal judge rules]

Sullivan had already ruled in September that the legislators had legal standing to sue. He wrote the case ought to be allowed to continue in part because the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause “requires the President to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited emolument.”

But Sullivan still needed to rule on questions that include whether the Founding Fathers’ definition of “emolument” was broad enough to include a foreign embassy paying the president to rent a hotel ballroom.

In his ruling, Sullivan acknowledged concerns from Trump’s lawyers, who said allowing the case to move ahead would impose “significant burdens” on a sitting president.

But clarifying the definition of the clause, the judge wrote, should ensure the president can abide by his oath of office.

The president’s argument “regarding the ‘judgment’ and ‘planning’ needed to ensure compliance with the clause is beside the point,” the judge wrote. “It may take judgment and planning to comply with the clause, but he has no discretion as to whether or not to comply with it in the first instance.”

Sullivan did not rule Tuesday on the Justice Department’s previous request to make an immediate appeal of his finding on standing. He asked the president and congressional Democrats to file additional briefings before the end of May.

Recent academic research appears to bolster the plaintiffs’ position. During the past 150 years, the Justice Department issued more than 50 opinions interpreting the foreign emoluments clause as prohibiting federal officials from accepting any benefit from foreign governments, “even if the benefit is small in size, if it is part of an arms-length transaction, if the benefit is funneled through an intermediary, or if the official’s government responsibilities don’t affect the foreign government,” according to new research from Kathleen Clark, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Under Trump, that changed, with the Justice Department deciding in 2017 to side with Trump’s personal lawyers in arguing that the clause permits the president and all federal officials to accept unlimited money from foreign governments “as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” Clark wrote.

In his opinion Tuesday, Sullivan quoted extensively from the similar ruling by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in the emoluments case against Trump in Maryland. Justice Department attorneys and the president’s personal lawyers have appealed the ruling from Messitte, who had allowed the attorneys general to begin issuing subpoenas. That case is narrowly focused on transactions involving Trump’s D.C. hotel.

[Judges seem skeptical Trump is illegally profiting from his D.C. hotel]

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit appeared skeptical during a March 19 hearing that Trump is illegally profiting from his D.C. hotel. The appeals court did not say when it would issue a ruling.

Above is from:   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congressional-democrats-emoluments-lawsuit-targeting-president-trumps-private-business-can-proceed-judge-says/2019/04/30/ae2ae6be-5b9f-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.a16a325cf815&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1

Mueller Report Executive Summaries

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN The Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation - a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States. The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Y evgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Pri ozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin

In mid-2014, the IRA sent em lo mission with instructions   DELETED

The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S . electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA' s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA. Section II of this report details the Office's investigation of the Russian social media campaign.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II

Our obstruction -of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian -interference investigations , including the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

The key issues and events we examined include the following:

The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign , questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election , the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election . Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia 's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Corney to a private dinner at the White House and told Corney that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn , the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue. Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Corney. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said , "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy . T hope you can let this go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Corney, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered. The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. Tn February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign . Tn early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Corney publicly 3 U.S. Department of Justice Aftefl'1e~· Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetea Uttder Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign . In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Corney directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Corney had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Corney to " lift the cloud " of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly. The President's termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Corney testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Corney. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release , state that Corney had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Corney's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Corney should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Corney before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia, " which had been "taken off' by Corney's firing. The next day , the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Corney regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." In response to a question about whether he was angry with Corney about the Russia investigation, the President said, "As far as I'm concerned , I want that thing to be absolutely done properly ," adding that firing Corney "might even lengthen out the investigation." The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017 , the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation , but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice. On June 14, 2017, the media report ed that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point " in the investigation: while Corney had told the President he was not under investigation , following Corney's firing , the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction , however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre. 4 U.S. Department of Justice AtterHe:) Werle Preattet // May CeHtaiH Mitteria:1 Preteetea UHder Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation , the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong , and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do. One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017 , the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message personally , so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomforta ble with the task and did not follow through. Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017 , the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President 's involvement in Trump Jr.' s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. In early summer 2017 , the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December 2017 , shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessio ns unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response , Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything "improper " on the campaign and told the President there was a "w hole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to 5 U.S. Department of Justice Attot1Aey Wot1k Protittet // Muy CoHtuiA Muteriul Proteeteti UAtiet' Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting , the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President 's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle. Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,~. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President 's personal counsel left a message for Flynn 's attorneys reminding them of the President 's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn 's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn 's actions reflected "hostility" towards the President. During Manafort 's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal. trial was deliberating , the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and said that "fli in " "almost ou ht to be Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President 's conduct towards Michael Cohen , a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project , to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017 , Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony , Cohen had extensive discussions with the President 's personal counsel, who , according to Cohen , said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018 , the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family memb ers had committed crimes. 6 U.S. Department of Justice Attein1ey Werk Pre,1foet // Mtt)' Cm,taiH Material Preiteetea Ut1aer Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President 's conduct. Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President , and some of his actions , such as firing the FBI director , involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time , the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful mean s of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers , and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second , unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime , the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third , many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons , took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same. Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President 's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases , reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President 's first interactions with Corney through the President 's firing of Corney. During that time , the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point , the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the inve~tigation , non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witne sses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President 's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts. Statutory defenses. Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes , we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 , 1505, 1512(b)(3) , 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings . No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury , 7 U.S. Department of Justice Attemey Werle Predttet // May CeHtaiH Material Preteeted UH.tier Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings , and they are supplemented by a provision in Section 1512(6) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime. Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not. definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President ca,n be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice .

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of"corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President 's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President 's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.