Monday, July 29, 2019

Illinois National Guard sending 400 to Afghanistan

Illinois National Guard sending 400 to Afghanistan


  • FILE - Gov. J.B. Pritzker

Gov. J.B. Pritzker speaks during a bill signing Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.

Amr Alfiky / AP Photo


Illinois is sending its largest contingent of National Guard troops in about a decade to Afghanistan.

Nearly 400 troops with the 178th Infantry Regiment left over the weekend. They will stop in Texas for training, then they will spend the next year or in Afghanistan as part of Operation Freedom's Sentinel.

It's the first time Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has sent troops overseas. And it's the largest deployment to Afghanistan for the Illinois Guard in almost 10 years.

"Serving as Commander and Chief of Illinois' citizen soldiers is a humbling endeavor for me because you represent the very best of this state," Pritzker said over the weekend. "The service you and your families give every day to the people of Illinois, that service to defend this nation, will always be a source of inspiration and respect."

The 178th is mainly based in the Chicago area, but members from as far south as Joliet and as far north as Woodstock are also part of the regiment.

Lt. Co. Matt Garrison said the troops will be providing security for coalition forces in Afghanistan.

"Know that this unit and this battalion is ready to meet the mission in Afghanistan," Garrison said. "We have the training, we have the right personnel, and we have the equipment to accomplish the mission."

Garrison said the troops will spend about a year in Afghanistan.

Above is from:  https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/illinois-national-guard-sending-to-afghanistan/article_8a39f8e4-b22a-11e9-aebc-cf7bdbb6574a.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-sticky-siderail-latest


Suburbanites among the 400 Illinois Army National Guardsmen off to Afghanistan

  • Wood Dale police officer Thomas Nickelson on Friday, his last day on duty before he will be deployed to Afghanistan with the Illinois Army National Guard. He will be on an overseas mission for at least the next year.

    Wood Dale police officer Thomas Nickelson on Friday, his last day on duty before he will be deployed to Afghanistan with the Illinois Army National Guard. He will be on an overseas mission for at least the next year. Courtesy of Wood Dale Police Department

    Show photos

Elena Ferrarin

Elena Ferrarin

The largest mobilization of Illinois Army National Guardmen in nearly a decade, including from companies in Elgin and Woodstock, starts Saturday.

The guardsmen are with the 1st Battalion, 178th Infantry Regiment headquartered in Chicago and including companies in Elgin, Woodstock, Chicago, Bartonville and Kankakee, and a detachment in Joliet, said Barbara Wilson, public affairs specialist for the Illinois Army National Guard.


The guardsmen are being mobilized in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which followed the Operation Enduring Freedom combat mission in Afghanistan and was designed to focus on training and counterterrorism efforts. They will train at Fort Bliss, Texas, before deploying to Afghanistan.

A mobilization ceremony takes place at 10 a.m. Saturday at Elgin Community College, 1700 Spartan Drive, Elgin, and another one at 4 p.m. Saturday at Woodstock High School, 501 W. South St., Woodstock.

Other ceremonies take place Sunday in Chicago and Kankakee, and Monday in Peoria.

Among those deployed is Wood Dale police officer Thomas Nickelson, whom the Wood Dale Police Department feted Friday.

"Today we were honored to thank Ofc. Nickelson for his service during his upcoming deployment with the U.S. Army," the department posted on Facebook. "He will be on an overseas mission for at least the next year. Today was his last day on the street prior to his report date this weekend."

"We look forward to welcoming him back to our family when he completes his tour of duty."

Above is from:  https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190726/suburbanites-among-the-400-illinois-army-national-guardsmen-off-to-afghanistan

Friday, July 26, 2019

JOHN KELLY CASHES IN ON CHILD SEPARATION POLICY HE PUSHED

JOHN KELLY CASHES IN ON CHILD SEPARATION POLICY HE PUSHED

By Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel
May 9, 2019

John Kelly was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when President Trump’s zero tolerance policy was under consideration, and chief of staff at the White House when the policy was implemented. Now, he is on the board of Caliburn International, which runs the largest facility housing migrant children separated from their families at the border. The effects of the zero tolerance policy have been catastrophic, and as many as 55 children still have still not been reunited with their families–with no existing records that would link them. That hasn’t stopped Kelly from cashing in on the policy he supported now that he has left the government.

Just a few months into Trump’s presidency, then-Secretary Kelly confirmed that the administration was considering a hard line approach to illegal immigration that would include separating children from their families if they crossed the southern border illegally. He said the approach could deter immigration and assured the public that “we have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors. We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States.”

The zero tolerance policy was officially announced on April 6, 2018, when Kelly was White House chief of staff. After backlash about the policy, Kelly defended it on NPR, saying “it could be a tough deterrent” and that he would not characterize the policy as cruel, saying that “[the] children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.”

As we have seen in the past year, in his advocacy for the policy Kelly overstated the administration’s ability to care for unaccompanied children and link them with their parents. Many children are still separated from their families, with no records that can be used to reunite them. CREW is in litigation against the administration about the recordkeeping failures that have kept children separated from their families.

On May 8, 2019, in an interview about his time at the White House, he went out of his way to describe the detention centers in positive terms, explaining that they are “purely for humanitarian purposes.” Kelly did not mention that he is now on the board of Caliburn International, which runs the largest of the facilities that he praised. That Kelly now stands to profit from the continued effects of a disastrous policy that he advocated for while he was DHS Secretary and White House chief of staff demonstrates how the revolving door spins between government and industry.

Kelly is just the latest in a pattern of former Trump administration officials leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector in industries they regulated. Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is now working for a gold mining company. Former EPA head Scott Pruitt is now lobbying for coal companies. Though President Trump ran on a promise to drain the swamp, his former senior officials instead are examples of exactly how the swamp works–at the expense of families and the environment. 

Above is from:  https://www.citizensforethics.org/john-kelly-child-separation-policy/

How Trump's businesses are booming with lobbyists, donors and governments


How Trump's businesses are booming with lobbyists, donors and governments

The president has refused to sever ties with his hotels, golf courses and condos – raising conflict of interest and corruption concerns

Peter Stone in Washington

Fri 19 Jul 2019 00.00 EDTLast modified on Fri 19 Jul 2019 00.06 EDT


Donald Trump meets with supporters during a Bikers for Trump event at the Trump National Golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on 11 August 2018.

Donald Trump meets with supporters during a Bikers for Trump event at the Trump National Golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on 11 August 2018. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

From Florida to New York to Scotland and many other places, Donald Trump’s business empire has attracted a growing clientele of lobbyists, foreign governments, big donors and other Trump allies looking to curry favor, and helping generate hundreds of millions of dollars for his golf course resorts, condos and hotels.

While much attention has focused on Trump’s Washington DC hotel as a honeypot for those seeking to influence the administration, Trump’s broader property empire across the US – and overseas – also concerns critics who say the president is using his office for financial benefit.

Inside Trump's DC hotel, where allies and lobbyists flock to peddle their interests


During his first two full years as president, Trump’s revenues from his far-flung real estate business, which his two eldest sons are running while he is president, totaled at least $886m, according to Trump’s annual financial disclosures.

Trump’s controversial decision not to completely sever ties to his real estate interests in the US and overseas, or put his assets in a blind trust to limit conflicts of interest, has sparked strong condemnation from ethics watchdog groups, political analysts and congressional Democrats.

The financial web of ties between the president and his various properties is underscored by all manner of fundraising bashes, lobbyist meetings and foreign stays at Trump’s properties, spawning legal and ethics complaints.


“Whether accepting money from political candidates, lobbyists or foreign governments, the president’s businesses seem all too willing to promote the message that the presidency is for sale,” Congressman Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the House oversight and reform committee, said in a statement.

According to his annual financial disclosures, Trump’s top revenue-producing properties have done handsomely by hosting fundraisers, lobbyist meetings and foreign delegations. They include:

• The Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami, a favorite hangout for lobbyists and donors with ties to Trump, is a leading revenue source, yielding close to $151m in his first two years as president. Notably, the Doral club hosted annual meetings in 2018 and 2019 for a business group of payday lenders whose exorbitant interest rates sparked a regulatory crackdown by the Obama administration, but have been cheered by recent Trump administration rollbacks.

• Trump’s self styled “summer White House” in Bedminster, New Jersey, had revenues of $30.8m in the same two-year period. On 19 July, Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are slated to host a big fundraiser in Bedminster where donors who pony up $100,000 can get their picture taken with Trump, enjoy a roundtable chat with him and other perks.

• Mar-a-Lago, the swanky Palm Beach club where Trump doubled the annual membership fee to $200,000 when he became president, pulled in revenues totaling $48m in the two-year period. As ProPublica first revealed, a trio of wealthy Mar-a-Lago members, who are friends of Trump, played a big role in shaping policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs, spurring a House panel to look into allegations of “improper influence”.

• Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, which Trump has visited and promoted in tweets while in office as “incredible”, notched revenues of $43.8m in 2017 and 2018.

Robert Maguire, the research director of the nonpartisan ethics watchdog Crew, said the web of influence peddling at Trump’s properties poses “…unprecedented conflicts of interest. President Trump’s continued financial ties to his businesses including his hotel have been received by his administration and political allies not with scorn, but enthusiastic support.”

Donald Trump exits the Trump International Hotel after attending the 2019 Maga Leadership Summit in Washington on 28 January 2019.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

Donald Trump exits the Trump International Hotel after attending the 2019 Maga Leadership Summit in Washington on 28 January 2019. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA

Little wonder Trump’s financial ties to his businesses have prompted congressional scrutiny by the House oversight committee and other panels, plus a lawsuit by more than 200 Democrats alleging the foreign business at his properties violate an anti-corruption clause in the constitution designed to curb improper foreign influence on federal officials.


Data compiled by Crew sheds further light on the web of ties between the president and his businesses.

Recent Crew data found that through mid-2019, Trump has made at least 345 visits to properties that he continues to profit from while in office. Further, Trump personally mentioned or referred to his company at least 143 times since taking office, the Crew data also showed.

Some powerful lobbyists, such as Florida’s Brian Ballard, who is known to have good ties to Trump, have also helped boost business at Trump properties via his clients. One example: Geo Group, a private prison company that Ballard lobbies for, won a $110m contract in 2017 to build an immigration detention facility in Texas and soon after moved its annual leadership meeting to Trump’s Doral golf club.

Other Ballard clients, including Nigerian officials, have hosted meetings or stayed at the Trump hotel in DC.

Foreign government patronage of Trump properties has been especially notable, sparking separate lawsuits by some 200 Democrats in Congress, as well as attorneys general from Maryland and DC, who allege that they violate the foreign emoluments clause in the constitution. The clause bars foreign payments or gifts to federal officials without authorization by Congress.

Donald Trump dines with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and their wives, along with Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on 10 February 2017.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

Donald Trump dines with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and their wives, along with Robert Kraft at Mar-a-Lago in 2017. Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

The justice department has fought the suits, arguing the clause should only apply to direct payments to the president and not foreign patronage of his properties, a position very similar to one expressed in early 2017 by Trump’s own lawyers.

NBC News recently calculated that representatives of at least 22 foreign governments – including some facing charges of corruption or human rights abuses such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Turkey and the Philippines – seem to have spent funds at Trump properties while he has been president.

Foreign spending at Trump properties mainly includes meetings, overnight stays and rentals or purchases.

Trump pledged to donate foreign profits from his properties to the government while he is in office, and the Trump Organization has written checks totaling $343,000 to the treasury for 2017 and 2018. But critics have said it’s impossible to verify if these checks fully cover foreign payments to Trump properties in part because Trump – unlike other presidents – has refused to release his tax returns.

Cummings, who leads one of a few House panels that have issued subpoenas or gone to court to obtain financial information on Trump’s income sources and businesses, says more sunlight on Trump’s foreign and domestic revenues is badly needed.

“The American people deserve complete transparency over these payments and the identities of those attempting to curry favor with the administration,” Cummings said.

If you’re reading us a little…

… or you’re reading us a lot, we hope you’ll consider supporting us with a contribution, however big or small. More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

Above is fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/19/donald-trump-businesses-hotels-conflict-of-interest

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Robert Mueller’s use of “I take your question,” as defined by a legal expert

Robert Mueller testifies before a House committee

REUTERS/JOHNATHAN ERNST

Taking your questions.

IT'S QUIZZICAL

Robert Mueller’s use of “I take your question,” as defined by a legal expert

By Ephrat Livni7 hours ago

Robert Mueller’s testimony before two House committees didn’t resolve many questions about Russian meddling into the 2016 US presidential election or Donald Trump’s efforts to thwart the special prosecutor’s probe. And it has raised yet another query: What does it mean, technically, when Mueller responds to a lawmaker with the formulation “I take your question”?

M. Tia Johnson, a visiting law professor at Georgetown Law School and former assistant secretary for legal affairs at the US Department of Homeland Security, tells Quartz that this is a standard legal response.

“‘I take your question’ is used often when the witness doesn’t know the answer to the question,” she said. It’s distinct from a straight “no” because it indicates that the answer may well be knowable, just that this witness doesn’t know it.

From a technical perspective, the answer can preserve the question for follow-up on the record. After the hearings, committee chairpersons give their colleagues a deadline for submitting additional questions based on the witness’s testimony and Mueller might be asked to provide a more substantive response.

Johnson notes that in the context of today’s hearings, and specifically the first instance when Mueller said “I take your question” after what she calls “a rant” by Republican Louie Gohmert of Texas, the response is also a way of saying, “I got you. I hear you.” But it doesn’t mean Mueller has an answer, and in this case it seemed to mean that the former special counsel wasn’t happy that Gohmert left no obvious question for Mueller to answer.

“My sense was, based on special counsel’s demeanor, with him just kind of sitting there, that it was almost like ‘I’ve had enough’ or ‘I got it.'”

Certainly, that’s how the response was interpreted by some viewers.



Johnson points out that in the afternoon hearing with the House Intelligence Committee, there were instances when the response seemed to be more official. Asked by Republican Devin Nunes of California how many times a Russian lawyer met with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, Mueller also said, “I take your question.” In that case, it appeared more likely to indicate that he doesn’t know the answer but that it’s theoretically knowable, rather than indicating his distaste for the query.

Witnesses prepped for testimony are often given a series of possible responses designed to defuse tension. The last thing Mueller would want to do in a situation like the one with Gohmert is to get in a back and forth dialogue. Johnson believes he likely used “I take your question” to acknowledge there was one but also to deflect the rant.

“It’s a way of saying ‘noted,’” she explains. “There are different ways in which you can use that, so we still have to interpret. But I think Gohmert could put in a question.”

Above is from:  https://qz.com/1674164/muellers-i-take-your-question-as-defined-by-a-legal-expert/

Thursday, July 18, 2019

All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped

All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped

See highlighted case allegedly involving Jeffery Epstein


Politics Oct 14, 2016 5:33 PM EDT — Updated on Jun 21, 2019 2:01 PM EDT

Sixteen women have come forward with allegations against President Donald Trump, each accusing him of inappropriate conduct. The most recent, from writer and columnist E. Jean Carroll, appeared in NY Magazine on Friday.

The women’s charges range from unwanted touches and aggressive, sudden kissing to the latest accusation against Trump — that he attacked a woman in a dressing room and forced his penis inside her. Donald Trump, his campaign and the Trump White House have insisted all of the stories are fabricated and politically motivated.

So far:

  • 16 women have accused Donald Trump of various forms of sexual assault, including one accusation of rape and another, in which the accuser has not used the word “rape” but whose description meets the legal definition of rape. This figure includes standing accusations from both before and after the release of the Access Hollywood tape on October 7, 2016.
  • Four other women have publicly said Mr. Trump walked in on them and other pageant contestants while they were undressing. Buzzfeed reports another three women have confirmed the pageant stories but did not want their names used.
  • The alleged incidents range from the early 1980s to 2013.
  • Donald Trump has adamantly denied all of the stories and accuses the women of being political tools who were trying to undermine either his candidacy or presidency.

SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS

Here is what we know about the accusations of assault against Donald Trump, including the date of the alleged assault. These are standing allegations of assault that have not been disavowed by the alleged victim.

Kristin Anderson – Early 1990s. Story in the Washington Post on October 14, 2016.
Anderson says she was in a Manhattan bar with friends when the person next to her reached up her skirt and touched her vagina through her underwear. She says she turned and recognized the person as Donald Trump.

E. Jean Carroll – late 1995 or early 1996. Story in NY Magazine June 21 and expected in upcoming book.
Carroll describes running into Trump in a department store, where she says he recognized her for her widely-read advice column. Carroll says they went into a dressing room after Trump asked for her advice on a present – lingerie – for another woman. Inside, she alleges that he shoved her against a wall, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.” A senior White House official issued a statement to NY Magazine calling the accusation, “a completely false and unrealistic story.”

Rachel Crooks – 2005. Story in The New York Times on October 12, 2016.
A 22-year-old receptionist at the time, Crooks said Trump gave her an unwanted kiss on the mouth after meeting him in 2005.

Jane Doe” aka “Katie Johnson” – 1994. Lawsuit filed June 2016, refiled October 2016 as reported by Buzzfeed and others, then dropped in November 2016.
Jane Doe is an unnamed plaintiff, who has also gone by “Katie Johnson” in legal papers. She claims she was repeatedly raped by Trump and Jeffery Epstein at Epstein’s New York City apartment in 1994, when she was 13 years old. A witness, also given a pseudonym — “Tiffany Doe” — said she recruited “Jane Doe” and others. Doe, using the name “Johnson,” gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which she said she did not know who Trump was at the time of the alleged attack but identified him later when she saw him on television. It is not known why she withdrew the lawsuit. She has not spoken publicly or withdrawn her rape allegation since then.

Jessica Drake – 2006. Story made public at a news conference October 22, 2016.
While working as an adult film actress, Drake says Trump invited her to the room where he was staying in Lake Tahoe. In the room, she says he grabbed, hugged and kissed her and two other women who accompanied her without permission. Later, she alleges that Trump called her and pressed her to return to his room, offering $10,000 at one point. Drake says she declined.

Jill Harth – 1992-1993. Story in the The New York Times on October 9, 2016.
A Florida businesswoman who partnered with Trump and later dated him. Harth alleged that he groped her under the table at dinner with her boyfriend then repeatedly got her alone, and it would turn into a “wrestling match.” She sued Trump for breach of contract, sexual harassment and at one point attempted rape. She settled and then in 1998 dated Trump.

Cathy Heller – 1997. Story in the Guardian on October 15, 2016.
At a Mother’s Day brunch for Mar-A-Lago club members’ families in 1997, Heller alleges that when she was introduced to Trump, he grabbed her and tried to kiss her on the lips. Heller says she leaned back to avoid him and then he kissed her on the side of her mouth. CNN has reported Heller is a Democratic donor.

Ninni Laaksonen – 2006. Former Miss Finland. Story in Ilta-Sonomat on October 27, 2016. In English in the Telegraph.
Laaksonen told Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sonomat that Trump “squeezed her butt” as she and other pageant contestants stood next to him for a publicity photo, ahead of an appearance on The Letterman Show.

Jessica Leeds – Early 1980s. Story in The New York Times on October 12, 2016.
Leeds says she sat next to Trump in first class on an airplane and that he kissed her, groped her chest and reached up her skirt, leading her to move back to coach. “He was like an octopus,” she told The New York Times. In a NY Post report published October 14, 2016, a British man whose interview was arranged by the Trump campaign said that he was on the flight, that Leeds’ account is false and he remembers Leeds acting inappropriately.

Mindy McGillivray – Jan. 24, 2003. Story in Palm Beach Post on October 12, 2016.
Working as an assistant to photographers at Mar-a-Lago in 2003, McGillivray charges that Trump nudged or grabbed her from behind.

Jennifer Murphy – 2004. Story in Grazia on October 12, 2016.
A former Miss USA and “The Apprentice” contestant, Grazia says that Trump kissed her on the lips after walking her to the elevators following a meeting in New York, which he said was to discuss a possible job.

Cassandra Searles – 2013. Made story public in Facebook post in early 2016.
Miss Washington 2013, Searles wrote on Facebook, “He probably doesn’t want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room.”

Natasha Stoynoff – December 2005. Story on People.com on October 12, 2016.
Stoynoff was a celebrity reporter covering Trump for People Magazine. She alleges that Trump assaulted her while she was at Mar-a-Lago interviewing him and Melania Trump for a story about their one-year anniversary. She alleges Trump took her to a private room, pushed her against the wall and aggressively kissed her. Stoynoff also says a staffer told her Trump was waiting for her the next day at a massage appointment.

Temple Taggart McDowell – 1997. Story in New York Times May 14, 2016.
McDowell, who was Miss Utah USA 1997, charges that Trump suddenly kissed her without her consent on two separate occasions.

Karena Virginia – 1998. Story made public at a news conference October 20, 2016.
Virginia says that while she was waiting for a ride following the U.S Open tennis tournament, Trump walked up to her, grabbed her arm and touched her breast.

Summer Zervos – 2007. Story made public in a news conference October 14, 2016.
A former contestant on “The Apprentice,” Zervos alleges that Trump told her he wanted to discuss a possible job, but alone in a Beverly Hills Hotel bungalow, grabbed her breasts, kissed her and tried to lead her into a bedroom.

PAGEANT CONTESTANTS ALLEGING TRUMP WALKED IN WHILE THEY WERE DRESSING

Mariah Billado – 1997 Miss Vermont Teen. Story in Buzzfeed on October 12, 2016.

Tasha Dixon – 2001 Miss Arizona. Story in CBSLA on October 11, 2016.

Victoria Hughes – 1997 Miss New Mexico Teen. Story in Buzzfeed on October 13, 2016.

Bridget Sullivan – 2000 Miss New Hampshire. Story in Buzzfeed May 18, 2016.

Buzzfeed on October 12, 2016 reported that three other anonymous sources from 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant confirmed Billado and Hughes’ story.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONDUCT

Lisa Boyne – Summer 1996. Story in The Huffington Post on October 13, 2016.
Boyne alleges that at a group dinner, Trump and other men forced women to walk over the table to leave their seats and that Trump looked up the women’s skirts and commented on their underwear and genitalia.

Ivana Trump – 1989. Accusations in early 1990s court deposition, made public in The Daily Beast on July 27, 2015. Ivana disavowed stories of rape in a 1993 book and further commented on July 28, 2015.

The mother of three children with Trump, Ivana Trump charges that Trump “violated their bond of love” in a 1989 incident, which she has not described any further in public. She wrote that her reported words charging her ex-husband with “rape” in a deposition were figurative, that stories about a rape are “totally without merit” and she “ did not mean rape in the “criminal sense.” She is under a confidentiality agreement and cannot discuss her marriage publicly without approval from Donald Trump.

Above is from:  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped


*****************************************************************************************

The Woman Who Accused Trump of Raping Her at 13 Just Dropped Her Lawsuit

Anna Merlan

11/04/16 8:40pm


Illustration by Jim Cooke

Illustration by Jim Cooke

A woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at a party when she was just 13 years old has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit, according to court records. The woman, who has gone by the pseudonyms Jane Doe and Katie Johnson, was a no-show at a much hyped press conference earlier this weekwith celebrity attorney Lisa Bloom.

Jezebel previously detailed the bizarre backstory behind two lawsuits Johnson filed against Trump and celebrity sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who she said also raped her at a party in 1994. A group of men worked for a year to push the rape allegations into the news, while preventing access to Johnson. No journalist has ever been able to speak to her directly in person or confirm her existence. However, her attorney, Thomas Francis Meagher of New Jersey, has told Jezebel he’s met with his client on several occasions and has gotten to know her “quite well.”

According to court records, Johnson/Doe voluntarily dismissed the suit on the afternoon of November 4. No other information is provided in the filing.

Illustration for article titled The Woman Who Accused Trump of Raping Her at 13 Just Dropped Her Lawsuit

Bloom said earlier this week that Doe/Johnson didn’t appear at a planned press conference because she had received death threats and was in fear for her life. Bloom didn’t represent her, but was supportive of the allegations and critical of media outlets she said were refusing to cover the story.

The first lawsuit Doe filed against Trump and Epstein in California was dismissed for failure to properly state a claim. A second lawsuit in New York was voluntarily dismissed in September, then re-filed with an affidavit from a woman using the pseudonym “Tiffany Doe,” who said she had witnessed the rape.

We’ve contacted Doe’s attorney Meagher for comment and will update if we hear back.

Update, 9:10 p.m.:

Bloom posted a brief statement to her Facebook page and Twitter this evening, confirming the choice to dismiss was Doe’s.

Illustration for article titled The Woman Who Accused Trump of Raping Her at 13 Just Dropped Her Lawsuit

Update, 10 p.m.:

The Daily Mail published an interview with Katie Johnson this evening,including pictures of her. They say the interview was conducted in Lisa Bloom’s office shortly before the aborted press conference. One of the photos is of Bloom and the woman, who did a photoshoot with the tabloid but requested they not reveal her real name. The outlet says they did not compensate Johnson in any way to share her story:

DailyMail.com is aware of Johnson’s real identity, but has chosen to continue not to name her, as she requested anonymity to discuss her claims.

She neither requested nor was she offered any compensation to tell her talk about her claims.

She also called Trump a “rapist” and says the incident “affects everything in my life.”

She claimed her motivation to tell her story was to expose Donald Trump to stop him from becoming president.

‘We would have a rapist in the White House. I would feel horrified every single day if I stay in this country,’ she said, in dramatic terms.

Johnson said her experiences in the summer in 1994 still haunt her today.

‘As much as I try to forget about everything that happened, it always affects everything in my life,’ she said. ‘I mean it affects my relationships, I don’t think I’ve ever had a successful relationship, one that I feel I can trust that person, there’s always that mistrust.’

The DM interview also adds an interesting detail: Johnson claims she didn’t know who her attacker was in 1994, but figured it out after watching The Apprentice:

But she also said that in 1994 she had no idea who her attacker was and that it was only when she watched The Apprentice that she came to believe it was Trump, claiming that she could not forget her attacker’s face.

Above is from: https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Newly released federal data unmasks the opioid epidemic

Investigations

76 billion opioid pills: Newly released federal data unmasks the epidemic

By Scott Higham ,

Sari Horwitz and

Steven Rich

July 16 at 8:19 PM


The data in the DEA database tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States, including oxycodone, above. (John Moore/Getty Images)

America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012 as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control, according to previously undisclosed company data released as part of the largest civil action in U.S. history.

The information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States — from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data provides an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the prescription opioid epidemic, which has resulted in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012.

Just six companies distributed 75 percent of the pills during this period: McKesson Corp., Walgreens, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, CVS and Walmart, according to an analysis of the database by The Washington Post. Three companies manufactured 88 percent of the opioids: SpecGx, a subsidiary of Mallinckrodt; ­Actavis Pharma; and Par Pharmaceutical, a subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals.

ADVERTISING

Purdue Pharma, which the plaintiffs allege sparked the epidemic in the 1990s with its introduction of OxyContin, its version of oxycodone, was ranked fourth among manufacturers with about 3 percent of the market.

The volume of the pills handled by the companies skyrocketed as the epidemic surged, increasing about 51 percent from 8.4 billion in 2006 to 12.6 billion in 2012. By contrast, doses of morphine, a well-known treatment for severe pain, averaged slightly more than 500 million a year during the period.

Those 10 companies along with about a dozen others are now being sued in federal court in Cleveland by nearly 2,000 cities, towns and counties alleging that they conspired to flood the nation with opioids. The companies, in turn, have blamed the epidemic on overprescribing by doctors and pharmacies and on customers who abused the drugs. The companies say they were working to supply the needs of patients with legitimate prescriptions desperate for pain relief.

The database reveals what each company knew about the number of pills it was shipping and dispensing and precisely when they were aware of those volumes, year by year, town by town. In case after case, the companies allowed the drugs to reach the streets of communities large and small, despite persistent red flags that those pills were being sold in apparent violation of federal law and diverted to the black market, according to the lawsuits.

Plaintiffs have long accused drug manufacturers and wholesalers of fueling the opioid epidemic by producing and distributing billions of pain pills while making billions of dollars. The companies have paid more than $1 billion in fines to the Justice Department and Food and Drug Administration over opioid-related issues, and hundreds of millions more to settle state lawsuits.

But the previous cases addressed only a portion of the problem, never allowing the public to see the size and scope of the behavior underlying the epidemic. Monetary settlements by the companies were accompanied by agreements that kept such information hidden.

The drug companies, along with the DEA and the Justice Department, have fought furiously against the public release of the database, the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System, known as ARCOS. The companies argued that the release of the “transactional data” could give competitors an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The Justice Department argued that the release of the information could compromise ongoing DEA investigations.

Until now, the litigation has proceeded in unusual secrecy. Many filings and exhibits in the case have been sealed under a judicial protective order. The secrecy finally lifted after The Post and HD Media, which publishes the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia, waged a year-long legal battle for access to documents and data from the case.

On Monday evening, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster removed the protective order for part of the ARCOS database.

Lawyers for the local governments suing the companies hailed the release of the data.

Drilling into the DEA’s pain pill database VIEW GRAPHIC

Drilling into the DEA’s pain pill database

“The data provides statistical insights that help pinpoint the origins and spread of the opioid epidemic — an epidemic that thousands of communities across the country argue was both sparked and inflamed by opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies,” said Paul T. Farrell Jr. of West Virginia, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

In statements emailed to The Post on Tuesday, the drug distributors stressed that the ARCOS data would not exist unless they had accurately reported shipments and questioned why the government had not done more to address the crisis.

“For decades, DEA has had exclusive access to this data, which can identify the total volumes of controlled substances being ordered, pharmacy-by-pharmacy, across the country,” McKesson spokeswoman Kristin Chasen said.

A DEA spokeswoman declined to comment Tuesday “due to ongoing litigation.”

Cardinal Health said that it has learned from its experience, increasing training and doing a better job to “spot, stop and report suspicious orders,” company spokeswoman Brandi Martin wrote.

AmerisourceBergen derided the release of the ARCOS data, saying it “offers a very misleading picture” of the problem. The company said its internal “controls played an important role in enabling us to, as best we could, walk the tight rope of creating appropriate access to FDA approved medications while combating prescription drug diversion.”

While Walgreens still dispenses opioids, the company said it has not distributed prescription-controlled substances to its stores since 2014. (Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press)

While Walgreens still dispenses opioids, the company said it has not distributed prescription-controlled substances to its stores since 2014. “Walgreens has been an industry leader in combatting this crisis in the communities where our pharmacists live and work, ” said Phil Caruso, a Walgreens spokesman.

Mike DeAngelis, a spokesman for CVS, said the plaintiffs’ allegations about the company have no merit and CVS is aggressively defending against them.

Walmart, Purdue and Endo declined to comment about the ARCOS database.

A Mallinckrodt spokesman said in a statement that the company produced opioids only within a government-controlled quota and sold only to DEA-approved distributors.

Actavis Pharma was acquired by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in 2016, and a spokeswoman there said the company “cannot speak to any systems in place beforehand.”

A virtual road map

The Post has been trying to gain access to the ARCOS database since 2016, when the news organization filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DEA. The agency denied the request, saying some of the data was available on its website. But that data did not contain the transactional information the companies are required to report to the DEA every time they sell a controlled substance such as oxycodone and hydrocodone.

The drug companies and pharmacies themselves provided the sales data to the DEA. Company officials have testified before Congress that they bear no responsibility for the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The numbers of pills the companies sold during the seven-year time frame are staggering, far exceeding what has been previously disclosed in limited court filings and news stories.

Three companies distributed nearly half of the pills: McKesson with 14.1 billion, Walgreens with 12.6 billion and Cardinal Health with 10.7 billion. The leading manufacturer was Mallinckrodt’s SpecGx with nearly 28.9 billion pills, or nearly 38 percent of the market.

The states that received the highest concentrations of pills per person per year were: West Virginia with 66.5, Kentucky with 63.3, South Carolina with 58, Tennessee with 57.7 and Nevada with 54.7. West Virginia also had the highest opioid death rate during this period.

Rural areas were hit particularly hard: Norton City, Va., with 306 pills per person; Martinsville City, Va., with 242; Mingo County, W.Va., with 203; and Perry County, Ky., with 175.

In a country of 306 million, the companies distributed enough pills to supply every adult and child with 36 each year.

The database is a virtual road map to the nation’s opioid epidemic that began with prescription pills, spawned increased heroin use and resulted in the current fentanyl crisis, which added more than 67,000 to the death toll from 2013 to 2017.


The transactional data kept by ARCOS is highly detailed. It includes the name, DEA registration number, address and business activity of every seller and buyer of a controlled substance in the United States. The database also includes drug codes, transaction dates, and total dosage units and grams of narcotics sold.

The data tracks a dozen different opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, which make up three-quarters of the total pill shipments to pharmacies.

Under federal law, drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies must report each transaction of a narcotic to the DEA, where it is logged into the ARCOS database. If company officials notice orders of drugs that appear to be suspicious because of their unusual size or frequency, they must report those sales to the DEA and hold back the shipments.

As more and more towns and cities became inundated by pain pills, they fought back. They filed federal lawsuits against the drug industry, alleging that opioids from the companies were devastating their communities. They alleged the companies not only failed to report suspicious orders, but they also filled those orders to maximize profits.

As the hundreds of lawsuits began to pile up, they were consolidated into the one centralized case in U.S. District Court in Cleveland. The opioid litigation is now larger in scope than the tobacco litigation of the 1980s, which resulted in a $246 billion settlement over 25 years.

‘Where the virus grew’

Judge Polster is now overseeing the consolidated case of nearly 2,000 lawsuits. The case is among a wave of actions that includes other lawsuits filed by more than 40 state attorneys general and tribal nations. In May, Purdue settled with the Oklahoma attorney general for $270 million.

In the Cleveland case, Polster has been pressing the drug companies and the plaintiffs to reach a global settlement so communities can start receiving financial assistance to mitigate the damage that has been done by the opioid epidemic.

To facilitate a settlement, Polster had permitted the drug companies and the towns and cities to review the ARCOS database under a protective order while barring public access to the material. He also permitted some court filings to be made under seal and excluded the public and press from a global settlement conference at the outset of the case.

Last June, The Post and the Charleston Gazette-Mail asked Polster to lift the protective order covering the ARCOS database and the court filings. A month later, Polster denied the requests, even though he had said earlier that “the vast oversupply of opioid drugs in the United States has caused a plague on its citizens” and the ARCOS database reveals “how and where the virus grew.” He also said disclosure of the ARCOS data “is a reasonable step toward defeating the disease.”

Lawyers for The Post and the Gazette-Mail appealed Polster’s ruling. They argued that the ­ARCOS material would not harm companies or investigations because the judge had already decided to allow the local government plaintiffs to collect information from 2006 through 2014, withholding the most recent years beginning with 2015 from the lawsuit.

“Access to the ARCOS Data can only enhance the public’s confidence that the epidemic and the ensuing litigation are being handled appropriately now — even if they might not have been handled appropriately earlier,” The Post’s lawyer, Karen C. Lefton, wrote in her Jan. 17 appeal.

The lawyers also noted the DEA did not object when the West Virginia attorney general’s office provided partial ARCOS data to the Gazette-Mail in 2016. That data showed that drug distribution companies shipped 780 million doses of oxycodone and hydrocodone into the state between 2007 and 2012.

On June 20, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio sided with the news organizations. A three-judge panel reversed Polster, ruling that the protective order sealing the ARCOS database be lifted with reasonable redactions and directed the judge to reconsider whether any of the records in the case should be sealed.

On Monday, Polster lifted the protective order on the database, ruling that all the data from 2006 through 2012 should be released to the public, withholding the 2013 and 2014 data.

‘Prescription tourists’

The pain pill epidemic began nearly three decades ago, shortly after Purdue Pharma introduced what it marketed as a less addictive form of opioid it called OxyContin. Purdue paid doctors and nonprofit groups advocating for patients in pain to help market the drug as a safe and effective way to treat pain.

But the new drug was highly addictive. As more and more people were hooked, more and more companies entered the market, manufacturing, distributing and dispensing massive quantities of pain pills.

Purdue ending up paying a $634 million fine to the Food and Drug Administration for claiming OxyContin was less addictive than other pain medications.

Annual opioid sales nationwide rose from $6.1 billion in 2006 to $8.5 billion in 2012, according to industry data gathered by IQVIA, a health care information and consulting company.

Individual drug company revenues ranged in single years at the epidemic’s peak from $403 million for opioids sold by Endo to $3.1 billion in OxyContin sales by Purdue Pharma, according to a 2018 lawsuit against multiple defendants by San Juan County in New Mexico.

During the past two decades, Florida became ground zero for pill mills — pain management clinics that served as fronts for corrupt doctors and drug dealers. They became so brazen that some clinics set up storefronts along I-75 and I-95, advertising their products on billboards by interstate exit ramps. So many people traveled to Florida to stock up on oxycodone and hydrocodone, they were sometimes referred to as “prescription tourists.”

The route from Florida to Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio became known as the “Blue Highway.” It was named after the color of one of the most popular pills on the street — 30 mg oxycodone tablets made by Mallinckrodt, which shipped more than 500 million of the pills to Florida between 2008 and 2012.

When state troopers began pulling over and arresting out-of-state drivers for transporting narcotics, drug dealers took to the air. One airline offered nonstop flights to Florida from Ohio and other Appalachian states, and the route became known as the Oxy Express.

A decade ago, the DEA began cracking down on the industry. In 2005 and 2006, the agency sent letters to drug distributors, warning them that they were required to report suspicious orders of painkillers and halt sales until the red flags could be resolved. The letter also went to drug manufacturers.

Even just one distributor that fails to follow the law “can cause enormous harm,” the 2006 DEA letter said.

DEA officials said the companies paid little attention to the warnings and kept shipping millions of pills in the face of suspicious circumstances.

As part of its crackdown, the DEA brought a series of civil enforcement cases against the largest distributors.

The corporations to date have paid nearly $500 million in fines to the Justice Department for failing to report and prevent suspicious drug orders, a number that is dwarfed by the revenue of the companies.

But the settlements of those cases revealed only limited details about the volume of pills that were being shipped.

In 2007, the DEA brought a case against McKesson. The DEA accused the company of shipping millions of doses of hydrocodone to Internet pharmacies after the agency had briefed the company about its obligations under the law to report suspicious orders.

“By failing to report suspicious orders for controlled substances that it received from rogue Internet pharmacies, the McKesson Corporation fueled the explosive prescription drug abuse problem we have in this country,” the DEA’s administrator said at the time.

In 2008, McKesson agreed to pay a $13.25 million fine to settle the case and pledged to more closely monitor suspicious orders from its customers.

That same year, the DEA brought a case against Cardinal Health, accusing the nation’s ­second-largest drug distributor of shipping millions of doses of painkillers to online and retail pharmacies without notifying the DEA of signs that the drugs were being diverted to the black market.

Cardinal settled the case by paying a $34 million fine and promising to improve its suspicious monitoring program.

Some companies were repeat offenders.

In 2012, the DEA began investigating McKesson again, this time for shipping suspiciously large orders of narcotics to pharmacies in Colorado. One store in Brighton, Colo., population 38,000, was ordering 2,000 pain pills per day. The DEA discovered that McKesson had filled 1.6 million orders from its Aurora, Colo., warehouse between 2008 and 2013 and reported just 16 as suspicious. None involved the Colorado store.

DEA agents and investigators said they had amassed enough information to file criminal charges against McKesson and its officers but they were overruled by federal prosecutors. The company wound up paying a $150 million fine to settle, a record amount for a diversion case.

Also in 2012, Cardinal Health attracted renewed attention from the DEA when it discovered that the company was again shipping unusually large amounts of painkillers to its Florida customers. The company had sold 12 million oxycodone pills to four pharmacies over four years.

In 2011, Cardinal shipped 2 million doses to a pharmacy in Fort Myers, Fla. Comparable pharmacies in Florida typically ordered 65,000 doses per year.

The DEA also noticed that Cardinal was shipping unusually large amounts of oxycodone to a pair of CVS stores near Sanford, Fla. Between 2008 and 2011, Cardinal sold 2.2 million pills to one of the stores. In 2010, that store purchased 885,900 doses — a 748 percent increase over the previous year. Cardinal did not report any of those sales as suspicious.

Cardinal later paid a $34 million fine to settle the case. The DEA suspended the company from selling narcotics from its warehouse in Lakeland, Fla. CVS paid a $22 million fine.

As the companies paid fines and promised to do a better job of stopping suspicious orders, they continued to manufacture, ship and dispense large amounts of pills, according to the newly released data.

“The depth and penetration of the opioid epidemic becomes readily apparent from the data,” said Peter J. Mougey, a lawyer for the plaintiffs from Pensacola, Fla. “This disclosure will serve as a wake up call to every community in the country. America should brace itself for the harsh reality of the scope of the opioid epidemic. Transparency will lead to accountability.”

Aaron Williams, Andrew Ba Tran, Jenn Abelson, Aaron C. Davis and Christopher Rowland contributed to this report.

Above is from:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/76-billion-opioid-pills-newly-released-federal-data-unmasks-the-epidemic/2019/07/16/5f29fd62-a73e-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html?utm_term=.b774ff62b615&wpisrc=al_post_exclusive__alert-exclusive--alert-national&wpmk=1

Sunday, July 7, 2019

Homeless don’t want to work?

Report: 13,000 of Chicago’s homeless in 2017 had jobs

CHICAGO (AP) — A new study that challenges stereotypes about homeless people estimates that in 2017, around 18,000 of Chicago’s homeless had graduated college and more than 13,000 were employed.

The report, released Tuesday by the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, examined census data from that year.

The Chicago Tribune reports that data shows about 86,000 people experienced homelessness in Chicago at some point that year.

Supporters say Chicago’s homeless population is considerably higher than the annual point-in-time tally the city conducts since the count doesn’t include people who are “doubled up,” or residing, in other people’s homes.

The latest point-in-time tally, from January 2018, revealed more than 5,000 people living in shelters or in places not suitable for human occupancy. The coalition indicates four out of five homeless people are “doubled up.”

___

Information from: Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com

Friday, July 5, 2019

Trump’s undocumented former employees call on president to spare them from deportation


The IndependentJuly 4, 2019

871 Comments

More than 20 undocumented workers previously employed by President Donald Trump’s company have requested a meeting with their former boss to discuss how to update the country’s immigration system and to ask for protection from deportation.

The Wednesday letter to the White House – from former groundskeepers, maids and kitchen staffers at the Trump Organisation’s golf courses – also asks the president to recall their years of service and “do the right thing” for them and others who are in the country unlawfully.

“We are modest people who represent the dreams of the 11 million undocumented men, women and children who live and work in this country,” the group wrote in the letter, signed by 21 people and obtained by The Washington Post.

“We love America and want to talk to you about helping to give us a chance to become legal.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the past year, dozens of people who worked for the Trump Organisation without legal documents have spoken publicly about their employment with the president’s company.

Many said they were motivated to come forward because of Mr Trump’s rhetoric about migrants from Mexico and Central America. Some have said their Trump Organisation supervisors knew about their immigration status but hired them anyway.

Trump Organisation officials have said that these workers used fake documents to get their jobs and that the company fired them once they found out.

In recent months, The Washington Post has detailed the Trump Organisation’s reliance on undocumented labour over many years.

Immigrant labour helped build some of his golf courses and staffed jobs in housekeeping, maintenance and food preparation well into Mr Trump’s presidency. The Washington Post has interviewed 40 people who worked for Mr Trump without legal status.

Since going public, these former workers have visited Congress, protested outside Trump rallies and called on federal and state authorities to investigate the company’s hiring and payment practices.

Mr Trump has made blocking illegal immigration central to his presidency. But he has largely avoided discussing his own company’s record of hiring undocumented workers.

This year, after revelations that the Trump Organisation was relying on undocumented labour, the company fired at least 20 workers at golf courses in New York and New Jersey.

The Trump Organisation also adopted E-Verify, the government’s voluntary online system for checking whether an employee is eligible to work in the United States.

The New York Attorney General’s Office has been looking into allegations of wage theft by the Trump Organisation at the company’s golf courses in Westchester and Dutchess counties. The company has denied the allegations.

In the White House letter, the former employees stressed their many years of close personal service to the Trump family.

Among those who signed the letter were maids at the Trump golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, who cleaned Trump’s clothes and made his bed. Others worked personally for the president’s sons at their homes and a New York hunting lodge.

“You know many of us and will recall how hard we worked for you, your family and your golf clubs,” the undocumented workers wrote to Mr Trump. “...You know we are hard workers and that we are not criminals or seeking a free ride in America.

“We all pay our taxes, love our faith and our family, and simply want to find a place for ourselves to make America even better,” the letter added.

“...We believe you have a heart and will do the right thing to find a home for us here in America so that we can step out of the shadows and not deport us and our friends and family.”

Jose Gabriel Juarez, who spent a decade as a waiter at the Trump National Golf Club Westchester, said in an interview that he signed the letter because he wanted Mr Trump to acknowledge the service of so many people who are still living precariously in the United States.

Mr Juarez said he tries to wake up each day with “happiness and faith, but you always think about the possibility of deportation”.

If Trump accepted the invitation for a meeting, Mr Juarez said he would express his gratitude to the president.

“I would say, ‘Thank you very much for having given me work for 10 years in one of the most beautiful golf clubs in Westchester, New York,’ “ he said.

“And I would ask him for the opportunity to be here legally in this country.”

Washington Post

Above is from:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-undocumented-former-employees-call-151137756.html

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Trump administration reverses course on census citizenship question

(CNN)

By Ariane de Vogue, Gregory Wallace and Jeremy Diamond, CNN Updated 7:40 PM ET, Wed July 3, 2019



In a major reversal following a presidential tweet, Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday that they have been told to try to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census in a way that's consistent with a Supreme Court ruling.

The change comes after President Donald Trump tweeted earlier on Wednesday that "we are absolutely moving forward, as we must" on the citizenship question, despite statements Tuesday from both his Department of Justice and his secretary of commerce that the administration was printing the census without the question.

"We at the Department of Justice have been instructed to examine whether there is a path forward consistent with the Supreme Court's decision that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census," Jody Hunt, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, told the judge Wednesday afternoon.

Government attorneys painted a picture of disarray within the administration, even as the Census Bureau moves ahead with printing the survey without the controversial question asking, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

    The Supreme Court blocked, for now, the question from being on the census in a decision last week, which hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts concluding there was sufficient reason for concern about why the administration wanted to ask the question. Roberts had not ruled out that the Department of Commerce could come back with a new rationale.

    Hunt told Judge George Hazel in a teleconference that if the administration finds a viable path to include the question on the decennial survey, it plans to return to the Supreme Court for "instructions ... to simplify and expedite the remaining litigation and provide clarity to the process going forward."

    The judge requested more information from the Justice Department by 2 p.m Friday.

    In a separate case in New York on Wednesday, the Justice Department attorney told a federal judge that while the department had told counsel on Tuesday that the questionnaire would not include a question about respondents' citizenship status, it has shifted its position.

    "The Departments of Justice and Commerce have now been asked to reevaluate all available options following the Supreme Court's decision and whether the Supreme Court's decision would allow for a new decision to include the citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census," Hunt said.

    Hazel told attorneys that he has a Twitter account and follows Trump. He said the tweet Wednesday morning "directly contradicted the position" the Justice Department articulated on Tuesday.

    Government misses its own census printing deadline as Trump hints at delay over citizenship question

    Government misses its own census printing deadline as Trump hints at delay over citizenship question

    Sudden shift

    In the Wednesday hearing, another Justice Department attorney told the judge that the administration has instructed printing to move forward without the citizenship question, but also acknowledged the situation is fluid.

    The attorney, Joshua Gardner, acknowledged he was now backing away from his statements made only a day earlier, when he suggested that a final decision had been made.

    Gardner said that he had "confirmed that the Census Bureau is continuing with the process of printing the questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that process has not stopped," but he said the President's tweet Wednesday morning could change the government's ultimate position.

    "The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the President's position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs and your honor," Gardener told the judge.

    "I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the President has tweeted," he said, adding, "I am doing my absolute best to figure out what is going on."

    The plaintiffs challenging the question in the Maryland court were highly critical of the government's change in position.

    "This administration's flagrant disregard of court orders is appalling, and will result in the same kind of misinformation that leads our communities to be reluctant to participate in the Census, at a time when the Census Bureau should be actively encouraging everyone's full participation," said Denise Hulett, the lead counsel in the case for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

    When the government asked for an extension until Monday, the judge refused and questioned whether the Justice Department was speaking for the President.

    "If you were Facebook and an attorney for Facebook told me one thing, and then I read a press release from Mark Zuckerberg telling me something else, I would be demanding that Mark Zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because I would be saying I don't think you speak for your client anymore,"Hazel said.

    After the lashing, Gardner told the judge he'd been with the Justice Department for 16 years "through multiple administrations" and that he had "always endeavored to be as candid as possible with the court."

    Tweet sends administration scrambling

    The news comes after Trump's tweet sent administration officials scrambling.

    A White House official said earlier Wednesday afternoon that there were ongoing discussions at the White House about finding a path forward for the government to continue to press its case on getting the citizenship question on the census, even though printing is now underway without the question.

    This official suggested the printing process and Trump's vow to keep fighting this issue are not necessarily mutually exclusive -- or at least that administration lawyers are trying to figure out how to square the two.

    The discussions and confusion at the White House came a day after a Justice Department Attorney, Kate Bailey, notified plaintiffs challenging the question via email that she could "confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process."

    The Department of Justice later confirmed the question would not be on the census. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross issued a statement saying, "The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question" even though he said he disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling.

    In addition, during a hearing Tuesday evening, a federal judge asked the department whether the decision was "final" and the Department of Justice said that it was, according to plaintiff's lawyers participating in the call.

    On Tuesday night, another lawyer involved in a separate case, expressed some skepticism that the administration's position could change.

    "We're happy about the development but want to make sure it is thorough and complete," said Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. He told CNN on Tuesday he was concerned that the administration might find other ways to undermine the count.

    A fluid situation

    The government had initially said that Monday was the deadline to begin printing forms. As late as Monday afternoon, however, the administration asked Hazel for more time to decide how it would proceed following the Supreme Court decision. The outcome was uncertain until Tuesday because the Supreme Court ruling last week that blocked the question from appearing for the time being had left the door open for the administration to present a new rationale.

    On the one hand, it is true that the government was facing a daunting timeline. A Census official had testified at trial that extending the deadline to October under the current budget would "impair the Census Bureau's ability to timely administer the 2020 census" and that it would only be feasible with "exceptional resources."

    On top of that, there were collateral legal actions set to occur over the summer in two lower courts that were sure to drag out. US District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York was considering a sanctions motion against the government after a trove of documents surfaced from the files of a deceased redistricting expert raising the question of whether the decision was politically motivated. And Hazel, based on those same files, was set to order deposition and new discovery aimed at learning more about the government's rationale for adding the question.

    Still, the decision came as a surprise.

    Another thing that could have been in play was the testimony of Census Bureau officials that there were other ways to get citizenship data. In a memorandum, Census Bureau official John Abowd recommended that Commerce use existing administrative records — from the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service — instead of adding the question. Ross ultimately chose to do both: Ask the question and compile the administrative records. In May, Abowd said the bureau was operating with the understanding that the administrative records needed to be assembled regardless of whether the courts allowed the question to be included.

      In addition, there is another survey that is sent to one out of 36 households that asks the question.

      This story has been updated to reflect news developments on Wednesday evening

      Above is from: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/census-question-trump-tweet/index.html?utm_source=CNN-News-Alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Trump+administration+reverses+course+on+census+citizenship+questionb313d19a-7278-4f8f-85d8-492cdea12273&utm_term=9ceacdff-2d34-893f-fba5-2b1cfaf0a0ce&m=8a776225d84f290294e4274317e366a5&p=2019-07-0322:03