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.

Will Congress have AG Bar hearings?

Can Congress make Attorney General Barr testify? Here are the rules

Congress has three methods at its disposal to seek compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, and all have shortcomings.

William Barr testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 15.Andrew Harnik / AP file

April 29, 2019, 12:11 PM CDT

By Ken Dilanian

WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is threatening to subpoena Attorney General William Barr, who has told the committee he may refuse to appear at a hearing Thursday unless members abandon their plan to have him questioned by staff lawyers.

It's one of many potential subpoena battles brewing between Congress and the Trump administration, which is showing an increasing willingness to stiff-arm congressional oversight committees.

So what practical options does Congress have to enforce its wishes?

No easy ones, as it turns out.

Congress has three methods at its disposal to seek compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, according the Congressional Research Service. Each has problems.

Under the doctrine of "inherent contempt," the House or Senate could send members of its security force to arrest and detain the witness. There is precedent for this in U.S. history, but not recent precedent — it hasn't been used since 1935.

In the modern world, the House sergeant-at-arms isn't going to be able to arrest the attorney general, who is protected by an armed FBI security detail. As one former White House official once put it, only half in jest, "They have a lot of guns over there."

Attorney General Barr threatens to skip House hearing

APRIL 29, 201908:45

The second method involves seeking to hold a witness in criminal contempt under federal criminal statutes 2 U.S.C. §§192 and 194. The statutes make it a crime to fail to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena, and call for the House or Senate to refer a criminal contempt citation to the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which can seek an indictment from a grand jury.

The problem with this in the current case: All federal prosecutors, including all 90-plus U.S. attorneys, work for Barr, and would be under no obligation to pursue a contempt charge.

That leaves a third option — Congress can seek a civil contempt citation from a judge. The Judiciary Committee, for example, could sue Barr in district court, providing a simple majority of the full House voted to authorize such an action.

"If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce their compliance," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2017 paper.

A recent precedent for this happens to involve the House Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats under the George W. Bush administration.

At issue was a congressional investigation into the firing of several U.S. attorneys.

The committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and the White House instructed her not to comply, citing executive privilege. It made the same instruction regarding a document subpoena to Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff.

Both were held in contempt of Congress, and the speaker of the House asked the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to pursue the matter.

Nadler: Obstruction of justice impeachable, 'if proven'

APRIL 21, 201900:25

But the federal prosecutor declined to do that, citing a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a White House official for criminal contempt of Congress if that official had invoked executive privilege at the behest of the president.

Congress sued, and a district court judge sided with lawmakers. The Bush administration appealed and President Barack Obama took office while the case was still pending. The new administration settled the case, granting Congress access to some of the documents it sought and allowing sworn testimony from Miers.

By then, a year and a half after Congress issued the subpoena, the oversight issue largely was moot.

Much the same thing happened when the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee sought to subpoena Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 over a scandal involving a gun investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious.

This time, the Obama Justice Department refused to prosecute a congressional contempt citation against the attorney general. A court battle dragged on, and it wasn't until January 2016 that a court ordered the Justice Department to produce some documents. The Obama administration appealed, and the case lingered until President Donald Trump took office.

In March of last year, the Trump Justice Department settled the case by agreeing to release some records.

"The Department of Justice under my watch is committed to transparency and the rule of law," then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

Now that it's Democrats making the demands, the ardor for transparency at the Justice Department appears to have cooled a bit.

Ken Dilanian

Ken Dilanian is a national security reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

10,000 Little Lies—Who is lying?

Trump reaches 10,000 'false or misleading' claims in office, Washington Post 'Fact Checker' finds

Dylan Stableford

Senior Editor

,

Yahoo News•April 29, 2019

President Trump speaks during a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on Saturday. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

More

President Trump passed a historic milestone in his presidency over the weekend.

The Washington Post, which has been tracking the truthfulness of the president’s public assertions in tweets, speeches, interviews and press conferences, reports that Trump surpassed 10,000 false and misleading statements since his inauguration.

On Friday, the president passed the 10,000 mark by making 49 false or misleading claims — including 24 in a speech at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Indianapolis. At his rally in Green Bay, Wis., Saturday, Trump made 61 false or misleading claims, for a total of 10,111 claims in 828 days, or an average of more than 12 per day.

According to the Post’s Glenn Kessler, who keeps a database of Trump falsehoods, Trump averaged less than five false claims a day during his first 100 days in office. And it took the president 601 days to reach 5,000, averaging about eight per day. But it took him just 226 days to double that total.

“The tsunami of untruths just keeps looming larger and larger,” Kessler wrote in his “Fact Checker” column.

There seems to be at least two reasons for the growing number of falsehoods: Trump’s belligerent reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which Trump continues to falsely claim exonerated him, and the president’s inability to tell the truth about his promised border wall.

According to the Post, about 20 percent of the Trump’s false and misleading claims are about immigration issues. And his “most repeated” false claim — 160 times — is that his border wall is being built. It isn’t.

“Congress balked at funding the concrete wall he envisioned,” the Post noted, “so he has tried to pitch bollard fencing and repairs of existing barriers as ‘a wall.’”

Trump’s false claims extend to other topics as well, including environmental issues, trade, tax cuts, NATO funding and the economy.

Kessler’s count is confined to checkable matters of fact and doesn’t include what could be construed as opinion. Trump’s comments about the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville, that there “were very fine people, on both sides” — cited by former Vice President Joe Biden in announcing his presidential race —was not included in the count.

Fact-checking Trump, though, is not an exact science. The Toronto Star, which has also been keeping track of Trump’s false claims, had Trump at less than half the Post’s figure (4,913) through April 24.

At the rally in Wisconsin, the president launched a series of false and misleading attacks on Democrats, claiming that the Green New Deal will require every building in Manhattan be replaced (it won’t) and saying Democrats support the killing of healthy babies that have been born (they do not).

"The baby is born," Trump said. "The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so."

The president was referring to a Republican bill passed by the Wisconsin state legislature that says doctors who do not provide medical care to babies who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt could face life in prison. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said he would veto the bill because such laws already exist.

___Above is from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-has-made-10000-false-and-misleading-claims-washington-post-fact-checker-145444166.html