web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 118)

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

WASHINGTON — In a setback for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday sent back to a lower court a case on whether the census should contain a citizenship question, leaving in doubt whether the question would be on the 2020 census.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question — asking whether a person is a citizen — was inadequate. But he left open the possibility that it could provide an adequate answer.

“The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public,” the chief justice wrote. “Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”

The practical impact of the decision was not immediately clear. While the question is barred for now, it is at least possible that the administration will be able to offer adequate justifications for it. But time is short, as the census forms must be printed shortly. The decision was fractured, but the key passage in the chief justice’s majority opinion was joined only by the court’s four-member liberal wing.

[Here’s what you need to know about the debate over adding a citizenship question to the census.]

Government experts predicted that asking the question would cause many immigrants to refuse to participate in the census, leading to an undercount of about 6.5 million people. That could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are allocated in 2021 and affect how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending are distributed.

The administration’s stated reason for adding the question — to help enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect minority voters — has been questioned by three federal judges. Recently discovered evidence from the computer files of a Republican strategist undermined the administration’s rationale and suggested that the true reason for the question was to help “Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”

The case — United States Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 — has its roots in the text of the Constitution, which requires an “actual enumeration” every 10 years, with the House to be apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each state.”

But the government has long used the census to gather information beyond raw population data. In 2020, for instance, the short form that goes to every household will include questions about sex, age, race and Hispanic or Latino origin. Some of those questions may discourage participation, too.

Since 1950, the government has not included a question about citizenship in the forms sent to each household.

The census, the nation’s largest peacetime mobilization, is overseen by the Commerce Department. In March 2018, Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, announced that he planned to add a citizenship question.

Westlake Legal Group supreme-court-key-cases-2019-promo-1560726705697-articleLarge-v4 Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt Voting Rights Act (1965) Voter Registration and Requirements United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Ross, Wilbur L Jr Redistricting and Reapportionment Commerce Department census bureau census

The Supreme Court’s Biggest Decisions in 2019

The term’s most important cases will help chart the future of a court in transition.

He acknowledged that it could have “some impact on responses” but said the information sought was “of greater importance than any adverse effect that may result from people violating their legal duty to respond.”

In sworn testimony before Congress, Mr. Ross said he had decided to add the question “solely” in response to a Justice Department request in December 2017 for data to help it enforce the Voting Rights Act. Three federal trial judges have ruled that the evidence in the record demonstrated that Mr. Ross was not being truthful.

He had already decided to add the question, the judges found, and he pressured the Justice Department to supply a rationale.

Documents disclosed in the case showed that Mr. Ross had discussed the citizenship issue early in his tenure with Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and an architect of the Trump administration’s tough immigration policies, and that Mr. Ross had met at Mr. Bannon’s direction with Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and an opponent of unlawful immigration.

After the justices heard arguments in April, more evidence emerged from the computer files of Thomas Hofeller, a Republican strategist. It suggested that the Trump administration sought to collect citizenship information so that states could draw voting districts by counting only eligible voters rather than all residents, as is the current practice. That would, Mr. Hofeller wrote, “be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”

Whether such districts are permitted by the Constitution is an open question, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her 2016 majority opinion in Evenwel v. Abbott.

“We need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, states may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

In a supporting brief in that case, former directors of the Census Bureau noted that there were practical obstacles to counting only eligible voters given the available data. But they added that “directly inquiring about citizenship status as part of the short-form census is not a solution to the data problem.”

“Doing so,” they wrote, “would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from noncitizens worried about a government record of their immigration status.”

The administration has said that census forms must be printed by June, but the groups said the real deadline is October, leaving time for further legal proceedings.

Even as the justices deliberated, trial judges held hearings to consider what to do about the new evidence. Administration lawyers said the challengers were pressing a conspiracy theory based on “smoke and mirrors,” and they urged the Supreme Court to render a prompt decision.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Two Women Who Heard E. Jean Carroll’s Account of Being Attacked by Trump Go Public

Two women in whom E. Jean Carroll confided about having allegedly been sexually attacked by Donald Trump in the 1990s spoke publicly about it for the first time in an interview excerpted on the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” describing the conflicting advice they gave their friend at the time.

On Wednesday, Megan Twohey, a Times reporter, interviewed Ms. Carroll and the two women, Carol Martin and Lisa Birnbach, who had not been publicly identified until now. It was the first time since the alleged assault that the women had discussed it together.

ImageWestlake Legal Group the-daily-album-art-articleInline-v2 Two Women Who Heard E. Jean Carroll’s Account of Being Attacked by Trump Go Public Twohey, Megan Trump, Donald J The Daily (Radio Program) Sex Crimes Carroll, E Jean #MeToo Movement

Listen to ‘The Daily’: Corroborating E. Jean Carroll

Ms. Carroll and the two women who corroborated her sexual assault allegations against President Trump go on the record with Megan Twohey, a New York Times reporter.

President Trump has forcefully denied the accusation, saying Ms. Carroll was “lying,” that he didn’t know her and that he wouldn’t have assaulted her because “she’s not my type.”

Portions of the interview were played Thursday on “The Daily,” and a fuller article about Ms. Carroll by Ms. Twohey, Jessica Bennett and Alexandra Alter will follow later in the day. For now, here are the main takeaways from the interview:

■ The two women in whom Ms. Carroll confided were well-known figures in the ’90s world of New York media. Ms. Martin was a news anchor on WCBS-TV in New York from 1975 to 1995. Ms. Birnbach is a writer best known for “The Official Preppy Handbook,” a best seller released in 1981. She has occasionally written for The Times.

Both knew or had met Mr. Trump during that period: Ms. Birnbach had recently interviewed him at Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, Fla., while Ms. Martin had met him at her news station and had a friend who briefly dated him.

■ When Ms. Carroll told the two women about the alleged attack, they had very different reactions: Ms. Birnbach said she told Ms. Carroll to call the police, while Ms. Martin told Ms. Carroll not to talk about it because Mr. Trump was too powerful. Ultimately, Ms. Carroll, thinking she was partially to blame for the encounter, remained silent about it for decades.

“I said: Don’t tell anybody. I wouldn’t tell anybody this,” Ms. Martin said.

■ Ms. Carroll eventually stopped believing that what happened to her was her fault, but she does not want to consider herself a victim and does not describe the incident as a rape.

“Every woman gets to choose her word,” she said. “Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is fight. My word is not the victim word.”

“I have not been raped,” she continued. “Something has not been done to me. I fought.”

■ Ms. Carroll said she originally intended to write a book about touring the country and cheekily asking women if they’d be better off without men. Then accusations against the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein ignited the #MeToo movement, and she realized she needed to reckon with her own experiences. The book morphed to include an account of her own encounters with men, including Mr. Trump.

■ Ms. Carroll said she had no expectation that telling her story would have an impact. At 75 years old, she has come not to expect such stories to come to anything.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Diverge on Economy and Immigration in First Debate

MIAMI — Democratic presidential candidates leveled a stark critique of President Trump’s immigration policies and the condition of the American working class in the first primary debate on Wednesday, but split in unmistakable terms over just how aggressively the next president should seek to transform the country along more liberal lines.

The strength of the party’s progressive wing was on vivid display in South Florida, starting in the first minutes of the debate when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts branded the federal government as thoroughly corrupt. Ms. Warren, the highest-polling candidate onstage, called for the government to bring to heel oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, and embraced the replacement of private health insurance with single-payer care.

“We need to make structural change in our government, in our economy and in our country,” Ms. Warren said, setting the tone for the handful of populists in the debate.

Joining Ms. Warren in driving hard from the left were two lesser known candidates — Julián Castro, the former housing secretary, and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York — who sought to jump-start their campaigns by confronting rivals who hesitated to match their progressive demands on immigration, health care and national security policy.

The debate, the first of two featuring 10 candidates each, underscored just how sharply Democrats have veered in a liberal direction since Mr. Trump’s election. On issues ranging from immigration and health care to gun control and foreign policy, they demonstrated that they were far more uneasy about being perceived as insufficiently progressive by primary voters than about inviting Republican attacks in the general election.

But there were also several avowed pragmatists who voiced hesitation or outright disagreement over some of their party’s most ambitious policy demands. Most prominent among them was Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who expressed doubts about liberal plans for single-payer health care and free college education; she instead called for more modest alternatives like the creation of an optional government-backed health insurance plan.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157062276_37382372-112e-4f4c-bf97-ee21c3b955d2-articleLarge Democrats Diverge on Economy and Immigration in First Debate Warren, Elizabeth United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 Miami (Fla) Democratic Party democratic national committee Debates (Political) Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

The debate on Wednesday featured three of the female candidates in the 2020 presidential race: from left, Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Three other female candidates will participate in the debate on Thursday.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

“It’s a bold approach, it’s something that Barack Obama wanted to do,” Ms. Klobuchar said, linking her more moderate views to those of one of the most popular Democrats in the country. She added, of a single-payer bill written by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont: “I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off of their health insurance in four years.”

Though Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar did not engage the other by name, Ms. Warren drew loud applause by retorting that politicians who suggest “Medicare for all” is impractical are really telling Americans “they just won’t fight for it.”

Other candidates tried to chart a middle path between those poles on health care, with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey saying that he supported single-payer care but would embrace more incremental options as well. “We have to do the things, immediately, that are going to provide better care,” he said.

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join the conversation around the 2020 presidential race.]

At times the forum became a free-for-all of cross talk among candidates desperate to wedge their personalities and signature ideas into brief snippets of television airtime. But even the disagreements were squarely over matters of policy substance: There were no personal attacks or criticisms of character, and nothing resembling the Trump-style personal taunts that came to define the last crowded presidential primary, waged among Republicans in 2016.

There were Democrats boasting about their executive résumés — Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington trumpeted the laws he had personally enacted, on matters like health care and abortion rights — and those who focused on sharing aspects of their personal biographies. Ms. Klobuchar, for instance, spoke of her father who attended community college.

Perhaps mindful of the debate’s South Florida venue, several took pains to flaunt their Spanish-language skills, particularly when it came time to discuss immigration. Among those were Mr. Booker, Mr. Castro and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas.

“The situation now is unacceptable,” Mr. Booker said in Spanish, of the crisis unfolding on the Mexican border. “This president has attacked, he has demonized immigrants. I am going to change this.”

Julián Castro, left, with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Mr. Castro dominated the segment devoted to immigration, promoting his proposal to decriminalize illegal immigration.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

After drawing little notice initially, Mr. Booker offered a series of commanding answers in the second hour of the two-hour debate on issues such as guns and L.G.B.T. rights, and he repeatedly highlighted his residency in heavily black Newark.

Mr. Booker is one of two African-Americans in the debate field, along with Senator Kamala Harris of California, who will appear on Thursday. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enjoys an early lead in the polls thanks in part to his support among black voters.

Mr. Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, dominated the segment devoted to immigration, promoting his proposal to decriminalize illegal immigration — a policy that Ms. Warren has adopted in recent days and that Republicans have gleefully highlighted to argue that Democrats support open borders.

Turning to Mr. O’Rourke, whose unsuccessful 2018 Senate bid and presidential candidacy have overshadowed him, Mr. Castro asked his fellow Texan why he would not support making illegal immigration a civil offense.

“I just think it’s a mistake, Beto,” said Mr. Castro.

Mr. O’Rourke noted that he had introduced legislation in Congress to decriminalize “those seeking asylum” and said that he had unveiled a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

[The latest data and analysis to keep track of who’s leading the race to be the Democratic nominee.]

But Mr. Castro interjected that it was not sufficient to relieve only those seeking asylum from criminal penalty, because many of those charged for crossing the border illegally are “undocumented immigrants.”

Mr. Booker made clear that he sided with Mr. Castro on the question, an illustration of the party’s shifting center of gravity on perhaps the dominant issue of the Trump era.

While the candidates looking to break out were most eager to confront others onstage, the better-known and better-financed contenders were less eager to duel with one another.

When the debate turned to tech companies, Mr. Booker stopped short of endorsing Ms. Warren’s call to break up the biggest firms, like Facebook and Google, while saying it was clear that the economy “is not working for average Americans.”

When Mr. Booker was reminded that he had attacked Ms. Warren this year for naming some of the corporations she would break up, he retreated. “I don’t think we disagree,” he said, adding that he also felt strongly about “the need to check corporate consolidation.”

Mr. O’Rourke also declined to hit back when he found himself under attack, first by Mr. de Blasio and then by Mr. Castro.

When the moderators asked the 10 candidates which of them would support eliminating private health insurance as part of a single-payer health care plan, only Ms. Warren and Mr. de Blasio raised their hands.

“How can you defend a system that’s not working?” Mr. de Blasio demanded of Mr. O’Rourke.

Ms. Klobuchar was the most firm in staking her claim to moderate terrain and also got off a handful of one-liners that drew applause and laughs.

[We tracked down the 2020 Democrats and asked them the same set of questions. Watch them answer.]

When Mr. Inslee boasted about his record in support of abortion rights, Ms. Klobuchar noted the gender diversity of the candidates.

Two lesser known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, right, and Tim Ryan of Ohio, second from left, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

“I want to say there’s three women up here who have fought pretty hard for a woman’s right to choose,” she said.

And she scorched Mr. Trump for his erratic posts on Twitter. “I don’t think we should conduct foreign policy in our bathrobe at 5 in the morning,” she said.

There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how aggressively to target the Taliban.

Mr. Ryan also used his limited time to challenge his own party. “We are not connecting to the working-class people in the very states that I represent in the industrial Midwest,” he said, scorning Democrats “Ivy League” attitude.

Mr. de Blasio was the most aggressive candidate when it came to confronting his rivals. But it was unclear if the New York mayor, who polls indicate is disliked by those Democrats who have heard him, would reap the benefit from his carrying the liberal banner.

Ms. Warren’s repeated denunciations of economic elites and Washington’s governing class won repeated ovations. But her unabashed willingness to terminate private health care, a question she had evaded in the past, alarmed some members of her own party who fear that embracing a single-payer system would hand Republicans a political weapon in a country where nearly 60 percent of people are on private plans.

Ms. Warren was less precise when she asked how she would push through her agenda if Republicans still control the Senate in 2021. And while she never mentioned her rivals by name, it was clear Ms. Warren is building a case for why Democrats should reject Mr. Biden’s consensus-oriented politics.

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, left, and Mr. Ryan both challenged their own party during the debate.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

For the most part, though, the contenders trumpeted their own proposals and résumés while training their fire on Mr. Trump and Republican economic policies, which they said were favoring the wealthy.

“He says wind turbines cause cancer, we know they cause jobs,” Mr. Inslee said.

The debate came at a moment when party activists were unified on the urgency of ejecting Mr. Trump from the White House but deeply divided over the best approach.

Dating to the day after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, when millions of women marched in American cities, Democratic contempt for the president has produced a supercharged liberal activism — and prompted a new level of engagement culminating in last year’s elections, which saw the largest turnout for a midterm campaign in a half-century.

This energy has carried over into 2019, as many of the Democratic hopefuls have attracted unusually large crowds at early rallies and forums, large numbers of small-dollar donors and hundreds of volunteers who are already following every dip and rise in the race.

And for many of the party’s primary voters, the back-to-back debates represented their first extended look at the Democrats’ historically large, and diverse, field.

So far, the race has been chiefly defined by a central question: Should Democrats rally behind Mr. Biden, a moderate who is the field’s best-known candidate, or find a more progressive alternative? While Mr. Biden has proved to be resilient in the polls since entering the race in April, he is a fragile front-runner and has already seen his advantage ebb in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Mr. Sanders has retained much of the grass-roots and financial network that powered him to unexpected success in the 2016 Democratic race, but he has struggled to expand his appeal beyond his committed supporters.

That is in part because the party’s left flank now has a wealth of alternatives, including Ms. Warren, who has recently surged in a number of surveys after months of laying out a series of ambitious policy proposals.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Photo of Migrants Shocks, but Congress Stalls on Border Aid

Westlake Legal Group merlin_157047828_a8217b0a-a042-4634-90e7-4cda3efa2fc8-facebookJumbo Photo of Migrants Shocks, but Congress Stalls on Border Aid United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Senate Immigration Detention Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration House of Representatives Border Patrol (US) Asylum, Right of

WASHINGTON — A photograph of a migrant father and his 23-month-old daughter lying face down on the muddy bank of the Rio Grande added an emotional charge on Wednesday to the immigration policy debate consuming Washington.

The image of the tiny girl, tucked into her father’s shirt, her right arm draped around his neck, seemed to crystallize the human tragedy playing out at the border, and it was everywhere: on cable channels, the internet, where the usual political warfare was for a moment tempered by sadness, and on the Senate floor, where the chamber’s top Democrat forced colleagues to confront a blown-up copy of the photo.

“President Trump, I want you to look at this photo,” said the minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. “These are not drug dealers or vagrants or criminals; they are people simply fleeing a horrible situation.”

But the picture did little to narrow the partisan divide over immigration policy, or even a more immediate dispute in Congress over a package of humanitarian aid that Mr. Trump has requested to fund strapped immigration agencies dealing with a crush of migrants.

The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a $4.6 billion emergency spending package to address the crisis, but only after rejecting a House-passed version drafted by Democrats deeply opposed to the president’s immigration agenda, which included many restrictions on how the money could be spent.

The House, in turn, planned to take action on Thursday to insist that some of its conditions of the funding be upheld. That set up a stalemate over the funding, and Democrats’ insistence that the White House bow to new restrictions on its authority to secure it.

The photo of the migrant father, Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, and his daughter Valeria came at a time of mounting concern about the treatment of children at border facilities, which have been overwhelmed by the largest number of families entering the United States in more than a decade.

At one station in Texas, more than 250 children were detained for weeks without access to soap or clothing or adequate food. A group of lawyers have said they saw young children caring for infants in the facility.

Lawmakers who are deeply opposed to Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda argued that the picture of the dead father and daughter was an implied rebuke of the president’s immigration policies, which include the practice of “metering,” placing strict limits on the number of migrants who are allowed to present themselves at the border, and a new program mandating that many asylum seekers stay in Mexico as they await their asylum claims to be processed.

“I watched young kids being turned away, and then having to go to and cross at all these terrible points,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, who visited the border between San Diego and Tijuana in December. “The reason we have this big buildup of people at the border is because of metering, because we’re slow-walking processing of asylum seekers, because we have a ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, because we’ve cut aid to Central American countries.”

Ms. Jayapal said she worried that the tragic image would only fuel a stampede, encouraged by Mr. Trump, to approve new spending at the border that would do nothing to alleviate the suffering, and potentially aggravate it.

“To say that this money would have prevented that kid and father from dying, which is so horrible, is just not true,” she said. “They’re trying to use the humanitarian crisis that they’ve created, and these conditions that they have allowed to happen, to get more money for things that we know we don’t want to fund.”

But in their public remarks, sometimes through tears, both Republicans and Democrats argued that the photograph was a pivotal call to action, and an important reminder of the stakes of the immigration debate. Many of them noted that the picture, while disturbing, showed what has become a grim and all-too-common reality on the border.

Representative Veronica Escobar, Democrat of Texas, whose El Paso district lies along the border, urged people not to look away.

“The horror is daily for us,” she said. “As heartbreaking and heartwrenching as that photograph is — the world needs to see that.”

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, who has called for changes to asylum law to stem the influx of migrants, spoke through tears that were captured on video widely shared on Twitter.

“I realize tragedies happen all over this country — all over this world,” he said. “I don’t want to see another picture like that on the U.S. border. I hope that picture alone will catalyze this Congress, this Senate, this committee to do something.”

President Trump had his own reaction to the photograph.

Before leaving on a trip to meet with world leaders in Japan and South Korea, he told reporters that he had talked with Ms. Pelosi and that he believed the two parties were making progress toward a bipartisan agreement on the funding.

But moments later, he denied any responsibility for the tragedy depicted in the photo, insisting that the blame for the deaths of the migrants fell on Democrats because of their refusal to accede to the president’s demands to change asylum laws.

“They want to have open borders, and open borders mean crime, and open borders mean people drowning in the rivers,” Mr. Trump said. “I hate it, and I know it could stop immediately if the Democrats would change the laws. And then that father, who probably was this wonderful guy, with his daughter, things like that wouldn’t happen.”

Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump went even further in trying to deflect criticism that his administration’s hard-line immigration policies had failed to address the deepening humanitarian crisis on the border, including the detention of children in horrific conditions at Border Patrol facilities.

In a speech to religious conservatives, the president said the border crisis — including the horrific conditions for migrant children held at those facilities — was the result of a “twisted obsession” by Democrats with open borders and said misery among migrants could be avoided if Democrats had “any shred of moral decency on this issue.”

During his remarks to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Mr. Trump blamed his predecessor for the conditions at Border Patrol facilities, saying — falsely — that “we’re taking care of them, much better than President Obama took care of them, I can tell you that.”

Mr. Obama’s administration was criticized for detaining migrant families during a similar surge across the border in 2014. At the time, images of migrant children in cages incited public outrage. A court ultimately ordered the Obama administration not to detain families for long periods of time.

But there is no evidence that children were kept in the kinds of conditions that were reported in recent days at the facilities run by Mr. Trump’s administration, including children who were not given toothbrushes, blankets or the opportunity to take showers.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As Wayfair Workers Protest Migrant Detention, the Specter of a Consumer Boycott Rises

Frustrated Americans, spurred on by social media campaigns, have been quick to cut off their spending on big brands as a form of political protest in the Trump era.

That makes an employee walkout at the online home furnishing company Wayfair particularly precarious, as some of the company’s staff loudly objected to its involvement with the detention of migrant children near the United States’ southwestern border.

Employees at the company’s Boston headquarters left their offices Wednesday afternoon to protest Wayfair’s sale of more than $200,000 of bedroom furniture to a government contractor that operates a network of the centers. The walkout followed reports of facilities that were overcrowded and filthy, where children and teenagers were lacking clean clothing and sufficient food.

The walkout has not led to a full-blown boycott yet, but the situation has drawn the attention of activist groups that have had some success using social media to rally consumers. Sleeping Giants, a Twitter account with 235,000 followers that was formed to choke off ad dollars to far-right groups after the 2016 election and has since become a consumer action organization, shared a tip on the Wayfair orders on Tuesday.

By the end of the day, the company’s employees had organized their walkout using the newly formed @wayfairwalkout account on Twitter to garner support, and some people were already tweeting a #BoycottWayfair hashtag.

“We had gotten an anonymous tip from someone who worked there saying that the agency responsible for the detention centers placed a fairly large order and that there were people within the company that had a big problem with that, and we put that out there,” Matt Rivitz, who created Sleeping Giants, said in an interview. “This next wave of protest is not just consumer-oriented, but it’s also employee-oriented.”

Wayfair declined to comment on the walkout.

Social media has helped fuel a host of boycotts in the nearly three years since President Trump’s election. The online boycott campaign #GrabYourWallet pressured retailers like Nordstrom to stop carrying merchandise tied to the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump. Calls to #DeleteUber followed accusations that the company tried to profit from a protest against the president’s executive order barring refugees and immigrants from certain countries from entering the United States. L.L. Bean, New Balance, Kellogg’s and more have all found themselves at risk of politically motivated boycotts in recent years.

Lately, the pressure has also been coming from employees. At big technology companies like Google and Microsoft, workers have turned to petitions and walkouts to seek change, including around who they do business with. At Microsoft and Amazon, workers have objected to working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At Wayfair, more than 500 employees signed a letter to the company’s leadership on Friday asking that the company cease doing business with the contractor, BCFS, and others involved in operating such facilities. The employees said that they were writing “from a place of concern and anger about the atrocities being committed at our Southern border,” and wanted to ensure that Wayfair had “no part in enabling, supporting, or profiting from this practice.”

Wayfair’s leaders defended the contract in a letter on Monday evening and said it was the company’s business to sell to any customer who was acting within the law. They added, “No matter how strongly any one of us feels about an issue, it is important to keep in mind that not all employees or customers agree.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157047222_fafeccf2-b325-46fc-968d-5fba49963f44-articleLarge As Wayfair Workers Protest Migrant Detention, the Specter of a Consumer Boycott Rises wayfair United States Politics and Government United States Trump, Donald J Social Media Rivitz, Matt Immigration Detention Immigration and Emigration Demonstrations, Protests and Riots Boycotts

Wayfair employees and their supporters at Copley Square in Boston.CreditCharles Krupa/Associated Press

Wayfair isn’t alone in facing criticism.

Sleeping Giants has targeted Bank of America for providing financing to Caliburn International, the parent company of the Homestead facility for minors in Florida, saying it is “the only big bank profiting from family separation.”

On Wednesday, Bank of America said that it would end its relationships with all private prison companies.

“The private sector is attempting to respond to public policy and government needs and demands in the absence of longstanding and widely recognized reforms needed in criminal justice and immigration policies,” Jessica Oppenheim, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, said in an email to The New York Times. “We have been discussing this topic for some time.”

Two other banks, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan, said they would end their relationships with the private prison industry in March.

“As we’re learning more about the horrific conditions in the Trump-era detention centers, things are ratcheting up, and people are looking for more ways to express that frustration,” said Shannon Coulter, a founder of the #GrabYourWallet campaign.

“I got a lot of requests yesterday for information on any other companies that may be doing business with the detention centers,” Ms. Coulter said on Wednesday. “We don’t have perfect visibility into that, but as we learn more about the companies that do business there, we’re adding them to the list,” she said. “We’re in touch with a lot of organizations that do work with immigrant communities.”

Ms. Coulter that her group was not yet adding Wayfair to its boycott list because people at the border needed beds, and because it was waiting to see how the company’s executives would respond after the walkout. For example, she said, the company could choose to fill the orders without profiting from them.

On Wednesday, Wayfair apparently told employees that it would donate $100,000 to the American Red Cross. The move was praised on the @wayfairwalkout account, but it also noted that the organization had nothing to do with the detention facilities.

Mr. Rivitz said his group was focused on questioning companies while informing consumers, who could make their own decisions about what companies they wanted to support. That’s a particular risk for consumer-facing brands.

“Yes, there are big private prison groups and large nonprofits that are involved in this, and ultimately they’re going to do business how they do business,” Mr. Rivitz said. “But certainly, companies that we all use, consumers expect a little bit more.”

“It’s really hard for people to see shiny and happy people in ads, then know a company’s profiting off incarcerated children,” he added.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Weeks of Talks Led a Reluctant Mueller to Testify

WASHINGTON — The agreement for Robert S. Mueller III to testify on Capitol Hill materialized after weeks of phone calls and meetings between House Democratic staff and associates of Mr. Mueller, who made clear his reluctance to enter the political war surrounding his investigation.

His intermediaries repeatedly delivered a message that Mr. Mueller, then the special counsel, conveyed last month in a rare public appearance: A prosecutor speaks through his indictments and the written word rather than the public spectacle of a congressional hearing. Mr. Mueller was so averse to being pulled into the political arena that he never spoke directly with lawmakers or their aides, according to a senior congressional official involved in the talks and others briefed on them.

His reticence mattered little in the end. Democrats were insistent that he had a responsibility to testify, though they agreed to combine questioning from two panels on one day. The protracted negotiations came to an abrupt stop late on Tuesday night when representatives for Mr. Mueller agreed that he would show up if the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas for an appearance on July 17.

House members knew that Mr. Mueller, a former federal prosecutor and a director of the F.B.I. under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, would not defy a subpoena.

Now Mr. Mueller, 74, is set to take the biggest stage of his long public career to answer questions on live television in back-to-back public hearings about his investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference and President Trump’s attempts to impede the inquiry. He will face lawmakers from both parties who believe his testimony can help them drive divergent narratives.

Democrats hope that Mr. Mueller will tell a story of presidential misconduct worthy of the public’s censure. Republicans want to draw him out on allegations of misconduct by supposedly crooked F.B.I. agents bent on taking down a president.

[One of The New York Times’s top editors answered questions our readers had about our coverage of the Russia investigation.]

The risk to Mr. Mueller’s self-image as a nonpartisan public servant was on display on Wednesday. Democrats expressed confidence that his words would help diminish support for Mr. Trump and clarify what they view as deliberate obfuscation by Attorney General William P. Barr to clear the president of an obstruction offense in a four-page summary of the Mueller report in March that set the public narrative about its findings.

“Attorney General Barr led a campaign of misinformation to deceive the American people about what was in the report. The president joined in by repeatedly saying ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ — which is not what the report found,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman. “It’s very important that the American people hear from Mr. Mueller as to what he did find.”

The president lashed out at Mr. Mueller directly with false accusations about the conduct of investigators, offering no evidence as he repeated earlier accusations that Mr. Mueller destroyed texts between two former F.B.I. officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who worked on the Russia investigation and repeatedly disparaged Mr. Trump in private. “They’re gone, and that is illegal,” Mr. Trump said of the texts in an interview with Fox Business Network. “That’s a crime.”

The president was referring to a December Justice Department inspector general report that noted 19,000 texts were lost because of technical problems, not intentionally deleted by Mr. Mueller or anyone.

“It never ends,” Mr. Trump said about Democratic efforts to investigate his conduct. He repeated that Mr. Mueller’s report, released in April, found no collusion with the Russians, and he again offered a false assertion that the special counsel’s team cleared him of obstruction of justice. After reading the report and considering 10 possible instances in which Mr. Trump may have obstructed justice, Mr. Barr decided the president had not.

But Mr. Mueller emphasized that Mr. Trump has not been cleared of obstruction crimes. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said in May in his only public remarks on the investigation.

Still, it does not seem as if the president will try to block Mr. Mueller’s appearance on Capitol Hill, as his administration has done with other witnesses called by House Democrats.

Westlake Legal Group mueller-report-document-promo-1555353284901-articleLarge-v8 Weeks of Talks Led a Reluctant Mueller to Testify United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Strzok, Peter Special Prosecutors (Independent Counsel) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Page, Lisa (1979- ) Mueller, Robert S III Justice Department Federal Bureau of Investigation

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index

The findings from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, are now available to the public. The redacted report details his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“Bob Mueller will testify, and I’m sure he’s going to stick to what is in his report,” Jay Sekulow, a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, said Wednesday on CNN. “I don’t expect there’s going to be a new revelation here. That certainly would be inappropriate.”

Mr. Mueller staked out his position in an 11-minute address — his first and only public appearance as special counsel — in the Justice Department briefing room. Congress could force him to testify, he said, but warned he “would not go beyond our report.”

“It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made,” Mr. Mueller said. “We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”

Talks about his testimony had begun after Mr. Barr released a redacted version of Mr. Mueller’s report in April. They slowed after Mr. Mueller left his post as special counsel and no longer had easy access to a coterie of staff and official government channels for negotiating, people involved in the discussions said. Democrats ultimately turned to Jonathan R. Yarowsky, a partner at Mr. Mueller’s former law firm of WilmerHale who also previously worked for the Judiciary Committee, to serve as an intermediary to Mr. Mueller’s closest aides, according to the congressional official directly involved.

WilmerHale also made office space available to Mr. Mueller as he negotiated, Robert T. Novick, a managing partner, said on Wednesday.

By mid-June, the patience of Democratic activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill was wearing thin. The White House was blocking witness after witness called to testify on Capitol Hill and threatened to go on stonewalling “illegitimate” oversight by Democrats as long as needed.

Democrats tried to impress upon Mr. Mueller’s team that they would subpoena him if he did not agree to terms and demand that he appear on two consecutive days for much longer sessions, said the senior official involved in the talks, who was not authorized to speak by name. And though Democrats understood his position, they made clear that Congress and the public disagreed with the view that a Justice Department prosecutor need never speak and that Mr. Mueller had a responsibility to clear the public record about his work.

By Tuesday evening, both sides agreed to the more limited setting under subpoena. Rather than risk letting details of the agreement leak out, Mr. Nadler and Representative Adam B. Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, decided to announce the terms in a statement at 9 p.m.

“We reached the point where we believed if we issued the subpoena, he would obey it and he would testify,” Mr. Nadler said on Wednesday.

Under the terms, Mr. Mueller will appear first before the Judiciary Committee to principally discuss the second volume of his report, on possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump. Democrats have agreed to limit their questioning in each hearing, meaning that there will probably not be enough time for every member of the Judiciary Committee to question Mr. Mueller in public.

The remaining members are expected to question Mr. Mueller’s lieutenants in the special counsel’s office in a private transcribed interview later in the day, according to the official involved in the talks. It was not clear which of Mr. Mueller’s investigators would be questioned, and lawmakers did not agree to limit topics of discussion.

Because the Intelligence Committee is almost half the size of the judiciary panel, all of its members will have time to question Mr. Mueller and intend to focus on the first volume of his report, on Russia’s election interference. Intelligence Committee members will later have their own turn with Mr. Mueller’s team in private.

Republicans will most likely question Mr. Mueller about the origins of the Russia inquiry, and whether federal officials spied on the Trump campaign. Mr. Barr has begun his own review into the beginnings of the investigation, and Mr. Trump granted him wide authority to declassify intelligence secrets as part of the review.

Several Republicans predicted on Wednesday that the appearance would backfire on Democrats trying to damage Mr. Trump.

But the almost 80 Democrats who have already endorsed opening an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump were just as thrilled. “If Mueller just talks about the report, it will make more people realize the criminal behavior that he has engaged in,” said Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate Approves $4.6 Billion for Border With Fewer Restrictions

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday approved $4.6 billion in emergency humanitarian aid for the southwestern border, rejecting House legislation approved Tuesday that sought to rein in President Trump’s immigration crackdown by setting significant rules on how the money could be spent at squalid detention facilities.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California rejected the Senate’s bill even before the vote was taken, setting up a clash over immigration policy just days before Congress leaves Washington for a weeklong July 4 recess. Ms. Pelosi called President Trump to discuss how to reconcile the dueling measures in a 15-minute phone call early Wednesday afternoon.

“They pass their bill, we respect that,” she said. “We passed our bill, we hope they would respect that. And there are some improvements that we think can be reconciled.”

The margin of the Senate vote, 84-8, underscored Senate Republican contentions that only their bill stands a chance of obtaining the president’s signature.

“The House has not made much progress toward actually making a law, just more resistance theater,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said on the Senate floor Wednesday morning. “The Senate has a better and more bipartisan way forward.”

“It’s a productive compromise that would go a long way to begin to address the border crisis,” Mr. McConnell added. “no poison pills, just a clean bill.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157005213_8906723d-0ac3-471f-82c9-810d6d065a7e-articleLarge Senate Approves $4.6 Billion for Border With Fewer Restrictions United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Law and Legislation Immigration Detention Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration Humanitarian Aid

Tents outside the border station in Clint, Texas. More than 100 children were returned to the facility, officials said yesterday.CreditIvan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times

Mr. Trump on Wednesday morning voiced his displeasure with the House bill, saying on Fox Business Network that he was “not happy with it because there is no money for protection.”

To make their point, Republican Senate leaders put the House’s $4.5 billion bill to a test vote; it failed, 37-55, with three Democrats voting against the measure. Seven Democrats, all presidential candidates, were not present ahead of the first Democratic debate in Miami Wednesday night.

But Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate Democratic leader, suggested a few changes to the Senate bill could win support among House Democratic leaders in time for quick final passage.

The Senate legislation would allocate about $1.3 billion to improve facilities at the border and $2.9 billion for the care of migrant children. The measure prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from adding more beds at detention centers or migrant processing facilities, ostensibly to slow the immigration crackdown. The Senate would require the department to allow congressional visits to facilities housing unaccompanied children with two days’ notice.

But House Democrats say that the bill does too little to ensure that conditions improve at detention facilities or at centers caring for children that are run by government contractors. The House bill would allow for congressional visits to facilities without any advance notice. It includes language that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene, and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and adults in custody.

Another provision would ask the secretary of health and human services to specify which requirements are being temporarily waived to deal with a sudden influx of migrants. That amendment would limit the detention-center stay of any unaccompanied child to 90 days unless written notification is submitted to Congress attesting that no other facilities are available.

Democrats also attached requirements for translators at Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Senator Mitch McConnell at the Capitol today. The bipartisan margin of the Senate vote underscored Senate Republican contentions that only their bill stands a chance of obtaining the president’s signature.CreditTom Brenner for The New York Times

[Here are the differences between the House and Senate bills.]

Administration officials have warned Congress that they will run out of funds to house and care for migrants at the end of the month. Accounts of horrific conditions facing unaccompanied migrant children, as well as a wrenching photo of a drowned father and daughter trying to seek asylum, have inflamed the urgency surrounding passage of the emergency aid but also the resolve of Democrats pushing for tougher oversight on the administration and its facilities.

“While I pray that the funding Congress has approved makes it to its intended purpose, the best predictor of the future is the past,” Representative Ayanna S. Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts and one of four Democrats to vote against the House measure, wrote in a Medium post explaining her vote. The administration’s immigration enforcement agencies, she wrote, “have a track record of promoting a deep culture of corruption and abuse.”

Republican senators remain adamant that the emergency aid, widely seen as a temporary response to a more complex immigration crisis, needs to be stripped of immigration policymaking.

“Our goal is to get a good bill, keep it clean as we can and try to have the president on board,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “If it’s loaded up with a bunch of House amendments, he will not sign it.”

Even as they promoted their bill, Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, acknowledged publicly and privately that the Senate bill was not necessarily an untenable vote in their chamber.

“The Senate has a good bill,” Ms. Pelosi told her caucus during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, according to a senior Democratic aide unauthorized to discuss the private meeting. “Our bill is much better.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate minority leader, noted in floor remarks that while the House version “is a much better bill than the Senate version,” the broad bipartisan support in a Senate committee vote last week indicates that “there is room for compromise to get something done here.”

The House measure includes additional oversight provisions that outline a time frame for the release of children from the facilities, as well as health and safety standards and requirements for children and adults held by the government.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Wayfair Workers Walk Out, and the Specter of a Consumer Boycott Rises

Westlake Legal Group merlin_157049178_12382a92-3f79-4cc1-bad1-9d51e2959d6e-facebookJumbo Wayfair Workers Walk Out, and the Specter of a Consumer Boycott Rises wayfair United States Politics and Government United States Trump, Donald J Social Media Rivitz, Matt Immigration Detention Immigration and Emigration Demonstrations, Protests and Riots Boycotts

Frustrated Americans, with the help of social media, have been quick to cut off spending on big brands as a form of political protest in the Trump era. That makes an employee walkout at the online home furnishing company Wayfair particularly precarious for the company, as some of its staff members object to its involvement with the detention of migrant children near the United States’ southwestern border.

It’s a cautionary tale for other consumer-facing brands that might be found to be profiting from the detention centers, which are reportedly overcrowded and filthy. Employees at the company’s Boston headquarters walked out of their offices Wednesday afternoon to protest Wayfair’s sale of $200,000 of bedroom furniture to a government contractor that operates a network of the centers.

The walkout hasn’t led to a full-blown boycott yet, but the situation has drawn the attention of activist groups that have had some success using social media to rally consumer protest. Sleeping Giants, a Twitter account with 235,000 followers that was formed to choke off ad dollars to far-right groups after the 2016 election and has since become a consumer action organization, shared a tip on the Wayfair orders on Tuesday morning.

By the end of the day, the company’s employees had organized their walkout, and many consumers were already tweeting a #BoycottWayfair hashtag.

“We had gotten an anonymous tip from someone who worked there saying that the agency responsible for the detention centers placed a fairly large order and that there were people within the company that had a big problem with that, and we put that out there,” Matt Rivitz, who founded Sleeping Giants, said in an interview. “This next wave of protest is not just consumer-oriented, but it’s also employee-oriented.”

Wayfair did not respond to a request for comment.

Social media has helped fuel a host of boycotts in the past three years. The online boycott campaign #GrabYourWallet pressured retailers like Nordstrom to stop carrying merchandise tied to Ivanka Trump. Calls to #DeleteUber followed accusations that the company tried to profit from a protest against the president’s executive order barring refugees and immigrants from certain countries from entering the United States. L.L. Bean, New Balance, Kellogg and more have all found themselves at risk of potential politically motivated boycotts in recent years.

Lately, the pressure has also been coming from employees. At big technology companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, workers have turned to petitions and walkouts to seek change, including in who they do business with. At Microsoft and Amazon, workers have objected to working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The conditions in shelters for migrant children are under renewed scrutiny amid reports of children and teenagers lacking showers, clean clothing and sufficient food.

More than 500 Wayfair employees signed a letter to the company’s leadership on Friday asking that Wayfair cease doing business with the contractor, BCFS, and others involved in operating such facilities. Wayfair’s leaders responded in a letter on Monday evening that defended the contract, which it said was to a customer following the law. It added, “No matter how strongly any one of us feels about an issue, it is important to keep in mind that not all employees or customers agree.”

“As we’re learning more about the horrific conditions in the Trump-era detention centers, things are ratcheting up and people are looking for more ways to express that frustration,” said Shannon Coulter, a founder of the #GrabYourWallet campaign.

“I got a lot of requests yesterday for information on any other companies that may be doing business with the detention centers,” she said.“We don’t have perfect visibility into that, but as we learn more about the companies that do business there, we’re adding them to the list,” she said. “We’re in touch with a lot of organizations that do work with immigrant communities.”

Ms. Coulter said earlier on Wednesday that her group was not yet calling for a Wayfair boycott because people at the border needed beds, and because it was waiting to see how the company’s executives would respond after the walkout

One way to avoid being targeted with a boycott? The company could end up choosing to fill the orders without profiting from them, she said.

But if Wayfair continues to profit from “cruel immigration policies,” she said, it would most likely end up on her group’s boycott list.

Mr. Rivitz said his group had not been calling for boycotts, but has been questioning companies while informing consumers, who can make their own decisions about what they want to support. That’s a particular risk for brands that sell directly to consumers.

“Yes, there are big private prison groups and large nonprofits that are involved in this, and ultimately they’re going to do business how they do business,” Mr. Rivitz said. “But certainly, companies that we all use, consumers expect a little bit more.”

“It’s really hard for people to see shiny and happy people in ads, then know a company’s profiting off incarcerated children,” he added.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate Approves $4.6 Billion for Border With Few Restrictions

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday approved $4.6 billion in emergency humanitarian aid for the southwestern border, rejecting House legislation approved Tuesday that sought to rein in President Trump’s immigration crackdown by setting significant rules on how the money could be spent at squalid detention facilities.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California rejected the Senate’s bill even before the vote was taken, setting up a clash over immigration policy just days before Congress leaves Washington for a weeklong July 4 recess. Ms. Pelosi called President Trump to discuss how to reconcile the dueling measures in a 15-minute phone call early Wednesday afternoon.

“They pass their bill, we respect that,” she said. “We passed our bill, we hope they would respect that. And there are some improvements that we think can be reconciled.”

The margin of the Senate vote underscored Senate Republican contentions that only their bill stands a chance of obtaining the president’s signature.

“The House has not made much progress toward actually making a law, just more resistance theater,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said on the Senate floor Wednesday morning. “The Senate has a better and more bipartisan way forward.”

“It’s a productive compromise that would go a long way to begin to address the border crisis,” Mr. McConnell added. “no poison bills, just a clean bill.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157005213_8906723d-0ac3-471f-82c9-810d6d065a7e-articleLarge Senate Approves $4.6 Billion for Border With Few Restrictions United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Law and Legislation Immigration Detention Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration Humanitarian Aid

Tents outside the border station in Clint, Texas. More than 100 children were returned to the facility, officials said yesterday.CreditIvan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times

Mr. Trump on Wednesday morning voiced his displeasure with the House bill, saying on Fox Business Network that he was “not happy with it because there is no money for protection.”

To make their point, Republican Senate leaders put the House’s $4.5 billion bill to a test vote; it failed, 37-55, with three Democrats voting against the measure. Seven Democrats, all presidential candidates, were not present ahead of the first Democratic debate in Miami Wednesday night.

But Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate Democratic leader, suggested a few changes to the Senate bill could win support among House Democratic leaders in time for quick final passage.

The Senate legislation would allocate about $1.3 billion to improve facilities at the border and $2.9 billion for the care of migrant children. The measure prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from adding more beds at detention centers or migrant processing facilities, ostensibly to slow the immigration crackdown. The Senate would require the department to allow congressional visits to facilities housing unaccompanied children with two days’ notice.

But House Democrats say that the bill does to little to ensure that conditions improve at detention facilities or at centers caring for children that are run by government contractors. The House bill would allow for congressional visits to facilities without any advance notice. It includes language that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene, and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and adults in custody.

Another provision would ask the secretary of health and human services to specify which requirements are being temporarily waived to deal with a sudden influx of migrants. That amendment would limit the detention-center stay of any unaccompanied child to 90 days unless written notification is submitted to Congress attesting that no other facilities are available.

Democrats also attached requirements for translators at Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Senator Mitch McConnell at the Capitol today. The bipartisan margin of the Senate vote underscored Senate Republican contentions that only their bill stands a chance of obtaining the president’s signature.CreditTom Brenner for The New York Times

[Here are the differences between the House and Senate bills.]

Administration officials have warned Congress that they will run out of funds to house and care for migrants at the end of the month. Accounts of horrific conditions facing unaccompanied migrant children, as well as a wrenching photo of a drowned father and daughter trying to seek asylum, have inflamed the urgency surrounding passage of the emergency aid but also the resolve of Democrats pushing for tougher oversight on the administration and its facilities.

“While I pray that the funding Congress has approved makes it to its intended purpose, the best predictor of the future is the past,” Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts and one of four Democrats to vote against the House measure, wrote in a Medium post explaining her vote. The administration’s immigration enforcement agencies, she wrote, “have a track record of promoting a deep culture of corruption and abuse.”

Republican senators remain adamant that the emergency aid, widely seen as a temporary response to a more complex immigration crisis, needs to be stripped of immigration policymaking.

“Our goal is to get a good bill, keep it clean as we can and try to have the president on board,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “If it’s loaded up with a bunch of House amendments, he will not sign it.”

Even as they promoted their bill, Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, acknowledged publicly and privately that the Senate bill was not necessarily an untenable vote in their chamber.

“The Senate has a good bill,” Ms. Pelosi told her caucus during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, according to a senior Democratic aide unauthorized to discuss the private meeting. “Our bill is much better.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate minority leader, noted in floor remarks that while the House version “is a much better bill than the Senate version,” the broad bipartisan support in a Senate committee vote last week indicates that “there is room for compromise to get something done here.”

The House measure includes additional oversight provisions that outline a time frame for the release of children from the facilities, as well as health and safety standards and requirements for children and adults held by the government.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Attacks Mueller, Repeating False Accusations

WASHINGTON — President Trump lashed out at the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, on Wednesday, dredging up false accusations about the conduct of investigators after House Democrats announced that Mr. Mueller would testify publicly next month.

The president offered no evidence as he repeated earlier accusations that Mr. Mueller destroyed text messages between two former F.B.I. officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who worked on the Russia investigation. “They’re gone and that is illegal,” Mr. Trump said of the texts in an interview with Fox Business Network. “That’s a crime.”

Mr. Trump was referring to a December Justice Department inspector general report that noted 19,000 text messages were lost because of technical problems, not intentionally deleted by Mr. Mueller or anyone.

Thousands of messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page have been made public, many highly critical of the president. Both Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were criticized in an inspector general report last year on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the inspector general also said that bias had not affected the F.B.I.’s decision-making process. Another inspector general report on aspects of the Russia inquiry is due in the coming weeks or months.

“It never ends,” Mr. Trump said about Democratic efforts to investigate his conduct. He repeated that Mr. Mueller’s report, released in April, found no collusion with the Russians, and he again offered a false assertion that the special counsel team cleared him of obstruction of justice. After reading the report and considering 10 possible instances in which Mr. Trump may have obstructed justice, Attorney General William P. Barr decided the president had not.

Mr. Mueller emphasized that Mr. Trump has not been cleared of obstruction crimes. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said in May in his only public remarks on the investigation.

While Mr. Mueller has resisted testifying before congressional oversight committees on the Russia inquiry, he was compelled by subpoenas to answer questions on July 17 in two back-to-back hearings before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

In response to the news about Mr. Mueller’s upcoming appearances on Capitol Hill, Mr. Trump on Tuesday tweeted, “Presidential Harassment!”

Westlake Legal Group mueller-report-document-promo-1555353284901-articleLarge-v8 Trump Attacks Mueller, Repeating False Accusations United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Strzok, Peter Special Prosecutors (Independent Counsel) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Page, Lisa (1979- ) Mueller, Robert S III Justice Department Federal Bureau of Investigation

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index

The findings from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, are now available to the public. The redacted report details his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, dismissed Mr. Mueller’s planned testimony as a redundancy.

“I’ve seen this movie several times and I know the ending, and it should now end,” he wrote in a text message on Wednesday.

Though Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr have said they had no problem with Mr. Mueller providing congressional testimony, the White House has blocked other former government officials from complying with similar subpoenas.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Wednesday that he was confident he would get testimony from Mr. Mueller, even if the White House tried to step in.

“They can attempt to,” Mr. Nadler said. “I doubt they would succeed. Mr. Mueller is an honest man and understands that congressional subpoenas are not optional.”

Mr. Mueller has said any future comments about the investigation would not go beyond what was included in the 448-page report.

If Mr. Mueller’s testimony is not blocked, the stakes will be high for both Democrats and Republicans, as Mr. Mueller’s answers are sure to provide material for 2020 presidential campaigns.

Mr. Nadler said the president and attorney general have tried to distort the findings of the Mueller report. Even if Mr. Mueller sticks to the material in the report, Mr. Nadler said, correcting the public record on national television could have a “profound impact.”

Republicans will most likely question Mr. Mueller about the origins of the Russia inquiry, and whether federal officials spied on the Trump campaign. Mr. Barr has launched a separate review into the beginnings of the investigation, and Mr. Trump has given him wide authority to declassify intelligence secrets as part of the review.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com