JUNE 18, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


CILLIZZA EXCLAIMS, “THE SHEER VOLUME OF THE TWEETS IS THE FIRST THING THAT STANDS OUT TO ME. YES, TRUMP IS A FREQUENT TWEETER -- AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. BUT 18 TWEETS ON A SINGLE DAY!? AND A SUNDAY?! AND FATHER'S DAY, TO BOOT!!!!”

IS TRUMP TRYING TO DISTRACT PUBLIC ATTENTION FROM THE TRUE TRAVESTY OCCURRING AT THE BORDER? OR HIS OWN WIFE’S SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES OVER POLITICS?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/trump-tweets/index.html
Donald Trump's Twitter feed is getting more and more bizarre
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 4:20 PM ET, Mon June 18, 2018

(CNN)It's hard to say that President Donald Trump's Twitter habits are getting stranger. After all, this is a President who has, from the start of his presidential campaign, used the social media site as among other things, a communications device, a Festivus pole and a psychologist's couch. He's attacked his own party leaders and suggested it might be time for them to quit. He's attacked a cable news anchor for allegedly receiving a facelift. He's threatened nuclear war with North Korea.

How could you possibly top -- or, depending on your view of Trump -- bottom that?

The answer is you can't. But there does appear to be a change in both Trump's Twitter habits and the content of his actual tweets in recent weeks -- a trend that had become even more noticeable in the last few days. Trump is not only tweeting more, but he is doing so at less and less predictable hours. His actual tweets read like a stream of consciousness, verbal vomit -- always (or almost always) focused on the ongoing special counsel investigation being led by Robert Mueller. Twitter has transformed into Trump's very public venting operation -- a forum where he can unleash his anger, bitterness and resentment and watch while his loyal supporters tell him that he's right. Always.

"Since the [Michael] Cohen raid a few months ago, the president's personal Twitter feed is delivering little actual information or even White House messaging and has become a rapid response operation against Mueller, interspersed with false claims about his own policies," tweeted The New York Times' Maggie Haberman on Sunday.

Speaking of Sunday, let's first catalog the President's tweets since Sunday morning.

Trump has sent 26 total tweets -- 22 original tweets and 4 retweets of past Trump tweets.

18 of those came Sunday, eight were from Monday (as of press time).

The first tweet on Sunday came at 7:52 a.m. ET The last one came at 9:03 p.m. ET.

The first tweet on Monday came at 8:46 a.m. ET.

8 tweets were centered on the Mueller investigation and/or the inspector general's report on how the FBI handled the Hillary Clinton email probe.

6 tweets attacked Democrats for creating the family separation issues along the southern border.

5 tweets have focused primarily on how Trump isn't getting the credit he believes he deserves for his handling of North Korea.

The remaining tweets were a mishmash of those attacking the "fake news" media, touting how great his supporters are and wishing everyone a happy Father's Day.

The sheer volume of the tweets is the first thing that stands out to me. Yes, Trump is a frequent tweeter -- and always has been. But 18 tweets on a single day!? And a Sunday?! And Father's Day, to boot!!!!

What Trump appeared to do on Sunday is something along these lines: Wake up, tweet, play golf, go back to White House, tweet.
And then today, even as his party stages an open rebellion against his policies on the border, Trump continues to tweet and tweet and tweet.

Context matters here. As Haberman notes, Trump's turning to Twitter as almost purely a grievance machine -- particularly as it relates to the Mueller probe -- has come since the raiding of Cohen's home, hotel and office by the FBI in early April. Cohen, Trump's longtime personal lawyer, is regarded as one of the people closest to the businessman-turned-politician. No one this side of Trump knows exactly what Cohen knows but you can assume there is some level of concern and consternation caused by rumors that Cohen will; soon be charged and could well become a cooperating witness in the Mueller probe.

It's also worth considering that Trump is without many of the people he trusts most in the White House. Hope Hicks is gone. So is Rob Porter. And Johnny McEntee. Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, remain on the White House staff but have problems of their own, not to mention three young kids.

The point is that Trump, never one to have a wide circle of trusted advisers, has watched his so-called "inner circle" shrink and shrink and shrink over the last few months. And that shrinkage has been accompanied by an increasingly fraught political environment caused largely by the ongoing uncertainty of what Mueller will find and when he will announce it.

Backed into a corner that is at least somewhat of his own making, Trump has turned to Twitter more and more frequently of late. And his tweets have become even more revealing.

What we have right now is a President focused/bordering-on-obsessed with the Mueller investigation, what it has meant and might mean for his presidency. A President who feels like a victim of an unfair media, which won't give him the proper credit he deserves. A President who, under siege in any number of ways, is increasingly bunkering in -- and giving voice to conspiracy theories to justify his behavior.

Again, it is impossible to say Trump is doing something on Twitter that he's never done before, because he's crossed every line and upended every expectation on the social media platform already.

But what is worth noting is that the way Trump is using Twitter -- particularly the frequency and time of tweets -- has changed. That, coupled with his increasingly stream of consciousness riffs on whatever grievance he is nursing in that moment, make his Twitter feed even more raw, more personal and, yes, stranger that at any time since he has been President.



TO KNEEL OR NOT SHOULD BE A FREE CHOICE IN A FREE COUNTRY. FLAG POLITICS IS BACK AGAIN. THE PRESIDENT IS QUOTED BELOW AS SAYING, “.... I LOVE SPORTS. BUT THEY SHOULDN'T GET THE POLITICS INVOLVED." FUNNY, THAT’S EXACTLY HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. WHY IS IT THAT ALL THOSE “CONSERVATIVES” DON’T SEE THAT AS A VALID POINT? COULD IT BE BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE SUPPORT THE PARTY GETS FROM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS, WHO ARE GETTING MORE POLITICAL BY THE DAY?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/18/nfl-urged-reverse-new-policy-and-let-players-kneel-if-they-want/707731002/?csp=chromepush
Civil rights groups urge NFL to reverse rule requiring players to stand for national anthem
Deborah Barfield Berry and Lorenzo Reyes, USA TODAY Published 4:53 p.m. ET June 18, 2018 | Updated 4:55 p.m. ET June 18, 2018

VIDEO -- Landon Donovan and Omar Gonzalez explain why they're rooting for their rival at the World Cup despite their involvement in the U.S. men's national team.USA TODAY Sports

WASHINGTON – National civil rights groups called on the NFL Monday to reverse its decision to punish players who kneel during the national anthem and fine teams whose players don't comply, saying the peaceful protests are what the American flag represents.

The groups, which include some of the country's biggest and oldest civil rights organizations, slammed the NFL’s recent decision in a letter sent to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

“This policy represses peaceful, non-disruptive protest of police violence against unarmed African Americans and other people of color,” the groups wrote in a letter provided to USA TODAY. “It is disappointing that a league built on grit and competition lacks the constitution to stomach a call for basic equality and fairness.”

The groups are also asking to meet with Goodell in upcoming weeks in hopes of getting the league to abandon its new rule.

"We think that the league’s policy puts them on the wrong side of history,'' said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Under the league’s revised policy announced last month, players and personnel on the field must stand during the national anthem. Those who want to can stay off the field, including in the locker room, until the anthem is finished. Players had been required to be on the field during the anthem.

The policy also allows franchises to develop their own policies, which could include fining players who protest by not standing.

The league could impose fines against a team if a player or representative on the sideline doesn’t stand or “show respect” during the anthem.

“We want people to be respectful to the national anthem,” Goodell said at press conference in May announcing the decision. “We want people to stand, that’s all personnel, and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion. That’s something we think we owe. We have been very sensitive in making sure we give players choices, but we do believe that that moment is important and one we are going to focus on.”

The move comes after other players joined the effort of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who in previous years chose to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest against police brutality and racial inequality against people of color.

The issue has sparked national debate, including among civil rights groups.

“As national organizations we are uniting to make clear that we stand with those players who chose to use their platform to call attention to ongoing police shootings of unarmed people in our country," Clarke said. “This is an issue that is not going away and will remain the subject of intense national interest."

Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and other civil rights activists are urging the NFL to reverse its anthem rule. (Photo: Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY)

President Trump has repeatedly criticized players for kneeling during the anthem calling it unpatriotic and disrespectful to the flag. He has called for NFL owners to fire players who protest by kneeling.

Last Friday he said players who protest don’t have any “real issues.”

"They're all saying, 'Oh, it has nothing to do with the flag, it's the way we've been treated,'" Trump said in an interview with Fox News. "In the meantime, they're making $15 million a year. Look, I'm all for the athletes. I think it's great. I love athletics. I love sports. But they shouldn't get the politics involved."

Some black athletes have said they would not attend championship celebrations traditionally held at the White House.

Trump uninvited the Philadelphia Eagles to the White House earlier this month to celebrate its Super Bowl championship when many players said they wouldn't attend. Some players who didn't want to go to the White House spent Friday doing community service at a local charter school in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins visits the Maya Angelou Public Charter School. (Photo: Thomas Kelly/Players Coalition)

Civil rights groups argue the protests aim to raise awareness about police brutality, particularly against people of color. They said in a democracy athletes should be able to peacefully protest against that violence.

“Compelling players to stand for the national anthem erodes the values that the flag represents and tells the world that the NFL does not care about racial justice,” they wrote to Goodell.

In addition to the Lawyers’ Committee, other groups calling for a reversal, include the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, the American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU), the National Immigration Law Center, the National Action Network, the Advancement Project and the Arab American Institute.

A recent Quinnipiac University national poll found 58 percent of voters don’t think kneeling is unpatriotic compared to 35 percent who do.

The poll also found voters 53 percent to 43 percent think professional athletes have the right to protest on the playing field or court. The response was divided along party lines with Democrats saying they had the right to protest 82 percent to 16 percent and Republicans saying they don’t have the right 81 percent to 16 percent.

The June 8 poll had a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

A little more than half – 51 percent to 42 percent – agree with the NFL rule requiring players on the field to stand, but 51 percent oppose fining the teams if players don’t stand during the anthem, according to the poll.

Clarke said the league is very diverse and should demonstrate greater sensitivity to such issues.

She said that there could be a disconnect between the league and the players. Many have had first-hand experiences with racial profiling.

In the letter to Goodell, the civil rights groups also took the NFL to task for its lack of diversity among team owners citing statistics that show 75 percent of the players are black, while 75 percent of the head coaches and all of the team CEOs and presidents are white.

“The recent decision to mandate the silence of players wishing to demonstrate for civil rights is even more appalling against the backdrop of the glaring racial disparities in the NFL,” they wrote.



THIS ARTICLE CONCERNS ANOTHER SET OF WIKILEAKS DISCLOSURES, DESCRIBED AS “CIA HACKING TOOLS.” THE SUSPECT’S LAWYER, DESPITE A LIST OF 13 COUNTS OF WHICH HE IS BEING CHARGED, SAYS THAT HE IS “HARDLY THE VILLAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MAKE HIM OUT TO BE.”

THE ARTICLE MENTIONS, THOUGH, THAT HE ALSO HAD CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MATERIALS. THAT ALONE IS ENOUGH TO TURN ME AGAINST HIM UP TO A POINT, NOT BECAUSE IT ISN’T WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT IS “HUMAN,” BUT BECAUSE I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO TRAFFIC IN THAT, AND I THINK THAT IT IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD ACTUAL PHYSICAL SEXUAL ABUSE. THOUGHT PRECEDES ACTION, AS THE SAYING GOES.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex-cia-worker-charged-with-disclosing-classified-information/ar-AAyPwgu
Ex-CIA worker charged with disclosing classified information
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press
JUNE 18, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH – CIA EMBLEM © SAUL LOEB / AFP FILES / AFP

NEW YORK — A former CIA employee from New York was charged Monday with the theft of classified national defense information from the agency that emerged publicly in March 2017, when WikiLeaks began releasing some of the CIA's hacking tools.

Joshua Adam Schulte, of Manhattan, was charged in a 13-count superseding indictment returned by a grand jury. He was expected to be arraigned on the charges on Wednesday.

According to the indictment, Schulte stole the classified information in 2016 and then transmitted it to an organization that purports to publicly distribute classified, sensitive and confidential information. The organization was not identified in court papers.

The indictment also charged Schulte, 29, with the receipt, possession and transportation of child pornography. Schulte already was detained on the child pornography charges.

In January, a prosecutor said Schulte was the target of an ongoing investigation into the theft of tools that were used by the CIA to spy overseas.

WikiLeaks began releasing some of the CIA's hacking tools in March 2017. The U.S. government has all but publicly acknowledged the embarrassing leak from the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence. President Donald Trump told a television host then, "I just want people to know the CIA was hacked, and a lot of things taken."

According to the indictment, Schulte took classified information that "concerned, among other things, the intelligence gathering capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Agency."

Prosecutors said last month that they expected to bring charges by July.

Schulte's lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, said in May that her client was "deeply saddened" that he might face espionage-related charges.

On Monday, she said: "When all the evidence is clear, he's hardly the villain that the government tries to make him out to be."

In a release, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said unlawful disclosure of classified intelligence "can pose a grave threat to our national security, potentially endangering the safety of all Americans."

William F. Sweeney Jr., head of the New York FBI office, said Schulte "utterly betrayed this nation and downright violated his victims. As an employee of the CIA, Schulte took an oath to protect this country, but he blatantly endangered it by the transmission of classified Information."

Schulte faces various charges, including illegal gathering of national defense information, illegal transmission of lawfully possessed national defense information, unauthorized access to a computer to obtain classified information, theft of government property, causing transmission of a harmful computer program, information, code or command.

If convicted, he could face decades in prison.



I DEFINITELY DO WANT AN EXAMINATION OF THE TRUTH OF THIS CHILD SEPARATION STORY AS MUCH AS AG SESSIONS DOES. I JUST WISH I COULD KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY THAT A HALF-CRAZED OR HALF-INTELLIGENT BORDER PATROL WORKER DIDN’T ACTUALLY DO AN INHUMANE THING OF THIS TYPE. MY KNEE-JERK REACTION HERE IS TO DISBELIEVE THE TRUTH OR EXTENT OF THE STORY, BECAUSE IT’S SO MUCH LIKE THAT RUSSIAN PSEUDO-INFORMATION WITH WHICH WE HAVE BEEN BOMBARDED LATELY; BUT I WANT A CONGRESSIONAL AND SENATORIAL EXPLORATION INTO THE WHOLE OVERHEATED BORDER ISSUE, AS A SITUATION READY FOR THE SPARK THAT STARTS A CONFLAGRATION OF MASS EMOTION.

THERE IS A NEED TO EXAMINE EYE WITNESSES AND VIDEO/CAMERA EVIDENCE ON BORDER PATROL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL; TO DETERMINE HOW THESE BORDER PATROL WORKERS ACTUALLY ARE BEING RECRUITED, SELECTED, TRAINED, WORKING AND ARE SUPERVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER STORIES ABOUT BORDER PATROL PROBLEMS INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE INVOLVING SEVERAL WHO WERE FOUND DEAD RECENTLY, AS THOUGH A SMALL GROUP WERE ATTACKED. I PERSONALLY WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE PRESS STORIES FOR MORE FACTUAL INFORMATION AND HUMAN INTERVIEWS. MY SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO THAT EFFORT IS THE MSN.COM STORY THAT I HAVE INCLUDED BELOW.

I DON’T “BELIEVE” THIS STORY, BECAUSE I DON’T WANT IT TO BE TRUE; BUT I DON’T DISBELIEVE IT EITHER, BECAUSE SIMILAR THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. THERE WILL BE NO SOLID PROOF WITHOUT A SKEPTICAL BUT PROBING EXAMINATION; AND THE SPECIFICS OF THE STORY, WHILE HORRIFIC IN NATURE, ARE NOTHING BESIDE THE POSSIBILITIES OF ITS’ OCCURRING ON A BROADER SCALE. WE MUST LOOK INTO THIS, SO WRITE YOUR CONGRESSIONAL AND SENATORIAL REPRESENTATIVES AND SEND IT TO THEM VIA EMAIL. HOW MANY CASES ARE THERE WHICH HAVEN’T BEEN REPORTED UNTIL NOW? SHOULD WE PRAY ABOUT IT? YES, BY ALL MEANS, BUT TAKE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP ACTION ALSO!

ON THE OTHER HAND, I WOULDN’T LET THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR ONE FARTHER TO THE RIGHT, SUCH AS THE TRUMPIANS, HAVE THE LEAD IN THE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE. LIBERALS NEED TO BE REPRESENTED EQUALLY ON THE COMMITTEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACT OF ABOUT TWO THOUSAND DETAINED CHILDREN AT THIS POINT, IS ANOTHER CIRCUMSTANCE CRYING OUT FOR AN OVERSIGHT PANEL. WHEN I SEARCHED THE TERM “BORDER PATROL OVERSIGHT,” I CAME UP WITH AN ENTRY FOR TEXAS ONLY. IS THERE NOTHING ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL? IF NOT, WE NEED TO START ONE NOW.

FOR THE MOST INFORMATION THAT I’VE SEEN TONIGHT, I SUGGEST THE CNN SITE FOR ITS’ CONTINUOUS COVERAGE. TRUMP HATES IT FOR ITS' UNRELENTING ATTENTION ON WHAT HE DOES, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS INFORMATIONAL. THEN SEE THE MSN RUNDOWN BELOW ON WHAT INFORMATION IS KNOWN, INCLUDING A CITATION OF THE “THE LAW” THAT TRUMP SAYS HE “MUST” FOLLOW. THIS MSN (LA TIMES) ARTICLE TAKES AROUND A DOZEN PARAGRAPHS TO GET TO THE HOT BUTTON QUESTION HERE, WHICH ANNOYS ME, AND THEN IT ISN’T ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY, IN MY VIEW AT ANY RATE; BUT THE EXCERPT HERE IS WHAT I FOUND:


“CNN reported Thursday that Border Patrol agents took a breastfeeding baby from an immigrant mother. Is that true? Is there a cutoff age for separating migrant children from parents?

A. Homeland Security officials denied the CNN report, which quoted a lawyer for the Texas Civil Rights Project relaying the experiences of a Honduran woman. "We do not separate babies from adults," an official said, except in cases where a person poses a threat or is believed not to be the parent.

Officials declined to specify an age at which they would not separate immigrant children from parents.

Lawyers at the Texas Civil Rights Project questioned the government response. "We stand by our accurate recounting of what was told to us during the short period we are able to conduct the interview," in federal criminal court, said Natalia Cornelio, the group's criminal justice director. "It is egregious that they would go after this woman's story rather than divert the much-needed time and resources to these manufactured human rights crises. I know what I heard from this lady. She told it to me in tears. I have no reason to doubt the traumatic event she experienced."


THE WHOLE MSN STORY, BROKEN DOWN INTO DISCREET SECTIONS BY SUBJECT, IS A HELPFUL STRUCTURE TO CATCH UP ON WHAT EXACTLY HAS HAPPENED. THE ACTUAL CHANGE THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IS TO CRIMINALLY CHARGE EVERY SINGLE ADULT WHO IS CAUGHT CROSSING THE BORDER EVEN WITH NO OTHER CRIME INVOLVED, WITH NO PRIOR ATTEMPTS, AND WITH NO REGARD TO THE PRESENCE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

THE STORY GIVES INFORMATION ON THE TRUE OR UNTRUE STATEMENT THAT A BABY WAS REMOVED FROM THE MOTHER’S ARMS, WITH THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT THIS HAPPENED WHILE IT WAS NURSING. THE PHRASE “NURSING” CAN ALSO MEAN THAT THE CHILD HAS NOT YET BEEN WEANED. DHS, STONEWALLING, ONLY SAID “WE DO NOT” SEPARATE INFANTS FROM PARENTS,” RATHER THAN “NO, WE DID NOT DO THAT,” IN THIS INSTANCE. IT ALSO DID NOT GIVE THE EXACT AGE AT WHICH A CHILD WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE PARENT. TODDLERS? EIGHT YEAR OLDS? BESIDES, GIVING A POLICY STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT THE SAME THING AS VERIFYING A PIECE OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION.

RACHEL MADDOW POINTED OUT SOME WEEKS BACK THAT THE WORST THINGS THAT HE HAS DONE HAVE HAPPENED QUIETLY, WHILE HE AT THE SAME TIME MADE SOME KIND OF ATTENTION-GETTING PLOY, SUCH AS SEVERAL ARTICLES OF A STARTLING NATURE:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44527672 -- “Trump space force: US to set up sixth military branch” AND
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/18/trump-threatens-new-tariffs-chinese-goods/712613002/, Trump threatens to slap new tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/trump-tweets/index.html, “Donald Trump's Twitter feed is getting more and more bizarre” (HEAD ARTICLE ABOVE.)


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/qanda-was-a-breastfeeding-infant-really-taken-from-an-immigrant-mother/ar-AAyOAPJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Q&A: Was a breastfeeding infant really taken from an immigrant mother?
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times
JUNE 18, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- © Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a Medal of Valor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, on February 20, 2018, in Washington, D.C.

BROWNSVILLE, Texas - Last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy of charging migrants in federal criminal court before their cases reach immigration court. When adults are taken to court, they are separated from their children, who are sent to shelters.

Immigrant advocates have sued the government to stop the practice and critics have called it cruel and inhumane. Here's a guide to key issues concerning family separations.

___

Q. Trump administration officials, from Sessions to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, have said immigrant families are being separated because it's the law - what law are they referring to?

A. They're referring to Title 8 of U.S. Code 1325 and 1326. Federal district courts in border cities such as McAllen, Texas, are now packed with migrants charged with 1325, illegal entry, a misdemeanor, or 1326, illegal re-entry, a felony. The misdemeanor charge carries a potential six-month sentence, but most people are sentenced to time served. The felony charge carries a sentence of up to two years.

Q. Is charging immigrants in criminal court new?

A. No. They have been charged, jailed, shackled, taken to court, convicted and sentenced en masse on some stretches of the border since 2005 through a Department of Homeland Security effort called Operation Streamline. At a court in the west Texas town of Pecos last fall, dozens of Central American men in orange jumpsuits, shackled together, listened on headsets as a translator explained that they were collectively being charged, convicted and sentenced.

What's new is making no exceptions and charging all adults, including parents. Such prosecutions, which started last year in Arizona and El Paso, Texas, are now done borderwide, with the greatest impact in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, where most immigrants cross into the U.S.

Jeff Sessions wearing a suit and tie: Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a Medal of Valor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, on February 20, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
© Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a Medal of Valor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, on February 20, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
The goal is to eventually deter migrants, officials said. "There is a straight cause-and-effect with this. The number of (unaccompanied minors) and families has grown dramatically over the last few years because of not prosecuting family members. It's a clear line - cause and effect. That's why we have to do this," a Homeland Security official said during a briefing with reporters Friday.

Q. Is the practice of separating parents and children being challenged?

A. Yes. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of a Congolese mother detained in San Diego and a Brazilian mother who was charged in El Paso while their children were sent to shelters in Chicago.

Last month, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Women's Refugee Commission, University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic and Garcia & Garcia Attorneys also filed an Emergency Request for Precautionary Measures with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of separated families. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other groups had already complained last fall to the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Inspector General challenging the separations.

Q. How are migrant children separated from their parents?

A. In the Rio Grande Valley, Border Patrol agents who catch immigrant families have been advised not to separate them in the field, officials said. They wait until after they drive families to the central processing center in McAllen.

Parents have complained to immigrant rights groups that authorities don't explain what's happening or are deceptive. The Texas Civil Rights Project has documented cases of parents who said they were told their children were being taken for a bath at the processing center. Instead, the children were separated from the parents. Federal public defenders said they have heard similar accounts.

Parents who appeared in federal court in McAllen earlier this month appeared confused about where their children had been taken, why and whether they would be reunified. When they asked the judge and Border Patrol agents for clarity, they did not receive answers.

Homeland Security officials denied Friday that information was withheld from immigrants. Officials said that before parents in the Rio Grande Valley are taken from the processing center to court they are given fliers explaining the family separation process in English and Spanish. The parents are also allowed to see their children before they leave for court and detention, officials said.

"Accusations of surreptitious efforts to separate are completely false," a Homeland Security official said.

Q. Are immigrant children being held on the border - where temperatures often climb past 100 in the summer - in tents?

Last week, Health and Human Services opened what it called a "soft-sided" and "semi-permanent" shelter for 360 unaccompanied minors outside El Paso in Tornillo, Texas. Immigrant advocates decried the desert shelter as a "tent city." Similar facilities were erected after an influx of Central American families arrived in the U.S. in 2014, but were later dismantled. Health and Human Services is also considering whether to open temporary shelters at military bases near the border, as it did in 2012.

Q. Has separating families discouraged immigration?

A. It's too soon to say. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said that because it can take Central Americans about a month to journey with a smuggler to the border, the impact of the new policy is unclear.

The number of immigrants who sought asylum or were caught crossing the southern border in May - 51,912 - is about the same as the totals for the previous two months.

Overall, the number of families caught crossing has actually increased 17 percent in the past six months, and by 37 percent in the busy Rio Grande Valley, according to Border Patrol figures.

Q. How many children have been separated from their parents on the border, and where do they go?

A. A total of 1,995 children have been separated from 1,940 adult guardians who were prosecuted for entering the country illegally from April 19 to May 31, officials said Friday.

Children held by Border Patrol must be turned over within 72 hours to Health and Human Services, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement places them in shelters. HHS contracts with 100 shelters in 17 states. They currently house 11,432 migrant children.

Adults charged in federal criminal court are transferred to the custody of U.S. marshals, held at adult detention facilities, local jails and as of this month, federal prisons.

Q. CNN reported Thursday that Border Patrol agents took a breastfeeding baby from an immigrant mother. Is that true? Is there a cutoff age for separating migrant children from parents?

A. Homeland Security officials denied the CNN report, which quoted a lawyer for the Texas Civil Rights Project relaying the experiences of a Honduran woman. "We do not separate babies from adults," an official said, except in cases where a person poses a threat or is believed not to be the parent.

Officials declined to specify an age at which they would not separate immigrant children from parents.

Lawyers at the Texas Civil Rights Project questioned the government response. "We stand by our accurate recounting of what was told to us during the short period we are able to conduct the interview," in federal criminal court, said Natalia Cornelio, the group's criminal justice director. "It is egregious that they would go after this woman's story rather than divert the much-needed time and resources to these manufactured human rights crises. I know what I heard from this lady. She told it to me in tears. I have no reason to doubt the traumatic event she experienced."

Q. Reporters last week were allowed to tour a shelter for immigrant children in Brownsville. Who runs these shelters, and how are children treated?

A. The Casa Padre shelter is run by Southwest Key, an Austin, Texas-based nonprofit, among the largest shelter providers in the country with 27 facilities in Arizona, California and Texas housing thousands of youth. The Brownsville shelter was state licensed to house 1,200 youth and recently received a variance to house 297 more. On Wednesday, it had 1,469 boys ages 10 to 17.

The former Walmart was clean, divided into dorm rooms with spare cots set up for added children. Boys stood in the hallways wearing T-shirts and basketball shorts, some smiling and saying hello. Reporters touring the facility were not allowed to speak with the children or staff. Boys could be seen playing video games, soccer and basketball. There are classrooms, and officials said children receive six hours of daily instruction.

However, a youth care worker at a Southwest Key shelter in Tucson, Ariz., resigned last week because of what he called understaffing and chronic problems. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said conditions at the shelter have led to children running away and attempting suicide.

Q. Are U.S. officials turning back asylum-seeking families at the border?

A. Homeland Security officials insist families are not being prevented from seeking asylum at border crossings. "That is not true at all," an official said Friday. "They will be allowed to make their claim in court."

But just when immigrants can make a claim is unclear. Customs officials on border bridges have stopped scores of Latin American families that have camped out on the bridges with their children, sometimes for weeks, without access to showers or a steady supply of food and water. In Hidalgo, Texas, migrants were forced to wait even after they crossed to the U.S. side of the bridge. After hearing those reports, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and other congressional lawmakers planned to visit the Hidalgo bridge Sunday.

Those who asked to enter the U.S. to apply for asylum have been told they had to wait until there was detention space. Legal advocates insisted that was not a legal justification for blocking asylum-seeking families from entering the country.

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com


WHO IS WATCHING THE BORDER PATROL, BESIDES DHS? POGO DOES.

http://www.pogo.org/about/
PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT


BORDER PATROL AGENT PUNISHED FOR REPORTING WRONGDOING

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/10/dhs-cbp-border-patrol-officer-punished-for-reporting-wrongdoing.html
Customs and Border Protection Officer Punished for Reporting Wrongdoing
October 12, 2017

PHOTOGRAPH -- (Photo: US Customs and Border Protection / Flickr) -- US Customs and Border Protection agents await a bus for inspection. (Photo: US Customs and Border Protection / Flickr)

Customs and Border Protection Officer Punished for Reporting Wrongdoing
October 12, 2017

US Customs and Border Protection agents await a bus for inspection. (Photo: US Customs and Border Protection / Flickr)
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer in Detroit faced retaliation for a protected disclosure of wrongdoing last year, according to a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) report.

The officer raised concerns that his colleagues were violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by stopping drivers who had turned down the street to the Canadian border by mistake. The officer claimed when drivers realized their mistake and turned around to avoid leaving the United States, his colleagues would chase them down, stop them, and subject them to a search. The officer also alleged some of his fellow Detroit CBP coworkers were engaging in racial profiling by specifically targeting black drivers.

When a supervisor learned of the officer’s intention to call CBP’s Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) to report his concerns, the supervisor ordered the officer not to call. The officer disobeyed and called in May 2016, but he was never put through to the OCC attorney responsible for his region. The attorney did not call the officer back, but instead called a supervisor to report the officer’s “unprofessional” behavior on the phone with his legal assistant. When the OCC attorney asked if the Detroit Port still needed legal counsel, the supervisor said no and the officer’s concerns remained unreported.

The supervisor who ordered the officer not to call wrote a memo reporting the officer’s actions, and in August 2016 the officer received a Letter of Reprimand charging him with “insubordination and unprofessional conduct.” Letters of reprimand are considered disciplinary action and can be used to justify further disciplinary action up to 18 months after they are issued.

The DHS OIG found that the supervisor retaliated against the officer for his disclosures of potential wrongdoing, which includes allegations where there is a reasonable belief that there has been a violation of law or abuse of authority. A week after receiving the reprimand the officer filed a complaint with the DHS OIG.

The DHS OIG investigated and concluded that the officer’s complaints were protected disclosures and that the disciplinary action taken against him was retaliation. While the OIG was investigating the reprisal case, the officer and CBP reached a settlement rescinding the letter of reprimand and sending the supervisor to professionalism training.

The DHS OIG report is silent on whether CBP or the DHS OIG investigated the officer’s original disclosures of potential Fourth Amendment violations and racial profiling. At time of print, neither office had returned the Project On Government Oversight’s request for comment on the status or existence of such an investigation.

There are heightened civil liberties concerns at U.S. borders. It is well established that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches are less strict at U.S. borders and at any fixed CBP checkpoint set up within the 100-mile zone as officers at those locations do not need probable cause to search vehicles and question drivers about their immigration status. Additionally, in 2014 the Department of Justice issued a new guidance for federal law enforcement to curtail racial profiling, but a footnote openly exempted CBP from these rules: “this Guidance does not apply to activities in the vicinity of the border, or to protective, inspection, or screening activities.”

Chris Rickerd, a policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) National Political Advocacy Department told POGO, despite the fact that "border patrol has extraordinary authority to do things they couldn't do as law enforcement elsewhere in the country," people still have rights. The 100-mile zone "is not a constitution free zone," he added.

There are plenty of examples of people successfully fighting for their rights in these zones: in 1973, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (413 U.S. 266) that officers on roving patrol “may search for aliens without a warrant if there is probable cause … But without probable cause, the majority holds the search unreasonable”; in 2013 the ACLU and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) reached a settlement with the U.S. Border Patrol establishing that Olympic Peninsula agents must base any vehicle stops away from the border on reasonable suspicion that an individual is breaking the law; and as recently as August of this year the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Sanchez v. Sessions that seizures based solely on race or ethnicity are illegal.

Even if the whistleblower’s disclosures are investigated, there are challenges in proving these types of claims since Border Patrol agents are only required to report stops that end in an arrest. Law professor Jane Bambauer explained in a 2015 New York Times article that recordkeeping is “critical to accountability.” Without these records, there is no way to evaluate the effectiveness of the stops.

The complaints raised by the officer highlight the ambiguous nature of CBP powers in regards to the Fourth Amendment and the potential for abuse. Is it legal for CBP officers to search without probable cause the cars of drivers who have no intention of crossing the border? What criteria is used by officers when deciding to pull drivers over?

Five days after President Trump was inaugurated, he issued an Executive Order mandating that CBP hire 5,000 more agents and take other actions to more aggressively police U.S. borders. Before rubberstamping Trump’s policy direction and authorizing more resources, Congress should take a closer look at concerns raised by the CBP whistleblower and others like him to learn more about the agency’s effectiveness and whether its personnel are taking actions that violate civil liberties and constitutional protections.

POGO initially described the officer as a "Border Patrol Officer" in the first headline for this post. He is actually a "Customs and Border Protection Officer."

By: Amelia Strauss
Research Associate, POGO
Amelia Strauss Amelia Strauss is a Research Associate at the Project On Government Oversight

Topics: Government Accountability, Whistleblower Protections

Related Content: Inspector General Oversight, Department of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security, Effective Government

Authors: Amelia Strauss



I DON’T BELIEVE FROM WHAT I’VE SEEN THAT OUR TECHNICAL ABILITY IS UP TO THIS. I ALSO DON’T THINK WE NEED A “MILITARY” PRESENCE IN SPACE. STAR FLEET, WE AREN’T. A SCIENTIFIC PRESENCE, YES.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-orders-creation-of-space-focused-us-military-branch/ar-AAyOVLL?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Trump orders creation of space-focused U.S. military branch
REUTERS
JUNE 18, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- © REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst U.S. President Trump hosts a meeting of the National Space Council at the White House in Washington

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday said he was ordering the creation of a sixth branch of the military to focus on space, a move critics said could harm the Air Force.

"It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space," Trump said before a meeting of his National Space Council.

"We are going to have the Air Force and we're going to have the 'Space Force.' Separate but equal. It is going to be something," he said later.

The United States is a member of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bars the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space and only allows for the use of the moon and other celestial bodies for peaceful purposes.

The idea of a Space Force has been raised before, by Trump and previous administrations, with proponents saying it would make the Pentagon more efficient.

It has also faced criticism from senior military officials. Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein told a 2017 congressional hearing that creating a new space branch would "move us in the wrong direction." The Air Force oversees most of the nation's space-related military activity.

The move would require the budgetary approval of the U.S. Congress, which has been divided on the idea.

"Thankfully the president can't do it without Congress because now is NOT the time to rip the Air Force apart. Too many missions at stake," U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, said on Twitter.

A U.S. defense official said the Pentagon would work with Congress to implement the order.

"Space is a war fighting domain, so it is vital that our military maintains its dominance and competitive advantage in that domain," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In December, the president signed a directive that he said would enable astronauts to return to the moon and eventually lead a mission to Mars. He has ordered the government to review regulations on commercial space flights.

Americans first landed on the moon in 1969, reaching a goal set by former President John F. Kennedy in 1961 and capping a decade-long space race between Washington and Moscow.

Since then, U.S. efforts to explore beyond the Earth's orbit have largely focused on remote spacecraft that do not have human crew members, though American presidents have raised the idea of sending humans back to the moon or further.