Thứ Bảy, 1 tháng 12, 2018

News on Youtube Dec 1 2018

At Wells Fargo Center is tops in the NBA

their homestand continues against the Washington Wizards on NBC stands for the Sixers

Will be the second year player Thomas or the season

After missing a pair, this is Bill

Bradley Beal comes in their leading scorer Redick and

Here come the Wizards after the JJ Redick miss running the floor and slamming for two

Thomas Beale and Butler glued to him and the strip of Bradley Beal

nice hands with Jimmy Butler

Simmons all the way to the cup boys six from the floor nearly giving it up and be for a three

Butler kept it alive for Chandler not once but twice

numbers

Which visible play not gonna hurt you folks would say

boy Redick the fake - and b2

Somebody who can hurt but got the crowded

I

Slipped by who

Comes up with the mrs. Fourth in the NBA and rebounds per game. That was Simmons between the legs and be

Pretty assistant jumper has a blue-gray and his defense because of his length and athleticism has really taken strides to he's good

And they're used to me he me buzz

Skip toddler ticket Brian's a lot of credit Serena and I were talking about it before the game

He started off the season into G. Lee isn't expected to be here till Dubreuil

It's another yeah meantime to your earlier point about a break no hits the three. Yeah

He did not have that in Lawrence points hits his first three

Ball all the way to the cup for two hits the deck as well

Connell off the Uranus which was really intense

Setting bins Simmons free to do his

Sixers right now their largest lead at nine my spot by Simmons for fire Courtney

Rivers got it done. Curious Hildy and when he's got that medium-range game going like that right there

tough to covers TJ McConnell thrilled Scala stuck on the guard rivers

He'll settle for three and he trains it austin rip get over fifty for a game that's good, that's pretty good

We put that tells you a lot of mrs

Chandler a second bucket. Here's Butler

Then rent hit 67, we should mention number six who's got it now Troy brown jr. Looking at a par again there

He makes the correct play more than that. It's hard with Otto Porter. Who's not even in the lineup right now

And bean squeezing and he turns it over and took it back

Chandler for three

Present he's adventurous via to dribble

Talk they're gonna be back

That's his job

if John Wall very risky to do both these because he usually used the off leg as a barometer for how strong the

Recovery leg is and they didn't have that

You see how wall played good defense didn't allow muscala in front of him stayed in between the ball and him. Oh boy

Feels and there one from the scholar suite past the halfway point of the second wall with a tough two inside

And a technical is being this six is right now, just Peter who?

That's a good offensive exchange for the Wizards

Markieff Morris now he's gotten the room. He Landry shaman in his sights

Butler against field thought it done Rose dribble-drive as well. So he's a handful he's covered but he's always had that

They've riche emic no love from the official he shied away from the contact you can land as it ask for a foul Oh

Simmons the slightest these are teams shooting free-throws particularly. Well in the Wizards utterly getting to the line with Scala

blocking the shot of John Wall

Ready to shoot. Yep, always ready to shoot Landry shaman. That's his role. It's supposed to look

Jeff Green has been quiet offensively

had muscala on on that time and he buried it its first shot he's taken but he could score he could score putts as we

Talked about again that Cavalier game last year when he was in

Ben Simmons finished the job complimenti went out first boy the Wizards name made it a game

They got to within nine suddenly the Sixers by 22 their largest lead. It's rivers and he answered

Open the Scala

buries the three mighty 222

More to treat this dirt hoarder as a zero zero score line come back with that same kind of effort

wizards again Butler prowling the passing lane rubric junior mint by and bead

Sixers trying to lock all windows and doors the heat by wall

Butler for three got it

Nearly a complete player

Came in all-star last year some be recognized for that and then beat had it blocked got his back and scored this for him

Ready got it

That was for two faretta who's got a dozen field leading the other way of Ana finish it Conan

and Washington, they're gonna be challenged here to get over a hundred themselves as McConnell got all the

Next Toronto game were third quarter. They he didn't even hit the Ridley's make his shot wall net rotten in

Sixers matching their largest lead at 29

That is Troy brown same additive zone oh

My oh boy, oh he carried that forth double

Shaman rather help these three and he rattles that in

It would be ideal now breath ground and keep all the starters on the bench

To Watson good times, but now they're playing here in the fourth quarter

NBC Sports, Philadelphia it all likelihood the second straight route for the Sixers kid J McConnell

Wow summer's draft and he wasted no time

on his first touch got his first NBA bucket, his court passe gets in there and gets

Big bread brown a great yeah

Good side that the Sixers are winning games without Jimmy at his best, but nonetheless

Devin Robinson

Jason Smith hits the three

Note off the bobble by Smith muscala for a3 got it

Passed when mr. Milton's showing us what he's capable of she got more game than Milton Bradley. I

Believe was gonna come back the basketball version of a cherry on top

6s by 26 points that is Bryant squeezing in against muscala. He got it done

I know for despite to leave

He kind of struggle the last 2-3 minutes of the game and you leave the court with a bad taste in your mouth

I think it's all about how you feeling

Tango's work laws when to steal on veterans piece of Smith

Burke on korkmaz for the Sixers. He's got 13

Boy muscala the bitch who served him well

It's a nice league give up and muscala had it blocked at the other end. Despite the good feed from court boss

There Robert

Slam and that's going to do it

The Sixers will win back-to-back games

By 25 or more. So first time since March of 2000 each

TJ McConnell, one of eight Sixers of double figures they win their third straight their seventh in their last eight and their fifth straight win

For more infomation >> Philadelphia Sixers vs Washington Wizards Full Game Highlights | 11.30.2018, NBA Season - Duration: 9:35.

-------------------------------------------

Matthew Whitaker's past criticisms of Donald Trump - Duration: 3:48.

For more infomation >> Matthew Whitaker's past criticisms of Donald Trump - Duration: 3:48.

-------------------------------------------

A guide to the movie references in Ariana Grande's 'thank u, next' video - Duration: 2:35.

For more infomation >> A guide to the movie references in Ariana Grande's 'thank u, next' video - Duration: 2:35.

-------------------------------------------

A 7-magnitude earthquake struck Alaska. See the damage it left behind. - Duration: 1:24.

For more infomation >> A 7-magnitude earthquake struck Alaska. See the damage it left behind. - Duration: 1:24.

-------------------------------------------

Why Trump has become 'Individual 1' in Mueller's investigation - Duration: 3:27.

For more infomation >> Why Trump has become 'Individual 1' in Mueller's investigation - Duration: 3:27.

-------------------------------------------

George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, dies at 94 - Duration: 3:23.

For more infomation >> George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, dies at 94 - Duration: 3:23.

-------------------------------------------

Russia probe developments follow President Trump abroad - Duration: 22:34.

ROBERT COSTA: Individual one. President Trump emerges as a subject of interest in the

Mueller probe. I'm Robert Costa. Welcome to Washington Week.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) He is a weak person and what he's trying to do is

get a reduced sentence. So he's lying about a project that everybody knew about.

ROBERT COSTA: President Trump battles his former personal attorney and defends his

business with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: (From video.) We were very open with it. We were thinking about

building a building. I decided ultimately not to do it.

There would have been nothing wrong if I did do it.

ROBERT COSTA: But those talks for a Trump Tower in Moscow are now under intense

scrutiny, as Cohen admits he lied to Congress and the president continues his political

war with Robert Mueller after the special counsel withdrew a plea deal with former Trump

campaign chairman Paul Manafort. All this as the president is abroad in Argentina along

with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The latest reporting, next.

ANNOUNCER: This is Washington Week. Once again, from Washington, moderator Robert Costa.

ROBERT COSTA: Good evening. The Russia probe that has long gripped the Trump presidency

was jolted this week by Michael Cohen, the president's former lawyer, who admitted he

lied to Congress about what was called the Moscow project.

Cohen had testified that talks about building a Trump Tower in Russia had fizzled by

early 2016, but in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday Cohen said that discussions about

the project actually went into the summer of 2016, deep into the presidential campaign.

This development raises new questions: Did the president's business pursuits with Russia

shape his campaign or his message?

And what does it reveal about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation?

Joining me tonight to discuss all of this are three seasoned reporters on this

fast-moving beat: Michael Schmidt, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning national security

reporter with The New York Times; Susan Glasser, staff writer for The New Yorker and

author of the weekly Letter From Trump's Washington column; and Rosalind Helderman,

political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post, who won a

Pulitzer Prize this year. Michael great to have you here on Washington Week.

You've been reporting on Mueller for so long. There are so many pieces to this puzzle.

What does this piece - the Cohen piece, the development this week, his cooperation - tell

us about where Bob Mueller's going with his entire investigation?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Well, it shows, obviously, that he continues to go deeper and deeper

inside that inner circle of the president's in really trying to figure out what was going

on during the campaign.

But I think more importantly he's continuing to tell the story of the different pieces of

the pie of what was going on in the summer of 2016 - the Russians were reaching out to

try and meet with his son, they were starting to do things on social media to undermine

our democracy, and they were also trying to do business with the president - and trying

to lay out for the average person in this country through these documents the history and

the story of this to give us a greater understanding of it.

ROBERT COSTA: The president's defending his conduct, all these different conversations.

He began the day with a series of tweets mocking the Mueller probe and defending his

pursuit of the real estate project in Moscow.

He wrote in part: "I decide to run for President & continue to run my business-very legal

& very cool, talked about it on the campaign trail." But most Democrats have sounded the

alarm, including House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff of California.

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): (From video.) It means that when the president was

representing during the campaign that he had no business interests in Russia, that that wasn't true.

ROBERT COSTA: I just want to follow up on something you said, Mike. It raises questions

about what President Trump was doing during the 2016 campaign, about the timeline.

He just submitted questions, written answers to Robert Mueller.

Is there a perjury question now for President Trump and his legal team?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: As soon as we saw the plea deal with Cohen, the thought that we had was

what's in the answers, because we knew from reporting earlier this year that Mueller

wanted to ask him about this deal. He wanted to know who he spoke to.

And if you're trying to understand the criminal exposure, the political exposure that the

president has, you have to find out what that answer was.

So we went - we pushed on the president's lawyers to get that, and what they say is that

what the president put in those answers lines up with what Cohen said, and that he's fine

there. Now, in a Trumpian twist, the president came out from the White House after

Cohen pled and said he was lying that day. He called him a liar and said he was lying

to reduce his sentence. Well, if Cohen is lying, then what - it doesn't line up with what

the president was saying in his answers. So, you know, sort of classic Trump there.

ROBERT COSTA: Maybe Mueller comes back for more questions for the president about all of

this at some point.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: I find it very hard to believe that Bob Mueller will be simply

satisfied with written responses from Donald Trump on a small sliver of the investigation.

ROBERT COSTA: Ros, also great to have you here at the table. You've been following

Michael Cohen for so long. We've been questioning for a long time at the Post and

elsewhere how valuable he really is to Robert Mueller's investigation.

What does your reporting tell you about that question?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Well, we know it was revealed yesterday that he sat down with Bob

Mueller's team I believe seven separate times just in the last few months, so there's a

lot of information. I mean, this is a guy who was really Donald Trump's sort of

right-hand man within the Trump Organization, had a lot of involvement with basically

all of the sort of dirtiest secrets of the Trump Organization.

Obviously, we've seen, involved deeply with the payments to women prior to the election

to silence them, but also just a lot of Donald Trump's overseas international business

expansion. So he's a guy with a wealth of knowledge. The problem is he's also a guy,

like so many people in Trump world, who has a tendency to exaggerate and to lie.

And so you can be sure that Bob Mueller is gathering every piece of paper he can to try

to get corroboration for anything he's being told by Michael Cohen.

ROBERT COSTA: But this development this week, does this tell us that Mueller sees Cohen

as pretty credible, at least?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: It certainly shows that he believes that Cohen has important

information to share, and certainly that he has a lot of additional evidence to back up

anything he plans to use.

ROBERT COSTA: Susan, you've lived in Moscow. You've written a book about Vladimir Putin.

You know this country. The timing here really matters.

It comes just as Russia is mounting its interference campaign in 2016, then-candidate

Trump engaging with Russians at the same time. What does it tell us about Russia

and Putin that they were doing both of these things simultaneously?

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, you know, I think that's an excellent question because that's the

thing that immediately occurred to me.

When you look at what Cohen is testifying to and what was included in this agreement that

Mueller brought to court the other day, it includes the information that multiple times

Michael Cohen reached out to and interacted with Vladimir Putin's office through his

spokesman - through the office of his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, who I know - who's been

Putin's spokesman, by the way, since the very beginning of his term. He's one of Putin's

closest advisors. So he's not just like a press secretary; he's been with Putin since

Putin became president in the year 2000, so 18 years, right, and is reputed to have

grown very wealthy at the side of Vladimir Putin. And so it's not just some random

official that they're interacting with. But think about this. Think about this:

weaponizing information - "kompromat" they call it in Russian - is, you know, a

trademark of this new Russian power elite in the post-Soviet era. And what does it mean?

Potentially, it means that Donald Trump and his advisor Michael Cohen have offered Putin

an enormous amount of potentially compromising information on him to use in the middle of

a political campaign. As you pointed out, Putin's government, according to U.S.

intelligence, was already mobilizing to support Donald Trump in the election using

influence methods. But separately, he's seeking - he's offering him more information.

ROBERT COSTA: You had this marvelous profile of Adam Schiff, the ranking member, who's

going to be the new chair of the Intelligence Committee when House Democrats take over in

January. As House Democrats process all of this, as Schiff watches

all of this, what can we expect from them?

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, first of all, this is the first charge from the Mueller case to

result from lying to Congress.

And so what happened is that Michael Cohen is actually pleading guilty to having lied to

Capitol Hill when he was called to testify in their earlier investigation.

As you know, there was a very partisan report that was put out by the House Republicans

on the Intelligence Committee, who then shut down their investigation.

Democrats, under Congressman Schiff, have vowed to reopen an investigation.

The first thing they want to do is release transcripts of the many interviews that they

took with people. They say there are other people who likely committed perjury and

that may now be charged by Mueller's investigative team as a result.

For example, Congressman Schiff specifically named Roger Stone as one of those who he

believed was not truthful with their committee.

ROBERT COSTA: What about at the Department of Justice? You've been following the

obstruction side of this for so long, Mike. You have an acting attorney general,

Matt Whitaker. How does he respond to this? How are they handling this?

Are they on edge that the president could try to disrupt Mueller?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Well, it seemed from what sort of we've learned in the past few days

that Whitaker has not been very involved in the Russia matter and that it has stayed

underneath Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. There does not appear to have

been any real interest by Whitaker so far in getting involved in the Mueller investigation.

He knows that everyone is closely looking at him, whether he does anything towards this

and whether that is part of a continued obstruction. The problem is is that the

president put him there because he felt comfortable with him. He knew what he had said

about the Russia investigation. He knew that Whitaker had been very skeptical of it.

Whitaker had spent a lot of time with the president, had built a real rapport with him

and Whitaker was someone that no one at the senior levels of the Justice Department

thought really deserved the job. So there's this sort of weird dynamic there where the

president has someone, there is this ongoing investigation, it's still being run by Rosenstein.

ROBERT COSTA: If that's the dynamic, why aren't Senate Republicans trying to protect

Mueller with legislation?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Well, that legislation, it looked like it died again this week.

I mean, it seems like it's died a few times, but more recently died this week.

And, you know, for whatever reason, they don't feel the need to do this.

And I'm not sure why. I mean, they seem very attuned to public opinion on this,

maybe the Republicans really don't care about it. Will it take something else

of the president doing to get them to do that? I'm not sure.

ROBERT COSTA: The other issue, Ros, of this whole thing brought up this week was

President Trump kept telling us in the campaign he had nothing to do with Russia, no

money involved with Russia.

But this week, we learned that the Moscow project, thanks in part to your reporting,

wasn't the first attempt by President Trump to expand his brand into Russia.

You wrote in your story, quote, "It was a dream born in the 1980s, a gleaming Trump Tower

in the heart of Soviet Moscow. For Donald Trump, that vision never died, even as he

launched a presidential campaign." What explains this decades-long effort with Russia?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: I think Trump wanted to do a thing he had set out to do years ago

and he hadn't succeeded. I think you have to look at Cohen's activities during the

campaign against that backdrop. I mean, Cohen was a guy who wanted to please the boss.

That was sort of his self-image was being Donald Trump's man. And so he understood,

if he could finally get the Trump Tower deal in Moscow done, he would really get in

good with the boss. And you have this history. Trump goes in 1987, he goes in 1996,

in 2005 he signed a deal actually with this same guy, Felix Sater's company, to try

to build. He's back in 2013. He's trying again and again. And you see the Trump

Organization putting its name on buildings in various other countries of the world.

Russia was a place he wanted to be. It was a place where his brand, Russians liked his

brand, they were buying all over the world in his buildings and he wanted a building there.

ROBERT COSTA: What does this mean for the president, as he's watching all of this from

Argentina, for U.S. foreign policy, for U.S.-Russian relations, U.S. relations with our own allies?

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, you know, as you know, it's been an incredibly divisive issue,

among many, between the United States and its European allies from the very beginning of

Trump's presidency when, you know, he came into office, even potentially talking about

lifting sanctions on Russia.

Those have stayed in place largely because Congress has made it absolutely clear that

even the Republican-controlled Congress would have acted very decisively if he moved in

the direction he wanted to. Enormous outcry even from Republicans when he had that

meeting in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin, which we all remember. So flash forward to

this week at the G-20. President Trump has been looking forward to meeting President

Putin again ever since that Helsinki meeting. And in fact, John Bolton, his national

security adviser, said in the lead-up to Buenos Aires that the agenda of the meeting

between Putin and Trump was simply to continue their excellent discussion from Helsinki.

And, you know, now Trump is saying, well, I canceled it because of Russian aggression

toward Ukraine over the last weekend.

ROBERT COSTA: Is it - is it more - there's more to that story, though, perhaps.

It's not just about Russia's hostility in the Ukraine.

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, you know, it's an excellent question.

Obviously, we don't know yet the real story here.

But it's fair to say that the United States was very sluggish in its response to this

incident involving the Kerch Strait and Ukrainian naval ships that were boarded and

seized by Russia. Other countries, NATO, the EU issued statements both far more quickly

and far stronger than those of the U.S. government. President Trump at one point

seemed to say, well, you know, there's a problem on both sides.

He later came out and said, well, I don't like this aggression, I don't like it at all,

but it was much after the fact and it certainly didn't seem to be an issue that would

have motivated him to cancel a meeting with Putin days later.

When he got on the plane yesterday to go to Buenos Aires, he said he was going to have

the meeting. One hour later, in the midst of the Cohen deal, it was canceled.

ROBERT COSTA: Russia haunts him at home and abroad.

Mike, when you think about the president, when you went to - reporters used to go visit

him at Trump Tower on the 26th floor, you'd see his children there, Don Jr., Eric,

Ivanka, working with him on business, working with him on the campaign. You read about

Cohen, his work with Mueller, does the family have exposure here, legally and politically?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Well, I think in the president's mind they do and that is probably the

most important thing. We don't know what Mueller has, we don't know what he's doing.

But certainly, the president, you know, he has these different red lines that he's made

up. I think a true, real one is the family. And they do think that there's something

afoot here and that they are looking at Don Jr. That's what the president thinks.

And that has guided some of his anger. You know, in the past month, it has built.

He didn't like the way that they - that Mueller was treating Paul Manafort, his former

campaign chairman. He didn't like the way that they were trying to enter into a plea

deal with this person who was in touch with WikiLeaks. And he didn't like the way that

the government unsealed these documents about Julian Assange that showed they charged him.

And he thinks something larger is going on here.

He sees the Cohen thing happen right as he's leaving for a meeting.

He knew that Mueller had filed charges before he went to Helsinki, the last time when he

went to meet with - meet with Putin. He does - he thinks that there is a conspiracy.

ROBERT COSTA: Well, he's right, there - well, there's not - there is a lot going on.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: He thinks there's a conspiracy.

ROBERT COSTA: He thinks there's a conspiracy; it's an investigation. You mentioned

Paul Manafort. There was news this week, of course, that Michael Cohen is cooperating

with Mueller's probe and that's significant, but so is the fact that the Trump campaign's

former chairman, Paul Manafort, his plea deal with Mueller collapsed this week.

Manafort, his deal falling apart. Does that mean he's going to break at some point,

Ros, and be a cooperative witness like a Michael Cohen?

Or does this mean he's going to face another trial and more legal trouble down the road?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Well, there was a hearing just today in that matter.

And the special counsel's office told a judge that they have not yet decided whether to

pursue further charges against him for his new lies, what they - what they said in a

court filing were his crimes and lies.

It does seem like the ship has sailed for him to be a cooperating witness.

This is not a development that a prosecutor would want, to have a cooperator sort of

breach their plea agreement, so I think he's unlikely to come around.

But interestingly, we're going to see a really important development a week from today

when the special counsel's office goes into court and actually details for the judge all

of his lies, all of the ways in which they feel -

ROBERT COSTA: Why do they have to detail those things?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: It's part of arguing to the judge that his plea agreement has been -

has been breached and he will not be worth - he's not deserving of leniency for having

assisted in the - in the investigation.

Otherwise, he would be in a position of getting a break on his sentence.

So they're going to file this report and they're going to talk about all the things they

were asking him about in this time period where they felt like he was not honest, and

they're going to have to say why they know he wasn't honest, which allows them to lay out

some evidence. You know, we're all talking about this report that might be issued.

Well, we might see some of the information we might have expected to see in a report in

sort of stages entered into court, starting next week.

ROBERT COSTA: So you're saying we may not even see that report, but we can get a little

gleaning of what's going to come from the court?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: We could get a singular report maybe in the - in the new year.

But before then, we're going to have a lot of new information.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: There's no guarantee we'll get a report, so Mueller has to speak when

he can speak, and he does that in his public filings. So he always knows he will be

able to do the things in public. He will not really be able to control where the

report goes. That is a decision that will be made above him at the Justice Department.

But to your point about Manafort, the thing to understand about Manafort is there's

really just two people who basically control the fate of perhaps the rest of his life.

He's 69 years old. He's looking at many years in prison.

Either it was going to be Bob Mueller who was going to go to a judge and say give this

man leniency, or it's Donald Trump who is going to pardon him. There's really no one

else who can - has any other important, you know, way to impact the rest of his life.

ROBERT COSTA: Is he searching for a pardon, Susan, when you look at Paul Manafort?

You've followed his career a long time, international political strategist. Unlike Cohen,

does he perhaps see there's a window here for him to get a pardon from President Trump?

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, look, a lot of people have suggested that that seems to be what

he's doing for here, and that it's such an audacious play, in fact, to challenge someone

who is as tough-minded as Bob Mueller; by breaching your agreement, that you must have in

mind that this is your only lifeline, your signal to President Trump, who's made it very

clear what he thinks about cooperators. He's gone - over and over made the point that

they're rats, that they're not trustworthy, that they're bad people. So it seems to me

that he needed to restore in some way credibility with Trump in order to make his case

for a plea. But I would just say that there are potentially some other people who

could affect Paul Manafort's life.

For example, he spent years getting millions - tens of millions of dollars from Ukraine's

corrupt, deposed former President Viktor Yanukovych, Russia-supported. He has enormous

relationships with Russian oligarchs such as Oleg Deripaska, who figure in this Trump

story. They have information, too, that could affect both Paul Manafort and Donald Trump.

ROBERT COSTA: Or what about, Ros, Roger Stone, a longtime Manafort associate?

What is his future right now legally?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Well, we don't yet know. What we do know is that the special counsel

has spent an enormous amount of time on the Roger Stone piece of his case in recent months.

He's brought in, I think at last count, maybe a dozen friends/associates of Roger Stone

to be interviewed by prosecutors or in front of the grand jury.

We know that Roger Stone said things prior to the election that sure sounded like he had

advance knowledge of what WikiLeaks has planned.

Now, he has over and over and over again now denied that fact, but there is clearly

something about Roger Stone and what he knew that Bob Mueller is very, very interested in.

ROBERT COSTA: Final thought, Mike. The talk about a pardon, President Trump's, his

signaling on that front; the conversations between Manafort's lawyers and the Trump lawyers;

is there an obstruction issue at all facing Manafort in these kind of conversations?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: I guess it depends on what's really going on.

If there was some sort of backroom deal between Manafort's lawyers and the president's

about giving them information in exchange for a pardon to interfere with the

investigation, highly, highly problematic.

If it was simply Manafort's lawyers passing information back to Trump's, you know, to,

you know, just kind of be a free flow of information, less so. Not really clear.

What we do know is that the issues of pardons have been looked at. Mueller -

ROBERT COSTA: You reported John Dowd once.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Correct. John Dowd, you know -

ROBERT COSTA: The president's former lawyer.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: - last year having discussions with Manafort and Flynn's lawyers.

ROBERT COSTA: We're going to have to leave it there. We've a live show, but we're

going to continue that on the podcast. I appreciate everyone coming out tonight on

a Friday night. We will continue this conversation on the Washington Week Podcast.

You can find that on our website Fridays after 10 p.m. and also on your favorite

podcast app. I promise we'll get there, Mike.

I'm Robert Costa. Have a great weekend, and thanks for joining us.

For more infomation >> Russia probe developments follow President Trump abroad - Duration: 22:34.

-------------------------------------------

President Trump emerges as a person of interest in the Mueller probe - Duration: 13:12.

ROBERT COSTA: Hello. I'm Robert Costa. And this is the Washington Week Podcast.

Joining me: Michael Schmidt, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning national security

reporter with The New York Times; Susan Glasser, staff writer and author of the weekly

column Letter From Trump's Washington for The New Yorker; and Rosalind Helderman,

political enterprise and investigations reporter for The Washington Post, who won a

Pulitzer Prize this year for her coverage of President Trump and the Russia probe.

President's Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty Thursday to lying to

Congress about President Trump's involvement in a plan to build a hotel, a Trump Tower,

in Moscow. At the same time, Russia was escalating attempts to interfere in the 2016

presidential election. Cohen worked with Trump for many, many years as his fixer.

And there are two other names, however, that come up in the Mueller probe that we want to

talk about here: conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi and political strategist Roger Stone,

both Trump loyalists, or Trump allies to say the least. Corsi refused a plea deal from

the special counsel because he said he was being asked to lie by Mueller's team.

Stone is suspected of being a conduit between WikiLeaks and the Trump presidential

campaign; it's a charge that he denies. Stone, Corsi - let's start with Corsi, Ros.

You think about this figure. He's kind of popped out of nowhere to be this major figure

in the last few weeks. What do you make of Corsi and what it tells us about Mueller's probe?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Yeah, this is such a sort of strange collection of characters in

this portion of the story. Jerome Corsi, InfoWars guy, the guy who really kind of

popularized and help bring to Donald Trump's attention the fake birther theory that

President Obama was not born in this country. He seems key, as far as we can tell,

because he has now said that he told Roger Stone in August 2016 that WikiLeaks had

John Podesta's emails. That's sort of astounding. He claims that he sort of just

surmised this; he looked at what had been released by the - by the WikiLeaks in

July, didn't see Podesta emails, and decided they must have John Podesta's emails.

You know, maybe not so surprisingly, apparently the special counsel's office does not

believe that, and they have been pressuring him to find out who his link to WikiLeaks was

so that they can kind of draw a link - Wikileaks, Corsi, Stone, then maybe Trump.

ROBERT COSTA: Susan, talking about WikiLeaks and Russia, how do you see that link?

Is there a link between Russian intelligence at some level, based on a lot of reporting, and

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange? Because that seems to be the key, as Mueller looks at it at least.

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, that's right. I mean, again, it does appear from what has been

publicly available and what has been reported, you know, by many journalistic

colleagues in addition, that they're - essentially, WikiLeaks operated as a

dissemination arm for Russian intelligence - the GRU, which is the Russian

military intelligence - in the case of the 2016 U.S. election hacking.

And, you know, if you reconceive, then, potentially of, you know, how we've thought about

WikiLeaks in general, not as some crusading global entity but perhaps as a - it started

out that way, who knows - but essentially became captured, or that one of their major

sources of information and the function that they seem to have served for a number of

years was as a conduit for Russian disinformation or information and having that be

weaponized to affect, by the way, the political process not just in the United States,

but in the U.K., in other European elections. And so I think that really changes

how we should think about WikiLeaks and even just the nature of what this entity is.

ROBERT COSTA: What about Roger Stone?

His phone calls with President Trump under scrutiny by Robert Mueller, Mike?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Yeah, and a lot more than his phone calls; the entire relationship and

what was going from WikiLeaks to the campaign.

And an interesting wrinkle in the Corsi bit this week is that Corsi put out his plea

deal, his draft plea deal that he never signed with Mueller's office, and in it was a

line about how Corsi knew that the president was in touch with Stone.

And what we found out was that several weeks ago, as Trump was preparing to send in his

responses to the questions from Mueller, his lawyers found out about this language in the

plea deal, and they thought to the average eye it looked like Mueller was trying to say

the president was an unindicted co-conspirator. And this really bothered them, and they

slammed the brakes on sending in the responses until they got assurances from Mueller's

office that something larger was not afoot. They sent them in. Now they see the Cohen

deal this week, where Cohen pleads guilty; they still think something else is going on.

ROBERT COSTA: Ros, can you explain that in the sense of how did Jerome Corsi and Trump's

lawyers have this kind of knowledge about each other's activities and their standing?

Is there an agreement of sorts, some relationship?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Well, it's interesting, there is an agreement.

They are in a joint defense agreement, so the lawyers are sharing information.

But our understanding is that Trump's team did not receive the agreement through that

agreement; in fact, they received it through another party that has not yet been identified.

You can only imagine how angry that has likely made the special counsel's office, that

they are in confidential plea negotiations with someone - you know, that usually happens

because they believe that they are giving them a good deal; they are not charging that

person with as much as they could be charged with - and somehow that information ends up

in the hand of the president's attorneys.

ROBERT COSTA: How would that happen, Ros?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Let's wait and find out.

ROBERT COSTA: You have a thought, Susan, on this?

SUSAN GLASSER: Well, you know, I mean, just in general, I would like to just pull out

for a second to say, like, you know, the details are so extraordinary they're each worth

lavishing time over. It's just breathtaking, though, to, you know, examine any one of

these in the context of what we know about the American presidency.

And, you know, I just - I feel like that's worth saying at least once in conversation.

For example, the idea of the president of the United States being in a joint defense

agreement with someone like this figure of Jerome Corsi is truly breathtaking to me.

You know, we're talking about a kind of conspiracy theorist, propagandist, as you pointed

out one of the leading people to advance the false conspiracy theory that Barack Obama

was not born in the United States. OK, this is, again, really extraordinary.

Today you had the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, put out a statement from

the White House, an official government statement - she's an official; she's a paid

government employee of the United States - talking about the hoax, the rigged witch hunt

hoax that the government of the United States is apparently carrying out against the

president of the United States. Again, this is not something that we should just sort

of say, like, oh, well, you know, isn't that just a quirk of this White House.

Regardless of how these legal issues play out, I just - this week has been one of those

weeks that, for me, that's really hit home.

ROBERT COSTA: Susan, you've spent - sorry, Mike.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: But you don't even mention the most -

SUSAN GLASSER: (Chuckles.) No, I didn't mention the -

ROBERT COSTA: She can't mention everything.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: No, no, no, hold on, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

But this week, Rudy Giuliani said that they were getting real-time information from Paul

Manafort's lawyer, Paul Manafort who was cooperating, and Rudy said that Mueller's

investigators were pressuring Manafort to give up information that Trump knew about this

2016 meeting that his son had with Russians offering dirt. And Giuliani's saying that

they - that they didn't believe Manafort when he said he didn't know anything about that.

And that is, like, I mean - we lose perspective a lot. And to just hear that and to

think that Mueller's investigators think that Manafort's not telling the truth when they

say that - when he says, you know, I don't think the president knew about the meeting.

I mean, if you're the president's lawyers, that's a troubling development.

ROBERT COSTA: What do you think about that, Ros, about the Manafort and the Mueller relationship?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: I mean, it's extraordinary.

And, you know, the amount of topics about which we may find that they - I mean, there was

some reporting from The Wall Street Journal that one of the topics that they believe that

Manafort was lying about was his relationship with this Russian assistant he had who ran

his Kiev office, Konstantin Kilimnik. Konstantin Kilimnik has been assessed by the U.S.

government to have ties to Russian intelligence. He met with Paul Manafort in the spring

of 2016 and then on August 2nd of 2016, right in the heart of the Russian interference

in the election. He was his liaison to the - to the oligarch.

He was Paul Manafort's liaison to the oligarch, Deripaska, Oleg Deripaska.

So if Bob Mueller believes that Paul Manafort has not been honest about his contacts with

Konstantin Kilimnik, that is an extraordinarily interesting development.

ROBERT COSTA: When you think about all these Russian figures, does anything stand out

about these relationships with Manafort?

You mentioned a little bit of this during the show, Susan, but any thoughts on that?

SUSAN GLASSER: Yeah. Well, you mentioned Deripaska.

I brought him up on the show as well because he is the central nexus in a way connecting

Manafort and his activities inside Ukraine for the, essentially, deposed former President

Viktor Yanukovych, who is Russia supported, and Deripaska, a Kremlin-connected oligarch,

you know, and gateway into the world of Russian money.

And, you know, again, I just can't emphasize enough for people, like, this is

extraordinary, the people who are in business with figures who are some of the wealthiest

and most potentially corrupt figures you could deal with on an international level.

To have them brought into the United States campaign and, again -

ROBERT COSTA: What about even Vladimir Putin?

There were reports that Felix Sater, I believe, an associate of Michael Cohen, there was

talk of a $50 million penthouse apartment in Trump Tower Moscow for Putin.

SUSAN GLASSER: Right. So I'm glad you brought this up because this is one thing I have

to say. First of all, can you imagine any normal country in which you would think that it

made sense if you wanted to do a real estate deal that you would get in touch with the

president of the country? No, unless you were corrupt, you assumed the president, you

know, him or herself to be corrupt and those around him. Presidents don't decide on real

estate deals unless there's a system that is not functioning in a transparent manner -

number one. Number two, you know, the Russian system is a system of basically

state-captured corruption. And Putin sits at the top of it. He's been reported by U.S.

sources, who have looked into this, to be worth extraordinary sums of money and the idea

that this was the dream of Donald Trump to do business with these people.

Also, again, I come back to in the middle of the presidential campaign, OK?

So this - if I told you, without any names, like, well, there's a story about a

presidential candidate of one country, who has a decent chance to become the president of

that country, who wants to get into business with the president of another country and is

asking for their help -

ROBERT COSTA: Right. Well, the question - the question is, does it break norms or break the law?

SUSAN GLASSER: Or both.

ROBERT COSTA: Final thought. When you look back at this week, who - I know you don't

want to speculate, but based on your reporting, who's more important, who could be a

bigger headache for President Trump? Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: Oh, God, that's a hard one.

ROBERT COSTA: Ros?

ROSALIND HELDERMAN: I mean, I think they're both extraordinary headaches.

I don't know that I can choose between them. Mike?

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: I think it's Cohen because, you know, Manafort has at least shown

willing to allow his lawyers to talk with the president's lawyers about what's going on.

It wasn't happening on Cohen's side. Mueller just tore up his agreement with Manafort.

I'm sure Mueller didn't want to do that, so they're sort of averse to each other.

And always, you know, there's an interesting transparency about what the president says

sometimes publicly, has stood by Manafort time and time again publicly, not stood by Cohen.

ROBERT COSTA: We'll leave it there. That's it for this edition of the Washington Week

Podcast. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on the Washington Week

website. While you're online, check out the Washington Week-ly News Quiz.

I'm Robert Costa. See you next time.

For more infomation >> President Trump emerges as a person of interest in the Mueller probe - Duration: 13:12.

-------------------------------------------

Washington Week remembers President George H.W. Bush - Duration: 5:01.

DAN BALZ: I think the bush legacy is twofold and in some ways split-screen if you look at

George H.W. Bush as a foreign policy president he can point to a lot of

success. The first Iraq war in which he ejected Saddam Hussein's forces from

Kuwait but did not go into Baghdad and in part because he couldn't bring a

coalition together but he created a huge coalition for the invasion and for the

ejection of the Iraqi forces. He managed the the end of the Soviet Union the

breakup of the Soviet Union the, the Berlin Wall coming down.

George H.W. Bush: "And here's the

new development and it's rapidly fading part of the world that we can salute for

East Germany and of course wrote"

DAN BALZ: And was very forceful and and clear-eyed from

the start about the unification of Germany at a time when people like

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Britain were very wary of that they were

they were reluctant to get on board on that and he in collaboration with Brent

Scowcroft his closest one of his closest foreign policy advisors set that course

and and it was it turned out to be the right thing.

Domestically he created a rift within the Republican Party. He had made up

famous pledge when he accepted the nomination in 1988. BUSH: "Read my lips.."

BALZ: And for the first two years of his presidency or a good part of the first

two years he stuck to that. But, in the summer of 1990 he made a deal with the

Democrats and agreed as part of an overall budget deal designed to reduce

the deficit in a significant way. He agreed to new taxes and one of the

people who was involved in those discussions was Newt Gingrich and rather

than joining the sort of not the signing ceremony but the announcement ceremony

at the White House, Gingrich left went back to the Capitol

and in a sense launched what became the Gingrich revolution. And so that caused

Bush's problem caused his party a problem. Finally, he was driven out of

office after only one term he was seen as somebody who was not attentive to the

economy. Now, the the reality was the economy was in fact beginning to recover

during the the 1992 campaign but he did not get any credit for it he was seen as

out of touch and Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton he ran into a very skillful

opponent and as a result he ended up as a one-term president. There's a certain

amount of nostalgia and goodwill toward President Bush and has been in the last

couple of years. The Republican Party moved from where he is I mean he said

he's a classic establishment Republican he's conservative but he's not hard

right, and the Republican Party moved away from kind of the Bush approach to

being president or the Bush approach to being a Republican and as people have

seen a Republican Party that has kind of taken over in ways by the Tea party, that

could that caused problems in the house through the freedom caucus the kind of

hectoring of the former Speaker John Boehner, people look back at President

Bush and say you know he had the right approach he had a sense of goodwill. He

didn't for the most part demonize his opponents,

though his 1988 campaign was a tough campaign against Michael Dukakis. But

people saw him as a genuine and a decent man and I think that that goodwill

carried through to the end. His family was very important to him he took great

pride when George W. Bush was elected president. He was I,

suspect brokenhearted when Jeb Bush was not able to defeat Donald Trump, when he

ran against him. He had a quality about him that was you know Dana Carvey of

formerly of Saturday Night Live kind of captured there was a there's a little

bit of a goofy quality but in endearing in an endearing way.. DANA CARVEY: "All right good

evening good evening you know it's been a while since I talked to you let me

tell you it's been a good summer up there in the Bush family compound up

there and Kenna Kennebunkport Bay that that whole area up there I'm that

speedboat going round around doing loop-de-loops." BALZ: People responded to that

and then as you say this this this notion of skydiving at age 80 or 85 was

was just a kind of a remarkable expression of who he was I mean he had

you know he had volunteered in World War II, one of the youngest pilots in World

War II, and and that sort of sense of adventureism and and confidence and the

kind of devil-may-care approach carried over in the way he handled himself in

the way he was seen by his family and therefore a lot of Americans.

For more infomation >> Washington Week remembers President George H.W. Bush - Duration: 5:01.

-------------------------------------------

The GOP is now the party of neo Confederates The Washington Post - Duration: 2:35.

The GOP is now the party of neo Confederates The Washington Post

The far left and far right have long been warning about neocons taking over the Republican Party. Turns out they are right. Only the neocons in question arent the neoconservatives — a small group of intellectuals, in whose ranks I have often been included, who have espoused a values based foreign policy and a centrist domestic policy. Many of us have left the GOP in disgust over the rise of Trumpism. The neocons who are now in the ascendancy are the neo Confederates who have been encouraged to come into the open by President Trumps unabashed appeals to racist and xenophobic prejudices.

A defining moment in the Trump presidency was the violent rally by tiki torch carrying white supremacists in August 2017 to protest plans to take down a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville. Three people died, but rather than condemn far right terrorism, Trump said there were very fine people on both sides, and he actually sided with the white nationalists in their desire to keep intact the beautiful statues and monuments honoring the Confederacy.

It is no surprise, then, that Trump will be in Mississippi on Monday to campaign for Sen. Cindy Hyde Smith in her Nov. 27 runoff election against Democratic challenger Mike Espy. Trump calls her an outstanding person who is strong on the Border, Crime, Military, our great Vets, Healthcare and the 2nd [Amendment]. She also has strong ideas about the War Between the States — the name preferred by neo Confederates to describe what the rest of us call the Civil War. Hyde Smith used that very term in a 2007 state Senate resolution that she introduced to commemorate a 92 year old daughter of a Confederate soldier who fought to defend his homeland. Another bill she introduced as a state senator would have renamed a stretch of highway after Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America.

Hyde Smiths attachment to the Confederacy makes sense, given her upbringing. The Jackson Free Press reports that she attended a private, all white segregation academy created so white parents would not have to send their students to school with African Americans. A photograph in a 1975 high school yearbook shows her as a cheerleader next to the school mascot, who is dressed as a Confederate general and waving a Confederate battle flag. Hyde Smith sent her own daughter to another seg academy.

In 2014, Hyde Smith was photographed posing with a Confederate hat and a rifle at the Jefferson Davis homestead in Biloxi. Mississippi history at its best, she enthused on Facebook. And just this year, she appeared to joke in a state still scarred by its history of lynching that she would be in the front row of a public hanging if invited to do so by a supporter. Called out for this egregious attempt at humor, she said, For anyone that was offended by my comments, I certainly apologize — the clear implication being that plenty of right minded people wouldnt find it offensive at all.

Hyde Smith is a neo Confederate troglodyte and a former Democrat who now feels right at home in the Trump Party. She is hardly alone. The defeated Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, Corey A. Stewart, pals around with white supremacists, defends the Old Dominion as the state of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and says the Confederate flag is our heritage, its what makes us Virginia, and if you take that away, we lose our identity. This self described proud Southerner was born and raised in Minnesota, suggesting that his reverence for the Confederacy is rooted in hatred, not heritage.

The same can be said of Rep. Steve King R Iowa , the most openly white supremacist member of Congress. He used to display a Confederate battle flag on his desk, even though 13,000 Iowans died while fighting for the Union. King recently gave an interview to a far right Austrian website in which he reiterated his view that we cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies — yet the Republican Party refuses to censure him.

While few Republicans are as flagrant in supporting white supremacy as King, many others dog whistle to the same constituency. Gov. Kay Ivey was just elected in Alabama after running a commercial in which she bragged of standing up to special interests and people up in Washington who want to take down Confederate monuments. She also attacked out of state liberals for messing with the states heritage, echoing segregationist Gov. George Wallaces 1960s era complaints about outside agitators.

Brian Kemp was elected governor of Georgia this month after opposing Democratic candidate Stacey Abramss plea to take down the biggest Confederate monument in the world — the one carved into the side of Stone Mountain. And in Tennessee, the Republican dominated House voted to pull dollar 250,000 in funding from Memphis to punish it for taking down Confederate monuments.

It is hard to remember that Republicans were once the Party of Lincoln. But in the 1960s they sold out their birthright to court Southern voters smarting over desegregation. In more recent years, leaders such as George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney had been trying to appeal to minority and moderate voters. But with his pandering to white grievances, Trump has abetted the rise of the neo Confederates.

Read more:

Catherine Rampell: Trump isnt to blame. His entire party is.

Michael Gerson: Will the GOP become the party of white backlash?

Dana Milbank: Is it a coincidence that Trump uses the language of white supremacy?

Eugene Robinson: If Trumps not a white supremacist, he does a good impression

Dana Milbank: Donald Trump, Steve King — and some very happy white nationalists

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

For more infomation >> The GOP is now the party of neo Confederates The Washington Post - Duration: 2:35.

-------------------------------------------

The Democratic majoritys first order of business Restore democracy The Washington Post - Duration: 3:04.

The Democratic majoritys first order of business Restore democracy The Washington Post

Nancy Pelosi represents Californias 12th Congressional District and is Democratic leader in the House of Representatives. John Sarbanes, a Democrat, represents Marylands 3rd Congressional District.

Earlier this month, Americans went to the polls and sent a powerful message: The election not only was a resounding verdict against Republicans assault on Americans health care and wages, but also it was a vote to rescue our broken democracy.

In the face of a torrent of special interest dark money, partisan gerrymandering and devious vote suppression schemes, voters elected a House Democratic majority determined to bring real change to restore our democracy.

During the campaign, Democrats declared unequivocally that we would clean up corruption to make Washington work for the people. We pledged to reduce the role of money in politics, to restore ethics and integrity to government, and to strengthen voting laws.

We now have our marching orders. The new Democratic House is ready to deliver with H.R. 1: a bold reform package to restore the promise of our democracy — a government of, by and for the people.

First, lets end the dominance of money in politics. For far too long, big money and corporate special interests have undermined the will of the people and subverted policymaking in Washington — enabling soaring health care costs and prescription drug prices, undermining clean air and clean water for our children, and blocking long overdue wage increases for hard working Americans.

So lets rein in the unaccountable dark money unleashed by the Supreme Courts Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by requiring all political organizations to disclose their donors, and by shutting down the shell game of big money donations to super PACs. We must also empower hard working Americans in our democracy by building a 21st century campaign finance system — combining small donor incentives and matching support — to increase and multiply the power of small donors. Wealthy special interests shouldnt be able to buy more influence than the workers, consumers and families who should be our priority in Washington.

Next, lets make sure that when public servants get to Washington, they serve the public. Restoring the publics trust means closing the revolving door between government and private industries, and imposing strong new ethics laws to stop officials from using their public office for personal gain. To do so, we will expand conflict of interest laws, ban members of Congress from serving on for profit boards, revamp the oversight authority of the Office of Government Ethics, and prohibit public servants from receiving bonus payments from their former employers to enter government. Well curb the influence of high powered Washington insiders by closing lobbyist registration loopholes that allow big money power brokers and foreign actors to operate in the shadows. That way, well connected special interests wont be able to steer the policy agenda away from the priorities of the American public.

Finally, lets make it easier, not harder, to vote. Since the Supreme Court took the teeth out of the Voting Rights Act, Republican political operatives have increasingly turned to blatant schemes to make it more difficult for the Americans left behind to participate in elections — a narrow agenda all too often targeted at communities of color.

We must renew the Voting Rights Act to protect every citizens access to the ballot box and restore the vital safeguard of pre clearance requirements for areas with a history of voter suppression. We will promote national automatic voter registration, bolster our critical election infrastructure against foreign attackers, and put an end to partisan gerrymandering once and for all by establishing federal guidelines to outlaw the practice. No American should face hours long lines, broken voting machines or rules rigged to keep their vote from being counted in our elections.

These are the reforms that will ultimately change the balance of power in Washington. When we get dark money out of politics, clean up corruption and ensure fair elections, we will dismantle the ability of special interests to stack the deck of our democracy and our economy against hard working Americans.

And with a system that works for the people, we will deliver policy outcomes that make life better for all Americans: We will lower health care costs and out of control prices for prescription drugs. We will rebuild the United States infrastructure, raise the minimum wage and put leverage back in the hands of workers and consumers. We will finally advance common sense, bipartisan solutions to prevent gun violence. We will confront discrimination with the Equality Act , pass the Dream Act to protect the patriotic young undocumented immigrants who came here as children, and take the first step toward comprehensive immigration reform.

We have a responsibility to honor the vision of our founders, the sacrifices made to expand the right to vote and our duty to the American people. With bold action to fix what is broken in our democracy, we can make progress for working families and renew Americans trust in Congress to tackle the issues that matter most.

Read more:

Marc A. Thiessen: What Trump needs to do to avoid being a one term president

Katrina vanden Heuvel: How Democrats can turn up the heat on Trump — and win the battle of ideas

Dana Milbank: This is what happens when a stable genius leads a stupid country

Richard Cohen: Democrats want to dump Pelosi? Thats just plain dumb.

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

For more infomation >> The Democratic majoritys first order of business Restore democracy The Washington Post - Duration: 3:04.

-------------------------------------------

Trump demands action to reduce deficit, pushes new deficit spending The Washington Post - Duration: 7:03.

Trump demands action to reduce deficit, pushes new deficit spending The Washington Post

President Trump is demanding top advisers craft a plan to reduce the countrys ballooning budget deficits, but the president has flummoxed his own aides by repeatedly seeking new spending while ruling out measures needed to address the countrys unbalanced budget.

Trumps deficit reduction directive came last month, after the White House reported a large increase in the deficit for the previous 12 months. The announcement unnerved Republicans and investors, helping fuel a big sell off in the stock market. Two days after the deficit report, Trump floated a surprise demand to his Cabinet secretaries, asking them to identify steep cuts in their agencies.

This account of Trumps deficit stance is based on conversations with 10 current and former officials in the White House and Congress. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations or private conversations. The White House has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

Administration officials have, for now, crafted a sparse plan that would recycle past proposals and call on Congress to trim federal spending on a variety of programs, two White House officials said.

But even as he has demanded deficit reduction, Trump has handcuffed his advisers with limits on what measures could be taken. And almost immediately after demanding the cuts from his Cabinet secretaries, Trump suggested that some areas — particularly the military — would be largely spared. 

The president has said no changes can be made to Medicare and Social Security, two of the governments most expensive entitlements, as he has promised that the popular programs will remain untouched.

When staffers sought to include an attack on Democrats Medicare for all proposals in Trumps campaign speeches this fall, he initially blanched, two administration aides said. Medicare is popular, he said, and voters want it. Eventually, he agreed to the attack if he could say Democrats were going to take the entitlement away.

He has suggested that military spending could be curtailed slightly, from dollar 716 billion this year to dollar 700 billion in his next proposal, a smaller reduction than other agencies would face.

The plan is not expected to include large scale tax increases, which would be a non starter with congressional Republicans.

In total, government debt has risen roughly dollar 2 trillion since Trump took office, and the federal government now owes dollar 21.7 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. The presidents agenda has contributed to that increase and is projected to continue to do so, both through the GOP tax cut and with bipartisan spending increases.

And Trumps recent interest in the issue is at odds with his long standing previous indifference, according to current and former aides.

Three former senior administration officials said the deficit issue was rarely brought up in Trumps presence because he had no interest in discussing it.

When former National Economic Council director Gary Cohns staffers prepared a presentation for Trump about deficits, Cohn told them no. It wouldnt be necessary, he said, because the president did not care about deficits, according to current and former officials.

Trump also repeatedly told Cohn to print more money, according to three White House officials familiar with his comments.

Hed just say, run the presses, run the presses, one former senior administration official said, describing the presidents Oval Office orders. Sometimes it seemed like he was joking, and sometimes it didnt. 

Two current aides said they had not heard Trump make that comment in recent months, and he is changing his tune on the budget in public statements. 

Were going to start paying down debt, Trump said during a White House event last month. We have a lot of debt.

Trump often uses debt — the total amount the government owes — to refer to the deficit, the annual gap between what the government takes in and what it spends.

Trump also is often not versed in the particulars of the federal budget.

Chief of Staff John F. Kelly has told others about watching television with Trump and asking the president how much the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff earns. Trump guessed dollar 5 million, according to people who were told the story by Kelly, startling the chief of staff. Kelly responded that he made less than dollar 200,000. The president suggested he get a large raise and noted the number of stars on his uniform.

Even as Trump has told aides hes finally interested in taking steps to reduce deficits, he has floated several ideas that would further expand them. He has proposed a 10 percent tax cut for the middle class, a huge package of infrastructure spending and billions of dollars for a wall along the U.S. Mexico border. He hasnt specified how he would pay for any of those things.

Trump repeatedly pushed staffers to spend more on the infrastructure bill this summer, envisioning large projects for many key states. Infrastructure Week became a joke in the White House because it often happened during disastrous weeks that were waylaid by guilty pleas, errant tweets or bombshell developments in the Russia probe. Many staffers thought the problem was that it was too expensive. But Trump thought the government was not spending enough, according to current and former officials, and he is looking to revive the pricey plan.

Because the government spends much more than it brings in through taxes, it must borrow money to cover the balance by issuing debt. The U.S. Treasury projects it will issue dollar 1.3 trillion in new debt this year, more than double its borrowing from one year ago. 

Rising interest rates are projected to make the cost of borrowing money much more expensive. The United States will soon spend more money on interest payments than it does for the entire Medicaid program, more than dollar 400 billion.

Trumps internal contradictions on the budget mirror how conflicted the Republican Party has become on an issue that had been one of its tenets for decades. Speaker Paul D. Ryan R Wis. , who campaigned on reducing deficits, has rarely brought up the issue with the president in recent months. 

Republicans have talked a good game about deficit spending, but in reality, their record shows they havent stood up and stopped it, said Marc Short, the presidents former director of legislative affairs. 

As they prepared a tax bill in 2017, Republicans initially suggested their plan would offset the cuts with tax increases elsewhere, but they abandoned that commitment early in the process. Trump in December signed a law that nonpartisan analyses suggest will add dollar 1.5 trillion to deficits over the next decade. That figure is projected to jump to more than dollar 2 trillion if the laws temporary cuts to income tax rates are made permanent.

Many Republicans have said the tax cuts will pay for themselves by producing a massive jump in economic growth — a claim rejected at the time by many economists across the political spectrum. Growth has increased moderately since the cuts took effect, but the increases have fallen well short of the level needed to prevent the cuts from adding to deficits.

Trump also signed a bipartisan dollar 1.3 trillion budget bill in March that added new funding for the governments domestic and military programs. The president criticized the bill at the time and said he would not sign another mass budget measure.

With Democrats set to take control of the House in January, a future deficit reduction deal would have to be bipartisan, and Hill veterans see that as a stretch.

As of now, the central plank of the White Houses new deficit reduction push would be a proposal to cut congressionally approved spending by about 5 percent. Some programs would see a much smaller proposed reduction; Trump has said publicly the reduction for the Pentagon could be about 2 percent.

But any of these changes would have to be approved by House Democrats, who are likely to be resistant, especially as many campaigned on large scale increases to the government.

Could there be a bipartisan deal on deficits? asked Avik Roy, a former policy adviser to incoming senator Mitt Romney R Utah , former Texas governor Rick Perry and Sen. Marco Rubio R Fla. . You never know, but I dont think thats what the Democrats will be itching for in the House.

The White House is set to detail its new plans in a budget proposal early next year. Some White House officials have considered proposing a major overhaul of Medicaid, but two people briefed on the process said Trump is likely to offer the same changes that the White House has called for unsuccessfully in the past.

It is unusual for budget deficits to expand the way they have during the Trump administration because they typically contract during periods of economic growth. During President Barack Obamas last year in office, the deficit was dollar 587 billion, a decrease from years when it had reached dollar 1 trillion annually in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Government spending is largely broken into two categories. There are programs that are automatically funded, such as Medicare and Social Security, and programs that must be funded by Congress each year, such as the military, housing, intelligence and transportation. 

That category is known as discretionary spending, and thats where Trump has told his Cabinet advisers to seek a 5 percent reduction. But cuts of that magnitude would probably reduce the deficit by about dollar 70 billion, and its projected to reach dollar 1 trillion next year, showing the magnitude of the tax cuts and other parts of the budget that have remained untouched.

Over a round of golf at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia last year, Sen. Bob Corker encouraged the president to push for deficit control measures and to force Republicans to cut spending. 

Trump was dismissive of the Tennessee Republicans request. The people want their money, the president said, according to two people familiar with the exchange. The conversation soon moved on.

For more infomation >> Trump demands action to reduce deficit, pushes new deficit spending The Washington Post - Duration: 7:03.

-------------------------------------------

MLB asks Cindy Hyde Smith to return dollar 5,000 donation The Washington Post - Duration: 4:33.

MLB asks Cindy Hyde Smith to return dollar 5,000 donation The Washington Post

Major League Baseball is requesting the return of its dollar 5,000 donation to Sen. Cindy Hyde Smiths campaign, in the latest blow to the Mississippi Republican ahead of Tuesdays runoff.

MLB spokesman Pat Courtney said in a statement that the donation was made in connection with an event that MLB lobbyists were asked to attend and that MLB has requested that it be returned.

Melissa Scallan, a spokeswoman for Hyde Smiths campaign, said she could not comment on the matter at this time.

News of the donation was first reported Saturday by the political newsletter Popular Information.

Hyde Smith, who was appointed to the Senate in the spring, faces Democrat Mike Espy in Tuesdays runoff to fill the remaining two years of retired Republican Sen. Thad Cochrans term.

Hyde Smiths victory in the runoff was once considered a foregone conclusion, but her campaign has been roiled in recent weeks by revelations that she made a controversial allusion to lynching and embraced Confederate history at several points throughout her career.

President Trump has thrown his support behind Hyde Smith and is making two stops in the state on Monday to campaign on her behalf.

I will be in Gulfport and Tupelo, Mississippi, on Monday night doing two Rallies for Senator Hyde Smith, who has a very important Election on Tuesday. She is an outstanding person who is strong on the Border, Crime, Military, our great Vets, Healthcare the 2nd A. Needed in D.C.

I will be in Gulfport and Tupelo, Mississippi, on Monday night doing two Rallies for Senator Hyde Smith, who has a very important Election on Tuesday, Trump tweeted Sunday morning. She is an outstanding person who is strong on the Border, Crime, Military, our great Vets, Healthcare and the 2nd A. Needed in D.C.

Earlier this month, a video posted to Twitter by journalist and blogger Lamar White Jr. showed Hyde Smith saying of a supporter during a campaign stop, If he invited me to a public hanging, Id be on the front row.

Hyde Smith first defended the statement as an exaggerated expression of regard for the supporter before offering a limited apology during a debate with Espy last week.

Days later, another video showed Hyde Smith apparently joking about voter suppression, saying laws that make it just a little more difficult for some college students to vote are a great idea.

Espy, who would become the first black senator to represent Mississippi since the Reconstruction era if elected, has called Hyde Smiths comments on public hangings reprehensible and said they had given our state another black eye that we dont need. Rep. Bennie Thompson D Miss. also blasted the remarks, noting that Mississippi had among the highest numbers of public lynchings of any state in the country.

News of the comments prompted a backlash against Hyde Smith from several corporate supporters, including Walmart, which asked for its donations to be returned and said in a tweet last week that the senators remarks clearly do not reflect the values of our company and associates.

AT andT, Leidos, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific also have asked for their contributions to be refunded, CNBC reported.

Charles B. Johnson, the majority owner of the San Francisco Giants, also has come under fire after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he and his wife contributed the maximum dollar 2,700 to Hyde Smiths campaign.

Marcos Breton, a columnist for the Sacramento Bee, wrote Saturday that he was no longer supporting the Giants in the wake of the news.

I am hereby financially boycotting the team of my youth, Breton wrote, calling Johnson an enabler of a bigot who has espoused support for voter suppression. He has given his money to a candidate who makes jokes about public lynchings, and I cant support that.

A report Friday by the Jackson Free Press that Hyde Smith attended an all white segregation academy in the 1970s prompted further scrutiny of the senators background.

Scallan did not dispute the report but dismissed it in a statement, arguing that the gotcha liberal media has taken leave of their senses.

They have stooped to a new low, attacking her entire family and trying to destroy her personally instead of focusing on the clear differences on the issues between Cindy Hyde Smith and her far left opponent, the spokeswoman said.

For more infomation >> MLB asks Cindy Hyde Smith to return dollar 5,000 donation The Washington Post - Duration: 4:33.

-------------------------------------------

John Roberts counterpunches the counterpunching president The Washington Post - Duration: 2:58.

John Roberts counterpunches the counterpunching president The Washington Post

President Trump does not need, and should not pursue, a war of words with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Both lead equal branches of government. Neither would benefit from ongoing anvil tossing, especially at a time when Trump has no attorney general who can command the respect and attention of the legal community.

So please, Mr. President, strike a truce.á

Full disclosure: Roberts is an old colleague, with whom I shared a suite in the old Executive Office Building at the beginning of President Ronald Reagans second term. We ran together on the White House V Toes in the Nike Challenge of that eraáand played on the miserable White House basketball team.áAnd I am immensely grateful to him for some kindnesses along the way, especially for assuring that my workload was light in the counsels office, as White House Counsel Fred Fielding and his deputy Dick Hauser knew to whom to assign the tough stuff.

I became adeptáat defending the seal of the presidency from limousine services. The future chief justice was tasked with figuring out how to makeáSection 3 of the 25th Amendment work when Reagan underwent surgery for colon cancer and George H.W. Bush became acting president.

Division of labor is a very good thing, especially when a remarkable legal mind is at the call of the counsel to the president.

I am also one of the few very vocal defenders among originalists of the chief justices decision in theá2012 case against Obamacare that earned him an unwarranted suspicion among many in the tribe of my jurisprudential leanings. Quite simply, courts ought not to strike down federal laws passed by Congress and signed by the president if there is any way to avoid doing so. The chief justice found such a path and, along the way, revivified limits to the Constitutions spending clause while cementing the border around the reach of the interstate commerce clause. Nice work, that opinion. It is a modernáMarbury v. Madisonáand will be understood as such some decades down the line.

Theáchief justices concurrence ináCitizens United v. FECá is another jewel Ś an accessible and understandable yet comprehensive and precise statement of theástare decisisádoctrine and its limits. Read it if youd like a look ahead atáwhere the court is going and why.

I hopeáthe Roberts court plunges into a wholesale revamp of the jerry rigged fire trap of establishment clause jurisprudence andáthat it levels the God awful collection of incoherent holdingsáI must annually pretend to teach by memorization. Aálaw professor can no more teach establishment clause jurisprudence than a math professor can teach the square root of two .

I hope as well that the court makes free exercise rights more robust. And that it turbocharges the Fifth Amendments long dormant prohibition against taking property without just compensation, with the recognition that the public must pay property owners whenever an endangered species listing or a critical habitat designation devalues their land. The Supreme Court may also exile, finally, the use of race in the bestowing of benefits or infliction of penalties, and banish from its docket redistricting challenges Ś as redistricting belongs to the legislative and executive branches of the states, not the majority of nine unelected justices.

So we are at the dawn of a new era of an old idea: constitutional seriousness.áThe ground rules matter. And the Constitutions meaning, as understood at the time it was ratified or amended or interpreted before 2018, matters. The document, written mostly by farmers smart farmers, but men steeped in the hard rules of agriculture , debated mostly by farmers and ratified mostly by farmers, is a plain document. It ought to be read plainly.

When the chief justice speaks plainly to the president or to political parties, people notice. Good. Robertsáhas done to Trump this week what he did to President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the 2010 State of the Union address when 44 blasted the court for its ruling ináCitizens United. Roberts sallied forth then witháthis comment: The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court Ś according to the requirements of protocol Ś has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling. Roberts was right then. He was right Wednesday.

Now the chief justice has counterpunched the counterpunching president. Good, again. Thats the job of the chief justice. He leads an independent branch of the Constitutions design, and independence is a dish best served hot. So it was.

Trump was wise not to provide a nickname for the chief justice. Hed be wiser still to leave off this particular debate. Get an attorney general the equal of the chief justice when it comes to intellect and constitutional chops and let them have at it. Hint, hint: Judge J. Michael Luttig. Bravo to the chief justice for calling a foul ball. We can hope the president doesnt swing on that pitch again.

Read more:

Marc A. Thiessen: Chief Justice Roberts is wrong. We do have Obama judges and Trump judges.

Ruth Marcus: Even the Supreme Court is alarmed about Trump

Jennifer Rubin: John Roberts, you are chief justice, not chief of PR

Hugh Hewitt: Trumps acting attorney general pick was an unnecessary self inflicted wound Ś but not a fatal one

Hugh Hewitt: The perfect person to replace Jeff Sessions

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

For more infomation >> John Roberts counterpunches the counterpunching president The Washington Post - Duration: 2:58.

-------------------------------------------

Jamal Khashoggi Way Washington city may rename Saudi embassy street World news - Duration: 2:17.

Jamal Khashoggi Way Washington city may rename Saudi embassy street World news

Officials want road going past embassy in Foggy Bottom to serve as 'daily reminder to Saudi officials' about journalist's murder

Officials want road going past embassy in Foggy Bottom to serve as 'daily reminder to Saudi officials' about journalist's murder

Local officials in a Washington neighborhood have voted to rename a street outside Saudi Arabia's embassy in honour of the slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

If approved by the city council, the advisory commission's measure means a stretch of road going past the expansive embassy building in the upscale Foggy Bottom district would be ceremonially renamed Jamal Khashoggi Way.

Khashoggi, a US resident, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October.

After initially denying the murder, Saudi Arabia has acknowledged Khashoggi was killed inside the consulate but blamed his death on a "rogue" operation.

Top officials from the administration of President Donald Trump have said they have seen no direct evidence linking the murder to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but the CIA reportedly has found a connection.

According to CNN, the idea to change the street's name started about a month ago following an online petition.

"We suggest renaming the street address of the Saudi embassy into Jamal Khashoggi Way to be a daily reminder to Saudi officials" that such killings are "totally unacceptable and as an expression of Washington's unstinting support for freedom of the press", the petition states.

A similar action was taken outside the Russian embassy, where a street was this year renamed in honour of prominent Vladimir Putin critic Boris Nemtsov, who was assassinated in Moscow in 2015.

For more infomation >> Jamal Khashoggi Way Washington city may rename Saudi embassy street World news - Duration: 2:17.

-------------------------------------------

Woman charged following shooting in Washington County, Virginia - Duration: 0:36.

For more infomation >> Woman charged following shooting in Washington County, Virginia - Duration: 0:36.

-------------------------------------------

NMSU hosts Washington State Saturday - Duration: 1:04.

For more infomation >> NMSU hosts Washington State Saturday - Duration: 1:04.

-------------------------------------------

After inauguration, Mexicos new government heads to Washington for migration talks The Washington - Duration: 7:08.

After inauguration, Mexicos new government heads to Washington for migration talks The Washington

The Trump administration is pushing to finalize an agreement with Mexicos new government in the coming days that would make asylum seekers wait outside the United States while their claims are processed, but officials from both countries caution that key provisions of the plan, known as Remain in Mexico, have yet to be settled.

Following Saturdays swearing in ceremony for president elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador, top members of his cabinet will travel to Washington, where they will discuss the matter Sunday and Monday with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

The two governments have tentatively agreed to the deals broad outlines , but it has yet to be formalized . Trump administration officials engaged in the talks say they are cautiously optimistic they can seal the agreement, while recognizing the López Obrador administration may need more time.

The new Mexican government is continuing to negotiate at the same time that theyre taking office and putting their administration together, so they have a lot going on, said one senior U.S. official involved in the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity because negotiations remain sensitive.

[Deal with Mexico paves way for asylum overhaul at U.S. border]

Conditions in Tijuana, where most of the 8,000 Central Americans have arrived after traveling thousands of miles in caravan groups, have turned more desperate in recent days. Mexicos incoming administration and U.S. officials say that, following Sundays confrontation at the border, they are worried about the possibility of more unrest, particularly if militant members of the caravan seek to test the new governments willingness to use force to keep them away from the border fence.

Top aides to López Obrador this week publicly acknowledged that they are preparing to host thousands of Central Americans while they await a chance to seek refuge in the United States. And U.S. asylum officers are prepared to implement the Remain in Mexico plan as soon as the deal is finalized, according to internal memos obtained by The Washington Post.

Those aides to López Obrador have kept Trump administration officials off balance in the past week by alternately praising the agreement and denying they have one. They say they have 100,000 jobs available for Central Americans willing to work in factories along Mexicos northern border as well as on infrastructure projects in the countrys impoverished southern states, describing the plan as a building block to a broader partnership with the Trump administration.

Remain in Mexico is just that, incoming interior minister Olga Sanchez Cordero said last week in an interview. To be in Mexico because we give you work, because we want you to integrate into our population, because we speak the same language, because we want you to be here.

The medium and long term goal of the López Obrador government is to foment development in Central America by pouring in investment and generating jobs so people dont have to leave their homes , Sanchez Cordero said.

We want the United States to accompany us, she said.

Incoming Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard said this week his government wants a Marshall Plan for Central America, referring to the ambitious and costly U.S. effort to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II.

Asked by reporters how much the United States should commit to such a plan, Ebrard proffered dollar 20 billion as a reasonable target.

Mexico by itself is going to invest in our own territory during the next administration, more than dollar 20 billion, and so any serious effort regarding our brothers in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala should be for a similar amount, Ebrard said.

Trump administration officials have said privately they are prepared to commit significant resources to an agreement that keeps Central American asylum seekers on Mexican soil because such a deal would save millions of dollars in detention and enforcement costs.

But dollar 20 billion would dwarf what Washington currently spends on security and development aid for the region.

The incoming government is right to engage under the tenet of shared responsibility with the United States and to push for a holistic strategy, said Arturo Sarukhan, who was Mexicos ambassador in Washington from 2007 to 2013.

But it needs to be clear eyed as it enters these negotiations. Enunciating the goal of billions of dollars in aid, given the current political landscape in Washington, is not only Panglossian, it could artificially tee up an unattainable benchmark, which leads to failure, Sarukhan said, referencing the delusional optimist of Voltaires Candide.

Homeland Security officials have long sought a deal with Mexico that would obligate Central Americans who reach Mexican territory to seek asylum there. Asylum claims at the U.S. border have quadrupled since 2014, leaving the U.S. immigration court system at a breaking point, with a backlog exceeding 750,000 cases and court calendars booked years in advance.

[DHS asks Pentagon to extend troop deployment at the border]

Mexican authorities have ruled out one such arrangement, known as a Safe Third Country agreement, but Sanchez Cordero and other senior members of López Obradors team said they view Remain in Mexico as a more appealing alternative — as long as its a temporary one.

Eric Olson, a consultant to the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said he thinks the incoming government is looking for a deal that will mark a clear break with the punitive, law enforcement only approach.

President Trumps tweets that described the Remain in Mexico plan as something he was willing to impose — at the threat of closing the border — have also left the incoming government little room to maneuver.

They want to define their own policy, not only as a reaction to or negotiation with the U.S., but independently, on their own terms, Olson said.

Another Mexican adviser to the transition team said that were already in a risky place. When Trump talks about cooperation, he reduces it to Mexico having to arrest migrants, or else. When [López Obrador] talks about cooperation, he wants to stop emigration with development.

U.S. officials believe the Remain in Mexico plan is their best shot at getting migrants to stop leaving Central America in such large numbers, knowing they will not be able to easily cross the U.S. border and get released from custody while awaiting a faraway court date.

After Pompeo met with Ebrard in Houston on Nov. 15 to hammer out the deal, the tear gas clash at the San Diego border has given new urgency to questions about how to deal with migrant caravans and those waiting for asylum.

For now, Mexican authorities have dealt with some 6,000 members of the caravan by moving them from a flooded sports complex near the U.S. border to a former concert venue about 11 miles away.

[Mexico begins moving caravan migrants to new shelter]

López Obrador takes office Saturday in a Mexico City ceremony that will be attended by leaders from several Latin American countries, including Venezuela, Cuba, Peru, as well as Vice President Pence, Ivanka Trump, the presidents daughter and adviser, and Nielsen.

The Remain in Mexico plan, if implemented, would upend the way U.S. authorities process asylums requests at the border. Instead of allowing applicants to live and work in the United States while they await a hearing with an immigration judge, asylum seekers would have to stay in Mexico for months or years until their cases are decided.

At the U.S. border crossing in San Ysidro, U.S. border officials are currently accepting 60 to 100 asylum seekers per day, from a list with more than 5,000 names.

DHS officials say they will process at least twice as many under the Remain in Mexico plan, because they would not longer have to find detention space for those taken into custody.

Partlow reported from Mexico City.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét