monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The US government has paid out more than $60m in legal settlements where border patrol agents were involved in deaths, driving injuries, alleged assaults and wrongful detention, an analysis of more than a decade of official data reveals.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has been pushing to expand the patrol force at the southern border, insisting recently on Twitter: “Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws.”

But while Trump has ordered national guard troops to be deployed to provide agents with extra support, the review of settlement data and details found in related court records raises concerns about the agency’s history of interactions with civilians, both native-born and immigrant.

Cases uncovered by examination of treasury payment records spanning October 2005 to July 2017, court documents and media reports reveal:

• The federal government has settled at least 20 wrongful death claims on behalf of CBP, paying more than $9m to the families of people killed since 2003, in incidents including shooting, beating, use of Tasers and collisions with vehicles.
[court extract]

•Four people, including two US citizens and a legal permanent resident received settlements for being wrongly deported. Nine people, including three citizens, two immigrants with legal status and two tourists, received settlements for illegal detentions of between four days and two months;

•More than $650,000 was paid out in settlements in four cases where four people were shot by border agents and survived.
[court extract]
[... ... ... ... ...]
However, while the data studied by the Guardian is extensive, it still does not give a full picture of all settlements. Provided by the US treasury department, the data only represents payments made from the federal government’s Judgement Fund, which pays out when an agency does not have funds available to compensate a claim for damages.

The Department of Homeland Security, CBP’s parent agency, did not respond to requests for comment on any additional payments it has made directly.

When asked whether civil complaints give rise to internal reviews, a CBP spokesperson said they do not, because the agency would already have reviewed any incident involving injury or death, according to policy.

The agency’s Use of Force Review Board has investigated 30 significant incidents since June 2015. Each of its 17 reports made public have considered the use of force compliant with agency policy.

The Department of Homeland Security’s office of inspector general said that only in very rare instances of matters of significant public interest and importance will the office review any issue related to civil litigation.

It appears the leak did not come from Mueller’s office. The Times reported that the questions were provided to Trump’s lawyers as part of negotiations over the terms of a potential Trump interview. The list was then provided to the Times by a person outside Trump’s legal team, the paper said.

In his tweet, Trump also falsely asserts there are no questions about “Collusion.”

While the questions are wide-ranging — and include more related to possible obstruction of justice — the list includes several related to possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Among those is a query about Trump’s knowledge of any outreach by his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to Russia “about potential assistance to the campaign.”

Another asks about Trump’s knowledge of a June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between Trump aides and a Russian lawyer, who offered politically damaging information on Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

In his tweet, Trump calls collusion “a phony crime” and repeats his claim that none existed. The president also derides Mueller’s investigation for having “begun with illegally leaked classified information,” adding: “Nice!”

That is a reference to notes that former FBI Director James B. Comey provided to a friend documenting his interactions with Trump. The president has said that action, which prompted the appointment of a special counsel, amounted to illegally leaking classified information and that Comey should be imprisoned.

Comey has said repeatedly that the information was not classified.

In a later tweet, Trump wrote that it “would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!”

“Witch Hunt!” he added.

[...]
1. “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?”

That middle clause is the one that sticks out: “including by Paul Manafort.” Why specify him and only him?
[...]

2. “How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?”
This sounds routine, but it could mean that Mueller is interested in a tweet sent from Trump's account in December that said Trump fired former national security adviser Michael Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
[...]

3. “What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?”
This is a real mystery. The Post reported last year that Trump asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats if he could intervene to get Comey to back off Flynn, with then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo present at the meeting. (The other official mentioned here is NSA Director Michael Rogers.) But this isn't that.

Lots of questions on the Times's list are very general and clearly refer to things that have been reported publicly, but this seems to refer to a specific episode about which we don't really know anything. Exactly what it is is anybody's guess.

4. “Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?”
[...]
This suggests Mueller wants to know whether Trump has directly asked Sessions for protection. We don't know, of course, whether that's because someone told Mueller that Trump did, or just because Mueller thinks it's logical he might have.

5. “What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?”
Another mystery is why Mueller's own appointment is in the questions he wants to ask Trump. ...

Again, is there a specific event Mueller is aware of that he wants to ask Trump about? Or is this just a general inquiry?

6. “What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?”
The second part is the key. Trump seemed to publicly deny that he tried to fire Mueller, calling it “fake news.” This may suggest Mueller is interested in whether Trump misled the American public about his own actions, or could allude to something else Trump did that we, again, don't yet know about. ...
[...]

7. “During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?”
Trump boasted in 2015 that he met with high-level Russian business executives and government officials during his 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant. “I was with the top-level people, both oligarchs and generals and top-of-the-government people,” he told Hugh Hewitt. “I can't go further than that, but I will tell you I met the top people.”

It seems Mueller wants him to go further than that.

Representing Donald Trump is a lawyer’s worst nightmare. And he just gave his own administration’s lawyers yet another reason to cringe.

The primary reason why Trump’s Muslim ban has taken some occasional beatings in federal court is pretty simple: The president can’t stop making public statements that undermine his own legal arguments. As a candidate, he bragged about his intention to ban Muslims from entering the country. Then he bragged about the pretext he would use to make this ban appear legal. Then, when the ban was in hot water, legally speaking, and his lawyers were trying to convince courts that it wasn’t handed down because Trump is harbors a bigoted animus toward Muslims, Trump shared several anti-Muslim videos on Twitter.

And so it came to pass that the subject of Trump’s Muslim ban came up during a joint press conference with Nigerian Prime Minster Muhammadu Buhari on Monday. If Trump were smart, he would have kept his mouth shut.

Yes, the President of the United States is like a cartoon supervillain who, having captured the hero, decides to reveal the details of his evil plan.

To understand why Trump’s statement at the joint press conference was so ill-advised, consider an exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and attorney Neal Katyal, who argued against the Muslim ban during last week’s arguments in Trump v. Hawaii.

On its face, Trump’s proclamation announcing the Muslim ban is not an explicitly anti-Muslim document. It restricts foreign nationals from several majority Muslim nations from entering the country, but it also purports to do so for national security reasons — not for reasons rooted in religious bigotry. The primary evidence that the proclamation is, in fact, an attack on Muslims is that Trump has repeatedly promised to implement a Muslim ban by banning people from certain parts of the world.

This led Chief Justice Roberts to wonder whether Trump could save this proclamation by “disavowing all those statements” where he expressed anti-Muslim animus. Katyal struggled to answer Roberts’ question completely as he was hit with additional questions from Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, but the lawyer’s answer indicated that Trump would significantly bolster his case if he were to disavow his previous anti-Muslim statements.

And yet, when Trump had an opportunity to do just that at Monday’s press conference, he did the opposite.

After a reporter asked Trump about this exchange between Roberts and Katyal, Trump said that he would not back away from his past statements because “there’s no reason to apologize.”

“Our immigration laws in this country are a total disaster,” Trump claimed. “They’re laughed at all over the world. They’re laughed at for their stupidity. So I think that if I apologize [for my past statements] it wouldn’t make ten cents worth of difference” to the Supreme Court. “There’s nothing to apologize for.”

Ironically, at the conclusion of the oral arguments in the Hawaii case, Solicitor General Noel Francisco tried to claim that Trump is actually pro-Muslim. “He has made crystal-clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans,” Francisco said of Trump. “And there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and [Trump] has praised Islam as one of the great countries [sic] of the world.”

Trump’s statement that he has “nothing to apologize for” regarding his past anti-Muslim statements directly contradicts Francisco’s claim.

Will this matter? Probably not. The Court’s four most conservative members appear all-but-certain to vote with Trump after last week’s oral argument, and Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to lean in that direction.

Nevertheless, Trump has served up a perfect opportunity to bolster his case. Instead, he directly contradicted his own lawyer on a central matter in this case. That’s never a good plan for a litigant who hopes to prevail in court.

I doubt it, but there is a smidgen of hope.

Quote:

It is up to the president to decide who to keep out and plainly a constitutional right of that president.[/color]

You think the constitution is simply a job description for a President?????

It is the first of the month, so maybe anyone interested can read it all.

The Hill Media Organization has announced they will be boycotting future White House Correspondents’ Dinners until serious reform is made to the event.

Fact Checker:

The Constitution vests the President with Executive Power. That power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security.[7] And federal courts in the United States must pay proper deference to the Executive in assessing the threats that face the nation.[8]

The Acting ICE Director has just confirmed that President Trump has done more for the border and law enforcement than the last six Presidents he has worked for.