TRUMP FUEL - The Promotion of Violent Imagery

"Trump employs images of violence as political fuel for reelection fight" by Michael Scherer, The Washington Post 9/8/2020

President Trump has reverted to using graphic depictions of violence as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign strategy, using his Twitter account, his stump speech and even the White House podium as platforms for amplifying domestic conflict.

His 2016 focus on radical Islamist terrorism and undocumented-immigrant crime, which he credited with helping him win the Republican nomination, has been replaced by warnings of new threats as he elevates gruesome images of Black-on-White crime, street fights involving his supporters and police-misconduct unrest nationwide.

The pattern continued over the holiday weekend, when he tweeted video of a melee in Texas between protesters and security officers during an event for a Trump-affiliated group and two celebratory videos of a protester in Portland, Ore., with his feet on fire.  One of the videos was scored to the Kenny Loggins song “Footloose,” and the second featured mocking play-by-play commentary by a mixed-martial-arts announcer.

“These are the Democrats ‘peaceful protests,’?” Trump wrote.  “Sick!”  On Monday, he retweeted a prediction that political unrest “could lead to ‘rise of citizen militias around the country.’?”

The strategy echoes the approach that fueled his climb in politics as he shocked the political world with graphic warnings about “rapists” crossing the border illegally from Mexico, welcomed the families of crime victims to speak at his events and said he favored instructing the military to target the families of Islamist extremists, a probable war crime.  He also repeatedly encouraged assaults on protesters at his events.

In each case, the unprecedented focus on violence by a high-profile American politician allowed Trump to attract attention, turning his rallies into unpredictable and raucous affairs that were widely viewed.  It also set the stage for Trump to establish his political persona as a strongman itching to dominate threats foreign and domestic.

Nearly four years after winning that race, Trump is making the same argument, albeit about different dangers, using the specter of violence amid Black Lives Matter protests to claim superior toughness and promising forceful resolution if given the chance.

“These people only know one thing, and that is strength,” he said Wednesday in Wilmington, N.C., of violent street protests in Oregon and Wisconsin.  “That’s all they know — strength.  And we have strength.”

On Monday, Trump retweeted footage of Black protesters in Pittsburgh screaming at White outdoor diners, drinking from their glasses and knocking over their dishes during a protest over the weekend.

“Disgraceful.  Never seen anything like it.  Thugs!” Trump wrote.  “And because of weak and pathetic Democrat leadership, this thuggery is happening in other Democrat run cities and states.  Must shut them down fast.”

Amid a pandemic that has killed more than 186,000 Americans, the jarring political gambit has shifted the focus of the Presidential campaign, forcing Trump’s Democratic opponent, former vice President Joe Biden, to air an ad, titled “Be Not Afraid,” [video link] focused on his own opposition to the recent violence in Oregon and Wisconsin.

“The President is on offense, and that is always a good thing,” said Roger Stone, a former Trump political adviser who received a presidential commutation after seven felony convictions this summer.  “The law-and-order issue really motivates the President’s base, and it also appeals to independents.”

Although Trump has received no big boosts in polling, he unapologetically promoted a video last week of his supporters attacking protesters in Portland, later arguing at the White House that their firing of paintball guns and pepper spray in city streets from the back of pickup trucks was “defensive.”  On Twitter, he said the conflict was a logical response to provocation by liberals.

“The big backlash going on in Portland cannot be unexpected,” Trump wrote in a tweet that included a video of the incident.

He also has returned to using his Twitter account to broadcast falsehoods that perpetuate racial conflict.  For the third time this summer, on Aug. 30 he retweeted a video of a Black man brutally attacking a White person, this time with a caption falsely suggesting that the assailant in a New York subway assault in 2019 was connected to Black Lives Matter or antifa.

The posts echo a 2015 Trump retweet that showed a picture of a Black man with a gun and falsely claimed that Black people commit a majority of homicides against White people, a racist trope for which he never apologized.  The White House argued this month, as Trump did in 2015, that he was not responsible for the accuracy of his retweets.

Politically motivated street fights have become more common during his presidency.  Conflicts at protests have led to injuries in recent weeks in places such as Kalamazoo, Mich.; Bloomington, Ind.; and Weatherford, Tex., as protesters of police misconduct have clashed with counterprotesters who are sometimes dressed in Trump-branded apparel and claim to be helping to keep the peace.  In one case, a gun-wielding Trump supporter in Kenosha, Wis., was charged with murder after allegedly killing two protesters and injuring a third.  (A supporter of a far-right group was fatally shot during a counterprotest by Trump backers in Portland last month.  The suspect, a backer of the far-left antifa movement, was killed by law enforcement Thursday.)

In the face of this violence, Trump has condemned the actions of left-wing rioters but declined to condemn violence by his supporters, even as he falsely claims that Biden is refusing to denounce violence on the left.

“I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point,” Trump said last year in an interview with Breitbart News when asked about fights over free speech on college campuses.  “And then it would be very bad, very bad.”

From his start in politics, Trump has brushed aside the idea that he has a responsibility for any violence that results from his campaign style.  When a reporter asked in 2015 whether he was concerned that his rhetoric against protesters and immigrants might lead to additional violence in American streets, he recoiled at the question.

“People are getting hurt.  People are being decimated by illegal immigrants.  The crime is unbelievable,” he said, an argument belied by statistics.  “Now in my way, I don’t want anybody hurt.  But people are being hurt.  So when you ask that question, it’s very unfair.”

His answer was notable for its zero-sum view: Suffering in the country was inevitable — the question was who suffered more.

Trump’s return to focusing on violent threats and conflict follows summer months in which he appeared politically adrift as the coronavirus pandemic overtook the nation, infecting at least 6.2 million people and dampening the economy.

He initially wavered about whether to focus campaign advertising on touting his pandemic response or on attacking his opponent, before eventually launching attacks on Biden’s ties to China, his mental acuity and his policy positions.  Biden’s polling advantage widened.

When nationwide protests against police misconduct led to violence this summer, Trump’s strategy shifted again.  A July 9 set of talking points distributed around the White House by Stephen Miller, an adviser who wrote Trump’s 2016 nomination speech, previewed the message that Trump would settle on for the final push to the Republican National Convention.

The solution Miller described, which Trump soon incorporated into his rhetoric and advertising, was to portray Biden as a fundamental threat to public safety.  “No one will be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” the document read.  The Democratic nominee, Miller’s document continued, “will surrender America and its citizens to the violent left-wing mob” and “abolish the American Way of Life.”

The shift sought to rehabilitate Trump’s political message of dominance and turn the discussion away from the pandemic, which public polling showed had become a drag on the President’s support.

“You can’t really tell people that there is no COVID crisis, because they are surrounded by it.  The only thing you can do is make something else louder,” said Matthew Baum, a political scientist at Harvard University who studies political persuasion and misinformation.  “You don’t have to persuade people.  All you have to do is say: ‘Don’t look over there.  Look over here.’?”

Biden has argued that Trump is trying to distract Americans from his inability to better address the health, economic and race-relations crises facing the nation.

Trump’s message is, “?‘The whole country is up in flames.  Everything is burning.  Law and order,’ ” Biden said Friday at a news conference in Wilmington, Del., “because he doesn’t want to talk about anything, anything at all, about the job he hasn’t done.”

Biden has mocked Trump’s effort to cast him as responsible for any street violence, no matter the alleged perpetrator.

“Ask yourself: Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” Biden asked during a speech on Aug. 31 in Pittsburgh.  “I want a safe America — safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting, safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops.  Let me be crystal clear — safe from four more years of Donald Trump.”

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the President is focused on helping communities affected by the violence.  “These riots are destroying the life’s work of Black, Hispanic and Asian business owners, and they have to stop,” he said.

Expressions advocating violence were central to Trump’s early political endeavors.

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you,” Trump said about a protester at an event in Las Vegas.  When a nonviolent Black protester was beaten at a rally in Birmingham, Ala., by a White crowd, Trump responded the next day, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

He argued repeatedly at rallies for the extrajudicial abuse or even killing of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had left his post in Afghanistan.  “Thirty years ago, he would have been shot,” Trump said.  At another event, he said of Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban, “They beat the crap out of him, which is fine.”

Rather than recoil, his crowds embraced the tough talk, and Trump has delivered more as President.  After Greg Gianforte, then a Montana congressional candidate, physically attacked a reporter in 2017, Trump turned the incident into an applause line.  “Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!” the President said.

When Trump addressed a law enforcement group in 2017 on Long Island he urged incaution in policing.

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon,” he said, “you just see them thrown in, rough.  I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice.’?”

The new threat Trump has focused on is depicted as no less ominous than his previous targets — and it is similarly inflated with rhetoric that mixes descriptions of actual events with conspiracy theories for which he offers no evidence.  In recent days, he has described “rioters, anarchists, agitators and looters” who he claimed in a Fox News interview, without evidence, have been traveling the country in commercial planes to create havoc, funded by “people you have never heard of” who operate in “dark shadows.”

He also has tried to adjust the historical record by claiming federal actions he instigated have proved that his solution of physical toughness and law enforcement domination is responsible for clearing streets of violent protesters.  On a visit to Kenosha, he claimed that his push to deploy the National Guard saved the city from further rioting after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man.

“If I didn’t INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,” Trump tweeted last week.  Federal officials did work with local law enforcement in quelling the protests, but Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) had ordered the Guard to the city a day before Trump’s public call for their deployment.

Pollsters have noted a shift in polling around the Black Lives Matter movement, which was initially broad and bipartisan in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in May.  Support for the movement in Wisconsin, according to a Marquette University Law School poll, fell from 59 percent to 49 percent between June and August.

But national polls continue to show that Biden leads Trump on questions of which candidate would make the country safer.  A recent national Quinnipiac University poll found that 50 percent of likely voters said Trump made them feel less safe, compared with 35 percent who said he made them feel more safe.

By contrast, 42 percent of voters said Biden would make them feel more safe as President, compared with 40 percent who said they would feel less safe.

TRUMP AGENDA - Getting Re-elected With Russia's Help

Trump: 'U.S. intelligence agencies are staffed with crocked never-Trumpers and need to be cleaned out.'  aka 'Everyone is against me.  WAAAA!'

"Amid reported Russian meddling, a ‘deeply damaging’ politicization of U.S. intelligence" PBS NewsHour 2/21/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Multiple news outlets report that U.S. intelligence officials told House lawmakers recently that Russia is actively trying to help President Trump be reelected.  In response, Trump has lashed out at Democrats, saying they are starting a “rumor” about Russian election interference.  Yamiche Alcindor talks to Laura Rosenberger of the Alliance for Securing Democracy about what’s at stake.

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 2/14/2020

"Mark Shields and Michael Gerson on New Hampshire primary, Trump vs. DOJ" PBS NewsHour 2/14/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Sen.  Bernie Sanders’ victory in the New Hampshire primary and how it shapes the race for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination, President Trump's strategy for reelection and the political conflict surrounding the Justice Department.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Gerson.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Hello to both of you.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Judy.

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  Good to be here.

Judy Woodruff:  So, we have had a primary, New Hampshire.  We now know what happened in the first-in-the-nation contest, after Iowa, where there was some confusion about the results.

Mark, what do we make of it?

Mark Shields:  Judy, here's the bright side for the Democrats.  It broke the turnout record, after a disappointing turnout in Iowa the week before.  Among Democrats, there was a new turnout record.  So, enthusiasm was up.

Bernie Sanders got half as many votes as he got four years ago against Hillary Clinton.  He beat Hillary Clinton by 57,000 votes.  He beat Pete Buttigieg by 3,900 votes.  And yet winning is coming in first.  And Bernie won.  So, Bernie coming, out of a popular vote, if not a delegate vote, win in Iowa, and a popular vote win in New Hampshire, has to be considered the front-runner at this point.

Judy Woodruff:  Has to be considered the front-runner.  Any doubt about that?

Michael Gerson:  No.

I think the biggest results of New Hampshire were results of exclusion.  I think that Warren is now not competing very effectively for the left lane of the Democratic Party.  Sanders really solidified that.  And I think Biden took a real blow in the results, coming in fifth, it was.

Judy Woodruff:  Fifth.

Michael Gerson:  That — for the former vice President to do that.

So you have clarity on the left in the Democratic Party, but you do not have Bernie Sanders proving yet that he can go beyond his traditional coalition of young people and very — and liberals.  These results didn't prove he can move beyond that.  And if he's going to unit the party, he's going to need to do that.

Judy Woodruff:  And can he do that?  That's the big — that's the question.

Mark Shields:  Well, I'm not sure he can, but I think it's also — we ought to at least mention the other candidates quickly.

Judy Woodruff:  For sure.

Mark Shields:  Amy Klobuchar, after really having a disappointing showing in Iowa in her next to home state of New Hampshire with a fifth, had a strong third, a surprising third, and did it on those who disparaged debates as being important events.

I mean, it was her Friday night debate and her performance there that probably saved Bernie Sanders, if you think about it, because Joe Biden was collapsing, as Michael pointed out, and the Biden votes were up for grabs.  They either have to probably go to Buttigieg or to Amy Klobuchar.

Amy Klobuchar got the lion's share, based upon, in my judgment, her performance that night, and Buttigieg's less-than-spectacular performance in the debate.  He did very well.  He had a strong second.  He's been exceeding expectations more than anybody else in this rate, has Pete Buttigieg.

But now we go from what's called retail to wholesale.  In retail, in Iowa, New Hampshire, by effort and energy, you can meet enough voters.  You can talk with them.  You can…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Coffee shops, door to door.

Mark Shields:  Coffee shops, exactly.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Mark Shields:  And you do it.  And you have the time to do it.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Mark Shields:  And that's what the premium is upon.

Now, Judy, it's landing on tarmacs, it's going to TV studios, 14 states on one day, on Super Tuesday.  It changes.  And the premium becomes money and resources, a lot more than it does time and effort and human energy.

Michael Gerson:  I agree with that, except for one thing.

Mark Shields:  OK.

Michael Gerson:  I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar need to prove they can go to minority communities and get a significant amount of support.

If I were Buttigieg, I would have his supporters from Indiana down in South Carolina right now spreading the word that this guy is acceptable.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  Yes.

Michael Gerson:  So, I…

Judy Woodruff:  You think that's his main challenge, Buttigieg's main challenge?

Michael Gerson:  Well, his main challenge is that he's the mayor of a small town and — was the mayor of a small town — and has to keep proving that he can play in that league.  So he has to keep winning in order to do that.

But I think, in order to do that, he's going to have to show that he can appeal to Hispanic and black voters.  And I think that's a requirement.

Judy Woodruff:  And Nevada coming up a week from tomorrow, the 22nd of February, Mark.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  There's a powerful culinary workers union there which said it's not endorsing in the race.

Mark Shields:  Not endorsing.  Did take a shot at Bernie Sanders.

Judy Woodruff:  Did take a shot.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  They put out a flyer saying they don't like his single-payer…

Mark Shields:  They have got a Cadillac health plan.

Judy Woodruff:  I interviewed him on the program yesterday, and he said he does protect their workers.

But the point is, he didn't get that boost that he would have liked.

Mark Shields:  No, nor did Joe Biden.

Judy Woodruff:  Nor did Joe Biden.

Mark Shields:  No.  And they are important.

But you're right.  And that is a Latino, Hispanic constituency, largely.  And…

Judy Woodruff:  But coming back to Klobuchar quickly, though, Mark.

Mark Shields:  Sure.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, Pete Buttigieg has a lot to prove.  She [Klobuchar] has something to prove, doesn't she?

Mark Shields:  Oh, absolutely.  Yes.

No, I mean, Michael spoke of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for the liberal wing.  For the woman alley, she seems to have prevailed over Elizabeth Warren at this point.

What she has to do, Judy, is put together a national campaign on the fly.  You don't have — time is your enemy.

Judy Woodruff:  Klobuchar.

Mark Shields:  Klobuchar.

She doesn't have the resources.  She's got to raise money, hire people, and campaign in places all at the same time.  What she's got to do is figure out, picking one or two states on Super Tuesday and figuring, I'm going to make my fight here, challenging Bernie.

And Buttigieg, to the same degree, has to do the same thing, and making those — we can't cover 14 states at once.  OK?  There's going to be two or three that are going to emerge as the battleground.  And it's going to be strategic convincing the press and public that these are the two or three states.  And that's where I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar's chances lie.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Michael, we have got — we have a week from tomorrow is Nevada, and then the Saturday after that is South Carolina…

Michael Gerson:  That's right.

Judy Woodruff:  … where you do have a different electorate.  Something — more than 50 percent of the Democratic vote there is African-American.

So Buttigieg has his work cut out for him.  So does Sanders, for that matter, and Klobuchar.  But let's not forget — I do want to come back to Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, who faded.  She came in ahead of Joe Biden, but far back, I think, from where some thought she might be.

Michael Gerson:  Yes, I agree with that.

South Carolina is Joe Biden's last stand.

Mark Shields:  Absolutely.

Michael Gerson:  I think that Warren has invested some time and attention in Nevada.  And I think she's going to need to show some strength there in order to feel like that she can move along.

But there is going to be a fight for that moderate, liberal lane right now.  Biden seems out of the running.  Buttigieg and Klobuchar seem in the running.  But then you have Bloomberg in the wings, essentially betting that all of them will fail, and that he will be the ultimate alternative to Bernie Sanders.

And I don't know if that strategy works or not, but, so far, it's coming — some of the steps have taken place.

Judy Woodruff:  But, before we get to Bloomberg — and I want to ask you about that, Mark — Joe Biden.

He has come in a distant, what, fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire.  He argues he can come back.  That's only two states out of 50.

Mark Shields:  It is only two states out of 50.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, has that been done before?

Mark Shields:  They're the two that gets the most attention every four years.

I agree with Michael.  South Carolina is it.  There are no moral victories in South Carolina.  Joe Biden has to win.  And he was basing his confidence on his strong support in the African-American community.

We saw the African-American community turn on a dime in 2008, when they were overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton until Barack Obama won in Iowa.  And once he won in Iowa, the African-American community in South Carolina said, my goodness, this fellow really does have a chance, and they switched.

I think Joe Biden now, who is running on electability, a no longer relevant thesis, has to bank on the loyalty of the African-American community and his long service and identity there and his service with Barack Obama.

But that's it.  I mean, that's it for him.

Judy, when he said at the beginning of the debate, we took a gut punch in Iowa and I'm probably going to lose here, anybody who was going to go door to door for him that weekend just said, wait a minute.

Judy Woodruff:  And then left New Hampshire before…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  And left New Hampshire and said, well, maybe I ought to look at Klobuchar and Buttigieg.

Judy Woodruff: So, now — so, let's come back to Michael Bloomberg, because you're right, Michael, he does seem to be out there waiting, spending, what, $300 million on advertising.

Mark Shields:  Three-fifty.

Judy Woodruff:  A modest amount.

Is he in a position to benefit if this race remains muddled coming out of these next…

Michael Gerson:  Well, as the focus comes to him, he has baggage, stop and frisk baggage, baggage as the mayor.

He has — if you watch commercials, at least where I am, in Virginia, you see him with Barack Obama all the time.  He's trying to establish that he cooperated with him.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  … his running mate.

(LAUGHTER)

Michael Gerson:  Yes, exactly.  Yes.

And, so, I think he's trying to, you know, take care of that.  And he's going to have a unique advantage, completely untested, with those 15 or 16 states on Super Tuesday.  He's going to be able to spend a lot in each one of them.

Judy Woodruff:  And he suggests, Mark, that he's in his — whenever you see him making a speech, every time he's out there, he's prepared to go toe to toe with President Trump.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

In a strange way, I think that's a mistake and one of the few mistakes he's made.  Americans do not want a Trump vs. Trump race.  They don't want an insult race.  I think one of the great appeals, sleeper appeals, of Pete Buttigieg in this entire campaign is that he lowers the emotional thermostat in the room, that he speaks reasonably.

Coming back to Michael Bloomberg, Judy, you're absolutely right.  I have never seen anybody spend like this before.  But his campaign has been totally controlled.  He's never mixed it up.  Now there's even some mention that he might not even go to the debates, where you get a sense of people and how you feel about them.

And Americans, in the final analysis, Michael worked with George W. Bush, of the last seven Republican nominees, the only one to win a popular majority of the vote in a Presidential election in 2004.

Why did they vote for George W. Bush over John Kerry, who, I think, by most testaments, won the three debates between the two men?  Because they prefer, I-like over I.Q.  They were more comfortable with George W.

There's no comfort level with Michael Bloomberg at this point.  Nobody knows him.  We don't know if he's got a temper, if he's got a sense of humor, if he's self-deprecating.  Can he mix it up?

He's never mixed it up in a debate or in Iowa or New Hampshire.  I think that's what we're going to have to find out.  And if in a month from now, we're talking about his spending, rather than his ideas and how he's different and what he's going to do differently, we know where he is on climate change and gun control, then I think his campaign will be in trouble.

TRUMP'S WALL - Robbing Our Military

"Behind Trump’s ‘unprecedented’ reallocation of DOD money for border security" PBS NewsHour 9/5/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump is diverting some money for Defense Department infrastructure to instead construct or repair additional barrier sections on the U.S.-Mexico border.  The 127 projects losing funding include Hurricane Maria recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, and education and health services at military bases at home and overseas.  Lisa Desjardins talks to Judy Woodruff about the details and the reaction.

AFGHANISTAN - Peace Talks vs Attacks

"Amid peace talks, Taliban claims deadly explosion in Kabul" PBS NewsHour 9/2/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Afghanistan, the Taliban claimed responsibility for a massive explosion that rocked Kabul, killing at least five and wounding 50.  It targeted the heavily secured area that’s home to several aid agencies and international organizations, and came as the U.S. envoy briefed the Afghan government on a draft peace deal.  Special correspondent Jane Ferguson joins Judy Woodruff with the latest.

"In Afghanistan, the Taliban uses violence as leverage during peace negotiations" PBS NewsHour 9/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the Afghan capital of Kabul, 16 people died in a car bomb Monday night.  A compound housing mostly international workers was the target, and the Taliban claimed responsibility even as they participate in peace talks with the U.S.  Why has there been a “massive uptick in violence” recently, and what might the tentative peace deal include?  Special correspondent Jane Ferguson joins Judy Woodruff.

"What’s next for U.S.-Afghanistan peace talks?" PBS NewsHour 9/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump announced on Twitter on Saturday that he had canceled a secret Camp David meeting with the Taliban and Afghan officials, after the insurgent group “admitted” to a suicide attack in Kabul that killed 12 people, including a U.S. soldier.  The Wall Street Journal’s Kabul bureau chief, Craig Nelson, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the road ahead in ending America’s longest war.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 8/30/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump at the G-7, Democratic debates" PBS NewsHour 8/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including whether impeachment will have any momentum when Congress resumes, President Trump’s performance at the G-7 summit, Joe Biden’s stories, the rules governing eligibility for the 2020 Democratic debates and the candidates’ latest poll numbers.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, David, let's look at what we just heard from these voters in Andy Kim's district in New Jersey.  You could say they are all over the map, but it is interesting, yes, it is a divided district.  These voters really are divided.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

And, you know, I think impeachment is just this big mess of interruption in our process of government, to the extent that we have one.  And that usually is accompanied by a cultural landslide, where people are talking about the issue of impeachment, perhaps on the front page, and the Watergate is breaking stories — The Washington Post and The New York Times are breaking stories.

And as far as I can tell, the Russia investigation has drifted to the back of a lot of people's minds.  And so there is a core that still wants to do it, and there are over half of the Democratic Caucus want at least an inquiry into impeachment.

But I just don't feel the groundswell.  And I do think that sense that let's have this campaign and let's get to the issues is just going to make this impeachment thing peter out.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what do you make of people, real people's reactions?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I thought Betty Wilson, the voter in Burlington, had the best summation.  I want to get rid of him, but let's just get on with the election, basically.

And I think that is the prevailing attitude now.  I don't think there is any question.  I don't question the intensity, the sincerity, the conviction of those who seek the impeachment.  But I think the practicality of that course has been disproved.  And I think Speaker Pelosi has made her position pretty clear on it.

Judy Woodruff:  But you do have — David, you said it.

You have now got more than half.  You have got a majority of the Democrats who have now come out and said, we should move ahead with an impeachment inquiry.  You have got some key committee chairs.  You have got Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So what happens?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, to some degree — well, there is sort of the hard-core that wants to do this.  Then some people are saying, I am for the inquiry, but I am not sure I am for impeachment, which gives you — you're able to play both sides.

And then Pelosi's position has always been when the public case has been made for it.  And unless there is a groundswell, I think — I don't think she would go ahead and say the public case has been made for it.

And the risks of doing it are reasonably high.  We have seen that against the Clinton impeachment that backlashes tend to happen.  And that might happen in this case.

Judy Woodruff:  Risks?

Mark Shields:  Sure.  I mean, the steam went out of it, Judy.

It is not a matter of — a topic of common discussion in the country.  It is not at the top of any talk show list.  It just isn't.  There is an intensity obviously on the part of some Democratic partisans, but it's in no way is a majority position in the country or it hasn't changed.  It is not a growing position.

Bob Mueller's testimony came and it went, and it left in its wake no movement for impeachment.  I think that is fair to say.

Judy Woodruff:  Well…

Mark Shields:  And, plus, we are on the cusp of going to Iowa.  I mean, so there is an election.

Yap.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Well, let's talk for a moment about President Trump coming off, David, the G7 meeting of world leaders last week.  And I think it is fair to say this has been a tumultuous week for the President.  His position on trade with China was in one place and then another and yet another.

We were hearing something different almost every day.  You look back on the G7, again, the meeting in France last weekend, and it was more characterized by tension that he had with other world leaders than by any sense that anything was getting done.

David Brooks:  Yes.

That's sort of par for the course for G7 summits.  But I think what struck me this week was how the debate changed around Donald Trump.  There has been whispering, is he mentally not as fit as he was?  Are impairments rising?

That somehow seemed to rise and now become public conversation.  When he said his father was with born in Germany, when your father was born in the Bronx, that's not something you normally get wrong.  That his wife is good trends with the North Korean leader, when she had never met him.

I mean, there are just a lot of things coming out of his mouth.  And this has always been the case, but the verbal patterns — psychiatrists are not allowed to judge people they haven't met, but there are certainly a lot of people out there raising a lot of red flags.

So, that — to me, among the tumult of — the political tumult the G7, the psychological tumult is almost one of the key takeaways.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think we are in a different place with regard to all that with the President, Mark?

Mark Shields:  I don't know, Judy.

I think there is a fatigue about Donald Trump.  I think there is a what is he going to do next attitude, and that, you know, what is the capacity for outrage?  Have we reached those limits?

As far as the G7 summit, what hit me about it was, I can't get over how he continues to denigrate President Obama.  I mean, that just — it's gratuitous.

And I had it explained to me by a Trump — longtime Trump watcher, who said, Trump knows that at that G7 meeting, they would rather have Obama than him — than rather have him.

And so he is almost driven to make up stories about President Obama, that President Obama gave away Crimea to Putin, that — you know, it's just — it's sort of a fabricated thing.  And that, to me, is bizarre.

But the other thing about it is — and Adlai Stevenson once said, better we lose an election than mislead the American people.

Donald Trump lies when he doesn't have to.  On the meeting of the G7 on the environment, and he skipped it, and he said, well, my — the reason he wasn't there was that he was meeting with Ms. Merkel and the prime minister of India, both of whom were at the meeting.

So it is not — it's just being — saying things that are so easily corrected and so easily proved that he is lying.  And at some point, I would just think the burden of working for someone like that becomes unbearable, just unbearable.  He lies to you, as a loyal staffer.  He lies to the people he is dealing with.

And, you know, at some level, in politics, your word is the coin of the realm.  And he is just — he's overdrawn on that bank account.

U.S. SUPREME COURT - At Session's End

Another very bad decision that threatens or election system.  Gerrymandering should be un-constitutional.

"Supreme Court ends term with major rulings on census, gerrymandering" PBS NewsHour 6/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court ended its term with two major rulings that could have long-running implications for fundamental U.S. political processes.  It blocked a census citizenship question, at least for now, and declared federal courts have no role in policing partisan gerrymandering.  NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang and Stu Rothenberg of “Inside Elections” join Jeffrey Brown and National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle.

U.S. HEALTH CARE - Hidden Costs

"Trump pushes for new transparency with health care prices — but will it lower them?" PBS NewsHour 6/24/2019

Again, the U.S. lags behind the other nations that have universal health care, that the citizens like (worth every penny).  And these nations have smaller GNP than the U.S. and still afford it.

NOTE:  Trump's solution only applies to ELECTIVE heath care.  So what about when you have a heart attack and are taken to a out-of-network ER?  You can guess, you're out of luck (unless you're rich).

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Uncertainty around the costs of prescription drugs and health care in general is worrying Americans.  A recent study found that one in six were surprised by a medical bill from a hospital treatment in 2017.  On Monday, President Trump issued executive orders requiring greater transparency around medical costs.  But will they help?  Nick Schifrin talks to Elisabeth Rosenthal of Kaiser Health News.

RISING TENSIONS - Trump v Iran

"Amid elevated tensions, Trump announces new sanctions on Iran" PBS NewsHour 6/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After tensions with Iran nearly resulted in U.S. airstrikes last week, President Trump has fired a different type of weapon, levying new economic sanctions specifically targeting the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader.  At the same time, top U.S. officials pursued diplomatic measures while visiting the Middle East.  But Iran said the U.S. is the aggressor.  Nick Schifrin reports.

AMERICAN TALIBAN - John Walker Lindh

"Release of ‘American Taliban’ raises questions about U.S. efforts to deradicalize" PBS NewsHour 5/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  John Walker Lindh, who became known as the "American Taliban," was released from federal prison Thursday, three years short of his 20-year sentence.  President Trump criticized the release, saying Lindh was still an extremist.  Nick Schifrin reports and talks to Kevin Lowry, who was chief probation officer for the U.S. district court in Minnesota, about how the U.S. deals with convicted radicals.

MARCH TO THEOCRACY - More Religions Exemptions

Theocracy = Bible over our Constitution, law by fundamentalist religion.  Forget your personal religious rights, and if you are a women you do not control your own body.

"Trump aims to expand religious and philosophical exemptions for health workers" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump intends to expand rules that allow health care workers to opt out of participating in certain services on religious or moral grounds.  While conservatives celebrated what they call “conscience protections,” LGBTQ and women’s advocates warned the change would reduce services and cause patients harm.  Amna Nawaz talks to The New York Times' Margot Sanger-Katz for analysis.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Trump 2016 Campaign Start

"How the FBI began investigating a Trump campaign adviser in 2016" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has long claimed U.S. intelligence agencies spied on his 2016 campaign.  This week, he considered himself vindicated by a story in The New York Times detailing an FBI effort to covertly gather information from a Trump campaign adviser.  Judy Woodruff talks to reporter Adam Goldman about what sparked the investigation and whether it appears to have followed standard processes.

Judy Woodruff:  (NewsHour):  We're joined now by one of the article's reporters.  He is Adam Goldman.  He covers the FBI and national security for The Times.

Adam Goldman, welcome again to the "NewsHour."

So tell us on what basis it was.  The story is about an FBI investigator meeting covertly with a Trump campaign adviser.  Tell us, how did this come about?  How unusual was it?

Adam Goldman (New York Times):  Well, I don't think it's particularly unusual, if the FBI believes there's wrongdoing and they need to get to the bottom of this.

They typically might send an investigator like this woman in alongside an informant to figure out what happened.  And that's exactly what they were trying to do.  The FBI was trying to understand, you know, was George Papadopoulos, this foreign policy, this campaign adviser for Trump, in some way working with the Russians?

And they thought that because they had received an allegation that, in fact, he was.  So they moved quickly and aggressively to try to figure out, before the election ended, was he, in fact, working with the Russians?

Judy Woodruff:  So, what was the basis they were using?  What evidence did they have that there was a reason to try to get in and know more about what he was up to?

Adam Goldman:  I think, at its core, the Australian government provided information that George — that the Russians had essentially made George Papadopoulos an offer, saying they had hacked e-mails, Democratic e-mails, and they could help him release them and coordinate the timing of that.

And Papadopoulos had told that to the Australian ambassador at the time in London, and that information was relayed to the FBI, months later, in fact.  And that was the genesis of the FBI's Russia investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane.

GOVERNMENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER - Free Speech on Campus

"How Trump’s executive order on campus free speech could affect colleges" PBS NewsHour 3/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump signed an executive order Thursday requiring that U.S. colleges seeking federal research funding must certify that their policies support free speech in order to receive it.  Amna Nawaz talks to Jerry Falwell Jr., and Georgetown University’s Sanford Ungar about how free expression is constrained on college campuses and what the president’s action will do to change that.

TRUMP TAX REFORM - The Grift the Implications

"Grift"

"The financial, political and psychological implications of tax reform" PBS NewsHour 4/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The deadline for filing your taxes is right around the corner, on Monday, April 15.  This is the first year that fully incorporates major updates to the tax code signed into law by President Trump in 2017.  Amid the changes, some taxpayers are expressing confusion and alarm at how the new rules affect them.  Lisa Desjardins talks to Jim Tankersley from The New York Times.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/5/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s border threats, Barr’s handling of Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 4/5/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s reversal on closing the U.S.-Mexico border, Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, and controversy over former Vice President Joe Biden’s interactions with women.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, let's talk about the border, Mark.

The President this week has been at one point saying he's going to close it.  He's angry at Mexico, and has been angry at the Central American countries.  Now — then he changed and said, well, you know, maybe we won't do that, but we might do it later.

What do you make of his overall approach to what's going on at this crisis at the border?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, the fact that the piece demonstrates so well is the total interdependence at, for example, the border in Mexico and Southern California.

That is the pattern throughout.  We're talking about the United States' third largest trading partner, Mexico, $1.5 billion a day in goods and services being traded back and forth from each country.

And what the President showed more than anything else was a problem that's nagged his entire administration.  He just wasn't informed on this, and his threats were not only unnerving, but they really did the almost impossible, stirred Republicans on the Hill, beginning with Majority Leader McConnell, to say it would be catastrophic to cut off trade.

And following on the heels, Judy, of the President's making the Republicans the health care party, after an election where they suffered their biggest defeat in 100 years, midterm elections, on the health care issue.  By a 3-1 margin, Americans thought Democrats were better on health care than Republicans.

And his attacks on John McCain, it really was unsettling in any confidence in the President, particularly within his own party.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you size up how he's handled this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, I give him a little credit.

He has been saying there's a crisis on the border for the past six months and eight months.  And he's right.  And I think some of us have downplayed that.  But it's clear Jeh Johnson, who was in the Obama administration, is saying there's a crisis.  There's 4,000 people getting detained every day.  There's a backlog of a million cases.

All of our facilities are completely overrun.  And so there is clearly a crisis at the border.  The problem with Donald Trump (A) there is no policy process.  When he announces a policy, there's nothing behind it.  It's just words coming out of his mouth.

But (B) the idea the wall is the appropriate answer to what is happening on the border is completely ridiculous.  These are asylum seekers.  A wall does nothing.  It's completely irrelevant to the situation.

And I go back to what the gentleman in the piece said.  The problem is in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and those countries that have become lawless.   And El Salvador's the most dangerous, peaceful — peacetime nation in the world right now; 95 percent of the crimes are not being solved, not being prosecuted, hundreds of millions of dollars in extortion.

You have got families living in the middle of all these killings.  What are they expected to do?  And so as long as you have got that situation, we're going to have this crisis at the border, because we're all one continent or one people — maybe two continents — but we're all one people.

And so the idea is that you have got to fix it at the root.  And there's no easy way to do that.  But there's no other answer.

Judy Woodruff:  No easy way to do that, Mark.

Are you all — are we all now acknowledging that the answers don't come easy, but what do we do?  What's to be done?

Mark Shields:  No, nobody's ever pretended.

There have been serious efforts.  And public officials in both parties deserve credit for making an effort to come up with an immigration policy in this country.  There's been no leadership in this administration at all.  Democrats have a responsibility as well.

Migration throughout history has been driven by two factors, one, fear, anger, isolation in the place where you are; and a hope, the place you're going, which the United States has more often than not represented the latter.

And David is right.  But the answer to Honduras and Guatemala is not to cut off aid, as the President.  It's to make an effort, to be creative in trying to bring some sense of justice, order, economic stability to those countries, and political safety.  That is — that, to me, is the first step.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  But…

Mark Shields:  Go ahead.

Judy Woodruff:  I was just going to say, but the President argues that hasn't worked.

He says, we have given them — we have been giving these countries help, and it hasn't worked.

David Brooks:  Well, that's not true.

In the first place, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of people who are coming here.  One are economically motivated.  They want to get jobs here.  And, frankly, American efforts across several administrations have done a very excellent job of reducing the number of people who economically come here.  We need a certain number.

But the flow of, say, Mexican workers who come to this country was sharply down.  So, we were in a situation a few years ago where there were more Latinos leaving than coming.  And that's because we helped make the — and not us alone, but we did some role in helping the Mexican economy become a healthy economy.

Mark Shields:  That's right.

David Brooks:  What we're seeing now is not that.

It's fear-driven.  Think of it like people leaving Syria for Lebanon.  It's a little more like that than like the economic immobility.  These people are leaving in completely disparate straits because they have no other choice.  And they're asylum seekers.

And so these are two different things.  And the idea that our aid has not done much for that, I would say we haven't even tried.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

And the backlog that David speaks of is, in fact, the people seeking asylum.  I mean, they are — it's uprooting your entire family.  This is not the traditional male leaving to make money to send it home, to return home with that money.

Judy Woodruff:  Change of subject, the Mueller report.

David, we — I don't know if you heard, but Congressman Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on the program a few minutes ago.  He said outright he expects the Attorney General should give the Congress the full Mueller report, all almost 400 pages of it.

But he went on to say he doesn't think the Attorney General has been a fair broker in all this, for a number of reasons.  He expects to get less than that, so we're going to see subpoenas.

Where do you see this process going?

David Brooks:  Yes, I think that's an error.  I think that's a mistake.

I think one of the things that's been reasonably well-established, with a few bad exceptions, is that when you release a report like this, you don't release the grand jury, some of that information, and you don't release sources and methods.

And Barr has told us he's just cleaning that stuff out and then he will release the rest.

Judy Woodruff:  But Nadler says it's just going to the committee.  It won't be released to the public.

David Brooks:  Right.  Well, good luck with that.  If it goes to the committee, it will go to the public.

And so, in my view, that's a much more dangerous option.  So, to me, maybe he's right about Barr.  Maybe Barr is not an honest broker here.  We don't know.  I think he's handled it reasonably well.  But at least let Barr issue what — the next piece of the report that he's going to issue.  Let's take a look at it and see what we think then.

But the idea of just basically leaking out the whole report, which I think would be inevitable, seems to me a miscarriage of justice.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you think of the Nadler approach, the Democrats' approach?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think that — I think two factors.

First of all, I think that Attorney General Barr gave the President a green light claim exoneration.  And I think that has obviously set off a sense of frustration and anger on the part of people who worked on the Mueller group, as well as Democrats in particular.  I think the President may have gone too far with it.

What I worry about with Chairman Nadler is, for anybody with a sense of history in this town, in 1998, one of the reasons that the effort against Bill Clinton failed was because of the excessive partisanship of Newt Gingrich and people like that in the Republican leadership.

And it became seen as a partisan drive against him.  Contrast that, if you would, Judy, with Howard Baker, Sam Ervin, and Peter Rodino, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the time of Watergate, when they all rose above any petty partisanship.

And I just — I don't think it ought to be seen as a Democratic hunt on Republicans.  I do think it's coming, and I think that…

Judy Woodruff:  The full report?

Mark Shields:  I think the full report will eventually get out.

But I think Bob Mueller will testify.  And I think that the Attorney General has said he's going to testify as well.  I would like to see it play out, rather — before we go to DEFCON 1.

Judy Woodruff:  But you're saying it's going to take several steps?

Mark Shields:  I think it will.  I think it will.

But I think there's a lot — the pressure is building on Attorney General Barr, because he knows his précis or summary of the Mueller report doesn't meet with the satisfaction or professional passing on the part of the people who worked on the Mueller — I really think that's a problem.

David Brooks:  Yes.

It's possible to believe two things at once, that this investigation conducted by honest brokers found no evidence of collusion and not sufficient evidence of obstruction, but still there's a lot more in the report that will make the Trump administration look really bad.

Mark Shields:  That's right.

David Brooks:  Both those things are true.  And I think, in the fullness of time, we will find both those things to be true.

HEALTH CARE BATTLES - State Eligibility Requirements

These so-called job requirements are based on the old lie that 'poor people are poor because they are just lazy.'

"Why federal judge turned down work requirements for Medicaid in two states" PBS NewsHour 3/29/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This week saw President Trump resurface the political debate over health care, as he declared his intention to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  At the same time, a federal judge blocked work requirements the administration had tried to implement on Medicaid benefits in two states.  Amna Nawaz reports and talks to The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell about health care policy and legal challenges.

TRUMPONOMICS - 2020 Budget

IMHO:  Economic growth for the rich and powerful, and continued stagnation for the lower and middle class. (aka, screw the common people)

"How Trump’s proposed 2020 budget hinges on significant economic growth" PBS NewsHour 3/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The White House has released President Trump’s proposed 2020 budget.  The record $4.7 trillion plan calls for increased military spending and $8.6 billion for Trump’s controversial border wall, along with significant cuts to domestic programs.  Judy Woodruff talks to the President’s Chief Economic Adviser, Larry Kudlow, about his priorities and why “growth solves a lot of problems” for the economy.

OUTRAGE - Big Brother Watching Advocates

"Feds tracked caravan advocates and others" by Kate Morrissey, San Diego Union-Tribune 3/7/2019

NOTE:  Copied from e-newspaper, so no link to article.

Dossiers were kept on 59 activists, lawyers, journalists involved at border

Documents published Wednesday indicate that the federal government has monitored a group of journalists, attorneys, advocates, and activists who interacted with a migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana late last year.

As recently as a week ago, an attorney with Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization that has been supporting migrants in Tijuana, was stopped when trying to enter Mexico in what some believe is continued targeting of people who either worked with the caravan or covered the story of its journey to the border.

NBC7 in San Diego published leaked documents Wednesday indicating that the U.S. government has kept dossiers on a group of 59 advocates , activists, attorneys and journalists it is investigating in relation to the migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana in November.  Many of those in the dossiers appeared in previous articles by The San Diego Union-Tribune , the Los Angeles Times, and The Intercept talking of frequent interrogations at the border or being denied entry to Mexico.

A number of people in the group began to come forward earlier this year after being interrogated repeatedly in secondary inspection when crossing north through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.  They said they were asked questions about the caravan and about the people helping it.

Others, like freelance photographer Kitra Cahana, found themselves blocked from entering Mexico.  Cahana was twice denied entry to the country when she tried to return to continue her work covering migrants.

Most, but not all, of the people interviewed by the Union-Tribune who believed they had been targeted by Customs and Border Protection for investigation had been present when some members of the caravan were trying to cross the border illegally, such as the incident on New Year’s Day when more than 100 migrants gathered on the south side of the border that resulted in U.S. officials firing tear gas.  (Officials maintain that they were responding to rocks being thrown at them, but some witnesses have disputed the order of events.)

The published documents indicate that officials placed alerts on some of the people in the group and canceled visas or SENTRI passes for others.  At least nine people in the documents appear to have red X’s over their photos, indicating that they were arrested.  Many of those nine were later deported from Mexico.

Asked about the dossiers, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman said that the arriving caravans had “added increased and new challenges to an already complicated and dangerous mission.”

“Criminal events, such as the breach of the border wall in San Diego, involving assaults on law enforcement and a risk to public safety, are routinely monitored and investigated by authorities,” the CBP official said.

“These activities could result in a more thorough review of those seeking entrance into our country.  It is protocol following these incidents to collect evidence that might be needed for future legal actions and to determine if the event was orchestrated.  CBP and our law enforcement partners evaluate these incidents, follow all leads garnered from information collected, conduct interviews and investigations, in preparation for, and often to prevent future incidents that could cause further harm to the public, our agents, and our economy.”

Exactly how much authority border officials have to search and interrogate individuals versus how much civil rights protect individuals passing through the border is still being litigated in court.

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union called for more oversight and accountability of the agency after learning of the dossiers.

“This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment,” said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.  “The government cannot use the pretext of the border to target activists critical of its policies, lawyers providing legal representation, or journalists simply doing their jobs.  We are exploring all options in response.”

Al Otro Lado attorney Erika Pinheiro’s name doesn’t appear on the documents that NBC7 published, but her colleague’s, Nicole Ramos, does.  (The news outlet blurred many of the faces and names in the dossier, but Ramos appears to be the only person identified as an attorney in the pages that were published.  Some of those in the documents do not have a role identified.)

Pinheiro was denied entry when she tried to enter Tijuana on foot from San Diego in late January because of an international alert placed on her passport, she said.  She spent about a month in the U.S. working to get a residence card to be able to return.

“All my family lives in Mexico,” Pinheiro said.  “The whole time I was out, my family was separated.  They removed me from Mexico without my kid.”

The alert was triggered again when she drove across at the San Ysidro Port of Entry a little over a week ago and took her residence card paperwork to Mexican immigration officials, she said.  One of the supervisors told her that the alert is for people who have national security or criminal issues, she said.

She had to fill out a questionnaire that asked whether she had warrants in other countries and if she’d ever been convicted of a crime.  Officials at the port of entry sent her information to Mexico City, and she was allowed into the country after waiting for about an hour.

“The last time they were much more aggressive,” Pinheiro said of her experience.  “This time they seemed generally confused.”

A Mexican immigration official confirmed that Pinheiro had to go through an “administrative process” at the port of entry because of an alert on her passport.  The official was not able to share the reason for the alert.

Pinheiro believes that the United States government placed the alert on her passport.

“It seems like the United States government is targeting anyone who provides assistance to migrants,” Pinheiro said.  “There’s a very clear pattern of that.”

Nora Phillips, legal director of Al Otro Lado, was also denied entry to Mexico in January because of a flag on her passport.

Al Otro Lado is part of several lawsuits against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The State Department and the Department of Justice referred the Union-Tribune to Mexican immigration officials for comment on Pinheiro’s case.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record.

Days before Pinheiro’s second incident at the border, attorneys included a request for information about the alert on Pinheiro’s passport as part of the discovery process in a case alleging that the federal government is illegally turning away asylum seekers.  Court documents related to the attorney’s request in the case are sealed.

A statement from organizations involved in the case said that attorneys had filed for expedited discovery to determine whether the alerts on the two Al Otro Lado attorneys’ passports were in retaliation for the lawsuit and Al Otro Lado’s advocacy on behalf of asylum seekers.  It points out that the work that Pinheiro and other Al Otro Lado attorneys do, including representing clients in the lawsuits against the U.S. government, requires them to be able to travel to Mexico.

Though Pinheiro has been able to return to Mexico, she worries that she will be denied entry from any other country because of the alert on her passport.

Her work requires her to travel to Central America frequently as she’s among those who have been on the ground supporting deported parents of separated families.  Just this week Al Otro Lado supported 29 deported parents on a journey back to the U.S. border in Calexico to ask to be reunited with their children.

MARCH TO THEOCRACY - Anti-Woman's Rights, Abortion

IMHO:  There is a big push by conservative Christians to turn the United States into a theocracy by making their doctrine and beliefs the law-of-the-land over our Constitution.  The ONLY persons who should be making the decision on abortion are women; not local, state, or federal government.  It is a right of women to make this moral decision.

Doreen Denny is not really concerned about women, they are concerned about their agenda.  Some states already have banned abortions in clinics, to there will be no 'other providers' to refer to.  (see link to CWA below)

"Why abortion opponents support Trump’s Title X rule change" PBS NewsHour 2/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration intends to limit the Title X program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services.  Under the new restrictions, any clinic accepting federal funds would be prevented from performing abortions -- or referring women to other providers for the procedure.  William Brangham talks to Doreen Denny of Concerned Women for America, who supports the new policy.

REMINDER:  The majority of what Planned Parenthood provides is NOT abortion.  (see link below)

"Why Planned Parenthood believes Title X rule change will compromise patient health" PBS NewsHour 2/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Under a new rule proposed by the Trump administration, family-planning clinics that receive federal funds through Title X would be prevented from referring women to other providers for abortions.  One organization that would be affected is Planned Parenthood, whose president Dr. Leana Wen talks to William Brangham about why the move would compromise patient health as well as medical ethics.