Listen Live:

ABC - Politics News
Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Friday said he is on the verge of stripping the security clearance of a longtime Justice Department official who has emerged as a target and political talking point for Republicans upset over special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

"I think Bruce Ohr is a disgrace. I suspect I’ll be taking it away very quickly," Trump said of Ohr's security clearance on Friday, just two days after the White House announced it had taken away clearances for former CIA director John Brennan, a ferocious critic of Trump.

"For [Ohr] to be in the Justice Department, and to be doing what he did, that is a disgrace," Trump added.

But -- even after months of repeated attacks on him from Trump and the president's political allies -- it's still unclear exactly what, if anything, Ohr did.

Trump has attacked Ohr by name frequently in recent months, as his reportedly private fuming over Mueller's probe increasingly seeps onto his Twitter feed. On Tuesday, Trump accused Ohr and his wife, Nellie, of being "in on the act big time" to undermine his presidential campaign in 2016.

In early 2016, when Trump was still vying for the Republican nomination, a young adviser on his campaign told an Australian diplomat he had reason to believe the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat alerted the FBI, which opened a counterintelligence investigation into the matter.

Around the same time, backed by money from Democratic operatives, the research firm Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to look into Trump's alleged ties to Russia. Steele was friendly with a Fusion GPS employee's husband – Bruce Ohr, an organized crime expert who was serving as associate deputy attorney general in the Justice Department.

Steele ultimately compiled a "dossier" filled with an array of controversial allegations against Trump. Ohr "wasn't working on the Russia matter," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently told lawmakers. Nevertheless, Ohr gave a copy of the dossier to the FBI - but by then the FBI had already obtained a copy of the dossier from another source.

The dossier helped push the FBI to expand its counterintelligence investigation into whether anyone associated with Trump's campaign may have been coordinating with Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. And, for a short period then, the FBI was in contact with Steele about his work on the matter.

In October 2016, the dossier was one of many pieces of evidence the FBI used to justify its secret monitoring of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI believed was working as an agent for Russia and who the FBI knew had been targeted three years earlier for recruitment by Russian spies. Page has denied working for the Russians.

The FBI's probe of Russian meddling and possible ties to Trump associates was being run by Peter Strzok, the now-fired FBI veteran. In late 2016 or early 2017, around the same time the FBI decided to cut off contact with Steele, Strzok and Ohr spoke as many as five times about "operational" and "investigative matters," Strzok recently told a House panel.

Citing orders from FBI attorneys, Strzok wouldn't offer any more details about their interactions. But under oath he insisted to lawmakers that the true nature of what Ohr did --when it can be made public -- will both "reassure" and "disappoint" concerned Republicans.

It's unclear if Ohr was using those contacts with Strzok to pass information from Steele to the FBI. At the time, Ohr was assigned to work on matters completely unrelated to Russia. A State Department website shows that in October 2017, while still in the deputy attorney general's office, he traveled to Honduras to speak at a forum about security issues facing Central America. But when Rosenstein then learned that Ohr had been in contact with Steele, "we arranged to transfer Mr. Ohr to a different office," Rosenstein recently told lawmakers.

The Justice Department's inspector general is now looking into Ohr's actions, Rosenstein said.

In recent months, many Republicans -- led by Trump and a small group of House members --have used Ohr to push their view that Mueller's probe is tainted.

"I think that Bruce Ohr is a disgrace with his wife Nellie," Trump told reporters on Friday. "And Mr. Mueller has a lot of conflicts also."

A source with knowledge of the Mueller probe described such allegations against Ohr as "a fishing expedition."

Before joining the deputy attorney general's office, Ohr served as director for the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces. In 2013, the State Department described him as "a Department of Justice subject matter expert" on transnational organized crime.

He had spent several years in senior positions within the department, overseeing gang- and racketeering-related prosecutions.

From 1991 to 1999, he served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.

He also served in private practice, and has a law degree from Harvard Law School, according to government documents posted online.

On Wednesday, when the White House announced it had stripped Brennan of his security clearance, Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Trump was contemplating whether to strip several others, including Ohr, of their clearances.

At least two of those she mentioned, former FBI director James Comes and former deputy director Andrew McCabe, lost their clearances some time ago.

In response to Brennan's loss of security clearance, a dozen senior intelligence officials -- who served Republican and Democratic presidents -- issued a joint statement, saying, "[T]he president's action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech."

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Thousands of Americans -- many low-income -- are at risk of losing Medicaid health care insurance coverage as states implement work requirements pushed and approved by the Trump administration.

In Arkansas, more than 5,400 people failed to comply with the work requirements for the past two months, according to a monthly report provided by the Arkansas Department of Human Services putting them in a position to lose their coverage if they don't comply in August.

If residents don't submit information that proves they work, attend school or job training, or volunteer at least 80 hours a month during three months a year, they could be frozen from applying for Medicaid until next year.

Under the Arkansas requirements, residents who want to submit proof that they worked or apply for an exemption have to do so through an online portal, which has been reported as a problem for people without reliable internet access. Advocates for people who are homeless have also said they struggled to help them apply for exemptions, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

Advocates in Arkansas filed a lawsuit this week on behalf of residents that could lose Medicaid coverage challenging the administration's decision to approve the policy.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Cesar Ardon, says he used Medicaid for treatment following a surgery to remove a tumor from his torso last year and other health problems like arthritis, carpal tunnel, and high cholesterol.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which filed the lawsuit, says Ardon works as a handyman and has unpredictable work hours but falls under the requirement to show that he works at least 20 hours a week to keep his coverage. He reportedly received a notice that he did not meet the requirement in June and had trouble submitting his report for July because of a bad internet connection.

Ardon said in a statement that he sometimes can't afford his internet bill to report his work hours.

“I worry about getting sick and being unable to work and access health care if I lost my Medicaid coverage,” said Ardon. “I hope this lawsuit will help others like me. No one should have to lose their Medicaid coverage just because they are having trouble finding enough work.”

The state is phasing in the requirements gradually so not everyone eligible for Medicaid is subject to them yet. They apply to about 46,000 adults ages 30-49 in the state and data shows that more than 30,000 automatically met the requirements. Of the 13,000 people that were required to report through the state's online system the data shows that only 844 reported enough hours to meet the requirements and a spokeswoman said most of them did not report anything.

“We're seeing what we didn't want to see, we want to see those numbers go up, we want to see more and more people meet the work requirement,” another DHS spokesperson Marci Manley told ABC affiliate KATV.

In January, the Trump administration told states it would support programs that require residents to work, attend school, or enroll in job training programs to receive Medicaid benefits. Administration officials have also said they would support work requirements on aid programs like nutrition and housing assistance.

“People who participate in activities that increase their education and training are more likely to find sustainable employment, have higher earnings, a better quality of life, and, studies have shown, improved health outcomes,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Selma Verna said at the time.

Arkansas, New Hampshire, and Indiana have been granted waivers to add a work requirement component to Medicaid programs and at least seven more states have requested waivers, according to data compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Michigan House (DETROIT) -- A Michigan lawmaker apologized after roiling her state Senate race and drawing the ire of the state Democratic party for making racial slurs against her former rival, an Asian-American candidate.

Rep. Bettie Cook Scott, who is African-American, said in a statement released on Twitter by her lawyer, Bill Noakes, "I deeply regret the comments I made that have proven hurtful to so many. Those are words I never should have said."

Coming under fire for allegedly making derogatory, anti-immigrant comments aimed at her opponent, Rep. Stephanie Chang, to multiple voters outside polling precincts during Michigan's primaries, Scott called her "ching-chong," according to the Detroit News.

She also purportedly told voters who showed up last Tuesday that she was disgusted at "seeing Black people holding signs for these Asians and not supporting their own people," and told a volunteer for Chang's campaign, "you don't belong here," the Detroit News reports.

Scott and Chang, both from Detroit, competed in a crowded primary for state Senate District 1 with a deep field of six candidates. Despite the attempt by Scott to smear her opponent at the polling places, Chang emerged on top in the primary race after garnering 50 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results from the secretary of state. Scott only captured 11 percent of the 32,930 voters who turned out for the Aug. 7 Democratic primary.

Currently serving in her third term in the Michigan state House, Scott started her tenure in 2007, after three years with Detroit public schools as a public school teacher and 17 years with the Detroit Police Department as a police officer. Scott was not eligible to run for re-election in the state House this cycle due to term limits.

Chang, who is also from Detroit, represents Michigan's 6th House District as the first Asian American woman elected to serve in the Michigan legislature. She is in her second term and previously was a community organizer in the city.

Scott's disparaging remarks led to dozens of groups calling for an apology after her comments were reported earlier this week. Among them was the Michigan Democratic Party, who lambasted Scott for her racially-motivated comments, asserting, "There is no place in our state or our party for bigotry and discrimination."

"Bettie Cook Scott's remarks were not only offensive but go against all the values of the Democratic Party," said party chair Brandon Dillon, in a statement released Thursday. "She must apologize immediately ... We, at the Michigan Democratic Party, are deeply offended by these statements and the attitude behind them. We expect better from anyone who wants to call themselves a Michigan Democrat. Bettie Cook Scott needs to apologize to the entire Asian American community. If an individual doesn’t share our fundamental values of tolerance, decency, and respect, they should find another party."

Shortly after the statement from the state party, Scott released her apology and offered to meet with Chang.

"I humbly apologize to Representative Chang her husband, Mr. Gray, and to the broader Asian American community for those disparaging remarks," the statement reads. "In the divisive age we find ourselves in, I should not contribute further to that divisiveness. I have reached out to Representative Chang to meet with her so that I may apologize to her in person. I pray she and the Asian American community can find it in their hearts to forgive me."

In response, Chang told ABC News in a statement that, "Hate has no place in our state, and especially not from those elected to serve the public."

She also accepted Scott's offer to meet in person.

"I understand Rep. Scott has recognized that her comments were uncalled for and inappropriate," she continued. "This is not about me — it is about the impact of xenophobia and bigotry on Asian American and immigrant communities. I appreciate Rep Scott's offer to sit down and discuss these problematic comments in person, and will meet with her next week with representatives I have invited from the Asian American and immigrant community."

Scott did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- In an unprecedented show of support, more than a dozen top former intelligence officials have signed a letter backing former CIA Director John Brennan whose security clearance was revoked by the White House earlier this week.

The group of former CIA directors, CIA deputy directors and Director of National Intelligence called the move "ill-considered" and said the threat of additional removals are not based on security concerns but have "everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech."

Brennan has drawn President Trump's ire for his vocal criticism of the President and his policies.

The White House announced earlier this week that Brennan's national security clearance had been revoked because he "recently leveraged his status with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television about this administration."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also said President Trump was considering removing the national security clearances of other former intelligence officials who have been critical of his presidency.

The move has united a who's who of former top intelligence officials who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The list of former senior intelligence officials who signed the letter includes James Clapper, a former Director of National Intelligence, and seven CIA Directors including Robert Gates, William Webster, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and David Petraeus.

"As former senior intelligence officials, we feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House regarding the removal of John Brennan’s security clearances," they wrote.

"We know John to be an enormously talented, capable, and patriotic individual who devoted his adult life to the service of this nation," the letter continued. "Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless."

"Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless" it added.

Some of the officials who signed the letter noted that they may not side with Brennan's comments or choose to go public with any comments, but "We all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances – and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech."

The officials said they had "never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case."

They labeled the removal of Brennan's security clearance as "a signal" to current and former officials about potential limits to their free speech.

"As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech – even when that right has been used to criticize us – that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable," they wrote. "Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views."

Brennan received a separate endorsement on Thursday from retired Admiral William McRaven, the former head of U.S. Special Operations Command who oversaw the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

In an open letter published in the Washington Post, McRaven expressed his support for Brennan and challenged the administration to also remove his security clearance.

"Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him," McRaven wrote in his letter. "Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency."

In his letter McRaven also directly criticized President Trump saying "through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation." He added, If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be."

Departing for New York on Friday, President Trump said he did not know McRaven, but added that he had received a "tremendous response from having done that because security clearances are very important to me."

Trump also doubled down on his criticism of Brennan saying "I've never respected him" and said he would likely soon remove the security clearance of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Rehman Asad / Barcroft Images / Barcroft Media via Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration is sanctioning four Myanmar military officials and two military units for the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya, the Muslim-majority ethnic group that has fled by the hundreds of thousands from a violent campaign into neighboring Bangladesh.

Other than one general sanctioned last December, these are the first commanders and units hit with economic penalties since the crisis started nearly a year ago. While it was a welcome step for human rights groups and activists, they say it took too long and does not do enough.

The sanctions target four commanders who led teams that engaged in human rights abuses – the Border Guard Police, the Military Operations Command, the Bureau of Special Operations, and the 99th Light Infantry Division. In addition, the 99th Division and the 33rd Light Infantry Division were sanctioned as units for their bloody roles.

In grim detail, the Treasury Department lays out what the men and their units did – mass executions of men and boys, raping and beating women and girls, burning homes down with families trapped inside. They slaughtered thousands – including the Rohingya and other ethnic and religious minorities like the Kachin, Shan, and others.

Myanmar has a long history of violent oppression of ethnic minorities, especially the Rohingya. But this latest round of violence began on August 25 when Rohingya militants attacked dozens of police posts in northern Rakhine state, according to the Myanmar government, which responded immediately with a violent crackdown, burning villages and killing civilians.

That sparked a flood of refugees into neighboring Bangladesh – now totaling 919,000, according to the latest United Nations estimates.

Myanmar, also known as Burma, has denied the allegations, saying it is combating an Islamic terrorist threat.

The U.S. has been hesitant to coming down too hard on Myanmar, which is governed by a hybrid military-civilian government. Ruled by a military junta since 1988, Myanmar began a transition to allow civilian rule in 2011, but that power-sharing is still delicate.

Just years since it relaxed sanctions on Myanmar, the U.S. is also concerned about pushing the country back into China's orbit.

While the administration developed a list of six to nine sanctions targets earlier this year, the effort stalled amid internal debates, ABC News was first to report.

Instead, the U.S. was caught flat-footed when the European Union and Canada led the way with their own sanctions on seven Myanmar military officials on June 25, freezing their assets within European and Canadian jurisdictions and banning them from traveling to Europe and doing business with Canada.

In addition to the $299 million in aid the U.S. has provided for Rohingya refugees, the Treasury said Friday it will continue to address the crisis, potentially with more sanctions.

"There must be justice for the victims and those who work to uncover these atrocities, with those responsible held to account for these abhorrent crimes," said Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker in a statement. "The U.S. government is committed to ensuring that Burmese military units and leaders reckon with and put a stop to these brutal acts."

But human rights group say Friday's actions are not enough.

"Responsibility extends to the highest levels of the chain of command – so too should justice and accountability," Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific advocacy manager Francisco Bencosme told ABC News, calling for sanctions on Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the Commander-in-Chief of the Myanmar military.

The State Department is still working on a full investigative report of the Rohingya crisis, including through on-the-ground interviews with survivors in refugee camps. For months now, teams of U.S. investigators have been gathering evidence, as ABC News reported in April. The administration is reportedly debating whether to call the violence "genocide" when it reveals the report sometime soon, according to Politico. But it's unclear when that release may be.

Last November, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson determined that the violence constituted ethnic cleansing, but the term genocide is stronger, carrying legal ramifications and obligations.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- The ongoing feud between President Trump and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo continued Friday when the president slammed the Democrat on Twitter once again for comments he made earlier in the week.

"How does a politician, Cuomo, known for pushing people and businesses out of his state, not to mention having the highest taxes in the U.S., survive making the statement, WE’RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT? Which section of the sentence is worse?" Trump tweeted.

"We're not going to make America great again, it was never that great," Cuomo, who is running for a second term, told the audience at an event that included a bill signing for an anti-human trafficking measure.

Cuomo went on to say that America "...will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone. And every woman's full potential is realized and unleashed and every woman is making her full contribution."

Cuomo's remarks Wednesday prompted a quick response from the president.

"WE’RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT.” Can you believe this is the Governor of the Highest Taxed State in the U.S., Andrew Cuomo, having a total meltdown!" Trump tweeted Wednesday evening.

Immediately after Trump's first tweet, the Trump campaign reacted with a press release issued by Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and senior campaign advisor.

"Today, Andrew Cuomo showed his true, pessimistic colors when he defamed America as a country that was 'never that great.' Yet, the vast majority of Americans believe in America as the 'last best hope of earth,'" Lara Trump wrote.

In a statement sent after Cuomo's comments Wednesday, his press secretary Dani Lever sought to clarify the governor's remarks.

"Governor Cuomo disagrees with the President," Lever said in a statement sent to ABC News. "The Governor believes America is great and that her full greatness will be fully realized when every man, woman, and child has full equality. America has not yet reached its maximum potential."

Lever also referenced how some associate the president's slogan, "Make America Great Again," with a history of sexism and racism.

"When the President speaks about making America great again - going back in time - he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women's contributions," the statement read.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump's military parade that was slated to have taken place on November 10 has been postponed, according to a Pentagon statement. Earlier on Thursday, a U.S. official had told ABC News that the cost of the parade had risen to $92 million, a significant increase to initial estimates that it could cost $14 million.

"The Department of Defense and White House have been planning a parade to honor America's military veterans and commemorate the centennial of World War I," said the statement issued Thursday night. "We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019."

The White House did not have an immediate comment.

The postponement comes on the heels of news that the cost of the parade had ballooned from its initial estimated price tag of $12 million. A U.S. official told ABC News on Thursday that the cost of the parade was now estimated to be $92 million.

The official stressed that the cost was an estimate that could vary based off of a final decision on the scope of the parade made by Defense Secretary James Mattis. At the time the secretary had still not signed off on the final plans for the parade.

About $50 million is expected to be paid for by the Pentagon with the other $42 million coming from the Department of Homeland Security, the official said.

The latest estimate means the cost of the parade could be as high as six times that of the U.S. and South Korean military exercise Trump suspended after he labeled them "provocative" and "very expensive." The cost of the suspended exercise, scheduled to take place this month, was $14 million.

The official said that the initial $12 million estimate was based off of a review of the capital's last military parade for the 1991 Gulf War. Before that figure, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told the House Budget Committee in February that the cost could range between $10 and $30 million.

Last month, ABC News reported that between 5,000 and 7,000 service members were estimated to march in the parade which was slated for Saturday, November 10, according to a U.S. defense official familiar with parade planning documents.

Nearly 3,000 personnel, a mix of civilian and military employees, are planned to be supporting the execution of the parade the week before it takes place. Some of those individuals will be security personnel.

In addition to the 5,000 to 7,000 individuals who could be marching, the parade, which was slated to begin at the U.S. Capitol and end at the White House, is expected to feature a mix of vehicles, aircraft, and horses.

A March memo from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said no tanks would be used in the parade, only wheeled vehicles in order to "minimize damage to local infrastructure." But on Thursday, CNBC reported that eight tanks have now been approved following an analysis that showed the vehicle's weight would not negatively impact the streets of Washington, D.C.

Trump first mentioned the idea of a grand parade after attending France's Bastille Day parade last summer. Then, in February, he asked the Pentagon to begin planning for such a parade to take place in the U.S.

The date of November 10 is one day before Veteran's Day, which would have coincided with the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(LAKEWOOD, Colo.) -- When Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in June over his refusal to make a wedding cake a gay couple based on his religious convictions, he thought his legal battles with the state of Colorado were over, according to a lawsuit.

But now Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is facing a new court fight, this one involving a lawyer who asked him to bake a cake to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition.

Phillips filed a federal lawsuit this week accusing the state of Colorado of "anti-religious hostility" against him and asked the U.S. District Court in Denver to overturn a Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruling that he discriminated against a transgender person.

"He's extremely disappointed because the Supreme Court's decision was very clear. It condemned Colorado's hostility toward his religious beliefs," Phillips lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, told ABC News on Thursday.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, names Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, and all seven members of the state Civil Rights Commission as defendants. It also names Aubrey Elenis, director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division as a defendant.

"Colorado [Civil Rights Commission] is intent on continuing its campaign to crush him and his business," said Waggoner, of the conservative Christian nonprofit law firm Alliance Defending Freedom. "It's sobering, it's disappointing, it's tiring and we should expect more and demand more from our government. It's deeply disturbing that the state government would disregard the Supreme Court's decision."

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, according to the lawsuit, ruled that Phillips violated the state's non-discrimination law when he declined to bake the cake for Autumn Scardina, who says she was celebrating her birthday and the seventh anniversary of her gender transition, according to the lawsuit.

Scardina specifically requested a cake with a blue exterior and a pink interior that, according to the suit, reflected her transition from male to female.

"Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue and pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex--the status of being male or female--is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings and cannot be chosen or changed," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also claims Scardina called Phillips bakery back several times asking the staff to create cakes celebrating Satan, orders they say they also rejected.
"The person is a lawyer and an LGBT activist," Waggoner said of Scardina. "While Jack has become accustomed to activists trying these kinds of actions, we're focusing on what the government does because the government's role is to protect all Americans and not just those with whom it agrees in terms of ideology."

She said the state has also shown a "double standard" by zeroing in on Phillips, but not other bakers who have declined requests for cakes with messages they deemed objectionable.

Scardina did not return messages from ABC News seeking comment.

She placed the gender celebration cake order with Phillips the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips' first case against the state, according to the lawsuit.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after Phillips told them he would not make their wedding cake because it was counter to his religious beliefs. The couple argued he had violated Colorado law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The nation's highest court issued a 7-2 ruling on June 4 that affirmed Phillips' right to refuse to bake the couple a cake on religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Waggoner said that 24 days after Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court, he was informed he violated Colorado law by declining to create the cake Scardina requested.

Phillips says the first court battle cost him 40 percent of his business and prompted him to lay off six of his 10 employees. He says he also endured death threats and his shop was vandalized.

"The state's continuing efforts to target Phillips do not just violate the Constitution; they cross the line into bad faith. This court should put a stop to Colorado's unconstitutional bullying," the lawsuit states.

Both State Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and the Civil Rights Commission declined to comment.

During a news conference on Wednesday, Hickenlooper said he expects Phillips' new lawsuit to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The first ruling from the Supreme Court did not address the basic issue" of religious freedom, Hickenlooper said. "That's what I think the U.S. Supreme Court will have to address this time.

"When you're talking about people's religion, it doesn't matter what religion, it's one of the most tightly held American freedoms that we have," the governor said. "It's why millions of people fought and lost their lives."Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The retired U.S. Navy admiral who led the mission to kill Osama bin Laden is defending former CIA director John Brennan after President Donald Trump revoked his security clearance earlier this week.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post on Thursday, retired Adm. William McRaven asks Trump to revoke his own security clearance in solidarity with Brennan, a frequent critic of the president.

"Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him," McRaven wrote. "Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency."

McRaven, a former Navy SEAL, led the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 before leaving the military. He notably oversaw the 2011 mission that killed the former head of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan.

"Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs," McRaven wrote, addressing Trump. "A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself. Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities."

"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation," he continued. "If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be."

McRaven has criticized Trump before, saying the president's characterization of the press as "the enemy of the American people" is the “greatest threat to democracy” he’s ever seen.

The retired admiral, who went on to become the chancellor for the University of Texas system, made the comment during a speech at the University of Texas - Austin campus last year, according to the Daily Texan.

Mixing the military with politics


Many of the military's former top leadership have not-so-quietly waded into American politics.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn campaigned for Trump before briefly serving as his national security adviser, while retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen campaigned on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

John Kirby, a retired Navy admiral, and James Clapper, a retired Air Force general and former Director of National Intelligence, frequently appear on CNN with their own analysis of the current administration. Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who also ran the NSA and CIA, is another vocal critic.

But Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general himself, has advocated against these "formers" revealing their political persuasions so publicly.

"I think that it is wrong in America, the United States of America, to say as a retired general or admiral to come out in a public position supporting one candidate or another," Mattis said during a speech in South America this week. "The reason is, we do not want to politicize the officer corps, and I don’t want anyone thinking when they have a general in the room 'well he retires next year, I wonder what he’s going to do after that.' So that’s why I took no part in the campaign. I don’t believe I should."

There are military policies that restrict political activities for service members, especially when they are in uniform. But those restrictions go away upon retirement.

Still, more than half of former U.S. presidents served in the military at some point during their lives. The last retired general elected to office was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Senators’ reactions to President Donald Trump revoking former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance mostly broke down along party lines, with Democrats condemning and Republicans defending him.

In a statement, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., cited a New York Times op-ed published Thursday, after Brennan’s security was revoked, in which Brennan wrote that Trump’s claims of no collusion were "hogwash," saying the only remaining questions were whether the collusion amounted to a criminal conspiracy and whether the Trump team obstructed justice in order to cover up the collusion Brennan alleged.

Burr said that if in fact Brennan had information that proved the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power, he should have provided that information to special counsel Robert Mueller, rather than writing about it in a newspaper.

Burr also asked that if Brennan had had direct knowledge of collusion during his CIA tenure, he should have included it in the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment of Russian interference, released just before Brennan resigned. If Brennan learned information after he left office, Burr said it would constitute an intelligence breach.

"If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch," Burr’s statement continued.

A spokesperson for Burr did not respond to a follow-up question about whether Brennan said or did anything before his clearance was revoked that led Burr to believe it should be revoked.

Brennan has been one of the more outspoken former members of the intelligence community – though far from the only one – in criticizing the president, often addressing the president directly over Twitter.

In the White House’s own announcement of his security revocation, press secretary Sarah Sanders accused Brennan of demonstrating "erratic behavior" and specifically cited testimony Brennan gave to Congress last year in denying that the so-called Steele dossier was a factor in the intelligence community's ultimate conclusion regarding Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

But she did not present any evidence that Brennan has actually ever mishandled classified information.

Back on the Hill, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., defended the president, saying it was Brennan who had overstepped.

"Mr. Brennan has gone way over the line in my view and I think restricting his clearance, pulling his clearance makes sense to me," he said.

Graham added that he believed Trump should also strip Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, of his security clearance. Flynn plead guilty in December to lying to the FBI and has been cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference since then.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., told reporters Thursday that he wasn’t sure it was necessary for any former intelligence community employees to maintain their clearance "unless there is some justification not to."

Asked Wednesday for their thoughts, Sens. John Kennedy and Richard Shelby also deferred to presidential authority and focused on Brennan's faults.

"I don't see why he would need a security clearance. I really don't. And I don't think he's qualified to have one," Kennedy said, calling Brennan a "butthead."

"I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't know why they give them security clearances anyway other than maybe a transition period," Shelby added.

One Republican who bucked the party line was Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who said she disagreed with Brennan’s statements but also disagreed with the president’s decision.

"I believe that John Brennan has acted in far too politically a role since he left the CIA. Nevertheless I do not see the grounds for revoking his security clearance, unless there was some disclosure of classified information of which I am unaware," she said.

Senate Democrats were much more openly critical.

"I think it is pretty clear this is a president who goes out of his way to punish his political adversaries. And just really haven’t seen anything like this before," Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-NM, said.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- After a full day of deliberation, the 12-person jury in the financial crimes trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has yet to reach a verdict, meaning the panel will reconvene Friday to continue considering Manafort’s fate.

Jurors’ first day deliberating the special counsel’s case against Manafort, who faces 18 counts of tax- and bank-related fraud, ended with questions – not answers. Before leaving the courtroom on Thursday, jurors sent a note to the judge asking four questions about nuances of the case, including the definition of "reasonable doubt."

Judge T.S. Ellis – the federal judge overseeing Manafort’s case in Alexandria, Virginia, clarified to jurors that the government is not required to find "guilt beyond all possible doubt," but defined reasonable doubt as a "doubt based on reason."

Jurors also asked the court to define "shelf company," and for more information on foreign bank account records. Jurors also asked for the special counsel’s indictment of Manafort to be included in their exhibit list.

Judge Ellis told jurors to rely on their collective recollection based on testimony to answer those questions.

Leaving the courthouse after learning of the jury’s questions, Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing told reporters that the jury’s questions are "good news" for Manafort.

"Well we just got some good news. The jury’s been deliberating. They had some questions which the judge addressed, and they’ve asked to come back tomorrow to continue deliberation," Downing said. "So, overall a very good day for Mr. Manafort."

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge in South Carolina has issued an injunction to block the Trump administration's move to delay a clean water rule intended to prevent pollution from being released into bodies of water like creeks, lakes and streams.

The change to the Waters of the United States rule was a hallmark of former Administrator Scott Pruitt's time at EPA, who often said that under the rule a dry creek bed would be regulated as a Water of the United States. Groups like the American Farm Bureau opposed the rule, saying that the Obama administration did not listen to their concerns that it put too many regulations on their business.

EPA was working to change definitions in the rule that would have drastically rolled back protections.

Similar to other rulings that have gone against rules delayed or rolled back under the Trump administration, South Carolina District Judge David Norton ruled that the government did not follow proper procedure in delaying the rule and suspended the EPA's decision, specifically by not considering public comment in its decision.

"The agencies refused to engage in a substantive reevaluation of the definition of the "waters of the United States" even though the legal effect of the Suspension Rule is that the definition of "waters of the United States" ceases to be the definition under the WOTUS rule," he wrote in the decision.

Norton ruled in favor of environmental groups and states that challenged the delay and granted an injunction to reinstate the rule.

An EPA spokesperson said the agency and Army Corps of Engineers will review the ruling to determine the next step.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump's military parade is now estimated to cost approximately $92 million, a U.S. official tells ABC News.

The official stressed that this is still an estimate that could vary based off of the final decision on the scope of the parade made by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The secretary has still not signed off on the final plans.

The latest estimate, first reported by CNBC, is $80 million higher than the previous estimate of $12 million. About $50 million is expected to be paid for by the Pentagon with the other $42 million coming from the Department of Homeland Security, the official said.

The latest estimate means the cost of the parade could be as high as six times that of the U.S. and South Korean military exercise Trump suspended after he labeled them "provocative" and "very expensive." The cost of the suspended exercise, scheduled to take place this month, was $14 million.

The official said that the initial $12 million estimate was based off of a review of the capital's last military parade for the 1991 Gulf War. Before that figure, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told the House Budget Committee in February that the cost could range between $10 and $30 million.

Last month, ABC News reported that between 5,000 and 7,000 service members were estimated to march in the parade which is slated for Saturday, November 10, according to a U.S. defense official familiar with parade planning documents.

Nearly 3,000 personnel, a mix of civilian and military employees, are planned to be supporting the execution of the parade the week before it takes place. Some of those individuals will be security personnel.

In addition to the 5,000 to 7,000 individuals who could be marching, the parade, which is slated to begin at the U.S. Capitol and end at the White House, is expected to feature a mix of vehicles, aircraft, and horses.

A March memo from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford said no tanks would be used in the parade, only wheeled vehicles in order to "minimize damage to local infrastructure." But on Thursday, CNBC reported that eight tanks have now been approved following an analysis that showed the vehicle's weight would not negatively impact the streets of Washington, D.C.

Trump first mentioned the idea of a grand parade after attending France's Bastille Day parade last summer. Then, in February, he asked the Pentagon to begin planning for such a parade to take place in the U.S.

The date of November 10 is one day before Veteran's Day, that will also coincide with the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Lawmakers clashed with federal officials during a heated hearing Thursday examining which agencies maintain legal responsibility for the welfare of unaccompanied, undocumented immigrant children after they are placed in the homes of sponsors.

Amid a growing backlog of children who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without a parent or legal guardian, a bipartisan report released Wednesday evening found several federal agencies failed to address deficiencies that create “significant risk for trafficking and abuse” for immigrant minors who are placed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement into homes with sponsors.

After the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released its 52-page report, Sens. Rob Portman and Tom Carper, the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), pressed federal officials at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Justice on their efforts to protect such children (UACs) from human trafficking and other forms of abuse after they are placed in the homes of sponsors and await legal proceedings.

Commander Jonathan White, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Federal Health Coordinating Official for the 2018 UAC Reunification Effort at HHS, insisted under sworn testimony that the responsibility to enforce the law is not HHS’s.

“HHS does not presently have the authority to exercise supervision or oversight of children who are not in the physical care and custody of ORR,” White testified. “We have neither the authorities nor the appropriations to exercise that degree of oversight after minors exit ORR care.”

That posture flabbergasted several senators.

“You're catching these children and then you're releasing them and everyone goes like this: 'not my problem!'” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., exclaimed incredulously.

“I can tell you along with the rest of America this sickens me,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-North Dakota, said. “It sickens me that these children have been put in this position and in harm's way and that we in the United States government have responsibility for these children.”

The departments, collectively, slammed the report as “misleading,” adding that it “demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of law and policy related to the safety and care of Unaccompanied Alien Children.”

“Congressional oversight is critical and often helps to improve the agencies’ operations, but flawed reports based on a lack of understanding of Executive branch operations will not produce any meaningful opportunities to advance legislation,” DHS, HHS and DOJ noted in a joint statement.

Without a federal agency tasked to ensure the children appear at their immigration court cases, an increasing number of the kids have failed to show up, the report found.

Over a three-month period in 2017, HHS attempted to locate 7,635 undocumented immigrant children whose cases were still pending. Out of 7,635 attempted phone calls, HHS discovered that 28 of the kids “had run away” and the agency was “unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UACs.”

Despite those facts, White asserted that there are “no lost children” – prompting a sharp rebuke from Portman.

“Your blanket statement that there are no lost children is simply inaccurate. There are lost children, clearly,” Portman, R-Ohio, said. “Of course there are lost children — and that’s the whole point here. No one’s responsible.”

DOJ immigration courts have more than 700,000 backlogged cases, according to the report. As of the end of June, a whopping 80,266 pending cases awaited a resolution from just 355 immigration judges authorized to review the mounting legal work – a stunning figure that has exploded from 18,852 at the end of 2014.

“A siloed response to child welfare is not acceptable,” Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-New Hampshire, said. “These children are here and the American people want to know we are doing what we would do for any child to make sure they are safe.”

While current cases have been pending an average of 480 days, President Donald Trump has scoffed at proposals to hire more judges to handle the casework.

“I don't want judges,” Trump said during a campaign rally in South Carolina on June 25.

“I want ICE and border patrol agents. That's what I want.”

The report notes that the Department of Justice currently has the authority to hire 129 additional judges, though James McHenry, III, the director of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the panel that that figure is misleading and the department expects to fill all vacancies in the next year.

“Our bigger problem is not hiring. We've gotten the hiring process down to as little as 266 days right now. Our bigger problem is going to be space and logistics,” McHenry said. “By the end of this year, we'll approximately 426 permanent courtrooms. That's less than our authorization. We can't hire judges until we have the courtrooms or until we have the space for them and we can't procure more space until we get our appropriations.”

More than 200,000 unaccompanied minors have entered the country illegally in the past six years, according to the report.

The investigation was initiated in 2015 after the subcommittee learned that HHS had placed eight children with human traffickers who subjected the children to forced labor on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio. The subcommittee found that HHS had failed to establish procedures to protect such children, such as conducting sufficient background checks on sponsors and following up with sponsors and the kids to ensure the childrens’ welfare.

The panel held two previous hearings on April 26, 2018 and January 28, 2016, when the agencies agreed to craft a Joint Concept of Operations to explain their responsibilities for the care and safety of unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children before and after they are placed with sponsors. After the agencies delayed submitting a written response to lawmakers, the document was finally submitted on July 31—17 months after it was initially due.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Will Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November?

FiveThirtyEight’s newly launched House forecast gives them a 3-in-4 chance of winning the majority. Republicans have a 1-in-4 chance of keeping control.

That’s according to a statistical model that looks at polls of each race, how much money each candidate has raised, how each district has voted historically and more. (You can read more about how the model works here.)

But there are a ton of seats in play -- FiveThirtyEight rates 112 as at least somewhat competitive -- and with more than two months before Election Day, the forecast shows a wide range of potential outcomes.

Democrats could quite plausibly gain anywhere from 14 seats to 58 seats, according to FiveThirtyEight. In other words, at this point, it would not be surprising if Democrats fell a few seats short of the majority, or if a “blue wave” swept dozens of Republicans out of office.

The FiveThirtyEight House model produces probabilistic forecasts, as opposed to hard-and-fast predictions about who will win or lose. In the same sense a weather forecaster might tell you there’s a 30 percent chance of rain tomorrow, the FiveThirtyEight model estimates the chances of each candidate winning in all 435 House races. It will update continuously up until Election Day.

FiveThirtyEight, a data-driven news site founded by Nate Silver in 2008, joined ABC News this year.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments