Top White House official: Bloomberg abused “stop-and-frisk”

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg speaks to supporters during his visit in Greensboro, N.C., on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2020. (Khadejeh Nikouyeh/News & Record via AP)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 5:27 PM PT — Sunday, February 16, 2020

A top White House official said Michael Bloomberg abused the “stop-and-frisk” policy during his years as New York City’s mayor. Vice President Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff Marc Short said in an interview Sunday, “stop-and-frisk” was enforced fairly under Bloomberg’s predecessor Rudy Giuliani.

However, Short said under Mayor Bloomberg, the number of arrests of African-Americans significantly increased. This came after President Trump criticized Bloomberg for his version of “stop and frisk,” despite supporting the policy in general.

Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian associate of Rudy Giuliani who is awaiting trial on charges that he made illegal campaign contribution, walks out of federal court, Monday, Feb. 3, 2020, in New York. (AP Photo/Mariela Lombard)

Short claimed Bloomberg took the policy to the extreme.

“The president has said under Rudy Giuliani he thought ‘stop and frisk’ was applied legitimately.” stated Short.

Bloomberg has repeatedly apologized for alleged racial profiling as part of “stop and frisk,” but he insists the policy helped bring down crime rates in New York.

RELATED: President Trump: Bloomberg Is A Mass Of Dead Energy

Original Article

White House officials do not trust China’s reporting on coronavirus infection

A worker wearing a protective suit gestures to a driver outside a tumor hospital newly designated to treat COVID-19 patients in Wuhan in central China’s Hubei Province, Saturday, Feb. 15, 2020. (Chinatopix via AP)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:47 AM PT — Sunday, February 16, 2020

White House officials appeared to have suspicions about the accuracy of China’s reporting of coronavirus cases. According to a report Saturday, the U.S. did not have high confidence in the information coming from China regarding the number of those affected by the disease.

This came as a number of officials have expressed doubt that China is being fully transparent, including White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow.

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow speaks during a tv news interview at the White House in Washington, Friday, Feb. 7, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Last week, Kudlow addressed ongoing concerns following a change in China’s measuring criteria, which added 15,000 cases in a single day.

“We thought there was better transparency coming out of China, but it doesn’t appear to be,” stated the economic advisor. “It’s the great unknown and I wish we did know more because, you know, this should not be about politics or for that matter, trade.”

Chinese officials said the number of new cases are dropping overall.

RELATED:China Reports Over 2K New Cases Of Coronavirus, 143 Deaths

Original Article

Farm bill panned as mass ‘amnesty’ for illegal immigrants heads to vote in House

closeTrump administration proposes changes to visa program for foreign workers on farmsVideo

Trump administration proposes changes to visa program for foreign workers on farms

The H-2A visa program has tripled in size over the last decade, with a quarter million temporary farm workers coming in this year; Dan Springer reports from Snohomish County, Washington.

As all eyes are on the House impeachment inquiry, elsewhere an agricultural bill that would provide a path to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants is rumbling through the chamber — leading immigration hawks to accuse lawmakers of trying to sneak in an amnesty while the nation is distracted.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act, passed in the House Judiciary Committee last month, is scheduled for a vote on the House floor Wednesday. The bill provides a process for illegal immigrant farmworkers to seek a temporary five-and-a-half-year “Certified Agricultural Worker” status if they have worked for approximately six months in the industry in the last two years.


That status can either be renewed indefinitely, or workers (along with their spouses and children) can begin a path to permanent legal status in the form of a green card. That path, according to the legislation, includes background checks and $1,000 fine.

To secure the green card, those who have worked in agriculture for 10 years or more must work for four more years, while those who've spent less than a decade in the sector would have to work eight more years. Once workers receive a green card, they are then free to pursue work in fields outside of agriculture.

The bill also streamlines the H-2A agriculture visa program, cutting processing time and costs for visa petitions. And it calls for the Department of Homeland Security to set up a pilot program that would give H-2A workers the ability to change jobs within the sector if they find work within two months.

“The men and women who work America’s farms feed the nation. But, farmworkers across the country are living and working with uncertainty and fear, contributing to the destabilization of farms across the nation,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said in a statement. “Our bill offers stability for American farms by providing a path to legal status for farmworkers. In addition, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act addresses the nation’s future labor needs by modernizing an outdated system for temporary workers, while ensuring fair wages and workplace conditions.”

Immigration issue absent at latest Democrat primary debate in OhioVideo

It’s also strongly backed by a number of farm groups. The United Fresh Produce Association said it brings “much-needed reforms to secure a stable and legal workforce in agriculture, allowing current farmworkers to attain legal status and reforming the H-2A guest worker program to ensure a future source of workers on American farms.”

The bill has the support of at least 23 Republicans, a number of whom are co-sponsoring the legislation — likely assuring its passage in the House and raising the possibility that a form of such a bill could have a shot in the Republican-controlled Senate.

But immigration hawks have dismissed the claim that it is a modernization bill, instead calling it a thin cloak for yet another amnesty measure in the agricultural sector — similar to one in the 1980s that saw more than 1 million workers seek protection from deportation, and one that was seen as rife with fraud.

“A true Farm Workforce Modernization Act would encourage mechanization and automation through subsidies, not amnesty illegal aliens and guarantee a steady flow of cheap foreign labor,” RJ Hauman, head of government relations at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), told Fox News.


Such groups say that automation, not amnesty, is what the agricultural sector needs.

“Cracking down on cheap foreign labor would save the federal government and states billions, help American Workers, and prevent future illegal immigration,” Hauman said. “Agricultural automation is the future of the industry – another amnesty and massive expansion of a guest worker program isn’t. When will lawmakers understand this?”

The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, described the bill as a “clear cut example of amnesty,” warning that it "threatens the legal immigration system’s legitimacy and incentivizes aliens and farmers to ignore the legal immigration system in the future if it best serves their needs."

While the bill has bipartisan support, it has also faced criticism from other Republicans lawmakers. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., cited estimates from liberal groups that as many as 2.7 million illegal immigrants could get legal status if the bill passes.

“While the 224 pages of H.R. 5038 make many more changes to the H-2A program — some good and some bad — one need look no further than the first few pages to figure out the real point of this bill: a path to citizenship for an unknown number of illegal immigrants who do some work in agriculture, along with their families,” he said at the Judiciary Committee markup last month.

He also said the bill’s document standards are low and could allow illegal immigrants with multiple DUI convictions and a history of Social Security fraud to get legal status.

As with most bills that include a path to legalization for those in the country illegally, there are some enforcement parts of the bill as well, but they are particularly flaccid in this instance.

While the bill would establish mandatory E-Verify (a DHS-run verification system for employers that has been seen as the holy grail for employment enforcement) for all agricultural employment, Lofgren’s office notes that that would be “phased in" and only "after all legalization and H-2A reforms have been implemented and included necessary due process protections for authorized workers who are incorrectly rejected by the system.”


This aspect is fueling concerns from immigration hawks that this bill goes the path of past “immigration reform” measures that pursue “amnesty first, enforcement later.”

Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, argued in a recent op-ed that E-Verify would no longer be needed if the bill passes, “because with this kind of sweet deal, who’d bother to hire new illegals?”

Other conservatives warned that lawmakers were trying to push the bill through while attention was on impeachment. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin accused lawmakers and groups in favor of open borders of “trying to ram this abomination through while [the] nation is distracted with bread and circuses.”

Should the bill pass and find support in the Senate, it is far from clear how President Trump would respond. He has pledged support for American farmers but has also promised to protect American workers from the flood of cheap labor from abroad.

If a version of the bill finds its way to the White House, that latter promise would face a high-profile test, possibly in an election year. So far the White House has not indicated whether or not it would veto the bill.

Original Article

Tulsi Gabbard accuses White House of defending Saudi kingdom after NAS Pensacola shooting: ‘Saudi Arabia is not our ally’

closeFox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 11Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 11

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 11 are here. Check out what's clicking on

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, on Tuesday slammed the Trump administration, claiming it defended the Saudi kingdom in the wake of last week’s deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida.

She also accused President Trump of failing to speak up for “for those families who just lost their loved ones.”


”This was a terrorist attack that took the lives of three American service members and injured eight others,” Gabbard said in an interview on Hill.TV's “Rising.” “We need to call it for what it is instead of what President Trump has done with his own remarks, with Secretary Pompeo basically putting out messages as though they are the spokespersons for the Saudi kingdom rather than standing up for our country’s national security and what’s in the best interest of our country.”

“Saudi Arabia is not our ally. As president, I will state that very clearly and they will continue to not be our ally as long as they are both directly and indirectly supporting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and others,” Gabbard said.

Also Tuesday, the Pentagon suspended all 852 Saudi military students at NAS Pensacola after a gunman opened fire there last week, killing three military members and injuring eight others before being shot dead by police. The FBI later identified the shooter as 21-year-old Saudi Royal Air Force Second Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani. The attack has prompted a broader Defense Department review of all international training on U.S. military bases.

After the attack, President Trump tweeted that he had spoken with Saudi Arabia's King Salman.

“King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place in Pensacola, Florida….” Trump tweeted Friday. “The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.”
In his initial reaction to the shooting, Trump said: “Just received a full briefing on the tragic shooting at NAS Pensacola in Florida, and spoke to @GovRonDeSantis. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families during this difficult time. We are continuing to monitor the situation as the investigation is ongoing.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also tweeted last week.

“I just spoke with Foreign Minister Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia who expressed his condolences and sadness at the loss of life in the horrific attack in Pensacola, Florida yesterday. The families and friends of those killed, and those wounded, will be in our thoughts and prayers,” Pompeo wrote.

Trump has faced backlash in the past over his support for the Saudi royal family in the wake of the slaying of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi, who was allegedly killed and dismembered by Saudi operatives inside the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul last year.


On Monday, Gabbard – a vocal critic of the Saudi kingdom in the past — announced she won’t be attending the Democrats’ next debate “regardless” of whether she qualifies for the Dec. 19 event in Los Angeles. She had met the donor requirement to qualify for the debate but had yet to meet a requirement that she earn 4-percent support in at least four national or early-state polls approved by the Democratic National Committee [DNC] — or hit 6 percent in two approved early-state polls. The cutoff date is Wednesday.

Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson, Bradford Betz and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Original Article

Ronny Jackson, former White House doctor and VA nominee, running for Congress in Texas

closeFox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 10Video

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 10

Fox News Flash top headlines for Dec. 10 are here. Check out what's clicking on

A former chief White House physician and one-time troubled nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is running for a congressional seat in Texas.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson filed candidate paperwork in Austin to replace outgoing Rep. Mac Thornberry hours before the Monday deadline, The Texas Tribune reported. He will face 13 other candidates for the Republican nomination.

Thornberry's 13th Congressional District in the Texas Panhandle overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in 2016. The Republican Party of Texas did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.


In this April 2, 2018, file photo, then-White House physician and nominee for Veterans Affairs Secretary Dr. Ronny Jackson arrives at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. Jackson is running as a Republican in 2020 for a rural congressional seat in Texas. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

In this April 2, 2018, file photo, then-White House physician and nominee for Veterans Affairs Secretary Dr. Ronny Jackson arrives at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. Jackson is running as a Republican in 2020 for a rural congressional seat in Texas. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Jackson, a Texas native, had worked as a White House physician since 2006 and was Trump's surprise choice last year to head the VA. He retired from the Navy last week.

His nomination ran into trouble when allegations of drinking on the job, creating a hostile work environment and overprescribing medications surfaced. He denied any wrongdoing and eventually withdrew his name from consideration.

Trump re-nominated Jackson earlier this year for a second star amid a Pentagon investigation into his conduct.

Dr. Ronny Jackson withdraws nomination for VA SecretaryVideo

Trump called him "one of the finest men I've ever met," noting that he received good evaluations from his predecessor, former President Barack Obama. The promotion was not approved by the Senate.


In January 2018, Jackson gave Trump a glowing report on his physical and mental well-being in his first medical checkup since taking office, saying Trump was "in excellent health" at the time.

Original Article

House Judiciary Committee holds hearing on impeachment evidence: Live updates

closeFox News GoVideo

Fox News Go

The House Judiciary Committee is holding an impeachment hearing Monday where committee lawyers are presenting evidence in the case, as Democrats begin to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The committee is expected to receive the “presentations of evidence” from Judiciary Committee Majority Counsel Barry Berke and Intelligence Committee Majority Counsel Daniel Goldman. Stephen Castor will serve as counsel for Republicans on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

At the center of the impeachment inquiry is Trump’s efforts to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch politically related investigations—regarding former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s dealings in Ukraine, as well as issues related to the 2016 presidential election. The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats have argued shows a “quid pro quo” arrangement. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

Original Article

Reporter’s Notebook: House votes on impeachment articles would be monumental decisions

closePelosi requests House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against TrumpVideo

Pelosi requests House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

Democrats in House Judiciary Committee work through the weekend ahead of impeachment hearing; David Spunt reports.

CAPITOL HILL – There are important roll call votes on Capitol Hill — but votes on articles of impeachment against President Trump would be monumental.

Think about votes cast in 2009 and and 2010 for or against ObamaCare. A failed effort to undo ObamaCare in 2017. Votes in 2008 to salvage the economy with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Votes last Congress on tax reform. Various votes to fund the government and hike the debt ceiling. And, in the Senate, votes to confirm Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

News organizations and political firms have traved major votes on the floors of the House and Senate each year. Some of those votes may define a career. Look at the nay vote cast by the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to end Republican efforts to unwind ObamaCare. Separately, voters in Maine and Colorado respectively took note of the votes by Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner to confirm Kavanaugh last fall. That vote is sure to resonate in the reelection bids for Collins and Gardner next year.

All of those votes have been major, reverberating throughout a given Congress – and even for decades to come. Despite multiple efforts to gut ObamaCare, it has remained the law of the land. Still, “aye” ballots for ObamaCare proved to help end the congressional careers of many House and Senate Democrats. Republicans weaponized that vote against those Democrats. Some paid with their political lives in 2010 and beyond. Lots of House Republicans lost the House for the same reason last year because of their votes for the tax bill and for trying to repeal ObamaCare.

We won’t know if the votes by Collins and Gardner for Kavanaugh will sway the outcomes of their Senate contests next year. But, barring illness, the 54-year-old Kavanaugh could serve on the high court for decades. The decisions by Collins and Gardner to confirm Kavanaugh are likely to echo in American jurisprudence for years.

Eric Shawn: President Trump's pending impeachment trialVideo

These are all high-profile roll call votes, as weighty as can be. But, there is yet one more, hyper-elite classification of House and Senate votes, more consequential than the rest. These are votes to go to war and to impeach a president.

These momentous votes have filtered through the decades. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., is still known as the only House member to oppose the war resolution following Sept. 11, 2001. The late Rep. Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont., was the first woman ever elected to Congress, but in addition to her trailblazing for women, historians have recalled her votes opposing U.S. involvement in World War I and World War II.

“I cannot vote for war,” said Rankin when she opposed the U.S. declaring war against Germany in World War I. Rankin’s words about war were emblazoned on the base of her statue in the U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center. It’s one of two statues from Montana in the official congressional collection.

Other lawmakers voted against the U.S. entering World War I. But, Rankin was the only member of either body to vote “nay” after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Many prominent members, including future Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., then a congressman, tried to persuade Rankin to vote “aye” so the tally would be unanimous. But, Rankin resisted. Her position was so unpopular that she abstained from voting on future war declarations against Germany and Italy. Her political career ended soon afterwards.

This brings us to present day.

New questions over phone records in House Democrats' impeachment reportVideo


The House Judiciary Committee is likely to entertain three to five articles of impeachment for Trump. The House would not simply throw a broad resolution on the floor with members voting up or down to impeach. These articles would be honed and massaged, narrow and concrete. Members would focus on what they accused the president of doing, such as an indictment. It’s then up to the Judiciary Committee to actually approve the articles and send them to the House floor. The House must then vote to adopt or reject those articles.

Without question, these votes on articles of impeachment would be the most critical ballots cast in the 116th Congress. They could be the cardinal votes many lawmakers would make during their congressional tenures. That said, 55 House members who voted on the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 have remained in the House.

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee considered five articles of impeachment and approved three for then-President Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned before the articles went to the House floor. In 1998, the Judiciary Committee prepared four articles of impeachment but the full House okayed only two of them.

Details of the articles would paramount, so members of Congress from both parties would want to evaluate the articles — study them, ponder them, and then, with a deep sigh, decide how to vote.

We always hear an array of TV commercials from upstarts and political neophytes just before each congressional election, boasting about how if you elect them, they’ll head to Washington and have the courage “to take the tough votes.”

Well, congratulations, members of the 116th Congress. You won the lottery.

Pelosi only seems to invoke religion when she attacks Trump -- is that being a good Catholic?Video

Americans are likely to remember how all current 431 members of the House voted, yea or nay, on each article of impeachment.

Think of the vulnerable, freshmen Democrats who helped propel their party to the majority in 2018, representing districts Trump won in 2016. There are 31 such Democrats. Look closely at how freshmen Democrats like Reps. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Anthony Brindisi of New York and Joe Cunningham of South Carolina vote.

Republicans wouldn’t be out of the woods yet, either. Consider the challenges of an impeachment vote for swing-district Republicans including Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, John Katko of New York and Don Bacon of Nebraska.

Potential articles of impeachment have centered on “bribery” — specifically mentioned in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution — abuse of power, contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice. All such potential articles would be fissionable enough to incinerate many a political career if a lawmaker were to vote the wrong way.

But, one potential article of impeachment would be practically thermonuclear: treason.

Again, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution mentions “treason” as a defined transgression worthy of impeachment. One could see how House Democrats might try to make a case for treason with President Trump.

The House essentially accused Sen. William Blount of Tennessee of treason in the republic’s first impeachment in 1797. The House argued Blount covertly worked with Britain to acquire territory in the south. The House impeached Federal Judge West Hughes Humphreys in 1862 for supporting the Confederacy. No other House impeachments have ever wandered into treason as possible grounds for impeachment.

This speaks to why the House may impeach President Trump on some articles and not others. That’s why members are so curious to learn what the articles may be and decide how to vote on each individual.


It’s just a simple question, right? Binary. Yea or nay? Members do this all day long.

But, votes on the impeachment of Trump are likely to be the most momentous of a lawmaker’s career. And, the decisions lawmakers make will pulsate through the American experience like no other ballot they cast before.

Original Article

House Judiciary Committee releases report outlining grounds for impeachment ahead of hearing

closeRep. Nadler under fire for hypocritical stance on Trump impeachmentVideo

Rep. Nadler under fire for hypocritical stance on Trump impeachment

Reaction and analysis from Republican congressmen Andy Biggs, Lee Zeldin and Steve Scalise on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday released a report outlining the constitutional grounds for impeachment, the latest sign of the committee gearing up for impeaching President Trump ahead of a key hearing on Monday.

“The Framers' worst nightmare is what we are facing in this very moment. President Trump abused his power, betrayed our national security, and corrupted our elections, all for personal gain. The Constitution details only one remedy for this misconduct: impeachment,” Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“The safety and security of our nation, our democracy, and future generations hang in the balance if we do not address this misconduct. In America, no one is above the law, not even the President,” he said.


The report goes into detail about the history behind the impeachment clause in the Constitution. A report was first produced during the Nixon impeachment inquiry and updated during the Clinton impeachment inquiry in the 1990s. Democrats say that those reports no longer reflect “the best available learning” on impeachment and so have been updated.

The updated report appears to be an attempt to challenge what Democrats say are “inaccurate” narratives about the process.

According to the committee: “Since the House began its impeachment inquiry, a number of inaccurate claims have circulated about how impeachment works under the Constitution. To assist the Committee in its deliberations, we address six issues of potential relevance: (1) the law that governs House procedures for impeachment; (2) the law that governs the evaluation of evidence, including where the President orders defiance of House subpoenas; (3) whether the President can be impeached for abuse of his executive powers; (4) whether the President’s claims regarding his motives must be accepted at face value; (5) whether the President is immune from impeachment if he attempts an impeachable offense but is caught before he completes it; and (6) whether it is preferable to await the next election when a President has sought to corrupt that very same election.”


The committee was meeting over the weekend in preparation for Monday's hearing. Democrats say Trump sought a political investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in exchange for military aid that was being withheld and a White House meeting. Trump has denied the charges and has accused Democrats of engaging in a politically motivated witch hunt against him.

Trump touts economic success amid impeachment pushVideo

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this week that she had requested the Judiciary Committee to proceed with articles of impeachment against the president. Those articles are likely to encompass two major themes: abuse of office and obstruction.

The new report hints at those charges when it outlines how a president who "perverts his role as chief diplomat to serve private rather than public ends" has met the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors laid out in the Constitution. That is true "especially" if he invited rather than opposed foreign interference, the report says.

It comes as part of dueling narratives from Democrats and Republicans as they try to sway public opinion to their side of the debate.


Republicans have indicated they intend to change the focus of the hearings should the House impeach and send articles to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial. Trump on Thursday urged Democrats in the House to impeach him “fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate and so that our country can get back to business.”

He indicated that Republicans would seek testimony from top Democrats including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, former Biden and his son Hunter, as well as Speaker Pelosi.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Original Article