DELEITURAS

Click:Handbag packaging

• Lindsey Graham pledged Saturday to continue an investigation into the FBI’s alleged abuse of the federal surveillance court
• Graham is poised to take over as Senate Judiciary Committee, where he will have oversight of the FBI, Justice Department and federal court system
• Republicans have accused the FBI of mishandling the infamous Steele dossier to obtain warrants to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Saturday that if he he takes over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as is expected, he will “get to the bottom” of whether the FBI misled the federal surveillance court to obtain spy warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

“In my view the process used to obtain a FISA warrant – and its multiple renewals – against Carter Page should disturb every American,” Graham tweeted.

“I intend to get to the bottom of what happened if I am Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Graham, who is the favorite to replace Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley as chairman of the all-powerful Judiciary panel, was responding to a statement that former FBI Director James Comey issued Friday after leaving a closed-door deposition before two House committees investigating possible FISA abuse.

“I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI,” Comey said after his interview. “I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.”

Republicans have accused the FBI and Justice Department of misleading FISA Court judges by relying heavily on the Steele dossier in applications for four warrants to spy on Page. They assert that the dossier was unverified when the FBI cited it extensively in its warrant applications and that the bureau failed to fully disclose that the dossier was the product of an opposition research project funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign.

The dossier, authored by former British spy Christopher Steele, accuses the Trump campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. Page is featured prominently in the 35-page document but vehemently denies its allegations.

“I look forward to having an in-depth discussion with former FBI Director Comey about his assertion that challenges against the FISA warrant process – based on the Steele dossier – are ‘nonsense,’” Graham said Saturday in response to Comey’s statement.

House Republicans, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and several members of the Judiciary and Oversight Committees, have led the push to investigate the FBI and Justice Department over their handling of the dossier and the FISA applications.

GOP senators have mostly laid low, with the exception of Graham and Grassley. The pair submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department on Jan. 5 calling for an investigation into whether Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media.

Steele, a former MI6 officer, met with numerous reporters in September and October 2016 to discuss his investigation into Trump. Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele, helped arrange the briefings.

Steele at one point told the FBI that he had not had contact with reporters. The bureau cut ties with Steele on Nov. 1, 2016 after he served as a source for a Mother Jones article published the day before. It is still unclear when Steele told the FBI that he had not had contact with reporters.

On Thursday, Nunes, a California Republican, called for the declassification of an email chain which he claims shows FBI and Justice Department officials raising questions about the dossier before the FBI submitted its first FISA application against Page. The email thread, on which Comey was included, also showed that government officials were aware of Steele’s contacts with the press.

Nunes claimed on Fox News that the email thread shows that the FBI and DOJ knew of “really bad and nefarious” activity on the part of Steele and his associates.

A federal judge ruled Friday that New York’s 44-year-old nunchuck ban violated the Second Amendment and therefore was unconstitutional.

James Maloney, a State University of New York Maritime College professor, spearheaded the efforts after he was charged for nunchuck possession in his home in 2000, The Associated Press reported Monday. He filed an initial complaint in 2003.

Nunchucks are two rods linked at one end by a chain or rope.

Maloney was fixated on getting rid of the part of the law where nunchucks could not be possessed at home, though Judge Pamela Chen said she could not just take out a section of the current law. Chen ruled the ban and the law when it came to manufacturing, transporting and disposing of nunchucks was unconstitutional, according to the AP.

“How could a state simply ban any and all possession of a weapon that had a long and proud history as a martial-arts weapon, with recreational, therapeutic and self-defense utility,” Maloney said, the AP reported.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to self-defense

The nunchuck ban was placed in 1974 out of fear kids would hurt others by watching “Kung Fu” movies, the AP reported. The martial arts weapon was first made famous by martial artists and actor Bruce Lee.

Chen is a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Second Amendment laws in the state tend to lean progressive. New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to expand waiting periods when buying guns from three to 10 days, The Buffalo News reported Monday. He also wants to ban bump stocks.

Maloney did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments Monday as she recuperates from cancer surgery.

It’s not clear when the 85-year-old justice will return to work, though the Supreme Court’s public information office said she will continue to participate in official business from her home in Washington.

Monday is the first time that Ginsburg has missed arguments since she joined the high court in 1993.

Doctors at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York removed two cancerous nodules from Ginsburg’s lungs on Dec. 21. She was discharged on Dec. 26.

The growths were detected when Ginsburg was hospitalized for a rib fracture in November 2018. On that occasion, the justice fell in her chambers at the Supreme Court and was admitted to a Washington-area hospital after experiencing discomfort in her chest.

In a public appearance just days before December’s procedure, Ginsburg said that her health was “fine”.

The Supreme Court returned from its holiday break Monday and will hear cases through Jan. 16.

This is breaking news. This post will be updated.

The Supreme Court seemed poised Wednesday to protect a 40-foot memorial cross on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland from a lawsuit that argues it violates the Constitution.

Though the bottom-line outcome was never seriously in doubt, the justices appeared divided and confused during Wednesday’s argument as to why the monument should pass constitutional muster.

The Court’s jurisprudence concerning religion in public life is famously confused — on one day in 2005, the high court said that a statue of the Ten Commandments near the Texas statehouse did not violate the Constitution, but that a similar display in a Kentucky courthouse did. Justice Neil Gorsuch colorfully derided the controlling precedents as “a dog’s breakfast” during Wednesday’s arguments.

Two parties are separately defending the memorial, known colloquially as the Peace Cross; The American Legion, which built and dedicated the memorial to the World War One dead of Prince George’s County in 1925, and the Maryland state parks commission that administers the site today. The Legion urged the Court to sanction government-backed sectarian displays provided they do not proselytize or coerce onlookers into religious practice.

Gorsuch said he did not see how that solution was meaningfully different from the current case law, which requires courts to ask whether a display endorses religion, in appearance or in reality.

“It seems to me that you are taking us right back to the dog’s breakfast you’ve warned us about,” Gorsuch said.

Chief Justice John Roberts sounded similar themes, but acknowledged that each religious display case is unique, making general rules and clear tests difficult in this area of law.

“What you advertise is a pretty concise test, but it degenerates pretty quickly,” the chief said, elsewhere suggesting the current test might be the best judges can do.

The parks commission argued on more narrow grounds, saying that the Peace Cross does not suggest explicitly Christian concepts. Rather, it recalls European battle cemeteries, where crosses were typically used as headstones. What’s more, the Peace Cross has other features that dilute its religious content, such as the seal of the Legion.

Justice Elena Kagan — who defended a cross memorial as solicitor general in the Obama administration — seemed to agree with that proposition, noting the cross stood without objection for over 90 years.

“There are other war memorials [nearby],” Kagan said. “There are no religious words on the memorial. Quite the opposite — all the words on the memorial are words about military valor and so forth. So why in a case like that can we not say, essentially, that the religious content has been stripped off this monument?”

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed skeptical.

“Does the cross really have a dual meaning?” Ginsburg asked. “It is the preeminent symbol of Christianity.”

Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a middle way, suggesting that older memorials invoking sectarian themes should be protected, though similar monuments should not be erected in the future.

“History counts,” Breyer said. “But no more. We are a different country now, and there are more than 50 different religions.”

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the memorial violates the Constitution, over a dissent that feared the ruling would prompt the removal of crosses from Arlington National Cemetery, which sits in the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction.

The case arose in 2014, when three Maryland residents sued the parks commission with the support of the American Humanist Association (AHA). The plaintiffs say that the Peace Cross violates the First Amendment’s ban on religious favoritism.

The Legion intervened in the case given its historical connection to the monument. The Legion and other veterans groups still host annual programs at the Peace Cross.

Speaking outside the Supreme Court after Wednesday’s argument, the Legion’s national judge advocate expressed regret that the justices needed to hear the case at all.

“This memorial honors and remembers those 49 heroes that died for our freedom,” Bartlett said. “We feel terrible that we have to be here. When we signed up to go into the service nobody asked what our religion was. We went in and did our job just like those men.”

“Let’s keep honoring them just like we need to honor all of our memorials,” he added.

Alec Schemmel contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court barred enforcement of a Louisiana law called the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act on a five to four vote Thursday night.

Chief Justice joined the high court’s liberal bloc to prohibit the law’s implementation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh led the conservatives in dissent. The act was scheduled to take effect on Friday.

The Louisiana measure provides that physicians who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Abortion advocates say the law is identical to a Texas regulation which the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 in a case called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Justice Samuel Alito delayed implementation of the Louisiana law by one week on Feb. 1. That order, called administrative stay, was necessary so that the justices could review court filings from each party. Alito hears emergency petitions which arise out of the 5th Circuit.

A federal trial judge found the law unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas case. But the 5th Circuit reversed, finding that the law created a tangible (but limited) benefit without seriously inhibiting abortion access. Pro-choice groups counter that the measure will leave just one abortion provider in the state, making it a pretext to undermine abortion access.

This is breaking news. This post will be updated.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials claim a deadly shootout between an illegal immigrant and a sheriff’s deputy could have been prevented if California sanctuary laws allowed them to do their job.

A deadly shootout on Sunday took place between a cop and a Mexican national. During a routine traffic stop in Napa County, California, Javier Hernandez Morales, 48, attempted to shoot Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki. Jarecki was able to maneuver away and return fire, killing Hernandez Morales at the scene. Footage of the shootout was captured on the deputy sheriff’s bodycamera.

Hernandez Morales, who had been living in the U.S. illegally, was no stranger to law enforcement. He been deported back to his home country of Mexico twice in 2007 and once more in 2010. However, since that time, local law enforcement officials refused to work with ICE on deporting him again, despite various crimes.

ICE lodged four different detainers for Hernandez Morales relating to battery of a peace officer, suspicion of driving while intoxicated, selling liquor to a minor and probation violations. The detainers, according to ICE, were sent to Napa County Jail in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and anther was issued to Sonoma County Jail in 2016.

Staff honored none of the detainers, allowing Hernandez Morales to leave the county jails and remain in the U.S.

“It’s unfortunate that our law enforcement partners and the community are subjected to dangerous consequences because of inflexible state laws that protect criminal aliens,” ICE said in a scathing statement against California’s sanctuary laws.

“This incident may have been prevented if ICE had been notified about any of the multiple times Hernandez-Morales was released from local custody over the last few years. This is an impactful, scary example of how public safety is affected by laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with ICE,” the statement continued.

ICE was referencing legislation then-Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in 2017 that largely prohibits local law enforcement from working with federal imitation officials. The law has earned California the distinction as a “sanctuary state.”

It does not appear the deadly incident will change how Napa County law enforcement handles illegal immigrants. A spokeswoman said the County will continue to abide by state laws.

“Compliance with state law is what Napa County will, in fact, follow through upon, whether there are changes in the future that change things but as of right now we do need to comply with state law and that is what our policy reflects,” Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos said in a statement Thursday.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Friday the University of Iowa violated First Amendment rights after deregistering a student Christian group.

Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) stopped receiving recognition from the public university in November 2017 due to the organization’s statement of faith, which the university found “unwelcoming,” according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen Friday.

BLinC was created by the students in the university’s Tippie College of Business. The purpose of the group was to provide a space for Christian students to network, hold group discussions and “keep Christ first in the fast-paced business world,” the DOJ’s statement of interest said. Leaders in the Christian group were required to sign and follow the statement of faith, which included a belief that sexual relations should only occur “between a man and a wife in the lifelong covenant of marriage,” and “every person should embrace, not reject, their God-given sex.”

The university deregistered the group over the faith statement and it claimed it made LGBT people unwelcome and therefore was exclusive, a DOJ news release reported. BLinC filed a lawsuit against the university in December 2017.

“The University of Iowa in this case de-registered Business Leaders in Christ because university officials did not like its message,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “That is forbidden by the Constitution.”

Over a dozen religious-affiliated groups at the University of Iowa were deregistered over the summer as well, nonprofit law firm Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reported. The Sikh Awareness Club, Chinese Student Christian Fellowship, Imam Mahdi organization and Latter-day Saint Student Association were some of the groups kicked off campus, though they were later temporarily reinstated.

A similar case to BLinC was filed by the InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship in August after the group was de-registered in July.

“The University of Iowa does not tolerate discrimination of any kind in accordance with federal and state law,” Jeneane Beck, University of Iowa assistant vice president for external relations, said, the Press-Citizen reported.

The University of Iowa did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

The U.S. Marine Corps revealed Wednesday that Native American tribal elder Nathan Phillips who accused Catholic school boys of bigotry is not a war veteran.

The USMC released details of Phillips’ service record in a statement, showing that he previously went by the name of Nathaniel R. Stanard and served in the Marine Corps Reserve from 1972 to 1976 as a refrigerator technician and anti-tank missileman, according to Military Times. Phillips was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, but never deployed and left the Marine Corps at the rank of E-1, or private.

Phillips also reportedly has a criminal history. A May 9, 1974 article in The Lincoln Star reported that Phillips, then 19 years old, was “charged with escaping from the Nebraska Penal Complex where he was confined May 3,” according to The Washington Examiner. He also reportedly had a charge of destruction of property dropped in 1973 and pleaded guilty to assault on June 19, 1974, for which he paid a fine of $200.

Phillips later reportedly served one year of probation for underage possession of alcohol and was charged in 1978 with driving without a license.

Phillips styled himself to the media as “a Vietnam times veteran” with an “honorable discharge” and claimed in 2017 that he faced persecution when he came home from serving in the Marines.

“When I come home, those times, I got spit on, actually spit on, and called a baby-killer,” Phillips said.

Phillips also claimed that he served as a “recon ranger” in an April interview with Vogue.

“You know, I’m from Vietnam times. I’m what they call a recon ranger,” he said. “That was my role.”

The information provided by the USMC directly contradicts Phillips’ claims. Misleading statements about his military service are not the only deceptions on Phillips’ part.

Phillips has changed several details of his account of the confrontation with Covington Catholic High School students at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., during the March for Life on Jan. 18. He initially claimed the Kentucky students confronted, surrounded, and mocked him and his Native American colleagues as he was on his way to the Lincoln Memorial. Videos of the encounter showed that it was Phillips who in fact approached the students and confronted them.

Phillips altered his account once the full videos of the encounter emerged, saying that he tried to intervene when he saw the students verbally attack four “old black individuals.”

The videos also showed that claim to be false, as several members of a black supremacist group called the Black Hebrew Israelites instigated the confrontation by hurling racial epithets and profanities at the students while they were waiting for buses to pick them up.

Phillips nevertheless suggested the students should be expelled from their school.

Details as to how Phillips was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve have not yet been confirmed.

The first shipment of humanitarian aid crossed the border from Brazil to Venezuela Saturday, Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido declared, but getting aid to the people of Venezuela continues to be beyond difficult.

“This is a great accomplishment, Venezuela!” Guaido wrote on Twitter Saturday.

Guaido, a 35-year-old lawmaker and president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, declared himself the country’s interim leader in January as conditions deteriorated under socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.

Guaido’s supporters are trying to bring aid shipments from Colombia and Brazil into Venezuela, but Maduro’s troops are blocking trucks both coming and going along parts of the border. Video footage from Friday showed Venezuelan soldiers erecting barricades and brawling with Guaido’s supporters to keep trucks from exiting the country to collect aid.

Meanwhile, some soldiers posted on the Venezuelan border have defected from Maduro’s control. A social media video appears to show four soldiers denouncing Maduro and supporting Guaido, who has promised them “amnesty,” reported BBC.

Guaido was in Colombia Saturday seeing off shipments of aid to Venezuela with Colombian president Ivan Duque, reported CBS News. Thousands of volunteers will help get the aid into Venezuela, he said according to BBC.

U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Maduro and recognized Guaido in January, as did other countries, including Brazil and Canada.

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton made headlines when he was spotted carrying a notepad with “5,000 troops to Colombia” scribbled on it Jan. 28. Colombia and Venezuela border one another.

Trump emphasized “all options” are open when dealing with the situation in Venezuela.

“We seek a peaceful transition of power, but all options are open,” he said during a speech at Florida International University Monday.

Bolton’s Twitter feed showed he was monitoring the situation in Venezuela closely Saturday.

“The U.S. has provided critically needed aid for the people of Venezuela,” Bolton wrote on Twitter Saturday. “Now is the time for Venezuelan military allow to aid through the border. As Interim President Guaido said today ‘Those who accompany us to save the lives of Venezuelans are true patriots.’”

The people of Venezuela have faced economic hardship and crackdowns on their freedom under Maduro, who succeeded infamous socialist dictator Hugo Chavez.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said there will be 10 Republican Senators who vote against the resolution to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency for border wall funding Monday afternoon.

Paul told a group of reporters on Capitol Hill that he thinks there will be 10 Senators who vote against Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro’s resolution, which the Texas Democrat believes will would end Trump’s national emergency.

This comes as Paul said he will join a group of three Republicans who have expressed their concerns with Trump’s declaration for a national emergency, saying they do not believe the president should be allowed to override Congress to such a degree Saturday.

“I can’t vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President,” Paul said, to the Bowling Green Daily News Saturday. “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” he continued. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

In the group are Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Murkowski said Tuesday she would vote for the resolution, making it clear that the bill will pass the Senate due to support from these Republicans.

Collins said Wednesday she supports a lawsuit challenging Trump’s national emergency, adding that she plans to vote for the congressional resolution.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution Friday to block Trump’s national emergency that could allow him to build a wall on the southern border.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues Thursday, telling them they need to “move swiftly to pass this bill.”

This comes just days after Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 hopeful, listed off a number of issues for which she would declare a national emergency if elected president, including “climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top. That’s what we ought to be working on.”

Trump will still have the option to veto the resolution if passed by the Senate.