DELEITURAS

Minnesota Democratic Sen. and 2020 hopeful took a swipe at her Democratic opponent Beto O’Rourke saying unlike him, she was not “born to run” for president.

“It was probably more when I got to college. When I was growing up, in high school, that’s not what girls thought they were going to do,” Klobuchar said in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Politico reported.

“My parents, I think, thought it was a possibility. But I really didn’t. And so for me, it’s something that’s happened over time, as I’ve realized I can do things,” Klobuchar said. “I can get elected to the secretary-treasurer of my high school class. I can move on from there. And so I think it’s something that I didn’t have from birth.”

This comes as O’Rourke said he feels “born to be in” the 2020 presidential race in an interview with Vanity Fair released Wednesday before launching is official bid Thursday.

Klobuchar was one of the first Democratic senators to announce her candidacy for the 2020 presidential campaign. The Minnesota Democrat made the announcement on Feb. 10 in her home state. After her announcement, reports broke that she has a history of allegedly being rude to staff, making many of her employees cry, as well as reportedly hitting one of her staffers with a binder.

The Minnesota Democratic has since defended the reports about treating her staff poorly, saying she is tough enough to deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin if elected president.

Both Klobuchar and O’Rourke will have to fight through the crowded Democratic primary in order to take on President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.

Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley on Tuesday evening introduced legislation to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

Pressley cited teen activists pushing for gun control as a reason for giving 16-year-olds the right to vote, which the congresswoman compared to having a driver’s license.

“Young people are at the forefront of some of our most existential crises,” Pressley added. “The time has come. Our young people deserve to have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”

Two other Democratic congresswomen, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and New York Rep. Grace Meng, offered their support for Pressley’s legislation.

“I’m committed to making sure we empower young people to build our future together. Giving them the power to vote will help build a more equitable and just future,” Meng said in a statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday.

Tlaib tweeted her support for Pressley’s amendment on Wednesday.

Pressley proposed the change as an amendment to House Democrats’ “For The People Act,” which would amend campaign finance laws.

The left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already come out against the bill, citing “provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.”

“They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day,” the ACLU said in a letter to the House Rules Committee.

Former CIA Director John Brennan said Monday morning that he was “relieved” by the Attorney General’s summary of the Mueller report, admitting the findings presented less than he anticipated in terms of criminal activity.

“Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I suspected there was more than there actually was. I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election. I think that’s good news for the country,” Brennan said when asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough if he was surprised by the lack of collusion evidence.

Brennan added “I still point to things that were done publicly, or efforts to try to have conversation with the Russians that were inappropriate, but I’m not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met.”

Brennan has been a sharp critic of President Trump throughout the Mueller investigation. Two weeks ago, he predicted that there would be indictments related to a “criminal conspiracy” involving Trump or his associates’ activities during the 2016 election.

On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr delivered his summary of the Mueller report to Congress, writing that Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election, and that there was no evidence to suggest Trump obstructed justice either.

Brennan questioned part of Barr’s conclusions. “I am surprised that that second part of obstruction of justice in terms of how it came out. I don’t know whether or not Robert Mueller wanted the attorney general to pronounce on that issue or whether or not Robert Mueller it was up to Congress and the American public to determine whether the weight of information indicates whether Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice.”

“There are some surprises there,” Brennan added. “I think that’s why getting to the full Mueller report is the best way to get some of these if not all of these questions answered.”

To date, there have been no charges of conspiracy between Trump associates and Russian government officials.

The Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to decide whether the government can append a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, the Department of Justice said Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman forbade the government from incorporating the citizenship question on Jan. 15 in a sweeping decision that ran almost 300 pages.

At the administration’s bidding, the Court agreed to review a separate question arising from the citizenship case in December. After Furman issued his decision, the plaintiffs asked the justices to dismiss that case. The Department of Justice responded to that request in court filings on Tuesday, revealing they planned to appeal Furman’s decision in full directly to the high court.

“The government intends to file forthwith a petition…to review the district court’s January 15, 2019 opinion and order vacating and enjoining the reinstatement of the citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote.

Francisco emphasized the pressing time constraints at hand: the government must finalize the census questionnaire by June, which is not enough time for the ordinary appellate process to play out.

“It is exceedingly unlikely that there is sufficient time for review in both the court of appeals and in this Court by that deadline,” Francisco wrote. Therefore, he continued, granting the administration’s request to hear the case now “is likely the only way to protect this Court’s opportunity for review.”

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross issued orders providing for the addition of a citizenship question to the census survey in March 2018. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau.

Tuesday’s filing from the government is the latest in a succession of cases in which the Trump administration has short-circuited normal judicial process and asked the Supreme Court to review a district court decision before a federal appeals court does. Those requests, called petitions for certiorari before judgment, are rarely granted.

A sprawling coalition of civil rights groups, city governments, and blue states filed lawsuits challenging the citizenship question’s inclusion in April 2019. Those plaintiffs warn the citizenship question will reduce minority participation in the census. As such, the plaintiffs say they stand to lose federal funds and representation in Congress.

The Constitution mandates a census every 10 years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A citizenship question was included in the census until 1960.

The Trump administration is preparing to trim its budget by closing down numerous immigration offices around the world, a move that will likely make it harder for foreign nationals to relocate to the United States.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will shutter nearly two dozen international field offices in the coming months “in an effort to maximize our agency’s finite resources,” according to an email from USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna that was sent to staffers on Tuesday. Services currently being performed by the nearly two dozen offices abroad will instead be transferred to domestic offices and the State Department’s consulates and embassies.

A cost analysis by USCIS officials in 2018 found that a phase out of its international offices would save the agency millions per year.

“I believe by doing so, we will better leverage our funds to address backlogs in the United States while also leveraging existing Department of State resources at post,” Cissna wrote in the email, obtained by The Washington Post. “Change can be difficult and can cause consternation. I want to assure you we will work to make this as smooth a transition as possible for each of our USCIS staff while also ensuring that those utilizing our services may continue to do so and our agency operations continue undisrupted.”

However, immigration activists are claiming this is simply the latest move by the Trump administration to restrict immigration into the country. Closing international field offices, they argue, would slow family visa applications, refugee processing and other immigrant applications.

“This is another instance of the Trump administration halting legal immigration by denying people the opportunity to file for immigration benefits in the most expedient manner,” stated immigration attorney Margaret Stock. “It’s going to smack all government employees abroad, including folks in the military, who have a foreign spouse or kids they are trying to bring to the U.S. legally.”

The international division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operates in over 20 different countries. The agency’s offices perform a number of duties, such as helping potential U.S. immigrants with their applications, aiding immigrants who misplaced their green cards, and work on immigration petitions.

The USCIS, however, contends that the move to shutter its international division and shift responsibilities to U.S. offices is strictly a cost-saving and streamlining measure.

In a strong indication that the Trump administration is preparing for the next phase of the immigration battle, the Department of Justice is now hiring lawyers to handle border wall litigation in South Texas.

The two attorney positions — which are advertised to pay between $53,062 and $138,790 — are to be based in the southern Texas towns of Brownsville and McAllen. Preferred candidates are to have “at least four (4) years of civil litigation experience in litigation of land condemnation cases, oil and gas disputes, and real estate matters,” according to the posting on USAJobs, adding that knowledge of the Spanish language “is helpful, but not required.”

The jobs were first posted in December, with the deadline for applications closing on March 5.

The attorneys will likely be tasked with eminent domain and other property seizure legalities — issues that will undoubtedly arise if President Donald Trump is able to move forward with construction of a wall on the southern border.

The federal government is on the 28th day of a partial shutdown — the longest in U.S. history. Trump is demanding Congress send him a budget that includes $5.7 billion in funding for 200-plus miles of new and replacement barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but liberal lawmakers have stood sharply opposed to the proposal.

The budget standoff between the president and Democratic leaders has reached a fever pitch.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday told reporters she would delay the State of the Union address, an annual speech by the president that is held in the House of Representatives, because of the government shutdown. Trump responded the following day by cancelling Pelosi’s planned trip to Europe and the Middle East. Trump’s letter reportedly came minutes before the speaker and Democratic staffers were to board a bus for the trip.

Trump, however, told Pelosi she was free to fly commercial if she so chooses.

Should the White House ultimately prevail in the border wall fight, the administration would then have to negotiate with property owners who reside on the wall’s path. While the law typically favors the government in eminent domain cases, property owners could possibly drag out court cases for over a decade.

“Eminent domain is something that has to be used, usually you would say for anything that’s long, like a road, like a pipeline or like a wall or a fence,” Trump told reporters earlier in January in the Rose Garden. He made clear that the White House would wield eminent domain authority only if landowners refuse to sell the land needed for the wall, and he pledged that all landholders would receive fair prices.

“I think it’s a fair process. I think it’s a process that’s very necessary, but I think it’s fair,” he explained. “A lot of times we’ll make a deal, and I would say a good percentage of time we’re making deals.”

Immigration attorney Linda Vega said she’s surprised by Democrats’ rejection of President Donald Trump’s immigration compromise and called the deal a “great offer,” on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

“Currently [DACA] applicants are not able to reapply for any benefits. They’re at a standstill,” Vega said. “If they’re in court proceedings they’re being deported. This plan, this three-year offer by the president would offer them the opportunity to adjust their status to permanent residency or to continue studying in this country or to actually work and pay taxes. So it’s a great offer for a starting point.”

Vega said she was surprised the deal fell through because it would give Democrats the ability to create a permanent fix for DACA.

“I’m very surprised because if they’re asking for permanent solution this at least is a starting point to sit at the table and discuss making it a permanent solution,” she said. “And really, frankly that’s Congress’ job. It’s not the president’s job to offer a permanent solution. That’s why Congress members offer bills to make it a permanent law.”

Vega claimed current DACA recipients are angry and frustrated over the gridlock and are missing out on opportunities to become more educated and assimilated into American culture. .

“It is frustrating for them. And they’re full of anger. They’re full of fear. They don’t know whether they’re going to have to leave this country that they believe is their own,” she said. “But, many of them are losing opportunities to go to universities to study, to be in the workforce and to be part of our American culture. And this is an unfortunate situation that Congress won’t even come to the table and look at their benefit. It’s a very selfish behavior. [sic]”

Vega also accused Democrats of being anti-Trump at all costs and said their behavior is holding the process back.

“I’m very surprised they’re not even considering that there’s a possibility to make this a permanent law. They’re not even looking at offer, frankly because it’s President Trump offering. And I can’t think of any other solution or any other means that they won’t come to a reasonable discussion,” she concluded.

Democrats are complaining about what they believe is the media’s penchant for heaping loads of praise on the white men running against President Donald Trump in 2020. They want to know why the lady candidates are not receiving similar treatment.

National media are heaping too much praise on Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, according to Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political consultant. It’s not fair to the women in the race for the White House and is starting to look a lot like a replay of 2016 when reporters focused on then candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, she believes.

“I feel like the media is always captivated by the person they seem to think is a phenom: Bernie. Trump. Beto. But they always seem to be white men who are phenoms,” Marsh told Politico Friday. “In a year where we have more choices than ever, more women and more persons of color than ever, none of them seem to be deemed a phenom.”

She added: “Not one woman got that kind of coverage. Not one. Not Kamala. Not Kirsten. Not Elizabeth Warren. Not Amy Klobuchar in a blizzard.” A Democratic adviser for Clinton, a former secretary of state during the Obama administration, mirrored Marsh’s sentiments.

“I fully appreciate that he can espouse progressive values as a Democrat, that’s a benefit for the Democratic field. I don’t welcome being fed the retro candidacy,” Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist and onetime Clinton adviser, told reporters. “There’s a romanticizing of him. It’s the artful Vanity Fair cover — but in reality he was in Keokuk, Iowa in a coffee shop. That’s the product of romanticizing.”

There’s also a gender imbalance at play, Democratic pollster and strategist Celinda Lake claimed. The women running have received the bulk of the negative coverage, she added. Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, for instance, was forced to defend reports about treating her staff poorly. She also got dinged for eating a salad with a hairbrush.

“I think if you look at the pattern, there is a real distinction between the way men were covered and the way the women were covered. There’s a huge double standard,” Lake said. “With women, many, many more negatives were raised and the men were treated like the second coming. I’m surprised that this is continuing in 2019, after the year of the woman.”

Mexican authorities discovered five abandoned vehicles and at least 20 bodies at a rural location 56 miles west of McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, CNN reported.

News of the discovery came just hours after CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta reported on the area’s apparent safety and tranquility.

“We’re not seeing any kind of imminent danger. There are no migrants trying to rush toward this fence here in the McAllen, Texas, area,” Acosta said on a video posted to his Twitter account Thursday. “No sign of the national emergency that [President Donald Trump] has been talking about. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty tranquil down here.”

Acosta posted a follow-up video a couple of hours later to point out that McAllen’s border wall only covered a short distance, and he said that “a lot of the residents we talked to say this is a very safe community and they don’t see migrants coming into their community causing a lot of crime and mayhem.”

WATCH:

Mexican federal police found four burnt-out trucks, a sedan and the bodies, most of them charred, in a rural community near the town of Miguel Aleman, authorities told CNN. The grisly scene appeared to be the result of a battle between rival gangs, Tamaulipas Attorney General Irving Barrios Mojica told Carmen Aristegui, who works for CNN and hosts a radio show in Mexico.

CNN reported on the incident Thursday evening.

Click:Software development Company

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a government appropriations bill on Thursday evening and with a day until the vote, lawmakers still have not received the text of the legislation.

“Pelosi and the Democrats promised a full 72 hours to review legislation,” a senior conservative congressional aide told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “But now we’re voting on a massive, probably thousands-page long conference report tomorrow and we haven’t even seen text the day before? This is worse than under Speaker Ryan.”

The bicameral and bipartisan Homeland Security funding conference committee signaled last week that they are nearing a final border security deal that could be voted on prior to the Feb. 15 funding deadline. However, after hitting a snag over Democrats’ demand to limit to how many criminals Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be allowed to detain, Congress reportedly reached an “agreement in principle” late Monday.

The agreement includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new bollard fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, far short of the $5.7 billion that President Donald Trump initially sought for 234 miles of steel or concrete walls.

Regardless, the legislation is expected to be finalized late on Wednesday giving members of Congress less than 24 hours to read what they are voting on.

“When one bemoans the swamp, look no further than spending a trillion dollars and jamming through legislation when none of us have even seen it,” Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy told TheDCNF. “We should be a no on such incompetence even if it weren’t perpetuating drunken spending and failing to actually secure the border.”

Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris also confirmed to TheDCNF that lawmakers have not received a copy of the legislation as of Wednesday afternoon.

“No one has seen the final wording of a long and complicated bill we will be expected to vote on tomorrow evening,” Harris said. “That’s no way to run a legislature.”