President Trump looks set to sign a budget deal that doesn't come close to including the amount of border wall funding he's asked for — or even as much as he's rejected in the past.
Trump intends to sign a new budget agreement from Congress that will avert a government shutdown, CNN reported Wednesday. He had expressed dissatisfaction with the bill, and understandably so; he'd been for weeks asking for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, and this bill only includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of fencing.
But The Washington Post points out that Trump could have had much more if he had just quit while he was ahead. After all, a spending bill produced by the Senate in June 2018 included $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing. Trump rejected this amount, wanting $5 billion instead. Now, not only is he ending this whole standoff without $5 billion, he'll receive even less than the original $1.6 billion he was offered, after his insistence on the funding sparked the longest-ever partial government shutdown.
Trump, though, will likely spin this agreement as not being a show of defeat because he plans to fund the wall in other ways, including by redirecting money from elsewhere within the federal government like disaster relief funds. The full text of the budget agreement has not yet been released, but Trump on Tuesday said it will be "hooked up with lots of money from other sources." Brendan Morrow
North Carolina's elections board has called for a new congressional election to finally fill its 9th District seat.
Republican candidate Mark Harris narrowly beat Democrat Dan McCready in November's elections, but the board had refused to call the election amid widespread allegations of fraud committed by Harris' campaign. After a weeklong series of hearings on the issue — and after Harris called for a new election — the board decided Thursday to hold a do-over, per The Washington Post.
After November's elections, dozens of voters filed affidavits saying people came to their house and illegally asked for their absentee ballots, even if they weren't filled out, signed, or sealed. Witnesses have since testified to collecting those ballots after being paid by McCrae Dowless, a political operative who consulted for Harris.
The uncertainty prompted a series of hearings on the issue, during which state investigators and the board said they had "evidence" that proved "a coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme operated during the general election," per NBC News. Harris has long denied knowledge of any illegal activities, and repeated that claim Thursday. Still, he called for a new election because "the public's confidence... has been undermined." Less than an hour later, the board voted to hold a new election, the Post says. Kathryn Krawczyk
#RogerStoneDidNothingWrong will have to carry on without Roger Stone's help.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a full gag order on Stone's case on Thursday, telling him she would revoke his bail and have him detained if he violated the order. Stone, President Trump's former adviser, appeared in court to apologize for sharing an inflammatory post about Jackson on Instagram.
He called the post "an egregious, stupid error" and blamed the decision on stress, but Jackson barred stone from publicly commenting on his case, "period."
"What concerns me is the fact that he chose to use his public platform and chose to express himself in a manner that can incite others that feel less constrained," said Jackson, per BuzzFeed News. She didn't buy his claim that he didn't realize the picture he shared contained a crosshairs next to her face, saying there was "nothing ambiguous" about the imagery. "Thank you, but the apology rings quite hollow," she said.
Jackson previously issued a partial gag order, telling Stone he couldn't comment on his case outside the Washington, D.C. courthouse but could gripe about his witness tampering and obstruction charges on InfoWars to his heart's content. On Thursday, she determined he needed a little more rigidity, condemning his quick "abuse" of the "liberty he was afforded."
He will be allowed to maintain his innocence, and can ask for donations to his legal fund, but that's it. "I'm not giving you another chance," Jackson told Stone. He'll remain out on bail, but as former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance pointed out, "if you're Roger Stone, being told you can't talk to the media is probably a worse punishment than being sent to jail." Summer Meza
The federal prosecutors who signed a plea agreement with Florida millionaire Jeffrey Epstein broke the law, a judge said Thursday, reports The Miami Herald.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the prosecutors involved in the sex-trafficking case, including then-Florida prosecutor and current Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by not keeping Epstein's victims informed about the agreement, per Politico. After the deal, which resolved a case in which Epstein was accused of building a "cult-like network" of girls coerced into sexual acts, Epstein ultimately served 13 months in prison. The deal, which Acosta agreed to seal, was kept secret from dozens of women who alleged abuse.
“Particularly problematic was the government's decision to conceal the existence of the [agreement] and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility," the judge said. "When the government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the [agreement] with Epstein's attorneys, scant information was shared with victims."
Marra also said he has reviewed evidence that Epstein violated sex trafficking laws and abused at least 30 girls between 1997 and 2007, per NBC News. "Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others," Marra said. The Labor Department did not comment on the ruling. Brendan Morrow
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is reportedly wrapping up. But that could just be the beginning.
Both CNN and The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the Justice Department is preparing for Mueller to conclude the probe that began in 2017, although tons of questions remain unanswered, including how much of Mueller's report will actually be seen by the public.
But Wired's Garrett Graff points out the possibility that Mueller "closes up shop but refers numerous active cases to other prosecutors." He could do so, Graff writes, if he feels that he has "answered his main charge — Russia — even though he's uncovered much ancillary criminality." This would leave "big and worthy questions to be examined by prosecutors in D.C., New York, Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere," and could guarantee the "probe lives on for years to come."
Similarly, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal observed on Twitter that Mueller issuing his report "doesn't mean the investigations are over." As he put it, "it means the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end." And The New York Times echoes this sentiment, writing, "new prosecutors from outside the special counsel's operation could pick up cases that remain in progress."
Experts have also noted that the Southern District of New York's investigation won't end just because Mueller's does. That probe, which led to the conviction of President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, doesn't appear to be nearing an end. In fact, the Post writes that it "has always been a more serious concern for Trump's inner circle" and that it "could go on for years." Brendan Morrow
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she supports reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, The New York Times reports.
Warren said in an interview with the Times that "we must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations." She also said that "we need systemic, structural changes to address that."
Warren did not provide any specifics about what her plan would be, but the Times notes that this is significant given that it's a policy previous Democratic presidential candidates chose not to support. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who recently announced his 2020 bid, was not in favor of reparations in 2016, saying at the time that it would not pass Congress and would be "very divisive." For that matter, neither was former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) also recently backed reparations, saying in a radio interview, "I'm serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities." Brendan Morrow