Politics
Gooden hits Meta’s ‘woefully inadequate’ response on policies regarding illegal immigration
NEWNow you can hearken to Fox Information articles!
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, on Wednesday slammed what he known as a “woefully insufficient” response from Meta, the guardian firm of Instagram and Fb, to his queries about its insurance policies relating to content material that helps individuals enter america illegally – and warned that the corporate might face a congressional subpoena subsequent yr.
“The response from Meta (Fb) my workplace obtained on March eighth is woefully insufficient and fails to handle any of the considerations I’ve relating to the position your organization performs in fueling the immigration disaster at our southern border,” Gooden stated in a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
DOJ WON’T SAY IF IT IS INVESTIGATING FACEBOOK’S ‘FACILITATION’ OF ILLEGAL MIGRATION INTO THE US
June 10, 2021: A pair of migrant households from Brazil go via a niche within the border wall to achieve america after crossing from Mexico to Yuma, Ariz., to hunt asylum.
((AP Photograph/Eugene Garcia, File))
Gooden is certainly one of various Republicans who has raised considerations about Fb’s insurance policies relating to content material on unlawful immigration. The Tech Transparency Undertaking stated in April that it first recognized the existence of fifty pages and personal teams promoting human smuggling and supplied their names to Fb after the corporate had requested. Whereas some had been deactivated, in September the group stated it recognized a further 40 Fb pages and 17 Fb teams that overtly promote unlawful border crossings.
In a response to Gooden and Rep. Mary Miller, R-In poor health., Meta stated that it’s “working diligently to proactively take away content material that gives to offer or facilitate human smuggling on our platforms.”
Nonetheless, the letter says that beneath its Human Exploitation Coverage, “we don’t take away content material searching for data on how one can cross borders.”
“That coverage displays our conclusion that one of the simplest ways to assist individuals keep secure is to permit individuals to ask for assist in crossing borders,” the response stated.
“Meta acknowledges that sharing and acquiring data regarding how one can cross a border is essential to exercising one’s proper to hunt asylum,” the letter says. “With its coverage, Meta intends to ban content material regarding the enterprise of human smuggling however not intrude with individuals’s means to train their proper to hunt asylum, which is acknowledged by worldwide and U.S. regulation.”
FACEBOOK FAILS TO POLICE HUMAN SMUGGLERS SNEAKING MIGRANTS INTO US, REPORT FINDS
Gooden stated the response confirmed that Meta “confirmed you don’t take away content material on how one can illegally cross the U.S. border, which suggests Meta is internet hosting content material to encourage and induce aliens to come back to, enter, or reside in america, understanding or in reckless disregard of the truth that such coming to, entry, or residence is or might be in violation of regulation.”
He additionally expressed alarm a few declare by Meta that lots of the paperwork associated to the coverage that he requested “are saved confidential, partly to advertise full and frank dialogue inside Meta about necessary points like this and to protect customers’ and staff’ privateness.”
Gooden advised the corporate that Meta is “obligated to protect all data that pertains to investigations” performed by Congress, together with paperwork associated to requests by lawmakers.
“I’m deeply involved by Meta’s position in fueling the migrant disaster and their refusal to adjust to my request for data,” Gooden stated in a press release to Fox Information. “If the corporate is not going to present these paperwork now, then they are going to be compelled to by Congressional subpoena subsequent yr.”
Gooden’s letter consists of extra questions, together with which teams, activists and organizations are included within the “exterior voices” that Meta consults with on the coverage and the way it differentiates between content material about human trafficking and content material regarding asylum.
Politics
Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water
SACRAMENTO — OK, I admit it. I’m biased. I hate it when an opportunistic politician capitalizes on other people’s miseries and tries to score political points.
I’m especially biased when it’s a president-elect who shoots off his mouth without regard for facts and blames a governor for fire hydrants running dry.
Not that Democrat Gavin Newsom is a perfect governor. But his California water policies had no more to do with Pacific Palisades hydrants drying up during a firestorm than did Republican Donald Trump’s turning on sprinklers at his golf course.
News reporters shouldn’t allow personal biases to seep into their stories, as Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has reminded us. Reporters have long strived to not do so and mostly succeeded. But I’m not a reporter. I’m a columnist who analyzes and opines. And yes, I’m biased — but on issues, not politics.
It has always been my view that liberals, moderates and conservatives all have good and bad ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on truth and justice — except in relating to Trump.
I wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and watch whether he really intended — as promised — to be a president for all Americans. But the guy just can’t help himself.
When Trump blamed Newsom for water hydrants going dry as Pacific Palisades burned, it wasn’t something people should dismiss as just another Trumpism.
Here was a president-elect mouthing off and showing his ignorance in a barrage of vindictiveness and insensitivity as thousands of people fled for their lives and hundreds of homes blazed into ashes.
Yes, I’m biased against anyone who’s that uncivil, especially when he disrespects facts or — worse — is a pathological liar.
So, let’s recap what Trump did.
As scores of hydrants went dry while fire crews battled flames in Pacific Palisades, the president-elect instinctively went on social media to point the finger at his left coast political adversary, the Democrat he tastelessly derides as Gov. “Newscum.”
“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snow melt from the north to flow daily into many parts of California, including the parts that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump asserted.
“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt … but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid.
“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to flow into California. He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster.”
True drivel, putting it politely.
First, what was this so-called water restoration declaration?
“There’s no such document,” responded Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s communications director. “That is pure fiction.”
Trump probably was referring to his policy differences with Newsom on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley. In his first presidency, Trump wanted to drain more fresh water from the delta for irrigation in the valley. But both Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom took a more centrist approach, striving for a balance between farms and fish.
Second, it’s not the demise of the tiny smelt — the Republicans’ favorite target — that’s so concerning to many conservationists. It’s the rapid decline of iconic salmon that previously provided world-class recreational angling in the delta and fed a healthy commercial fishery on the coast. Salmon fishing seasons have been closed recently to save what’s left of the fish.
Third, despite Trump’s claptrap, plenty of fresh delta water is being pumped south to fill fire hydrants and the tanks of firefighting aircraft. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water flow daily down the California Aqueduct. Major Southland reservoirs are at historically high levels. Anyway, much of L.A.’s water doesn’t even come from the Delta. It flows from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River.
Fourth, the hydrants went dry simply because there were too many fires to fight, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power explained. Storage tanks went dry.
“We pushed the system to the extreme,” Janisse Quinones, DWP chief executive and chief engineer, said. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight.”
Yes, I’m biased against politicians who make up stuff.
But you’ve got to listen to Trump because he could follow through on what he’s bellowing about.
For example, Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to deny Newsom federal money to fight wildfires unless the governor diverted more water to farms.
That apparently wasn’t an idle threat.
Trump initially refused to approve federal wildfire aid in 2018 until a staffer pointed out that Orange County, a beneficiary, was home to many voters who supported him, Politico reported. And in 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected an aid request during several California wildfires until Republicans appealed to Trump.
So, what’s Trump going to be like when he actually becomes president again and is wielding real power, not just running off at the mouth?
Will he try to annex Greenland? Seize the Panama Canal? When a reporter asked him whether he’d commit to not using “military or economic coercion” to achieve these goals, he immediately answered: “No.”
Will he keep calling Canada our “51st state?”
Yep. I’m biased against such immature and dangerous political leaders.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.
Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.
Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.
But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.
The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.
As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.
Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.
The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.
Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”
He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”
During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.
While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.
Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.
In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.
Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.
In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.
Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.
One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.
In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.
The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.
Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.
A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump’s alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump’s handling of sensitive government records.
The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.
JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE
Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.
It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.
The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Following Trump’s presidential victory, Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.
TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL
Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to “put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system.”
“Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed,” he said.
“Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system,” Cheung said. “The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again.”
Fox News’ Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Messika: Inside French Jewellery’s Most Disruptive Success
Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water
Shaikin: Polymarket shouldn't allow people to profit by betting on the L.A. firestorm
Vladimir Putin is ready for summit with Donald Trump, says Kremlin
Poland says Netanyahu won't be arrested if he attends Auschwitz event
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
Poland says Netanyahu won't be arrested if he attends Auschwitz event
Trump set for sentencing in his New York felony conviction
Mapping the Damage From the Palisades Fire
Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report
‘Much more persecution’: Venezuela braces for Nicolas Maduro’s inauguration
-
Business1 week agoThese are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week agoThe 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week agoThe top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week agoNew Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week agoCarter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days agoWho Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days agoOzempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week agoIvory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades