President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE on Monday greeted troops stationed in Japan aboard the USS Wasp, some of whom donned morale patches that featured a play on his campaign slogan.

Reporters traveling with the president during his state visit to Japan observed some service members had patches that read “Make Aircrew Great Again” with the president’s likeness. 

Troops often wear themed morale patches, which can contain humorous images and references unique to the unit.

Trump visited two military outfits to cap off his weekend trip to Japan. He first visited the J.S. Kaga with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, where he addressed Japanese forces.

The president then met with U.S. troops aboard the USS Wasp, where he wished them a “very happy Memorial Day.” Some military families prefer to avoid that phrase, noting the somber nature of the holiday. 

Click Here:

Over the course of roughly 30 minutes, Trump critiqued the ship’s design, recounted his trip to Japan and praised those aboard for their service.

“Today, the unbreakable resolve of these heroes lives on in every American who wears our great uniform,” he said. “Each day that you serve on these rolling but beautiful seas, you honor their sacrifice, you carry on their righteous duty, and you continue their noble legacy.”

Forty percent of Britons want President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE‘s upcoming visit to the United Kingdom to be canceled, according to a poll released Tuesday.

The online YouGov survey asked if Trump’s visit, scheduled for June 3-5, “should go ahead or be cancelled?”

Forty-six percent of respondents said it should go ahead, while 40 percent said it should be called off.

ADVERTISEMENT

YouGov asked the same question before Trump’s visit last year. At the time, 50 percent said it should go ahead compared to 37 percent who wanted it called off.

The trip in June will be the president’s first official visit to the U.K. It is timed for Trump to participate in activities for the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

Last year’s trip was a “working visit” to Prime Minister Theresa MayTheresa Mary MayBrexit Party set to win most UK seats in EU elections Euroskeptics, Greens gain in EU elections as centrist parties lose ground The UK is one step closer to crashing out of Europe MORE, who recently announced she will be stepping down.

Click Here:

Only 40 percent of Britons in the new survey said they want their government to try to work with Trump, compared to 41 percent who want the government to distance itself from him.

The polling company surveyed 2,108 people between May 19-20.

Rep. Steve CohenStephen (Steve) Ira CohenTrump: Dems are getting nothing done in Congress Dem rep: Pelosi ‘needs to do what’s right’ and impeach Trump Pelosi: Trump ‘is engaged in a cover-up’ MORE (D-Tenn.) on Tuesday said President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE should not be allowed to attend next week’s D-Day anniversary event after Trump sided with North Korean leader Kim Jon Un in his criticism of former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support Will top 2020 Democrats make ending war in Afghanistan a defining issue or an afterthought? Nevada emerges as wild card in 2020 Democratic race MORE.

“Disgusting display by Trump. No mention of #MemorialDay. He shouldn’t be allowed at anniversary of D-Day June 6. I was there Sunday. What an honor to recall what brave Americans did for freedom,” Cohen tweeted Tuesday.

Cohen cited recent comments by Rep. Pete KingPeter (Pete) Thomas KingThirty-four GOP members buck Trump on disaster bill House bill seeks to bolster security for synagogues, mosques in wake of attacks Tax Foundation: Bill to roll back SALT deduction cap would cost 3B MORE (R-N.Y.), who called out Trump’s remarks about Biden, but also asked where the rest of the GOP stood regarding the president’s actions.

King tweeted Monday that it was wrong for Trump to criticize Biden and side with Kim.

“Politics stops at water’s edge. Never right to side with a murderous dictator vs. fellow American,” King said on Twitter.

Cohen is among the 30-plus House Democrats who have called for an impeachment inquiry against the president.

Trump has said he plans to travel to France for events commemorating the 75th anniversary of D-Day, on June 6.

Click Here:

He spent Memorial Day weekend in Japan, where he backed Kim’s “low IQ individual” characterization of the former vice president.

“Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnPence honors fallen US service members at Arlington National Cemetery Bremmer apologizes after Trump tweet on ‘completely ludicrous’ quote Trump knocks Ian Bremmer for ‘completely ludicrous quote’ MORE made a statement that Joe Biden is a low IQ individual. He probably is, based on his record. I think I agree with him on that,” Trump said during a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Trump later targeted Biden’s support of the 1994 crime bill.

Attorney Michael Avenatti pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to accusations he defrauded his former client, adult-film star Stormy Daniels.

Avenatti appeared before a federal judge on Tuesday in New York, according to CNN, where he faced charges of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He had been accused by Daniels of stealing $300,000.

The embattled lawyer was hit with two separate indictments in New York last week — one for allegedly defrauding Daniels, though the indictment does not name her, and one for his alleged extortion of Nike.

Assistant US Attorney Robert Sobelman told CNN Avenatti surrendered to federal authorities early Tuesday morning and was released on a bail package including a $300,000 personal recognizance bond.

As part of the bail conditions, Avenatti is prohibited from contact with Daniels except in the presence of counsel.

Federal prosecutors allege that Avenatti took money intended for a client, presumably Daniels, in a book deal and instead used it “for his own purposes, including, among other things, to pay employees of his law firm and a coffee business he owned.”

The indictment documents, unsealed last week, also claim that Avenatti told the client that he wouldn’t accept any form of payment for work he did in relation to the book deal, after signing a contract that gave him the authority to collect payments for that work.

A second indictment unsealed last week against Avenatti related to an alleged extortion scheme against Nike, claiming that Avenatti threatened “to cause substantial economic and reputational harm to Nike if did not accede to Avenatti” and another co-conspirator’s demands.

The pair allegedly threatened to hold a press conference on the eve of Nike’s quarterly earnings call to unveil allegations of misconduct by Nike staffers unless the company paid $1.5 million to Avenatti’s client. 

According to CNN, he will also plead not guilty in this case.

Avenatti insisted on his innocence in a tweet.

“No monies relating to Ms. Daniels were ever misappropriated or mishandled. She received millions of dollars worth of legal services and we spent huge sums in expenses. She directly paid only $100.00 for all that she received,” Avenatti tweeted from his account, now set to private, last Wednesday.

“I look forward to a jury hearing the evidence.”

Avenatti became a well-known figure during his representation of Daniels when prosecutors pursued a case last year against President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE‘s former personal attorney Michael CohenMichael Dean CohenTrump goes scorched earth against impeachment talk Trump’s nastiest break-ups: A look at the president’s most fiery feuds Cohen challenges Sekulow to testify about Trump Tower meetings MORE.

Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, including having made an illegal campaign contribution by paying $130,000 during the 2016 election cycle to Daniels to silence her claim of an affair with Trump. Prosecutors have said the payment was made at the direction of Trump.

Trump has denied the affair, while Cohen is now serving a three-year prison sentence.

Avenatti and Daniels terminated their professional relationship in February.

Click Here:

–Updated at 1:15 p.m.

Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasJuan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Teflon Joe? Biden brushes off attacks Anita Hill: Female 2020 Democrats ‘not being taken seriously’ MORE on Tuesday said that while he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision to not take up a challenge to an Indiana abortion law at this moment, he believes the court will have to take up the issue in the near future. 

The Supreme Court ruled to uphold an Indiana law on the disposal of fetal remains but declined to review a lower court’s ruling blocking an Indiana law banning abortions on the basis of the fetus’s sex, disability or ethnicity.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thomas wrote in a lengthy concurring opinion that he agreed that the court should not address the issue now “because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression.”

“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation,” he added, “the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”

Thomas, the only African American member of the court, noted the racial discrimination involved in the history of eugenics.

“From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics,” he wrote.

Thomas pointed to comments from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in the 1920s that promoted eugenics as fueling his concerns surrounding abortion.

The promotion of eugenics has largely died out of the mainstream narrative over the past century, and Planned Parenthood provides a number of services beyond birth control and abortion.

Thomas’s argument largely centers on Sanger’s century-old comments, but also cites newer technology that would help determine if a fetus has any disabilities or genetic defects as having “only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion.”

“Indeed, the individualized nature of abortion gives it even more eugenic potential than birth control, which simply reduces the chance of conceiving any child,” the justice wrote. 

Thomas said that the court’s decision to not take up the law for full review “should not be interpreted as agreement” with the lower court’s findings. 

“Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope,” the justice said.

Abortion rights groups have argued that the procedures do not center around eugenics, but are rather guarded under a woman’s right to choose as to whether to carry out her pregnancy. They say that mothers whose fetuses would not survive in the womb or after birth, or whose pregnancy would risk their own health, should have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Thomas made the remarks as several state legislatures have passed restrictive abortion laws in recent months, including one in Alabama that bans all abortions as soon as pregnancy is detected.

Some authors of those bills hope the laws will make their way up to the Supreme Court, with an eye on the court’s conservative majority overturning the landmark 1972 Roe v. Wade decision.

However, the justices’ decision Tuesday to not take the abortion cases under full consideration could signal the court’s wariness in taking up a potential Roe reversal.

Click Here:

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE‘s signature tax law, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, left wages growing less quickly than the overall economy, which itself got only a minimal boost, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released Tuesday.

“On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy,” the report found.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:
The report said the tax law’s effects on the economy were smaller than those predicted by a slew of forecasters and added that the economy’s growth was not consistent “with the direction and size of the supply-side incentive effects one would expect from the tax changes.”

The CRS, which functions as a think tank of sorts for Congress, also found wages were not growing as quickly as the economy writ large.

Adjusted for inflation, wages grew 2 percent in 2018, less than the 2.9 percent gross domestic product growth rate. For workers in production and nonsupervisory roles, wages grew only 1.2 percent.

The report’s findings fly in the face of many arguments Republicans made in support of the bill, including claims that it would pay for itself by producing a spurt of economic growth that would cover the revenue losses.

As proof, the GOP had pointed to big companies, such as AT&T, which announced large worker bonuses following the law’s passage. The CRS found the combined bonuses accounted for only 2 to 3 percent of the overall tax cut.

Instead, companies used large portions of the tax cut to buy back stocks, a move Democrats have criticized because it helps enrich stock owners, not workers.

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality Manning: Additional Assange charges are feds using the law ‘as a sword’ Overnight Health Care — Presented by PCMA — Senators unveil sweeping bipartisan health care package | House lawmakers float Medicare pricing reforms | Dems offer bill to guarantee abortion access MORE (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the report showed the law did not live up to its promises.

“Republicans made three unbelievable claims about their bill: It would pay for itself, raise wages by $4,000 and jump-start investment in the United States,” he said. 

“In fact, the tax cuts are paying for just 5% of their cost — not 100%. Workers did not see a significant wage increase — the tax cuts largely paid for stock buybacks that push CEO compensation even higher. And the tax cuts have had a negligible effect on investment in the United States,” he added.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE criticized plans to overhaul some U.S. aircraft carriers’ catapults while speaking to sailors aboard an assault ship stationed in Japan on Tuesday.

During his remarks, the president once again took aim at the Navy’s plans to overhaul traditional steam-based catapults used for launching aircraft with newer electric systems, calling it a “wrong” choice.

ADVERTISEMENT

“You know, they were saying — one of the folks said, ‘No, the electric works faster. But, sir, we can only get the plane there every couple of minutes,’ ” Trump said aboard the USS Wasp, according to a White House transcript, adding: “So, really, what they did was wrong.”

“I think I’m going to put an order,” the president continued. “When we build a new aircraft carrier, we’re going to use steam. I’m going to just put out an order: We’re going to use steam. We don’t need — we don’t need that extra speed.”

Trump took aim specifically at the cost overrun for the project to upgrade the catapult systems, which he said had reached $900 million.

Click Here:

“Steam’s only worked for about 65 years perfectly,” the president added.

“And I won’t tell you this because it’s before my time by a little bit, but they have a $900 million cost overrun on this crazy electric catapult,” Trump said.

The Navy’s use of steam catapults to launch aircraft from ships has become a pet issue for the president.

In an interview with Time magazine in 2017, he pledged that the service would not switch to “digital” catapults for launching aircraft, claiming that service members had to be “Albert Einstein” to successfully use the newer systems.

“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, ‘What system are you going to be—’ ‘Sir, we’re staying with digital.’ I said, ‘No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good,’ ” he said at the time.

The declining use of nuclear power may increase reliance on fossil fuels, making it harder for countries to meet their goal of reducing carbon emissions, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“Without an important contribution from nuclear power, the global energy transition will be that much harder,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said in a Tuesday statement on the study. “Alongside renewables, energy efficiency and other innovative technologies, nuclear can make a significant contribution to achieving sustainable energy goals and enhancing energy security. But unless the barriers it faces are overcome, its role will soon be on a steep decline worldwide, particularly in the United States, Europe and Japan.”

Aging nuclear power plants in the U.S. and elsewhere mean many of the plants are set to fall out of use before renewables such as wind and solar are able to fill in the gaps. Some advocates worry that will lead to further reliance on fossil fuels as utilities work to meet growing demand for electricity.

Nuclear power supplies almost 20 percent of U.S. electric generation. It also occupies a controversial role in the energy economy. Though it provides low-carbon energy, many environmentalists don’t consider nuclear a clean source of energy given that nuclear waste must be properly stored for decades.

Some environmental groups, however, back its use as an alternative to fossil fuel sources. In a report earlier this month, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that retiring nuclear plants could lead to a spike in fossil fuel use.

The IEA advises that countries work to extend the life of aging nuclear facilities, despite the expense. Getting another 10 years out of a facility could cost from $500 million to $1 billion.

But that dollar amount could be similar to the investments needed for new large scale renewable projects and “can lead to a more secure, less disruptive energy transition,” the IEA wrote.

States including New York and Illinois have chosen to subsidize nuclear power, spurring lawsuits from the Electric Power Supply Association, which represents power producers and marketers. Those cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not take them up, leaving the subsidies in place.

New York has argued that the subsidies were necessary to avoid plant closures.

“If they close before enough new renewable resources are built, the gap will be filled with fossil-fuel generation and emissions will spike,” the state wrote in a legal brief.

Click Here:

Nuclear plants are expensive to operate, and some countries are hesitant to invest in a type of energy production that is already struggling to be profitable given low electricity rates, something the IEA notes in its report.

If countries want to avoid filling the nuclear void with wind and solar, deployment “would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level,” the IEA said.

A Facebook representative on Tuesday defended the company’s decision to not take down a video of Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump: Dems are getting nothing done in Congress Seven key allies for Pelosi on impeachment Democrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court MORE (D-Calif.) that was meant to make her appear drunk, saying flagging the video and not removing it promoted user choice.

Neil Potts, Facebook’s public policy manager, said taking that approach allows people to understand what the video is and why it has been flagged.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is our policy to inform people when we have information that might be false on the platform so they can make their own decisions about that content,” Potts said during a meeting of the international grand committee on big data, privacy and democracy in Ottawa, Canada.

The grand committee includes politicians from a dozen countries who meet with representatives of Facebook and other tech companies to discuss how to protect privacy and prevent abuse on social media.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are grappling with how to handle fake and manipulated videos after the Pelosi video racked up millions of views and raised the debate in the United States. Experts are warning that manipulated videos will be a new frontier for social media companies and people running for office in 2020.

The remarks from Potts underline Facebook’s view that the videos ultimately come down to a form of free expression, and that those seeing the videos on social media simply need to be told of their full context.

The Pelosi video was slowed down to make the Speaker appear to be slurring her words.

While it did not take down the video, Facebook said it had been flagged by company fact-checkers as false, and that as a result Facebook was “heavily reducing its distribution in news feed and showing additional context from this fact-checker,” such as related articles.

But in Ottawa and Washington, some said that was not enough.

Damian Collins, a conservative in the United Kingdom’s Parliament and a member of the grand committee, said the Facebook decision on the Pelosi video set a “dangerous precedent.”

“Do you not see that what Facebook is doing is giving a green light to anyone in the world that wants to make a distorted or fake film about a senior politician, or maybe in the future use deepfake technology to do it, and know that whatever happens, Facebook won’t review the film,” he said, grilling Potts.

Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerTrump declassification move unnerves Democrats Hillicon Valley: Assange hit with 17 more charges | Facebook removes record 2.2B fake profiles | Senate passes anti-robocall bill | Senators offer bill to help companies remove Huawei equipment Senators offer bipartisan bill to help US firms remove Huawei equipment from networks MORE (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Hill that Congress needs to “put guardrails in place” to make sure users can maintain confidence in what they see on social media platforms.

“It has been clear for some time that large platforms do not have clear policies or procedures in place to address viral misinformation like this – now imagine what’s going to happen as more sophisticated tools and techniques for doctoring videos become widely available,” Warner said in a statement.

Warner said viral misinformation is being pushed with simple techniques today, but that new technologies will make matters worse.

“Going forward, we need to put guardrails in place to help avoid a major crisis of confidence. This includes targeting major issues around transparency, privacy, and accountability on social media platforms,” Warner said.

Republicans have accused Facebook and other social media companies of discriminating against conservative content, and Rep. Mike RogersMichael (Mike) Dennis RogersOcasio-Cortez defends Dem lawmaker who said child migrant deaths were ‘intentional’ GOP strikes Democrat’s comments after she confronts acting DHS chief on migrant deaths DHS suggests new role for cybersecurity staff — helping with border crisis MORE (Ala.), the ranking GOP lawmaker on the House Homeland Security Committee, warned taking down videos could infringe on free speech.

“While social media companies certainly play a role here, any congressional action must respect the First Amendment,” Rogers told The Hill on Tuesday.

Democrats, however, are warning that Facebook and other companies have an added responsibility to take dramatic steps to police content after the 2016 election.

Russian-backed groups in that cycle sent out numerous fake messages on Facebook, including invitations to phony events. The effort was aimed at stoking divisions in the country, and at interfering with the presidential election.

“Doctored videos like this are not only vile, partisan trash, they are a sad omen of what is to come in the 2020 election season,” Rep. Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonDHS suggests new role for cybersecurity staff — helping with border crisis Hillicon Valley: Trump takes flak for not joining anti-extremism pact | Phone carriers largely end sharing of location data | Huawei pushes back on ban | Florida lawmakers demand to learn counties hacked by Russians | Feds bust 0M cybercrime group Trump takes flak for not joining anti-extremism pact MORE (D-Miss.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. “It is also time for social media companies to act responsibly after they were caught flat footed in 2016. They are on notice.”

Outside experts said Facebook is caught in a difficult spot given the partisan fighting surrounding the Pelosi video.

Simply taking down videos could be a violation of free speech, said Alan McQuinn, a senior policy analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

“I see the Facebook response as the correct one in the circumstances, in the case that they followed the procedure they set out,” McQuinn said. “They weren’t the sole arbiters of this truth, they went to third party fact-checkers,” adding that “they had to balance free speech.”

Emma Llansó, the director of free expression at the Center for Democracy and Technology, also believes that Facebook “made the right call” in leaving up the video due to the need to stick to previously established policies. She emphasized that should Facebook change its policies, or Congress decide to try to regulate this type of content on social media, these efforts could likely end up impacting parody videos or other political comedy online.

“This is a good example of how hard it is to draw those lines,” Llansó said. “Figuring out how to draw the line between what is acceptable use of minor manipulation of media and what is unacceptable would be extremely hard to draw … it would absolutely capture other speech that has before that seemed unobjectionable.” 

Facebook CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality On The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay Zuckerberg met with Winklevoss twins about Facebook developing cryptocurrency: report MORE and COO Sheryl Sandberg will defy a summons and not attend a hearing at the Canadian Parliament later this week.

The top executives could be held in contempt as a result, the Canadian politician who sent the summons told CNN.

ADVERTISEMENT

Zuckerberg and Sandberg were reportedly asked earlier this month to appear at an international committee meeting examining Silicon Valley’s impact on privacy and democracy.

Facebook is sending Kevin Chan, its head of public policy for Facebook Canada, and Neil Potts, its director of public policy, the social media giant confirmed to The Hill.

Lawmakers from ten countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, are scheduled to attend the meeting.

“Collectively we represent about 450 million people, it’s a bigger population group than the US,” Bob Zimmer, the chair of the Canadian parliamentary committee hosting the international meeting, told CNN.

Zimmer said he wanted to hear from Facebook’s top two executives, not their replacements.

“Knowing the structure of Facebook and how it is micro-managed right from the top, any change on the platform is done through Mr. Zuckerberg or through Ms. Sandberg.”

“It’s not that hard to jump on a plane and make some time to hear from legislators and answer their questions,” he told CNN.

Zimmer added that the decision to hold the two in contempt would be voted on by the whole of Parliament.

“Nobody is going to come with some handcuffs and arrest them, but to be held in contempt by an entire country would not serve any platform well,” he added.

A spokesperson for Facebook told The Hill that a contempt vote is ultimately a decision for the parliament to make.

“We share the Committee’s desire to keep people safe and to hold companies like ours accountable. We look forward to answering their questions and remain committed to working with world leaders, governments, and industry experts to address these complex issues,” they added.

Click Here: