Mediaboss Marketing

Click here for ongoing updatesfrom the bishops' meeting in Indianapolis.

Taking stock of their efforts over the past six months to combat some Trump administration attempts to crack down on undocumented people living in the United States, Catholic bishops meeting in Indianapolis today pledged to be more proactive in laying out a vision for comprehensive immigration reform.

Bishop Joe Vasquez, head of the bishops migration committee, said in a report to fellow bishops that church leaders now seek to move beyond simple reaction to the various negative proposals we have seen lately.

Following Mr. Trumps surprise victory in November, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops convened a special working group to coordinate the churchs response to immigration proposals from the new administration. That group concluded its work this month.

Archbishop Jos Gomez of Los Angeles, who chaired the group, recounted the flurry of statements condemning many of Mr. Trumps proposals, such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and banning refugees from several predominantly Muslim nations. Archbishop Gomez said the bishops efforts helped to make a positive impact on the public conversation regarding the [executive] orders.

In recent months, some Christian groups have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented residents, promising to house them in churches if they fear deportations. Catholic leaders have largely shied away from such declarations, insisting that they have no legal basis for such moves and that doing so could ultimately offer false hope to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, Catholic organizations have continued to work with undocumented individuals to pursue legal avenues that could grant them temporary relief.

Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe took to the floor to express concern that these avenues were increasingly being blocked by the Trump administration. He wondered if U.S. bishops might take a more serious look at the sanctuary movement.

We know that for many people who would be deported, they would be going back, I think, very realistically, to a possible death and other kinds of realities, the archbishop said.

But Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento urged caution.

Offering sanctuary, he said, will not provide what the immigrant community needs long term, and that is to be incorporated as fellow citizens, brothers and sisters of one society.

That is not a sustainable, long-term solution, he continued.

Other bishops suggested that the United States should do a better job in encouraging stability, prosperity and peace around the world so that individuals feel safe living in their home countries and, at the same time, should pay attention to economic concerns of Americans who feel threatened by immigration.

How do we express our support or those that are immigrants and new to our country and stand with them, but also understandthe economic hardships that others are experiencing in our country and have a solidarity with them? Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., asked. The chaos of illegal immigration is bad for everybody.

Turning to the politics of immigration, Archbishop Gomez suggested that if the Trump administration is serious about renegotiating Nafta, then maybe they need to include a treaty on the movements of people, because when you move capital, people move, too.

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, meanwhile, suggested that U.S. bishops look to the failed 2013 bipartisan immigration reform effort in the U.S. Senate for inspiration. By telling people what was in that bill...you can simplify the issues, he said.

As the working group winded down, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego urged fellow bishops not to become complacent on immigration. He questioned whether the temporary working group should disband at all, worrying that it sends a signal that the church is moving from a level of heightened alert on this to a level of lower alert.

Our people are more fearful because of what has gone in the past months, he said. I think we need to be very leery of normalizing the heightened level of fear which is there.

Link:
Bishops renew pledge to fight Trump-backed immigration proposals - America Magazine

Mayor Mitch Landrieu CREDIT: Esther Yu Hsi Lee, ThinkProgress

WASHINGTON, D.C.What are mayors to do with their immigrant constituents when they want to strike a balance being both a welcoming city to everyone and a city of law and order pressured to follow federal policies as harsh as the ones that President Donald Trump has put forth in his executive orders on immigration?

Thats the burning question for New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieuthe incoming president of the United States Conference of Mayorswho met with Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April with other U.S. mayors to discuss policies aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants.

The meeting came in response after the Trump administration publicly shamed New Orleans and eight other jurisdictions for being sanctuary cities to undocumented residents, allowing officials the ability to ignore a federal request to detain some immigrants beyond the length of their prison sentence for potential deportation proceedings. Speaking with Sessions in that private session, Landrieu said his city has complied with federal immigration law. But he also emphasized that it violates an immigrants constitutional rights to be held without probable cause or without a warrant for longer than his or her prison term.

In an interview with reporters after speaking at the Center for American Progress Race in America: A Conversation with Mayor Landrieu, the New Orleans mayor covered a few wide-ranging topics such as the removal of Confederate statues in his city and racial issues including the insidiousness of people who believe African Americans cant have the same level of humanity as other people because you have black blood.

On the topic of immigration, Landrieu was emphatic about the need for comprehensive immigration reform so that mayors like himself wouldnt need to have big fights right now about whether localities comply with federal policies.

I would make the simple point that if Congress would do its job and actually have comprehensive immigration reform, we wouldnt have to have these patchwork guesses on whos doing what, whos not doing what, whats a sanctuary city, whats not, what all of that looks like, Landrieu told ThinkProgress.

Currently, the Trump administration has named and shamed many localities for ignoring federal requests to turn over all suspected undocumented immigrants under custodial arrest. But such an undertaking, particularly authorizing local police to take on federal immigration enforcement policies, could actually make these cities less safe for immigrants. A 2012 study found that trust in police fell among community members when law enforcement authorities were involved in immigration enforcement.

Its easy to see why immigrants wouldnt place their trust in law enforcement. Under Trump, immigrants who report crimes against their abusers, reach out to the police after being hit by trucks, and come into everyday exchanges with transit police have found themselves become caught up in the deportation dragnet.

As the incoming president of United States Conference of Mayors, Landrieu will likely have some power over how cities could implement federal immigration policies.

In the midst of this, weve left local officials to try and figure out a pathway that works and always wondering whether or not were within bounds of the Constitution and whats not, Landrieu said.

The mayor pointed out that both Democratic and Republican mayors have some common ground in what immigration reform looks like including: having a secure border; that undocumented immigrants brought as children should be left alone; that mass deportation of millions of immigrants is impossible; and that immigrants who conduct violent, criminal behavior should be arrested and deported.

In the world I live in as a legislator, once you have those broad parameters, it seems almost nonsensical that you cant get to some resolution sooner rather than than later, Landrieu said. If they do that, you wouldnt have these hodgepodge attempts on the local level to do or not to do certain things whether youre in a blue city or a red city or in a blue state or red state.

Landrieu pushed back against the idea New Orleans was violating the law when it comes to protecting its immigrant residents. Thats because the definition of a sanctuary city has been too vague since the phrase means different things to many people.

And the law, in order for you to be able to prosecute someone constitutionally from criminal law to civil law, the laws got to be clear, it cant be vague, Landrieu pointed out. If the Attorney General [Sessions] and Congress want to go back and redraft something that makes sense, well be happy to work with them so we can follow the law.

That doesnt mean well be a closed city, Landrieu added. New Orleans is an open and welcoming city. But as Ive said my friends in the advocacy community, when the law is written we will follow the law, whatever it is And we will follow whatever is constitutional, and whatever the law requires us to do while we fight for what we think is right.

Disclosure: ThinkProgress is an editorially independent site housed at the Center for American Progress.

See the original post:
How New Orleans' mayor balances welcoming immigrants with following federal policies - ThinkProgress

Donald Trump memorably threatened to open up libel laws as president, yet such an attack on the First Amendment would need to happen in the courts. And given a recent ruling in his favor in a defamation suit aimed at him, Trump knows full well that most judges maintain a very high bar for libel cases.

Even so, a libel suit can provide powerful interests with a potent weapon against intrepid reporters. Such a conflict is currently playing out in Brooklyn, and the drama features a notable cast of characters.

In October 2015, ProPublica published an investigative report on nursing home licensing in New York, which focused on the states largest for-profit network of such facilities, SentosaCare. The story questioned why, despite a record of repeat fines, violations and complaints for deficient care, SentosaCare continued to receive state approval when purchasing new nursing homes.

In March 2016, Jennifer Lehman, one of the two freelance reporters who wrote the piece, sent a letter to SentosaCares attorney, Howard Fensterman, requesting information for a follow-up story focused on the companys Medicare billing. Six days later, Fensterman filed a defamation suit in response to the October 2015 story.

Rather than target ProPublica, the complaint names Lehman and her fellow freelancer, Allegra Abramo. If the suit was intended to win damages, it would have made sense to target an established publisher with a sizable libel-insurance policy. Instead, the goal here appears to be stopping the reporters in their tracks.

Fensterman, a leading player in Nassau County Democratic politics, gained notoriety in 2014 for his aggressive defense of a nursing home on the Island after it brought in a male stripper to entertain the seniors. He is also counsel for (and a business partner of) SentosaCare, which is owned by Brooklyn resident Benjamin Landa, a central figure in Clifford Levys Pulitzer Prize-winning 2002 series in the New York Times exposing the harsh conditions faced by mentally ill residents in New York nursing homes.

Fensterman has been assisted in the case by his law partner Frank Seddio, the Brooklyn Democratic boss and president of the boroughs Bar Association. In New York City, the county machine typically hand-picks most of the State Supreme Court judges, but the one presiding in this case, Paul Wooten, was transferred from Manhattan, and is not a Seddio ally. Moreover, he has a strong track record of ruling in favor of defendants in defamation cases.

Such a cast made for lively theater at a late April appearance in Wootens courtroom, with the two sides debating the defendants motion to dismiss the case. Other than enter his name into the record, Seddio said nothing during the proceeding. According to one spectator (whos not involved in the case), the party boss appeared to be leering at Judge Wooten.

The crux of Fenstermans complaint concerns not whats in Lehman and Abramos ProPublica story, but what they left out (or whats known as libel by omission). When the story mentions investigations by New York State agencies into incidents of neglect at SentosaCare facilities, it does not include the fact that those same facilities had self-reported the incidents to the relevant agencies.

In advance of the first story, Fensterman had provided that information to the reporters, so he contends that the omission shows that the reporters intended to create reputational harm for SentosaCare. To drive home the point, he mentioned self-reporting five times in his short presentation at the dismissal hearing.

Laura Handman, retained by ProPublica to defend Lehman and Abramo, stressed to Judge Wooten that the piece is not a cover-up story. Instead, she explained, the reporters examined how nursing homes with track records of harmful incidents continue to gain new licensing, thus negating the importance of the self-reporting. According to defamation case law, Handman argued, unless omitted information changes the gist, or the meaning, or makes it false, then the decision of what to include or not to include are left to the wisdom of the journalist and publisher.

Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation tells the Beast that in general, The First Amendment allows for broad editorial discretion on what is and isnt reported on stories of public importance. And if public figures and institutions were allowed to sue every time they thought one ancillary alleged fact or another was left out of an article, it would grind journalism on any subject to a halt.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

In order to deter such a flood of retaliatory lawsuits, many statesincluding New Yorkhave enacted anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation, which allows for judges to award damages to defendants and force plaintiffs to pay for their legal costs. As Handman stated at the April hearing, This suit is a classic example of a well-financed company using a defamation suit to basically censor their critics. In short, a classic SLAPP action.

Wootens ruling on whether the case will go to trialor if not, whether he will impose anti-SLAPP penalties on the plaintiffsis expected sometime in the next few months. Rest assured that the stakes are high for everyone involved, from the lowly freelance investigative reporters to the mighty Brooklyn Democratic Party boss.

Go here to see the original:
The Brooklyn Machine vs. the First Amendment - Daily Beast

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has sent a brief to the Supreme Court in the travel-ban casebut unlike most of the many briefs in that case, it takes no position on whether the Court should uphold or nullify the ban. Its goal, rather, is to make sure that the court refrains from distorting the meaning of the Constitutions prohibition on religious establishments in the process of deciding the case.

Beckets argument is that the Court should decide the case under the free-exercise clause rather than the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment. If the ban unconstitutionally targets Muslims, that is, it impinges on their right to practice their religion. It doesnt establish Christianity (or non-Islam) as the state religion.

It seems like a pretty obvious point, but since some courts have gotten the issue wrong Becket spells it out in some detail. The executive order doesnt create an establishment because it does not place the state in control of any churchs doctrine or personnel, doesnt compel attendance of any church, doesnt provide financial support of any kind to any church, and doesnt put any church in charge of important public functions.

The Becket lawyers are not just concerned that the Court might apply the establishment clause to the case; theyre also concerned that they will apply the clause using the Lemon test. Under that test, developed in a 1971 case striking down state aid to religious schools, judges must decide whether a governmental policy has a legitimate secular purpose and whether it involves excessive government entanglement with religionboth, conservative lawyers have usually contended, highly subjective judgments. The Court has moved away from Lemon but lower courts considering the case have applied it.

As long ago as 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia likened the Lemon test to some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried. Becket wants the ghoul killed and buried for good. But theres a chance that the passions this case has called forth will bring it back once more.

Continue reading here:
Travel Ban Case Could Harm First Amendment Law | National Review - National Review

On Friday, June 16, President Trump started a mini tweetstorm about the Russia investigation yet again. (Yahoo)

In between tweets about typical presidential fare jobs, the Army, the state of Wisconsin President Donald Trump has been ranting in 140-character spurts about the Russia investigation and his former opponent Hillary Clinton.

"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA," he tweeted June 15.

Here are the facts and necessary context behind some of Trumps most provocative, though not always inaccurate, recent tweets.

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

This tweet is significant because it seems to confirm an anonymously sourced June 14 Washington Post report on that said special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into the possibility that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.

Trump doesnt seem to be referring here to Mueller, though, but to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

As special counsel, Mueller is in charge of the Russia investigation and any related probes, like obstruction of justice accusations. But Mueller answers to Rosenstein, who did, in fact, write a memo in early May recommending that Trump fire FBI Director James Comey.

Its worth noting that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey over his handling of the Clinton email investigation. Trump, however, said he would have fired Comey regardless of Rosensteins recommendations, and he had the Russia investigation on his mind when he made the decision.

"You have my assurance that we're going to faithfully follow that regulation (that gives Meuller his authority), and Director Mueller is going to have the full degree of independence that he needs to conduct that investigation appropriately," Rosenstein told Congress June 13.

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice"

Trump similarly tweeted a couple days earlier: "After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my collusion with the Russians, nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!"

Trump has a point in that none of the investigations have made public any hard proof that Trump colluded with Russia during the presidential election if there is any hard proof.

But that doesnt mean the Russia story is "phony" overall. The investigations encompass much more than just overt collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

They are looking at whether Trump campaign associates may have been unwitting agents on Russias behalf, as well as Russias actions absent any assistance from American political actors. They could also dig into criminal activity unrelated to Russia or the election that they uncover during the course of their investigative work, such as unlawful financial dealings.

They can also explore accusations that someone, such as Trump, tried to inhibit these proceedings.

"Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?"

This tweet is partially accurate.

In their July 2016 report about the investigation into Clintons email practices, FBI agents said a Clinton aide told them he recalled "two instances where he destroyed Clintons old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

Separately, Clinton aides asked some IT workers if they would permanently delete emails from the private server Clinton used as secretary of state, using a program called BleachBit.

And in late June 2016, Bill Clinton was spotted meeting secretly with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch. About a week later, Comey broke Justice Department protocol to go public about the decision not to prosecute Clinton.

But is it obstruction of justice? The FBI didnt develop evidence to support that conclusion.

Comey has said the FBI doesnt have any evidence Clinton intentionally deleted emails in order to conceal them or obstruct justice, though he was concerned at the time about the appearance that Lynch had a conflict of interest.

"Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?"

This tweet misses the point.

Trumps campaign and his associates are under the microscope for their Russia ties as opposed to Clinton and other Democrats unspecified "dealings with Russia" because the investigation is about Russian interference in the election. Numerous intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in an attempt to help Trump beat Clinton.

We have no way of independently verifying the extent of Trumps ties to Russia. Lawyers for Trump released a letter May 12 saying Trump does not have any income, debt or investments related to Russia, with a couple exceptions.

For example, Trump agreed to host the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, a $20 million deal facilitated by Russian real estate mogul and billionaire Aras Agalarov. He also made millions selling a 17-bedroom Florida mansion to a Russian billionaire.

"A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection. Totally illegal!"

The little we know about Lynchs attempts to shape the Clinton email investigations do not rise to the allegation in this tweet.

The few details we have from Comeys recollections. He said he was concerned because she told him to call the investigation a "matter," and her clandestine meeting with Bill Clinton at least created the appearance of impropriety.

Comey did not say Lynch gave Clinton a "free pass." In fact, Comey has been adamant over the past year that there simply was not enough of a substantive case to prosecute Clinton over her email setup.

Comey did say, however, that this appearance of a conflict of interest is what prompted him to go public with the FBIs findings and harshly criticize Clintons actions, despite the decision not to bring charges.

Read this article:
Fact-checking Trump's tweets about Russia, Hillary Clinton and the 'witch hunt' - PolitiFact