Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Sunday, March 9, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 258)

U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci announcing he will run in the Ohio governor race. (Photo: AP)

U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci announcing he will run in the Ohio governor race. (Photo: AP)

Republican Representative Jim Renacci announced on Thursday he is running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio after a personal appeal from President Donald Trump. The moderate Republican-turned-Trump supporter, had been running in the Ohio governor’s race since last March but will now end that gubernatorial bid.

He made the decision after frontrunner Josh Mandel exited the race unexpectedly last week, citing health issues with his wife.

“I now realize after meeting with the White House yesterday I really need to put country first and answer the call to action to serve our nation and come back to try and fight for the Trump agenda and try to get things done in the Senate,” Rep. Renacci said. “When the president and the administration call you to action, it was a pretty compelling moment for me. So this morning I announce that, after speaking to my family and my advisers and my supporters, I am going to switch and answer the call of the president, help the president in his quest to try to change Washington and I’m going to run against Sherrod Brown.”

“I’m ready to fight for the Trump agenda and get things done in the Senate!”

The PPD Big Data Poll, also known as the PPD Buckeye State Battleground Poll, gave Mr. Mandel a solid edge against incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. In July, Mr. Mandel expanded his lead over Sen. Brown. In May, the state treasurer led 49% to 44%, but that 5-point advantage widened to 8 points, 50% to 42%.

In 2016, President Trump easily defeated Hillary Clinton in Ohio, 52.1% to 43.5%. Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Rob Portman crushed Clinton ally Ted Strickland, 58.3% to 36.9%.

Sen. Portman is one of the most popular politicians the Big Data Poll has gauged this or last year to date. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of likely voters in Ohio approve of the job he is doing in the U.S. Senate, while just 36% disapprove.

“We’ll poll it, and we’ll poll it soon,” PPD editor and Big Data Poll director Richard Baris said. “Josh Mandel was very likely to win this race given President Trump’s stubbornly high numbers in the Buckeye State and the rightward shift we’ve seen since Senator Brown was reelected with Barack Obama on the ticket.”

The race for U.S. Senate in Ohio had shifted back to Democrats after Mr. Mandel’s withdrawal from the race, but Republicans have fielded a candidate capable of attracting broad support in the part and across the state. The race is now rated a BATTLEGROUND on the PPD Senate Election Projection Model.

“It remains to be seen just how broad the support for Rep. Renacci will be,” Mr. Baris added. “But we’re going to find out.”

Republican Representative Jim Renacci announced on Thursday

President Donald J. Trump, flanked by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, holds an opioid and drug abuse listening session at the White House in March 29, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump, flanked by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, holds an opioid and drug abuse listening session at the White House in March 29, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced plans to reverse Obama-era protections that ease federal marijuana laws in states where the drug is legalized. But most voters want to keep marijuana regulated at the state level, not at the federal level.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 56% of likely voters in the U.S. believe laws governing marijuana use should be debating and enforced at the state level. Just 29% think such laws should be set at the federal level and 16% are not sure.

Voters across nearly all demographic blocs agree laws governing the use of marijuana should be set at the state level. On gender, that includes 58% of men and 53% of women. By party, 57% of Republicans agree as do 56% of Democrats and 54% of unaffiliated voters.

Interestingly, black voters (43%) are the least likely to view marijuana as a state issue juxtaposed to 58% of white voters and 54% of other minorities. Still, just 26% of black voters would like to see the federal government handle marijuana and 32% were unsure.

Worth noting, another Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey conducted from January 7-8 finds that just 9% of likely voters think the U.S. is winning the war on drugs, down just slightly from the recent high of 10% who felt that way in 2015. Meanwhile, 75% don’t think America is winning this war and 15% are undecided.

This survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on January 9-10, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Most voters (56%) believe laws governing marijuana

A view of a federal courtroom in Virginia.

A view of a federal courtroom in Virginia.

I haven’t written in any detail about “jury nullification” since late 2010 and it’s time to rectify that sin of omission.

Nullification occurs when a jury votes “not guilty” because a law is either unjust or wrongly applied, not because a defendant is actually innocent. And I know that’s what I would do if I was on a jury and the government was persecuting someone for engaging is self-defense or getting nabbed by a revenue camera.

The bottom line is that Walter Williams is right when he says that it is immoral to obey bad laws.

Let’s review some expert opinions.

Writing on the editorial page of the New York Times, a former prosecutor urges jury nullification.

Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. …The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know. …Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams. The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” …Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case.

column in the Washington Post by Professor Glenn Reynolds at the University of Tennessee argues that juries have an obligation to rein in bad prosecutors.

Despite the evidence, those responsible for convicting you may choose to let you go, if they think that sending you to jail would result in an injustice. That can happen through what’s called “prosecutorial discretion,” where a prosecutor decides not to bring or pursue charges against you because doing so would be unfair, even though the evidence is strong. Or it can happen through “jury nullification,” where a jury thinks that the evidence supports conviction but then decides to issue a “not guilty” verdict because it feels that a conviction would be unjust. …Prosecutorial discretion is regularly applied and generally regarded as a standard part of criminal justice. …So-called jury nullification, on the other hand, gets far less respect. Though it is clearly within the power of juries to refuse to convict whenever they choose, judges and prosecutors tend to view this practice with hostility. …there has been a massive shift of power toward prosecutors, the result of politics, over-criminalization, institutional leverage and judges’ failure to provide supervision. It’s time to redress the balance.

By the way, Glenn has proposed ways of addressing this imbalance, which is tied to over-criminalization.

And here’s another column in the Washington Post arguing in favor of jury empowerment.

As I tried cases, I gained enormous respect for the seriousness with which jurors approached their work. …These jurors had no problem convicting anyone of a violent offense, if the government proved its case. For drug crimes, however, it was a different story. …they frequently voted “not guilty” in nonviolent drug cases, no matter how compelling the evidence. …When I started teaching law, I published an article in the Yale Law Journal situating these D.C. jurors in a long line of jurors…who refused to convict American patriots of sedition against the British crown; jurors who acquitted people guilty of violating the Fugitive Slave Act; and jurors who would not punish gay people for “sodomy” for having consensual sex.

Amen. Juries should pursue justice, not act as rubber stamps when prosecutors act as cogs for an unjust regime.

Now let’s look at a real-world example, as reported by the New York Times.

As much as chocolate and watches, Switzerland is known for bank secrecy. …it also made Swiss banks targets for an assault by the United States government… Bank Frey was among the very few to defy the legal onslaught. And Mr. Buck…was the bank’s public face, responsible for landing and then managing American accounts. That put Mr. Buck in the government’s cross hairs. In 2013, a federal grand jury indicted him for conspiring to help Americans avoid taxes. …But things didn’t go as prosecutors had planned… The crux of the defense was that the responsibility to pay taxes and declare income did not rest with Mr. Buck. It was his clients who had decided not to pay taxes. He was under no obligation to tattle… Prosecutors branded him as a crucial cog in an international tax-evasion scheme. …Then it was Mr. Agnifilo’s turn. …“Stefan Buck has nothing whatsoever, nothing whatsoever, to do with the choice that an American taxpayer makes” to not declare offshore assets. …The jury deliberated for a little more than a day. …the verdict: not guilty.

The story doesn’t mention jury nullification, but I’m assuming – from a technical legal perspective – the prosecutors had an open-and-shut case against Mr. Buck. After all, he did “conspire” to help Americans protect their income from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

But the jury decided that conviction would be absurd because a Swiss person on Swiss soil has no obligation to help enforce bad U.S. tax policy. So, they voted not guilty because that was the only moral choice.

And the good news is that this is becoming a pattern.

In October 2014, one of UBS’s top executives, Raoul Weil, went on trial in Florida. Federal prosecutors accused him of helping clients hide billions. Mr. Weil’s lawyers argued he had no knowledge of or responsibility for what had happened. The jury deliberated for barely an hour before acquitting him. The same week, a Los Angeles jury acquitted an Israeli banker who faced similar accusations. The Americans’ pursuit of foreign bankers no longer looked invincible.

The even-better news is that these nullification decisions by juries may now lead to some “prosecutorial discretion.”

The Justice Department had now lost the three cases it had tried against foreign bankers who helped Americans avoid taxes. Dozens more cases are pending. Those who represent accused Swiss bankers say they expect Mr. Buck’s verdict to embolden defendants and to cause prosecutors to think twice before bringing new charges.

In other words, the bad law will still exist but hopefully will have little or no impact because prosecutors are less likely to file charges and juries won’t convict when they do.

That’s a victory for liberty, though it surely would be best – as we discussed just a few days ago – if politicians repealed the bad laws that make unjust prosecutions possible.

Juries should pursue justice even it if

File: Wholesale trade sales and inventories. (Photo: Bureau of Labor Statistics/ BLS)

File: Wholesale trade sales and inventories. (Photo: Bureau of Labor Statistics/ BLS)

The U.S. Census Bureau released wholesale trade statistics on Wednesday showing one of the biggest inventory builds of the year at 0.8%. The need for an inventory build up came as sales surged 1.5% and further underscored by the year-on-year rates.

Sales are significantly higher at 9.8% juxtaposed to only 4.0% for inventories on an annual basis.

Sales

November 2017 sales of merchant wholesalers, except manufacturers’ sales branches and offices, after adjustment for seasonal variations and trading-day differences but not for price changes, were $492.4 billion, up 1.5% (±0.5%) from the revised October level and were up 9.8% (±0.9%) from the November 2016 level. The September 2017 to October 2017 percent change was revised from the preliminary estimate of up 0.7% (±0.5%) to up 0.8% (±0.5%).

Inventory

Total inventories of merchant wholesalers, except manufacturers’ sales branches and offices, after adjustment for seasonal variations but not for price changes, were $611.0 billion at the end of November, up 0.8% (±0.4%) from the revised October level. Total inventories were up 4.0% (±0.7%) from the revised November 2016 level. The October 2017 to November 2017 percent change was revised from the advance estimate of up 0.7% (±0.4%) to up 0.8 percent (±0.4%).

Inventories/Sales Ratio

The November inventories/sales ratio for merchant wholesalers, except manufacturers’ sales branches and offices, based on seasonally adjusted data, was 1.24. The November 2016 ratio was 1.31.

The U.S. Census Bureau released wholesale trade

A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)

A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)

The Mortgage Banker’s Association (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey rose 8.3% on a seasonally adjusted basis for the week ending January 5, 2018. The survey covers over 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications, and has been conducted weekly since 1990.

On an unadjusted basis, the Market Composite Index rose 46% compared with the previous week, while the Refinance Index gained 11% during the same period. The seasonally adjusted Purchase Index increased 5% from one week earlier. The unadjusted Purchase Index gained 44% juxtaposed to the previous week and was 1% lower than the same week one year ago.

The refinance share of mortgage activity increased to 52.9 percent of total applications from 52.1 percent the previous week. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity decreased to 5.0 percent of total applications.

The FHA share of total applications increased to 11.1 percent from 10.8 percent the week prior. The VA share of total applications remained unchanged from the week prior at 11.4 percent. The USDA share of total applications decreased to 0.7 percent from 0.8 percent the week prior.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($453,100 or less) increased to 4.23 percent from 4.22 percent, with points decreasing to 0.35 from 0.37 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. The effective rate remained unchanged from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (greater than $453,100) increased to 4.16 percent from 4.14 percent, with points increasing to 0.23 from 0.22 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages backed by the FHA decreased to 4.16 percent from 4.17 percent, with points increasing to 0.42 from 0.40 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 15-year fixed-rate mortgages increased to 3.66 percent from 3.64 percent, with points increasing to 0.42 from 0.34 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs decreased to 3.50 percent from 3.53 percent, with points decreasing to 0.51 from 0.53 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate decreased from last week.

Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. Base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100.

The Mortgage Banker's Association (MBA) Weekly Mortgage

U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), holds a bipartisan meeting with legislators on immigration reform at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 9, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), holds a bipartisan meeting with legislators on immigration reform at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 9, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald Trump told lawmakers at the White House Tuesday they should consider bringing back “a concept of earmarks” with “better controls” because “our system lends itself to getting nothing done.” When voters gave Republicans the majority in Congress under the Obama Administration, they did away with earmarks, otherwise known as pork-barrel spending projects, to appease the conservative uprising within their party.

His remarks, which came during a bipartisan meeting on immigration reform, infuriated conservatives who elected a man on the promise to “drain the swamp.”

“If Republicans bring back earmarks, then it virtually guarantees that they will lose the House, stated Club for Growth President David McIntosh. “Bringing back earmarks is the antithesis of draining the swamp.”

House Rule XXI defines earmarks as “a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process.”

While it’s true that earmarks pale in comparison to other domestic spending programs, they’re generally used by lawmakers as what are essentially seen as bribes for supporting legislation.

Nevertheless, President Trump’s remarks weren’t off the cuff. They were meant to provide cover for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who twice-promised moderate, Big Government Republicans in the House a chance to reinstate them in late 2016 and again in 2017.

In mid-November 2016, Reps. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and John Culberson, R-Texas, both introduced proposals to reinstate certain forms of earmarks on a limited basis. In what would’ve been one of the most tone-deaf disasters in the history of legislative politics, the House Republican Conference was literally moments away from voting on the Rooney-Culberson proposals before Speaker Ryan intervened.

The gavel-holder from Wisconsin spiked the effort, citing concerns they had just won a “drain the swamp” election. He made the argument that the optics would be a political nightmare. He convinced them to hold off on the effort to reinstate earmarks until later, after the New Year.

Hidden away from the public in the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room, which is located in the Longworth Office Building, the moderate caucus plotted how the 115th Congress could bring them back in January, 2017. According to multiple sources, they openly mocked the Trump platform and several of his “unrealistic” campaign promises, including the one to “build the wall” on the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

Ultimately, Speaker Ryan promised members a chance to reinstate earmarks in the first quarter of 2017, which didn’t come to fruition. Republicans were first consumed by multiple failed attempts to repeal ObamaCare, and later by a successful effort to overhaul the U.S. tax code for the first time in 31 years. But it came at a price.

Now, in return for their support on these and other issues (some earmarks proponents ended up voting “No” on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), Speaker Ryan is going to allow hearings on the issue. In return for his success at moving forward key pieces of the same agenda Republican lawmakers once mocked behind closed doors, President Trump is providing cover for Speaker Ryan on earmarks.

“Earmarks will only benefit the special interests that grow government at the expense of working men and women,” Mr. McIntosh added.

Read Also – Businessman Mike Braun, U.S. Senate Candidate in Indiana, Slams GOP for Reconsidering Earmarks

President Donald Trump is providing cover for

U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), holds a bipartisan meeting with legislators on immigration reform at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 9, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), holds a bipartisan meeting with legislators on immigration reform at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 9, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald Trump met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the White House on Tuesday to push for a deal on comprehensive immigration reform, including Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“This should be a bill of love, truly. It should be a bill of love, and we can do that,” President Trump said. “I really do believe Democrat and Republican, the people sitting in this room, really want to get something done.”

He told lawmakers that he would back a two-phased approach to overhauling U.S. immigration laws with the first step focused on protecting so-called “Dreamers” who were brought here as children from deportation along with funding for a wall and other restrictions that Democrats have opposed.

Following “phase one,” President Trump said he favors moving quickly to address even more contentious issues, including a possible pathway to citizenship for at least 11 million illegal immigrants that is opposed by many Republicans and many of his supporters. Other estimates put that number as high as 30 million.

“If you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat, I don’t care,” he told lawmakers at the open meeting at the White House. “You are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform. And if you wanted to go that final step, I think you should do it.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas., the Chairman of the House Homeland Defense Committee, are co-authoring a bill along with Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Id., and Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz.

The bill is described by the authors in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal:

A priority of our legislation is to increase the security of the southern border. Our bill would provide $30 billion to build a wall, to invest in new technology, and to improve, modernize and expand ports of entry. It would add boots on the ground: an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers. It would provide for the construction of additional ports of entry and a full implementation of the biometric entry-exit system, while authorizing the National Guard to provide aviation and intelligence support.

The Republican lawmakers claim they will reform or repeal laws currently used by illegal immigrants to protect themselves from deportation. The bill would also implement a nationwide eVerify system, which has long been proposed as a means to ensure employers aren’t hiring illegal immigrants, allow the federal government to punish sanctuary cities and end “catch and release.”

Our bill would achieve these goals by cracking down on people who overstay their visas, by requiring employers to use the accurate and hugely successful E-Verify system to ensure that they hire only legal workers, and by making it easier to deport aliens who are gang members, who are aggravated felons, who fail to register as sex offenders, or who have multiple DUIs.

Our proposal allows the Justice Department to withhold grants from “sanctuary cities” — jurisdictions that refuse to allow their law-enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, even to the point of preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from entering local jails to take custody of criminal aliens.

The legislation would end “catch and release,” battle asylum fraud and require that unaccompanied minors caught at the border be treated equally regardless of their home country. Together this will ensure that the law no longer tempts minors and their parents to make the dangerous illegal journey to the U.S. — or to line the pockets of cartels that make a business of supporting these journeys.

The bill will also address chain migration and the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program. The term “Chain Migration” refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate to the United States because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to sponsor their non-nuclear family members. Annual immigration has at least tripled since chain migration began in the mid-1960s, though some estimates are even higher.

Only five years after chain migration began, the number of immediate relative admissions nearly doubled from 32,714 in 1965 to 79,213 in 1970. Thirty-six years later, the number of immediate relatives admitted was more than 13 times higher–443,964. In 2001, the U.S. admitted 1,064,318 immigrants-, roughly 4 times greater than in the 1950s.

President Trump has repeatedly called on Congress to terminate chain migration and the DV program, stating that any plan for action on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that doesn’t end them is “a deal-breaker.”

Our bill would put an end to chain migration, the process by which citizens and green-card holders can sponsor extended family members for their own green cards (who in turn can eventually sponsor their own extended family members, ad infinitum). It also would stop the Diversity Visa program, which awards green cards by random lottery to people with no ties to the U.S. Neither of these programs prioritizes the skills of people entering the country.

The U.S. is the most generous and welcoming nation in the world, accepting on average more than a million new immigrants every year. But a steady influx of low-skilled labor has depressed wages for workers here at home. That is not putting America first.

Akayed Ullah, the 27 year-old Bangladeshi national behind an attempted terror attack on the New York City Port Authority, was in the U.S. due to chain migration. As PPD was first to report, Sayfullo Saipov, the 29-year-old Uzbekistan national who killed 8 and injured at least 11 others during a terror attack near the World Trade Center in November, came to the U.S. under the DV lottery program in 2010.

Democrats are opposed to ending both programs.

In compensation for disconsolate Democrats, the bill offers the most modest of amnesties — renewable work-permits for the 670,000 illegals now registered for President Barack Obama’s DACA program. That would allow the migrants to work, but not to vote. The op-ed claims:

Our bill would allow DACA beneficiaries to receive a three-year renewable legal status, codifying the program the right way—by a duly enacted statute. But to be clear, there is no new or special path to citizenship for these individuals in our bill.

While it’s true the bill rejects the Democrats’ DREAM Act, which would provide a fast-track citizenship for up to 3.25 million illegals, plus millions of their foreign chain-migration relatives, it’s also true that Democrats’ demands are front-loaded and many security demands are not.

A recently leaked memo from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund reveals Democrats want to legalize “Dreamers” because they see them as a “critical component” of the party’s “future electoral success.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. Michael

Then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, is joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona. (Photo: AP)

Then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, is joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona. (Photo: AP)

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced he is running for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, shaking up the open-seat race to replace retiring Republican Jeff Flake. The incumbent and original NeverTrumper in the upper chamber, was pushed out of the race for being unelectable due to his opposition to the president.

“I am running for the U.S. Senate from the Great State of Arizona, for one unwavering reason: to support the agenda and policies of President Donald Trump in his mission to Make America Great Again,” Mr. Arpaio said in a statement.

On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff” after he was found guilty of criminal contempt in what most analysts believed to be a politically-motivated prosecution. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton convicted him of misdemeanor contempt of court for willfully refusing to obey an Arizona judge’s order dating back to 2011.

It ordered him to stop the so-called “anti-immigrant” traffic patrols. But he continued the patrols for 17 months after it was issued and was reelected. Judge Bolton formally accepted the pardon and dismissed Mr. Arpaio’s conviction with prejudice, meaning the matter cannot be tried again.

Mr. Arpaio served as the elected sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and surrounding suburbs, for 24 years until a well-funded Democrat ousted him in 2016. He presents the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination — Dr. Kelli Ward — with a significant problem. Conservative voters in the The Grand Canyon State now have an alternative to Dr. Ward, whom the media have portrayed in a very unfavorable light.

With the two candidates battling over the MAGA-conservative vote, the more-GOP Establishment Representative Martha McSally could eke out the nomination if she decides to jump into the race.

“Republicans are putting themselves into a potentially sticky situation in an otherwise favorable political environment regarding the U.S. Senate in 2018,” said Richard Baris, PPD editor and Director of the Big Data Poll. “Rep. McSally is seen as the more electable candidate due to her more moderate positions on immigration, but all elections are base elections. If GOP voters nominate either Mr. Arpaio or Dr. Ward, some would argue they could risk electability.”

“But if they nominate Rep. McSally, they could risk low voter enthusiasm.”

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced he

In this Feb. 17, 2017, photo, a protester holds a sign that reads "ICE Hands Off DACA Families Free Daniel," during a demonstration in front of the federal courthouse in Seattle. (Photo: AP)

In this Feb. 17, 2017, photo, a protester holds a sign that reads “ICE Hands Off DACA Families Free Daniel,” during a demonstration in front of the federal courthouse in Seattle. (Photo: AP)

A leaked memo from the Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund reveals Democrats want to legalize so-called “Dreamers” because they see them as a “critical component” of the party’s “future electoral success.”

The memo, which was circulated on Monday and co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, confirms what most Republicans have argued for years — Democrats use illegal immigration as a voter registration invasion. It shows Democrats understand their severe problem with white voters and, rather than convince them or pivot their platform, would rather replace them.

It urges Democrats not to support funding measures to keep the government open unless they can attach a deal on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” Ms. Palmieri writes in the memo, which was first obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond.”

“In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.”

A leaked memo from the Center For

Christopher Steele, left, the former MI6 agent and head of the Russia desk, and Bruce G. Ohr, right, former associate deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. (Photos: AP/ Global Initiative)

Christopher Steele, left, the former MI6 agent and head of the Russia desk, and Bruce G. Ohr, right, former associate deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. (Photos: AP/ Global Initiative)

Bruce Ohr, the senior official at the Justice Department (DOJ) demoted for his ties to Fusion GPS and the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” has been demoted again. Mr. Ohr, whose wife had also worked for Fusion GPS, has now been stripped of his title as director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF).

Mr. Ohr was stripped of associate deputy attorney general — the fourth highest position at DOJ — after it was revealed he met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson shortly after the presidential election. No concrete date was given, but the meeting occurred sometime around Thanksgiving 2016 and it was facilitated by Christopher Steele, who senators recently referred to DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for criminal investigation.

He has been ousted from his office on the fourth floor of “Main Justice” but initially maintained his title at OCDETF. Now, Mr. Ohr is no longer head of the OCDETF, either.

An attempt to hide his ties to Fusion GPS and revelations that the shadowy smear firm employed Nellie Ohr was uncovered by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Mr. Ohr is scheduled to appear before the committee on January 17, according to sources.

DOJ officials initially would not provide a reason for Mr. Ohr’s demotion, telling Fox News he had been wearing “two hats” and would focus only on his role as director of OCDETF. However, the HPSCI, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., discovered evidence tying Mr. Ohr to Simpson and Mr. Steele.

The former MI6 British Intelligence Officer and research-gatherer for the so-called dossier notably was the former head of the Russian desk, and almost exclusively used sources linked to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Simpson, a former journalist at The Wall Street Journal, hired Mr. Steele to gather opposition research billed later as intelligence gathering. After a year of denying the allegations, a bombshell report recently revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid more than $10 million to fund the dossier.

The nonprofit Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging both the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose payments for the discredited dossier.

Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sent a a criminal referral for Mr. Steele to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at DOJ and Director Christopher Wray at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It cites potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or making false statements to investigators particularly regarding the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.

“I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation,” Chairman Grassley said in a statement. “Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI.”

Worth noting, Mr. Ohr as the former head of OCDETF was directly involved with Project Cassandra, the interagency investigation spearheaded by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that tracked a massive international drug and money laundering scheme allegedly run by Hezbollah.

A lengthy and well-sourced report by Josh Meyer at Politico detailed how it was sidelined under the Obama Administration in order to avoid upsetting Iran during negotiations that led to the highly-criticized nuclear deal with Tehran. Investigators believed Hezbollah “was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.”

Following the report, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had vowed to look into the allegations and whether anyone needed to be held responsible. He is personally overseeing the review.

“While I am hopeful that there were no barriers constructed by the last admission to allowing DEA agents to fully bring all appropriate cases under Project Cassandra, this is a significant issue for the protection of Americans,” Mr. Sessions stated. “We will review these matters and give full support to investigations of violent drug trafficking organizations.”

Former Deputy Director Thomas Padden is now acting director and it’s unclear what role Mr. Ohr has at DOJ, only that he is still an employee.

Bruce Ohr, the senior official at the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial