President Donald Trump hailed the start of his long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall this past week, proudly tweeting photos of the “WALL!” 

Actually, no new work got underway. The photos showed the continuation of an old project to replace 2 miles of existing barrier.

And Saturday, he ripped Amazon with a shaky claim that its contract with the post office is a “scam.”

Trump and his officials departed from reality on a variety of subjects in recent days: the census, Amazon’s practices and the makeup of the Supreme Court among them. Here’s a look at some statements and their veracity:

TRUMP: “Great briefing this afternoon on the start of our Southern Border WALL!” — tweet Wednesday, showing photos of workers building a fence.

TRUMP: “We’re going to be starting work, literally, on Monday, on not only some new wall — not enough, but we’re working that very quickly — but also fixing existing walls and existing acceptable fences.” — Trump, speaking the previous week after signing a bill financing the government.

THE FACTS: Trump’s wrong. No new work began Monday or any other time this past week. And the photos Trump tweeted were misleading. They showed work that’s been going on for more than a month on a small border wall replacement project in Calexico, California, that has nothing to do with the federal budget he signed into law last week.

The Calexico project began Feb. 21 to replace a little more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of border wall was financed during the 2017 budget year. A barrier built in the 1990s mainly from recycled metal scraps is being torn down and replaced with bollard-style barriers that are 30 feet (9.1 meters) high.

Ronald D. Vitiello, acting deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, defended the president’s statements, saying Friday “there’s construction” underway.

U.S. Post Service

TRUMP: “If the P.O. ‘increased its parcel rates, Amazon’s shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.’ This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!” — tweet Saturday.

TRUMP: “I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!” — tweet Thursday.

THE FACTS: Trump is misrepresenting Amazon’s record on taxes, the U.S. Postal Service’s financial situation and the contract that has the post office deliver some Amazon orders. Federal regulators have found that contract to be profitable for the Postal Service.

People who buy products sold by Amazon pay sales tax in all states that have a sales tax. Not all third-party vendors using Amazon collect it, however.

As for the post office, package delivery has been a bright spot for a service that’s lost money for 11 straight years. The losses are mostly because of pension and health care costs, not the business deal for the Postal Service to deliver packages for Amazon. 

Boosted by e-commerce, the Postal Service has enjoyed double-digit increases in revenue from delivering packages, but that hasn’t been enough to offset declines in first-class letters and marketing mail, which together make up more than two-thirds of postal revenue.

While the Postal Service’s losses can’t be attributed to its package business, Trump’s claim that it could get more bang for its buck may not be entirely far-fetched. A 2017 analysis by Citigroup concluded that the Postal Service was charging below-market rates as a whole for parcels. The post office does not use taxpayer money for its operations.

Trump is upset about Amazon because its owner, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post, one of the targets of his “fake news” tweets.

Pentagon and the wall

TRUMP: “Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!” — tweets Sunday and Monday.

THE FACTS: Trump is floating the idea of using “M” — the Pentagon’s military budget — to pay for his wall with Mexico. Such a move would almost certainly require approval from Congress and there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical about the notion of diverting military money for this purpose.

Only Congress has the power under the Constitution to determine federal appropriations, leaving the Trump administration little authority to shift money without lawmakers’ approval.

Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood referred all questions on the wall to the White House. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to reveal specifics, but said Trump would work with the White House counsel to make sure any action taken was within his executive authority.

Veterans Affairs

DAVID SHULKIN, citing reasons Trump fired him as Veterans Affairs secretary: “I have been falsely accused of things by people who wanted me out of the way. But despite these politically based attacks on me and my family’s character, I am proud of my record and know that I acted with the utmost integrity.” — op-ed Thursday in The New York Times.

THE FACTS: His statement that he and his family were subjected to politically based attacks is disingenuous, though politics contributed to his dismissal.

White House support for Shulkin eroded after a blistering report in February by VA’s internal watchdog, a nonpartisan office. The inspector general’s office concluded that he had violated ethics rules by accepting free Wimbledon tennis tickets. The inspector general also said Shulkin’s chief of staff had doctored emails to justify bringing the secretary’s wife to Europe with him at taxpayer expense.

It is true that Shulkin encountered resistance from about a half-dozen political appointees at the VA and White House who rebelled against him. In an extraordinary telephone call, John Ullyot, a top communications aide, and VA spokesman Curt Cashour asked the Republican staff director of the House Veterans Affairs Committee to push for Shulkin’s removal after the release of the inspector general’s report. The staff director declined to do so. Those political appointees were not involved in drafting the inspector general’s report.

Shulkin expressed regret for the “distractions” caused by the report and agreed to pay more than $4,000 to cover the costs of his wife’s coach airfare and the Wimbledon tickets. He continues to insist he did nothing wrong and point to what his staff did in doctoring his emails as a “mistake.”

Second Amendment

TRUMP: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” — tweet Wednesday.

THE FACTS: As a basics civics lesson, Trump’s tweet falls short. The Supreme Court is the unelected branch of government and no party can “hold” it. That said, both parties try to win confirmation of justices who are considered likely to vote the way they want.

Republican-nominated justices have formed a majority of the Supreme Court for nearly 50 years. The five more conservative justices were appointed by Republicans while the four more liberal justices were Democratic nominees.

Republicans would have the opportunity to cement ideological balance in their favor if Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most moderate of the conservatives, or one of the older and more liberal justices were to retire with Trump in office and Republicans in control of the Senate.

Trump was citing retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who called in a New York Times article for repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for gun control legislation. Democratic leaders are not proposing repeal of the amendment, as Trump implies. Also noteworthy: Stevens was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford.

Census and citizenship

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESWOMAN SARAH SANDERS, on the Trump administration’s decision to ask people about their citizenship in the 2020 census: “This is a question that’s been included in every census since 1965 with the exception of 2010, when it was removed. … And again, this is something that has been part of the census for decades and something that the Department of Commerce felt strongly needed to be included again.” — press briefing Tuesday.

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT: “Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form.” — statement on Monday.

THE FACTS: Sanders is incorrect. The Commerce Department statement is also problematic. Both are trying to play down the risk of a severe undercount of the population if many immigrants, intimidated by the citizenship question, refuse to participate.

The Census Bureau hasn’t included a citizenship question in its once-a-decade survey sent to all U.S. households since 1950, before the Civil Rights era and passage of a 1965 law designed to help ensure minority groups in the count are fully represented.

The nation’s count is based on the total resident population, both citizens and noncitizens, and used to determine how many U.S. representatives each state gets in the U.S. House.

The citizenship question was not in the 1960 census, according to a copy of the form posted on the Census Bureau website, and no census was held in 1965.

From 1970 to 2000, the question was included only in the long-form section of the census survey, sent to a portion of U.S. households. After 2000, the question has been asked on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a separate poll designed to replace the census long form and sent only to a sample of U.S. households.

The Commerce Department’s assertion that the citizenship question was asked on “almost” every decennial census between 1820 and 1950 also pushes the limits of reality. According to the Census Bureau, the question wasn’t asked in four of those censuses —1840, 1850, 1860 or 1880.

Between 1820 and 1950, a total of 14 censuses were held. That means more than 1 in 4 surveys during that time period lacked the citizenship question.

Not exactly “almost.”
…

your ad here

The cries for embattled U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty to step down for not protecting female staffers who said they experienced violence, death threats and sexual harassment by her former chief of staff intensified Saturday, with fellow Democrats saying the allegations were shocking and she needed to “do the right thing.”

Esty, an outspoken advocate for the #MeToo movement, was put in the awkward position of having to apologize for not protecting the staffers in her Washington office. But she has repeatedly dismissed calls for her to resign, and Saturday her office said she was standing by her statement from a day earlier: She’s not leaving.

Among those suggesting Esty leave office were former Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who said the emerging story of “battery, harassment and threatening” from Esty’s ex-chief of staff and Esty’s handling of the response were “very troubling.”

​’Do the right thing and resign’

Bysiewicz, who has two daughters in their 20s, said employers should provide safe work environments and Congress should hold itself to an even higher standard but, “Sadly, this is clearly not the case, and this needs to change immediately.”

“I know Congresswoman Esty to be a woman of action rather than words, and in this case, words are not enough,” said Bysiewicz, who is exploring a run for the governor’s office. “I believe that under the circumstances, Congresswoman Esty must step down from her position.”

Connecticut Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney said Esty has long been a leader in the fight against workplace harassment and abuse but if recent news stories are true “Congresswoman Esty should do the right thing and resign.”

“The heartbreaking stories of so many victims only reinforce the need to ensure that we must do all within our power to protect those who depend on us and ensure safe work environments so that no one at her or his place of employment ever feels exposed to discrimination, harassment or retaliation of any kind,” Looney said in an emailed statement.

Esty has issued press releases calling for tougher harassment protections for congressional staffers and was among those demanding that then-U.S. Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, resign amid allegations of misconduct. She issued her own public mea culpa Thursday following newspaper reports she didn’t suspend or fire her chief of staff until three months after learning about allegations against him in 2016.

Apology and regrets

She said she regrets not moving along an internal investigation, which revealed more widespread allegations of abuse, and regrets providing “even the slightest assistance to this individual as he sought a new job.”

In her apology, she said she was “horrified and angry” to learn of allegations that a former employee had been harassed and physically harmed by former chief of staff Tony Baker. She said she demanded Baker receive counseling and then conducted an internal review of her office practices, later learning “the threat of violence was not an isolated incident” but a pattern of behavior by Baker affecting many female staffers.

Baker went to work as the Ohio state director of Sandy Hook Promise, an anti-gun violence advocacy group created after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Esty’s district, but he no longer works there. A spokesman for Baker told Hearst Connecticut Media and the Washington Post that he denies some of the allegations. A phone number listed for a Tony Baker in Columbus, Ohio, was disconnected.

State Sens. Mae Flexer and Cathy Osten also said Esty should resign, as did several Republicans. The state’s Republican Party sent out emails accusing Esty of being “complicit in covering up assault.”

Esty’s Republican challenger in the 5th Congressional District, Manny Santos, said Esty had committed a “gross mishandling of abuse within her office.” He said she claimed to be “a champion of women’s rights” but “did everything possible to hide this terrible abuse perpetrated by her own chief of staff.”

Esty received mild criticism from fellow Democratic members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, with nearly all noting that Esty acknowledged she had made mistakes.

“I’m deeply disappointed,” U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said.

Asked whether Esty should resign, Blumenthal said it was “really a decision for her constituents.”
…

your ad here

South Korea and the United States kicked off their annual joint military exercises Sunday after they were delayed about a month for the Winter Olympics and to help create conditions for a resumption of talks between North and South Korea.

The Foal Eagle field exercise, which usually involves combined ground, air, naval and special operations troops, will continue for a month. The computer-simulated Key Resolve is scheduled for two weeks starting in mid-April.

A Pentagon spokesman said in March the two joint drills would involve about 23,700 U.S. troops and 300,000 South Korean forces. Military officials in Seoul have said the scale of the exercises would not go beyond those seen in previous years.

The Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises are usually held every year around March, but they were postponed this year until after the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics and Paralympics, which started in February and ended last month.

North Korea, which has traditionally accused South Korea and the United States of practicing invading the North during the joint military drills, has remained quiet on the issue.

In March, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told a visiting South Korean delegation in Pyongyang that he understands the situation regarding the joint drills, according to South Korea’s National Security Office head Chung Eui-yong, who had led the delegation.

The joint exercises come roughly a month ahead of an April 27 summit between the two Koreas, their first in more than a decade.

Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in are widely expected to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and improvement of inter-Korean relations at the summit.
…

your ad here

Students at a predominantly black university in Washington, D.C., continued their sit-in at the school’s administration building Saturday.

The sit-in at Howard University began after news that six university employees had been fired for “gross misconduct and neglect of duties.” Students learned an investigation found financial aid funds for students in need had been misappropriated, and that the university had received results from the report in 2017.

Howard University President Wayne Frederick confirmed the mishandling of funds Wednesday in a statement: “The investigation found that from 2007 to 2016, university grants were given to some university employees who also received tuition remission. The audit revealed that the combination of university grants and tuition remission exceeded the total cost of attendance. As a result, some individuals received inappropriate refunds.”

“While this has been a very difficult and disappointing situation, I know our campus community deserves better and I am committed to ensuring” each campus office operates with integrity, his statement said.

University officials did not say how much money was involved.

Students said they were angered by news of the financial aid scandal. It was “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” freshman Maya McCollum, 19, one of the protest organizers, told The New York Times on Friday.

Some students told local media they knew of students who had to leave the university because they lacked the funds for tuition.

HU Resist is the student group leading the protest at the administration building, which includes the financial aid office. Several hundred students have occupied the building since Thursday.

Students are making nine demands of Howard University, including the resignation of Frederick, a freeze on tuition, guaranteed housing for first- and second-year students, more transparency regarding tuition increases and administration salaries, and the disarmament of campus police.

Frederick released a statement Friday, addressing the students’ demands. “Howard University has birthed generations of student activists and we will always continue in that spirit,” he said. “Your concerns are valid. We are listening. We are committed to jointly making changes to move Howard forward.”

HU Resist and members of the school’s board of trustees met on Saturday, according to The Washington Post.

Leaders from both sides spoke to reporters Saturday afternoon. Student leader Juan Demetrixx told the Post there was “a great deal of respect going on both sides. … So we’re hoping that in the next coming days we are able to get these demands met.”

Trustee Rock Newman told the newspaper the board was “impressed with the way that the students have handled the negotiations.”

Additional negotiations were set for Sunday night, the paper reported.
…

your ad here