Bill Clinton asked UK’s Tony Blair to ‘take a look at’ fixing problem during 2000 ‘political season’: document

By Liam Quinn | Fox News

While Democrats have been calling for President Trump’s impeachment over his alleged soliciting of assistance from foreign countries ahead of the 2020 election, an unearthed comment from February 2000 might show stones were being thrown from glass houses.

On his show Monday, Tucker Carlson discussed a transcript of a call between former President Bill Clinton and then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair — the same year as the election pitting Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, against George W. Bush — during which the ex-president asked his British counterpart for a political favor.

“You’ve heard endlessly on cable news that it is unprecedented the president would seek political gain from a conversation with a foreign leader. Well, turns out, it has happened before,” Carlson said.

President Bill Clinton British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Warwick University in December 2000. (BRIAN BOULD/AFP/Getty Images, File)

President Bill Clinton British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Warwick University in December 2000. (BRIAN BOULD/AFP/Getty Images, File)

“Back in 2000, President Bill Clinton had a conversation with Tony Blair of the U.K. and asked him to intercede in a dispute between British Airways and two carriers. The president, at the time, was much more direct than President Trump was in his conversation.


A screenshot of the conversation was shown during "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Monday

A screenshot of the conversation was shown during “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Monday


“This is Bill Clinton, and I’m quoting: ‘In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it.’ Tony Blair responded that he would.”

Carlson continued: “Now, is this a big deal? Not really. Is it nakedly political? Is it an attempt to use a foreign country to influence the outcome of an election in a presidential year? Yes it is, obviously.


“Incidentally, it didn’t take long for us to find that, we only had to dig through old Clinton transcripts for about 15 minutes… there are probably a lot more examples, and if we find them we will bring them to you.”

The quote referenced by Carlson can be found among a collection of declassified documents relating to Blair. It can be read in full here.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight investigative producer Alex Pfeiffer contributed to this report.Liam Quinn is a Senior Editor at Fox News. He can be found on Twitter at @liampatquinn

All Presidents Are Deporters in Chief

Opinion | All Presidents Are Deporters in Chief – The New York Times…/trump-deportations-immigration.html
20 hours ago – They all have to make hard choices about immigration. That doesn’t justify Donald Trump’s approach.
All Presidents Are Deporters in Chief
They all have to make hard choices about immigration. That doesn’t justify Donald Trump’s approach.

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

July 13, 2019

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

CreditCreditDrew Angerer/Getty Images
Every person who assumes the title of president of the United States also takes on the role of deporter in chief.

That’s because the office comes with the responsibility to enforce the nation’s laws — laws that require that the borders be secure and that some of the people who aren’t legally authorized to live here be deported, after being afforded due process.

Unless the law is changed, that shouldn’t be a provocative assertion, nor was it until recently. But inflamed passions over the country’s checkered yet proud tradition of immigration drove many complex truths — along with bipartisan consensus around reform of the immigration system — out of the national political debate.

The real question isn’t whether or not the president is the deporter in chief, a nickname immigrant rights advocates bestowed on President Barack Obama that has recently resurfaced in attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie’s Newsletter
Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.


The more important question is what kind of deporter in chief a president chooses to be.

The definition of “deportation” is a complicated one, which makes comparing the policies of different presidential administrations imprecise and prone to politicization. Furthermore, levels of immigration — legal and illegal — vary greatly over time for a host of reasons, including economic conditions in the United States and the country of emigration, the time of year and the policies that various administrations have put in place.

The government uses two terms when it talks about deportations: removal and return. A “removal” refers to someone who has been issued a court order or directed by a border patrol agent to leave the country, while a “return” refers to someone who is released back across the border of Mexico or Canada — for instance — without receiving a formal order of removal.

You have 6 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
Summed together, those two numbers can be a measure of total deportations. But the total of the two categories obscures significant differences between the two procedures. Compulsory removal often means uprooting longtime residents who may have families and own property or businesses, and who are then barred from returning to the United States for a period of years. There is often no direct legal sanction for people who voluntarily choose to leave the country and are counted as “returned.”

In terms of total number of people, the high-water mark for deportations came in 2000 under President Bill Clinton, when more than 1,860,000 people left through a combination of removal and return. There were around nine people returned for every one person removed, according to a data set compiled by the Office of Immigration Statistics that attempted to harmonize returns and removals from the United States stretching back to 1927.

During the administration of George W. Bush, the number of people removed was far outpaced each year by the number of people returned. During his last year in office, nearly 360,000 people were removed and more than 810,000 people returned — or an average of one person removed for every two people returned.

Editors’ Picks

Need Etiquette Tips for Cannabis? For Starters, Don’t Call It ‘Marijuana’ or ‘Weed’

What to Expect When You’re Expecting Evil

An Armored Truck Spilled Thousands of Dollars on an Atlanta Highway. What Would You Do?


Under President Obama, the number of removals soared while the number of returned people declined. That change in the balance was driven by the administration’s emphasis on removals and also by the recession, which prompted fewer illegal crossings. Fewer crossings, fewer returns.

The peak number of compulsory removals came during Mr. Obama’s watch in 2013, when more than 432,000 people were removed. That same year, nearly 179,000 people were returned, a ratio of 2.4 people removed for every one person returned.

In addition to the deportations, Mr. Obama’s handling of the unauthorized immigrant population also included the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed hundreds of thousands of young people brought to the country illegally to avoid deportation and secure work permits. While Mr. Obama said that he supported comprehensive immigration reform, efforts to win support from Republicans in Congress were unsuccessful.

By the numbers, the last year of the Obama administration looked similar to the first year of the Trump administration. There were about three people removed for every one who was returned in 2016 and 2017, the last year for which this data is available.

Unlike his predecessors, President Trump — whose campaign was built on a foundation of outrage and exaggeration over the threat posed by immigrants — has embraced the role of chief deporter, with an apparent disregard for the human cost of his tough-strut policies.

While his government hasn’t yet forcibly removed many more people per year than did those of his predecessors, Mr. Trump has made everything that precedes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement knock at the door more frustrating and even dehumanizing.


Here’s how a recent Times report described an immigrant detention facility in Clint, Tex., that was built during the Obama administration but overfilled under Mr. Trump: “Outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among the hundreds of children and adults who were being held in cramped cells, agents said. The stench of the children’s dirty clothing was so strong it spread to the agents’ own clothing — people in town would scrunch their noses when they left work. The children cried constantly. One girl seemed likely enough to try to kill herself that the agents made her sleep on a cot in front of them, so they could watch her as they were processing new arrivals.”

This week, Mr. Trump announced a new series of raids by ICE in at least 10 cities, aiming to arrest thousands of people who have been issued deportation orders.

“We’re focused on criminals,” Mr. Trump said on Friday, dodging the truth that his administration’s hard-line policies make little to no distinction between people who pose a genuine risk and those who miss an immigration court date.

The administration, for instance, publicly warned of collateral arrests as part of the new raids, threatening to detain other unauthorized immigrants who happen to be on the scene (children or other relatives, perhaps), even if they are not the main targets of the raids.

Publicity over the raids has rattled immigrant communities, as the administration clearly intended. For Mr. Trump, deterrence of illegal immigration has been a guiding principle — if not by means of a wall, then by means of cruelty toward migrants, from the squalid conditions in detainee facilities to separating children from their parents.

“It’s the complete, 100 percent focus on harsher options that will deter the influx, with a disregard for managing what’s happening,” a Department of Homeland Security official told The Times earlier this year. “We have a lot more families, a lot more unaccompanied children, and the focus has just been on how can we deter, rather than how can we handle.”

But deterrence alone can’t explain a slew of other moves — scaling back a program that protects the families of members of the military and veterans from being deported, for instance. It doesn’t explain the frantic — yet unsuccessful — effort to put a question about citizenship on the census, which experts agree would lead to an undercount of people in immigrant-heavy communities. Nor does deterrence explain removing deportation protections from nearly one million people who live in the country under the auspices of humanitarian programs or because they were brought to the country as children.


The Pew Research Center has estimated that there are 10.5 million people living in the United States without proper authorization, down from a peak of more than 12 million a decade ago. Long-term residents outnumber recent arrivals.

Polling over many years has found broad consensus among Americans that mass deportations of all unauthorized immigrants isn’t the answer. Americans want some immigration restrictions and more border security but not the construction of a border wall.

Despite the breadth of the political center, leaders of the two parties find themselves pushed to ever greater extremes on the issue. Calls to abolish ICE outright, which were a common refrain from Democrats last summer, appear to have faded. But immigration has been a centerpiece of the presidential primary campaign and will surely feature prominently in the race against an incumbent President Trump in 2020. Asked at a debate about decriminalizing illegal border crossings, nearly all the top-tier candidates indicated that they would support taking that step, which some have compared to the “federal equivalent of a parking ticket” and would do away with penalties like family separation and detention.

Jeh Johnson, who served as homeland security secretary in the Obama administration, warned recently that flirting with radical changes to the country’s immigration laws risked sending the wrong signal. “This is tantamount to a public declaration (repeated and amplified by smugglers in Central America) that our borders are effectively open to all; this will increase the recent levels of monthly apprehensions at our Southern border — about or more than 100,000 — by multiples,” Mr. Johnson wrote in The Washington Post.

Whichever Democrat ends up challenging Mr. Trump for the presidency would be right to call for fundamental change from the cruelties of the current administration. But as long as America wants to have secure borders, immigration will present painful trade-offs for any president. Some people will get in, others will be kept out, still others will be compelled to leave. Any meaningful effort to reform the country’s degrading approach to migrants will fall apart if it pretends a president can simply ignore such choices.

The next president has to be ready to assume the role of deporter in chief, and be able to specify who would be removed from the country, and who would not.


Changing Priorities for Deportations
Deportations fall into two categories: “returns” and “removals.” People who are “removed” have received an order of deportation from a court. They are ineligible from returning to the United States for a period of years. People counted as “returned” have left — back to Canada or Mexico, for instance — after an administrative process and don’t face legal penalties for having been in the country without authorization.

Here are four snapshot years’ worth of deportations under four administrations. The volume of deportations can depend heavily on the condition of the economy in the United States as well as the countries from which the migrants emigrate and the policies put in place by different administrations.

Each figure = 10,000 people Source: 2017 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics

Donald Trump

The Trump administration inherited a deportation infrastructure from his predecessor. The breakdown between people returned and removed in 2017 (the last year for which comparable data is available) is similar to the last year of the Obama administration. Mr. Trump also shifted the public conversation around deportations from immigrants who had been convicted of committing serious crimes to anyone living in the country without authorization.

Barack Obama


The Obama administration prioritized removals — especially of criminals — over returns, as it sought to win support for comprehensive immigration reform. The implementation of Secure Communities at the end of the Bush administration saw greater collaboration initiatives between ICE and local law enforcement to use fingerprint data to target individuals for deportation. This program enabled raids, targeting possible deportees inside and outside of the jail system and potential immigrant criminals. In 2012, Mr. Obama signed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which temporarily shielded some 700,000 young people from deportation. The number of annual removals reached an all-time high in 2013.


George W. Bush


In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, border security received renewed attention, but the Bush administration still prioritized the more informal returns over removals. During his eight years in office, more than 8 million people were returned, while some 2 million were removed.

Bill Clinton


The 1990s saw a roaring economy and a turn toward harsher policies for both legal and undocumented immigrants. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act increased the number of categories of criminal activity that could cause immigrants, including green card holders, to be deported and placed in detention depending on their cases.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

A version of this article appears in print on July 13, 2019, Section SR, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: All Presidents Are Deporters in Chief. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s

Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, knew some details of the allegations against President Trump before the C.I.A. officer filed a whistle-blower complaint.CreditCreditErin Schaff/The New York Times
By Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt and Matthew Rosenberg
Oct. 2, 2019

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.


“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to a son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half-dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson.

Mr. Trump, who has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, wasted no time in trying to use the revelation about the whistle-blower’s attempt to alert Congress to try to denigrate his complaint. In a news conference in the East Room of the White House after this article was published, Mr. Trump called it a scandal that Mr. Schiff knew the outlines of the whistle-blower’s accusations before he filed his complaint.

“Big stuff. That’s a big story,” Mr. Trump said, waving a copy of the article in the air. “He knew long before and helped write it, too. It’s a scam,” the president added, accusing Mr. Schiff of helping the whistle-blower write his complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Schiff did, and his spokesman said he saw no part of the complaint before it was filed.

Editors’ Picks
Me and My Whistle-Blower
This Is the Moment Rachel Maddow Has Been Waiting For
Jessye Norman, Regal American Soprano, Is Dead at 74


The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy as a target of Mr. Trump’s.

Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s a shifty, dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving whistle-blower’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred him to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked Mr. Atkinson from turning over the complaint sooner.

Sign up for impeachment updates: Get our special email briefing that explains the latest developments in the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

ImageThe C.I.A. officer expressed concerns that Mr. Trump had abused his power during a call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
The C.I.A. officer expressed concerns that Mr. Trump had abused his power during a call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.CreditCarolyn Kaster/Associated Press
In response to questions, spokeswomen for Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner of Virginia, its Democratic vice chairman, said it was standard procedure to refer whistle-blowers to the relevant inspectors general.


The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”


Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff, after a private letter and phone call to Mr. Maguire, publicly released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing documents from Mr. Maguire and requesting him to testify before the intelligence panel.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

But letters from the inspector general and Mr. Maguire had made clear to the House Intelligence Committee that the Justice Department and the White House were blocking Mr. Maguire’s office from forwarding the complaint.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”
Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.