President Joe Biden has “limited ability” to step up security at the U.S.-Mexico border via executive action, a top Democratic lawmaker said on Sunday, arguing that the issue should be addressed with legislation in Congress.

Senator Chris Murphy, the lead Democrat who negotiated a bipartisan border security bill introduced this year, said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that U.S. courts would likely strike down sweeping action by Biden.

“The president has such limited ability to issue executive orders that would have an impact on the border. He can’t conjure resources out of thin air,” Murphy said. “If he were to try to shut down portions of the border, the courts would throw that out, I think, within a matter of weeks.”

Biden, a Democrat seeking another term in Nov. 5 elections, has said his administration is looking at executive actions to potentially block migrants at the border after Republicans rejected the bipartisan Senate bill this year. Republicans spurned the measure after former President Donald Trump, Biden’s Republican challenger, came out against it.

Senate Republicans blocked the bill again last week and Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said it “doesn’t secure the border” and “incentivizes further illegal immigration.”

The number of migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped this year compared with a monthly record high in December, a trend U.S. officials partly attribute to increased enforcement by Mexico.

Murphy said the decrease was due to “smart, effective diplomacy between the United States and the Mexican government” but warned that the dropoff may not be permanent and that illegal crossings remain high compared with a decade ago.

“We have to just recognize that without updating the laws of this country, without surging more resources to the border, we can’t count on the numbers staying as low as they are today,” Murphy said.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean Pierre said last week that the Senate bill would deliver “significant policy changes, resources, and personnel needed to secure our border and make our country safer.”

Migrants and asylum seekers transit through Mexico to the U.S. to escape violence, economic distress and negative impacts of climate change, according the United Nations.

As expected, former San Diegan Christina Bobb pleaded not guilty Tuesday in Phoenix as she joined others at arraignment for their alleged roles in the fake-electors case.

Less expected: Bobb’s booking photo going viral.

As noted by Newsweek, the mugshot of the former lawyer for Donald Trump “made its way across social media … sparking mockery.”

The New Republic reported that Bobb, the former OAN reporter and San Diego State University MBA, “was seen smirking” in the Maricopa County courthouse.

Bobb, head of the Republican National Committee’s election integrity unit, was indicted April 24 by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for alleged attempts to overturn results of the 2020 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Bobb tweeted alarm after a Trump motion said the FBI was authorized to use “deadly force” in the  Aug. 8, 2022, classified documents search at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

“They were prepared to kill me?! A few dozen FBI agents v. me and they were ready to kill me?!!!” she posted on X.

(In a statement, the FBI said it “followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”

Also Tuesday, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was ordered to post a $10,000 bond in Arizona after allegedly eluding authorities’ attempts to serve him court papers accusing the former New York mayor of trying to subvert the 2020 election.

Appearing by phone at a court proceeding, Giuliani criticized what he called a “completely political case” as he pleaded not guilty to charges that he conspired to falsely claim Arizona’s electoral votes for Trump following Trump’s narrow loss to Democratic President Joe Biden.

A Maricopa County judge, Shellie Smith, ordered Giuliani to travel to Arizona within 30 days to post the bond.

Giuliani is one of 18 defendants in the case brought by Mayes, and one of 11 who made their first court appearance on Tuesday. All pleaded not guilty.

Bobb and nine other defendants were released without bond, but prosecutors sought a different arrangement for Giuliani, saying they struggled to contact him after charges were filed.

Prosecutors argued Giuliani was seeking to evade authorities, pointing to a since-deleted post on X in which Giuliani suggested prosecutors might have to drop the charges if they could not locate him.

An agent from the Arizona attorney’s general office finally served Giuliani on Friday as he was leaving his 80th birthday party in Florida.

“He has shown no intent to comply with legal process in Arizona in this case,” prosecutor Nicholas Klingerman said.

Giuliani, who does not yet have a lawyer in the case, disputed that he had “been hiding from anyone.” He said he limited access to his New York apartment over security concerns.

“I do consider this indictment a complete embarrassment to the American legal system, but I’ve shown no tendency not to comply,” Giuliani said, as the judge sought to cut him off.

Giuliani and the other defendants are facing conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges over their efforts to assemble a slate of electors from Arizona pledged to support Trump, a bid to undermine certification of the 2020 election.

Smith set an Oct. 17 trial date, just weeks before the Nov. 5 election. Trump is not charged in the Arizona case.

The New Republic said that, regarding Arizona, Giuliani has deferred to Bobb, saying she knows more about the election efforts in that state than he does.

“I used Christina Bobb to a large extent, and I’m not putting anything off on Christina. If Christina said it happened, it’s probably more accurate than if I said it happened,” Giuliani said in late April on Newsmax.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday the Senate would once again try to pass a bipartisan border security bill this week after a previous attempt failed when enough Republicans withdrew their support at the urging of former President Donald Trump.

“I hope Republicans and Democrats can work together to pass the bipartisan Border Act this coming week,” Schumer said in a letter to senators.

The Border Act would reform asylum laws, hire thousands of border agents and seek to curtail fentanyl smuggling, among other measures, the Democratic leader said.

Leaders of the Republican-controlled House of Representative called the bill politically motivated.

“Should it reach the House, the bill would be dead on arrival,” House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans said in a statement.

The White House said it strongly supported the legislation.

The previous legislation was tied to U.S. foreign aid for Ukraine and Israel, but this bill would stand alone, Schumer said.

Record numbers of migrants have been caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border since Democratic President Joe Biden took office in 2021, and border security has become one of the leading issues in the presidential campaign. Trump is seeking to return to office by challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 election.

In February, a bipartisan immigration bill stalled in the Senate after Trump told Republicans not to support it even though it contained several border-security measures they had sought.

“The former President made clear he would rather preserve the issue for his campaign than solve the issue in a bipartisan fashion. On cue, many of our Republican colleagues abruptly reversed course on their prior support, announcing their new-found opposition to the bipartisan proposal,” Schumer said.

Over half of U.S. voters oppose putting immigrants in the country illegally into detention camps while awaiting deportation, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows, suggesting Americans may be wary of harsher enforcement plans Donald Trump is considering.

Some 54% of registered voters opposed the use of detention camps while 36% supported such a move and 10% said they did not know or did not respond, the poll found. Still, 56% said most or all immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported.

Republican presidential candidate Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration a central plank of his reelection campaign against Democratic President Joe Biden. Immigration has emerged as a top issue for voters, particularly Republicans, in the run-up to the Nov. 5 election. 

The New York Times reported last year that former President Trump, if reelected, planned to build large camps to hold immigrants pending a possible deportation.

In an interview with Time Magazine published in April, Trump said he would consider using camps but that “there wouldn’t be that much of a need for them” because people would be rapidly deported.

Tom Homan, a former Trump immigration official who could join a second administration, said tents would be needed as more immigrants in the U.S. illegally are arrested and held for deportation, exceeding existing detention space.

“We’re going to have to hold them someplace,” he said in an interview.

Homan said the tents would adhere to detention standards set by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that they would not be “concentration camps.”

Homan said that National Guard troops could potentially support deportation operations but that law enforcement officers would need to make arrests.

Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not comment on the possible use of camps in a statement to Reuters but said Trump would “marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation in American history.”

Biden defeated Trump in 2020 vowing to reverse many of Trump’s hardline immigration policies but struggled with record numbers of migrants caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Biden has toughened his approach to the border in the run-up to the election.

Biden campaign spokesperson Maca Casado said in a statement that Americans “want border security and immigration solutions, not the cruel, ineffective chaos Donald Trump is offering.”

ICE stepped up deportations at the end of last year, with 66,000 people removed from Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2023, according to agency statistics, a far more aggressive pace than other years under Biden.

Some 85% of Republican voters in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said most or all immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported, compared to 26% of Democrats and 61% of independents.

But fewer voters agreed with a statement that immigrants in the country illegally should be arrested and put in detention camps while awaiting deportation hearings. 

Some 62% of registered Republican said they agreed, compared to 12% of Democrats and 35% of independents. 

The poll, conducted online, surveyed 3,208 registered voters nationwide. It had margins of error of about 2 percentage points for responses from all registered voters, about 3 points for registered Republicans and Democrats and about 4 points for independents.

John Eastman, the first of 18 defendants accused of illegally seeking to claim Arizona’s 2020 electoral votes for then-U.S. President Donald Trump to appear before a state judge, pleaded not guilty on Friday.

The former dean of the Chapman University law school in Orange County is one of several people — including fellow former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — accused of plotting to assemble a slate of pro-Trump electors who falsely claimed to represent the Southwestern battleground state’s legitimate electoral votes.

More accused individuals are due to be arraigned next week.

The case stems from the attempt by Trump, a Republican, and his allies to pressure election officials in several states to overturn the presidential election won by Democrat Joe Biden. The pair will face off again in the Nov. 5 election.

“I, of course, pled not guilty,” Eastman told reporters outside of court following Friday’s hearing.

“I had zero communications with the electors in Arizona, zero involvement in any of the election litigation in Arizona or legislative hearings, and I’m confident that with the laws faithfully applied, I will be fully exonerated at the end of this process.”

In the past several months, Republican officials and Trump allies have been charged in four states, accused of falsely representing themselves as legitimate presidential electors to be tallied by Congress in its certification of the 2020 results.

A spokesperson for Giuliani has previously criticized the Arizona prosecution as political. A lawyer for Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters on Friday.

Trump is not one of those charged in the Arizona case but court papers list “a former U.S. president,” referring to him, as an unindicted co-conspirator.

The Biden administration will speed up the immigration court cases of some single adults caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border under a new program announced on Thursday, part of a broader effort to reduce illegal immigration in the run-up to Nov. 5 elections, senior administration officials said.

Single adults with court dates heading to five cities — Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City — could be placed in a “recent arrivals docket,” senior administration officials said on a call with reporters. U.S. immigration judges will aim to resolve their claims for asylum in 180 days instead of a process that can now take years because of major backlogs, the officials said.

President Joe Biden, seeking reelection in November, has toughened his approach to border security in recent months as immigration has emerged as a top voter concern. Biden’s Republican challenger, former President Donald Trump, has criticized Biden’s approach and vowed to reinstitute hardline polices.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a statement urged Congress to pass a bipartisan Senate bill that would increase border enforcement.

“This administrative step is no substitute for the sweeping and much-needed changes that the bipartisan Senate bill would deliver,” Mayorkas said.

Biden administration officials declined to say how many people could be placed in accelerated case processing, but at least 10 judges will initially be assigned to the new program, one official said.

The Biden administration on Wednesday imposed visa restrictions on more than 250 members of the Nicaraguan government and levied sanctions on three Nicaraguan entities in a move partly related to migrant smuggling through the Central American country.

The administration also intends to finalize a proposed regulation later this year that would allow asylum officers to quickly deny claims of migrants convicted of a serious crime, linked to terrorism or posing other dangers to public safety.

I have been studying and writing about Roman emperors for more than 30 years. I never imagined I would live in a time and place where the judicial system might give more extensive legal immunity to an American president than any Roman emperor ever enjoyed. Until last month. 

Contemporary imagination often assumes that Roman emperors enjoyed absolute authority to do what they wanted with their empire’s resources, wealth, and military power. They did not. Rather, Roman emperors were magistrates who held office for life, managing the Roman state on behalf of its citizens.

This position gave emperors vast powers to initiate wars, choose administrators, appoint generals, order criminal investigations, and take the property and lives of convicted criminals. But, like their fellow citizens, Roman emperors were subject to Roman law.

Emperors themselves said so. In 429 C.E., the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III explained that “a reigning sovereign must be subject to the laws because our authority is dependent upon that of the law and it is the greatest attribute of imperial power for the sovereign to be subject to the laws.” It is only by accepting that laws apply to every Roman, the emperors continued, that we are able to “forbid others to do what we do not suffer ourselves to do.” In other words, an emperor claiming an exemption from Roman law had no right to expect his fellow citizens to obey those same laws.

A few decades later, Priscus of Panium, a Roman official and rhetorician who served as an ambassador to the court of Attila the Hun, explained to an acquaintance he calls Graikos why Roman legal procedures must apply equally to everyone. Graikos had once lived in Roman territory but had chosen to live among the Huns. He told Priscus he preferred the Hunnic empire, where, unlike in Rome, Attila limited corruption, did not assess high taxes, and presided over a people who did not trouble one another.

True, the brutal barbarian king could do what he wanted to anyone. But Graikos still believed this was better than Rome, where “lawsuits are much protracted, much money is spent on them,” and everyone is distracted from doing what they want by concerns of when or even whether a legal penalty will be enforced.

Priscus corrected Graikos sharply. “Those who founded the Roman state,” he said, “ordained wise and good men to be guardians of the laws so that things should not be done haphazardly.” In Rome, “the laws apply to all, even the emperor obeys them,” and “the time taken in cases results from a concern for justice lest a judge err in his decisions.”

Under Attila, by contrast, “one must give thanks to Fortune for freedom.” In a society without laws, Priscus asserted, your life and property are protected only by fate and the whims of Attila. Realizing his mistake, Graikos “wept and said that the laws were fair and the Roman state was good.” 

It is, then, astonishing to read the April 25 transcript of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Donald J. Trump v. United States. The day began with Donald Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, boldly asserting, “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it.” 

As the proceedings continued, the exchanges became increasingly shocking. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what would happen if the president “orders the military” to assassinate a political rival. In response, Sauer claimed that such an order “could well be an official act” and thus render the president immune from prosecution. Then, near the hearing’s conclusion, Justice Samuel Alito took on an incredulous tone as he asked the government’s lawyer, “If [the president] makes a mistake, he makes a mistake; he’s subject to the criminal laws just like everyone else?” 

Any serious Roman jurist would know how to answer Alito’s question. They would respond as the 10th century bishop Nicholas of Constantinople did to the emperor Leo VI when he tried to get married illegally: “It is evil, a most evil doctrine to say that, because one is an emperor he is permitted to do wrong in a way that no one would permit his subjects to do.”

Romans knew that even the limited liberty permitted by their autocracy depended on every citizen, regardless of their station, being equally subject to the protections and restrictions of a common legal system. To assert otherwise would be to leave the Roman world of law and enter the unpredictable, anarchic kingdoms led by people like Attila the Hun.  

Alito is, without a doubt, a finer legal scholar than I am. But he is not a finer legal scholar than Tribonian or Papinian or many of the thousands of other jurists who taught and wrote about a tradition of Roman legal scholarship that stretched across nearly 2,000 years. These wise men refused to grant the powers to an emperor that Alito and Sauer seem to want to grant to an elected president. Maybe our Supreme Court could learn something from reading their work.

Edward Watts is a historian at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea, and Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny. This was written for Zócalo Public Square, an Arizona State University media enterprise.

A Chula Vista man has been indicted for allegedly directing death threats at Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis over her legal pursuit of Donald Trump.

Marc Shultz, 66, authorities said Friday, is accused of making the threats in YouTube livestreams, in which he stated among other things that the Fulton County District Attorney “will be killed like a dog” for prosecuting Trump.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the threats were made last Oct. 4 and Oct. 5.

The former president is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2020 presidential election defeat in Georgia.

Shultz made an initial appearance in San Diego federal court on Thursday. He’ll be formally arraigned in Atlanta next month.

“Sending death threats to a public official is a criminal offense that will not be tolerated,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan in a statement. “Our office will continue to diligently coordinate with our federal, state and local law enforcement partners to help protect public officials while performing their duties … who deserve to do so free from threats of harm and intimidation.”

Willis said in a statement issued Friday, “I thank U.S. Attorney Ryan Buchanan, his staff and the FBI for believing the life of an African American elected official has value and for their diligent efforts in ensuring the safety of myself, my staff and our families.”

The Georgia case is separate from Trump’s ongoing trial in New York in which he is accused of committing fraud by labeling the reimbursement of payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels as legitimate legal expenses.

– City News Service

Under threat of legal action, San Diego-based One America News has retracted a story on its website falsely suggesting that Michael Cohen was having an affair with Stormy Daniels.

Last month’s post by OAN contributor Brooke Mallory, based on a false tweet, also said lawyer Cohen had tried to extort his former boss, Donald Trump, before the 2016 election.

“OAN today has retracted its March 27 article entitled ‘Whistleblower: Avenatti Alleged Cohen­ Daniels Affair Since 2006, Pre-2016 Trump Extortion Plan,’ and is taking it down from all sites and removing it from all social media,” the far-right network said Monday.

In a 450-word post, OAN added that the retraction was part of a settlement reached with Cohen and “OAN apologizes to Mr. Cohen for any harm the publication may have caused him.”

No money changed hands, both sides told Times of San Diego.

Cohen was represented in the defamation matter by Austin-based lead counsel Justin Nelson of Susman Godfrey LLP, “who was retained after publication of the article, said a statement. “Co-counsel is E. Danya Perry of Perry Law PLLC, who separately represents Mr. Cohen in other matters.”

Nelson said: “Today’s retraction by OAN represents a victory for accountability. This retraction is not about money. It is about protecting the truth.”

Perry called the outcome a vindication for Cohen.

“He has faced severe consequences for telling the truth,” she said in a statement. “With this action, he has made clear that those who slander him will face their own consequences.”

OAN’s report on the retraction said Cohen alerted OAN to the false statements that said Michael Avenatti, imprisoned former lawyer for retired porn star Daniels, had been the source of the affair/extortion claims.

“OAN promptly investigated and learned that Mr. Avenatti denied making the allegations,” OAN said. “To be clear, no evidence suggests that Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels were having an affair and no evidence suggests that Mr. Cohen ‘cooked up’ the scheme to extort the Trump Organization before the 2016 election.”

OAN quoted Cohen as denying an affair with Daniels, whose receipt of $130,000 in a hush-money case has put Trump in criminal jeopardy.

“The notion that right before the election I would extort the man I fervently supported and believed was about to become president, all to make $130,000 that I did not even keep for myself, is beyond absurd,” Cohen said. “It’s just plain stupid.”

Cohen says he and Daniels never met or even spoke to one another until a 2021 podcast interview, OAN reported.

“In that interview – well before the alleged plot was hatched – the two both stated at that time that they had never met before,” OAN said.

In another statement, Cohen* said: “I am pleased that OAN has agreed to retract this story and has acknowledged that the statement is false. While this settlement cannot undo the harm that the publication caused me, it is important to set the record straight — which is what this settlement does.”

National media are covering the OAN retraction, including the Washington Post and The New York Times, which observed that Cohen lawyer Nelson had “represented Dominion Voting Systems in a suit against Fox News that cost that network $787.5 million to settle.”

Times of San Diego reached out to Mallory, author of the retracted story, but OAN lawyer Babcock responded on behalf of the Trump-friendly network.

He couldn’t answer a question about Mallory’s status with the website, calling it a personnel matter. But her most recent post was time-stamped 11:04 a.m. Monday — with the headline “OnlyFans Creator, Popular TikToker Claims She Was Funded To Spread Propaganda For Biden Admin Online.”

In a phone interview, OAN lawyer Chip Babcock told me legal talks about the alleged defamation began a little over a week ago.

Cohen’s lawyers “contacted OAN and OAN asked me to interact with Justin and I did and so it came together in a very short period of time,” Babcock said, noting that his legal counterpart Nelson once ran for Texas attorney general. (Democrat Nelson lost in 2018 to Republican Ken Paxton by 3.6 percentage points.)

A source on the Cohen side said the former Trump fixer “prioritized a quick and full retraction.”

Could Tony Seruga of Newport Beach, the X source for the affair story, be sued for defamation?

“Yeah, he could be,” Times of San Diego was told. “He’s impossible to find.”

Updated at 2:21 p.m. April 29, 2024

*An earlier version of this report incorrectly attributed this statement to Daniels.

Former San Diegan Christina Bobb could spend four years in prison if found guilty of all nine counts against her — and she served the sentences concurrently.

Her maximum concurrent penalty? 12 1/2 years.

Arizona officials on Friday released an unredacted version of the 58-page grand jury indictment that previously named 11 people involved in a fake-electors scheme to overturn the 2020 election of Joe Biden.

Bobb, 41, had to be served with the indictment before Arizona could formally identify her and others. But many media outlets named her Wednesday.

The first indictment mentioned Bobb just three times — twice in tweets and once in a text message sent Dec. 13, 2020, by Jason Miller.

Friday’s version cites Bobb 21 times.

Labeled defendant No. 16, Bobb “was an attorney for the Trump Campaign and worked closely with [redacted name],” says the indictment.

“Bobb lobbied Arizona’s Republican legislators after the 2020 presidential election to disregard the popular vote in Arizona. She additionally helped organize the false Arizona Republican electors’ votes on December 14, 2020.”

The most serious charge against Bobb is conspiracy, a Class 2 felony in Arizona. That crime allegedly involved:

• Fraudulent schemes and artifices
• Fraudulent schemes and practices
• Forgery
• Changing vote of elector by corrupt means or inducement
• And presentment of false instrument for filing

Separately, the one-time One America News reporter and San Diego State MBA also faces two charges of fraud and six counts of forgery.

With Class 1 (murder, rape, etc.) being the worst of six classes, Class 4 felonies like forgery are relatively light — with a possible prison sentence of 1 to 3 1/2 years per count.

Theoretically, if found guilty and she served her terms consecutively, Bobb could spend 21 years in lockup for forgery alone.

Adding the maximum terms of the other counts, Bobb faces an additional 25 years in prison. But with “good behavior credits,” her sentence could be reduced a maximum of 15%.

Bobb declined to comment when contacted by The Associated Press.

Those charged in Arizona include 11 people who falsely claimed to be the legitimate Trump electors from the state as well as his former personal lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Giuliani, Eastman and Meadows also have been charged alongside Trump in a racketeering case brought by local prosecutor Fani Willis in Georgia, another election battleground state where Trump sought to reverse a narrow loss.

Three people accused of serving as fake Trump electors in Georgia have been charged in that case. All have pleaded not guilty.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Updated at 10:15 p.m. April 29, 2024