Venezuela strike: Clashes in Caracas, cracks in unity at UN

Opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro barricaded the streets in Caracas for a 24-hour strike as clashes intensified, the death toll from months of unrest neared 100 and cracks appeared in the government's public face abroad.

The opposition called for Thursday's nationwide strike after a nonbinding referendum four days earlier saw millions reject Maduro's controversial plans to rewrite the constitution.

The government condemned the referendum as illegal, instead calling for a July 30 vote to elect a special assembly to rewrite the 1999 constitution.

Venezuela is struggling with a deepening economic crisis and sometimes bloody street protests as anti-government protesters demand Maduro step down. He has sent the military onto the streets to maintain order.

Venezuela: How paradise got lost

Tensions grew in late March when the Supreme Court transferred all National Assembly powers to the court stacked with government loyalists. The opposition called the move a coup, and the court later revoked the ruling.

Ninety-nine people have died in the unrest, according to the Venezuelan attorney general's office. At least two people were killed during more protests Friday, including a 15-year-old.

What sparked the protests?

Resignation in UN delegation

In a break with Maduro's government, a member of Venezuela's UN delegation -- Isaias Arturo Medina Mejías -- resigned Thursday, citing "irreconcilable differences" with his country's leadership.

Medina Mejías told CNN en Español he would join the resistance, returning to Venezuela as soon as the paperwork was in place.

He said he had been at odds with the government for months but had not resigned earlier because his passport had expired and he was waiting to renew it.

"I am in the UN, was working in the UN because I believed in what I was doing -- working with the international community representing my country," Medina Mejías said. "Today, I honestly believe that it is hypocrisy that Venezuela is even in the UN on the Human Rights Council, violating human rights."

His resignation drew condemnation from Venezuela's ambassador to the United Nations, Rafael Ramirez, who said in Spanish on Twitter: "I condemn the conduct of Isaias Medina. We have immediately relieved him of his duties. He does not represent us. He has acted in a dishonest manner."

In a separate interview with CNN, Medina Mejías said the resignation was "an individual expression of my own willingness not to work with this government that for the last 100 days have violated civil rights, and has killed and systematically persecuted civilians and violated the constitution."

He said Venezuelans should "keep the pressure (up) until we get rid of this government and we can bring change to the self-determination of our country."

Venezuela's government intimidates and restricts the media in Venezuela, taking CNN en Español off the air.

The government tightly controls visas for foreign journalists including CNN, arresting those who report from inside the country without proper permits.

Fire and tear gas

Journalist Stefano Pozzebon described tense scenes Thursday in Caracas, with the national guard opening roads that young protesters would close minutes later. Tear gas was used in the clashes, he said.

In a nationally televised broadcast, Maduro accused "terrorists from the opposition" of setting a post office on fire in eastern Caracas used by the national police.

The mayor of the district of Sucre, where the blaze occurred, called for an investigation.

"Clashes between different groups of protesters was the source of fire in the police building in Los Ruices shopping mall. An action we denounce!" Mayor Carlos Ocariz said on Twitter.

Referendum results

The 24-hour nationwide strike was called by National Assembly Vice President Freddy Guevara after Sunday's referendum in an effort to increase pressure on Maduro.

Nearly 7.2 million Venezuelans took part in the referendum organized by the main opposition parties, with the overwhelming majority coming out against Maduro's plan.

The referendum asked voters three yes-no questions. More than 98% of voters chose to reject the proposed constitutional assembly, request the military defend the existing constitution and support fresh elections before Maduro's term ends in 2019.

Sunday's turnout represented about 37% of Venezuela's total electorate, according to CNN calculations based on 2015 National Electoral Committee figures.

In 2013, Maduro was elected with just over 7.5 million votes, while Henrique Capriles was second with 7.3 million votes.

Maduro's supporters also cast a ballot Sunday in a rehearsal of the July 30 constitutional elections.

Competing lines could be seen throughout Caracas, with opposition and government-approved polling stations only meters apart. The opposition also set up 667 polling stations in 100 countries for expatriates.

Strains with Mexico

The Mexican Foreign Ministry on Thursday urged Maduro's government to halt the July 30 elections.

An official statement from Mexico said that suspending the vote would "open the door for a negotiation that could resolve the democratic crisis Venezuela is facing," whereas going forward with it would deepen divisions in the country.

Mexico's a "respectful and fraternal" request came days after Venezuelan Foreign Minister Samuel Moncada declared former Mexican President Vicente Fox had been banned from Venezuela for promoting violence and supporting foreign intervention.

Mexico's Vicente Fox banned from Venezuela

Fox traveled to Venezuela on Saturday with a contingent of former Latin American presidents to show support for the referendum.

Fox told CNN that Maduro was imposing his will "with a stick in his hand -- with the guns and ammunition" and that he went to Caracas to be "by the side of these heroes, of these magnificent, young millennials, that are ready to die for their nation."

"Foreign support, foreign public opinion, leaders speaking about this massacre -- it will change things," Fox said.

Supreme Court says grandparents, relatives can enter US despite travel ban

In a loss for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court Wednesday left intact a lower court opinion that temporarily exempts grandparents and other relatives from President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The justices did give Trump a partial win on another issue by lifting an order exempting a category of refugees from the travel ban.

The court said the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals should review the issue.

Trump's order affects people from Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, said Wednesday they would have allowed the travel ban to remain in effect as it applies to grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law.

Wednesday's order is a follow-up to the court's ruling in June that the travel ban could not go into effect for those people with a "bona fide connection" to a person or entity in the United States. The Trump administration subsequently issued guidelines interpreting the ruling to cover some relatives -- but not grandparents, uncles, aunts and others.

Challengers immediately went back to court and argued that the Trump administration had interpreted the court's ruling too narrowly. Federal district judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii agreed and relaxed the travel ban as it applies to grandparents and others, and the administration asked the Supreme Court to put that decision on hold.

The Supreme Court will hear the overall challenge to the travel ban later this year.

"In large part this is a loss for the Trump administration because it suggests that a majority of the court disagrees with the guidance the government issued after the Supreme Court's initial June 26 order," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

"It also suggests at a more basic level that the justices are going to leave these issues to the lower courts at least until the full case returns to the court next fall," he said.

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall argued in court papers that the district court's opinion emptied the Supreme Court's original decision of meaning because it encompassed "not just 'close' family members, but virtually all family members."

Neal Katyal -- the lead lawyer for Hawaii, which challenged the ban, said the limits were unfair.

"Compelling a grandparent to be apart from his grandchild -- especially one seeking refuge from violence or persecution -- inflicts hardship of unbearable severity," he wrote.

Katyal also urged the justices to leave in place the lower court opinion as it applies to refugees with assurance of assistance from volunteer resettlement agencies.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Kobach: 'We may never know' if Clinton won popular vote

The vice chair of President Donald Trump's voter integrity commission said Wednesday he isn't sure if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election.

In fact, she won by 2.9 million votes, according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. That's a clear 2.1% margin.

But when asked by NBC's Katy Tur if he was suggesting that Clinton did not win the popular vote, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach provided an ambiguous response.

"We may never know the answer," Kobach said.

Kobach repeated this claim when pressed, later conceding that, "Based on the data, you could make some very educated guesses."

He applied a similar skepticism to the votes cast in favor of Trump, which Kobach said were "absolutely" in doubt as well.

Kobach rejected the notion that the President's voter commission -- which met for the first timeWednesday morning -- is a means of validating Trump's claims that he lost the popular vote because of millions of illegally-cast votes.

"Even if you could prove that a certain number of votes were cast by ineligible voters, for example, you wouldn't know how they voted," Kobach said.

Kobach has already received a lot of pushback from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Many state representatives decried his request last month for certain voter registration data.

House Republicans are fuming they can't get things done

House Republicans are fuming. They are watching their effort to make good on a vow to repeal and replace Obamacare flounder in the Senate, and the typical behind the scenes fiscal fights over legislation to fund the government and get tax reform done are breaking out into the open.

A divided and frustrated House GOP conference is worried about going home for an extended summer recess without a major legislative accomplishment to show for six months of Republican control of the White House and Congress. They were hoping to tackle a major government funding bill or a budget, but for now it doesn't look like either item will even get a vote this month.

"My gosh, we have the levers of government now -- we have them all! And we still can't do our jobs and this is getting old," an irate Rep. Steve Womack, R-Arkansas, told CNN off the House floor on Wednesday.

Womack and other GOP members on the House appropriations committee were trying to get agreement on a massive "omnibus" spending bill that wrapped all 12 measures into one package that essentially laid out the Republican priorities for reshaping the federal government's budget. But they are incensed that GOP leaders pulled back from the effort and are instead moving a smaller, security-focused funding spending legislation.

House Republicans across the ideological spectrum are also angry at GOP senators after they struggled and ultimately passed an Obamacare repeal and replace bill, and now aren't likely to get any credit because their GOP colleagues in the Senate ignored it. Now the upper chamber is can't figure out whether it can even bring up a health care bill.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a radio interview, said Wednesday on the stalled Senate effort, "we're pretty frustrated."

"I'd like to say it can't get any worse," Rep. Mark Walker, R-North Carolina, who heads the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscal conservatives told CNN, before his voice trailed off. He said there was "widespread frustration" and many members "upset at the process" at a weekly lunch with his committee in the Capitol basement.

On spending issues there have been long simmering tensions between those members on the committee with conservatives in the GOP conference, who demand billions in spending cuts, but regularly refuse to back any type of large scale bill. Ryan and other top leaders agreed, at the behest of a group of members, to move toward a massive twelve bill package. But they warned members they would pull the plug if they couldn't find the votes.

Again, the internal splits forced them to move to Plan B. Late Tuesday night they announced they were moving ahead on a "minibus" spending bill focused on money for the military, the border wall the president wants to build, and veterans programs.

"I think leadership is conceding way too early on this" Utah Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, another member of the spending panel, told CNN.

Womack, who is usually a strong ally of Ryan and his top lieutenants accused them of "hijacking" the process from those who were working on a proposal because they were "afraid" of members on the right flank.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, said his group hasn't taken an official position on the budget or the spending bill yet. He defended conservatives deciding they can't support the fiscal items, saying "what we actually have to have is negotiation, not just conversations."

He pointed out that he and others urged leaders to postpone the August recess to work on a variety of items.

Multiple House GOP leadership aides say they continue to work toward a budget vote, and aren't ruling out it coming up next week, the final work week in Washington before the August recess. As for the decision to move toward a smaller spending bill they point out that getting buy in from a majority of House Republicans was always an uphill battle.

Talking about the challenge for leadership, Womack sounded fed up, saying, "I realize that it's difficult but to basically upend the appropriations process because other people are not good team players to me is wrongheaded, and I'm frustrated by it, and I don't know when it's going to change."

Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia, a member of the Freedom Caucus, told leaders he was undecided on the spending measure.

He told CNN he was concerned "after this last Senate goof up on health care, it's very important we show the base and the Republicans and the rest of the country what's in our own Republican creed and what's in the party platform, and we stick to it."

Meadows said the problem on the spending bill wasn't the concept of one GOP bill, "it's the ambiguity of it, you're saying 'OK will you vote for something without knowing what's in it.' I'd prefer to read a bill before we do that."

Several House Republicans worried that punting the spending fight into the fall would again force members into a bad spot of scrambling to pass a bill to avoid a government shutdown, and potentially passing a stopgap bill, which rank and file Republicans complain is a bad outcome.