WTF Community

More Questionable Behavior from Trump, T Admin, DOJ, and R's vs Dems, Press, Justice

:eyes:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, August 3, 2020

Statement of Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers on the Public Release of the Department’s Findings with Respect to the 29 FISA Applications that Were the Subject of the March 2020 OIG Preliminary Report

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers stated:

“The Department of Justice has completed its review of the 29 FISA applications that were the subject of preliminary findings by the DOJ Inspector General (OIG) in March 2020. We are pleased that our review of these applications concluded that all contained sufficient basis for probable cause and uncovered only two material errors, neither of which invalidated the authorizations granted by the FISA Court. These findings, together with the more than 40 corrective actions undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Division, should instill confidence in the FBI’s use of FISA authorities. We would like to express our appreciation to the OIG for their focus on the Department’s use of its national security authority. We remain committed to improving the FISA process to ensure that we use these tools consistent with the law and our obligations to the FISA Court. The ability to surveil and to investigate using FISA authorities remains critical to confronting current national security threats, including election interference, Chinese espionage and terrorism.”

Background

In March 2020, the OIG issued a Memorandum regarding the preliminary findings from its audit of 29 historical FISA applications. The audit was designed to determine whether the contents of the FBI’s Woods files supported the factual statements in these applications. The OIG found deficient documentation in these accuracy (i.e., Woods) files and potential errors. Specifically, the OIG found that FBI was unable to produce the Woods files for 4 of the 29 applications, and the OIG identified numerous apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all 25 of the 29 applications for which Woods files could be produced.

The OIG did not determine whether any factual assertions in the applications were inaccurate, materially or otherwise. In addition, when the OIG found a fact unsupported by a document in the Woods file, the OIG did not give the FBI the opportunity to locate a supporting document for the fact outside the file.

The Department has reviewed the OIG’s preliminary findings for each application. Each of these applications was also subject to an independent accuracy review. The Department was able to resolve many of the potential issues identified by the OIG. The FBI was also able to compile Woods files for the 4 applications where an original Woods file could not be located, and the FBI was able in many instances to locate documentation to support a factual assertion either elsewhere in the Woods file or in other files available to the FBI. Based on the Department’s findings, of the hundreds of pages of facts contained in the 29 applications audited by the OIG, the Department has identified only one material misstatement and one material omission, neither of which we assess to have invalidated the authorizations granted by the FISC. These findings have been provided to the FISA Court and were posted publicly today.

The filing can be found here.

4 Likes

:eyes:

3 Likes

T has been calling it an ‘attack’ all day…

US defense officials contradict Trump: No indication yet of attack in Beirut - CNNPolitics

4 Likes

This is what the NYT Editorial Board thinks - Congress should finish up on the Relief Bill and no vacation until it gets done. How are both going to negotiate when there are sticking points?
Simple - no vacation.

(This post could go under Opinion - or here. Your call - @Pet_Proletariat @MissJava - Thx!)

Opinion

No Relief Bill, No Vacation

Millions of Americans can’t wait while the Senate takes the rest of the summer off.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

On Friday, Congress effectively pushed millions of Americans off a financial cliff when it failed to extend the enhanced unemployment benefits put in place in March to soften the economic pain of the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of Americans are also in imminent danger of losing their homes as federal moratoriums on evictions expire.

Preventing this widespread suffering should be the top priority for lawmakers. Instead, the Republican-led Senate dragged its feet for months on another aid package. The Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a $3 trillion relief plan in mid-May. It took until July 27 for the Republican Senate leaders to offer their anemic, $1 trillion counterbid, which everyone seems to have a problem with, albeit for differing reasons. Democrats think it is insufficient to the magnitude of the crisis. The White House favors a short-term, piecemeal fix — larded with unrelated measures, like $1.75 billion for a new F.B.I. headquarters and nearly $400 million to renovate the West Wing — and many Republican members oppose any additional relief.

Negotiations are, to put it mildly, going poorly. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is engaged in a political charade in which he proclaims himself a hapless bystander, buffeted by the whims of the White House on one side and House Democrats on the other. He is not even attending key meetings between Democratic leaders and the administration’s top negotiators.

But Mr. McConnell is far from without leverage. He must make clear to his members that they need to compromise and help the millions of their fellow Americans who are stuck in miles-long food lines, a hair’s breadth from eviction, jobless, financially ruined or ill because of this terrible disease. One quick and direct way to send a message: Cancel the Senate’s August recess, or at least postpone it until a deal is reached.

It may sound odd to call for treating high elected officials like naughty schoolchildren by denying them their summer break. But lawmakers value their time back home. In a brutal election cycle, with control of the Senate on the line and Mr. Trump’s weak poll numbers giving his party agita, Republican members on the ballot in November are eager to concentrate on their re-election prospects. Nothing focuses the congressional mind quite like anxiety about one’s own political fortunes.

Staying in Washington until they get this crucial piece of the job done is the least that senators can do to show their solidarity with the legions of Americans who are facing far worse this summer than a canceled holiday.

4 Likes

I’m going to leave it because it’s true.

4 Likes

Looks like NY DA Cyrus Vance has some subpoena requests in the works for a “criminal investigation into Mr. Trump’s business practices is more wide-ranging than previously known.”

The New York prosecutors who are seeking President Trump’s tax records have also subpoenaed his longtime lender, a sign that their criminal investigation into Mr. Trump’s business practices is more wide-ranging than previously known.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office issued the subpoena last year to Deutsche Bank, which has been Mr. Trump’s primary lender since the late 1990s, seeking financial records that he and his company provided to the bank, according to four people familiar with the inquiry.

The criminal investigation initially appeared to be focused on hush-money payments made in 2016 to two women who have said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.

But in a court filing this week, prosecutors with the district attorney’s office citedpublic reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization” and suggested that they were also investigating possible crimes involving bank and insurance fraud.

Because of its longstanding and multifaceted relationship with Mr. Trump, Deutsche Bank has been a frequent target of regulators and lawmakers digging into the president’s opaque finances. But the subpoena from the office of the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., appears to be the first instance of a criminal inquiry involving Mr. Trump and his dealings with the German bank, which lent him and his company more than $2 billion over the past two decades.

The district attorney’s investigation is one of the most serious legal threats facing Mr. Trump, his family and his company, which in recent years have faced — and for the most part fended off — an onslaught of regulatory, congressional and criminal inquiries.

Deutsche Bank complied with the subpoena. Over a period of months last year, it provided Mr. Vance’s office with detailed records, including financial statements and other materials that Mr. Trump had provided to the bank as he sought loans, according to two of the people familiar with the inquiry.

4 Likes

Warning to DOJ that today marks the 90 days until the election where it is prohibited (by DOJ norms) to write, say or do anything which may influence the outcome of the election. Barr is sitting on Durham’s report and a whole lot of drummed up Ukrainian nonsense about Hunter Biden/Biden. This pieces recommends to employees of DOJ to not participate in any of it…and advise that they blow the whistle if they see anyone trying to exert undue influence.

Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.

Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.
:boom:
But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.

The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.

:boom::boom::boom:

It is not mere conjecture that Mr. Barr could weaponize these investigations for political purposes. In both cases, he has already run roughshod over another related longstanding department practice. It holds that department officials should refrain from making public allegations of wrongdoing before prosecutors decide to bring charges, particularly since no charges may emanate from the investigation.

Mr. Barr and President Trump have shown no compunction in publicly discussing these investigations, suggesting wrongdoing by Democrats and deep staters. Mr. Barr promised on Fox News that “there will be public disclosure in some form” in the Durham probe. It should be no surprise that Mr. Barr has followed the lead of his boss; after all, Mr. Trump urged Ukraine to announce an investigation into Mr. Biden, an action that was at the center of his impeachment.

Not so long ago, Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump denounced Jim Comey’s negative public commentary in the 2016 election on Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the president claimed that Mr. Comey’s violation of these bedrock policies contributed to his being fired. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Barr told a Senate committee that he would adhere to these policies.

“If you are not going to indict someone, then you do not stand up there and unload negative information about the person,” he testified. “That is not the way the Department of Justice does business.” He also “completely” agreed with Rod Rosenstein when Mr. Rosenstein wrote in a memo that Mr. Comey’s transgressions during an election season were “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

Indeed, in his nomination testimony, Mr. Barr captured the risk of an attorney general acting for political purposes. Members of the incumbent party, he said, “have their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.”

He was correct then and is wrong now.

Nevertheless, Mr. Barr may claim that an extraordinary public justification exists for releasing a report, citing the Mueller report as precedent. But there is a very clear difference: The Mueller report was not issued in the run-up to any election.

Mr. Barr has another move to try to justify his actions. He recently told a conservative radio host that the policy on interference with an election applies only to indictments of “candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate, that it’s essentially the same.”

That’s an invention. The policy itself refers to actions that give “an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Mr. Barr himself recognizes the political effect of department actions beyond those against a candidate. In February, in response to the Justice Department inspector general’s recommendation for a clear policy to open or take actions in significant political investigations, Mr. Barr issued a directive that centralized his control over such investigations. The new Barr requirements covered investigations that “may have unintended effects on our elections” and notably included candidates, senior campaign staff members, advisers, members of official campaign advisory committees or groups, and foreign-national donors.

Take an example from the Mueller investigation. The special counsel’s office knew it could not indict Russian military intelligence officials for the 2016 hacking operation in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. That’s right: The office could not indict the Russians — not only political candidates or aides. Such matters were so politically fraught that such an action by the special counsel might affect the election.

A key consideration should not be lost: There’s no urgency for the department to take any overt investigative steps or make disclosures until after the election. Even if there has been criminal wrongdoing — which is by no means clear — charges can still be brought in November after the election.

What can be done if Mr. Barr seeks to take actions in service of the president’s political ambitions? There are a variety of ways for Justice Department employees in the Trump era to deal with improper requests. Employees who witness or are asked to participate in such political actions — who all swore an oath to the Constitution and must obey department policies — can refuse, report and, if necessary, resign. Other models include speaking with Congress under subpoena or resigning and then communicating directly to the public. Reputable organizations are at the ready to advise whistle-blowers about the risks and benefits of pursuing these paths.

Above all, with the election around the corner, it’s critical to ensure its integrity and that the Justice Department steer clear of political interference.

Ryan Goodman is co-editor in chief of Just Security. Andrew Weissmann was a senior member of the Special Counsel’s Office and is the author of the forthcoming book “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.” They are professors at N.Y.U. School of Law.

4 Likes

Deustche Bank has COMPLIED with New York prosecutors!

NYT: Deutsche Bank complies with subpoena for Trump’s financial records

New York prosecutors reportedly subpoenaed Deutsche Bank as part of an extensive investigation into Trump’s business dealings

  • The Manhattan district attorney’s office subpoenaed Deutsche Bank as part of a wide-ranging investigation into President Donald Trump’s business dealings, The New York Times reported.
  • Prosecutors issued the subpoena last year and are seeking documents that could point to potential fraud. Deutsche Bank reportedly complied with the subpoena and turned over Trump’s financial statements and other detailed records.
  • The Manhattan DA’s office subpoenaed Deutsche Bank as it investigates whether the Trump Organization violated state laws while coordinating illegal hush-money payments to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016.
  • This week, prosecutors indicated that the investigation is far more expansive than previously known, pointing to “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization” as the basis for seeking nearly a decade’s worth of Trump’s personal taxes.
4 Likes

AG Leticia James going after NRA and asks to dissolves it for it’s mishandling and abuse of spending. It’s about the grift, the abuse of power, and facilitated 10’s of millions of dollars spent in salaries, bonuses, self-dealing…for NY organization - 18 causes of actions which requires to penalize Wayne LaPierre and a few others. See article below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6obmscqganjruo/Screenshot%202020-08-06%2008.50.07.png?dl=0

https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1291398887857623040?s=20

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nra-lapierre-ny-attorney-general/2020/08/06/8e389794-d794-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

FULL Text here

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/final_nra_summons_complaint_08.06.20.pdf

4 Likes

Here’s a deep dive into what the US Intelligence Agencies did to tell T what was going on, with PDB’s and specific details coming from DNI, and ODNI, CIA. It is as expected a twisted picture of working around T’s attention span, and not to enrage him. Descriptions of a briefer’s work, Beth Sanner, and including details of why she was always afraid of getting in and talking to T are fascinating.

As well, there is reporting on how the whistle blower for the Ukraine Impeachment issue was thwarted within these various agencies…

Just a messed up set of circumstances and this gives us a lot of insight into how Intel was working, or not working. :woman_facepalming:

In early July of last year, the first draft of a classified document known as a National Intelligence Estimate circulated among key members of the agencies making up the U.S. intelligence community. N.I.E.s are intended to be that community’s most authoritative class of top-secret document, reflecting its consensus judgment on national-security matters ranging from Iran’s nuclear capabilities to global terrorism. The draft of the July 2019 N.I.E. ran to about 15 pages, with another 10 pages of appendices and source notes.

According to multiple officials who saw it, the document discussed Russia’s ongoing efforts to influence U.S. elections: the 2020 presidential contest and 2024’s as well. It was compiled by a working group consisting of about a dozen senior analysts, led by Christopher Bort, a veteran national intelligence officer with nearly four decades of experience, principally focused on Russia and Eurasia. The N.I.E. began by enumerating the authors’ “key judgments.” Key Judgment 2 was that in the 2020 election, Russia favored the current president: Donald Trump.

One of the intelligence officials most directly acquainted with Trump’s opinions on the agencies’ work was Beth Sanner. A veteran of the C.I.A., Sanner now serves as the O.D.N.I.’s deputy director for mission integration. Her responsibilities include delivering the president’s daily brief, the regular presentation of new intelligence findings of pressing importance that Trump, like his predecessors, receives.

Delivering the P.D.B., as it is known, requires an astute understanding of the briefer’s audience. Sanner, who earlier in her C.I.A. career was flagged for promotions by managers who viewed her as an exceptional talent, was tough but also outgoing. In a rare public appearance at an online conference hosted by the nonprofit Intelligence & National Security Alliance last month, Sanner offered a window onto her experience as Trump’s briefer. “I think that fear for us is the most debilitating thing that we face in our personal or professional lives,” she said. “And if every time I went in and talked with the president I was afraid, I would never get anything done. You might be afraid right before you get there. But then you’re there; let it go. You are there because you’re good.” She had learned over time how to put Trump at ease with self-deprecating humor. Encountering the limits of his attention, she once said (according to someone familiar with this particular briefing), “OK, I can see you’re not interested — I’m not interested, I don’t even know why I brought this up — so let’s move on.”

4 Likes

Arizona Focus Group Sees Trump’s Crime Attack On Biden As ‘Far From Reality’

The ad is stark.

An elderly white woman is watching the news. An anchor reports that cities want to “defund” the police, as she hears a noise coming from elsewhere in the house.

She calls 911 — as Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity says that Joe Biden is “absolutely on board with defunding the police” — only to be told that there is no one there to answer her call and she should leave a message.

The ad ends with the words “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America” on the screen and the woman’s phone dropping to the floor.

“If we start talking about that ad being reality, we’ve got a lot of problems,” said Shyla, a self-described President Trump supporter from Arizona, after being shown the campaign spot. She described the ad as “very far from reality.”

Shyla was one of eight people from the Phoenix area who recently participated in a 90-minute virtual NPR/Marist focus group. The group included Trump supporters, Biden backers and undecided presidential voters. Only participants’ first names were used.

“[Biden] didn’t say he wanted to defund. He didn’t mean it,” said Allen, another Trump supporter. (That’s true: Biden opposes defunding the police.)

“Every time I see it, I laugh,” said Troy, a Biden backer, who then used an expletive to describe the ad.

Stephanie, also a Biden supporter, said it was just Trump being a “fearmonger.”

Courtney, an undecided voter who hadn’t yet seen the ad, called it “typical political campaigning” and “extremist,” not a “middle of the road thing.”

During the focus group and in a follow-up interview days later, Courtney, a white woman who’s 47, seemed vulnerable to a political message about crime. She told a story about a dangerous neighbor and mentioned other specific crime-related anecdotes.

But she said her concern about a potential increase in crime was not because of Biden, but because of the downturn in the economy and those suffering from a decline in mental health as a result of being in quarantine from the coronavirus pandemic.

In fact, in the follow-up interview, she said if she had to make a decision today about which candidate to vote for, it would be Biden.

“The only thing that would keep me from voting for Biden in November is if it were to hinder progress that we’re making in the country,” she said. “In other words, if there was some type of potential vaccine and big improvements on the economy.”

And she still gives Trump credit on the economy: “People don’t like him. But I think he’s a good businessman.”

Courtney, who is originally from Texas, said she voted twice for former President Barack Obama but did not vote in 2016. “Honestly, I was not a huge fan of Hillary,” she said, referring to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

But she feels differently about Biden. “I like Biden clearly,” she said. “I think Biden is a more reasonable person [than Trump]. I think he’s a more nonreactive person, like, Trump is so reactive, it’s scary, right? He just reacts rather than thinking about it.”

Still, she said she has concerns about Biden’s age (he’s 77, Trump is 74) and is still potentially open to voting for Trump if voting for Biden would be too “disruptive.”

“If it’s somehow going to be disruptive, so disruptive to our country that it’s going to stall the progress of a vaccine or it’s going to stall the progress of the economy,” she said, “then I don’t think it’s a good thing.”

"Pull your pants up"

Geovanny, a college student who would be voting in his first presidential election, said he’s not sold on either candidate.

He works as a cashier and noted that his place of work had only taken recent action to install protective gear, which he said was too late.

His father was recently diagnosed with COVID-19, and he’s angry about how the state has handled the pandemic. That may be a motivating factor for him this fall, he said.

“The leadership in our state,” he said, “they’re having to play catch-up a lot.” He added that this all “could have been prevented, if we’d just taken action sooner.”

A poll last month found almost two-thirds of Arizonans disapprove of the job Republican Gov. Doug Ducey is doing on the pandemic — up sharply over the prior two months, as coronavirus cases in the state surged. And he did not get good reviews for his handling of the virus during this focus group.

“I think our governor is a joke,” said Stephanie, a Biden supporter. “Pull your pants up, and do what you gotta do.”

Courtney was more charitable. She said she likes Ducey and said he was looking out for businesses and that she originally agreed with Ducey and Trump that states and businesses should open up sooner rather than later.

But now, she thinks Arizona opened up too soon and that there should have been more of a unified, national response with guidelines that were adhered to.

“I think that now,” she said. “But, of course, hindsight is 20/20.”

Everyone in the group took the coronavirus seriously, even if grudgingly for those who leaned right.

“I think they’re just testing more,” Allen said. “I don’t think we’re that bad at all.”

Yet he said that he now wears a mask when he goes out to a restaurant.

Courtney, who has been physically going in to work, said she wears a mask now, but didn’t wear one early on when going to the grocery store, for example.

"I think he’s out of touch"

Overall, the group was not impressed with Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic or race relations, for that matter.

They all saw the Black Lives Matters protests as legitimate, except for looting that happened in some places. But even Allen said he believed the protests were hijacked by “guys with backpacks” who were “just there to riot.”

There was consensus that the protests had forced them to reconsider what they thought they knew about structural racism, and several talked about a “switch” in their views.

Stephanie, one of the Biden supporters, said that when she first saw former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling on the sidelines before a game during the national anthem, she thought he was “disrespecting the flag for his own needs.”

But she sees it differently now. “I still love this country,” she said, “but I finally understand what he did, why he did it. He didn’t do it for him.”

Courtney, who said she’s concerned about a potential uptick in crime, was biting about Trump’s views on race.

“I think he’s out of touch,” she said. “I think he’s insensitive to minorities. He’s insensitive to anyone who has not had the opportunities that he’s had. He just … has not had a realistic life, his kids have not had a realistic life. He’s out of touch. I don’t listen to what he has to say about Black Lives Matter, any of that, because I think he doesn’t have a good perspective on it.”

It’s tough to effectively deliver a message when people don’t believe the messenger.

Trump’s voters in the focus group were not waving the flag high. Shyla, for example, said this election, like 2016, was “picking the lesser of two evils, times 100 this time.”

But given some of her conservative views, especially on the role of government (“The government is way too involved in all of this in general”), she’s still voting for Trump.

Biden voters, on the other hand, and as polls have also shown, were less enthused about voting for Biden than against Trump.

Troy, for example, described his vote as “primarily against Trump.” But he is highly motivated to vote this fall.

It shows, once again, that this election is all about Trump. And for as much as he tries to make it a choice between him and Biden, for this group, it’s a referendum.

And unless Americans view improvement in Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the economy or race relations, it’s going to be difficult for him to win reelection.

That’s especially true if his attacks against Biden continue not to stick.

The day after this focus group was conducted, it was reported the Trump campaign pulled the 911 ad out of rotation.

3 Likes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tR_6dibpDfo

A nyt’s 50 minutes on combatting Russian disinformation…stay alert to it.

3 Likes

Important to get to what specifically the Russians are doing…Dems are sending out alarms.

The Washington Post: A damning new article reveals how Trump enables Russian election interference

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who has been briefed on the intelligence findings, suggests that the intelligence community is still concealing the full extent of Russian interference. He wrote in a Post opinion column that “the sophisticated tactics and techniques described in [a State Department] report make Moscow’s past interference and nefarious actions look like child’s play,” and “there is much more” information — "much of it even more chilling” — that has yet to be released.

Even getting this much information out has been a major struggle for the intelligence community. The New York Times Magazine reports that pressure from the White House forced a change in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) issued last year to remove a finding that Russia wanted to reelect Trump. Instead the NIE was rewritten to read: “Russian leaders probably assess that chances to improve relations with the U.S. will diminish under a different U.S. president.” Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director, tweeted that if this account is accurate, “it is the first example the public knows of the IC tailoring a written product to avoid angering POTUS. That would be the IC politicizing its own work.”

The Times article suggests that Dan Coats was fired as director of national intelligence because he wouldn’t make the changes in the NIE that Trump wanted. His successor, Vice Adm. Joseph Maguire, did so, but his tenure as acting DNI was cut short after one of his subordinates told the House Intelligence Community on Feb. 13 that Russia wanted Trump to win. Maguire has been replaced by one Trump sycophant after another — first acting DNI Richard Grenell and now former Republican representative John Ratcliffe of Texas.

In explaining why he chose the unqualified Ratcliffe, Trump said, “I think we need somebody like that that’s strong and can really rein it in. As you’ve all learned, the intelligence agencies have run amok.” Unfortunately, Trump has succeeded in browbeating and intimidating the intelligence community. As one source told Draper: “The problem is that when you’ve been treated the way the intelligence community has, they become afraid of their own shadow.”

We are all suffering from scandal fatigue, but this scandal cannot be ignored: Trump does not want the intelligence community to expose Russian attacks because he is their beneficiary. This is yet another example of how Trump undermines our democracy and subordinates our national security to his personal interests. It is hard to imagine a greater or more dangerous dereliction of duty. If Trump is not held accountable in November, the damage to our institutions may become irreversible.

4 Likes

Catching this a bit late…but here’s the ‘en banc’ review of the Flynn case in the US Court of Appeals…audio only

Take a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dE1_3e2Po

2 Likes

Ongoing reviews of ‘En banc’ review…some lawyers are explaining what is going on…

George Conway III -@gtconway3d - Lawyer and KellyAnne’s other half
Neal Kaytal - @Neal_kaytal - Prosecutor/MSNBC
Jennifer Taub @jentaub - Law Professor

Adding - Trial now over

4 Likes

image


image

Trump appointee deepens purge of U.S. global media agency

The taxpayer-funded media group’s new CEO, Michael Pack, has fired a number of top officials.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media has removed a number of senior executives as the new CEO Michael Pack continues to dramatically reshape the government-run media group. Two of them say their ouster amounts to “retaliation” for standing up to Pack.

Among the changes on Wednesday, USAGM’s front office removed the agency’s chief financial officer and former interim CEO, Grant Turner, and its general counsel David Kligerman, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Prior to Kligerman’s removal, the front office was trying to go around his legal advice on mission critical agency issues, one of the people said. In a number of instances, staff for the general counsel were instructed to not share things with Kligerman.

Both men’s security clearances were suspended prior to an investigation on alleged agency security issues related to the hiring of foreign workers. They were also placed on administrative leave while the agency turns the wheels of actually firing both people.

Turner joined USAGM in February 2016 after a five-year stint as budget director of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. He also worked for six years at the Office of Management and Budget under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Turner also served as interim CEO of USAGM from October 2019 to June of this year, prior to Pack’s arrival.

The media agency is in turmoil over the recent arrival of Pack, a Steve Bannon ally who pushed out the heads of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other outlets as he started as CEO.

In a statement, a USAGM spokesperson said: “We took action today to restore integrity to and respect for the rule of law in our work at USAGM. We will take additional steps to help return this agency to its glory days.”

Turner said in a statement to POLITICO: “The reasons for my removal are without merit and simply retaliation for calling the CEO and his team to account for gross mismanagement of the agency.”

Kligerman also said in a statement to POLITICO: “There is no other conclusion to draw, except that it is in retaliation for attempting to do my job in an apolitical manner and to speak truth to power.”

He added: “I am a career civil servant who has faithfully supported the mission of the U.S. Agency for Global Media over these past seven years, supporting Republican and Democratic leadership through two presidential administrations. As general counsel and consistent with my oath of office, my job has been to interpret and advise on the regulations, laws and Constitution of the United States. I have done just that. My contributions have been repeatedly recognized and credited.”

John Lansing, who served as USAGM’s CEO from 2015 to 2019, defended Turner and Kligerman, calling them “highly professional” and “people who have served their country at the highest level for a number of years.”

“The hiring of foreign nationals was something that we took seriously and used a higher standard than what the Office of Personnel Management required because of national security,” he said. “Michael Pack is using this as a smokescreen to cover up his efforts to deconstruct the legitimate and important journalism of Voice of America.”

Other USAGM executives who were removed on Wednesday include chief strategy officer Shawn Powers, deputy director for operations Matt Walsh, executive director Oanh Tran and director of management services Marie Lennon. None could be reached immediately for comment.

In reaction to the personnel shakeup on Wednesday, Amanda Bennett, who was the head of Voice of America until she resigned shortly after Pack’s arrival, said: "The American people are going to be very very sorry when they wake up one day and find that by these individual actions — one at a time that nobody stopped — they’ve lost the functioning government they once had.

"What is happening at USAGM is a microcosm of what’s happening all across the U.S. government — driving out honest, skilled, talented long serving professional public servants on trumped up charges and replacing them with people of no qualifications whose only attribute is loyalty. McCarthy couldn’t have done it better.”

2 Likes

Trump Finally Admits He’s Blocking Post Office Aid to Sabotage Mail-In Voting for Election

President Donald Trump has come out and admitted what many have already accused him of—that he’s blocking federal aid for the U.S. Postal Service in an attempt to sabotage mass mail-in voting during November’s presidential election. Congressional Democrats have demanded that a coronavirus relief bill include money to help post-office officials prepare for a presidential contest during the raging pandemic that has killed more than 165,000 Americans. In an interview with Fox Business Network on Thursday morning, Trump proudly admitted he was blocking the aid. “If we don’t make the deal, that means they can’t have the money, that means they can’t have universal mail-in voting,” he said. “It just can’t happen.” Trump has repeatedly raged against the idea of mail-in voting, claiming with no evidence that it would make the election open to fraud. Joe Biden has previously said it’s obvious Trump is trying to “indirectly steal the election by arguing that mail-in ballots don’t work.”

3 Likes

While everyone’s distracted by coronavirus, Trump’s quietly taking personal control of an agency he shouldn’t be going anywhere near

‘They’re making our lives a living nightmare because they want to shift everything — they want total control’

" On May 1, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation declaring this week to be this year’s “Public Service Recognition Week,” and calling upon “Americans and all federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies to recognize the dedication of our nation’s public servants and to observe this week through appropriate programs and activities.”

He declared that Americans are “especially grateful to our devoted public servants,” whose “experience, expertise, and commitment to service will lift our nation up during these difficult times and help ensure a swift recovery,” and to whom Americans “will forever be indebted… for their hard work, dedication, and courage.”

Any president will sign countless documents of a similar nature over the course of a four-year term, designating various days, weeks, and months in honor of different groups, historical events, people, and other entities deemed worthy of recognition by the leader of the free world.

And for anyone who watched Trump’s performances during the daily briefings which were until recently delivered in the name of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, such flowery language bears a strong resemblance to the prepared remarks he’d read at the outset of each appearance.

But much like the way Trump would read his prepared platitudes in a passionless monotone then reveal his more familiar pugilistic, press-bashing form during the question-and-answer portion of those daily briefings, his administration’s attitude towards the public servants who keep the government running can best be identified not in prepared remarks or proclamations, but through the actions it takes.

On the same day Trump signed an official document thanking civil servants nationwide, his own appointees at the federal government’s human resources policy agency were making moves to consolidate their power and undermine the career officials who he has so often derides as the “deep state” and part of the “opposition.”

That agency — the Office of Personnel Management — is, among other things, responsible for making sure federal agencies follow civil service laws, some of which date back to 1883.

Most anti-corruption experts will wax eloquent about how a merit-based, nonpartisan civil service is necessary to ensure that government functions smoothly and unencumbered by corruption. But for the loyalty-obsessed Trump administration, having to hire the (actual) best people and protect them from being fired for political reasons has been a bridge too far since Day One.

As if to underscore this point, both of the people Trump nominated to run the agency were ousted after less than a year on the job. The first, a respected human resources expert named Jeff Pon, was asked to resign just seven months after the Senate confirmed him to the position because he resisted efforts to eliminate the agency and give the White House Office of Management and Budget control over all federal personnel policy — how civil servants get hired, and when, why and how they can be promoted, given raises, or fired.

It’s a plan that experts say runs contrary to nearly a century and a half of efforts to keep personnel policy out of the president’s direct control, and — luckily for federal workers — one Congress rejected by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act making it illegal to move OPM’s functions under OMB’s roof.

But sources close to OPM leadership and personnel policy experts say that Trumpworld is still on a mission to give the president control of all federal hiring, and is instead simply trying to destroy the agency from within.

This latest effort began with the March 17 ousting of Trump’s second Senate-confirmed OPM Director, Dale Cabaniss, who resigned after less than six months. According to sources, resignation came on the heels of bullying and demands by White House Presidential Personnel Director John McEntee and a White House-installed “liason,” Paul Dans.

According to OPM sources, Cabaniss quit rather than heed Dans’ and McEntee’s wish for her to fire her hand-picked chief of staff, an agency veteran and Navy reservist named John Blyth, who’d been running OPM’s Congressional Liason and Intergovernmental Affairs office.

Blyth, who is also a Commander in the US Navy Reserve, returned to his previous position but was fired without warning late last week, and Cabaniss’ role is now filled on acting basis by Michael Rigas, the agency’s deputy director, who was also appointed to a position as Acting Deputy Director for Management at OMB, the agency forbidden by law from carrying out any of OPM’s functions.

“They’re operating as if the abolition of OPM has already occurred,” said one federal personnel insider, an expert with three decades of experience dealing with personnel policy. “OPM has been made a kind of vassal of OMB… and I think [the White House] just made that too clear to Cabaniss, who hadn’t quite figured out that she was only window-dressing and that OMB was still running the organization.”

Assisting him are Dans — a Trump loyalist who was installed there by McEntee to ensure the independent agency bends to the president’s will — and Trump’s original pick to run the agency, George Nesterczuk.

Nesterczuk, a Reagan and George W Bush-era OPM veteran who helped establish a pay-for-performance system for federal workers in national security-related jobs, was nominated for the top OPM job in June 2017, but withdrew in August of that year because of what he called “partisan attacks.”

“Nesterczuk is the Antichrist,” said one person who has dealt with federal labor relations matters for years.

“He has spent his entire career trying to do the kind of things that Trump has been pretty successful in, which is undermining the civil service, getting rid of their pay and classification systems, paid benefits, and union rights,” they continued, adding that Nesterczuk is “as right-wing a human being as exists.”

But since last month, Rigas, Nesterczuk, and other recently installed Trump political appointees have moved swiftly to consolidate their power and remove career officials from many decision-making processes.

“They’re making our lives a living nightmare because they want to shift everything — they want total control,” said one senior civil servant.

One of the things Trump’s appointees are taking control of is the power to grant so-called “direct hiring authority,” which allows agencies to bypass the normal civil service hiring process and bring in new employees without the protections available to most career employees.

“The dangerous thing is for OPM to exercise its authority to delegate direct hiring authority throughout government,” another expert explained, because “direct hire authority itself is the corrupting mechanism” for two reasons: It allows political appointees to hire unqualified cronies, and because anyone hired that way will never have the due process rights afforded to civil servants, and in particular whistleblowers.

“It’s not just political corruption. That’s part of the story, but it’s also creating this growing segment of the federal workforce who are at-will because they were hired directly, and then they can’t protest an unfair firing or any kind of adverse action. They have nothing to hold anyone accountable.”

This article is from May. It is the first time I’ve seen it.

3 Likes

GAO telling us that DHS after Kristen Nielsen was let go the succession other Acting DHS members do not fulfill the Vacancies Reform Act.

It’s a sticking point. Will it stick?

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Reform Act) provides for temporarily filling vacant executive agency positions that require presidential appointment with Senate confirmation. 5 U.S.C. § 3345. GAO’s role under the Vacancies Reform Act is to collect information agencies are required to report to GAO, and GAO uses this information to report to Congress any violations of the time limitations on acting service imposed by the Vacancies Reform Act. 5 U.S.C. § 3349. As part of this role, we issue decisions on agency compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act when requested by Congress. The Vacancies Reform Act is generally the exclusive means for filling a vacancy in a presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed position unless another statute provides an exception. 5 U.S.C. § 3347. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides an order of succession outside of the Vacancies Reform Act when a vacancy arises in the position of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 6 U.S.C. § 113(g).

Upon Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s resignation on April 10, 2019, the official who assumed the title of Acting Secretary had not been designated in the order of succession to serve upon the Secretary’s resignation. Because the incorrect official assumed the title of Acting Secretary at that time, subsequent amendments to the order of succession made by that official were invalid and officials who assumed their positions under such amendments, including Chad Wolf and Kenneth Cuccinelli, were named by reference to an invalid order of succession. We have not reviewed the legality of other actions taken by these officials; we are referring the matter to the Inspector General of DHS for review.

Decision

Matter of: Department of Homeland SecurityLegality of Service of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Service of Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

4 Likes

@dragonfly9 More from WaPo

Top DHS officials Wolf and Cuccinelli are not legally eligible to serve in their current roles, GAO finds

The appointments of the top two officials at the Department of Homeland Security violated federal law, the Government Accountability Office said on Friday.

GAO, which is an independent watchdog agency that reports to Congress, said that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf and his deputy Kenneth Cuccinelli are serving under an invalid order of successionunder the Vacancies Reform Act.

The Vacancies Reform Act governs how temporary appointments can be made to positions that require Senate confirmation. President Trump has repeatedly circumvented the Senate confirmation process by placing people in acting positions — including Wolf and Cuccinelli, whose official title is Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

Those two appointments violated the act, GAO said, because of the sequence of events following the resignation of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April of last year. The official who assumed the title of acting secretary at that time, Kevin McAleenan, had not been designated in the order of succession, GAO said.

Subsequent personnel moves also were invalid, and Wolf and Cuccinelli “are serving under an invalid order of succession," the agency said.

GAO said it was referring the matter to the DHS inspector general for reviews, and that any further actions would be up to Congress and the IG.

This needs congressional oversight :unamused:

4 Likes