JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Danger of “Love It Or Leave It” Rhetoric From A Civil Rights Perspective
Brief #98—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
President Trump Oversteps His Authority: He Cannot End Long – Standing Birthright Citizenship Rule With An Executive Order
Brief #97—Immigration
By Rod Maggay
Indefinite Detention of Migrants: Trump’s Latest Crackdown
Brief #78—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Struggle to Pass Gun Control Policies Even in the Wake of New Mass Shootings
Brief #20—Gun Control
By Amanda Richardson
Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards: an Update
Brief #77—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump Administration Threatens to Make Big Changes to SNAP Benefits
Brief #60—Healthcare
By Taylor J Smith
Did FBI Director Wray Mislead Congress During Senate Committee Testimony About Domestic Terror Groups
Brief #96—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Democrats Divided on the Best Political Strategy for 2020.
Brief #2—Presidential Campaign News
By Erin Mayer
Democrats are divided over which political strategy to pursue to defeat President Trump in the 2020 Presidential election. Candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others argue that the “system is rigged” and in need of radical reform.
ICE Crackdown in Mississippi
Brief #76—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
President Trump Puts Hurdles in Place for Legal Immigrants to Gain Citizenship & Work
Policy
President Trump has made it increasingly difficult to obtain American citizenship even for individuals who have legally immigrated to the United States. In April 2017, Trump created a Buy American and Hire American Executive Order that was intended to limit the amount of foreign specialists and professionals from taking American’s jobs and opportunities.
Such a visa – an H-1B – is specifically for skilled foreign workers, like computer engineers and other professionals (medicine, law, etc.) On August 28, 2018, the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it would suspend the processing until approximately February 2019 (originally until September 2018). Thus, in line with the Executive Order, it has become increasingly hard to acquire and renew H-1B visas.
Additionally, the Trump Administration has made it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used public welfare programs – and this covers not only a broad spectrum of programs but individuals. Essentially, if any foreigner provided labor or work at the expense of the US Government, they are not deemed worthy of citizenship or a green card because they still contribute to the “theft of American prosperity.”
Analysis
In delaying and denying work visas, due to lack of information or a cap on the number of issued H-1B visas is harming local companies and businesses. Employees who remain must pick up the slack in the short-term, but the long-term effects could prove dire. Corporate executives worry that talented engineers and programmers will go to Canadian corporations instead since they are more willing to accept foreigners. This would lead to a prolonged reduction in immigration that could then hinder economic growth overtime as baby boomers retire and leave a gap in the job market. Aside from Administrative claims, there is no research that cutting immigration is actually good for the economy.
Resistance Resources
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
- Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by John Bakator
Will California’s New Data Protection Privacy Law Become A Model For The Rest of the Country?
Policy Summary
At the end of June 2018, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 375, which is known as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. In May 2018 California voters filed the California Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative (the “Initiative”) that sought to prevent businesses that do business in California from selling or disclosing a consumer’s personal info. The ballot initiative was signed by 600,000 residents and was scheduled to be on the ballot in California’s November 2018 election.
However, California state government officials decided to try and pass their own version of a data privacy law. The organizers of the Initiative agreed to remove their initiative from the ballot if California enacted a data privacy law. To ensure that the bill introduced by the legislators would not be superseded by the ballot initiative AB 375 would have had to be approved before June 28, 2018, which is the deadline to have the Initiative removed off the November 2018 ballot. The California Legislature approved the initiative which was then signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The ballot initiative was subsequently withdrawn. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The data privacy law passed by California is modeled on the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). What this new law does is that it (1) requires notice be given to consumers on data companies collect and what they use it for (2) a “right to be forgotten” (3) new notice and opt – out provisions if personal data is sold to third parties and (4) protection for consumers from being excluded from services if they exercise any of these new privacy rights.
The notice required to be provided to users is unique because it narrows down how a company can use a consumer’s personal data. A company must inform consumers how their personal data will be used. If a company wants to use the same personal data for another business purpose, it must then give notice to the consumer again for the different use of the personal data. This should help restrain companies from acquiring a consumer’s personal data once and then using it for multiple purposes for years afterward.
The “right to be forgotten” requires that a business must delete the personal data of the person if the person requests it. This requirement has a similar component to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and is one of the most popular features of the new law because it affirmatively gives a consumer direct control over their personal data.
The notice and opt out provision is another provision that gives the consumer more direct control over their personal data. Most companies sell personal data to third parties but with this provision a company is prohibited from reselling personal data to a third company unless they give notice to the consumer and give her an opportunity to opt – out of the sale. Additionally, there are more restrictive requirements when the personal data is of minors under the age of 16.
And finally, the new California law prohibits a company from refusing to provide goods or services if a consumer chooses to exercise their privacy rights. A company can provide incentives for a consumer to provide their personal data but again the California law requires that the consumer must opt in and must have the option to opt out at anytime afterwards.
This new privacy law is easily the most stringent privacy law passed in the United States. There are still some flaws that have been discussed (if a person wants to sue a company for violation of the law, it must be done with a confusing process that might instead end up limiting an individual person’s options in court) but it appears that California has taken a huge step forward in protecting data privacy for their residents. It remains to be seen if these new regulations are what American citizens want and if other states and the Federal Government will follow suit by updating their own laws and regulations or by passing new and more relevant laws. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- California Consumer Privacy Act – webpage on the new California consumer privacy law.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit group’s webpage on how to improve California’s new consumer privacy law.
- Privacy Rights Clearinghouse – available services from group that seeks to empower individuals to protect their privacy.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by freestocks.org
Trump Progresses with NAFTA Re-Negotiations–Could Leave Canada Out of New Deal
Brief #23—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
Donald Trump has made no secret of his feelings regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He’s described it as the “worst trade deal in history” despite the numerous benefits that the U.S. has enjoyed since the trilateral trade agreement was signed in 1994, such as a consistent annual increase in economic output.
Recently, Congress was notified that Trump’s administration plans to enter a new trade agreement that includes Mexico. This proposed deal has been described by the administration as a “preliminary agreement in principle.” Since the impending agreement was announced, there has been no official confirmation as to Canada’s plans to enter into the deal. As it stands now, though, Trump’s renegotiated deal poses several changes to the trade policies of the current NAFTA.
One area that would be significantly affected would be auto manufacturing. If this new deal passes, the amount of car components manufactured in either the U.S. or Mexico would be increased from 62.5 percent to 75%, although sources indicate that most manufacturing would take place in the U.S. This new deal also dictates that more of these auto parts must be made in factories where workers are paid at least $16 per hour.
Manufacturing isn’t the only area that will feel these effects, though. The current NAFTA was created before the rise of the modern digital age and as such, it contains little literature on how copyright violations should be dealt, primarily in regards to digital matters. Under this new deal, protections for U.S. copyright holders would be strengthened. In addition, this new pact with Mexico means that producers of certain drugs would be given ten years of data copyright protection.
Crystia Freeland, Canada’s foreign minister, initially implied that Canada was intentionally removing itself from early trade discussions between the U.S. and Canada in order to let the two nations resolve some crucial trade disagreements. President Trump, though, threatened to implement auto tariffs aimed at Canada if they did not negotiate in a way that he considers fair. He also told reporters that if Canada were to be involved in any trade deal with the U.S it would be completely on the terms of the U.S. Before these comments, it was expected that Canada would join the trade deal but little has been said on the matter since then. Freeland’s secretary stated, though, that Canada would not sign any deal that would not benefit its middle class.
Analysis
President Trump has displayed a clear willingness to move forward in the signing of this trade deal, even if Canada is not part of it. This notion is concerning, as such a maneuver could have severe repercussions for all three nations. The trade markets between all three are crucial to each nation’s economy as they contribute to the competitive manufacturing that drives many companies and keeps many workers employed. International trade systems, such as NAFTA, allow many goods to be moved between the three nations, helping keep each economy healthy. It is not hard to see why a trilateral trade agreement between the U.S, Canada, and Mexico was needed in the first place, especially when we look at the clear economic growth and increased trade revenues that directly resulted from NAFTA being signed.
While Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto made it clear that his nation wanted Canada to be included in this new trade deal, it was later indicated that they might be willing to compromise.
It is not surprising that Mexico would not want to risk alienating the U.S. on a matter such as this, particularly given President Trump’s reputation for lashing out at leaders who do not go along with what he wants. Not having a deal with the U.S. on trade related matters could put the Mexican economy at considerable risk, as millions of its job are dependent on access to U.S. markets.
The prospect of a new trade deal that does not include Canada has proven concerning for both lawmakers and industry groups alike. Congress granted the Trump administration clearance to renegotiate NAFTA as a trilateral agreement and his failure to do so will likely result in considerable opposition, as well as complicated legal challenges.
Resistance Resources:
- The International Trade Centre is an economic development centre, operating as a joint agency of the World Trade Organization and the United Nations.
- The International Economic Development Council is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing resources for economic development professionals.
- The International Trade Administration is an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that works to promote the exporting of nonagricultural U.S. goods and services.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient; Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Guillaume Jaillet
NRA Propaganda: Sentry Program Using Federal Funds to Arm Teachers with Guns
Brief #27—Education
Policy Summary
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states have proposed using federal funds for states to train and arm school marshals. The proposal is called the “Sentry Program.” More than 90% of House Democrats endorsed a letter to Education Secretary Betsy Devos calling on her to reject the program. Democrat on the House Education Committee, Bobby Scott, stated that the plan “runs counter to Congressional intent, precedent, and common sense” as it would use federal Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (SSAEG) under Title IV Part A to pay for firearms and train educators, reversing the federal policy prohibiting federal funds from arming teachers. The program also likely violates guidelines about the use of Title IV funding, which does allow funding to be used to quell violence but only for schools free of weapons. LEARN MORE
In May of this year, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey introduced the Sentry Program, claiming that school administrators will be trained by school safety training and compliance programs using the lead of design training program. Under the program, teachers are certified as “sentries” with an annual recertification process, undergoing mental and physical health evaluations. They must also have an updated concealed carry permit issued by their local sheriff. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Today, 25 states spend less on education, and 41 states spend less on higher education than before the 2008 recession. Diverting federal funds to arm schools rather than spending funds on educational materials is unlawful and likely violates federal law. Originally, the funds were used for low-income schools to support summer and after school programs, restorative justice programs, and mental health support. Now, Education Secretary Devos is attempting to use these funds as subsidies for the gun industry. Although in a statement released by Devos, she claimed of having “no intention of taking any action” regarding using funds to subsidize arming teachers, both the Trump administration and Devos have previously made comments on the benefit of having firearms in schools. President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, argued that the proposal not only leads to more serious mental health issues in children but also leads to a dangerous, false sense of security. Guns can easily be lost or accidently discharged under stressful circumstances in schools, leading to a higher likelihood of gun violence as well as fear among the student body and staff. The only parties benefiting from the program are NRA and gun manufacturers.
Resources
- Gifford Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
- American Federation of Teachers
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee and Sarah Barton. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org
Photo by Heather Mount
The “Coordinated Response” To President Trump’s War On The Press; Free Speech Concerns
Brief #59—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: Since the day President Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States he has become a vocal critic of various news groups. Over the following twelve months CNN calculated that the President used the word fake more than 400 times in connection with news, polls, stories and media to imply that all of those things could not be trusted as valid. Due to the President’s ongoing attacks, the editorial board of the Boston Globe proposed an editorial initiative where newspaper editorial boards around the country would publish a “coordinated response” on August 16, 2018 to counter the President’s attacks on media outlets. On August 16, 2018 more than 300 newspaper outlets participated and published editorials that expressed differing levels of disappointment towards the President’s rhetoric against the media. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The President’s attacks on the media are another low point in a presidency that has had a number of low points. It is understandable that not everybody, including this President, will agree with any number of stories that are written about his administration. The use of “fake news” as a slur or insult to throw at a story or journalist helps illustrate the President’s mindset – that he should not be criticized in any way.
This is a very dangerous approach and a direct threat to American democracy. The media and newspapers that report the news act as an unofficial watchdog on the activities of the government bureaucracy in order to hold them accountable for what they are doing. It is also so that government actors stay within the accepted limits of their official job duties. But President Trump does not see it that way and instead is using the tactic of labeling everything “fake news” in the hopes of discrediting specific journalists and stories even if they may be truthful. But discrediting a story should be made on the merits of the story and not because of a personal animus toward a journalist or because President Trump simply does not like what is being reported. And as of August 2018, the President has never offered a reasoned argument as to why any story he does not like is “fake news.” He merely labels it as such and leaves it at that. And that doesn’t include many of the President’s tweets and factual statements that have proven to be false.
The American people deserve good factual reporting in order to make informed decisions. Having an independent and free press that is willing to contradict and criticize the current presidential administration contributes to an informed electorate. Knowing President Trump’s struggles with being truthful, the concerted response and effort by more than 300 newspaper editorial boards illustrates the wide disapproval of the President’s “fake news” tactics. This move by newspaper editorial boards across the nation helps to clarify that reliable news and info can come from other sources than just the President and that the best approach to confronting critical stories is with reasoned and merit based arguments instead of dismissing them out of hand with an insulting label. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Freedom of the Press Foundation – non – profit organization blogpost on Trump’s current anti – media rhetoric.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group webpage on freedom of the press issues.
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – non – profit association dedicated to assisting journalists since 1970.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by DESIGNECOLOGIST
Nationwide Prison Strike Highlights Deplorable Conditions in US Prisons
Brief #58—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
In 11 states, prisoners and prison organizers have organized hunger strikes, work stoppages, and commissary boycotts to protest deplorable prison conditions and to demand the end of what they call “prison slavery” for 19 days of peaceful protest. The strike is being spearheaded by incarcerated members and organizers of Jailhouse Lawyers Speak (JLS). The last nationwide prison strike took place on September 2016 when more than 20,000 inmates refused to show up for work across 12 states.
On August 12th, JLS organizers released a statement calling for fellow prisoners to stop their senseless violence and to collectively organize around issues focused on their basic human and political rights. In April of this year, Lee County correctional facility in South Carolina experienced the deadliest prison riot in a quarter-century that went on for over seven hours without any staff intervention and resulted in several inmates’ deaths.
JLS listed 10 demands to improve prison conditions, including an end to life without parole sentences, increased funding for rehabilitation services, and the end to disenfranchisement. The statement explained how prison conditions are a human rights violation due to their inherent violence and further incitement of prison violence because of understaffing, exploitation of labor, and lack of comprehensive rehabilitative programs. For instance, most U.S. prisons lack basic mental health services and resources, like libraries and workshops, to help occupy prisoners’ times and improve their emotional, social and career development while in prison. Incarcerated workers are also some of the most exploited in the world because there is no minimum wage for their labor. The average wage is 20 cents/hour, with some states not paying anything. 80% of wages can still be withheld by prison officials. States such as Louisiana pay a horrific wage of 4 cents/hour. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The 13th amendment abolished “slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.” In the documentary Thirteenth, director Ava DuVernay explores the historical context of this one exception, which has allowed the exploitation of prisoners who have no constitutional rights as a result of the amendment. According to the ACLU, 1 out of 3 black men can now expect to be incarcerated in their lifetimes; that’s compared to 1 in 17 white men. Furthermore, according to 2017 Prison Policy Initiative report, women – especially young black women – are the fastest growing incarcerated population, and 60% of women in jail have not even been convicted of a crime and are merely awaiting trial. Despite being only 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. has 25% of the world’s prison population. Since 1970, this statistic has increased by 700% with 2.3 million people in jail and prison today.
Unsurprisingly, the national strike has been blacked out by the mainstream, corporate media. According to Integrated Workers Organizing Committee ( IWOC), “ The government spends as much as an elite college tuition per person to keep each of us incarcerated, but this money does not develop us as human beings, reduce crime or make our communities safer.”
Resources
- Jailhouse Lawyers Speak – Organization where prisoners providing mutual help and legal training to other inmates.
- Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) – IWOC led the first prison strike in U.S. history on September 9, 2016. The committee is a prisoner-led section of the Industrial Workers of the World working to abolish prison slavery with external allies and organizers.
- Prison Legal News (PLN) – Monthly magazine since 1990 covering prison labor, sexual abuse, misconduct by jail staff, prisoners’ constitutional rights, racial and socioeconomic disparities in the justice system, medical and mental health care for prisoners, disenfranchisement, rehabilitation and recidivism, prison privatization, and much more.
- ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice – Multiyear campaign to reduce U.S. jail and prison population by 50% and to combat racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
- National Lawyers Guild (NLG) – The oldest and largest progressive bar association and the first to be racially integrated. NLG unites lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers to function as an effective force in the service of the people by valuing human rights over property interests.
Further Education
- Thirteenth by Ava DuVernay is a thought-provoking film about the history of mass incarceration, race, and the 13th amendment.
- We Need to Talk About An Injustice (TED Talk) by Bryan Stevenson.
- Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America’s Prison Nation by Beth Richie
- Towards the Horizon of Abolition: Conversation with Mariame Kaba (2017)
Submitted by U.S. RESISTNEWS Analyst Tina Lee; ContactTina@usresistnews.org
Photo by Hédi Benyounes
North Korea Peace Process Stalls
Brief #46—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
The International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental forum which reports to the UN, has reported a lack of progress in the denuclearization of North Korea. The “continuation and further development” of nuclear facilities are “cause for grave concern”, assessed the organization. This contradicts the statement made by the President following his June summit with Kim Jong-un, declaring that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea”. On August 24th, Pompeo announced plans to visit North Korea, only for Trump to nix the plans the next day. “Secretary Pompeo looks forward to going to North Korea in the near future, most likely after our trading relationship with China is resolved”, the President tweeted. The Korea Times, a South Korean newspaper, reported that sources had informed them that North Korea planned to hand over a list of secret nuclear test sites as well as information about its nuclear warheads, information long sought by the US State Department.
While the relationship between the US and North Korea has stalled, South Korea has forged ahead. President Moon and Chairman Kim’s April meeting has resulted in a series of family reunification meetings, allowing 174 North and South Koreans, chosen by lottery, to meet with relatives they have not seen since the Korean War of the early 1950’s. An inter-Korean liaison office is set to open this week, and South Korea is reportedly considering removing North Korea from their official list of enemies. This Wednesday, President Moon will be sending envoys to Pyongyang to discuss plans for a future summit between the two leaders. South Korea’s continued pursuance of peace despite lack of concrete denuclearization milestones has led to tension with the US, further indicated by the US led United Nations Command vetoing required inspections of a prospective inter-Korean railway.
Analysis
North Korea’s lack of current commitment to denuclearization is not an indication of a lack of desire for peace. A formal end to the Korean War has been a top priority goal for Kim for a while. Meanwhile the US continues to beat the war drums. Last week, Secretary of Defense Mattis threatened military drills on the Korean border, a hot point of contention for decades, stating “We took the step to suspend several of the largest exercises as a good-faith measure coming out of the Singapore summit. We have no plans at this time to suspend any more exercises”. Besides the constant mixed messages from US leadership, Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal proves that US led peace deals are little more than fragile, temporary assurances. Until the Trump administration and US military and diplomatic leadership embrace an authentic strategy of pursuing peace, we will be caught in this this tense game until war is unavoidable.
Resistance Resources
- Women Cross DMZ: Women Cross DMZ is a coalition of activists from around the world, including both North and South Korea, who are calling for a peaceful solution to the Korean conflict.
- Beyond the Bomb – An activist group looking to reduce the danger of nuclear war around the world.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley; Contact Colin@usresustnews.org
The Case of Paul Manafort—Part 1
The first trial of President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort has now concluded with his conviction on 8 of 18 counts. A verdict could not be reached on the remaining 10. Manafort has long been a person of interest in the Russian Collusion investigation, stemming from his close ties to Moscow and the work he and Roger Stone did for Trump in the 1980’s as a lobbyist. Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, the firm Manafort helped start, lobbied on gambling and real estate issues on behalf of Trump in the 1980’s. The firm also worked on behalf of the Nigerian and Kenyan governments in 1991, who at that point where well known for human rights abuses, as well as Angolan rebels and associates of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. It should come as no surprise then Manafort went on much later to work for pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, helping him win the election in 2010. Yanukovych was ousted from power in 2014. Manafort’s Moscow ties go deeper than his connections to Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort’s tax records from Cyprus, a known tax haven, show that prior to joining the Trump campaign, he was in debt to pro-Russian interests as deeply as $17 million.
Manafort was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in October of 2017 for 12 counts related to money laundering, tax fraud, and making false statements. In February of this year, a grand jury added additional charges against Manafort and his associate Rick Gates stemming from income tax and bank fraud related to their work for Viktor Yanukovych. This past June, Mueller brought further charges against Manafort, this time for obstruction of justice for trying to influence potential witnesses while out on bail. Subsequently, Judge Amy Berman Jackson revoked Manafort’s bail and ordered he remain in jail pending trial.
After delays and a denied request to change the trial’s location, the first trial began on July 31st (Manafort’s second trial, for money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent, begins September 17th). On day one, Prosecutors allege that Manafort “believed the law did not apply to him.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye stated that “A man in the courtroom believed the law did not apply to him, not the tax laws, not the banking laws. That man is the defendant, Paul Manafort.” Asonye further argued that “Paul Manafort placed himself and his money over the law.” Judge Ellis warned Asonye to stick strictly to the evidence, interrupting his description of Manafort’s lavish spending habits. Asonye maintained that Manafort “regularly lied about his business and income, and… directed staffers to file falso tax returns to deceive the U.S. government.” He also argued that Manafort was “Paid handsomely” by oligarchs who funded the campaign.
The prosecution rested its case after 10 days of testimony. The prosecution’s final witness was a Treasury Department agent who testified that “Manafort’s consulting companies did not disclose their foreign bank accounts.” Over two dozen witnesses testified that Manafort earned in the neighbourhood of $60 million as a political consultant for pro-Russian elements in Ukraine, and that the money was stashed in as many as 31 offshore bank accounts. There were also depictions of Manafort’s lavish lifestyle, “half a million dollars [sic] worth of antique rugs, $750,000 spent on landscaping for his $13 million Bridgehampton mansion, and more than $1 million for clothing, including a $15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin.”
Perhaps the most damning testimony came from Rick Gates, who “testified at length about the criminal activity he said he was involved with and at the behest of Manafort, his former business partner.” Government witnesses stated that Manafort hid more than $16 million from the IRS. The defense attempted to portray Rick Gates as the real criminal, and Manafort as merely a patsy. The defense rested without calling any witnesses, claiming that the government “failed to meet its burden of proof.” The defense rested without calling any witnesses.
In closing arguments, defense attorney Richard Westling said that “Manafort became the special counsel’s victim in a ‘selective process of pulling’ his financial records to concoct a narrative of an ‘elaborate fraud scheme.’” The defense’s key strategy seemed to be the discrediting of key witnesses, and the portrayal of Manafort’s’ trial as a targeted attack by special counsel Mueller. Westling urged the jury to “hold the government to its burden,” meaning the burden of proof.
As the date of Manafort’s second trial nears, the stakes are certainly looking even higher for Manafort. When all is said and done, if he is convicted of more of charges brought against him, Manafort is looking at life in prison. Mark Corallo, from Trump’s legal team put it aptly, “the din of the verdict will be deafening.” This has indeed been the case, as Manafort’s conviction seems to have added even more intensity to talks of impeachment, and it would seem that Trump will not be able to passively deny his involvement for much longer.
Whether or not Manafort’s conviction is the first domino remains to be seen, but it does certainly seem to vindicate Mueller. All the while, Trump continues to refrain his now iconic line “rigged witch hunt” all across twitter. Meanwhile, rumors of a presidential pardon continue to swirl. Rudy Giuliani has stated in the past that a pardon is possible, and that the president is fully within his rights to do so. Trump stated publicly that he has considered a Manafort pardon. However, Sarah Sanders later stated in a press brief that Trump is not considering a pardon for Manafort, adding yet another conflicting statement to the ever growing rift between the president’s statements and those of his press secretary.
Manafort’s second trial date is set for September 12th in Washington, D.C. A federal judge refused Manafort’s request to move the trial to Roanoke, and has stated that 12 jurors were found who could judge the case without bias.
This Entry into our Russia Blog post was submitted by Thomas Wesley: Contact: Tom@usreaistnews.org
Trump’s Medicaid Requirements Could Push Thousands Off Healthcare
Brief #42—Health Policy
Policy Summary
This week, the Trump Administration enacted more regulations on Medicaid that would allow smaller states to tighten their eligibility requirements. This could push more people off of the Medicaid plans. The primary issue is the work requirement, which means people currently on Medicaid have to be seeking a job or currently in employment within six months of signing on to the plan. The other requirement is that beneficiaries cannot be participating in illegal drug use and they would be tested before they receive benefits from Medicaid. Since states set the requirements for Medicaid, the compromises and implementation of these requirements will be on a state by state basis. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Most of the states that are planning to change Medicaid requirements are traditionally conservative, so this change wouldn’t be as hard hitting and broad as some other changes Trump has tried to make, especially around the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. However, in states like Kentucky, estimates have said that this could kick off as many as 95,000 people from coverage. This could have disastrous effects, not only to those being direct beneficiaries, but on children and other dependents, who rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage. Not only that, but it could ultimately cost the healthcare industry and public taxpayers much more if people go without insurance and end up needing healthcare. LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
- American Physicians Association (APHA)– Donate to this national physicians group dedicated to protecting and advocating for the ACA, read their materials on why the ACA is important.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support. Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.
Contact
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org
Photo by Marcelo Leal
Executive Order Issued by President Trump Indicates His Stance on Federal Unions
Brief #22—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was filled with promises that involved helping restore union-dense industries such as coal and manufacturing. With these in mind, as well as his promises regarding infrastructure, it is hardly surprising that his support among union members was quite high. According to the Democracy Journal, the number of union members that voted for Trump was higher than it had been for a Republican presidential nominee since 1984 when Ronald Regan was running.
As has been the case for many of Trump’s campaign promises, though, his alleged commitment to helping unions has proven to be false. His administration has clearly demonstrated its stance on unions through their budget, specifically in its commitment to the two government agencies whose primary purpose is to regulate labor movements. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), a division of the Department of Labor that exists to hold unions accountable for their actions saw their budget increased by $8 million. The National Labor Regulations Board, an agency concerned with accountability on the part of worker employers, on the other hand, saw theirs slashed by $16 million.
May 2018 saw President Trump take a direct aim at federal labor unions when he issued multiple executive orders to strip away the protections issued to federal workers when the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act was passed. The benefits for federal union workers provided by this piece of this legislature included support for union representatives whose jobs involved helping union members file concerns, gain protection when necessary and address problems within the workplace. It was intended to help federal union members organize and bargain as well as have their say in matters involving labor that concerned them.
Prior to President Trump issuing this order, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Jeff Pon announced a plan on behalf of the agency’s administration that was intended to slash federal employee compensation by as much as $143 billion. This reduction would be made through considerable changes to the current retirement system. It would mean the elimination of all supplements issued to Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) members receiving any sort of annuity who retired before becoming eligible for social security. The average number of years on which federal pension plans are based would also be altered and switched from three years to five.
These instances, though, are not the only examples of the Trump administration taking aim at federal employees. This past year also saw the U.S. Department of Education issue a new labor contract that included the elimination of paid time off or union ‘official time.’
Federal unions, though, enjoyed a victory this past Friday when U.S District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that President Trump’s executive orders exceeded his authority.
Analysis
President Trump’s attempts at curtailing the power of federal unions can likely be traced back to a statement he made during his 2018 State of the Union address. While discussing the importance of accountability, he stated “I call on Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”
Given Trump’s blatant attack on federal unions, we are forced to wonder what workers were being rewarded in that case. If his executive is passed, workers would see their already diminished power further stripped away while the corporations that employ them benefit further. These orders would will also make it easier for corporations to exploit the people that work for them and ignore their concerns and complaints, even with their union status. There can be no doubt that such an order would only hurt federal unions and ultimately, the national economy in general. Strong unions have proven a vital component of any healthy economic system but as President Trump has demonstrated multiple times, his commitment is to corporations, not workers.
Trump’s stance on unions could not be clearer. Everything, from the priorities indicated in his administration’s budget to his attempts to reduce union power continuously prove that he will not prioritize anything that helps give power back to America’s workers, despite his many early promises.
Resistance Resources
- The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is a voluntary federation of 55 national and international labor unions, representing over 12.5 million working men and women.
- Jobs With Justice is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting worker’s rights and fighting for an economy that benefits everyone.
- The Lawyer Coordinating Committee is an organization that works to connect lawyers with union legal representatives in an attempt to help create and support pro worker laws.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient. Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Anthony Ginsbrook