JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO
12 REASONS WHY TRUMP MUST GO By Ron Israel, Managing Editor of U.S. RESIST NEWS and The U.S. RESIST NEWS Team
Florida Enacts “Poll Tax” Fifty – Five Years After Being Outlawed By U.S. Constitution; State Action
Brief #90—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
The EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) Rolls Back Regulations for Coal Industry
Brief #60—Environment
By Quixote Vassilakis
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision Blocking “Citizenship Question” From Being Added To Next Census
Brief #36—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Trump Signs Humanitarian Aid Bill
Brief #36—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Why Does the Ban on Huawei Matter?
Brief #36—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
States Have a Mixed Response in Dealing with a Nation-wide Measles Outbreak
Brief #58—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Hicks Stonewalls, Mueller to Testify
by Rudy Martinez, June 29, 2018 In an op-ed published by The Guardian on June 17th, Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College laid out a historical argument for impeaching Trump. Richardson posited that every Republican president post-Nixon has...
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision Blocking Federal Courts From Hearing Partisan Gerrymandering Cases
Brief #88—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Trump Appears Docile and Contradictory in Putin Summit
Brief #36—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
Last Monday, following a scornful conference with EU leaders, President Trump met with President Putin in Helsinki for a two hour meeting followed by a joint press conference. The meeting was held privately with no notes taken and two interpreters as the only witnesses of what was discussed between the two leaders. The idea for a summit was conceived last March, when Trump called Putin to congratulate him for his successful re-election, against the recommendations of his national security advisers. The summit was held in the midst of a pair of significant advancements against Russian intelligence operations, with 12 Russian intelligence agents being indicted for their involvement in a plan to hack into the emails of democratic campaign officials, and an alleged Russian spy being arrested following involvement with the Republican party and pro-gun organizations. Documents revealed that the intelligence agents first attempted to breach Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s email servers the day that Trump publicly suggested they do so
In the face of these developments, Trump held a completely different take on Russian involvement in American affairs. Trump stated that US intelligence officials “think its Russia” but Putin had told him that it is not, concluding “I don’t see any reason why it would be”. While this is not necessarily a major departure from previous statements he has made on the matter, hearing this from our President as he met with one of our biggest political rivals was enough to provoke significant domestic objection, even among GOP allies. House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Trump “must appreciate that Russia is not our ally”. John McCain called it a “disgraceful performance”. The next day Trump read a statement explaining that he “accepts the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place” but it “could be other people also”. “A lot of people out there”, the President added. Trump also clarified that when he said that he didn’t “see any reason why it would be” Russia who interfered with the 2016 election, he actually meant he didn’t “see any reason why it wouldn’t be”.
For the amount of controversy generated by the summit, there was a noticeable lack of progress on tangible issues. Crimea was barely mentioned, and Trump seemed satisfied with Putin declaring the Syrian war over. Putin said that the two had made an agreement to hold talks in the future on the extension of the START treaty once Russia had a chance to examine whether the US was compliant in the historic arms reduction pact.
Analysis
For a man who so clearly dislikes foreign excursions, one would think President Trump would work harder to ensure that they were worthwhile for American interests. Instead, he seems to believe these summits are simply about the handshakes and photo-ops. We have no idea what was discussed during the two hours that Trump and Putin met in private, but it must not have been anything very promising considering the vagueness of the press conference. By dismissing Russian aggression only to unconvincingly walk his statements back the next day, Trump doesn’t even present himself as capable as a foreign asset. In times like this all we can do is be thankful when his blunders do not hold major consequences. Trump didn’t concede Crimea to Russia or do anything else to alarm European allies. It is naive to expect Trump to hold Putin accountable for anything. Even in the small possibility that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, Putin compliments him too much to ever be seen as an enemy. Perhaps as a country we will need to weather the international embarrassments until the next election, as long as it means no major wars or concessions of human rights.
Resistance Resources
- Human Rights Watch – An international human rights organization which has worked to support Crimean autonomy against Russian aggression.
- Amnesty International – A longstanding human rights organization which led protests in Helsinki against both the policies of Trump and Putin.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley. Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
DeVos’ Strengthening of School-to-Prison Pipelines
Brief #23—Education
Policy Summary
Discriminatory policies that harm and deny students of color equal opportunities for quality instruction time at school violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance. According to Civil Rights Data Collection, students of color across the U.S. are disproportionately suspended and expelled for the most minor or subjective offenses, such as “looking disrespectful” or “disrupting class” by burping. Innocuous behaviors like these are often labeled as hostile offenses, placing students at higher risk for suspension and gradually pushing them out of the school system.
The Department of Education (DOE) under Betsy DeVos has been swiftly closing more than 1,200 cases of civil rights violations in school districts and universities across the country. While the 12 regional bureaus under Obama required approval from headquarters to settle or dismiss a case, DeVos has essentially de-centralized the decision-making process and scaled back “compliance review” – a type of civil rights investigation that looks at issues through a systemic lens often prompted by data, news reports or direct complaints by students and parents. While 51% of cases that took more than 180 days culminated in civil rights violations or corrective changes under the Obama administration, that rate has now dropped to 35%. For instance, the DOE closed a 2015 Desoto County School District case regarding the school’s discriminatory disciplinary practices which used corporal punishment on 852 students – more than half of whom were Black. DOE claimed that the Title VI complaint was closed due to insufficient evidence. However, there was ongoing investigation and data revealing that Black students in the county accounted for 55% of suspensions/expulsions and over 60% of referrals to law enforcement by the schools, despite constituting only 35% of district enrollment.
Furthermore, complaints regarding students with limited English language proficiency that were previously upheld under the Obama administration dropped from 70% to 52%; students with disabilities – from 45% to 34%; sexual harassment/violence – from 41% to 31%; racial harassment – from 31% to 21%. Under DeVos, a case processing manual has given investigators greater discretion to dismiss complaints; for example, complaints can be dismissed if they appear to hold “unreasonable” burden. DeVos has also barred complainants from appealing the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) decisions and plans to shrink its staff from 569 to 529, according to its 2019 budget proposal. Under federal law, OCR is responsible for ensuring equal access to education and investigating allegations of discrimination in schools and colleges. Families and students can file complaints with OCR. If violations are substantiated, OCR negotiates a settlement or prescribes corrective changes, which it sometimes oversees. It receives more than 10,000 complaints annually and has a target of resolving 80% of them within six months. LEARN MORE
Fortunately, ProPublica has been analyzing data on more than 40,000 civil rights cases and has made accessible the status of all pending and prior cases within the last three years on its website. To date, it has added 220 cases (most were resolved in a two-week period in December 2017) omitted from the DOE’s recent data. Search results are organized by the type of discrimination issue and provide general details on the status of each complaint. The data is retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act on DOE’s website. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Elizabeth Hill, a DOE spokeswoman, said that the new DeVos approach has “restored the role of OCR investigators as neutral fact-finders,” providing closure for both students and institutions. However, the rapid changes and rising dismissal of complaints without full and rigorous investigations reveal the current DOE’s changing priorities. While OCR previously made systematic and time-consuming investigations under Obama, the Trump administration is concentrating solely on individual complaints that can be quickly resolved and attempting to clear a backlog of potentially expansive cases. This strategy is a large shift away from compliance reviews and the exploration of systemic issues rooted in state-sanctioned segregation that marked schools, such as DeSoto County, for decades after Brown v. Board of Education. The unfortunate reality is that massive resistance strategies to past federal orders of school integration remain today. We see this in the fact that, in DeSoto County, there has never been a Black superintendent or member of the elected school board although Black students constitute over a third of the school district’s population.
School codes of discipline that include zero tolerance policies and vague, subjective, and discretionary language drive these discipline disparities. The lack of clarity and the high rates of disparities between groups suggest that typical, developmental behaviors of Black students are pre-emptively defined as violations while similar behaviors by White students are not. In a society so shaped by race and gender, no one is immune to experiencing the biases of our times. Educators are people, and our perceptions of differences can sometimes be based on involuntary ideas that derive from latent stereotypes about race, gender, sexuality, and other aspects of identity. Unlearning ingrained societal biases and negative perceptions about other groups means a commitment to a lifelong learning process.
Research shows that harsh and exclusionary discipline foster school-to-prison pipelines by increasing the risk that students will fall behind in academics, drop out or become involved in the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems. School pushout is particularly gendered and racialized for young Black girls. The stereotype of Black children as unruly, incorrigible or inherently ungovernable has affected society’s conscious and unconscious responses to Black girls who are almost four times more likely to be incarcerated than White girls, and the rate is dangerously increasing today. Once pushed out, Black girls are the most vulnerable to become victims of child sex trafficking. Students with disabilities and other marginalized groups are also disciplined severely at the intersection of their identities (e.g. race and disability). To say the least, the collateral consequences are devastating for affected students, and they ultimately make us less safe and more inequitable as a society.
Engagement Resources
- National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls – A national coalition of women and girls connecting their criminal justice transformation work and sharing their expertise as directly affected individuals to create meaningful change in public opinion and policy making (#FreeHer).
- Educators for Justice – White leaders committed to dismantling systems of oppression in schools through reading groups, convenings, personal empowerment, and collective action.
- Antiracist White Educators Group – Affinity group for white educators seeking a safe space to examine and discuss race and whiteness; to critically reflect on their racial identities, understandings and actions around race; and to support each other in confronting and working to undo racism in our schools, in our lives and the larger world.
- NAACP School to Prison Pipeline – NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) partners with community organizations to work on groundbreaking programs and advocacy efforts aimed at returning the emphasis to education instead of exclusion and incarceration.
- ACLU Racial Justice Program – ACLU’s education work centers on disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline through strategic litigation and advocacy campaigns.
- The National Coalition on School Diversity – Network of national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to increase support for government initiatives that promote diversity in schools.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org
Courts Challenge Trump’s Separation of Immigrant Parents and Children
Brief #47—Immigration
Policy Summary
In reaction to the Trump Administration separating families at the border there has been a lot of responses, more often than not, questioning the morality and effectiveness of the practice. On June 26, 17 states (including California and New York) sued the Trump Administration in attempts to get them to reunite families. The court ruled children can only be separated if the adults accompanying them appear to pose an immediate threat to their safety and that if families are separated, adults may not be deported from the US without their children. However, the Trump Administration had successfully separated many families and scattered children across the country to foster care or shelters with no concrete plans of reunification and some had even failed to keep track of which children belonged to which parents. There are currently nearly 3,000 children in federal custody. Three-Thousand. And of the roughly 100 children under the age of 5, 19 of those parents have been deported, despite the court’s ruling.
Thus, the court ordered US immigration agents to stop separating families at the border and that all children under the age of 5 were supposed to be reunited with their families by July 10 and all children held in federal custody must be reunited by July 26. The Trump Administration has continued to bargain for more time due to challenges they claim they are facing with reuniting families. Some families are now thousands of miles apart, and with lost records of which child belongs to which parent, they are insisting on taking time-costly measures to ensure the correct familial relationships are identified. The government does not wish to delay reunifications, but they also want to make sure that in rushing to reunite families they do not accidentally release any child to adults that wish to exploit them and want to ensure their safety as well. The government also feared that with this court order to reunite families would come with mass deportations. So, to further ensure the safety of families upon reunification, on July 16, the court ordered the halt of deportation of families upon reunification. Deportations are to be stalled for at least a week to provide proper time for families to decide whether they would like to continue the process and stay in the US or leave. Though, despite Trump’s pleas for extra time, Judge Sabraw has demanded Trump move faster in reuniting children with their parents.
There are some complications and loopholes that leave some children potentially ineligible for release such as those who did not cross the border with their parents, parents who are serving criminal sentences, parents with a background of criminal histories, in particular child abuse and therefore deemed unfit. Lastly, some parents were simply deported, thus making the process even more difficult.
Analysis
The Trump Administration’s separation of families has left a “gaping wound in our country” and can only be healed by morally and respectfully adhering to the nation’s commitment to individual rights. Trump is a firm believer in hard borders and remaining tough on immigration, claiming “without borders, you do not have a country.” His response to some earlier questioning about missing his first court appointed reunification deadline was to call for individuals to come to the US legally and there will be no issues. While on the surface, that may seem simple, there are specific cases such as asylum seekers and refugees who may not have as clear cut of a path to safety and thus must resort to unconventional migration.
In some cases, it is fair to confirm familial relationships so that unaccompanied children are not put in precarious situations, but there were steps that could and should have been taken early on to ensure familial connections were secure and confirmed. In the Executive Order issued June 26, there were no steps laid on for reuniting families, thus making it relatively easier for the Trump Administration to attempt to bargain. But, as there has been a universal plea for the end of separating families, it is crucial for society to continue pushing for social justice.
Resistance Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- 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.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
Photo By Fancycrave
Trump Shames NATO Leaders in Brussels
Brief #36—Foreign Policy
Policy
Trump met with NATO leaders in Brussels on July 11th, marking the beginning of a week-long trip which would later include a visit to Britain and a summit with President Putin in Finland. “I have NATO, I have the UK, which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all. Who would think? Who would think?” Trump commented upon departing from the White House. The NATO summit was just as contentious as his remarks foreshadowed. Trump continued his campaign of abuse against fellow NATO leaders over a perceived lack of commitment to military spending, referring to them as “delinquent” for not yet reaching the goal set in 2014 to reach 2% of GDP spending for defense. He went as far as to ask for 4% defense spending from all NATO nations. Trump’s ire was focused primarily on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and accused the country of being “totally controlled by Russia”. The source of this claim is a $10 billion pipeline project from Russian energy giant Gazprom which has now been confirmed to pass through German territory. Despite the rhetoric, Trump still agreed to sign onto a joint statement reaffirming previous goals and commitments. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was wholly non-confrontational in the face of Trump’s insults, agreeing that more military spending was indeed necessary.
Analysis
The accepted implication of Trump’s remarks is that the failure of European allies to divert a sufficient amount of spending towards defense creates an unnecessary burden for the United States to overspend. Trump presents the United States as a country suffering to defend its allies. Of course, the Trump administration has no real incentive to ever reduce defense spending. Increasing our military arsenal has been a frequent talking point, and Congress has been working on passing a massive bipartisan spending increase. The United States is by far the largest arms dealer in the world and convincing allies to increase spending is a top priority for domestic business interests.
Trump’s attitude towards NATO threatens to undermine a seventy-five year old alliance between America and its European allies that has helped preserve peace and stability throughout Europe since the end of World War II. Article V of the NATO Agreement calls for all NATO countries to come to the defense of countries in the alliance when they are attacked. This article was invoked after 9/11 when America’s European allies rushed in to provide help to the US. European members of NATO have fought side by side with the US in countries like Bosnia and Afghanistan. It is impossible to put a price on what NATO has contributed to peace and stability in much of the world. All this is in play now that Trump is breaking NATO down into a business transaction of who pays for what.
Resistance Resources
- World Beyond War – An organization dedicated to reducing militarization around the world
- Amnesty International – A longstanding human rights organization which has led protests in Europe opposing Trump’s policies over the past two weeks.
Learn More: Here is the joint statement signed by all NATO representatives
This Brief was authored by Colin Shanley Colin@usresistnews.org
SCOTUS Nominee Could Be A Scorcher for the Environment
Brief #36—Environment
Summary
On June 27th Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court announced his retirement, and on July 9th President Donald Trump announced his candidate for replacement. Trump’s pick, former Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Brett Kavanaugh, has an unkind track record towards environmental regulations. While serving as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh notoriously promoted industry over the environment, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Judge Kavanaugh frequently heard cases regarding the Environmental Protection Agency, and he, was rarely an advocate of the organization, often debating that Congress’s authority should supersede that of the Agency’s. This also summarizes Kavanaugh’s general political philosophy—that Congress should wield more power than that of an agency–but Congress has not contributed to the passage of a major environmental law since the Clean Air Act of 1990. More still, Kavanaugh has dissented multiple times on matters relating to The Clean Air Act, favoring industry regulation over the EPA’s.
Analysis
Kavanaugh’s proposed appointment comes at a time when matters of the environment have become more visible to communities around the country, as there have never been so many Americans who believe that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. In Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois, the gas station empire belonging to Vice President Pence’s family has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in oil spill cleanups across the three states. And after 4 years, the town of Flint, Michigan still does not have clean water. And in Pennsylvania, 2 protesters with the group “Mama Bear Brigade” were arrested for demonstrating the construction of a pipeline project that would close a local elementary school. Each of these incidents lay the groundwork for cases that may one day appear before the Supreme Court, one in which Kavanaugh might one day serve.
Should an anti-environment court be in the works, states and local governments will need to do more to prevent judicial oversight. So perhaps a pinch of optimism can be sprinkled over the decision of the hyper-industrial city of Pueblo, Colorado to become more green, and for the fact that California met its 2020 emissions goal 2 years ahead of schedule. In the meantime, let’s keep our eyes on the outcome of the lawsuit filed by former-allies of David Schnare, who had sued climate scientists over their work. And hope Kavanaugh reads The Onion if he takes the bench.
Engagement Resources:
- Friends of the Earth – A non-profit activist group that organizes activists to fight against environmental injustices. Their petitions and campaigns have had large impacts on corporate responsibility and legal outcomes.
- Judging the Environment – a non-profit watchgroup which tracks federal judicial nominations of supreme courts.
This brief was compiled by Zoe Stricker. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact zoe@USResistnews.org.
Trump Administration’s Latest Intimidation Tactics used in the UN to Crush Pro-Breastfeeding Resolution
Brief #39—Healthcare
Policy Summary
Early this month, the Trump Administration bullied other delegates into changing a World Health Organization resolution supporting the endorsement of breastfeeding in countries. The administration has been proven to have ties to companies producing breastfeeding alternatives, and this resolution would have dramatically hurt business in many developed countries. The resolution was aimed to encourage women to continue breastfeeding their young, as it has been proven to be the healthiest for mothers and newborn babies. Ecuador had been the first country to introduce the measure, but after being threatened with a loss of crucial military aid, they quickly dropped the resolution introduction. Several other countries have been reported to have withdrawn support in fear of falling into bad favor with the United States’. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Not only does this policy discourage diplomacy and discourse, it allows Trump Administration officials to use intimidation tactics to push their agenda forward in the UN. This action also indicates the partiality that the administration has with all their business ties, but particularly companies producing breast feeding alternatives. The actions of the Trump Administration further convey the main aim of the administration, to get rich through political power. UN officials from the US ignore the positives of this resolution. Aiming to encourage more women to breast feed, especially in developing countries, normalizes the behavior and is much healthier for the development of babies in the currently underserved populations. In developed countries, it does the same, and encourages less waste and consumption of unnecessary products. This policy harms not only the US on a global stage, but it leaves behind the priority of women and children’s’ health. The actions threaten the relationship with the WHO, and the UN, which in turn alienates us further from the relative global peace the US has been able to establish within the UN. LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
- 1,000 Days Initiative-Learn about the importance of the first 1,000 days between a women’s pregnancy and the birth of her child and how certain health decisions (especially breast feeding!) aim to reduce infant and mother mortality.
- 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: Wes Hicks
Zero Tolerance Policy and the Mental Health Cost for Migrants
Brief #38—Healthcare
Policy Summary
On June 27th, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the legality of anti-abortion or “pregnancy crisis” clinics. Currently, there are 3,000 clinics in operation around the country. Because of the prevalence of these centers, women will not be adequately counseled by healthcare professionals on their current breadth of choices surrounding termination of unwanted pregnancies. Anti-abortion clinics have often spread false information surrounding abortions and avoided informing women about the wide variety of contraceptive and termination options available for free or low cost. They are often falsely advertised as “clinics” but most of the mission relies on dissuading women from having abortions and using contraceptives–to the point of putting many women at unnecessary risk. Ultimately, these clinics are misleading women about their healthcare options, but Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservative justices voted to allow these clinics to operate on the grounds of free speech. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
This decision was founded on the argument of the right to free speech, but seems to ignore the importance of women’s rights to safe and affordable healthcare. Limiting access to contraceptives and abortion harms families and limits choices for vulnerable women and families who do not have resources for additional children. This law also assists with the rampant spread of misinformation surrounding safe sexual practices. Additionally, access to birth control, termination information, and abortion services have been proven necessary for a sufficient national healthcare system. This case is only the first in what will become an assault on women’s rights to safe healthcare, and the nation’s right to education on safe sexual practices and options for birth control. The Trump Administrations’ and Republican Party’s religious platform should not limit the right of a woman to know the ramifications of pregnancies and the medical options available for birth control. LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
- Planned Parenthood-Support this organization’s cause to help people understand the importance of sexual health and family planning.
- 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
(Image via Huntington Post)
Supporters and Opponents of the Investigation Dig In: Part 1
The past few months have seen several significant developments in the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which has loomed over American politics since the 2016 election. As the number of indictments grows, so too does the rift in American politics as several Republicans call for an end to the investigations, and a number of Democrats and Republicans alike reaffirm the necessity of the investigations and their faith in the Department of Justice and the FBI. This entry will be part one of a two part recap covering all of the major developments in the Russia scandal since early May.
The investigation, which has produced indictments or guilty pleas from at least 32 individuals, continues to gather steam as Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort, who was originally indicted on charges unrelated to the Trump campaign, had new charges brought against him in June by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort was first indicted along with Rick Gates this past February on numerous charges of financial crimes, but in June was again indicted by Mueller, this time charged with obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Additionally, the special counsel named Konstantin Kilimik, who worked with Manafort in Ukraine on behalf of then president Viktor Yanukovich, as an associate of Manafort’s and brought charges against him as well. Manafort’s trial for the first has been set back two weeks, to July 24th, as one of the judge’s family members is set to undergo a medical procedure. His trial for obstruction of justice is currently set for September 17th. A federal judge denied Manafort’s motion to dismiss the former of the two indictments.
Meanwhile, supporters of the President have ramped up efforts to end the investigations, which many of them, including recent addition to the Trump legal team Rudy Giuliani, claim is an overstepping of the FBI’s and Special Counsel Mueller’s authority. Giuliani, who joined the Trump legal team last April, appeared on CNN on May 27th and claimed that “the basis on which [Mueller] was appointed was illegitimate,” and that the Mueller team is “giving us the material” to undermine the investigation.
Earlier in May, Vice President Mike Pence said of the investigation, “in the interest of the country, I think it’s time to wrap it up.” Other Republicans have also voiced increasing opposition to the investigation, including congressman Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, who has called for an audit of the office of Special Counsel Mueller. Meadows’ audit was attached as a provision to a spending bill, which was passed by the house on May 4th. The bill and attached provision were approved by the Senate on June 8th but have not yet been sent to the President’s desk.
On May 16th Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a statement saying “There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections.” The committee was tasked with conducting a review of the intelligence community’s assessment on Russian activities during the 2016 elections. Vice chairman Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in the joint statement with Burr that “after a thorough review, our staff concluded that the ICA conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”
Also on May 16th, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its preliminary findings on the 2016 Trump Tower meeting in which members of the President’s campaign allegedly met with Russian informants with the intention of receiving supposedly compromising intel on Hillary Clinton. The 22 page document outlines the connections between several Russian nationals and members of the Trump campaign, and notably states that “The Trump campaign expressed willingness to accept Russian assistance.”
The day prior, on May 15th, it was reported that the Trump administration gutted the role of cyber policy advisor. Christine Samuelian, an aide to national security adviser John Bolton, reported in an email to NSC employees that “the role of cyber coordinator will end.” The move was criticized by Sen. Warner, who stated that “I don’t see how getting rid of the top cyber official in the White House does anything to make our country safer from cyber threats.” The purpose of the move is, according to an NSC email, to “streamline authority” for the leaders of NSC teams.
On May 21st, President Trump met with several officials including Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats in regards to growing demands by Republicans, notably led by Devin Nunes (R-CA), for documents relating to Mueller’s investigation. Nunes issued a subpoena to the Justice Department in the beginning of May demanding “all documents referring or related to the individual referenced in Chairman Nunes’ April 24, 2018 classified letter to Attorney General Sessions.” However, Nunes later backpedalled on the demand contained in the subpoena, stating that he was “not interested in any individual.”
In a seemingly distractionary or retaliatory move, the President unleashed a fury of tweets throughout the month, coining the new hashtag “#spygate.” The President tweeted on May 20th that he demanded the DOJ “look into whether or not the FBI/DOB infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump has previously tweeted that he believed the White House had spies planted within his campaign during the election. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein responded to this demand by asking the DOJ Inspector General to expand it’s already existing probe into alleged FBI surveillance abuses. Late May saw a series of tweets about the so-called “Spygate,” as Trump and members of his legal team have taken to calling it, insisting not only that the president and his campaign had nothing to do with the Russian’s interference in the election, but that former president Obama actively attempted to derail Trump’s presidential bid. Between May 25th and May 29th, Trump tweeted about the Russia investigations a total of 16 times. From the beginning, Trump has maintained that he nor his campaign were involved in Russian efforts to influence the election.
This Russia Blog Post was submitted by USRESIT NEWS Analyst Thomas Wesley: Contact Tom@usresistnews.org
Photo by: Ilya Pavlov
Federal Appeals Court Opinion Insulates TSA Officers From Civil Liability
Brief #49—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On July 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Pellegrino v. Transportation Security Administration. The case began in 2006 when Nadine Pellegrino and a friend stopped at Philadelphia International Airport on their way back home to Florida. Ms. Pellegrino went through security with three bags. A transportation security officer (TSO) began to search her bags but Ms. Pellegrino was not happy with the search and requested a private screening. When another TSO began to search her bags, Ms. Pellegrino asked the TSO to change her gloves because she suspected they were dirty. The TSO complied but from then on the situation in the room became hostile. Ms. Pellegrino claims that the continued search of her bags were extremely rough and invasive – a search was even conducted into her cell phone, credit cards and lipstick. Once the search was completed, Ms. Pellegrino asked the TSO to leave the items out so she could re-pack her bags herself. The TSO refused and proceeded to re-pack her bags in the same rough manner but did not complete the task and eventually refused to finish packing Ms. Pellegrino’s bags. Ms. Pellegrino then took her items, tossed them outside the screening room and proceeded to leave. The two TSO’s in the room claimed that Ms. Pellegrino took her bags and struck a TSO with her bag as she was leaving the room. Ms. Pellegrino denies striking a TSO with her bags at any time. Philadelphia police officers were called to the airport where they arrested Ms. Pellegrino and held her for eighteen hours before releasing her. Ms. Pellegrino was charged with ten criminal counts but was eventually found not guilty due to testimony being deemed inadmissible. Ms. Pellegrino then brought a civil action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and three of the TSO’s who searched her. With the exception of one count of property damage that was settled, the court ruled against Ms. Pellegrino on all actions. Ms. Pellegrino appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2 – 1 in favor of the Government to uphold the district court rulings against Ms. Pellegrino. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The lengthy decision by the Court of Appeals is a curious one and one that has the potential to lead to unwanted consequences. In its opinion, the court’s reasoning turned on how a transportation security officer was classified. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the federal government and its employees are immune from civil or criminal liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity except in specific circumstances. Under one of these exceptions “investigative or law enforcement officers” can be held liable and sued for actions such as an assault or a false arrest. However, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s opinion said that TSA agents were only “screeners” and not “investigative or law enforcement officers” as defined in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Thus, their searches of travelers was deemed only an “administrative” search that was not based on probable cause or suspicion, standards that an investigative or law enforcement officer would use as a basis for a search. Thus, TSA agents could not be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Judge Thomas L. Ambro’s dissenting opinion noted that this type of search of travelers is no different from when a police officer pulls over a driver for a traffic stop. He also pointed out that if people are not allowed to sue TSA agents under the Federal Tort Claims Act then people would not have a legal remedy for even the most extreme TSO behavior such as sexual assault and a fabricated criminal charge against a traveler. While the legal analysis of the decision seems somewhat rigid, it is clear that Congress never intended for a legal scheme where a person would have no legal remedy whatsoever. The FTCA itself preserves the doctrine of sovereign immunity but still has limited exceptions for people to bring suit. The flaws illustrated by this case dictate that Congress needs to act and act soon to fix the FTCA so travelers and TSO’s will know the legal limits of how a traveler can be physically treated when subject to a search at an airport. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – info sheet detailing rights for travelers at airports when encountering officers.
- Transportation Security Administration (TSA) – TSA website on civil rights issues regarding searches.
- National Center for Transgender Equality – blog post on airport security and rights when traveling.
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
Early Effects of Trade War Caused by Trump Administration
Brief #18—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
As the trade war continues throughout the U.S. and through many nations beyond, citizens everywhere continue to feel its effects. While some have argued that there are no winners in a trade war, recent gains in the U.S. stock market might serve the case against such an argument. S&P 500, Nasdaq and the Dow Jones Industrial Average have seen two straight weeks of gains according to recent reports.
For those in lower economic brackets, though, the effects of the recent tariffs have not been so positive. The 22 percent tariff on imported newsprint paper has caused significant problems for many in the independent publication sector. In Owosso, Michigan, the owner of the Owosso Argus-Press, a local, family operated newspaper, is anticipating a hit of up to $30,000 following the spike in costs of paper. This trend is not unique to small papers, though. Florida’s The Tampa Bay Times has seen its operating costs rise by as much as $3 million following the tariffs.
That said, the effects of these tariffs seem almost small when compared to those felt by companies in industries dependent on aluminum and steel. When the Trump administration announced the imposition of these tariffs in June, the outcry was global. Mexico, Canada, and the European Union responded with force. Mexico was quick to announce that it would be implementing new tariffs of their own on certain products including various types of flat steel and tubes as well as meats, fruits, and cheeses. One of the top steel exporters to the U.S, Mexico made it clear that it did not feel the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were justified. China, meanwhile, announced that it would levy significant tariffs designed to effect the U.S. with a focus on agricultural goods such as soybeans, fish, and pork.
These international tariffs are not designed to only target agricultural companies, though. Some U.S. companies are feeling the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs more than once. Florida-based boat manufacturer Correct Craft has been affected by both domestic and global tariffs. The Trump administration’s aluminum tariffs have also led to increases in prices of the American-manufactured steel used by many boat makers, as have the retaliatory tariffs imposed by international competitors, leading to a decrease in revenue and with it, a loss of opportunity to expand operations and hire more workers.
The steel and aluminum tariffs are continuing to negatively effect more larger companies as well. Poplar Bluff in rural Southeastern Missouri is a town whose economy is driven by the nail manufacturing giant Mid Continent Nail Corp. The recent tariffs have caused a 25 percent spike in prices of the steel that the company continously imports from Mexico. This has prompted an increase in product prices, leading to the loss of considerable customers followed by 60 layoffs with many more expected to follow. A media spokesperson has described the company as being on the “brink of extinction” and reports indicate that it could be forced to close its doors by labour day or sooner if policies are not changed quickly.
While some companies are forced to face the reality of shutting down, others are trying to save face by shifting production overseas. The most prominent example is Harley Davidson. For decades a symbol of American manufacturing, the motorcycle maker announced in late June that it would shifting part of its production to Europe. When the E.U. announced it would be raising its tariff on American manufactured motorcycles from 6 percent to 31 percent, Harley Davidson opted to move some operations overseas rather than increase the prices of their products to cover the $90 to $100 million burden that would be imposed on an annual basis by the new tariff.
Analysis
There can be no doubt that the effects of the trade war brought on by the Trump administration are significant and it seems as though they are not likely to slow down in the near future. President’s well documented interest in pulling the United States from the World Trade Organization further supports the theory that the effects of the trade war are likely to continue, for small and large businesses alike.
It is not only businesses who are feeling these effects, though. Citizens are beginning to notice increased prices in consumer goods across many industries that can no longer be ignored. This is hardly surprising as these tariffs have driven up operating costs for companies that manufacture and produce almost every type of consumer good. The inevitable effect of this is increased operating costs, higher product prices and as a result, worker layoffs. When a company’s bottom line is negatively effected, every other aspect is never far behind. While demand may be remaining robust, supply is not, as the problems for supply chains and employment resources remain continuous.
A further negative effect of the trade war for many businesses has been the lack of predictability that has accompanied the recent tariffs. It has led to significant instability, problematic declines in investor confidence and slumps on investments necessary for growth within many industries. Investors throughout the U.S. are opting to delay investment decisions, causing further negative ripples throughout the national economy. Without the necessary investment capital, many companies are unable to add to their capacity for production, often leading to layoffs.
So far, the focus of the Trump administration regarding the tariffs seems to be aluminum and steel. This has led to the theory that they may not understand the broadness of the impact that their policies have had and continue to have. The harm that has been done to the U.S. economy cannot be ignored and so far, there is nothing to indicate that they are concerned with the significant layoffs throughout factory driven communities nor the drag on capital investments caused by the instability and declines in investor confidence.
This trade war has turned our former trade partners and allies into rivals whose tariffs are having further negative effects on the U.S. economy. From the looks of it, it is likely that the impact of these tariffs will be felt across the country and beyond for the foreseeable future.
Resistance Resources:
- World Trade Organization is an international organization created to regulate world trade.
- #KnockEveryDoor is an organization created to recruit and train volunteers to get involved with discussions on policy related matters to enact positive change.
- Global Trade Magazine is a leading publication and voice on all things related to global trade matters.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by: Kyle Ryan