JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
President Trump Issues Duplicative Executive Order to Cater to Voting Base
Brief #81—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
The National Security Hoax
Brief #65—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump’s Remain in Mexico Policy
Brief #66—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump’s European Foreign Policy
Brief #59—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanley
Remington Arms Under Fire After Recent Supreme Court Ruling
Brief #17—Gun Control
By Sarah Baron
Trump Administration Proposal To Use Social Media To Confirm Disabilities
Brief #80—Civil Rights
By Rod A. Maggey
On August 14, 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act which initiated the program in the United States.
Trump Declares National Emergency, Yet Signs a Compromise Bill
Brief #64—Immigration
By Kathryn Baront
Earlier this month, the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees passed a new spending bill that addressed 7 spending bills that had expired during the government’s recent shutdown. The bill is very hefty at 1,100 pages, but received an 82-16 vote to pass it.
EPA Finally Vows to Regulate Cancer Causing Toxins
Brief #53—Health
By Taylor J Smith
After persistent national outcry, the EPA has announced it will regulate a group of long-lasting chemicals, called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been linked to reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects.
Recent News From JP Morgan Chase Could Mean Changes for Private Prison Industry
Brief #36—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Private prisons have existed in the U.S. for years but under Trump, the stocks of two publicly traded companies, CoreCivic (NYSE: CXW) and GEO Group (NYSE: GEO) that make up the industry have surged.
Entry 20: Michael Cohen Investigation, Trump-Mueller Interview Prospects & Giuliani’s Legal Negotiations, House Intel Final Report
Russia Investigations Blog
Entry 20: Michael Cohen Investigation, Trump-Mueller Interview Prospects & Giuliani’s Legal Negotiations, House Intel Final Report
Compiled and written by Stella Jordan (stella@usresistnews.org)
Developments in the Investigations
Important developments abound this week in the Russia investigations; things, as always, seem to be moving at a breakneck pace. Last month we learned that the FBI had conducted surprise raids on Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen’s home, office, and hotel room. Warrants for the raid were approved by a federal judge after a request from the US Attorney for the southern district of New York and a recommendation from the special counsel. The FBI apparently seized evidence mainly related to Cohen’s payoff during the campaign to adult film actress Stormy Daniels over an alleged relationship with Trump than obtaining materials related to the Russia investigation.
The President acknowledged last week that Cohen represented him in the Daniels deal, which may have violated campaign finance law. The raids could very well result in special counsel indictments for financial crimes or campaign-finance violations, putting pressure on Cohen to cooperate in the special counsel’s broader Russia investigation, much like the Manafort and Gates cases. Cohen was implicated in the Steele dossier, which alleged that he had a strong “covert relationship with Russia” and was in close contact with Russian officials during the campaign and colluded with them to undermine the Clinton campaign. These allegations have not yet been independently verified, but there has been much speculation about Cohen’s role in the Trump campaign and his communications with foreign operatives.
Cohen filed a libel suit against BuzzFeed, the first to publish the dossier, and Fusion GPS, the company that backed it, but dropped both lawsuits during the past month’s events. Cohen is also being sued by Stormy Daniels, and recently announced that he would plead the fifth in that case in order to avoid self-incrimination in his ongoing criminal case. This move likely indicates that Cohen and his attorneys are worried that the FBI and federal prosecutors could use something he says in the civil case against him in the criminal case they are building. Invoking fifth amendment rights does not necessarily imply guilt; Cohen is simply seeking to protect himself from incrimination since he does not know exactly how prosecutors will build the criminal case against him and what evidence or coercion they may try to use.
There has been much buzz in Washington over the past few weeks about whether or not Cohen will ‘flip,’ or cave under the pressure of his federal case and start cooperating with special counsel investigators. Some Trump advisers are reportedly worried about the possibility of one of the President’s closest allies flipping on him if the charges brought against Cohen are severe enough. Cohen has previously said he would “take a bullet” for Trump and “do anything to protect” him, but there has been increasing speculation about the pressure Cohen will face as investigators move ahead with his case, especially given the apparently difficult way Trump has treated his lawyer in the past. Trump himself is apparently very concerned and angry about the Cohen investigation but has said he thinks his lawyer will remain loyal, and those around him seem to be split on the destructive potential of recent developments. Cohen’s own lawyers and other White House lawyers are arguing that the raids on Cohen and subsequent document seizures constitute a violation of attorney-client privilege, as the documents taken may contain sensitive information about people Cohen had been representing. Last week Cohen and his lawyers attempted to suppress some of the seized materials from investigators through a temporary restraining order, which was denied by a federal judge who instead recommended the appointment of a ‘special master’–an independent official who would review the evidence for potential conflicts. This sparked the appointment of an ex-judge to that role, who will be tasked with deciding whether any of the evidence the FBI took in the Cohen raids contains sensitive and classified materials regarding clients. The White House, apparently trying to distance itself from Cohen of late, underscoring the point that the raids were focused on Cohen’s private business activities and had “nothing to do” with Trump, according to the President himself.
There have been some other important shakeups in the Trump legal world, centered on the recent news that Rudy Giuliani has joined the White House legal team; Giuliani, the former NYC mayor and a longtime Trump supporter, stepped into the role vacated last month by John Dowd of coordinating the White House’s legal response to the Russia investigations. Trump struggled to find lawyers willing to handle the Russia investigations, but has recently added two other attorneys to his legal team in addition to Giuliani: Jane and Marty Raskin, both former federal prosecutors. For his part, Guiliani told reporters that he had joined the team in order to “negotiate an end” to the special counsel investigation, and has been negotiating with the special counsel to arrange an interview with Trump. Giuliani reportedly met with Mueller last week to negotiate terms for a special counsel interview with the President. The special counsel is expected to release Russia investigation reports in stages, with the first focusing on obstruction of justice, and Mueller has repeatedly told Trump’s legal team that an interview is essential to concluding this first stage of the investigation. Trump was at first open to an interview, but is apparently now reluctant to speak to the special counsel.
Later in the week Giuliani did an interview with Fox News where he revealed that President Trump had reimbursed Michael Cohen from his own funds for the $130,000 paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about her affair with the President. This move apparently was a ploy to avoid Cohen or anyone else from being charged with campaign finance violations. Amazingly Trump then confirmed that he had made such a payment. However this effort was then immediately contradicted by Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels lawyer, Avenatt, who in an interview on MSNBC, claimed that he has evidence of conversations between Michael Cohen and Daniels former lawyer, Keith Davidson, during the months immediately preceding the 2016 election. In those conversations Cohen apparently emphasized the need for payments to be made as soon as possible. “How stupid to they think they are,” said Avenatti in the interview referring to Trump and Giuliani.
Last week, the questions that had been compiled by the special counsel in preparation for a potential interview with the President were leaked, and subsequently obtained by the New York Times. The questions mainly related to obstruction of justice, but seem overall to be open-ended and wide-ranging. These questions show how the special counsel is trying to understand how and what Trump was thinking during the major events that have marked the Russia investigation, such as the Comey firing and the news that Trump was considering firing Mueller, as well as more generally how the President views and has tried to influence the Russia investigations so far. According to the Times, the questions fall into four main categories: Flynn, Comey, Sessions, and campaign coordination with Russia. After the questions were leaked Trump denounced their publication, calling it “disgraceful.” The leak apparently did not come from the special counsel’s office; the questions had been given to the Trump legal team during the interview negotiations and the Times said someone outside of that circle had provided them. The speculation is that Mueller’s Office just gave the President’s team a series of talking points for the interview, and that a member of Trump’s legal team, Jay Sekulow, took Mueller’s talking points and turned them into questions. The President also falsely tweeted that there were no questions about collusion; in fact, some of the special counsel’s questions seemed aimed at uncovering more about Trump’s potential knowledge of campaign aides’–such as Manafort , Gates, Papadopoulos and others–communications with Russia during the campaign.
Other major developments in the Russia investigations include the embattled House Intelligence Committee’s final Russia investigation report, which was declassified and publicly released last week after a summary of the report’s findings last month. The 253-page report found no evidence of collusion during the Trump campaign, but did acknowledge Russian electoral interference, although not to the extent agreed upon by the rest of the intelligence community. The report also dwells on the intelligence community’s use of the Steele dossier and their alleged bias against Trump, which was a major flashpoint during the Committee’s investigation. No Committee Democrats endorsed the report, whose politicized conclusions they rebuked in a counter-report highlighting Republicans’ refusal to pursue relevant leads in the investigation. During the declassification process, parts of the Committee’s report were redacted by intelligence agencies; Committee Republicans say the redactions were excessive and are apparently working to declassify more of the report. Trump unsurprisingly greeted the report’s release with a triumphant tweet in which he claimed the report vindicated him of all accusations of collusion and called for an immediate end to the other Russia investigations.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill last week to protect the special counsel from being fired. The bill had bipartisan support in the Committee, although Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate leaders said they wouldn’t bring the bill to a full Senate vote, deeming it unnecessary. Chairman Chuck Grassley co-sponsored the bill and voted with Committee Democrats, in a departure from his usual mode of proceeding slowly and cautiously in Trump and Russia investigation-related matters and generally siding with the President’s interests. Grassley and the bill’s other supporters have argued that the legislation will provide special counsel investigations – which arise from conflicts within the executive branch to begin with – more independent accountability and congressional oversight. The bill doesn’t explicitly prohibit a President from firing a special counsel, but would put in place expedited oversight and review mechanisms to ensure any executive dismissals or changes weren’t politically motivated or obstructive.
Last week a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Manafort and his lawyers which attempted to prevent any future special counsel charges being brought against the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort’s lawyers have argued that the special counsel “overstepped his authority” and appear to be challenging Mueller as a defense tactic. The judge wrote that a civil case such as a lawsuit may not be used to interfere with or influence an ongoing criminal case, which the defendant can already legally challenge through appeals. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to multiple felony financial charges, and is also trying to get a separate tax and banking-related case dismissed in a Virginia federal court.
Finally, new revelations emerged about the Russian lawyer who attended the summer 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr and other top campaign officials to offer them “dirt” on Clinton, allegedly on behalf of the Russian government. Natalia Veselnitskaya, according to a New York Times report based on leaked emails, had repeatedly denied any ties to the Kremlin and initially described the meeting as a privately-driven event. The new emails reveal Veselnitskaya’s close relationship with the top Russian legal officer and other prominent Kremlin connections; after recent revelations she told reporters that she had acted as an “informant” for the Russian Prosecutor General, Yuri Chaika, since 2013. This news raises new concerns about the Trump Tower meeting: if Veselnitskaya was representing the Russian government more directly than previously thought or proven, the meeting could have more serious implications for the Trump campaign officials who attended, as well as wider-ranging obstruction of justice implications for Veselnitskaya herself.
The Trump Administration’s New Tariff’s
Brief # 12
April 12, 2018
Since the beginning of 2018, the Trump administration has been enacting a series of tariffs, on a variety of foreign products, intellectual property rights, and technology services. The tariffs reflect Trump’s efforts to follow through on a campaign promise to not let other countries take advantage of the US. He is seeking to appease his base of supporters, many of whom perceive that current trading agreements with other countries is the major reason for their unemployment. The tariff’s that Trump has enacted include the following:
On January 22 the President imposed tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines; A tariff of 30 percent will be applied to imported solar panels, most of which originate in China. Tariffs will begin at 20% on large residential washing machines.
On March 22, he imposed a 25 percent tariff on selected Chinese products that could total $60 billion dollars. The products included aeronautics, modern rail, new energy vehicles, and high tech products.
On March 25 he imposed 25 percent tariff on imported steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum. The administration stated that tariffs on such goods from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the European Union and South Korea were delayed until May 1. Canada and Mexico are exempt from the tariff as the US reviews its national security relationships and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
On April 6th, after China retaliated with its own tariffs on US products, Trump announced he was considering $100 billion dollars of additional tariffs on Chinese goods.
The Chinese government, according to a CNN Report, then responded by reiterating that it doesn’t want “to fight a trade war, but we are not afraid of fighting it.” “If the United States disregards the opposition of China and the international community, and insists on unilateralist and protectionist trade practices, the Chinese side will follow through to
Analysis
By instituting these new tariff’s President Trump is threatening to overturn a decades long bi-partisan policy of free trade. This policy is predicated on the fact that national economies have become increasingly inter-dependent, and that many businesses operate by buying and selling products and services across the planet. Trump’s tariffs also threaten to unleash a trade war, as the Chinese have observed. Trade wars, usually escalate conflict between countries rather than cooperation. They result in higher prices for consumers, shrinking demand for business services and products, and increased unemployment. The last large-scale global trade war occurred in the nineteen thirties and was a factor that contributed to the Great depression and World War II.
Fortunately, the U.S. and the world learned a lesson from this experience. With the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934 and its successors, which granted the President authority to reach tariff reduction agreements with foreign governments, U.S. trade policy came to be global and strategic.
This new approach was institutionalized at the international level with the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1948 and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), in 1995.
President Trump claims that certain countries have weakened American industries by exporting cheap products to the United States. He believes this has been going on for decades and has caused significant job losses. He takes this position because a large part of his political base are unemployed blue-collar workers.
However, international trade is one of many factors contributing to US unemployment; the larger ones being the onset of automation, the lack of an adequate unemployment safety net, and the lack of effective job education and retraining programs.
There are better ways for addressing international trade issues that don’t publically embarrass nations and force them into an escalating trade war. These include behind the scenes country-to-country diplomatic negotiations or working through the WTO that was established to deal with trade disputes between countries.
It is true that there remain many injustices in the world trading system. Until recently most free trade agreements failed to take into account workers’ rights and labor and environmental standards. It is also true that the WTO is still a young organization that needs strengthening. However, these are problems that skilled diplomats and trade negotiators can address.
There is increasing concern that President Trump’s tariffs will likely impose a heavier burden on lower income households as these households generally spend more on traded goods as a share of expenditure/income.
Engagement Resources
VoxEU.org – CEPR’s policy portal was set up in June 2007 to promote research-based policy analysis and commentary by leading economists.
https://voxeu.org/columns/archive
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)-The CFR is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens to understand foreign policy
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) – The CEPR was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect working people’s lives.
ThinkProgress is a news site dedicated to providing their readers with rigorous reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions.
This Brief was compiled by Ron Israel, U.S. RESIST NEEWS Managing Editor and Bruce Boccardy
Merkel and Macron Make Last Ditch Effort to Prevent US Steel Tariffs
Brief # 13 Economic Policy
April 30, 2018
Summary
On May 1st, 2018, the US tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from the EU are set to take affect. The above-mentioned tariffs are an appeasement to the US Steel industry, which has been affected by increased globalization throughout the second half of the 20th century. For example, in 1948 after World War II, the American steel industry produced over half of the world steel output while employing 700,000 people. Now, that figured has dropped to only 11% and employs only 78,000 people. The proposed tariffs will impose a 25% tax on steel products and a 10% tax on aluminum products. Countries most affected by these tariffs are scrambling to prevent President Trump from implementation, amid fears of a global trade war. LEARN MORE
In an effort to prevent the US from imposing these tariffs, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany assembled a united front to convince President Trump. President Macron, displayed his budding “bromance” and savy emotional rhetoric played the “good cop” during his two-day official visit with President Trump, while Chancellor Merkel, armed with an arsenal of facts, figures, and threats of retaliation played the “bad cop” , both pleaded the EU’s case last week for permanent exemption status. Steel and aluminum are especially important to the 28-member states of the EU as they account for 10% of global steel trade or 172.3 metric tonnes of production. In response, the EU has proposed tariffs on selected US products amounting to 7.8 billion USD (the same amount worth of steel EU exports to the US). Interestingly enough, many of these products are produced in state Trump won by double-digit points. It is unlikely if President Macron and Chancellor Merkel’s Pathos-Logos offensive had its intended affect as it appears the May 1 deadline will pass eliminating the temporary waiver tariff exemption granted to EU countries in March.
EU countries are not the only ones in the line of fire of President Trump protectionist nationalism policies. China, who always served as President Trump’s campaign punching bag, will also be affected by the tariff on steel and aluminum. Firmly sitting at the top of the steel world, China is the world’s largest producer of steel accounting for around half of all global trade or 1.68 billion metric tonnes. Steel and Aluminum are some of the few goods in China where surplus outstrip demand providing an opportunity for profit as excess is sent to the world export market. To prevent tariff implementation, on April 10th, China has filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization requesting 60 day consultation with the US arguing the tariffs are in violation of the WTO rules. In response, on March 23 China implemented retaliatory trade measures on beef, pork, apples and other perishable food items – many of these items are also produced in states President Trump carried by double-digits as well.
Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Canada and Mexico were offered exemption status while countries like Russia, India, Brazil, Taiwan and India were not. These countries are among the world’s largest steel and aluminum producers. A majority of the US steel supply comes from groups that were exempted from the tariff.
Analysis
If one were to watch the news and listen to president Trump, he/she would think Chinese steel and EU steel account for a lion share of US steel imports. As it the case with most issues, once you set aside politics from fact you will see the fissures between what is widely discussed and the reality on the ground. The reality is China and the EU make up 2% and 4% of US steel imports respectively in 2017 – a small cross-section proportion of aggregate US steel and aluminum imports. Canada, Brazil , South Korea, Mexico and Russia round off the top 5 exporters accounting for 17%, 14%, 10%, 9% and 8%, respectively. US allies would have lost the most if Trump’s initial tariff plans were implemented without second thought or revision.
Like many other policies with this administration, politics is the end and these “sweeping” aluminum and steel tariffs are just the means – less than 25% of US steel imports will actually have any kind tariffs. Fully cognizant of this fact, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron are taking a stand to President in an attempt to set boundaries on potential future tariffs in other industries Trump may want to implement. Although, the US is the world’s largest steel importer accounting for 77% of all global steel imports, the EU make up less than 4% of that total. Europe’s preeminent leaders understand the personality and ego of president Trump. Consider this, what would occur if Trump randomly wanted to institute tariffs on the EU’s three largest export categories, machinery (64. 6 billion USD), pharmaceuticals (55.2 billion USD) or vehicles (54.6 billion USD)? This would represent a significant blow to some of Europe’s largest and most important industries. Certainly, a global trade war would ensue as retaliatory measure would definitely target America’s largest exports to the EU.
The possibility also exist these tariffs were implemented as an affront to China as they received no exemption status. Conventional thinking suggests 2% is not a large amount, but many in the steel industry claim this number is higher. American steel makers claim China engages in a practice called transshipment, where other countries by Chinese steel at lower prices than ship those steel to the US for profit. However, the Department of Commerce investigated and found no evidence of this occurrence. This still has not stopped China from attempting to drive a wedge between the US and the EU by standing together against US protectionism. As of now, there is little chance the EU would unite with China against the US, but should President Trump continue destructive trade policies, a Chinese-EU partnership against the US could foment.
Steel and aluminum tariff are not new. In 2003, president Bush attempted to implement 25-30% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports – which ultimately was a failure. Steel and aluminum are heavily dispersed through the automotive and construction industries; those tariffs would have increased prices on their products. The National Association of Manufactures came out against the tariffs, eventually leading to the WTO ruling the tariffs went out US trade obligations. In less than a year, the tariffs were reversed. It has been proven these tariffs don’t work so what does President Trump have to gain? Once again, it is about politics.
President Trump has a tendency to govern toward his base specially to gain some kind of political expediency. Whether it’s when personal scandals gain traction or to keep his supporters in a perpetual state of anger, these tariffs appear to be another measure to provide his die-hard supporters lip service and quite possibly to distract from other non-economic issues.
Engagement Resources
- Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance (VEGA) is a consortium of 24 members NGOs that promoting prosperity by bringing highly skilled workers together across the global. VEGA is also instrumental in advocating for global partnerships as it pertains to trade and economics.
- The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) was known as Bill Clinton’s personal think tank. They offer progressive policy recommendations that are practical and pragmatic. Their policy expertise is in the field of economics, trade, foreign policy, healthcare, etc.
- The American Liberal Review attempts to “advance a project of resurgent American liberalism of bold reform and visionary politics for the 21st” It accomplishes this by offering a list of many NGOs and Think Tanks that promote liberal economic values.
- “How to Enrich a Country: Free Trade or Protectionism” , the YouTube channel, the School of Life offers an objective view on many topics ranging from philosophy, to history, to relationships, etc. This video provides people with an objective view on the history of the protectionism vs free trade debate.
Lean more and leave comments by contacting fas@usresistnews.org
DHS Ends TPS for 9,000 Nepalis
Brief #52 Immigration
April 24, 2018
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, April 24, The Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is once again ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 9,000 Nepalis living in the United States legally under the program. DHS Secretary Kristjen Nielsen is allowing Nepali THS recipients to remain in the country for one year before they are forcibly removed, setting the official termination date to June 24, 2019. Nepalis now joins the ranks of Nicaraguans, Haitians, Liberians, and Salvadorans, who will also face deportation in 2018 and 2019 as DHS ends TPS for these populations as well. 9,000 citizens of Nepal came to the United States in 2015 after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake ravaged the South Asian republic, killing nearly 9,000 people, injuring 23,000 more, and destroying over 800,000 homes.
Analysis
The decision to end TPS for the Nepalis community has received less pushback than the decision to end TPS for Nicaraguans, Haitians, Liberians and Salvadorans last year and earlier this year. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the population of Nepalis living in the US under TPS is considerably smaller than those from the aforementioned nations, and that most Nepalis are living in a concentrated area, settling in New York City. However, while this decision effects less people and may have a smaller geo-economic impact, the implications still matter; it is yet another moved made by the Trump administration to cleanse the US of immigrants for unfounded, bigoted, and unjust reasons.
Engagement Resources
Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
Support the Center for Migration Studies: The Center for Migration Studies is a think-tank and educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees and newcomers. You can support the institute through purchasing its publications or attending an event.
Stay Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay up date on all things related to immigration policy.
Conservative SCOTUS Justices Appear to Be in Favor of Trump Travel Ban
Brief #51 Immigration
April 25, 2018
Policy Summary
On Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments over the Trump Travel ban in the case of Trump v. Hawaii. This case is going to decide if the third iteration of Trump’s travel ban is constitutional. The third and most current revision of the ban currently in place bars citizens from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela from entering the country. (Chad was on the third travel ban but was removed before arguments in front of the Supreme Court took place.) SCOTUS is specifically taking a look at the restrictions placed on travelers from the first five of the seven aforementioned countries.
After the arguments, National Public Radio and The Washington Post both reported that Conservative SCOTUS justices appear to be siding with the Trump administration on the constitutionality of the travel ban. This notion is drawn largely from claims made by Justice Kennedy, who is often SCOTUS swing vote in spite of his conservative nature. Justice Kennedy repeatedly stated that the Court does not tend to question national security decisions made by a president, who tends to have more up-to-date and comprehensive knowledge on contemporary national security issues.
The Court is expected to release its decision on Trump v. Hawaii in early June.
Analysis
While Justice Kennedy isn’t wrong when he claims that the President in all likelihood has more insider knowledge on national security issues than the SCOTUS, it seems that he is neglecting to consider that it is up to him and the rest of the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of the ban and not to decide the depth of the President’s knowledge on the topic of national security. The ban is solely founded on anti-Muslim sentiments fueled by false claims that all Muslims from the banned countries are terrorists and pose a threat to the security of the United States. If the Court rules in favor of Trump, it is upholding the fear-mongering tactics Trump has used to garner support for the ban, threatening American democracy, tolerance, and against Trump’s false word, safety.
Engagement Resources
Act with ACLU Action: ACLU Action enables people to sign petitions and contact their representatives regarding pressing social and political matters. Through ACLU Action, you can add your name to the petition to call on Congress to rescind the travel ban immediately.
Support the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can support NILC’s mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
Stay Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay update on all things related to immigration policy.
Third Federal Judge Upholds DACA
Brief #50 Immigration
Policy Summary
On Wednesday, April 25, Judge John D. Bates became the third federal judge to uphold the DACA program, dealing a blow to Trump’s hard-lined anti-immigration policies, calling the administration’s decision to terminate the program capricious. In his decision, Judge Bates cited that the move to end DACA was unlawful because no rationale was provided in ending the program. Judge Bates gave the Department of Homeland Security 90 days to come up with a reason or reasons as to why DACA should be made illegal, otherwise the program will stand and DHS will be forced to accept and process DACA renewal applications.
Analysis
Once again, DACA recipients and immigration advocates can take a sigh of relief that federal judges are upholding the legality and necessity of the program, enabling Dreamers to remain in America as they continue to go to school, work, raise their families, and generally speaking, live their lives. Judge Bates was explicit in his demands for DHS to come up with a sound argument as to why DACA should be illegal, slapping a three-month timeframe on the demand, creating a sense of urgency for DHS, and in doing so became an advocate for Dreamers all over the country. However, Dreamers, their families, and advocates alike are going to have to monitor DHS over the next three months to act and react to how the administration may attempt to undermine DACA, and in doing so, threaten Dreamers and the American Dream, once again.
Engagement Resources
Support Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by Trump’s decision to end DACA.
Take Action with the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
Show Your Solidarity with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: ILRC is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, as well as engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can show your solidarity with ILRC by making a contribution to the center or attending a virtual or in-person ILRC training.
US, UK, and France Attack Syrian Chemical Sites
Foreign Policy Brief #38
April 21st, 2018
Summary
Just before dawn on April 14th, The United States, United Kingdom, and France launched a joint missile attack against two Syrian chemical weapon storage facilities and one research center. The strike was described by the western governments as a retaliation for a chemical attack against a rebel held Damascus suburb, Douma, on April 7th. The White House and its allies have identified the Syrian government and its sponsor, Russia, as culpable for the chemical attack, which reportedly has killed 70 people. Both Russia and Syria have denied responsibility, with Russian state media claiming that the attack itself was staged by pro-opposition actors. US officials were apparently not completely certain of the culprit and thus launched a more restrained attack than what was available to them. After being delayed by Russian military police, a team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons finally reached Douma and are awaiting results on evidence divulged from the site.
This series of events comes almost exactly a year after a nearly identical exchange, although this time the US fired over twice as many missiles and are leaving the door open for further actions. At this time the Pentagon has stated that they are not aware of any civilian casualties and the Syrian government has stated that three civilians were injured. The Pentagon also stated that the attack was a complete success, with every missile hitting its target, while Russia and Syria have contested that the majority of missiles were intercepted. The attack, which President Putin called “an act of aggression” was not certified by Congress as the Constitution requires. General Mattis reportedly attempted to push for congressional approval prior to striking, but was turned down by Trump who hoped to back up his previously tweeted threats.
Analysis
The joint strike was not described by the aggressors as an attempt to influence the civil war which has raged for seven brutal years, but rather to draw a red line with regards to the use of chemical weapons. Multiple Israeli officials have complained that the strike does not meet this goal, and that Assad remains equally able to commit further chemical attacks. As The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald recently argued, the US’s support of a number of regimes which use chemical weapons strongly undermines the suggestion that the attack is intended to send a humanitarian message.
The Trump administration has not been clear about their plan for Syria, and have wavered considerably throughout the past year on the fate of Assad. The American military apparatus is noticeably less eager for regime change as they were in the lead up to the Iraq war. At this point the possibility of deposing Assad is far less likely than it seemed in the early years of the war as Russia has continued to support him, his forces have won considerable territory, and the rebels have proven themselves to not be the champions of democracy and secular freedom that the west hoped for. While General Mattis declared the attack a “one-time shot”, Trump announced that our military is “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents”. The most likely explanation for our government’s plans for Syria is that they are pushing neither for regime change nor the eventual victory of Assad’s forces. A rebel victory could lead to the quandary of a power vacuum, as we saw in Iraq and Libya after American intervention. An Assad victory would allow for regained stability for a Russian and Iranian ally. As long as Syrian is a drain on resources for Russia and Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia are protected and our government’s interests in the Middle East are advanced.
Engagement Resources
- Support the Answer Coalition: The Answer Coalition was founded just after 9/11 as an opposition to the developing imperialist ambitions of the Bush administration. They have maintained that struggle through the years, and have been involved with anti-war protests in response to the Trump administration’s recent actions in Syria. You can donate on their website.
- Orient Yourself to the Basics of the War in Syria: This video, produced by Vox, is an introductory explanation of the actors involved in the Syrian war and its progression of events.
This Brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact Colin@usresistnews.org.
UPDATED:Scott Pruitt Under Investigation by Congress for Excess Spending, Secret Emails and Ethics Controversy
Environmental Policy – Brief 29
Letters from Congress Requesting Documentation for Investigation and Letter on Overdue Documents
Press Release from Oversight Committee Sent April 11, 2018
Update May 21, 2018
In late April, Scott Pruitt had a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his various ethical controversies. Over the course of the two sessions, Pruitt did admit that he knew about the raises for two of his aides but little else, primarily placing blame on EPA aides and staff. In his opening statement, Pruitt claimed that many of the accusations were either exaggerations or completely fabricated. A former aide has already told news outlets that Pruitt lied to Congress during these hearings. The response to Pruitt’s time on the Hill have been mixed, primarily along party lines. White House aides are prompting Trump to fire Pruitt and various Democrats are calling for his resignation. However, Republican members of Congress are aware that Pruitt is their best chance to pass legislation regarding environmental regulation. And so he stays.
Since the hearings, new potential ethics violations have come to lights, including meetings with the Heritage Foundation, plans to stage public debates, hiring additional private council, and another trip paid for by lobbyists. The EPA has attempted to keep records and documents from Congress, and emails have been discovered detailing EPA staff attempts to shield Pruitt from scrutiny and explain the necessity of his high security costs. Pruitt has continued to work on various rollbacks of Obama era legislation.
Summary
In letters sent to President Trump and the EPA Secretary Pruitt, the Oversight Committee of U.S. Congress requested documents from Secretary Pruitt as they investigate the myriad of controversies that have arisen around the EPA’s lead administrator. Pruitt is currently past the given deadline to produce the documents, and the deadline has been extended to April 25, 2018. Another letter was written to Kevin Minoli, EPA’s Chief Ethics Officer, from the Office of Government Ethics asking him to participate in the investigations. The Government Accountability Office and the EPA’s Inspector General are also taking a look at records and requesting explanations. There have been rumblings of misconduct for quite a while, but these accusations nowballed once an aide came forward. The former aide, Kevin Chmielewski, was put on leave after questioning the Secretary’s spending habits. In addition to the extreme travel spending, Pruitt is under investigation by ethics committees for a discounted condo purchase from a lobbyist and the use of multiple undisclosed email addresses. Despite calls for his resignation and his 29 percent approval rating, many Republicans and businessman supported Pruitt and his position, especially in light of the moderate that would most likely take his place.
Analysis
Spending: Most of Pruitt’s spending controversies revolve around his travel, security detail and bonuses for special hires. Citing death threats, Pruitt has booked exclusively first class travel and more exorbitant hotel accommodations than those recommended by the State Department for international travel. Some of these destinations were based on personal travel rather than business, and Pruitt took many unjustified trips to his home state of Oklahoma. Republican lawmakers have since disregarded Pruitt’s death threat reasoning for his extreme spending on travel and security.
Ethics: Pruitt has also approved extreme bonuses for loyal employees that were rejected by oversight committees, including a long-time lobbyist for the chemical industry. A coal lobbyist was just confirmed as his number two and an oil tycoon ran his re-election campaign. Pruitt has gotten a long-term deal on a bedroom in a D.C. condo on a per-night basis from a health care lobbyist, although her husband has pending business with the EPA.
Emails: In another letter, the EPA’s Inspector General, Arthur Elkins, was asked to look into Pruitt’s three email accounts to make sure proper records were maintained. There is concern that Pruitt uses these additional email addresses to spread false information and conduct undocumented business.
Engagement Resource
Read the full letters regarding the investigations into Pruitt: To Trump and Pruitt, To Elkins, To Minoli
Keep Track of the Pruitt Investigations on the Oversight Committee’s Website
This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact megan@usresistnews.org.
Bipartisan Strategy to Attack Opioid Crisis Mirrors Federal HIV/AIDS Policies
Brief # 34 Health Policy
Policy Summary:
Senators Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, Susan Collins, and Maggie Hassan have released a bipartisan bill, Hospice Safe Drug Disposal Act, to encourage the disposal of unused opioids by home hospice care providers. This would ultimately aim to reduce the amount of opioids in circulation. Typically, hospice providers aren’t allowed to assist with the disposal of opioids after their use in care of patients, and frequently these opioid medications are given to families and left unused and vulnerable to abuse. This is relevant because about 70% of people who have an opioid addiction report that they first got them from a relative or someone who was prescribed them. The senators have worked together to hopefully curb the opioid crisis by tackling one of the root sources of the addiction problem.
Analysis:
This strategy is an interesting parallel to the HIV/AIDS response from the federal government. Similar to the HIV syringe services program under the Federal Response, the Hospice Safe Drug Disposal Act, aims to stop the spread of opioids through a legislative change in medical policy. Warren has said before that she supports increasing the level of funding for the opioid crisis to match or even exceed what HIV/AIDS crisis has received through PEPFAR. While the omnibus spending package contains $4.6 billion to fight the opioid crisis, experts say that it isn’t enough and Warren repeated this claim after mentioning the she has modeled some of her other legislative approaches after HIV/AIDS legislation. This could be an indicator of more such strategies because the recently appointed Director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Robert Redfeld Jr., is a prominent AIDS researcher. He has been criticized because of his positions on abstinence only AIDS prevention, but seems to be quickly changing his approach as head of the CDC. He has also discussed his ideas for prevention in the opioid crisis as part of his priorities for heading into office.
Engagement Resources:
NLC Opioid Action Report -Learn more about the National League of Counties and Cities report on community engagement and action for leaders on combating the opioid crisis.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns.
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.lorene30@gmail.com .
Facebook & Cambridge Analytica Scandals, New Russia Sanctions, Mueller & Manafort Updates
Entry 19: Facebook & Cambridge Analytica Scandals, New Russia Sanctions, Mueller & Manafort Updates
Compiled and written by Stella Jordan (stella@usresistnews.org)
Summary of New Developments
With each week seeming to bring ever more drama to the White House and Russia investigations, recent news has brought no respite. The past two weeks have been dominated by the emerging controversy surrounding the data firm Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook user data it may have taken advantage of during the 2016 election; the new sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Russian oligarchs and their companies; and many noteworthy moves by the special counsel, including the first sentencing in the Russia investigation: that of a Dutch attorney connected to Paul Manafort and Rick Gates who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. Manafort’s own case has also seen some new developments, as the former Trump campaign manager explores mounting a legal defense based on FBI misconduct and alleged bias. The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing with Department of Homeland Security and state election officials and is releasing a report on systemic electoral vulnerabilities that hostile foreign actors may try to exploit ahead of the 2018 midterms. More on all of this, and more, below.
DoJ & Special Counsel
One of the most surprising developments in the special counsel investigation over the past two weeks has been the sentencing of Alex van der Zwaan, the Manafort/Ukranian-connected Dutch lawyer. Van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined 20,000 for lying to the FBI, in the special counsel grand jury’s first sentencing. He had previously pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Rick Gates and an unnamed person connected to Russian intelligence, whom many have speculated also plays a role in the Manafort and Gates indictments. However, it is not clear whether van der Zwaan’s case is in any way related to the election or the Trump campaign specifically. Within the broader Russia investigation, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where this development fits. My best guess, purely speculatively, is that details about this case came from Rick Gates, Manafort’s partner, who is currently cooperating with the special counsel and may be providing Mueller with names and details of other people involved in the criminal activities–specifically those related to Russia–for which Gates and Manafort were charged.
Last week, news emerged of a classified memo that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein sent to Mueller last summer, authorizing the special counsel to investiate allegations of collusion between Manafort and Russian officials to coordinate electoral interference. More broadly, the DoJ had authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s financial ties to Ukranian politicians, which is ultimately one of the major components of Manafort’s indictment. Although the charges against Manafort have not so far related to the election or Trump campaign, it is interesting that the DoJ saw merit in initially investigating collusion with Russians as well; it may be that Mueller found no evidence of such collusion, or that he has another path in mind for digging into that issue. Manafort, for his part, has been arguing that the special counsel overstepped its authority in his indictment, and has mounted a civil suit against the special counsel and DoJ to get his charges dropped on the grounds that they are unfair and potentially biased. Mueller recently filed an argument not to dismiss Manafort’s case, indicating that he intends to continue investigating communications and financial connections between Manafort and Russian or pro-Russian politicians and officials, both before and during the campaign, that may have resulted in collusion or other illegal behavior during the campaign.
Aside from his civil suit, Manafort is also fighting the special counsel on document evidence seized from him by the FBI. Last May, FBI agents working with the special counsel entered a storage unit owned by Manafort’s company to gather documents and other evidence. This week, Manafort’s lawyers filed a motion alleging that the unit was entered illegally without a warrant or proper consent, and that the warrant the FBI subsequently obtained to take evidence from the unit was overly general and violated Manafort’s rights; the motion calls for the evidence from the storage unit to be suppressed in court. We do not know the specifics of the evidence in question, but if the FBI obtained a warrant to seize it, it would probably have contributed to Manafort’s prosecution.
More broadly, Manafort’s legal team is reportedly debating how much to use FBI misconduct and political bias as a defense in his case. Making a solid case of federal investigative misconduct, overreach or bias could also help make a credible case for a presidential pardon, which Manafort may be angling for. However, basing his defense on an offensive against the DoJ would bring even more politicization and partisanship to his trial, and it could be risky for Manafort to question the credibility of the special counsel and prosecution before a grand jury. This is probably a risk Manafort is willing to take, given the possibility of executive intervention and the already tumultuous situation faced by the FBI and DoJ as their integrity has repeatedly come under attack over the past year. Indeed, last week the New York Times reported that recently-resigned Trump lawyer John Dowd had discussed the possibility of presidential pardons for Manafort and Flynn with their lawyers last year. The President’s legal team was reportedly worried about what information such high-level witnesses as Flynn and Manafort might give the special counsel. Mueller at the time was building cases against the two, so the possibility of pardons may have been meant to influence their cooperation or compliance in the special counsel investigation. It isn’t clear whether Dowd’s discussion of pardons constitutes obstruction of justice in Mueller’s investigation; pardons are a president’s constitutional mandate and are very hard to challenge, but the prospect of a pardon being used to influence a target’s cooperation in an investigation seems improper. It is also unclear whether Trump knew about Dowd’s discussions, although the President had reportedly asked his legal team about pardons for high-level campaign and administration officials before. Dowd and other White House lawyers denied any discussions of pardons.
Since Dowd’s resignation, Trump has been hard-pressed to find a replacement to handle the response to the Russia investigations on his legal team. Over the past two weeks many reports have indicated that the President’s offers to multiple high-profile attorneys have been turned down, including lawyers Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, who were originally reported to have been joining the team but later backed out, as well as former US attorney Dan Webb, who declined an offer to manage the White House response to the special counsel. Given the President’s reputation for refusing to follow legal advice, chafing at perceived critiques, and fostering a sense of chaos among his staff, Trump has had mounting difficulty finding a reputable and qualified attorney to represent him in the increasingly complex Russia probe.
Trump is very much still a subject of the special counsel investigation, according to recent reports: Mueller reportedly told White House attorneys that Trump is still under investigation, but is not currently a criminal target. This means that the President’s conduct is still being investigated, but investigators lack sufficient evidence to bring charges at this point. Trump reportedly viewed Mueller’s distinction as a sort of exoneration and is apparently open to an interview with the special counsel, against the counsel of his legal team. A subject of an investigation can very easily become a target, especially through their own testimony, which could incriminate them if they lied or misrepresented themselves under oath, as it is not hard to imagine Trump doing. Mueller has underscored the need to interview Trump before his probe concludes, and this issue was at the heart of the debate that prompted Dowd’s resignation, amidst arguments with other members of the legal team who thought Trump should give an interview given his vehement denial of any collusion or crime, and his condemnation of the Russia investigation itself. Mueller also reportedly told the White House legal team that the special counsel is creating a report about possible obstruction of justice and other issues during Trump’s presidency; the special counsel apparently plans to release reports on the Russia investigation’s findings in stages, with obstruction as the theme of the first report. Mueller first reports conclusions to Rosenstein, who directly oversees the special counsel investigation, and ultimately decides what should be publicly released.
The special counsel has been directing attention to Russian oligarchs of late: multiple Russian businessmen and government allies traveling into the US have been stopped and questioned–or searched–by FBI investigators, according to recent reports. Mueller’s team appears to be looking for financial ties to the Trump campaign, and potential illegal Russian-based campaign donations. This special counsel attention coincides with the recent Treasury Department sanctions, a large part of which focus directly on Russian oligarchs. This new set of sanctions–the most significant American sanctions against Russia in years–target 7 Russian individuals and 12 related companies, notably focused on close Putin allies and ultra-powerful businessmen, including Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with former ties to Manafort. These sanctions, according to the Treasury, are in response to multiple Russian activities, including the occupation of Crimea and violence in Ukraine; support of Assad in Syria; and attempts to undermine western democracies, including cyberattacks and social manipulation in the 2016 US Presidential election. The language in the sanctions also explicitly highlights Russian corruption, and a system that consolidates power and money in the hands of a small circle of Putin insiders. These sanctions, more than past measures, are expected to discourage domestic and international financial and business interactions with the individuals and companies involved.
In other DoJ news, the office of the Inspector General recently published a press release announcing the commencement of their internal review of DoJ and FBI conduct and compliance regarding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants and the use of confidential sources. Presumably, the review will look specifically at some of the issues surrounding last month’s controversial House Intelligence Committee memo, which blamed the FBI for improperly seeking and obtaining a FISC warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page with intelligence partially gathered from the Steele dossier. More broadly, the DoJ IG is conducting a wide-ranging review of the Department’s management of the early stages of the Russia investigation, upon which much Congressional and Presidential attention has been focused over the past few months as high-profile firings and resignations have brought increased scrutiny and politicization to the Department’s leadership and processes. Apropos DoJ leadership, Deputy AG Rosenstein has picked a new deputy to assist in the oversight of the special counsel Russia investigation. Former federal prosecutor and DoJ national security and counterterrorism official Ed O’Callaghan will become Rosenstein’s Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, a top post which entails working closely with Rosenstein on investigative oversight. The former official occupying that position, Robert Hur, left last month for a post as US attorney of Maryland.
House Intelligence Committee
Although their Russia investigation has officially concluded, the House Intelligence Committee has remained active in related affairs. At the beginning of the month Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter to the DoJ and FBI, demanding that they provide him the original FBI document summarizing the rationale for beginning the Russia investigation. Nunes asked that the document be provided by April 11, and has repeatedly threatened Rosenstein and FBI Director Wray with legal action if they fail to comply. Nunes also reportedly asked for 4 classified FISC applications related to the warrant on Carter Page, ostensibly to bolster the claims in his contentious memo. So far, Wray and Rosenstein have apparently not given Nunes any documents, and it’s not clear what–if any–legal action he would actually be able to take against them, especially with the closure of his investigation and without the support of the full House Intelligence Committee.
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing at the beginning of the month to discuss election security, focused on Russian attacks on electoral infrastructure in 2016, the federal response to those attacks, and the mitigation of future vulnerabilities. The Committee heard from the Department of Homeland Security as well as state election officials, many of whom highlighted the need for increased state and federal cooperation and communication in elections. The hearing underscored concerns about the upcoming midterm elections, as many states have not significantly improved their voting systems since 2016, when Russian hackers were able to breach systems in 21 states. Among the Homeland Security officials at the hearing were Kristjen Nielsen, the DHS Secretary, and former Secretary Jeh Johnson, who testified about weaknesses in current state voting systems that could still be exploited by cyberattacks, and also discussed weaknesses in communication between state election officials and the federal government, which failed to act promptly in providing information, security and resources to states whose systems had been compromised in 2016. Nielsen and Johnson also highlighted the particular vulnerability of swing states, which have disproportionate control over electoral outcomes, and are therefore larger targets for hostile state attacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee released a shortlist of recommendations following the hearing, ahead of a classified report on election vulnerabilities which is currently under review by federal intelligence agencies. The Committee called for states to secure their voting infrastructure with paper ballot machines and more secure databases, with additional funding and resources being provided by the federal government for security and threat monitoring. The recommendations backed up previous intelligence community recommendations to states regarding elections, but also urged the federal government and the White House to take a firm stand against election interference and to allocate additional resources, including information, to state officials. Congress appears poised to approve almost 700 million dollars in aid to states to secure voting infrastructure before the midterms.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been investigating Facebook and the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, which has again thrown the social media giant into the spotlight for its role in the 2016 election. Last week Facebook deleted hundreds of accounts associated with or controlled by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian propaganda firm that was indicted last month by the special counsel for its role in the proliferation of divisive misinformation on social media during the 2016 election. Most of the content the company removed was in Russian and was apparently aimed at influencing Russian and European users, in ways similar to those the IRA employed to influence US users during the election. Facebook also outlined a plan to make political ad purchases–and data about ad influence–more publicly transparent before the midterms. This week Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before joint Senate Committees, addressing both Russian activity and influence on the platform and data privacy concerns sparked by the recent news that data from around 87 million Facebook users–according to a recently expanded estimate by Facebook–may have been illegally or improperly shared with the data firm Cambridge Analytica in 2016. Cambridge Analytica, which was founded by Steve Bannon and Stephen Mercer, a powerful Republican donor, used Facebook information to run big data analytics and create ‘psychographic profiles’ of users in order to target ads and potentially manipulative information during the election. Zuckerberg admitted that in the past decade Facebook has not adequately protected users’ data, and has allowed third parties such as apps and advertisers to use data without users’ knowledge or consent.
For its part, Cambridge Analytica has built its reputation around elections, advising political campaigns around the world using data analytics to profile and target voters and ultimately influence outcomes, sometimes also employing clandestine methods. The head of the firm, Alexander Nix, offered an undercover reporter from Britain’s Channel 4 news posing as a political client to set up rival politicians using bribery or entrapment. Other Cambridge Analytica officials were caught on tape bragging about their heavy involvement in the chaotic Kenyan presidential elections last year. The company is facing similar scrutiny in the UK, where Parliament held hearings earlier in the month to discuss Russian social media interference in the Brexit referendum and Cambridge Analytica’s potential use of Facebook user data to influence public opinion. In the US, the firm was working on behalf of the Trump campaign in 2016, but has denied any improper use of Facebook data, claiming they didn’t use psychographic profiling or personality models to target ads, only data that Facebook and other companies made available to all advertisers. It was later revealed that Cambridge Analytica had at one point been in possession of Facebook user data that violated Facebook policies, but later deleted it and claimed it was never used in their Trump campaign work. The prospect of Facebook data being used by the Trump campaign without users’ knowledge or consent is a heavy one, compounding the morass already created by Russian misinformation on social media. This issue will probably remain central to the Russia investigations in the coming months, as the company meets with Congressional Committees and the special counsel to explain its actions during the election.
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee, whose Russia investigation has been stalled for the past few months by a reluctant Chairman Grassley and other Republican members, has been active in recent weeks with a few Russia-related matters. Last week former Trump adviser and close ally Roger Stone agreed to hand over documents to the Committee. Stone said the request, which originally came from ranking member Diane Feinstein last fall, was ‘absurd,’ but nonetheless complied. The Committee is reportedly interested in Stone’s communications with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange–who apparently worked with Russians in 2016 to release stolen DNC and Clinton emails during the election–as well as other Russian officials and Trump campaign members. Stone has long been a somewhat enigmatic subject of the Russia investigations, due to his closeness to Trump and alleged ties to Assange, as well as his proximity to an increasing number of other witnesses. He will likely remain in investigators’ spotlights.
The Judiciary Committee was also involved in the recent Facebook drama, hearing testimony this week from Zuckerberg in a joint hearing with the Senate Commerce Committee, where Senators probed the issues of Russian fake news and political interference, as well as data privacy. The Facebook hearing precipitated an unusually bipartisan movement in Congress to discuss regulations and necessary changes to Facebook and other companies occupying the inscrutable world of social media, as it becomes increasingly clear how easily misinformation can spread on such platforms, undermining political debate and aggravating social issues. iIlustrative of this point is the ease with which Facebook allowed user data to spread to other more nefarious operators in the past, and how easily companies like Cambride Analytica can further twist political and social narratives by using that data to target voters in specific ways for the benefit of specific political figures.