JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Midterm Takeaways

By Julian Mitchell-Israel In seizing the House, we took a step out of the mire of hateful politics that has been steadily consuming our country. This was a hard-fought victory, and anyone who voted, who worked on a campaign, who believed in the great people of our...

read more

Zinke Questioned…Again

Brief #46---Environment Policy Summary Scandals are swirling again for DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke, who just days ago compared Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King Jr. to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Now, however, the Department of Justice is considering the...

read more

Trump Mistakenly Credits Himself for Gains in the Economy

Brief #27---Economic Policy Policy Summary One of President Trump’s favorite things to tout has consistently been the economic growth that the United States has enjoyed during his presidency. The picture he paints is one of economic turnaround, often highlighting the...

read more

Michael’s Aftermath

Brief #45---Environment Summary The official death toll from Hurricane Michael is at 26 and counting as of last week, as rescuers continue to find bodies, and reports say many are still missing. The future looks tenuous for the Florida area that was devastated by the...

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814

Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

December 6, 2017

Summary

On December 6th, President Trump announced that the US formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and will begin the process of moving its embassy, which is currently based in Tel Aviv. The announcement was identified as a “new approach” for finding Trump’s promised “ultimate deal” for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While West Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory by most of the world, and is often envisioned as the eventual capital of a future Palestinian state. East Jerusalem is also home to both Jewish and Muslim holy sites, including the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as over 300 thousand Palestinians. Other countries avoid provoking conflict by basing their embassies in Tel Aviv. The policy change has aroused ire from much of the Muslim world, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation announcing that they will no longer accept US help in the peace process. Rallies protesting the move have been attended by thousands in Jakarta, Indonesia; Ankara, Turkey; and Karachi, Pakistan. Several Palestinian protesters have been killed in clashes with the Israeli Defence Force. Even two of Trump’s favorite heads of state, Putin and Erdogan, have criticized his decision. A UN resolution declaring the move to be legally void – supported by the other 14 members of the Security Council – was vetoed by the US.

Analysis

The transition towards recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is actually the culmination of a bill passed over twenty years ago. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which received bipartisan support, directed the embassy to be relocated no later than 1999. Clinton, and every successive president until now, have elected to sign bi-yearly national security waivers to keep the embassy in place. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is leading the administration’s peace efforts, even convinced the President to do the same earlier this year. This tradition has allowed the United States to keep up appearances as a neutral mediator of the conflict. Trump’s decision reinforces the belief held by many Palestinians – that the United States is solely concerned with ensuring the goals of the state of Israel. This could have a permanent destructive effect on the possibility of ever finding peace between the two embattled groups.

Engagement Resources

  • Learn about one martyred Palestinian activist: Ibrahim Abu Thurayyah was a renowned activist who was killed by an IDF sniper during recent protests. Al-Jazeera has more details on his story and message.
  • Check out J-Street: J-Street is a pro-Israel organization working to find a peaceful, humane solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can learn more about their positions on their website.
  • Donate to the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians. You can donate on their website.

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.


 

Foreign01

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Contraceptive Rollback

Friday, December 15

This brief updates previous health briefs. For more information, please see the June 10th brief on the drafting of the rule and the October 12th brief on the issuing of the contraceptive rollback.

Summary

On Friday, Pennsylvania Federal Judge Wendy Beetlestone temporarily blocked the Trump Administration’s rules that allowed employers to deny contraceptive coverage to employees based on moral or religious objections. The administration drafted the rules early this summer and officially issued them in early October. Other states have sued to block the controversial rules. Judge Beetlestone argued that Pennsylvania is “likely to suffer serious and irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunction.” Others, like Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, argue that Congress has not changed the requirements in the ACA, so Trump’s rule is illegal and undermines women’s health. The rules are another way the Trump Administration is undermining the Affordable Care Act after the GOP’s inability to pass its own health care bill. LEARN MORE

Analysis

Contraceptive coverage was required in the Affordable Care Act with few exemptions. Trump’s rules expanded exemptions for religious or moral objections and allow employers, colleges, and universities with student health plans to deny birth control coverage. Notre Dame University, for example, announced that it would stop providing contraceptive coverage to students and employees after the October ruling, but has since reversed the decision after facing backlash. The main ideological clash circles around who has the right to make decisions about contraceptives. Trump and some conservative organizations feel that requiring contraceptive coverage violates employer’s religious and moral freedoms. Opponents, like most Democrats, Planned Parenthood, and the United Nations argue that it is each woman’s right to have access to contraceptives so that she has the choice to use them or not based on her own religious and moral belief system and not that of her boss. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

This brief was compiled by Ann Furbush. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact ann@usresistnews.org.


 

Health01

Flynn Update, Trump Jr Interviews, DoJ Defense

Following the news of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea in the special counsel’s Russia investigation, reports began to surface of text messages Flynn sent to a former business partner during President Trump’s inauguration. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee told reporters that a whistleblower from ACU Strategic Partners, a firm which Flynn had formerly advised, reached out to the Committee in June with information about the messages, which until now the special counsel had asked them to withhold. The whistleblower alleged that during the inauguration Alex Copson, a managing partner of ACU, had received and later showed associates text messages from Flynn promising that the firm’s nuclear plans–involving building reactors in the Middle East–would move forward under the new administration. Flynn allegedly told Copson that sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to Russian electoral interference, which would’ve affected ACU’s project, would be dismantled by Trump. House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings released the whistleblower’s charges last week, and shortly after received a response from a senior strategist at the firm, who in a letter to Cummings denied that Copson had texted with Flynn on inauguration day. The strategist wrote that the firm had looked at Copson’s phone bill and found no evidence of any communication with Flynn, and offered to brief the committee on the issue. This offer was refused by Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, who also denied Committee Democrats’ requests to interview the whistleblower, who had also offered to meet. Gowdy has been reluctant to pursue Russia-related inquiries, which has triggered conflict within the Committee. Under previous leadership, the Committee had begun to look into Flynn in the early stages of the congressional Russia investigations, but Gowdy curbed the probe, saying it was redundant amidst the many other federal and congressional inquiries. Despite Committee support, Gowdy has categorically refused to subpoena documents from or meet with White House officials and other witnesses regarding Flynn or any other Russia-related matters.

It therefore falls to the special counsel to determine the veracity of the whistleblower’s account, and according to Committee members, Mueller has already received and gone through information provided by the whistleblower and the firm. If true, the allegations could further incriminate Flynn–and possibly by extension other administration officials–for using foreign policy to benefit certain business associates.

DoJ & Special Counsel

On the subject of Flynn and Russia sanctions, the question of influence goes much deeper than the ACU project. According to Flynn’s plea deal documents, he had spoken with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration after the election, to which Russia was expected to retaliate with additional sanctions and diplomatic expulsions against the US. Flynn had apparently asked Kislyak not to retaliate against the sanctions, promising a detente and improved diplomatic relationship with the incoming Trump administration. Russia indeed did not retaliate to those sanctions, but the Kremlin recently felt compelled to deny that Flynn’s request influenced that decision. Russia continues to deny both collusion and electoral interference.

Senate Intelligence Committee

This Wednesday the Senate Intelligence Committee held a 9-hour closed-door interview with Donald Trump Jr. This was Trump Jr’s third meeting with congressional investigators; he previously met with the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, and with the House Intelligence Committee last week. Senate Intelligence ranking member Mark Warner called for Trump Jr to return for a public hearing.

House Intelligence Committee

Last week the House Intelligence Committee also interviewed Donald Trump Jr; this meeting reportedly lasted for 7 hours and touched on Trump Jr’s contacts with Russians during the campaign, including his attendance at and response to the Trump Tower meeting and his communication with WikiLeaks prior to the site’s release of hacked DNC emails. Trump Jr denied speaking with his father about the Trump Tower meeting before talking to reporters (after news of the meeting broke earlier this year), while reports indicate that President Trump personally dictated his son’s first media response to revelations about the meeting, which was later undermined by Trump Jr’s release of emails detailing the meeting’s original purpose: obtaining damaging information about Clinton from the Russian government. Trump Jr also reportedly told the Committee that he had no knowledge of Flynn’s contact with Sergey Kislyak and other foreign officials during the transition.

Following the interview, Democratic Committee members including ranking member Adam Schiff spoke with reporters about some of the questions they had asked Trump Jr, and some of the issues he refused to discuss. Without disclosing classified details, Schiff told reporters that Trump Jr had invoked attorney-client privilege to avoid responding to investigators’ questions about his communication with President Trump regarding the Trump Tower meeting, an issue Committee investigators had been pressing. Trump Jr and his lawyers responded by accusing Schiff and other Committee members of leaking private information to the media which reflected negatively on Trump Jr. Trump Jr’s lawyer demanded that the Committee conduct an internal inquiry into the ‘leaks’ of information from Trump Jr’s interview. A spokesman for Schiff responded that it is within the congressman’s rights to tell the media when a witness refuses to cooperate or answer certain questions–barring specific details–especially when the witness says publicly that they had fully cooperated. It is unlikely that the Committee will launch an inquiry into the alleged leaks.

In other House Intelligence Committee news, this Thursday Committee chairman Devin Nunes was cleared of charges of disclosing classified information. Nunes had been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee after he told reporters–without his Committee’s knowledge–about intelligence reports detailing the ‘unmasking’ by Obama administration officials of Trump associates caught in routine foreign surveillance. This disclosure was widely seen as an attempt to provide backing to Trump’s unfounded tweet accusing the Obama administration of wiretapping his campaign. The Ethics investigation compelled Nunes to ‘temporarily recuse’ himself from the Committee’s Russia investigation, but he remained active as chairman and continued to work behind the scenes of the investigation–often seemingly attempting to undermine its work–by issuing parallel and conflicting subpoenas, document requests, and threats, without the full knowledge or backing of the Committee. Nunes consistently denied any wrongdoing regarding the Ethics investigation, and accused the probe of being politically motivated. Despite the Ethics Committee’s clearance, Mike Conaway, who took charge of the Russia investigation following Nunes’ recusal, says he will continue to lead the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe. Nunes hasn’t given any clear indications of his intentions, but if he were to resume control of the investigation it would certainly aggravate an already tensely partisan climate.

House Judiciary Committee

Normally not an active player in the Russia investigations, the House Judiciary Committee has recently entered the scene with a probe into the impartiality of the special counsel team, after two FBI lawyers’ messages criticizing Trump surfaced. The messages, which were sent during the campaign and prior to the special counsel’s appointment, were immediately seized upon by congressional Republicans as evidence of partisan bias within the special counsel team and investigation. Trump and his allies have been persistently trying to undermine the legitimacy of Mueller’s investigation by alleging that the special counsel investigators, and the FBI and DoJ more broadly, are prejudiced against Trump due to political affiliation and past political donations. Mueller removed the lawyer whose messages were at issue, Peter Strzok, from the special counsel investigation. Strzok was an FBI agent at the time the messages were sent, and later joined Mueller’s investigative team. The other lawyer involved is Lisa Page, who also worked for the FBI then the special counsel, but left Mueller’s team earlier in the year. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein–presiding over Russia-related matters for the DoJ since AG Jeff Sessions’ recusal–defended the special counsel and his investigation in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee last week. Rosenstein reminded lawmakers that the DoJ does not make discriminatory hiring decisions based on political affiliation, and also underscored the difference between a DoJ official having a personal political view, and their letting that political view influence their professional work–something Mueller has vigilantly prevented. Rosenstein told the Committee that the DoJ will continue to stand behind the special counsel and has found no cause for Mueller’s dismissal, despite mounting pressure from conservatives to discredit him and politicize his investigation.

This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.


 

ResistanceBlog2017c

The Use of Search Warrants And Cellphone Location Tracking Information

Supreme Court Case
November 28, 2017

Summary

Carpenter v. United States is a case before the current term of the United States Supreme Court that is examining the issue of whether a warrantless search of cell phone records, including the location of and movement of the cell phone user, is a violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment right against an unreasonable search. Timothy Carpenter and Timothy Sanders were involved in a crime spree where they robbed numerous Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in the Michigan and Ohio area. Law enforcement investigators wanted to place the men physically near the robberies. The investigators did not request a criminal search warrant but used a disclosure order that does not require the use of a warrant. They ended up acquiring acquired one hundred twenty – seven (127) days of cellphone tower information in order to place Mr. Carpenter within the vicinity of four robberies over a five-month period. This information was used to convict Mr. Carpenter who subsequently received a one hundred sixteen (116) year sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the conviction and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

This case is an important case because it is seen as a test on how far the government can intrude into the privacy of our digital devices in criminal cases. Cell phones are no longer only phones. A person’s physical location can be determined by tracking the signal of his or her cellphone through cell tower records. This is troublesome from a privacy viewpoint because the information, if retrieved without a warrant, has the ability to pinpoint a person’s location at all times. The idea that a person can always be tracked through their cell phone destroys any sense of privacy even when a person may not be engaging in criminal behavior on other days. Nathan Freed Wessler of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued before the court that “warrantless tracking should [have a time limit] of 24 hours” but that anything after that should require the cops to obtain a warrant to get cellphone location tracking information from wireless service providers. In a case from 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must get a warrant to use a GPS device on a suspect’s car to track his movements. And in 2014, the court ruled that a warrant was required to search the contents of a cellphone after the phone has been seized. Having a twenty – four (24) hour limitation as suggested by Mr. Wessler seems an appropriate limitation, as it is consistent with these recent Supreme Court cases on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy which a person should also have with regard to their cell phone records and how it pinpoints their location. The suggestion made by the ACLU in this case is the best course of action in order to keep privacy rights up to date with evolving personal digital habits. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.


 

CivilRights01

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Plan To Overturn 2015 Net Neutrality Rules [UPDATED]

Proposed Regulations
Proposed on April 26, 2017

Update: December 14, 2017

On December 14, 2017, the five commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in an expected party – line 3 – 2 split vote to reverse 2015 rules barring Internet service providers from throttling Internet traffic and offering faster separate Internet lanes at a higher price. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wrote a blistering dissenting statement explaining her vote and why consumers would end up losers as a result of this vote. While this vote is disappointing, Congress has now chimed in and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is looking into reviewing the agency decision by having Congress vote to nullify the action, as Congress is empowered to do. A group of state attorney generals, including Eric Schneiderman of New York, have vowed to sue to prevent the rules from being repealed while other states, including California which is home to the tech industry in Silicon Valley, have indicated they may implement their own net neutrality rules in their own states. It was a disappointing vote at the FCC but one where a long protracted battle now looms. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Update: November 22, 2017

On November 22, 2017, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published its plans that are aimed to throw out nearly all of the “net neutrality” regulations that were approved in 2015. With a Republican majority of commissioners on the five-person panel, the plans are likely to be approved. This is incredibly disappointing considering that the 2015 regulations prohibited Internet service providers from favoring certain online content over others. That will no longer be the case under the FCC’s new proposals. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai stated that his new plan would prohibit the “federal government from micromanaging the internet.” However, his fellow commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has called the new plans a way to “favor cable and telephone companies” instead of ordinary citizens who use the internet every day. A vote to implement the new plans by the five-member panel of commissioners is now scheduled for December 14, 2017. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Summary

On April 26, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced a vote scheduled for May 2017 to decide whether to overturn FCC rules adopted on February 26, 2015, more commonly known as Net Neutrality regulations. The regulations established that broadband providers may not use their networks to [1] block access to legal content, applications or services, [2] impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications or services (known as “throttling”) and [3] favor some lawful Internet traffic over others based on amounts of monies paid (known as “paid prioritization”). The regulations were originally implemented in order to ensure an Open Internet. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

Chairman Pai’s scheduling of the vote has created a ferocious uproar. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organization, released a statement criticizing the proposal, stating that there would be no option to prevent providers from “abusive blocking, privacy violations, throttling of Internet content and [the rise] of pay – to – play fast lanes.” Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also chimed in, warning that without the current rules the Internet would become a place favoring those with the deepest pockets, and not necessarily the best ideas. Chairman Pai’s proposal is a troubling move because it gives the service providers the potential to have ultimate control over, and maybe even censor, content and websites that consumers want to view online in favor of content that service providers prefer. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.


 

CivilRights01

Flynn’s Plea, Trump Family & Finance, Nunes’ DoJ Feud

The special counsel investigation into Russian electoral interference and Trump campaign collusion has taken a dramatic turn this week with the indictment and subsequent guilty plea of former national security adviser Michael Flynn on charges of lying to the FBI. Flynn had been under investigation since before Mueller’s appointment, and previous news–including his breaking ties with Trump’s legal team–had indicated that he may have been cooperating with the special counsel. A guilty plea signals the investigation’s increasing proximity to the current White House administration, which has had difficulties distancing itself from the characters who have been indicted or otherwise implicated thus far. The general perception, catalyzed by media coverage, seems to be that Mueller is zeroing in on very high-level members of the administration and transition, perhaps including Trump himself. Multiple reports suggest that the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner may be the next target in Mueller’s sights, due to his involvement in meetings between Flynn and former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, as well as his presence at and reported input on other Russia-related affairs during the campaign and transition. Aside from Kushner, Donald Trump Jr has also been under increased scrutiny for his role in meetings with Russian affiliates, and is set to appear before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and possibly the Senate Judiciary Committee in coming weeks.

DoJ & Special Counsel

Charging Flynn was certainly the most noteworthy development in the special counsel’s Russia investigation thus far, but there is much about Flynn’s guilty plea and consequent cooperation to unpack. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had during the presidential transition with then Russian ambassador Kislyak. Flynn was attempting to establish back channel communications to discuss policy issues including Russian sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to election interference, and a U.N. security council resolution on Israel (read the court documents here). Perhaps the most damning allegation is that Flynn coordinated foreign policy with Russian officials; it is illegal for Americans who do not hold political office to negotiate U.S. policy, and during the time that Flynn met with Kislyak and was in contact with other foreign officials, Trump had not yet taken office. We now know that including Flynn, multiple people involved in the Trump campaign not only communicated with Russians during the campaign and transition, but were also privy to Russian offers of campaign-related assistance, directly contradicting the administration’s steadfast insistence to the contrary.

Flynn’s indictment was not itself a surprise; the U.S. intelligence community had long known that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his foreign communications. There are many other potential crimes for which he could have been charged, so the fact that Mueller only charged him with lying to the FBI, coupled with his quick guilty plea, indicates that he had been working with the special counsel and has information Mueller views as valuable. This could include implicating other members of Trump’s inner circle; court documents indicate that Mueller is interested in one or two unnamed senior officials on the Trump transition team who directed Flynn to communicate with Kislyak about policy. Several media outlets have used anonymous sources to identify that senior official as Jared Kushner, although this has not been definitively confirmed. Last month, prior to Flynn’s plea, Kushner was questioned by the special counsel about a meeting he attended with Flynn and Kislyak during the transition, but this interview was brief and probably a procedural component of the case against Flynn. As with any important development in the Russia investigations, Flynn’s plea has caused a flurry of excited conjecture and speculation, but right now all that we can say for certain is that Flynn is giving some information to Mueller as part of his plea, which could potentially implicate other administration officials, likely by exposing their perjury related to denying knowledge of campaign communication with Russia.

In another bold move this week, Mueller subpoenaed–and received–President Trump’s personal banking information from Deutsche Bank, Trump’s biggest lender. It is unclear whether these financial records are directly related to the Russia probe, or if the special counsel is using his broad mandate to contemporaneously investigate other potential financial crimes. Trump and his business activities have a shady financial history to say the least, and Deutsche Bank is reportedly one of the only institutions that were still lending to him over the past two decades–the loans have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. Last year the bank itself was implicated in a Russian money laundering scheme, although investigators have found no relation between that and Trump.

This week has also brought an interesting update in the Manafort case. Special counsel prosecutors had reportedly worked out a large bail deal with Manafort, which would have released him from house arrest and monitoring, but withdrew their support for the deal amidst allegations that Manafort had secretly ghostwritten an editorial in defense of his work for pro-Russian interests in the Ukraine. He had reportedly been working on the editorial last week with an unnamed Russian colleague, whom prosecutors identified as having ties to Russian intelligence. According to the prosecutors, both the editorial itself and the contact with a Russian intel-affiliate violate a court order barring attempts to influence public opinion. The Washington Post tentatively identified the Russian colleague as Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Manafort during his time consulting in the Ukraine and with whom Manafort had remained in contact. Relating back to a previously reported allegation, during the campaign Manafort reportedly directed Kilimnik to reach out to Putin-allied Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska–for whom Manafort had worked as a consultant–to offer ‘private briefings’ on the Trump campaign, although both men deny this.

Senate Intelligence Committee

This week the New York Times reported that over the summer President Trump had repeatedly pressured senior Republicans in the Senate to end the Russia investigations as quickly as possible. These senators included Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as other members of the Committee, according to lawmakers and aides. Burr told reporters that Trump had contacted him and urged him to ‘move on’ to other issues. During the summer Trump was especially upset about the Russia investigations, frequently complaining publicly and venting about Jeff Sessions’ recusal, and reportedly often complained to McConnell about the probes. Chairman Burr said he did not feel pressured by the president, and other Republican lawmakers have characterized Trump’s appeals as simply political ignorance. On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats are raising questions about possible obstruction of justice, although given Burr’s response the issue is unlikely to mature.

House Intelligence Committee

The House Intelligence Committee is set to meet for a private interview with Donald Trump Jr on Wednesday. Among the topics expected to be discussed are the Trump Tower meeting Trump Jr set up on the promise of ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton, and a National Rifle Association meeting he attended last year with Russian banker and Putin ally Alexander Torshin, who reportedly reached out to the Trump campaign in a Kremlin-backed attempt to set up a backchannel. Additionally, investigators are expected to question Trump Jr about Trump’s financial ties to Russia, as well as Trump Jr’s online communication with WikiLeaks during the campaign while the site was releasing hacked DNC emails. The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to interview Trump Jr about similar subjects at an unspecified time later in the month. Both interviews are voluntary, so while investigators have long lists of issues they would like to probe, it remains to be seen how forthcoming Trump Jr will be.

The House Intelligence Committee has continued to pursue questions related to the controversial Steele dossier, a compilation of intelligence about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia (see previous posts), and its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Leading this line of questioning is recused Committee chairman Devin Nunes, who has repeatedly shown surprising and very partisan aggression on matters related to the dossier: Nunes has issued multiple subpoenas and threats to officials from Fusion GPS, the company that commissioned the dossier, as well as to the DoJ and FBI regarding intelligence related to the dossier’s allegations. Nunes’ tactics have been perceived as surprising and unnecessary by the Democratic members of his Committee, and ranking member Adam Schiff has been vocal about his misgivings with Nunes’ ongoing involvement in the investigation, implying that Nunes is most interested in creating distractions to benefit the Trump administration. Most recently, Nunes threatened to hold the DoJ and FBI in contempt of Congress for not allowing their officials to testify to the Committee. However, this week the DoJ reportedly reached a long-negotiated agreement with Nunes for Committee investigators to interview an official who was Steele’s point of contact in the FBI. Nunes has continued to publicly accuse Justice officials of ‘stonewalling’ his investigation, seemingly even after the agreement had been formalized. DoJ spokespeople have countered Nunes’ allegations, saying they have already given the House Intelligence Committee hundreds of documents related to the dossier and its funding. Additionally, CNN reported that after a tedious negotiation the FBI had agreed to brief a bipartisan group of Committee leaders about issues related to Nunes’ earlier subpoenas, but Nunes refused to attend the briefing with Committee Democrats and insisted on identical private briefings for each side. Nunes reportedly continues to fume over what he perceives as DoJ attempts to thwart or undermine his investigation, and despite their ostensible detente, he still insists on drafting a contempt of Congress citation as quickly as possible against FBI director Christopher Wray and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, over their failure to produce certain documents the Committee had subpoenaed.

Senate Judiciary Committee

This week Diane Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC reporters that her Committee’s investigation is “putting together a case of obstruction of justice” against President Trump, given an already sizeable body of evidence supporting that charge, including Trump’s firing of James Comey as well as recent comments he made about Flynn. Feinstein also indicated that she thought the evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government was growing stronger. Feinstein has been at the forefront of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigative activities, but recent reports indicate that she and chairman Chuck Grassley have been butting heads over the probe’s progress. Although the Judiciary Committee’s investigation has proceeded more smoothly and expediently than some of the congressional probes, it has not been without its partisan struggles. These have included allegations of Grassley’s unwillingness to move forward with certain lines of investigation, which has been perceived by some Committee members as stalling or stonewalling. Grassley himself has seemed preoccupied by questions surrounding the Clinton email investigation, and other highly politicized issues that do not directly relate to the Russia probe. Feinstein and other Committee Democrats are pressing forward on issues of obstruction and potential collusion, and are pressing Grassley to sign on to a subpoena to compel Donald Trump Jr to testify in a public hearing before their Committee this month.

This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.


 

ResistanceBlog2017c

Trump Announces Downsizing of Two National Monuments

Presidential Proclamation Modifying Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments
Announced December 4, 2017

Summary

Trump announced on Monday that he would reduce the size of two Utah national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, by about two million acres as recommended by Interior Secretary Zinke. The Bears Ears national monument was downsized by 85 percent and Grand Staircase-Escalante by 50 percent [see map], which is the largest reversal of federal land protection in U.S. history. In his address in Utah, Trump cited federal overreach by previous administrations and a desire to give land back to the people as the motivating factors for the rollback. The lack of designation opens up this land to oil and gas production, mineral extraction, logging and other commercial endeavors. Supporters of the reversal say that it will give people access to land they need for their livelihoods and production of key resources, which was previously denied to them in a federal land grab. Opposition to the rollback is concerned about current and future land conservation in the U.S., as well as the sacred Native cultural sites located within the monuments. Eight lawsuits have already been filed against the reversal, citing the President’s lack of authority to recall the designations. A group of native tribes, outdoor retailers, and conservation groups are among the entities filing suit. In the meantime, Secretary Zinke has already suggested downsizing for two additional national monuments, California and Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou and Nevada’s Gold Butte, as well as a change in management for ten others.

Analysis

This decision fits seamlessly into Trump’s continued call for decreased regulation and increased development of public land. The search for “energy dominance” and the desire to tap into the fossil fuels that are assumed to lie beneath many public lands are assumed to be the driving force behind the push to open up these public lands to private companies. In his address in Utah, Trump claimed that “very distant bureaucrats” in Washington did not know this land’s best purpose, and he gave it back to those that do. However, the availability of previously protected land for development and commercial production has set off alarm bells for those in conservation. Especially in light of Zinke’s recommendation for downsizing additional monuments, many are concerned that this is only the beginning of undoing regulations for much of America’s protected land. Both sides say that the actions of the other are unconstitutional and an overextension of power. Those in favor of reducing national monuments say that the land was designated by federal overreach, while those opposed to the reversal say that the President only has power to set aside land, not reverse such orders. In what has been called a “flurry of lawsuits,” many entities, including conservation groups, outdoor retailers, and Native tribes, have come together to oppose this order and the implications it could have on all protected land.

Engagement Resources

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.


 

ENV

Important Health Care Changes Snuck Into New Tax Plan

Tax Bill passed Senate early Saturday, December 2, 2017

Summary

The tax bill that passed in the Senate early Saturday changes a crucial component of the American healthcare system: the tax penalties enforcing the individual mandate. The individual mandate is a critical to the success of the Affordable Care Act because it requires that all Americans have insurance or pay a tax penalty. Without these healthy people paying into the insurance market, insurers have to raise prices to compensate for the disproportionate number of sick people in the market. This provision drives up premiums and makes health care unaffordable for many Americans. Because this Senate bill is different than the one that passed the House – one of the main differences being the House bill did not repeal the individual mandate – the two chambers of Congress must negotiate, draft one bill and then pass it in both chambers. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has indicated that the House will agree to the repeal of the individual mandate in the final bill. LEARN MORE

Analysis

According to the Congressional Budget Office report, eliminating the individual mandate tax penalty could result in as many as 13 million people losing insurance in 2027 and driving premiums up by 10% per year. Interestingly, the states most negatively affected by this policy are Republican states, including Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming. In most counties in these states, citizens may not have any option for affordable insurance. Congress is trying to slip this unfavorable healthcare law into the tax plan because it failed to pass healthcare policy on its own. Americans around the country will feel the effects of this policy if it passes in the House and many people will lose their insurance coverage. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

This brief was compiled by Ann Furbush. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact Ann@usresistnews.org.


 

Health01

United States Attorney General Jeff Session’s Law Enforcement Memorandum [UPDATED]

Attorney General Memorandum
Issued March 31, 2017

Update: November 17, 2017

On November 17, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a department memorandum that prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from issuing regulatory guidance documents. This announcement is an implementation of the policy announced by the Attorney General in March when he said, “it is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non – federal law enforcement agencies.” In years past, the federal government through the DOJ was permitted to enter into consent decrees with local law enforcement departments to help suggest and implement better practices to reduce potential police and civil rights abuses. But Sessions has likely brought that to an end with his directive against issuing regulatory guidance documents. This is disappointing considering residents in Baltimore are eager to see a federal police consent decree implemented. The Attorney General’s decision removes another tool that was often used to address local law enforcement abuses. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Summary

On March 31, 2017, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to Department of Justice attorneys promoting support for federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement authorities. The Attorney General pledged the resources of the Department of Justice in order to “promote a peaceful and lawful society where the civil rights of all persons are valued and protected.” In order to implement these twin goals, the Attorney General laid out a framework that emphasized “strengthening our longstanding and productive relationships with our law enforcement partners” at the various levels of government. LEARN MORE

Analysis

The law enforcement policy proposed by the Attorney General creates two immediate problems. The memorandum states [1] “it is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies” and that [2] “misdeeds of individual bad actors should not impugn…[the] honorable work…that law enforcement…agencies perform.” This is problematic because the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has the power and authority to investigate and offer solutions to law enforcement agencies that have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. By minimizing unlawful conduct as only misdeeds of selected individuals, the Attorney General is ignoring the fact that numerous law enforcement agencies have systemic deficiencies that contribute to police ineffectiveness. But he also goes a step further by stating that DOJ should no longer step in to offer solutions to improve policing as DOJ did many times previously, most notably in recent police misconduct investigations in Chicago and Baltimore. This new policy, and current review of reform agreements nationwide, will curtail the ability of local communities to partner with the Federal Government to monitor, critique and address local law enforcement abuses. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

 

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.


 

CivilRights01

The Problem of Reverse Discrimination Cases Against Whites and Affirmative Action Cases [UPDATED]

Pending Department of Justice Policy
Reported on August 1, 2017

Update: December 2, 2017

It has now been confirmed that a DOJ investigation is looking into these policies at Harvard University. Confirmation of this investigation is unique because it is an investigation being done not for the white community but on behalf of a minority class — Asian-Americans. This is surprising considering the Trump Administration and Attorney General Sessions have struggled with accusations of pursuing racist policies. This DOJ investigation appears closely linked to a 2015 complaint against Harvard that was filed by numerous Asian – American organizations and was supported by the non – profit group that brought the Abigail Fisher case to the Supreme Court. This begs the question as to whether Asian – Americans and white conservative-leaning groups have banded together to oppose affirmative – action policies nationwide. Because of this, it is important to remember the statement made by two Asian – American commissioners on the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights. Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki issued a joint statement in response to the 2015 complaint against Harvard that said: “we hope that this is a sincerely raised issue and not a backdoor attack on affirmative action that attempts to pit Asian Americans against other minorities, as other efforts have been.” That statement is critical because it may reveal Mr. Sessions’ true intention – to manipulate the Asian-American community into supporting his proposal to dismantle affirmative action. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Summary

On August 1, 2017, the New York Times reported that the U.S. Department of Justice “is preparing to redirect resources…of the civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.” This move is likely in response to the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas which held that a “race conscious admissions program…is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.” In that case, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, claimed her application to the University of Texas was rejected on the basis of her race. LEARN MORE

Analysis

What the Department of Justice does not see in pursuing reverse discrimination cases is that there is no law that is preventing Abigail Fisher and whites as a class from pursuing a higher education. In “reverse discrimination against whites” arguments, the key difference for discrimination purposes is that whites are not completely barred from the activity – in this case, pursuing a college education. Abigail Fisher may not have been accepted into the University of Texas but she could still pursue a college education at any other university that would accept her.

A white woman being denied admission to a university is not comparable to racist policies that other minorities have had to endure in the United States through the years. Unlike Abigail Fisher’s situation, minority communities in the United States have had to endure laws that were designed to bar entire races and nationalities from participating in activities with no option to participate elsewhere. Jim Crow laws in Mississippi were designed to exclude blacks from voting. In Richard Rothstein’s book The Color of Law he shows how government housing funds mandated discrimination against African – Americans. And for a while in California, Chinese persons could not own property or testify against whites. The Department of Justice should use extreme caution in litigating affirmative actions policies that discriminate against whites because there is no concerted effort to completely bar the white community from higher education and other facets of daily life, which had been the experience of entire minority communities in America in years past. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.


 

CivilRights01

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest