JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
California Wildfires Keep Roaring
A devastating fire has been roaring through California, and the death toll has reached at least 77 people, while 1,000 are still missing.
Federal Oversight of Local Police Stifled by New DOJ Policy; Federal Agency Action
On November 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the memorandum “Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local Government Entities” to the Department of Justice (DOJ). He issued the memorandum moments before he resigned as Attorney General. Consent decrees are often used by the department in order to force state and local entities to comply with constitutional and federal laws.
DACA: an update on our Dreamers
In September 2018, the Trump Administration made known they would like to put an end to the DACA program. DACA (Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals) was an executive action under the Obama Administration that allowed undocumented immigrants who came to the US under the age of 16 to apply for protection from deportation.
Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers
Brief #58—Immigration Policy Summary In addition to the Trump Administration’s announcement of rolling back DACA (see Brief #57), they have recently announced new rules that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses...
Pipelines
The oil and gas industry is starting to face some blowback at the legal level. A Federal Circuit Judge in Montana recently rejected the Trump administration’s demand to build a Keystone XL pipeline, marking a new wave of environmentally charged legal decision-making.
THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE
Ron Wolf: The victorious Democrats flooded the zone on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking members of key house committees who are in line to become the chairmen hit the airwaves to explain their priorities. The guests...
As Gun Violence Peaks, the 116th Congress Must Act Fast
Brief #14---Gun Control Policy Summary A Saturday turned from a morning of worship and celebration to one of tragedy and grief as a gunman opened fire with an assault rifle and at least three hand guns in the Pittsburg synagogue Tree of Life. Police say this act of...
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...
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...
President Trump’s “Election Fraud” Commission [UPDATED]
Executive Order
Issued on June 28, 2017
Update: January 3, 2018
On January 3, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order terminating the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. President Trump had created the commission last year to investigate whether there were instances of voter fraud and of non – citizens voting in U.S. elections. The Commission was viewed as a desperate attempt to investigate a problem that was seen as non – existent. After numerous states refused to hand over voter rolls information that contained sensitive personal data of voters others began to speak out on the sham nature of the commission. Two Republican strategists who had worked on campaigns for decades said they had never seen any instances of voter fraud. And members of the commission itself began to question the usefulness of the commission after getting no response to simple requests and inquiries into the commission’s activities. As Dale Ho, Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project said, “This commission was a sham from the start and everyone recognized it.” LEARN MORE
Summary
On May 11, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Section 3 of the order explains the mission of the commission, which is to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” On June 28, 2017, Kris W. Kobach, the Vice Chair of the Commission sent an identical letter to all 50 states and the District of Columbia requesting voter roll data from each state which could be submitted through an online portal. The information requested includes highly sensitive personal information such as birthdate, partial social security numbers, addresses, voting history and military status in a stated attempt to “fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The personal information requested by Vice Chair Kris Kobach of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is a meaningless gesture. The establishment of the Advisory Commission overlooks a report by the Washington Post in January that found nine investigations into voter fraud that found virtually nothing. There are investigations from academia, from the George W. Bush Administration, from a major newspaper and even statements from President Trump’s own lawyers claiming there was no fraud in the 2016 election! The appointment of Kris Kobach hints at a possible motive for the Trump Administration as the former Kansas Secretary of State has a long history of making exaggerated voter fraud allegations and of illegally trying to suppress voting rights. With overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources already, it is questionable whether another investigation will yield any new conclusions. Forty – four states and D.C. have refused the commission’s request on privacy grounds but it is clear that part of the reason is that a good segment of the population and the states are fed up with the lies put forth by the Administration that could lead to misuse of personal data to suppress votes in the future and dubious new voting policies, especially in light of Mr. Kobach’s prior advocacy of questionable voting programs. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – web page petition to remove Kris Kobach from Commission.
- Brennan Center for Justice – web page analyzing President Trump’s “election fraud” commission.
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.
GOP Attack on the ACA Leaves Health Care Increasingly Government Subsidized
Tax Bill Passed Late December
Summary
In a tweet the day after Christmas, President Donald Trump announced that the Tax Cut Bill essentially repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and forces Democrats and Republicans to collaborate to create new health law. The bill eliminates the ACA’s tax penalty for not having insurance, allowing low-risk individuals to leave the insurance market. Without low-risk individuals contributing to the pool, the remaining insurance buyers have higher costs, so premiums rise. As premiums rise for people who remain in the health insurance market, the government becomes increasingly responsible for subsidizing rising health care costs. The increased government coverage is similar to Medicaid under the ACA in many ways. However, while the ACA offered a mix of publically and privately funded health care, the default health care system after the tax bill shifts the funding away from the private market and gives the government an even larger role in subsidizing health care. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The GOP inadvertently increased government spending and responsibility on health care relative to private spending. The enhanced role of federal subsidies makes the ACA more like a government-run health care system than ever before. To avoid increased involvement and costs, some Republicans hope to make changes to the health care system before the insurance mandate is eliminated in 2019. Given the numerous failures of the GOP to pass health care legislation, these changes may not be easy to pass. Either way, according to the CBO, the changes to health care in the tax bill will lead to 13 million fewer Americans with health insurance in 10 years.
Engagement Resources
- Not One Penny resists the “Trump Tax” through protests, contacting legislators, posting articles, and more.
- Indivisible ensures that people from every part of the country have the opportunity to voice their opinions and resist laws such as the “Tax Scam.”
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
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.
Trump Submits National Security Strategy Report
December 23, 2017
Summary
President Trump revealed the first National Security Strategy Report of his presidency on Monday, further displaying his ideological departure from previous presidents. Trump’s report takes a more grim perspective than past reports, painting a picture of a world overrun with jihadist terrorists, international crime organizations, and conniving allies seeking to undermine the United States. While clear directives are largely absent, proposed solutions primarily include raising the defense budget and further promoting neoliberal market reforms. China and Russia are mentioned as “revisionist powers”, with a vague reference to Russia’s targeting of “media [and] political processes”. In highlighting the dangers of our “porous” border “chain migration” is designated as a threat, suggesting a further shift in rhetoric from opposing illegal immigration to immigration in general. This is not the only instance of Trump’s use of the report for vague race baiting, as he states that one of the five universal truths setting the stage for our security strategy is that “A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future.”, an uncomfortable allusion to the confederate statue conflicts of August.
Analysis
What is most telling about this year’s report is not the threats that are included, but those which are absent. Worldwide poverty is only cited as an excuse to deregulate the market, human rights are barely mentioned, and phrases such as “climate change” and “food insecurity” are completely missing. Russia and China are almost solely discussed as a pair, downplaying the far more serious danger to international peace and security that Russia has proven itself to be in recent years. North Korea’s dangerous pursuance of nuclear weapons is mentioned, but there is no suggestion of a commitment to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world. In fact, Trump’s perception of the largest factor engendering war and conflict is our under-funded, weak military – despite the enormously disproportionate amount of funds we direct to our defense in comparison to the rest of the world. Conversely, Trump also warns of the “grave threat” of our growing debt, which only comes off as more insincere when mentioned immediately after pushing for the largest tax cut in decades. The underpinning of what causes Trump’s security strategy to read so differently from those of past presidents is that he does not believe the United States and its allies can grow together cooperatively. Trump promotes strategic partnerships, but ultimately he views all of our relationships as inherently competitive. Whether it be through trade deals or the spreading of American influence, in Trump’s mind, we can only succeed at the expense of others.
Engagement Resources
- Read the full report: Here you can find the full, 68-page report
- Compare with the previous report: Here you can find a summary of the main components of Obama’s 2015 report.
- Read an article on defense spending: This 2016 article, written by Time magazine, explores the major disconnect between citizens and politicians ideas of appropriate defense budgets.
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.
Trump Administration New Tax Bill
December 20, 2017
Summary
The Republican-led Congress passed a sweeping overhaul of the US tax code on December 20th just days before their holiday recess. The bill totals an estimated $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. Its main focus is on cutting taxes on businesses of all kinds and on reducing taxes for wealthy individuals.
Highlights of the new tax bill include: a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate from 34 to 21 percent; businesses also will be able to write off their investments in capital expenditures right away instead of waiting several years; and small businesses will get a reduction in their business taxes. Businesses also will get a 25% deduction for income from partnerships, S Corporations, and sole proprietorships (providing incentives for business to set up such pass-through entities. Businesses that have depreciable property that wears out over time will get an additional 20% deduction even if they don’t have many employees.
The wealthiest Americans would have their tax rate slashed from 39.6% to 35% and benefit from reductions in the estate tax, a levy on inheritance paid only by the wealthiest Americans. Middle class and poor families would get some modest reduction in taxes, but these are temporary and will begin to expire in 2019. The maximum amount deductible under the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will increase to $2,000 with no limit on the incomes of those who can utilize it. ( Wealthier people will be able to make greater use of the CTC than middle class and poor people.) The ability to make a standard deduction for every taxpayer and dependent on a return will be eliminated until 2025.
There also are several politically loaded components to the bill including: a limitation on the ability to deduct (beyond the 1st $10,000 in value) the cost of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns (a clause that will especially penalize traditionally democratic states such as California and New York with high state and local tax rates.)The tax bill also ends the Obamacare mandate that all Americans must have health insurance. And it will add at least $ 1 trillion dollars to America’s budget deficit.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/whats-in-the-new-tax-bill/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/15/us/politics/final-republican-tax-bill-cuts.html
Analysis
The new Republican tax bill will mainly benefit corporations and wealthy individuals. Middle class and lower income individuals and families will receive a few benefits, but most of these are temporary and scheduled to end in a few years. The theory behind the new bill is that providing tax breaks to the wealthy will free up income that will be invested and help the economy grow, create jobs, and narrow the income gap. However, this approach has failed to work many times before, going back to the tax cuts made by Ronald Reagan under what was known as “trickle-down” economics. Instead of leading to greater investments jobs, tax cuts for the rich usually result in just more profits for those at the top.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 13 million Americans may lose access to health care as a result of the tax bill’s repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate, a move that is likely to drive up the cost of health insurance. Taxpayers can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of AGI in 2017 and 2018, but the new deduction level ends Jan. 1, 2019.
The fact that the new bill will add at least $1.5 trillion to the current budget deficit, already at$ 20 trillion, is cause for concern. The government will need to find new sources of revenue to reduce the deficit, something that many think the Republicans will try to do by reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.
This new bill was rushed through Congress with no hearings and no bipartisan support. In the House and Senate, no Democrats voted in favor of the bill. The reason for this is President Trump and Republican desire to have some legislative victory during Trump’s first year in office. But the victory is sure to come at the expanse of voter anger at the polls in 2018. Almost all public opinion surveys show that the new tax bill has the least amount of popular support in the history of tax bill legislation.
It also is worth noting that President Trump and his family, along with other members of his administration stand to gain significant reductions in their taxes from the new bill, for example through changes in the estate tax, and the special exemptions for the type of businesses that they own.
Engagement Resources
- Tax Policy Center: (www.taxpolicycenter.org) – The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center aims to provide independent analyses of current and longer-term tax issues and to communicate its analyses to the public and to policymakers in a timely and accessible manner. The Center combines top national experts in tax, expenditure, budget policy, and microsimulation modeling to concentrate on four overarching areas of tax policy that are critical to future debate.
- Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (www.itep.org) – The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides timely, in-depth analyses on the effects of federal, state, and local tax policies. ITEP’s mission is to ensure the nation has a fair and sustainable tax system that raises enough revenue to fund our common priorities, including education, healthcare, infrastructure and public safety.
This brief was compiled by Ron Israel. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact emily@usresistnews.org.
Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban 3.0
December 4, 2017
Summary
On Monday, December 4, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the third revision of the Trump travel ban could lawfully take effect. Travel Ban 3.0 had previously been blocked by Judge Derrick K. Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii, the day before its provisions were set to be implemented. While this is a major victory for the Trump administration, legal challenges brought against the ban continue to proceed in lower courts, which could ultimately affect this ruling.
Analysis
This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the future of immigration policy under Trump, as well as negatively impacts foreign relations for countries implicated by the ban and otherwise. The tangible effects of the ban’s implementation are spelled out in the provisions, but the potential consequences of the ban that are not yet known on the country’s workforce and economy are of equal concern. In addition, allies of nations that are affected by the ban will view the US in a negative light if they do not already, increasing mounting tensions across the globe and diminishing efforts for meaningful diplomacy.
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.
This brief was compiled by Allie Blum. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact allie@usresistnews.org.
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.
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
- Learn how to counter common arguments against free access to contraceptives and support that birth control is a human right.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
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.
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.
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
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – info page on Carpenter v. United States case.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – info page on “locational privacy” issues.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – info page on “cell tracking” issues.
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.
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
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Solicitation of Comments On Policy – FCC website to submit comments on Chairman Pai’s proposal to overturn 2015 Net Neutrality regulations.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – foundation focused on defending your rights in the digital world.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – research center dedicated to online privacy and civil liberty issues.
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.