JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The “Coordinated Response” To President Trump’s War On The Press; Free Speech Concerns
Since the day President Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States he has become a vocal critic of various news groups.
Nationwide Prison Strike Highlights Deplorable Conditions in US Prisons
In 11 states, prisoners and prison organizers have organized hunger strikes, work stoppages, and commissary boycotts to protest deplorable prison conditions and to demand the end of what they call “prison slavery” for 19 days of peaceful protest.
North Korea Peace Process Stalls
The International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental forum which reports to the UN, has reported a lack of progress in the denuclearization of North Korea.
The Case of Paul Manafort—Part 1
The first trial of President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort has now concluded with his conviction on 8 of 18 counts. A verdict could not be reached on the remaining 10. Manafort has long been a person of interest in the Russian Collusion investigation, stemming from his close ties to Moscow and the work he and Roger Stone did for Trump in the 1980’s as a lobbyist.
Trump’s Medicaid Requirements Could Push Thousands Off Healthcare
This week, the Trump Administration enacted more regulations on Medicaid that would allow smaller states to tighten their eligibility requirements. This could push more people off of the Medicaid plans.
Executive Order Issued by President Trump Indicates His Stance on Federal Unions
Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was filled with promises that involved helping restore union-dense industries such as coal and manufacturing. With these in mind, as well as his promises regarding infrastructure, it is hardly surprising that his support among union members was quite high.
A Surprising Endorsement in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District
As endorsements begin to roll out for candidates in the 2018 midterms, the gun advocacy PAC, Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, raised eyebrows for two of their endorsements.
A Broken Student Loan System: Betrayal of the American Dream
Seth Frotman, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)’s Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman, has resigned after sweeping changes were made in recent months by the Bureau’s new leadership headed by CFPB Director, Mick Mulvaney. Frotman addressed his resignation letter to Mulvaney, who was appointed by President Trump over deputy director Leandra English, stating that the Bureau abandoned the very consumers it was responsible for protecting by: (1) Undercutting enforcement of the law, (2) Undermining the Bureau’s independence, and (3) Shielding bad actors from scrutiny.
President Disregards America’s Tradition of Offering Asylum
Brief #50---Immigration Policy Summary In accordance with the travel ban covered in Brief 46, Trump claims he wants to “ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” Trump finds it absurd that the US offers...
Trump Administration Rejects DHHS Report on Refugee Impact
Refugee Impact Report Rejection
Summary
On Tuesday, September 12, the Trump administration announced that it is considering limiting the number of refugees admitted into the country to less than 50,000 in 2018. Should this consideration come to fruition, it would be the lowest number of refugees admitted into the country since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, according to the New York Times.
Following this announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) released a draft report to the Times on the impact that refugees have on the US economy, citing that refugees bring in a collective $63 billion more in government revenues than they cost over the past ten years. The report was given to the administration in late July but never released to the public. Ultimately, the Trump administration rejected the conclusions in the report, stating that the conclusions “were delivered by someone with an ideological agenda” White House spokesperson Raj Shah told the New York Times.
Analysis
Critics speculate that the DHHS report was never released to the public (before it was leaked to the Times) because it does not serve the administration’s agenda or Trump’s promise to crack down on the number of refugees admitted to the US as part of an overhaul of the current immigration system at large. In fact, these findings go directly against Trump’s unfounded claims that refugees do more to harm the country’s economy than help it. By suppressing or discrediting facts like those found in the leaked DHHS report, American democracy suffers firsthand. An uninformed, or misinformed, public will merely position the president to implement unjust, even unconstitutional, policies, programs, and practices.
Engagement Resources
- Take Action With HAIS: HAIS is a refugee advocacy organization that provides legal protection, psychological care and resources for self-sufficiency to displaced persons in the United States. You can support the mission and vision of HAIS through volunteering, attending a local HAIS event, or donating to the organization.
- Support the International Refugee Assistance Project: IRAP, a project sponsored by the Urban Justice Center, mobilizes law students and lawyers to provide direct legal aid and advocate for public policy to protect refugees and immigrants affected by Trump’s travel ban. You can support IRAP and those affected by the travel ban by donating, signing up for action alerts, starting a local chapter, or applying for available volunteer opportunities.
- Get Involved With the American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration.
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.
United States Denies Chinese Acquisition of American Semiconductor Company
Acquisition Rejection
Rejected on September 13, 2017
Summary
On Wednesday, September 13th, a federal board blocked the 1.3 billion dollar Chinese acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor, an American company based in Oregon. The board cited national security concerns related to the deal, and there has been some evidence of relations between the Chinese company and government. In the past 30 years, there have been only three other such rejections of acquisitions made by the President. Lattice announced they would cancel the proposed sale. LEARN MORE
Analysis
It’s unclear whether or not the claim of endangered national security is substantiated, but this denial will not help US-Chinese relations. Amid other rising tensions, this trade acquisition was intended to smooth over some ties between the two countries. Lattice claimed it would be able to double its employees, and both companies assured the board that there were no national security risks at play. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party will hold its Congress in October, something that only happens once every five years. While it’s unclear to the general public whether or not this denial is justified, it will definitely harm the relationship between China and the United States.
Engagement Resources
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — See how the board which monitors Foreign Investment operates
- Capitol Hill Reaction — See how Senate Democrats believe CFIUS should act in the North Korean Crisis
This brief was compiled by Jacob Malinowski. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jacob@usresistnews.org.
President Trump Threatens Iran Deal
Nuclear Agreement Indecision
Summary
On September 18th, President Trump announced that the world would know “very soon” about the future of the JCPOA, commonly know as the Iran Deal. This agreement, negotiated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, stalled and prevented the Iranians from achieving nuclear weapons in exchange for removing sanctions on the country. President Trump campaigned on revoking the Iran Deal while both Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson wish to remain. President Trump has until October 15th to announce his intentions to Congress. LEARN MORE
Analysis
President Trump’s refusal to commit to a decision on the Iran Deal only fuels instability and endangers the world. While the Iran Deal isn’t perfect, it’s important to maintain the status quo until we have a better agreement or a new strategy. Yet the President continues to flip-flop on his policy, sometimes signaling he’d like to remain, and he also conflicts with other top diplomats and secretaries. Many experts believe the Iran Deal is working despite its flaws, and the United States can better punish Iran if we remain in the deal. President Trump’s ignorance in world affairs could spark another global crisis, and the United States is put in jeopardy because of it.
Engagement Resources
- Full Text of the Iran Deal
- Does the Iran Deal Work? — A piece by the Atlantic examining the efficacy of the Iran Deal.
This brief was compiled by Jacob Malinowski. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jacob@usresistnews.org.
The Effects of and a Possible Solution to the Problem of Partisan Gerrymandering
Upcoming Supreme Court Case
Policy Summary
On September 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that temporarily prevented implementation of a federal district court ruling that found state electoral districts in Texas were illegally drawn to suppress minority voters. This ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision to agree to hear a case from Wisconsin, Whitford v. Gill. That case is similar to the case from Texas in that voters are challenging the way a state draws its electoral districts because of the way certain groups of voters are favored over other groups of voters in order to give one party (in both states, the Republican Party) an unfair and even unconstitutional advantage over the other political party. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
Gerrymandering is an American political tactic that dates back nearly 200 years. The premise is simple – to draw state electoral districts and congressional districts in such as a way as to ensure that a candidate of a particular political party will have a very good chance of winning. Districts are constitutionally required to be roughly equal in terms of population, and they usually are, but the unusual shapes of certain districts – with elongated arms and hooks that curve around illogically – are often intentionally drawn that way so as to favor Republican or Democratic candidates.
The current problem, as illustrated by the Texas and Wisconsin cases, is that the drawing of electoral districts are being manipulated and not representative of how the electorate is voting in the state. For example, in Wisconsin Republican legislators re-drew the state electoral map after they came to power in 2010. When the 2012 election came around Republicans in Wisconsin won 49 percent of all votes cast statewide in congressional elections but ended up winning 63 percent of the congressional seats. In this map of recent trends, the states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin show more Democratic votes than Republican overall but less Democratic congressional seats. Why are states that have more Democratic voters sending fewer Democrats and more Republicans to Congress? The answer lies in which political party is currently in power and how they choose to draw the electoral maps of their state. The hope is that the Supreme Court will take the Whitford v. Gill case and articulate a framework to determine when “gerrymandering” crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional. Each and every vote should count and should be reflective of what the electorate wants instead of allowing the process to be manipulated by legislative leaders in order to suppress votes from minority communities and keep their party in power. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Campaign Legal Center – nonprofit webpage on redistricting cases.
- Brennan Center for Justice – nonprofit group info page on redistricting and gerrymandering.
- Common Cause – nonprofit group’s information page on redistricting reform campaigns nationwide.
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.
Sanctuary City Funding Protected in Federal Court
Legal Decision
Issued on September 15, 2017
Policy Summary
On Friday, September 15, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, a federal Judge in Illinois, blocked the Justice Department from withholding federal money from sanctuary cities. Specifically, the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Leinenweber bars the DOJ from denying the Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, funding to sanctuary cities, the leading federal grant providing state and local jurisdiction with financial assistance supporting law enforcement agencies. The ruling supports the City of Chicago’s lawsuit against the DOJ, which was filed on Monday, July 7 following Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement that sanctuary cities would be excluded from JAG funding in their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement. In his ruling, Judge Leinenweber cited that this decision was unconstitutional, for Congress never explicitly authorized Sessions to implement new provisions to the grant.
Analysis
JAG funding is broad in scope, supporting program areas ranging from crime victim support and awareness to mental health and crisis intervention to technology, and more at the local and state level. Withholding these funds from major cities that are, to a certain extent, reliant upon the money in order to keep their communities safe is counter-intuitive and unwarranted. Sanctuary city policies do not encourage nor prevent police from seeking out illegal immigrants who may have committed crimes; rather, local law enforcement officials operating in sanctuary cities typically do not ask a person about his or her immigration status. Many local jurisdictions are in favor of these policies and have voiced concern about worsening community and law enforcement relations should these policies be blocked at the federal level. Both sanctuary cities and JAG funding are two important measures for keeping communities safe, and taking away funding from these jurisdictions will not serve to make America safe again.
Engagement Resources
- Show Your Solidarity With the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, and engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can support the center by donating or attending one of their virtual or in-person trainings.
- Take Action with the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can help NILC support sanctuary cities through utilizing its Sanctuary City Toolkit.
- Get Involved With the American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration.
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.
The Cassidy-Graham Healthcare Bill
Pending Legislation
Vote scheduled for before the end of September 2017
Policy Summary
As Republican’s time to pass a healthcare bill under reconciliation runs out, Senators are rushing to gain support for one last repeal and replace bill. Reconciliation, the process that allows a bill to pass the House and Senate with only a majority, expires at the end of the September. Republicans, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy from Louisiana and Sen. Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, are working to win over a Senate majority before the impending deadline. According to Sen. Cassidy, they have 48 or 49 Republican votes right now, but they still need a couple more to pass the bill. As we have seen in the past, those last couple votes are the hardest to win over. Keep an eye out for the usual suspects in this coming week, such as Sen. John McCain, who thinks the bill needs more bipartisan support, and Sen. Rand Paul, who thinks the bill does not go far enough to repeal Obamacare. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The Cassidy-Graham bill would substantially cut federal funding for health coverage. The bill would replace the ACA Medicaid expansion program with inadequate block grants in 2020. Medicaid spending would survive through these block grant for the next decade and then would expire completely, cutting federal health care funding by $299 billion in 2027 alone. The bill would also cap and cut Medicaid per-beneficiary funding starting in 2020, which means that the federal government would cap Medicaid funding on a per-beneficiary basis, regardless of the state’s actual costs. Right now, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of each state’s Medicaid costs. A CBO report is in the works and will likely come out soon to provide more details about the effects of this new bill. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Sen. Bernie Sanders recently proposed a single-payer bill that would provide Medicare for all Americans regardless of their income.
- 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.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Request To Destroy Detention Records
Proposed Federal Agency Action
Proposed on September 12, 2017
Policy Summary
On July 14, 2017, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) published a little-seen notice in the Federal Register that showed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had requested permission to destroy controversial detention records. The records that were targeted for destruction were of ICE detainee records and their incidents of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and deaths while in agency custody, among others. The request, as of September 15, 2017, has not yet been approved by NARA. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
Victoria Lopez, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, said the proposed move does not give “sufficient opportunity for public scrutiny of [ICE’s] operations.” She went on to say that the records are also important in researching long-term trends and in determining how the issue of immigrant detention shapes law and policy. ICE’s request is also troubling because the perception is that ICE is trying to hide its pattern of abuses. American society today is bitterly divided on the issue of immigration and President Trump has taken a very hard line on immigrants coming to the U.S. Hiding the facts of previous abuses of immigrants by ICE will only inflame the current national debate and deprive policymakers of facts that could lead to more transparency and well-informed solutions. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – nonprofit group’s info page on ICE’s current request.
- Community Initiative for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) – non – profit group that monitors human rights abuses of immigrants in detention and that advocates for system change.
- Detention Watch Network – non – profit group that advocates for the rights of immigrants.
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.
Interior’s Review of National Monuments
Final Report on National Monuments Review
Issued August 25, 2017
Summary
About four months after Trump’s Executive Order calling for the review of 27 National Monuments, Ryan Zinke, the Secretary of the Interior, has submitted his final report. While Zinke has not recommended the elimination of any monuments, a few have been suggested for resizing, including Bears Ears National Monument, Grand Staircase-Escalante and Cascade-Siskiyou. The next step is for Congress to review and vote on the recommendations outlined in the report. Since the release of Zinke’s recommendations, no further action has taken place, and there is not a date set for voting at this time.
Analysis
Obama’s establishment of Bears Ears National Monument in Southern Utah was the initial flashpoint for this review. Bears Ears was established in the last days of Obama’s presidency to protect the cultural sites of Native peoples in the region, and Utah legislators approached President Trump the day after his inauguration about eliminating the monument. It comes at no surprise that Bears Ears is on the list for resizing. While Trump says that he is returning the lands to the people, he has encountered a resistant public. Over 2.8 million comments were formally filed with the Department of the Interior, and over 99 percent were in favor of preserving the National Monuments. It seems that Zinke is aware of the public backlash to the President’s order and his recommendations. He did not originally release his final report to the public, and what was available initially contained no specifics. Legal organizations, tribal leaders, attorney generals of various states and conservation organizations have vowed to oppose these measures.
Engagement Resources
Although the window for comments has closed, there are still options for action before the proposed downsizing reaches Congress for decision.
- Write your senators or Secretary Zinke in defense of national monuments.
- Inter-Tribal Coalition – A group of five Native tribes dedicated to the conservation of Bears Ears cultural and environmental landscape.
- The Wilderness Society – One of the leading conservation organizations working to protect our wild lands and inspire other Americans to care for these places.
- Earth Justice – A legal organization with the goals of protecting the wild, healthy communities, clean energy, and a healthy climate.
- National Park Conservation Association – A non-profit protecting the national park system.
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.
Infrastructure Executive Order
Executive Order
Issued in August 2017
Policy Summary
Trump promised his voters that he would roll out a trillion-dollar infrastructure project to fix the country’s aging highways. He mentioned this plan when he addressed a joint session of Congress claiming that “Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, and railways gleaming across our beautiful land. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.” Since he has been unsuccessful in getting infrastructure legislation passed or even started, Trump tried to address infrastructure through an Executive Order. The Executive Order lessens Federal Government requirements for environmental impact assessment and permitting on Federal projects. It rolls back Obama-era rules that attempted to reduce exposure to flooding, sea level rise, and other consequences of climate change. LEARN MORE
Analysis
This executive order covers almost all government infrastructure projects in every sector. Traditionally, infrastructure projects require environmental impact assessments and permitting. As a result of this executive order, Trump will lessen the rigor of these environmental impact statements and shorter the permitting process. Maintaining environmental assessments is crucial (especially after Hurricane Harvey and Irma) to protect our environment and mitigate the impact of climate change. Moreover, the relaxing of environmental impact requirements is not going to result in better infrastructure. In the era in which we live, new roads, bridges, and other types of infrastructure investments that take environmental issues into account are likely to be sustainable and beneficial to the communities they serve. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Laborers’ International Union of North America – The Build America union – half a million strong fighting for better wages and benefits, safer job sites and greater opportunity for construction workers.
- Town Hall Project– This project compiles the open-to-the-public events held by state and local representatives. This provides a great opportunity to tell them that this executive order will do more bad than good. You can also dial 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local member of Congress.
- US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation.
- US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation.
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
New Leads in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation
After a lull in coverage roughly coinciding with Congress’ summer recess, the past two weeks have brought a flurry of reporting and speculation about various aspects of the federal and congressional Russia investigations. Special counsel Robert Mueller is again in the spotlight as his investigation progresses and new leads are being reported.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Much has been made of the recent activities of Mueller and his team. It is always worth noting that in the current media climate, small–and sometimes unverified–details tend to be overanalyzed, and overly enthusiastic reports may lead us to fallacious conclusions; this is particularly important to remember when looking at highly classified investigations and activities, since aside from leaks the DoJ will never volunteer information or verification on aspects of ongoing investigations subject to media attention. That said, there have been many recent reports on important details of the special counsel investigation, which are valuable to go through, albeit critically.
One of the most central characters in Mueller’s investigation has been former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. After last month’s reports about Mueller’s FBI raid on Manafort’s home, recent coverage indicates that Manafort is still very much in Mueller’s sights: Politico recently published a story outlining Mueller’s expanded angle of inquiry into Manafort and his finances. After seizing documents from Manafort’s home, Mueller began working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate Manafort’s financial transactions and connections. Mueller and Schneiderman’s teams are reportedly sharing evidence and information regarding those finances; although he has not been charged or formally accused of anything, Manafort is being investigated for money laundering in addition to his central role in the Trump campaign and connections to Russia. Schneiderman’s involvement in Mueller’s investigation is significant because as NY AG, he works on behalf of the state, and a president does not have the power to pardon state crimes–this means Mueller could potentially use the threat of a Schneiderman financial indictment to encourage Manafort to cooperate–perhaps even with information on former colleagues–in the Trump-Russia probe.
Another important update on Mueller’s investigation is his reported desire to interview at least 6 White House aides in connection with various discussions they attended which are relevant to the special counsel probe. The Washington Post reported that Mueller informed the White House of his intention to speak with the following people in the near future:
- Reince Priebus – former White House chief of staff
- Sean Spicer – former press secretary
- Hope Hicks – close adviser, current White House communications director
- Don McGahn – White House counsel
- James Burnham – deputy to McGahn
- Josh Raffle – White House spokesman, Kushner aide
The incidents and conversations about which Mueller seeks information include Donald Trump Jr’s initial statement about his meeting with a Russian lawyer for information on Hillary Clinton, the President’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, and early warnings about former national security adviser Michael Flynn from the DoJ. McGahn and Burnham were briefed by former deputy AG Sally Yates after the inauguration about the DoJ and FBI’s concern that Flynn was withholding information about his connections to Russia, and could potentially be compromised by Russian intelligence. The White House took a long time to act on these warnings; by the time Flynn resigned, information had already been made public about his misleading Vice President Mike Pence and failing to disclose important information regarding his security clearances and connections to Russian interests. Sean Spicer was implicated in the Flynn matter after responding to questions about Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Reince Priebus was present for some of the interactions between Trump and Comey before Comey’s dismissal, and Hicks and Raffle were present for the crafting of Donald Jr’s first statement about his Trump Tower meeting. That statement was apparently dictated by President Trump, and claimed that the meeting was about Russian adoptions. The meeting and initial White House response has become an important part of Mueller’s investigation, because of the possibility that the President knew what the meeting was actually about–obtaining damaging information on the Clinton campaign–and intentionally sought to mislead the public by personally crafting his son’s response, which Trump Jr later amended.
Mueller’s interviews with these staffers have not yet been scheduled, and the special counsel team is reportedly still looking over relevant documents provided by the White House and potentially awaiting more. The special counsel is also expected to seek interviews with more people close to the President in the near future, including son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, who has already been interviewed by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
Another special counsel update is Facebook’s recent revelation that an internal investigation found evidence of a widespread Russian-led campaign to disseminate politically divisive ads before and during the 2016 campaign. Facebook shared with Mueller information it found indicating that Russian interests likely spent about $100,000 on advertisements ostensibly intended to influence the US political climate and possibly the outcome of the election. The ads weren’t necessarily aimed at either candidate, but instead targeted highly controversial political and social issues. Facebook stated that over a period of about 2 years before and during the election around 3,000 separate ads were purchased by Russian operatives, and they also found a large number of fake accounts and pages connected to those ads. This evidence supports earlier US intelligence reports outlining the important role that the spread of false information on social media sites played in swaying public opinion and shifting the political climate prior to the election. Facebook has since taken steps to stop the spread of fake news, spam, and click bait. The information they gave Mueller reportedly includes details about the individuals who bought the ads in question.
Finally, in other DoJ news, new FBI director Christopher Wray recently gave a statement of confidence in Mueller’s investigation and its independent progression, as well as in the conclusions reached by the rest of the intelligence community regarding Russian interference in the election, which the President has repeatedly refuted.
House Intelligence Committee
At the end of August, the House Intelligence Committee issued identical subpoenas to the FBI and DoJ requesting documents related to the infamous–and so far unverified–dossier about Trump and his alleged deep connections to the Russian government. The subpoenas apparently came from Committee chairman Devin Nunes, who recused himself from the Russia investigation but appears to remain heavily involved in certain lines of inquiry. The subpoenas had a deadline for the 1st of September but received no response from either agency; after extending their deadline by 2 weeks, last Tuesday the Committee subpoenaed FBI director Wray and AG Jeff Sessions to testify about their refusal to comply with the initial document subpoenas. Nunes also unilaterally threatened to compel Wray and Sessions to testify, and even to hold them in contempt of Congress if they do not comply with the Committee’s request. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff later told MSNBC that the decision to subpoena the DoJ officials was not a collective one, and came as a surprise to the Democrats because they had not yet even requested voluntary disclosures from either agency. Schiff and other Democrats have decried their Republican colleagues’ fixation on the controversial dossier as being a politically motivated attempt to discredit, rather than investigate, the dossier’s contents.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee privately interviewed Donald Trump Jr about his pre-election Trump Tower meeting. Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley had threatened to subpoena Trump Jr, which reportedly prompted his cooperation. In his opening statement, Trump Jr denied any campaign collusion and told senators that he attended the meeting mainly to gather information on Hillary Clinton’s ‘qualifications’ for president. The interview lasted 5 hours, and Trump Jr also reportedly denied his father’s involvement in the drafting of his initial statement about the meeting. He maintained the rest of his other earlier statements about the meeting, and since the interview took place behind closed doors not much else is known about his responses. Before the Committee’s interview chairman Grassley received a call from President Trump, who pledged his support for ethanol, a key campaign issue for Grassley’s constituents. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also expected to interview Trump Jr in the near future, after hearing from others who attended the July 2016 meeting.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
