Mediaboss Marketing

Hackers are now reportedly targeting Democratic lawmakers and progressive organizations in the U.S. in an attempt to shake them down for hush money.

At least 12 progressive organizations have been targeted by Russian hackers who seek out embarrassing information on emails or secret details that could be used to hurt the organizations, Bloomberg has been told by two sources familiar with probes by private security companies and the FBI. The progressive organizations were also hit with ransomware, which seeks payment to unlock and restore data.

In addition, the computers of Pennsylvanias Senate Democratic caucus were hacked last week and alsoinfected by ransomware, according to The Associated Press.The Republican caucuss computers were untouched. Its unclear who was behind the hacking, but suspicions about Russian hackers were raised because only Democrats were hit. Ransom was demanded in digital Bitcoin, which is difficult to trace, to get a decryption key to unlock the system and data.

The Pennsylvania Senate cyberattack froze systems and data and shut out politicians and employees throughout Monday. The FBI and Pennsylvania attorney general have launched an investigation. A Democratic leader said that ransom would not be paid. The hackers had given politicians a deadline of a week or threatened that all data would be destroyed, AP reported.

Its unclear if thehackerstargeting the progressive organizations are the same ones the FBI believes targeted the Democratic National Committeeduring last years presidential campaign. But they have the same proclivities and would likely have time on their hands since the presidential election. In addition,some techniques are the same as those used by Cozy Bear, one of the Russian government groups linked to cyberattacks during the U.S. campaign, according to Bloomberg.Some of the targeted liberal organizations paid the Bitcoin ransoms, ranging from $30,000 to $150,000, according to Bloomberg.

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think tank, and Arabella Advisors, which steers investments to liberal causes, were among the targeted organizations, Bloomberg reported.

Arabella Advisors was affected by cyber crime, a spokesman for the firm told Bloomberg. All facts indicate this was financially motivated. The Center for American Progress did not comment.

The Kremlin is now suspected of orchestrating cyberattacks to manipulate other elections, including in France and the Netherlands.

Norway revealed in January that hackers linked to Russia had attacked government ministry sites and the emails of the Labour Party in an operation strikingly similar to what happened in the U.S.

See more here:
Hackers Shaking Down Pennsylvania Democrats and US Progressive Groups - Huffington Post

The executive committee of Buffalo County Democrats wants to clarify its role as the minority party after the last election. The Hartley Burr Alexander quotation above the main entrance of the Nebraska State Capitol serves as our guiding principle: The salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen.

Watchfulness, and our responsibility as citizens to work for a more noble life, directed Alexanders thoughts and guides our actions. We do not believe that we need to sit down and be quiet and accept the results of the last election. Instead we see our role as watchfulness.

The four major goals of our Buffalo County Democratic Party are:

- Be good stewards of the environment by working to promote clean, sustainable, and affordable energy.

- Provide excellent educational opportunities especially through our public education system for all Nebraskans.

- Maintain a fair wage for all hard working Nebraskans.

- Protect the civil rights of all Nebraskans.

Recent discussions at the local, state and national levels have caused local citizens to become concerned. As a result of these concerns, these citizens, from a wide spectrum of political affiliations Democrats, Republicans and non-partisans have organized demonstrations on womens rights, public education and immigration.

While Buffalo County Democrats were not instrumental in organizing these events, many of our members did participate. These demonstrators were local and unpaid and committed to positive change.

Buffalo County Democrats will continue to be watchful. When issues arise that we feel are against the best interests of Nebraskans, we, as the loyal opposition, will take action. We will do this by contacting our elected representatives by orchestrating and setting up phone banks and letter writing campaigns. We will also participate in peaceful public demonstrations to raise awareness.

The one thing we will not do is sit down and be quiet.

Buffalo County Democrats

Executive Committee

EDITORS NOTE: Signing this letter were Chairman Brady McDonald of Shelton, Vice Chairman Kit Alff of Kearney, Vice Chairman Caleb Rohrer of Kearney, Treasurer David Richardson of Kearney, Secretary Linda Liebig of Kearney and Immediate Past Chair John Turek of Gibbon.

Visit link:
Democrats won't 'sit down' - Kearney Hub

The most famous special prosecutor remains the first one: Archibald Cox of Watergate fame. After Cox got sideways with President Richard Nixon in 1973, the president ordered Cox fired, which led to the Saturday Night Massacre and then to Leon Jaworski, and then to ... well, you remember.

Now, though, Democrats are lined up demanding a special prosecutor into Russias interference with our election. They may have visions of Cox and Jaworski dancing in their heads, but they should be careful what they wish for. Democrats assume only Republican oxen will get gored by a special prosecutor, but the record suggests they would get caught up too.

After Watergate, Congress got into the special prosecutors business, passing the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to create the office of the independent counsel. But Capitol Hill soon found that special prosecutors investigations tend to expand beyond their original brief. After more than a dozen wild rides that included Lawrence Walshs endless inquiry into Iran-contra and Ken Starrs work that began with Whitewater and later metastasized into Monica-land, Congress let the office and its procedures to lapse in 1999. There is no law governing special prosecutors today despite what you may have heard some elected officials say on air in recent weeks. The attorney general can name a special prosecutor if he wants (or the deputy attorney general if Jeff Sessionss recusal extends to even considering whether a special prosecutor is needed). But if either Sessions or Rod Rosenstein, Trumps nominee for deputy attorney general, declares the need for a special prosecutor, the key will be: What is the scope of the investigation with which the special prosecutor is charged?

Republicans routinely demanded special prosecutors in the era of President Barack Obama and Attorneys General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Loretta E. Lynch. There were calls for one to investigate Hillary Clintons private email server, the Internal Revenue Services alleged abuse of power regarding tea party-named groups, and the gun walking scandal known as Fast and Furious. But there were no special prosecutors appointed during the Obama years. The Democrats knew better than to set a seasoned prosecutor with subpoena power loose when political intrigue is afoot.

So I would sound a note of caution to Democrats pounding the lectern for a special prosecutor. Still, if one is to be appointed to look into the election of 2016 and all illegal activity surrounding it, I am in favor of going for the cathartic approach and putting everything on the table.

Lets be clear: It seems obvious that Russia did in fact meddle with our process and used WikiLeaks to do so. I and other conservatives said as much repeatedly during the election. And if any American cooperated with that active measures campaign against us, he, she or they should be prosecuted under the appropriate espionage statutes.

But any special prosecutor appointed to look into the alleged Russian connection should also be given a scope of inquiry that includes the handing of the investigation into Clintons server, the slow-walking of document delivery to the Congress and the courts concerning Clintons administration of the State Department as well as alleged Obama administration leaks of classified information from the first campaign debate forward. I think the abuses at the IRS clearly have a nexus to shenanigans in 2016, so you can even add that to the list of appropriate subjects for the special prosecutor. (Everything is alleged, including Team Trump ties to Russia, until proven or abandoned.)

Of course that special prosecutor will have to look at every application for surveillance,e in connection with either candidate for the presidency made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Long ago I reviewed those applications from the FBIs counterintelligence pros before they went to the attorney general. Their contents are detailed and usually lengthy, and very classified, and so the new special prosecutor and his or her staff are going to need full FBI background investigations, which argues for a former prosecutor and/or a former federal judge who has already undergone the arduous process of clearance background investigations. That person will also need a reputation as a straight shooter, because when he or she begins to get close to touching Democratic nerves the politics of personal destruction will return with a vengeance.

Its certainly possible to find the right person for the job. Back when the independent counsel statute was in effect, I served for a year as clerk to the special panel of three judges who selected the counsel (because my judge, George MacKinnon, was the chair of the panel). When choosing an independent counsel to investigate allegations against Attorney General-designate Edwin Meese (allegations eventually proved false and cleared before Meeses confirmation), the judges debated how to find a lawyer who would move quickly and who would not fall in love with the spotlight. They succeeded when they selected Jacob Stein, who moved efficiently to an end product.

But the point is that special prosecutors are immune from any constraint. You may get a Stein, or you may get a Walsh. Either way, special prosecutors go where they want and when they want. Buyers beware.

If Sessions or Rosenstein decide on a special prosecutor, every big newspaper and network is going to have to assign a few reporters to a new beat one we ought to brand with hashtag #PutinsBigWin to describe its impact.

(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

The new president isnt going to unleash the hounds on just his campaign. If the hunt is to be had, everyone connected to the election is the fox. The old KGB colonel at the top of the Kremlin must be smiling indeed. His campaign against the legitimacy of everyone and everything in American politics is bearing fruit every day.

View post:
Democrats demanding a special prosecutor should be careful what they wish for - Washington Post

Theres a new rule in American politics: Whichever party owns healthcare will come to regret it.

Seven years ago, Barack Obamas Democrats passed a health insurance law that promised to cover almost everyone and make medical care more affordable. Best of all, Obama said, the new plan wouldnt inconvenience anybody except the high-income folks who got hit with a tax increase.

If you like your healthcare, you can keep it, he pledged. Big mistake.

Obama succeeded in his basic aims, but he couldnt keep all his promises especially that one.

Ever since, whenever anythings gone wrong in the health sector whenever prices rose, or an insurance company dropped a line of business Republicans have had an easy target: Obamacare.

As we all know, the same Republicans who said Obamacare was fatally flawed swore they would replace it with a better, cheaper system just as soon as they regained power. Now they have, and just like Obama, theyve overpromised.

Were going to have insurance for everybody, President Trump said in January. People can expect to have great healthcare. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better, with much lower deductibles.

But the healthcare bill House Republicans unveiled on Monday cant keep all those promises. It doesnt even pretend to.

And in a telling mirror image, Democrats immediately dubbed the new plan Trumpcare.

From now on, you can depend on them to hang that label on any part of the American health system that isnt working, just as Republicans did with Obamacare.

The Republican bill would undo much of Obamas expansion of insurance coverage, especially for low-income people.

It provides much lower subsidies, on average, for people who buy health coverage on the individual market. The cuts are deep for people just above the poverty line, individuals earning between $15,000 and $30,000 a year.

The bill ends Obamas expansion of Medicaid, the insurance program for very low-income people, three years from now. At that point, the GOP bill would change the funding formula for Medicaid, making it easier to cut the programs expenditures in future years.

Not everyone will suffer: The GOP bill includes a nice tax cut for the wealthy, canceling the taxes they paid to support Obamacare.

And it preserves the most broadly popular parts in the Obamacare law: the ban on insurance companies refusing coverage to anyone with a preexisting condition, the ban on lifetime benefit limits and the rule allowing parents to keep children on their plans up to age 26.

Bottom lines:

The bill does not seek universal coverage. Republicans say their goal is universal access, but this bill doesnt provide subsidies big enough to make that practical.

The bill rewards some Republican constituencies: High-income taxpayers get a tax cut, businesses are freed from coverage requirements, middle-income older voters get bigger subsidies.

But it does that by reducing subsidies for low-income people, including low-income workers.

The inevitable result is that fewer people will buy health insurance and many of those will opt for cheaper, bare-bones insurance policies with high deductibles (not the lower deductibles Trump promised).

Dont take me at my word. Heres what Robert Laszewski, a nonpartisan insurance expert (and flinty critic of Obamacare) wrote on Tuesday: It wont work.

Obamacares flaw, he wrote, was that it took care of the poorest people but gave a raw deal to middle-income workers who couldnt afford its premiums. That was because the Democrats who passed it took care of their political base first and didnt have enough money left to subsidize everyone.

Now the Republicans are making the same mistake: taking care of their base and giving the Democratic base a lousy deal, Laszewski wrote.

What good will it do a person making $15,000 a year to get a credit only large enough to buy a plan with a $3,000 or $5,000 deductible? he asked.

Half the country will hate it just a different half.

Or listen to Avik Roy, a Republican healthcare scholar, who has argued that his party should be more generous to the poor. The House bill suggests that the GOP has a stubborn desire to make health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans, and trap millions more in poverty, he wrote.

In short, the GOP would replace one flawed plan with another and transfer most of the pain from high-income taxpayers and middle-income insurance-buyers to low-income families. Democrats wont let voters forget that.

If the bill passes, millions of people will discover that their Obamacare subsidies have been reduced and their health insurance is less affordable and Democrats will blame Trumpcare.

Millions who have coverage now will lose it. There will be heart-rending stories about people who had insurance but couldnt afford to keep it only to contract a life-threatening illness. Democrats will blame Trumpcare.

Health costs will go up; they always do. Democrats will blame Trumpcare.

Insurance forms will still be infuriating, and insurance companies will still hassle their customers. Democrats will blame Trumpcare.

And Trumps fatal promise Were going to have insurance for everybody will be repeated by his opponents as often as Obamas.

They broke it. Theyll own it.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

ALSO

Obamacare overhaul faces resistance in Congress from right and left

See the article here:
If you thought the Obamacare backlash was bad, Trumpcare will give Democrats a whipping boy for the ages - Los Angeles Times

Attorneys for a young Dreamer facing deportation claim in a federal petition that immigration officers violated her right to freedom of speech, arguing she was targeted by authorities because she spoke out at a news conference about her hopes for immigration reform and the effect of enforcement raids on her family.

The allegation of retaliation is contained in a petition filed in federal court by a coalition of immigration and civil rights attorneys trying to stop the deportation of Daniela Vargas, who was detained by immigration agents in Mississippi minutes after she spoke at the news conference.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center joined Vargas immigration attorneys to file a habeas petition late Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Claiming U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated Vargas 5th Amendment due process rights to a hearing before an immigration judge and her 1st Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech, the petition seeks her immediate release, as well as a court hearing to challenge the decision to deport her.

She was targeted for speaking out against the ICE enforcement actions in the Jackson area and for going public with her story, said Michelle Lapointe, a senior staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center. We want to send a message to ICE that they cannot behave in this manner that targets people for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Vargas, 22, who was brought to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 7 years old, is one of a handful of young immigrants who now finds their legal status in question years after being accepted under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Obama-era measure that allows immigrants brought into the country as children to work legally and protects them from deportation.

Danielas case is representative of the mean-spirited and misguided immigration policy of this administration that seeks to deport law-abiding young people who have contributed to their communities and who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans, Lapointe said. They grew up here. The only issue is they were brought to this country by their parents many, many years ago.

Growing up in Morton, a small city 35 miles east of Jackson, Miss., Vargas graduated high school in 2013 with honors, ranking ninth in her class with a 3.77 grade point average. After attending the University of Southern Mississippi, she recently took on a full-time job as a manager of a small store because she could not afford tuition.

Vargas first came under the media spotlight on Feb. 15, after ICE agents detained her father and brother outside their Jackson home as they left for work. Vargas barricaded herself in her home, yet federal agents returned with a search warrant and broke in. After handcuffing her, the petition claims, federal agents later released her, saying they knew her DACA status had lapsed, but that they were giving her a hall pass.

Shaken, Vargas emerged from the house to speak to local media reporters who had gathered outside. Two weeks later, on March 1, ICE agents detained her shortly after she spoke at a news conference outside Jackson City Hall about the need for a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country without authorization.

Videotape of the news conference shows Vargas saying, "Today my father and brother await deportation while I continue to fight this battle as a Dreamer to help contribute to this country which I feel is very much my country."

According to the petition, ICE agents in two vehicles later pulled over her friends car, and one ICE agent who had previously raided her home said to Vargas: Remember me? You know who we are; you know why were here, and youre under arrest for being an illegal immigrant. She is now being held at a detention center in Louisiana.

In the petition filed Monday, Vargas attorneys argue the actions taken against her could have a chilling effect on others who wish to speak out about immigration. The arrest, detention, and imminent deportation that Ms. Vargas currently faces have injured her and continue to injure her, and would chill any person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak out on issues related to immigration enforcement and policy, the petition states.

According to her attorneys, Vargas has two pending legal avenues to remain in the country lawfully. In 2012 and 2014, she was approved for the DACA program. While her DACA status expired in November as she tried to save up the $495 fee to renew it, her attorneys filed a renewal application in February.

In addition, Vargas also has a pending 2014 petition for a U non-immigrant visa based on her status as the child of a victim of a serious crime who has suffered mental or physical abuse and is cooperating with government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.

Last week, ICE issued a public statement indicating that Vargas case would be heard before an immigration judge. However, federal officials have served Vargas paperwork noting they plan to deport her to Argentina without a court hearing, because she allegedly entered the U.S. under a Visa Waiver Program and waived her right to contest removal.

Jarvie is a special correspondent.

ALSO

Republicans unveil plan to repeal and replace Obamacare amid conflicting pressures

What is the future of recreational marijuana in Trumps America?

Judge wont stop construction of Dakota Access oil pipeline

Continue reading here:
'Dreamer' targeted for deportation for speaking out on immigration, attorneys say - Los Angeles Times