Mediaboss Marketing

In testimony this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, BillPriestap, the assistant director of the FBIs counterintelligence division, issued a dire warning. The United States, Priestap told lawmakers, is under relentless assault by hostile state actors and their proxies and our economy, our national security and our way of life are being actively threatened by state actors and their proxies today and every day.

Todays hearing was about enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a federal statute thatrequiresagents of foreign actors to disclose, via public filings, their relationship with the foreign actor and the financial relationship between them. Its like a lobbying disclosure form for people who are advocating on behalf of foreign individuals or entities. Although Priestap has previously warned the Senate Intelligence Committeeabout Russias capabilities for interfering in future elections, todays testimony was about far more extensive efforts by foreign actors to undermine every facet of public life including upcoming elections.

The danger isnt limited to spies cloak-and-dagger activities. Foreign powers, Priestap said, use people from across their governments and from all walks of life in pursuit of their desire to gain strategic advantage over the United States in whatever ways they can, he said. Too few people, he went on, understand the scope and scale of the counterintelligence threat, which is growing, both in volume and complexity.

Despite the urgency of Priestaps admonition about foreign adversaries, Republican members of the Judiciary Committeehad another enemy they wanted to discuss: Hillary Clinton.

In their statements and questioningof Priestap and two other witnesses,Michael Horowitz, the Justice Departments inspector general, and Adam Hickey, the deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Departments National Security Division, Republicans showed just how much theywant to continue litigating whether Clinton posed a more dangerous national security risk than Donald Trump. Rather than address the ongoing threat to our democracy and how to combat it, Republicans dwelled on whether Democrats and the dreaded media are engaging in overblown charges related to the investigations of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with Russian actors.

Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch used his time to deliver a soliloquyon this topic. Hatch first insisted that there are few things I take more seriously than the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 election. But he then went on to charge thatmany of these allegations have been truly outrageous and politically motivated.

If we are going to get to the bottom of this, Hatch said, we need to investigate the whole story. That means looking at more than just foreign influence over the Trump campaign. It includes looking at serious allegations of foreign influence over the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee as well.

This effort to claim well, both sides did it so we must investigate both is not based in fact or evidence. It is a ludicrous deflection from the seriousnessof the threat facing the country, including clear evidence Russia intends to sabotageour next election and the fact that the president, and the party as a whole, has shown littleinterest in addressing it.

As the January 2017 declassified assessment of the CIA, FBI and NSA concluded, Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump and aspired to help President-elect Trumps election chances when possible. In that report, the agencies concluded that Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. Similarly,former FBI director James Comey has describedRussia as the greatest threat of any nation on Earth to our democratic process right now, and in the future.

Yet Hatch didnt have much to say about this threat, maintainingthat there are still questions over whether foreign actors wanted to help Clinton, not Trump. We must ensure that these investigations serve as an opportunity to protect our institutions, not merely as an excuse to attack our political opponents, he said. Yet he was using the very occasion to realize the partisan goal of deflecting attention from the Republican president. Indeed, in so doing, Hatch undermined his own claim to be taking the investigations seriously.

With these deflections, these GOP lawmakers subverted the entire purpose of the hearing. The hearing was intended to shed light on how FARA disclosures can help the governmentcombat the threat going forward.For example, had former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort timely filed his FARA disclosure that he was acting on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party, rather than retroactively filing it just last month, the counterintelligence community and the public might have known more about that relationship. That was not a topic any of the Republican lawmakers pursued with the witnesses.

Meanwhile, two Republicans seemed intent on making Clinton the focus of the FARA issue. Both Committee chair Charles Grassley of Iowa and John Kennedy of Louisiana dredged up communications from Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton while she was Secretary of State which, they suggested, would have required a FARA disclosure on Blumenthals part.

The Blumenthaldistraction, though, is a tiny drop in the larger bucket of the crucial need for FARA disclosures. When foreign agents evade FARAs disclosure requirements, Priestap told lawmakers, we are more susceptible to being unduly influenced by foreign actors pursuing hostile governments goals on economic, technological, military, diplomatic, and intelligence fronts. This is not about Clinton, or even just about Trump. This is about a critical transparency mechanism whose enforcement is one key to combating foreign interference in our democracy.

As Priestap acknowledged during questioning, there is no doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The issue at hand was how to prevent such nefarious intrusions in the future.Its incumbent upon Congress, in its oversight role, to ensure that FARA is enforced, as just one tool in the battle against foreign interference. At this hearing, however, the Republican Party seemed more intent on continuing itsquest to defeat Hillary Clinton, again and again.

See the article here:
Will Republicans ever get serious about Russian sabotage of the next election? - Washington Post

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky.) announced the passage of the vote to proceed to debate on the GOP's health-care bill on July 25 as "the first step" toward repealing Obamacare. (The Washington Post)

When House Republicans tried to pass an Obamacare replacement plan back in March, it failed thanks to the resistance of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Two months later, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) made a different bet: If you satisfy the right, enough moderates will cave to pull the bill across the finish line. That gamble paid off, with the measure passing 217-213. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is making a similar wager on Senate Republicans spinelessness. Unfortunately, so far it seems to be working, with McConnell pulling together 50 votes to move forward on repealing Obamacare.

During McConnells doomed initial push for an Obamacare replacement, the GOP leader was trappedbetween skeptics on both ends of the caucus. The right, includingSens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Mike Lee (Utah), wanted to rip up Obamacare root and branch. The moderates, including Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Dean Heller (Nev.), opposed steep cuts to Medicaid and opioid addiction treatment.

With the resurrection of Obamacare replacement, GOP leaders had to decide what the latest version of the bill would look like. Because they opted to forgo a Congressional Budget Office score, this version would need 60 votes. Since that would be impossible to reach, this version would bemore of a symbolic gesture. But itwould set the terms for the intra-party debate the rest of the week as GOP leaders hashed out a final iterationbehind closed doors. On Saturday, conservatives got a commitment to include Cruz and Lees amendment to allow insurance companies to sell plans that dont comply with Obamacares mandate. (That would send the exchanges into a death spiral, but never you mind.) Paul also gotwhat he wanted: a vote on a clean repeal of Obamacare.

What did the moderates get for their votes to proceed? A Portman amendment to the billrestoringa small portion of the Medicaid cutsto go with previously added andsimilarly pitiful funding to treat opioid addicts. Both were token gestures, yet Portman voted yes. A month ago, Heller said he would not vote forthe billbecause of its steep Medicaid cuts. The cuts remained largely intact, yet Heller voted yes. A week ago, Capito said she would vote for the bill only if there was a replacement plan that addresses my concerns. No one knows whether there will be such a plan, yet Capito voted yes. (Heller, Capito and their defenders will say that its just a procedural vote to begin debate, not on the bill itself. But Heller and Capito both specifically said they would vote no on that motion.)

Worse, simply by voting for the motion to proceed, the moderates have undercut their influence. McConnells new strategy heavily depends on the fallback option of skinny repeal a bare-bones repeal of the mandate and a few other features of Obamacare. The bill would then go to a House-Senate conference committee, where it would be completely rewritten, and then it would go back to the Senate for an up-or-down vote. Make no mistake: The House Freedom Caucus and Senate conservatives will have far more influence over that committee than moderates in either chamber. And then the moderates would be told to vote for a bill that they didnt like and barely influenced, for the good of the party.

Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), a GOP stalwart, was rightly ridiculed on Monday for saying, Ill vote for anything. But at least he was being honest. Again and again, weve seen GOP moderates go through the motions of being deeply concerned about an Obamacare alternative or a controversial nominee or the latest development in the Russia scandal then vote with the party anyway as though nothing has happened. Soonthey will be faced with a finalbill, one that willriphealth insurance away from millions. The question is whether they will cave yet again. Those that choose cowardice may hope that voters wont judge them, but history will not be so kind.

See more here:
McConnell's wager on Republicans' spinelessness appears to be paying off - Washington Post

The Log Cabin Republicans on Wednesday condemned President Trump's decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military "in any capacity."

"This smacks of politics, pure and simple," Gregory Angelo, the group's president, said in a statement. "The United States military already includes transgender individuals who protect our freedom day in and day out. Excommunicating transgender soldiers only weakens our readiness; it doesn't strengthen it."

That statement was released just a day after the Trump administration was welcoming the group's support for the new administration.

In three tweets posted Wednesday morning, Trump announced that the military would no longer "accept or allow" transgender people to serve "in any capacity." The Pentagon deferred questions about Trump's announcement to the White House.

Not long after the president published his tweets, Democratic and some Republican lawmakers criticized Trump's new transgender ban.

Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee said they plan to "fight this decision, just like we fought Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, whose son is transgender, also came out against Trump's decision.

"No American, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, should be prohibited from honor + privilege of serving our nation #LGBT," she tweeted.

The Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of Republicans that advocates equal rights for LGBT individuals in the United States, warned Trump's ban harmed transgender people already serving.

"The president's statement this morning does a disservice to transgender military personnel and reintroduces the same hurtful stereotypes conjured when openly gay men and women were barred from service during the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell' era," Angelo said. "As an organization that led the charge against that hateful policy, Log Cabin Republicans remains equally committed to standing up for transgender military personnel who put their lives on the line to keep us free."

Trump's new policy effectively reversed the Obama administration's decision to allow transgender people already in the military to serve openly, which was implemented last year.

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter also directed the service chiefs to draft a new policy to allow transgender recruitment by July 1. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis announced June 30 implementation of those new policies would be delayed six months.

Read the original post:
Log Cabin Republicans: Trump's transgender military ban 'smacks of politics' - Washington Examiner

Attorney General Jeff Sessions looks during a press conference at the Department of Justice, in Washington, on July 13.

Aaron Bernstein/Reuters

All week, people have been making jokes on social media about how horrified they are to find themselves rooting for Jeff Sessions. With Sessions being publicly taunted and humiliated by Donald Trump every day in the press and on Twitter, even those who stand against everything he represents seem to be feeling protective of the attorney general. For many progressives, its a disorienting stance: Even as they condemn Sessions for all the policies hes pursued as the nations most powerful law enforcement officialon immigration, on police reform, on prison sentencingtheyve been put in the awkward position of hoping he keeps his job.

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

Theres no question that the attorney general has been a very detrimental force to civil rights progress and has undermined civil rights for so many communities even in the short time hes been attorney general, said Vanita Gupta, the former head of the Civil Rights Division and the president of theLeadership Conferenceon Civil and Human Rights. [But] I think it is really alarming that a president is attacking the Justice Departments independence and its institutional mandate to ensure that no one is above the law. Gupta called Trumps attacks on Sessions and DOJ a move toward autocracy, adding that while no one in the civil rights community is championing the attorney general, theres a sense that something fundamental is at stake here. I think the concern for civil rights advocates is the way in which this fundamentally undermines the rule of law.

Jonathan Smith, a civil rights attorney who spent four years working on police reform in the Obama Justice Department, took a similar position, telling me that in the absence of any good options, making sure Trump isnt allowed to overpower DOJ is of paramount importance. The attorney general should go, but not at the price of placing Trump above the law, he said in an email. The nation faces a terrible Hobsons choice, and Trump is a threat to the democracy.

I am not a Sessions fan (of course) but I find myself rooting for him to stay the course, said Richard Ugelow, an employment rights specialist who served in the Civil Rights Division for almost 30 years before leaving in 2004. The integrity and independence of DOJ is at issue.

This point of view makes intuitive sense to me. By making it clear that his anger at Sessions is almost entirely rooted in the attorney generals decision to give up oversight of the FBIs Russia investigation, Trump has effectively promised that hed try to replace Sessions with someone more obedient. Rudy Giuliani? Ted Cruz? A guy named John Huber from Utah? Whoever got the job, it seems obvious that this person would be tasked with making it easier for Trump to get rid of special counsel Robert Mueller and generally put the Justice Department under White House control. Under such extraordinary circumstances, rooting for Sessions feels like rooting for the rule of law and the continued independence of the Justice Department.

On Tuesday, some alumni of the department told me that this is nonsense. Sessions remains a villain, they said, and whatever the causes and consequences of his departure, it would be better if he wasnt the attorney general anymore.

I dont hope for one second that Jeff Sessions stays in his job, said University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Bagenstos, who began his career at DOJ in 1994 and later served as a political appointee under Obama. If Trump fires Sessions in an effort to interfere with Muellers investigation, that will be an abuse of power that I will criticize. And I will do what little I can effectively do to oppose Sessions replacement with someone who seems likely to abuse the power of the office.But I dont see how any of that would make me hope that Sessions stays.

Bagenstos argued that the premise that Sessions can be expected to protect the DOJs independence is incorrect. Sure, he recused himself from the Russia investigation, but he did that only because he was legally required to, and theres no reason to interpret it as a sign that Sessions will stand up for the DOJ in the future. Matthew Miller, an Obama-era spokesman for the DOJ, echoed this point: Sessions already demonstrated his lack of independence, Miller said, when he signed off on James Comeys firing in May, and he confirmed his status as a yes-man by staying silent in the face of Trumps outrageous tweets about the DOJ being weak on Hillary Clinton.

Its possible that Sessions successor would be less effective at making Trumps dreams come true.

He has refused to stand up and defend the department against the vicious assaults on it by the president, Miller told me in an email. He added, Sessions should be out publicly telling the president to back offto stop trying to meddle in DOJs investigationsand if hes not willing to do that, he might as well leave.

Several former DOJ officials, including Bagenstos and his one-time Civil Rights Division colleague Roy L. Austin, suggested that I shouldnt overthink the question of whether the country is better or worse off with Sessions as AG. What ought to matter most is his agenda, they said, and the fact that he has already made tremendous progress toward fulfilling it is reason enough to want him out.

He has just done so much other damage to DOJ that I dont want to see him there anymore and it does not particularly matter to me how he leaves, Austin said in an email. Pretty much everything about this presidents Cabinet picks has been a disaster, so it is not like the next pick could be much worse and I will hold out some hope for a little better.

Bagenstos framed Sessions potential departure as urgent harm reduction. Sessions is actively doing a lot of harm right now, on vote suppression, on civil rights generally, on drug and forfeiture policy, he said. He is as extreme an appointee as one can imagine on these issues.And that has to weigh in the calculus here.

Is there really any chance that after ousting one extremist, the Trump administration would bring in someone less extreme? The answer is we dont know, but one thing that can be said about Sessions six months into this presidency is that he has made extremely quick work of advancing his policy goals. As an arch-right attorney general who has been described as the presidents ideological twin, Sessions has demonstrated a tremendous aptitude for the work of policymaking in the Trump era. Its possible that Sessions successor would lack that aptitude and be less effective at making Trumps dreams come true.

Its also possible that Sessions replacement would be less ideological than he is, a former DOJ official told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity. I think his departure will lift a significant barrier from the administration that will allow it to eventually take more moderate tones on a host of issues, the official said. This particular individual is such a roadblock to anything positive going on. That is why Breitbart is siding with Sessions over Trump.

These are thought-provoking arguments. It seems at least possible that 1) with Sessions out of the picture, Trumps ability to do bad things would be crippled because hed be forced to operate without his most effective lieutenant; and 2) Sessions is the last guy anyone should count on to protect the DOJs independence.

And yet, for many peoplemyself includeda scenario in which Sessions gets fired or resigns feels somehow more dangerous and dislocating than the alternative. Why? Because if Sessions were to leave now under pressure from Trump, it could end up proving that this president really can do whatever he wants, up to and including taming the Department of Justice. It would be yet another test for elected officials who have so far failed all of them: If it happens and theres no more reaction from Congress than there was after the Comey firing, it would feel like decisive evidence that nothing will ever change. Trump would be in good shape, autocracy-wise, if firing his attorney general for failing to protect him from the FBI doesnt cross a red line for law-and-order conservatives on Capitol Hill.

No one knows exactly what would happen if Trump fires Sessions or the attorney general resigns. But the mere fact of it happening would demonstrate that Trump is able and willing to do a lot more than just talk about bringing the DOJ to heel. This is a scary thought.

Top Comment

It's really all a matter of gauging the odds. What is the likelihood that his replacement will be significantly better on voting rights, domestic surveillance, asset forfeiture, and drug policy? More...

While Sessions replacement would probably be less conservative, thats not what matters now, said Eric Columbus, who served in the deputy attorney generals office from 2009 to 2014.Trump wants to fire Sessions because Sessions upheld the rule of law. That alone is reason to hope Sessions sticks it out. Quitting would set a dangerous precedent for the next time an official ponders whether following the law is worth the cost of enraging Trump.

Columbus continued, During the campaign I found myself nodding in bewildered agreement with principled conservatives who bucked Trump. I never expected Sessions would join that crowd, but here we are.

See the rest here:
Should He Stay or Should He Go? - Slate Magazine

Once people got over the shock of the November election, tens of thousands in Maryland joined groups under such banners as "indivisible" or "resistance" or "progressive." I'll refer to them all as "progressive" here.

Until recently these groups did not know how to effectively collaborate on issues they shared. But this is about to change.

A new player has emerged that will work to bring these movements together and dramatically change the 2018 legislative session and elections. The Maryland Progressive Caucus will be working with all these groups to develop clear communications, hammer out priorities given limited resources and encourage attendance at public events.

The group's first formal meeting was in June in Howard County, with about 95 leaders representing organizations from as far as Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore discussing strategy.

Progressives had already worked together and had some success moving toward shared goals during the 2017 General Assembly session. The fracking ban was a fantastic lesson on the power of broad coalitions to bring about change.

Chase Cook

Angered by President Trump, new groups are forming to resist his agenda

Angered by President Trump, new groups are forming to resist his agenda (Chase Cook)

Kathleen Matthews, the current Maryland Democratic Party chairwoman, created an executive committee position for a progressive representative after meeting with the group in May.

An early goal for the new group is to concentrate progressive power while strengthening connections with public-interest groups like the Sierra Club, faith-based organizations like interfaithchesapeake.org and established groups like the Democrats, the Republicans and the NAACP.

To a certain extent, groups in the Annapolis area have already been doing this informally, Action Annapolis agreed to concentrate on city elections, while Anne Arundel Indivisible focuses more on county and state issues and Annapolis Indivisible works on how to combine our efforts with other groups. WISE Women of Severna Park have shown they can hold effective town halls and focus on garnering more bipartisan support for county, state and national issues.

Our local groups are now more seasoned when it comes to working with the legislature and the political process.

All groups agreed at the June meeting that the most important initial task is to develop and support candidates at all levels of government to change the current nature of politics in the state and, ultimately, the nation. The problem is how to maintain an objective presence without necessarily endorsing candidates. Methods are being developed to do just this.

Another key element will be to build diversity among progressive leadership and to make more connections with different groups. The Maryland Progressive Caucus will be reaching out to bring in new leaders and to share resources, aiming to increase not just racial and ethnic but also political and social diversity. Everyone is needed for the work to come!

As a local indivisible group leader, I have to admit I was skeptical when I first heard of this "all state" meeting. But the beauty of the indivisible movement is that people just step up and say, "Let's do it."

I believe this group will unify progressive and indivisible coalitions into a statewide force both parties will need to reckon with in the future. Among the extremely bright and enthusiastic participants at that meeting, I saw lots of intense interaction between young and old, experienced and new.

"The first meeting was all about making connections, establishing trust and discussing ideas and issues at a high level," said Sheila Ruth, one of the new group's leaders. "The next step is to make concrete plans for how we can work effectively together, while still respecting each group's autonomy."

Based on what I've seen so far, I think this is going to happen. Yes, it is going to take leadership and determination, but these seem to be in abundance these days among these determined new political participants.

J. Nelson Wells and his wife co-founded the Annapolis Traditional Dance Society. Contact him at jnw.wells@gmail.com.

Read more:
J. Nelson Wells: Progressives, indivisibles begin to unite - CapitalGazette.com