Sunday School 7/19/26: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I spent time in the Face the Nation (CBS) classroom, focusing on the election security issues we've been discussing since the FOTUS addressed the nation in a televised and widely streamed chat last week. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) joined Margaret Brennan for a bit; I recapped some of his chat with ABC's Jon Karl in yesterday's Sunday School post. 

Brennan opened this part of the discussion noting that it's "been public for years" that our intelligence folks determined China tried to influence our election by changing what we think, not by hacking or anything like that. She asked Warner, a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (IC), if it had ever been given any evidence backing up this statement from Trump: 

This evidence shows that the election system we have dangerously exposes – and really exposes like levels never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation and foreign interference. 

"Absolutely not," Warner said, adding that the speech was full of "absurdities and falsehoods," and said that "the only election that Trump is concerned about is 2020. That was the election that his administration was in charge of," and that he "forgets or just omits" Russia. He confirmed the IC hasn't received any report from the administration's analysis of the 2024 election.

 After itemizing moves by the administration, including cutting funding for the Cybersecurity Agency (CISA), abandoning the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which allows states to share voter information to help identify duplicate registrations, deceased voters, and so on, and tanking the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), Warner said this:

Why is he doing all these things? I believe it's because Donald Trump intends to interfere in this year's elections. He knows, if there is a free and fair election, his policies will be rejected at record levels.

Brennan asked (twice) what Warner meant by interference. 

Whether that takes - I think that what we just saw was, this was the opening shot, the opening shot of trying to undermine Americans' confidence that their vote will be actually counted and mean something... I fear as well that if he tries to pull something that could potentially - he's not ruled out bringing ICE to the polls. He's not even ruled out the idea of trying to bar certain voting machines.

Brennan then turned to CBS News contributors David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Chris Krebs, the former director of CISA during the 2020 election cycle. Notably, Krebs was fired by Trump for saying that the 2020 election was secure, and that's where Brennan started this segment, asking if anything he heard from Trump changed his assessment.

Not - not at all. In fact, I would say that it further bolsters my confidence in the security of the 2020 election, between what has been released, disclosed last week, and all the information and the results of court challenges and other things in the intervening six years.

Brennan, noting that Trump was particularly aggressive towards Krebs, asked him to describe "the Chinese role in the 2020 election." He said there was an "honest debate and discussion" about China's intent across the intelligence community.

But ultimately, when it came out in the intelligence community assessment that was released in the spring of 2021, it was that China had a preference, and that they were not in favor of President Trump, but their efforts were principally limited to influencing the American public, seeking to pay journalists, media. But it was an influence effort...

A method, he said, China has been using since the early- or mid-2000s. It's not new, he said; "they did turn up the heat, and they are still doing it today. He said, "we have a significant and serious counterintelligence and counterespionage problem with China." And, responding to Trump saying folks did not disclose anything to him, "or to anyone else" or to Congress, Krebs offered this:

In January of 2020, there was a National Intelligence Community memorandum about the 2020 election that talked about the vulnerabilities we saw on systems and the work we needed to do there, but it also talked about the intent of adversaries. And there were countless memos after that...a lot of these products were in senior executive and policymakers' binders, their intelligence binders every single day. We used those to get out there and talk to the American people. I wrote an op-ed in September of 2020 for the general public that discussed various threat actors, including China. So, I have a hard time believing that it didn't get up into the Oval.

Brennan, before leaving this topic, said. "As China was described as attempting to influence, it was Iran and Russia, primary actors directly undermining the election in some of those 2020 statements. It sounds like you're saying he didn't read the memo" (emphasis added). Krebs agreed.

TGIF 7/15/22

I'm sure there'll be more weeks like this one, when members of the Red Team make total fools of themselves on the issue of abortion. 

I mentioned a few in my Wondering on Wednesday post, including Rep. Jim Jordan, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, and Ohio AG David Yost. 

And let's take James Bopp Jr. According to this Alternet article, Mr. Bopp is "the top attorney" for the National Right to Life Committee," and he's on the bad week list for his grossly inconsiderate and tone-deaf comments about the 10-year old Ohio child who had a legal abortion in Indiana. Under legislation Bopp's promoting, a child rape victim would be banned from having an abortion.

She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. 

Seriously? What "reason and ultimately the benefit" is there for a ten-year-old, traumatized, raped child to bear a child of her own? 

And there's Indiana's AG Todd Rokita, who stuck his landing on the bad week list, for going public with efforts to find out of the doctor who performed the child's medical abortion had timely filed the appropriate paperwork. From a Politico article,

...Rokita is threatening criminal charges against the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape survivor from Ohio — a major escalation in the ongoing saga that has put the midwestern state on the frontlines of the post-Roe war.

In a letter dated July 13th, Rokita asked Gov. Eric Holcomb for help in getting info on the case. Here's what he's looking for, and the inflated urgency associated with his request:

In this case, the paperwork was filed - on time - and now the doctor's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, is speaking her mind, planted firmly on the good week side of the ledger. Her client

took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case... She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client.

Good for her, and for the doctor for stepping up.

Another good week representative? Attorney and podcast host Ken White was quoted in the Alternet article above about the danger of relying on "the exception to protect the life of the mother." He thinks it's "a grave risk for anyone involved in the abortion," as doctors will be dealing with frequently politically-motivated District Attorneys in these cases.

Speaking of the risk of prosecutorial bad judgment, it seems some hospitals in Texas are also not willing to take a chance they'll run up against one of those prosecutors. According to this AP article,

Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week. 

The association did not name the hospitals but said it’s received complaints that hospitals, administrators and their attorneys may be prohibiting doctors from providing medically appropriate care in some situations, The Dallas Morning News reported. 

In one case, a doctor was reportedly told not to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy "until it ruptured." This type of action "...creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing." Immediate, as in, she could die. 

Why the fear to act, you ask? Here it is, in two parts: first the good week part, and then the bad week part. 

The Biden administration issued guidance this week that said hospitals must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. Texas sued Thursday over that guidance, arguing that the federal government isn’t authorized to require emergency healthcare providers to perform abortions. 

Also having a bad week? Efforts to positively impact climate change, as WV Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Yeah? Make Me!) announced another delay in his willingness to consider a big ugly bill covering climate change, among other things.

Democrats have struggled for months to pass a slimmed-down climate and energy package as part of a budget reconciliation bill that would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats, including Manchin. He had previously said he could reach agreement on climate if legislation included elements helping both renewables and fossil fuels. 

But Manchin informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday that he wouldn’t support the investments in climate and energy ahead of the August recess, and his office pointed to his concerns about stoking inflation in a statement. 

Manchin said he hadn't walked away, he just wanted to wait for July's inflation numbers. 

Let's give Manchin a bad week mention, while we're at it, and a good week mention to Sam Ricketts of Evergreen Action, who said, after Manchin's decision broke, who said he struggled to think of a "single elected official in American history" who'll cause "more massive suffering."

...if you want to look decades out from now, this decision by this one senator from West Virginia is going to have repercussions that affect millions, if not billions. 

Speaking of millions and billions  - dollars, not people - there's this bad week list entry, brought to us by the Defense Department and its first mandatory report on Congressional defense appropriations: Congress "funded more than $58 billion worth of military projects that the administration did not request..."   

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-MI, wrote the bill which requires the report, and gets a good week mention for that. And her fellow lawmakers in the House and Senate who added all this junk to the bill get the bad week mention. Some of it was 'reasonable' in some eyes - disaster aid, funding for Ukraine, and what not, but a lot of it was pork - pure pork, such as

more than $4 billion worth of unrequested warships, many of them built by the constituents of senior appropriators. 

And, the article notes, "a substantial portion of the money goes for programs of arguable utility to the US military, critics say."  There are examples included in the article, if you want to check them out. 

The upcoming fiscal year's NDAA is being debated now; it "would add $37 billion to the amount the president requested for all national defense programs..." And there's this.

On Wednesday, the House rejected an amendment by California Democrat Barbara Lee to subtract that $37 billion. And the House soundly defeated another Lee proposal to take away $100 billion from the authorized level... The House also rejected an amendment by Washington Democrat Pramila Jayapal to make the unfunded priorities lists optional, not mandatory. 

Yay, us, or something.  

Finally, a resounding bad week to those Secret Service employees and others in the Department of Homeland Security who are actively thwarting investigations by the Inspectors General of DHS departments. 

You're likely aware of the deleted Secret Service texts from around the insurrection. Some have said this was intentional (to protect pro-Trump folks, for example). Others say the deletions were part of a transition to different equipment. Yeah, right.

The Intercept is reporting some stonewalling on other investigations, not just on the insurrection. From the article, we learn that it's "not uncommon" for IGs, to face resistance. "Tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, inspectors general are not always welcomed."  And, on that last part, there's a scoop. A Customs and Border Protection official shared some info with the reporters.

A briefing memo produced by the agency for a leadership meeting with the DHS Office of Inspector General on July 7 instructs participants on how to push back against what it calls the inspector general’s “persistent” request for “direct, unfettered access to CBP systems,” as part of its “high number of OIG audits covering a variety of CBP program areas.” 

Again, yay us, or something...

Why do I feel like we're all having a bad week, courtesy of the folks who are supposed to be working in our best interests? 

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 1/27/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start the wondering tonight? 

Well, there's that happy little domestic terrorism bulletin today, from the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin due to a heightened threat environment across the United States, which DHS believes will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration. Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.

Now, DHS goes on to say that a 'bulletin' only "describes current developments or general trends," so there's no new credible threat - but if anyone doesn't believe there is a general trend here,  I wonder where they've been for the past several months, or if they were paying attention today when one of the guys charged in the plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer turned on his co-conspirators and will testify against them.

Ty Garbin, 25, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to the kidnapping conspiracy, marking the first conviction in the bizarre case that made national headlines in October. Fourteen men were accused of plotting to kidnap Whitmer and discussing plans to attack the state Capitol building and a police facility, and possibly take out Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, too. Prosecutors allege the group, which included several militia group members, were frustrated over strict COVID-19 lockdown orders in Democrat-run states

I wonder how many more of these we'll learn about, through the investigations into the insurrection in DC?

And speaking of the insurrection, yesterday members of the Senate were sworn in to do "impartial justice" as jurors in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. One of them, Kentucky's Sen. Rand Paul, led a failed procedural vote, which is alternately described as a vote to immediately debate the constitutionality of impeaching a president that's already out of office, or declaring that the impeachment is unconstitutional. Either way, 45 Republicans voted with Paul, who declared victory even though his vote failed.  

Also wonder-full was that Mitch McConnell voted with the other Rs on Paul's motion. And, of course, that McConnell was the one who set the schedule for the Senate that precluded them from doing anything with the impeachment until after President Biden's inauguration. I wonder how seriously he wants us to take him for his comments the day before the inauguration. Let's reminisce, shall we? 

The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like. But we pressed on.

"We pressed on." So, let's move on? I guess that what his vote means?

I wonder what House Minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy and the #IMPOTUS are going to chat about tomorrow at Mar-a-Lago? Trump is not a Bakersfield, CA resident and so is not one of McCarthy's constituents. And, of course, the former president is just a regular private citizen now, according to Republicans, so what's the need to go and hang with him? 

McCarthy made the news for something else, let's see.  Oh - I remember - an appearance on Fox News - shocking, I know - in which he said that Biden's first week in office (that would be three days, but who's counting) he had done more to benefit Russia and China than the United States. And that 'unity' is what the Rs are working on. Now, there's really nothing there to wonder about - he's being true to form, and Judge Jeannine is also being true to form. 

But the next day, also on Fox, we learn that Biden might be 'upsetting China.'

"Now by putting these more restrictive 'Buy American' policies in place, we are further exacerbating some of the trade problems that we've had," (Brandon Arnold) opined. "It's annoying people to the north, it's annoying other countries."

"We have to tread lightly here," ((host Ainsley) Earhardt agreed. "Because we want companies in America to do well but, also, we need [personal protective equipment] from other countries. Then we don't want to do anything to upset that relationship, maybe with China or someone else -- even though China is such a big threat."

I wonder which one of the shows I should believe? I'm so confused.

TGIF 8/14/20

Last week's TGIF was all 'good week' stuff, but that's not the case this week. The pendulum swings, as they say. 

For example, here's a list of fun things from Fox News, recapping some headlines:

Trump Seeks to Starve Post Office to Limit Mail-in Voting (WaPo): “President Trump said Thursday that he does not want to fund the U.S. Postal Service because Democrats are seeking to expand mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, making explicit the reason he has declined to approve $25 billion in emergency funding for the cash-strapped agency....

Trump tells Barr and prosecutor to bring Biden down quickly (TPM): “President Trump on Thursday issued an ultimatum to Attorney General Bill Barr over the months-long probe led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tapped last year to investigate the origins of the Russia probe... The President added that Barr is ‘great most of the time’ but that ‘he’ll be just another guy’ if he ‘wants to be politically correct.’ 

Personnel office clears Trump acceptance speech at White House (CBS News): “The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed federal law does not preclude President Trump from delivering a speech at the White House to accept the GOP's presidential nomination during this month's Republican National Convention. The president and the vice president are not covered by any provisions of the Hatch Act,’ Erica Hamrick, deputy chief of the office's Hatch Act Unit, told Maloney in a letter Wednesday. ‘Accordingly, the Hatch Act does not prohibit President Trump from delivering his RNC acceptance speech on White House grounds.’”

That last one, though? I mean, the president has multiple properties where he could host his own party - heck, he held an official press conference with hooting and hollering from members of his golf club in the back of the room.

To the delight of club members in pastel-colored polo shirts and golf cleats who, at times, sounded like a sitcom laugh track for the president’s jabs at Democrats and the press, the president put on back-to-back shows in the ballroom of his property.

How about the new birther attacks, suggesting that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be Joe Biden's VP because, you know, she was born in the USA.  Does that sound familiar to anyone, maybe from a few years ago? And now, maybe trying to keep another person of color out of the White House? This is a tried and true tactic of the Trump squad; you can hear Tamara Keith's reporting that it's playing out in living color - again from tonight's All Things Considered.

And speaking of things being considered, it seems that the president's propensity to surround himself with 'acting' officials (he likes them a LOT) may have finally bitten him in the proverbial behind.  Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, the top two guys at DHS, are "serving unlawfully in their roles," according to the Government Accountability Office.

According to the GAO, Trump’s installation of Wolf and Cuccinelli violated the law because of the sequence of events following the resignation of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April 2019. The official who assumed the title of acting secretary at that time, Kevin McAleenan, had not been designated in the order of succession, the GAO said. 

Subsequent personnel moves were also therefore illegitimate, and Wolf and Cuccinelli are serving under “an invalid order of succession,” the agency found. The GAO said that it was referring the matter to the DHS inspector general for review and that any further actions would be up to Congress and the IG’s office.

Now, we can almost predict what'll happen next, right? The DHS IG will get the report soon, and then the IG will be demoted and reassigned to working the night shift at some East Podunkian outpost or something, or will be stonewalled by the DHS and or the AG or the Oval, and then Mitch McConnell will suddenly bring these applicable committee back to approve the appointments and blahdittyblahblahblah and no one will pay attention to just another footnote in the annals of the unethical, unprofessional acts that have occurred in the Trump era.

But wouldn't it be nice if these two had to step aside and the rules actually were followed?  A girl can dream, can't she?

Speaking of ethics and golf and Trump, he's said to be visiting his brother in a NYC hospital before heading to his Bedminster property once again. Bedminster, in New Jersey, is where he'll receive the endorsement of the NYC Police Union.

This weekend’s trip to Trump National Bedminster is the president’s 23rd since taking office, and will increase his golf-related taxpayer tab to $142 million in travel and security expenses. Each trip to Bedminster costs taxpayers about $1.1 million, compared to $3.4 million per trip for his visits to Mar-a-Lago, of which there have been 30. Trump has also visited his golf courses in Los Angeles, Scotland, Ireland and Doral, Florida, beside the Miami airport, all on the taxpayer dime.

Trump frequently criticized his predecessor, Barack Obama, for playing too much golf, and promised during his campaign that he would be too busy to take any time off. “I just want to stay in the White House and work my ass off,” he said at a February 2016 rally.

I think it's safe to say that he's totally missed the mark on that last statement.

TGIF, everyone.

Trump's Travel Ban

A whole lot of shaking going on, going on today,what with the SCOTUS decision on the president's Muslim ban, or Travel ban, or whatever you want to call it. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to go forward, with some exceptions. As we learned today,

The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.

 What constitutes a 'tie' between the traveler and the US?

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the Unites States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe's wife or Dr. Elshikh's mother-in-law clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid (the ban). For example, a nonprofit groups devoted to immigrant issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The intent of the 'close relationship' part was to help eliminate much of the churn that happened when the original ban was implemented, which included keeping people in America as well as keeping people out of America.

In a statement issued by the White House, we were advised that

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. 

As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0. 

The Department of Homeland Security promised to think outside the box this time, and to consult with other agencies, including the Departments of  Justice and State, to come up with a plan.

The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professional, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry. 

Still, concerns abound. What constitutes a 'close familial relationship' for example; would a cousin count? A Joseph Greenwald and Laake civil rights attorney, Jay Holland, notes

There is absolutely a gray area. The issue of who has a bona fide relationship or familial relationship certainly appears to be an open and confusing question. 

The head of corporate communications for the International Air Transport Association,Perry Flint noted in the same article linked above,

It is absolutely imperative that airlines receive clear and concise information, as well as sufficient time, to enable them to comply with those portions of the executive order for which the injunction was stayed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined, largely on the point of trying to define rules that meet the Court's requirement of a relationship.

Moreover, I fear that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country... The compromise will also invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine exactly what constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid (section) 2C of Executive Order No. 13780...

It would be hard to imagine that the implementation could be worse this time around, but this is the government, after all (and no, that's not a comment on this particular administration). At least the people who have to make this work are talking to experts for assistance.

Now that a decision has been made, we should all hope for the best - and perhaps more importantly, hope that the efforts to "figure out what the hell is going on" which started earlier this month, are completed timely.

When in the Majority: Express Disapproval

Congress has left town for their President's Day recess, without solving the problem of how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be funded.

You'll recall that the budget deal that was worked out last year funded the rest of the government through September but left out DHS, because the Republicans wanted to make a statement about their dissatisfaction with President Obama's executive action on immigration.

Orange John Boehner and Grumpy Old Mitch McConnell, or their minions, came up with this great plan to push the Dems against the wall and force them to vote separately on DHS, which the Rs would castrate with anti-immigration language.  Because castration, as we know, is something revered in Congress now.

So the budget passes and we go into January, with an end of February deadline looming on DHS funding, and what does the Republican controlled Congress do?

• Vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they did some 50 times while in the minority, with exactly equally dismal chances of happening. 
• Vote to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline, which "will help secure our energy independence" by taking crappy dirty Canadian tar sands, run them in pipes through the center of the country down to the Gulf of Mexico, where they will be refined and sent to Europe and China. The bill will almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama, the Boehner signing ceremony notwithstanding. 

With that auspicious start to basking in the overwhelming majority given by the 37% of people who weren't too fed up with the process and actually voted in the mid-terms, the Rs are off to the races. Except on the DHS funding.

Senator Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Republican, noted that

We need to resolve it. We need to fund DHS and also find a legislative mechanism to express our disapproval with the President's executive order. 

Here's a thought: do exactly what you say you need to do. Both houses need to work together  to pass a clean DHS funding bill; don't pull a Cruz and shut any part of the government down.

And  then, draft an immigration bill. Get your party together and come up with an immigration plan that the majority of you in both houses can support, and that will entice some Dems to participate with you. Allow reasonable debate and related amendments in both houses, and pass an immigration bill.

If you want to express legislative disapproval on the President's executive order, try and pass a bill that limits executive actions.

Or, if that's not 'disapproval' enough, or too risky, since it would limit your own guy should you ever find one who's electable, start every session (in both houses) with a vote on a statement of your disapproval.  Here's some draft language for you:

We, the minority-elected Republican majority in the [House] [Senate], hereby express our strongest disapproval of Executive Actions taken by President Obama and all of his predecessors on immigration, believing as we so strongly do that only we have the right and the duty to make laws on this issue.  So say we all. 

Read the darn thing into the Congressional Record, and then get to work.