Hunter and The Truman National Security Project

Posted on February 13, 2020February 13, 2020 by Denise Simon

Turn the corner and we find yet another swampy organization where Hunter Biden had a parking space called the Truman National Security Project. Yeesh, this outfit is really a left-leaning organization founded by Rachel Kleinfeld. She is also a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The roster of young Truman fellows in high places includes Matthew Spence, who co-founded Truman with Kleinfeld and is now a senior aide to Obama’s National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, and Eric Lesser, who until he left for Harvard Law this summer worked in the White House, first as David Axelrod’s right-hand man and then as director of strategic planning for the Council of Economic Advisers. (He also organized the annual White House Seder.) Others have worked in the Department of Homeland Security, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Pentagon offices of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There are journalists, like Patrick Radden Keefe, and analyst-bloggers like Micah Zenko, of the Council on Foreign Relations. And there are people like Liz McNally, a West Point graduate and Rhodes Scholar who worked as a speechwriter for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq—and who, in August, wound up on the cover of Time magazine under the headline “The New Greatest Generation.” More context and details here.

Okay, back to Hunter…

In 2011, two years into his father’s term as vice president, Hunter Biden was appointed by the Truman National Security Project, a left-leaning foreign policy network, to its board of directors. The younger Biden was, at the time, one of just six members of the governing board, where he served alongside the organization’s founder and CEO, Rachel Kleinfeld, and a handful of corporate leaders. He had no obvious qualifications for the position.

As the Truman Project expanded, Democratic national security heavyweights including Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy guru who ran the Department of Policy Planning during her tenure at Foggy Bottom; Matthew Spence, a Defense Department veteran who served as a senior aide to Obama national security adviser Tom Donilon; and Steve Israel, the former Democratic congressman and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, eventually joined Biden on the board.

A cached version of the organization’s website shows that Biden rose to the position of vice chairman of the board, serving there until at least March of 2019. It is not clear precisely when—or why—Biden stepped down from the board, and the Truman Project did not respond to requests for comment. But during his tenure on the board, according to the New Yorker, he was in and out of drug rehabilitation facilities several times and, in 2014, joined the board of the Ukrainian gas giant Burisma and was discharged from the U.S. Navy after he failed a drug test. He later claimed that cigarettes he had smoked outside a bar may have been, unbeknownst to him, laced with cocaine.

Founded in 2004 by Kleinfeld, a Yale University graduate and Rhodes Scholar, the Truman National Security Project was intended to mirror conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Funded by the Ploughshares Fund, the organization awards dozens of fellowships every year and aims to mentor a new generation of Democratic foreign policy leaders.

(Sidebar: The Ploughshares Fund was a major funder promoting the Iran Nuclear deal and remember lil Ben Rhodes of the Obama White House later joined Ploughshares.)

Kleinfeld, who left the organization in 2013 and now serves as a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, did not respond to a request for comment. The Truman National Security Project did not return multiple requests for comment. A lawyer for Hunter Biden did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for John P. Driscoll, the chairman of the board of the Truman National Security Project, did not respond to a series of questions including why Biden was appointed to the board and when he stepped down from the position.

Kleinfeld has, however, written about her deep concern about corruption in Ukraine, writing in 2014, the year Biden joined Burisma’s board, that “Iraq’s fall on the heels of Ukraine’s collapse should be compelling. Curbing corruption before it tips into Kalashnikov-carrying rebels and public crucifixions is good security policy. And we need to get better at it.”

Biden was appointed to the Burisma board as the oil and gas giant faced a slew of corruption investigations involving its owner, Mikhail Zlochevsky, who was facing a money laundering investigation.

During Biden’s time on the board of the Truman Project, the organization joined a network of other left-leaning national-security oriented outlets with which it is closely linked, decried the Trump administration’s foreign policy initiatives and called for the resignation of Attorney General William Barr. Defend American Democracy, which identifies the Truman National Security Project as a “partner organization,” ran a national ad urging Americans to “hold the president accountable for abusing his office and risking national security for his own gain.”

Biden wasn’t the organization’s only connection to Burisma. Throughout his tenure on the board he sat alongside Sally Painter, the chief operating officer of the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies, which was hired by Burisma to improve the company’s image in the United States. A November Wall Street Journal report detailed how Painter’s colleague, Karen Tramontano, used Biden’s name in an effort to secure meetings with senior State Department officials, though the paper said it was not clear “whether the younger Mr. Biden knew his name was being used by Blue Star in its contacts with State Department officials on Burisma’s behalf in early 2016.”

While it is unclear when, exactly, Burisma retained Blue Star Strategies, Biden and Painter were serving together on the Truman board while Blue Star was working for Burisma.

As a tax-exempt organization, the Truman National Security Project is required to file tax returns indicating whether any of its officers or key employees have a “business relationship” with any others. Though Burisma tapped Painter’s public relations outfit while Biden was a member of the board, the Truman Project answered “no.” It further indicated that its officers had been briefed on their duty to disclose any conflicts of interest and that it was “regularly and consistently” monitoring compliance with the policy.

Michael Breen, president and CEO of Human Rights First, who served as president and CEO of the Truman Project when the tax returns were filed, and who is identified on them as the individual who possesses the organization’s books and records, did not respond to phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Truman fellows can now be found throughout the D.C. foreign policy establishment. Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright; Senators Chris Coons (D., Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) and Kamala Harris (D., Calif.); and former undersecretary of defense for policy Michele Flournoy are board members of its sister organization, the Truman Center for National Policy.

The Truman National Security Project’s current president and CEO, Jenna Ben-Yehuda, whose contact information is not publicly listed on the organization’s website, did not respond to a request via Twitter for an appropriate point of contact for media inquiries. A page listing the group’s membership is “currently under construction,” according to the group’s website, and the email address listed for press inquiries was inoperative.

On Tuesday—even before his disappointing fifth place finish in New Hampshire—Joe Biden fled the state for South Carolina, where he is hoping African-American voters will revive his flagging campaign. If that hope proves futile, it will be in part because of the perception that, as vice president, Biden either used his name and influence to help friends and family or looked the other way while they did so at places like Burisma and the Truman National Security Project.

***

As of June 2017, it is composed of 16 chapters from 47 different states across the nation and claims more than 1,600 members. It supports American leadership, using its defense and diplomacy in the world on issues involving shared security and democracy promotion abroad. Many of its members are former or current military personnel, diplomats, foreign policy lobbyists, and political activists. The Truman Project has been criticized for giving the impression that it is bipartisan and independent while being supportive of the Democratic Party.

Facebook Still Deleting Accounts Tied to Iran and Russia

Posted on February 13, 2020February 13, 2020 by Denise Simon

Social media giant Facebook on Wednesday removed two unconnected networks of accounts, pages, and groups “engaging in foreign or government interference,” one originating in Russia and the other one in Iran, both of which have alleged ties to intelligence services.

Calling the behavior “coordinated” and “inauthentic,” Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, said both operations were acting on “behalf of a government or foreign actor.”

The Russian network primarily targeted Ukraine and its neighboring countries, while the Iranian operation focused mainly on the United States.

The people behind the groups and accounts “coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action,” the social-media company said.

In total, 78 accounts, 11 pages, 29 groups, and four Instagram accounts originating in Russia were removed.

Facebook’s investigation “found links to Russian and military intelligence services” within the Russian network.

The people behind the network would pose as citizen journalists and tried to contact policymakers, journalists, and other public figures in the region.

They would post content in Russian, English, and Ukrainian “about local and political news including public figures in Ukraine, Russian military engagement in Syria, alleged SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) leaks related to ethnic tensions in Crimea and the downing of the Malaysian airliner in Ukraine in 2014.”

Similarly, six Facebook and five Instagram accounts were removed originating in Iran that engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior.”

Some tried contacting public figures and they shared posts on such topics as the U.S. elections, Christianity, U.S.-Iran relations, U.S. immigration policy, and criticism of U.S. policies in the Middle East.

About 60 people had followed one or more of the Iran-based Instagram accounts, the media company said.

*** What there is more….

Add in Vietnam and Myanmar.

Per Facebook in part:

Each of them created networks of accounts to mislead others about who they were and what they were doing. We have shared information about our findings with industry partners.

We’re constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people. We’re taking down these Pages, Groups and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted. In each of these cases, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action.

We are making progress rooting out this abuse, but as we’ve said before, it’s an ongoing challenge. We’re committed to continually improving to stay ahead. That means building better technology, hiring more people and working closer with law enforcement, security experts and other companies.The individuals behind this activity posed as locals and used fake accounts — some of which had already been detected and disabled by our automated systems — to manage Groups and Pages, post and comment on various content. Some of these accounts represented themselves as citizen journalists and tried to contact policymakers, journalists and other public figures in the region.

Read more here for more fake news sampling noted by Facebook.

Meet the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act

Posted on February 11, 2020February 11, 2020 by Denise Simon

It would be ironic if the report itself came in $1 billion over budget and five years behind schedule.

(Really? Behind schedule and over budget and it has to be $1 billion? Your thoughts?) It is a start however introduced by 2 Republicans, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI8) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA).

What is a billion dollars? | Sam Diacont

Context

A number of taxpayer-funded projects are taking significantly longer or costing significantly more than originally projected. Prominent examples include everything from the current 2020 Census to NASA space missions, plutonium cleanup sites to New York City subway construction.

What the bill does

The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act would require an annual public report detailing all federal projects that are running at least $1 billion over budget or at least five years behind schedule.

(That would likely include President Trump’s proposed border wall, for which U.S. Customs and Border Protection last week increased its original cost estimate up to $11 billion.)

The report would be compiled by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It would feature such components as both the original and current estimated costs of the projects, and supposed explanations justifying the increased expenses or late arrivals.

The Senate version was introduced last February 26 as bill number S. 565, by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). The House version was introduced a month later last March 27 as bill number H.R. 1917, by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI8).

What supporters say

Supporters argue the legislation allows for better management of misused and mishandled money allocated funded by American taxpayers.

“There are far too many taxpayer-funded projects that are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule,” Sen. Ernst said in a press release. The bill “will require the disclosure of the cost and timeline of these federal projects, bringing overdue accountability and transparency to the process, which will allow us to identify problems before they become a bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars.”

“Mismanagement of multibillion-dollar government projects should not be treated like business as usual,” Rep. Gallagher said in a separate press release. “It’s our job in Congress to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and this bill provides much-needed transparency of large-scale projects so we can get to the bottom of a problem before it becomes a bottomless pit of money.”

GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition.

Odds of passage

The Senate version has attracted five cosponsors: four Republicans and one Democrat. It passed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on November 6, and now goes for a potential vote by the full chamber.

The House version has attracted 12 cosponsors: eight Republicans and four Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in either the House Budget or Oversight and Reform Committee.

The Pro Act, Really Nancy?

Posted on February 10, 2020February 10, 2020 by Denise Simon

BIG LABOR PAYOFF? For sure….protect, organize and negotiate…blah blah blah

UAW’s website/Steeleworkers/AFLCIO and more promoting the passage and it did in the House….

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again and Democratic presidential hopefuls former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren are all with her.

Last week, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a bill designed solely to empower the Democrats’ Big Labor allies. While the bill has little chance of becoming law with Republicans in control of the Senate, the deceptively named Protecting the Right to Organize Act (“PRO Act”) is a dire warning of what Democrats would do should they ever return to power.

Voters should pay close attention to its provisions. Despite severely negative economic consequences, Democrats would eviscerate both the rights of employers to oppose unionization and of workers to decline union membership through the PRO Act – effectively turning the right to unionize into compulsory unionization.
There is no doubt that the PRO Act represents Democratic Party orthodoxy. It passed the House in a 224-194 vote (mostly along party lines). The Bill’s Senate version has 40 co-sponsors, none of whom are Republicans.

Presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill. Joe Biden’s website states that, as president, he would “sign the PRO Act into law.” Pete Buttigieg’s website states that he “strongly supports” the PRO Act.

While couched as workers’ rights legislation, the PRO Act is a tacit acknowledgment that the Democrats’ Big Labor allies have a serious problem: workers just aren’t very interested in what the unions have to offer. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) began reporting the data in 1983, union membership stood at 20.1 percent of US employees. That percentage has steadily declined ever since and, in 2019, dropped to 10.3 percent.

Dwindling union membership means declining revenue and political influence. So, the Democrats, who depend on union endorsements and union dues to support their political campaigns, are advocating policies that essentially eliminate the option of going non-union.

Perhaps most tellingly, the PRO Act would eliminate Right-to-Work laws nationwide, an important means for workers to hold their unions accountable and a critical protection for workers who do not want to financially support a political organization with which they disagree. As a result, the PRO Act would force workers in the 27 states that currently have right to work laws into unions, compelling them to pay union dues, despite their desire to remain independent.
The bill would also eliminate the right to a secret ballot in union elections, forcing workers to vote in front of union organizers and colleagues via “card check,” a system that both sides of the aisle have condemned. It would also infringe on workers’ rights to privacy, requiring employers to hand over employees’ personal information, including home addresses, emails, phone numbers, and work shifts, to union organizers, needlessly exposing those employees to harassment and intimidation.
One of the bill’s worst provisions would broaden the “joint employer” standard to include potentially any business that contracts with another, including franchisees, suppliers, vendors, or subcontractors. Joint employers are equally liable for each other’s employment violations, and this increased risk will force big companies to stop franchising or contracting with smaller companies to avoid expanded liability.

The Obama administration tried to force through the same standard, but its efforts met bipartisan opposition in Congress, and the Trump administration rightfully abandoned the effort.

Nonetheless, unions and their paid-for politicians are trying to force through the standard to give unions access to larger and supposedly “joint” workforces rather than requiring them to organize these smaller independent businesses one by one.

Similar to California’s AB5 legislation, which is set to wreak economic havoc in California’s economy, the PRO Act would steal American’s right to work independently by making it nearly impossible for workers to qualify as independent contractors – workers without a traditional employer. These workers are critical for the “sharing economy,” an industry composed of app-based technology companies like Uber and Lyft that connect independent workers with consumers.

This new economy is flourishing because it fills a gap in currently available services. Rather than supporting this new industry that provides additional income and flexibility to workers who choose to participate, Democrats want to stop it in its tracks. Why? Because – and only because — unions can’t organize independent workers.

The center-right American Action Forum’s economic analysis of the PRO Act’s potential impact on the economy is reason alone to abandon it. AAF found that the PRO Act’s joint employer provision could annually lead to $33.3 billion in lost output for the franchise business sector alone. The bill’s independent contractor provision is expected to add up to $12.1 billion in annual costs for employers and implicate 8.5 percent of GDP. And these are the costs of only two of the bill’s dozen provisions.

Despite the negative economic consequences, should Democrats return to power in the upcoming election, their socialist goal of compulsory unionization would soon supplant the rights of employers to oppose unions and of workers to reject them.

As the PRO Act demonstrates, Democrats will readily eviscerate those rights and slow our economy if doing so can but grow Big Labor’s coffers and political influence.

The upcoming election is increasingly a choice between economic freedom and prosperity or government compulsion and stagnation.

Trump Submitted his Budget

Posted on February 10, 2020February 10, 2020 by Denise Simon

The President officially submitted his budget proposal to Congress today, with a first-ever section on curbing waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse in the federal government.

Trump To Again Propose Slashing Foreign Aid In Budget | 88 ... Senator Schumer is already whining.

The budget calls for eliminating the following programs entirely:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Education and Research Centers

Department of the Interior’s Highlands Conservation Act Grants

National Park Service’s Save America’s Treasures Grants

National Endowment for the Arts Endowment for the Humanities

Corporation for National and Community Service (including AmeriCorps)

The administration also identified several categories of government spending in desperate need of additional government oversight, including travel, employee conferences or workshops, subscriptions, marketing, entertainment, office refreshments and end-of-year “Use It or Lose It” spending. The chapter cites expenditures by 67 federal agencies from December 30-31, 2018 which totaled $97 billion and included more than $15 million worth of fine china, lobster, alcohol, recreational, musical, and workout equipment.

Yes, it’s budget day on Capitol Hill as we all return to semi-normalcy after spending the last four months consumed with impeachment. Both the House and Senate have hearings this week to discuss the president’s budget.

President Trump is proposing to balance the federal budget within 15 years, “shrink” the federal government and extend food stamp work requirements to Medicaid and housing programs in a $4.8 trillion spending plan being released Monday.

The plan would reduce spending by $4.4 trillion equally from discretionary and mandatory programs such as Medicare over the next decade.

The plan also includes $2 billion for the border wall, with officials saying the administration is approaching 80% of the money needed to finish the wall.

The president’s budget for fiscal 2021 would cut foreign aid by 21% and reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by 26% while targeting the Education Department for smaller cuts.

Among the agencies receiving spending increases would be the Department of Homeland Security (up 3%), the Defense Department (up 0.3% to $740.5 billion), NASA (up 12%) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (up 13%).

The Commerce Department budget would be cut by 37%. Officials largely attribute that reduction to completion of the census. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is slated for a cut of 15% in a proposal that includes $2.8 billion for homelessness assistance grants.

Spending for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be cut 9%, and $4.3 billion would be targeted for battling infectious diseases.

Overall, nondefense spending would be cut 5% to $590 billion, below the level the White House and congressional Democrats agreed to in the current two-year budget deal.

Mr. Trump also proposes to make permanent the tax cuts of 2017. Senior administration officials who gave a preview to The Washington Times and other news outlets said the election-year proposal is aimed partly at the perception that Mr. Trump hasn’t tried to curtail federal spending, with annual deficits rising to more than $1 trillion in his first term.

“We’re trying to make the case that the president cares about spending and has cared about spending,” a senior administration official said. “He’s been doing this since his very first budget. This is now the fourth budget. Many of these [spending] reforms have been in each and every one of them. We do need Congress. Congress has not been there.”

The plan also provides a stark contrast with leading Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign priorities, such as “Medicare-for-All” and free college tuition, which would likely require significant tax increases.

“We’re going to have a national election that will hopefully decide that Congress is going to be on the side of the American people along with other taxpayers who balance their family budgets,” the senior official said. “We’re making the argument that deficit reduction is really important.”

The plan to reach a balanced budget relies on an optimistic economic forecast of 3% annual growth, significantly faster than the 2.3% rate in 2019.

Officials said about half of the proposed savings over a decade would come from reforms or from eliminating programs deemed wasteful in entitlements such as Medicaid and Social Security. They said benefits won’t be affected and that the savings would come from cutting waste and from other savings such as lowering prescription drug prices under Medicare ($130 billion).

Savings of $292 billion would come from reforming Medicaid and other safety net programs, for example by eliminating improper payments to people who have died. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid would still increase.

“The president is proposing more mandatory savings and reforms than any other president in history,” an official said. “He does protect Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in those programs; he totally meets that commitment.”

The president tweeted on Saturday, “We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal 2021 Budget. Only the Democrats will destroy them by destroying our Country’s greatest ever Economy!”

In the past two years, Congress has provided only $2.65 billion for the border wall out of the $18 billion the administration said it needed. Mr. Trump declared a state of emergency in February 2019 to move money from military construction projects and counternarcotics programs to get more money. The administration has shifted $6.7 billion from those programs and plans to divert another $7.2 billion this year.

“We are in a pretty good place with regard to the main, most critical features of the wall being fully resourced as of right now,” a senior official said. “We will ask for another $2 billion just to keep the work going. We’re approaching 80% of the wall that will eventually be built being fully resourced.”

The proposal would save taxpayers $300 billion over 10 years by expanding the 20-hour-per-week work requirement for food stamp recipients to Medicaid and housing programs, plus expanding it in the food stamp program, officials said.

The administration said in a statement that part of the spending plan involves “shrinking the federal government to its proper size” by calling for overall reductions of about 2%.

Deficits have risen each year under Mr. Trump, who came into office criticizing former President Barack Obama for failing to get government borrowing under control and pledging that he would balance the budget himself in eight years.

When Mr. Obama left office, the annual deficit was down to about $585 billion after three consecutive $1 trillion deficits at the start of his presidency.

After Mr. Trump took office, the deficit rose to $665 billion in fiscal 2017. It climbed to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, which was 3.8% of gross domestic product. In 2019, it rose to $984 billion, or 4.6% of GDP.

The trend continued in the wrong direction in the first three months of fiscal 2020 as the deficit widened to $356.6 billion and was on pace to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

The fiscal 2021 budget proposal would trim the deficit to $966 billion next year and eliminate annual deficits by 2035, a senior administration official said.

Mr. Trump threatened to veto a massive spending bill in March 2018 that he said included unnecessary extras added by Democrats. He said he acquiesced because the measure was vital to rebuilding the military, but he warned that he wouldn’t tolerate such wastefulness going forward.

“I will never sign a bill like this again,” Mr. Trump said.

He fought with Democrats into a government shutdown in late 2018 over funding for the border wall. In August, Mr. Trump struck a sweeping two-year spending deal with Democrats that lifted the nation’s borrowing limit through July 2021, raised spending by more than $320 billion and put off the next potential fight over spending until after the November elections.

That deal is projected to add nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat whose troops have teamed up with Mr. Trump to increase deficit levels, said the president has no credibility on fiscal responsibility. They point to the 2017 tax cuts that passed with no Democratic votes.

“During the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, he reduced the deficit by $1 trillion,” Mrs. Pelosi said last week. “Instead, this administration … increased the national debt by $2 trillion.”