States

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

FNC: Charging that so-called “sanctuary” cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a “significant escalation” against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the “lawful functioning of our nation’s immigration system.”

source

Speaking at the National Sheriff’s Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.

“The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS,” Barr said.

That was a reference to New Jersey Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2018-6, which the DOJ says illegally bars officials from sharing the immigration status and release dates of individuals in custody. It also requires New Jersey law enforcement to “promptly notify a detained individual, in writing and in a language the individual can understand” if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) files an immigration detainer request for the individual.

“We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy … that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport,” Barr continued.

That lawsuit targets King County Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which the DOJ said has dramatically increased operating costs for ICE as detainees have had to be transported to Yakima, Washington. The executive order unconstitutionally conflicts with the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which “prohibits localities such as King County from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations that relate to prices, routes, or services of air carriers,” the DOJ said.

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country. This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” Barr added, noting that the DOJ would support DHS with “federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions.”

And, Barr said, “we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct. In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens.”

Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called “collateral consequences,” including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.

Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow “criminal aliens to escape” federal law enforcement — and some jurisdictions are becoming “more aggressive” in undermining immigration authorities, with some local politicians develop “schemes” to circumvent immigration officials.

In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.

“The express purpose of these policies is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for crimes,” Barr said, noting that the Constitution empowers the federal government to enforce immigration laws, even as it entrusted the police power to the states. “This is neither lawful nor sensible.”

“In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father,” Barr said. “The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer. So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as ‘abuelita,’ a fixture of her Queens neighborhood.”

Additionally, In October 2017, DHS “identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State,” Barr continued. “DHS filed a detainer. Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment. But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer. In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin.”

READ BARR’S FULL REMARKS HERE

“The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments,” Barr said. The ‘Supremacy Clause’ in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the ‘Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'”

He added: “This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order. Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government. And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way. While federal law does not require that ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts.”

Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many “criminal aliens” are in the U.S., in part because of “local policies,” although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.

“Assuming that estimate was accurate, the numbers are likely even higher today despite the Trump Administration’s consistent and concerted efforts to find and deport this criminal population,” Barr said.

It is the “rule of law that is fundamental to ensuring both freedom and security,” Barr asserted, saying law enforcement officers are increasingly under fire in “heinous” attacks that “come against the backdrop of cynicism and disrespect for law enforcement.”

Barr touted the DOJ’s lawsuit against California and other states over their sanctuary policies. The suit over California involves the law prohibiting the federal government from conducting operations in its own affiliated private immigration facilities and detention centers.

The law, Barr said, was a “blatant attempt by the State to prohibit DHS from detaining aliens, and to interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service to manage federal detainees and prisoners.”

“The department sued the State of California to enjoin numerous state laws that attempted to frustrate federal immigration enforcement,” Barr said. “We prevailed on several of our claims in the lower courts, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our request to review the remaining issues and side with us against California’s obstructionist policies.”

He concluded, “Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’ But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe. We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law.”

Barr’s new sanctions come as the Trump administration has already announced other initiatives targeting illegal immigration in the wake of the president’s State of the Union address last week.

Last week, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents — a dramatic move in response to the liberal state’s recently enacted sanctuary “Green Light Law.”

Barr slammed the law in his speech Monday, calling it “unlawful.”

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations Todd Owen later told Fox News that up to 800,000 New Yorkers could be affected by the rule change within the next five years. Owen said people with pending Global Entry applications would be refunded, and that those with active applications would not be affected until their renewal date.

Illegal immigrants rushed to New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in large numbers after the “Green Light Law,” which allowed them to obtain driver’s licenses or learner’s permits regardless of their immigration status, took effect last December. The law also permitted applicants to use foreign documents, including passports, to be submitted in order to obtain licenses.

In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited DMV agencies across the state from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE.

“In New York alone, last year ICE arrested 149 child predators, identified or rescued 105 victims of exploitation and human trafficking, arrested 230 gang members, and seized 6,487 pounds of illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and opioids,” Wolf wrote to New York officials. “In the vast majority of these cases, ICE relied on New York DMV records to fulfill its mission.”

The “Green Light Law,” Wolf went on, “compromises CBP’s ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements.”

“This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS’ s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised,” he said.

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.”

Tell Tucker the Russians Really Did Interfere

Posted on February 7, 2020February 7, 2020 by Denise Simon

The Obama Administration found itself in “uncharted territory” as the scope of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections became clear to senior officials, a report issued on Thursday by the Senate Intelligence Committee found.

The panel — led by Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA) — found that the U.S. government “was not well-postured to counter Russian election interference activity with a full range of readily-available policy options.”

The Obama administration issued “high-level warnings of potential retaliation” to Moscow, “but tempered its response over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions.”

The report marks the third volume in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s years-long investigation of Russia’s interference campaign in the 2016 election. Previous reports have focused on the use of social media manipulation by Russia in 2016 and its attacks on local and state election infrastructure.

Some sections of the report remain partially or totally redacted, but nonetheless a picture emerges of the uncertainty and contradictions the administration faced in figuring out how to address Russia’s attack on the U.S. elections.

Even as the U.S. government was well aware of Moscow’s decades-long campaigns against the U.S., the 2016 attack was “unprecedented” in “scale and sophistication,” Thursday’s report said, and Russia’s weaponization of the information it hacked from Democrats was unlike anything government officials had ever seen before.

Some top administration officials first learned that the DNC had been hacked and had emails stolen when it was reported by the Washington Post in June 2016.

“In fact, had the DNC not approached and cooperated with the Washington Post to publish a June 14, 2016, article, senior administration leadership probably would not have been aware of the issue until later, in all likelihood when WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, and DCLeaks began to publish emails taken from the DNC’s network,” the report reads.

The administration faced several constraints as it grappled with how to respond to the attack, according to the report. One was the concern that public warnings would help Russia achieve its very goals, by sowing fear and undermining confidence in the election.

Another, however, was the fear of giving the appearance that the White House was “siding with one candidate,” particularly as then-candidate Donald Trump was amping up his rhetoric about the election being “rigged” against him, officials noted to the committee.

The report cites then-Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco recalling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) raising similar concerns.

“[Y]ou security people should be careful that you’re not getting used,” the report cites Monaco as remembering of McConnell’s reaction to the prospect of a public, bipartisan statement on the interference campaign.

Monaco, the report states, interpreted this as meaning that intelligence on Russia’s interference efforts “was being inflated or used for partisan ends.”

Sen. Burr, at a committee hearing cited in the report, phrased McConnell’s concern as “Would this not contribute to Russia’s efforts at creating concerns about our election process, if the leadership of the Congress put that letter out?”

Separate reporting has indicated that McConnell told Obama in a September 2016 meeting about Russian interference that he would interpret a public warning about the matter as an attempt to interfere in the election, and not sign on to a bipartisan announcement about the threat.

The report recounts several direct warnings Obama officials delivered to Moscow regarding the attack, including an in-person confrontation between President Obama and Vladimir Putin at a September 2016 G20 summit in China.

A paragraph titled “Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov” in that section is completely redacted. In Obama’s warning to Putin, which was crafted carefully with a small group of principals, the potential consequences were “purposely left ambiguous by the President in an effort to intimate that a range of diplomatic, economic, [redacted] options were available to use in response to Russia.”

Putin gave Obama an “energetic” and “non-substantive” denial, then-Ambassador Susan Rice told the committee, based on Obama’s account of the conversation to her.

CIA Director John Brennan also brought up the interference on an August call with Russian FSB head Alexander Bortnikov, as did Rice, with a phone call to then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and a written message from Obama that was passed through her to Putin.

“The written message was a more specific warning that contained ‘the kind of consequences that he could anticipate would be powerfully impactful to their economy and far exceed anything that he had seen to date,’” the report said, quoting Rice.

The administration also used a cyber hotline to deliver warnings to Russia, where at least eight messages — four on each side — were exchanged, but only three of them carrying substantive information, according to the committee.

At one point, the Russian government denied “technical information” that the Obama administration supplied about the interference campaign. In that message, the report reads, Moscow said that “it too had been victim to some of the same cyber activity.”

The report recounts the administration’s efforts to inform stakeholders about the threat to election infrastructure and the blowback the administration experience when DHS floated designating election systems as critical infrastructure (a designation it ultimately made in Jan. 2017).

Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told the committee that the move in October to release a public statement attributing the attacks to Russia was “a very, very big decision.” The statement was ultimately overshadowed by the revelation of the Trump Access Hollywood tape and the dump of another tranche of emails hacked from Democrats.)

Administration officials told the committee that at the time they believed that their warnings to Moscow — and particularly the Oct. 7 warning from Obama to Putin — had had a deterrent effect. However the report identified three events after that warning that showed Russia’s cyber-activity continued: the scanning Russian actors did of state and local election websites to identify vulnerabilities; spearfishing emails sent to Florida election officials and organizations; and a third episode that was completely redacted in the report.

After the election, the administration felt less constrained in how to punish Russia now that it now longer had to worry about provoking further meddling, according to the report. Among the post-election responses were the expulsion of Russian diplomats, the levy of additional sanctions and the designation by DHS of election infrastructure as critical infrastructure. Much of this section of the report is also redacted.

The White House also considered whether to impose more punitive economic sanctions that would have been severe enough to “incur significant blowback” to the U.S. and Europe.

That path was not taken, in part because of the blowback, and in part because of “uncertainty about the future Russia policy of the incoming administration” and the possibility of wavering European allies.

In an addendum to the report, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and James Risch (R-ID) criticized the Obama administration for being “inept.”

“Hollow threats and slow, hapless responses from the administration translated to perceived weakness on the part of the U.S., and Putin exploited that weakness with impunity,” the addendum reads. “It appears to us that either the Obama administration was woefully unprepared to address a known and ongoing national security threat, or even worse, that the administration did not take the threat seriously.

The committee said it was “appalling” that senior Obama administration officials didn’t recognize Russia’s malign activities until late July, despite intelligence pointing in that direction.

Sen. Wyden also filed an attachment to the report, bemoaning “a political environment in which one candidate was questioning the legitimacy of the election with falsehoods (“large scale voter fraud”)” as “a reason to keep the public in the dark about real threats to America’s democracy.”

He criticized the report for failing to provide detailed information about the September 2016 meeting between top Obama administration officials and Senate leaders as the White House pressed for a bipartisan statement on the interference campaign.

“As the report describes, the Obama Administration believed that any public statements about Russian interference it might make would be seen as partisan, a concern that would be mitigated if members of Congress were to publicly support the available intelligence,” Wyden wrote. “I believe that warning the public about a foreign influence campaign should not depend on the support of both parties, particularly when one of the parties stands to gain politically from that campaign. But that is how the Obama Administration felt.”

Green Light Law v. Trump Administration

Posted on February 7, 2020February 7, 2020 by Denise Simon

Hat tip to DHS….

The New York Department of Motor Vehicles has a rather new law called the Green Light Law where illegals can obtain state issued identification licenses and or driver’s licenses. New York is one of 13 states with such a law with slight iteration differences. It is unclear what undocumented applicants must provide to the clerk as evidence and what safeguards are in place to prevent fraud and higher risks to public safety. Law enforcement across the country use DMV databases hundreds of thousands of times a day for normal traffic stops, identification verification, outstanding warrants and in many cases criminal records across state lines.

New York is the top city as a foreign entry point and there are no real stipulations as to entry or exit factors in the law. Further, the State of New York has terminated DMV database access to Customs and Border Patrol. Remember the 9/11 commission put forth countless recommendations that all lawmakers and all state governors signed onto which mandated information sharing. Governor Cuomo appears to forget that.

Image result for global traveler program

Due to lack of DMV access for all matter regarding travel and public safety, DHS has terminated New York from the ‘Trusted Traveler Program’ and this is yet causing more outrage in the Governor’s office.

DHS: In response to New York State implementing the Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act (Green Light Law), Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf announced New York residents will no longer be eligible to apply for or renew their enrollment in certain Trusted Traveler Programs like Global Entry. The law prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) from sharing information with U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), preventing DHS from fully vetting New York residents. The Acting Secretary informed State officials by letter of the change. The letter may be read here.

“New York’s ‘Green Light Law’ is ill-conceived and the Department is forced to take this action to ensure the integrity of our Trusted Traveler Programs. It’s very clear: this irresponsible action has consequences,” said Acting Secretary Chad Wolf. “An aspect of the law which I’m most concerned about is that it prohibits the DMV from providing ICE and CBP with important data used in law enforcement, trade, travel, and homeland security. ICE uses the information as they investigate and build cases against terrorists, and criminals who commit child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, and financial crimes. Unfortunately, because of this law, they can no longer do that”

Wolf continued: “CBP also uses that data for national security purposes and to ensure safe and lawful trade and travel. Specifically, CBP is able to offer Trusted Traveler Programs like Global Entry because we are able to use DMV data to make an evidence-based assessment that those individuals who seek this benefit are low risk and meet the eligibility requirements. Without the DMV information we aren’t able to make that assessment. DHS notified New York DMV that New York residents can no longer enroll or re-enroll in these trusted traveler programs because we no longer have access to data to ensure that New York Residents meet those programs requirements. We must do our job.”

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) runs Trusted Traveler Programs like Global Entry, FAST, SENTRI and NEXUS which rely on access to DMV data to determine whether the person is who they say they are and if they have a criminal record. When that data is denied, the security is compromised. CBP expects the move to affect up to 150,000-200,000 New York residents who seek to renew membership in a CBP Trusted Traveler Programs this fiscal year. There are almost 30,000 commercial truck drivers enrolled in the FAST program at four New York-Canada ports of entry.

Additionally, because the law hinders DHS from validating documents used to establish vehicle ownership, the exporting of used vehicles titled and registered in New York State will be significantly delayed and could also be costlier.