Category Archives: Presidential campaign

Hunter and The Truman National Security Project

Posted on by

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.

Run for Office

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 by

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.

Screenshot of content posted by some of these Pages Screenshot of content posted by some of these Pages  Read more here for more fake news sampling noted by Facebook.

GovTrack Data on 2020 Candidates in the Senate

Posted on by

As we go through these primary states, do voters really do the work to determine the backgrounds of the candidates? Likely no, so below is a little cheat sheet that voters must consider for some of these candidates during their time in the Senate. It is voter’s duty to know.

Who are Democrat's top choices for 2020 presidential ...

Last May, we published an article highlighting differences between the 2020 democratic candidates based on their legislative records in 2017 and 2018. We also published several articles highlighting some of the key legislation that candidates have introduced more recently to give an understanding of their current policy concerns. As we finally reach the 2020 democratic primaries, it’s a good time to revisit what GovTrack data can tell us about the remaining viable candidates who are currently serving in or have served in the US Senate.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders has secured his position as the most progressive candidate by championing significant reform for popular issues. He has introduced a bill in this session of Congress for almost all of his major talking points, such as his Medicare for All Act, Raise the Wage Act, and College for All Act. The titles of these bills are more or less self-explanatory, which is fitting of Sanders style. Sanders introduces relatively few bills compared to other Senators, but the ones he does introduce tend to propose sweeping changes.

While Sanders legislative focus tends to be on health and the economy, he’s also touched on other key progressive issues. He introduced two environmental bills: the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act, which would set energy efficiency standards for all public housing among other things, and the Prevent Future American Sickness Act, which in a break from Sanders’ loftier policy goals would designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances. He also introduced the No War Against Iran Act in response to increased tensions earlier this year.

Only two of the 27 bills Sanders introduced this session were supported by a Republican, and he’s only signed on to 19 Republican bills.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has a clear focus on financial and economic policy. She introduced several bills to regulate large corporations, like her Accountable Capitalism Act, which would set responsibilities for United States corporations and enforce them with a new federal office, or her Ending Too Big to Jail Act intended to crack down on financial crime.

While not all of the bills she introduces are specific to that focus, most of them are presented from a financial perspective. For example, two of the major educational reforms Warren proposes, the Student Loan Debt Relief Act and the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act, are centered around the affordability of preschool and higher education. Affordability is a key issue to Warren, appearing in the titles of two of her recent bills, the Affordable Safe Drinking Water Act and the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, which show off her approach to environmental and health policy respectively.

Warren and Sanders have both built their campaigns on progressive reforms meant to relieve stress for low-income Americans. However, looking at the legislative records we can find some contrast. While Sanders rarely ever trades cosponsorship with Republicans, Warren is much more likely to have a Republican or two sign on to her bills. In the previous session of Congress over half the bills Warren introduced had a Republican cosponsor and in this session almost a third were the same. She also has cosponsored 98 Republican bills this session.

Amy Klobuchar

One legislative issue stands out for Amy Klobuchar more so than for the other candidates: campaigns and elections. She has introduced 15 bills such as her Stopping Harmful Interference for a Lasting Democracy Act, which would require Federal campaigns report any foreign assistance offered or given, her Redistricting Reform Act, intended to combat partisan gerrymandering, and her Same Day Registration Act, which would allow voter registration on the same day of an election.

But with 81 bills introduced this session, Klobuchar has covered a wide range of topics. She has introduced environmental bills such as the Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act, which would provide grants and technology assistance to rural electric cooperatives, and finance bills such as the Monopolization Deterrence Act, which would allow monetary penalties against corporations that engage in monopolization offenses.

Klobuchar introduced more bills than the other senators running for President. She tends to focus less on lofty goals like Sanders’ Medicare for All or Warren’s Universal Child Care, opting to legislate for smaller policy adjustments rather than large scale reform. She also is much more likely to get Republican cosponsors. 51 of the 81 bills she introduced this session had at least one Republican cosponsor.

Joe Biden

Although Joe Biden didn’t introduce any bills in this session of Congress, we can look into his record from his last years as a senator. From 2007 to 2009 Biden focused on criminal justice and sentencing reform. He introduced bills such as the Bail Bond Fairness Act which would have required that bail bonds only be forfeited if the defendant fails to appear in court, the Justice Integrity Act, which would have created a program to prevent racial bias in law enforcement and to improve public confidence in the police, and the the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act, which would have eliminated mandatory minimums for possession of crack or powder cocaine, among other things. He took an interest in preventing drug abuse through bills like the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act and Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act.

Biden also had bills on clean energy and college affordability. His College Affordability and Creating Chances for Educational Success for Students Act would have assisted college students with tax credits and Pell grants, and his International Clean Development Technology Fund Act would have appropriated $2 billion for developing and implementing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the globally.

65 of the 89 bills Biden introduced in his last session of Congress had Republican cosponsors. Biden signed on to 71 bills introduced by Republicans.

Tell Tucker the Russians Really Did Interfere

Posted on by

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.”

Brace for More Political Plotting Impact

Posted on by

The question now is will Speaker Pelosi approve yet another impeachment inquiry operation against President Trump now that the president has been acquitted in the Senate trial on both articles of impeachment.

Listening to Congressmen Schiff and Nadler, they tell us that investigations will continue placing emphasis on future testimonies of former White House Counsel Don McGhan, former White House National Security Council advisor John Bolton and the court decision on the matter of full release of Trump’s tax returns. Further, BuzzFeed, CNN and the House have issued subpoenas for documents held sequestered by the Mueller investigation team.

In short, there is more going on with regard to the resistance movement against President Trump.

Are there counter-measures to possibly stop this constant political adventure? The short answer is yes.

There are many ramps that can be taken if not all. Senator Lindsey Graham pledged continued investigation into all things Biden. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani is at work on all things Biden, Ukraine and operatives in Washington DC. There are also a few key Senators, namely Grassley and Johnson that are requesting documents from the National Archives, travel documents, electronic communications and other evidence as they relate to the meeting(s) in the Obama White House that hatched the operation on protecting several within his administration relating to Ukraine, Biden and other DNC personnel and diplomats.

Rand Paul Puts Up Billboard On Floor Of Senate With Eric ...

Indeed there are other real key items underway including Senator Rand Paul pursuing Eric Ciaramella. It appears he is not going to let up and rightly so.

There is the case involving former FBI officials, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Then we cannot overlook the most awaited case that U.S. Attorney John Durham has in his sphere, investigating all things related to Crossfire Hurricane, the dossier, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Perkin Coie, Marc Elias and foreign interference.

We may soon know more as to the roles Victoria Nuland, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, James Comey, Loretta Lynch had during this almost forgotten nightmare.

Prosecutor Who Unraveled Corruption in Boston Turns to C.I ... source

Without any real media notice due to impeachment operations is that John Durham brought on a new well respected criminal attorney, Sarah Karwan. Her specialty is financial fraud, money laundering, public corruption and national security/cyber crime. The status is unclear at this point in the investigation relating to Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI lawyer that altered a document used in the FISA warrant applications on Carter Page. A great deal of evidence was brought forth in the Horowitz Inspector General report and it is noted that IG Horowitz is collaborating with the Durham team and the Senate team led by Lindsey Graham. We cannot forget several others under scrutiny including Stephan Halper, John Brennan and James Clapper. Where is Joseph Mifsud? Only John Durham knows as there is testimony from Mifsud or about him acquired by Durham during Durham’s travels to Italy.

Who really needs to brace for impact? Nancy, Adam, Gerry, Barack, Joe……