Category Archives: The Denise Simon Experience

Russia’s Operations Against the US Explained at Aspen Security Forum

Posted on by

Associated Press

Published on Jul 18, 2018
(19 Jul 2018) FBI Director Christopher Wray says Russia is trying to influence opinions and sow discord and divisiveness in the U.S. Wray spoke at the opening event of the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. (July 19)

Meanwhile, there has been substantial theories and responses due to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of the 13 Russians from February. 

Add in the second round of 12 Russians that SC Mueller indicted just this month. So we are currently at 25. Now, consider Ms. Maria Butina who was arrested last Sunday.

Butina, 29, was indicted by a grand jury Tuesday on charges she served in the United States as an agent of the Russian government without notifying the Justice Department. In the court filing Wednesday, prosecutors said Butina maintained constant contact with Russian intelligence officials and “loyally” carried out a years-long conspiracy to advance the Kremlin’s interests. They described her plan as “calculated, patient” and directed by a Russian official believed to be Alexander Torshin, who was sanctioned by the Treasury Department earlier this year.

Perhaps, one should consider that Mueller is for sure simply trying to clean up a Russian mess left behind by the Obama administration. All of this happened during his administration. For an exceptional summary on the matter of Butina and what FBi Director is referring to at the Aspen Security Forum, click this link.

Security agency professionals are in attendance at the Aspen Security Forum to include DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Daniel Coats, Director of National lntelligence, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General and Christopher Wray, Director of the FBl.

Further, there are real concerns that the Federal and State governments are not doing enough to protect whole election architecture and systems. That is a false assertion by the Democrats as there have been hearings on the Hill explaining the work/collaboration between DHS and individual states. Admittedly, there are issues at the State level where databases, computers, voter rolls and more all take place. The bell first rang on state vulnerabilities began in the 2016 general election, where the cyber professionals at the FBl were placed in states known to be under brute force cyber attacks. State officials were warned then and provided advice on how to harden their respective systems going forward.

Those discussions and activities continue today including at the Aspen Security Forum.  A specific session is dedicated to this issue as noted:

Defending Democratic Institutions: Election 2018 and Beyond
Though the motivation and the effects are disputed, nearly everyone agrees that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, and security experts agree that it is already interfering in this year’s mid-terms. Though efforts are underway to stop them, what more can be done to put an end to Russia’s interference in our elections and democratic institutions?

Monika Bickert, Head of Product Policy and Counterterrorism, Facebook
Tom Burt, Corporate Vice President for Customer Security and Trust , Microsoft
Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of Homeland Security
Jeanette Manfra, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Cybersecurity and
Communications
Kim Wyman, Secretary of State, Washington State
Moderator: Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo News

 

Meanwhile, Senator Rubio introduced legislation last year to further add sanctions on Russia due to Russian interference. Due to the most recent political scandals, some noted above, Rubio’s bill is getting renewed attention and support in Congress.

Image result for rubio deter act photo

Briefly from the Miami Herald:

Rubio and Van Hollen’s bill, called the Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines (DETER) Act, is the first bill since the 2016 presidential election that sets specific punishments for the Russian government and other countries that interfere in U.S. political campaigns.

“Congress has already taken various steps when it comes to Russia and its interference in 2016, this will just be one moving forward that hopefully would deter future attacks, which I believe is the real threat here ultimately,” Rubio said on Tuesday. “It’s not what happened, but what could happen in the future. Hopefully we’ll get to a critical mass and momentum that we can get going on it and get it passed.”

Rubio’s bill, if passed, codifies specific penalties for the Russians that must be implemented within 10 days if the Director of National Intelligence determines that interference took place.

The penalties include “sanctions on major sectors of the Russian economy, including finance, energy, defense, and metals and mining” and blacklisting every senior Russian political figure or oligarch identified in the Russian sanctions bill that became law in 2017 over the initial objections of Trump after a supermajority in Congress approved it.

The bill lays out specific acts by foreign governments that constitute election interference. Foreign governments are forbidden from purchasing advertisements to influence elections, using social and traditional media to spread “significant amounts” of false information, hacking election or campaign infrastructure such as voter registration databases and campaign emails, and blocking access to elections infrastructure such as websites that provide information on polling locations. Read more here.

 

Pork Still Lives in the Swamp

Posted on by

Primer:

On January 17, 2018, Rep. Rooney stated, “you can’t do jack s— for your
constituents” without earmarks. Perhaps Rep. Rooney’s successor will find a
way to do his or her job without resorting to the most wasteful and corrupt
practice in congressional history.
$11,000,000 for the aquatic plant control program, an increase of 22.2
percent from the $9 million earmarked in FY 2017, and the largest amount
ever earmarked for this program.
Since 1994, there have been 24 earmarks worth a total of $58.1 million
for aquatic plant control projects, including three by Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.) and one each by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and then-Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-Ala.).
Image result for 2018 congressional pig book

Watchdog exposes $14.7B of pork-barrel spending, including ‘brown tree snake eradication’ project

FNC: The federal government is spending millions to save Pacific Coast salmon. And it’s doling out more than $600,000 to kill brown tree snakes in Guam.

A watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, on Wednesday released its annual Congressional Pig Book of what it considers the most egregious examples of pork-barrel spending in Congress, drawn this time from fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills.

According to the group, earmarks in 2018 totaled $14.7 billion, an increase of 116.2 percent from $6.8 billion in 2017.

Among the most blatant examples of pork flagged by the group:

— $65 million for “Pacific coastal salmon recovery.” According to its website, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund “was established by Congress in 2000 to reverse the declines of Pacific salmon and steelhead, supporting conservation efforts in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska.”

— $11 million for an “aquatic plant control program.” The group said that since 1994, there have been 24 earmarks worth $58.1 million for aquatic plant control projects.

— $663,000 for a “brown tree snake eradication program.” According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the snakes are “native to northern Australia, Indonesia and many islands in Melanesia, and have caused damage to the ecosystem of Guam, where they were likely introduced by the U.S. military following World War II.”

— $10 million for “high-energy cost grants” within the Rural Utilities Service.

– $2.8 million for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs grant program, which funds arts and cultural institutions in Washington, D.C.

A number of Republican lawmakers attended Wednesday’s press conference on the list, including Sens. Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz and Joni Ernst, of Arizona, Texas and Iowa, respectively.

To be considered for listing in the group’s annual book, an earmark must meet at least one criterion, including whether it was requested by only one chamber of Congress; if it was not specifically authorized; if it was not competitively awarded; if it was not requested by the president; if it greatly exceeds the president’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; if it was not the subject of congressional hearings; or if it serves only a local or special interest.

Mueller’s Team Indicted More Russians

Posted on by

During the open session of the dual congressional committee hearing with FBI CT expert, Peter Strzok, the democrats went off on republicans for not having hearings on Russian interference and protecting the American campaign/election process.

On the republican side, there has been a constant call to terminate the Mueller operation. I have stood rather alone as a conservative supporting the Mueller operation because we do need to punish all things Russia.

Will Rod Rosenstein serve as a check on Jeff Sessions?

Per the indictment, Russian officers are accused of hacking the DNC server, stealing login in credentials of Clinton campaign associates including John Podesta. The indictment includes such text as aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to launder money and the illegal release of stolen data/intelligence. The hackers also targets state and local officials that do administer the elections process yet, NO VOTE COUNTS OR TALLIES WERE ALTERED.

The information purloined from the hacks was funneled through the internet under the names DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the government contends. The DAG noted that a number of Americans “corresponded with several Russians through the internet.” No allegations have been brought against those Americans at this point for knowingly communicating with Russian intelligence officers, Rosenstein said.

An important point made by Rosenstein, which leads to the growing fact that no Americans, including candidate Trump or his aides had taken part in any collusion. collaboration or conspiracy known to date.

So today, AG Rod Rosenstein announced 12 indictments of Russian operatives. As President Trump is in Europe, he was briefed on this indictment announcement. His response?

Rosenstein briefed POTUS earlier this week on today’s indictments of Russian agents. Trump said today he would be asking Putin about it during their meeting Monday.

The timing of this announcement is quite important as President Trump is meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday. Other world leaders have accused Moscow of doing the exact same thing in their respective countries, to include France, Mexico and Germany.

So, what say you democrats now?

Politico reported it this way:

Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officers on Friday, and accused them of hacking into the Democratic National Committee to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.

The indictments, announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, come just days before a scheduled Monday summit in Helsinki between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They are the latest charges in a probe that has already netted guilty pleas from three former Trump campaign aides while the president himself remains under investigation by Mueller for potential obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein said the Russians stole and released Democratic documents after planting malicious computer codes in the network of the DNC as well as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

He said Russia’s GRU military intelligence service was behind online entities that disseminated and promoted the documents under the names Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.

The indictment dramatically shifts the context for Trump’s upcoming meeting with Putin, whom U.S. intelligence services have concluded was behind the 2016 election interference scheme whose goal was to elect Trump.

 

Trump Takes on Germany/Europe at NATO Summit

Posted on by

Toplines from Trump at the NATO summit:

  1. Trump accused Germany of being “totally controlled” by Russia in comments about their proposed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
  2. German Chancellor Angela Merkel replied that she’d already “experienced the Soviet occupation … it is good that we are independent today.”
  3. Trump called on NATO members to double their defense spending commitment to 4%. (The U.S. is at 3.5%). Only five nations (if you include Poland at 1.99%) currently meet the 2% target for 2024.

Axios’ Jonathan Swan asked NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg a pair of questions in Brussels.

  • Swan 1: Did President Trump assure you he wouldn’t make any concessions in his meeting with Vladimir Putin — for example on Crimea?
  • Stoltenberg 1: “Action speaks louder than words. And I’m absolutely confident about the U.S. commitment to European security.” Stoltenberg noted that all allies, including the U.S., signed a declaration today saying they don’t recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. (But he dodged the question about what assurances he sought and received.)
  • Swan 2: Has President Trump, in any of his conversations with you, suggested he thinks the United States has too many troops in Europe?
  • Stoltenberg 2: “This is the unified position of all allies… The illegal annexation of Crimea is one of the main reasons why NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of collective defense since the end of the Cold War.” (Again, separating Trump’s words from the Trump administration’s deeds.)

Swan’s thought bubble: Stoltenberg has a point about Trump’s words versus his administration’s deeds (so far). Trump has not done anything to reduce U.S. military support for NATO and has actually increased military investments in Europe.

  • But at the same time Trump has done what no recent U.S. president has done — publicly questioned the value of NATO for the U.S. and in the process made some of America’s closest allies privately question whether they can still rely on American protection.

Macron and Trump France’s President Emmanuel Macron jokes with President Trump. Photo by Tatyana Zenkovich/AFP/Getty Images.

So, what about NATO?

Former defense minister of Georgia stands to ask if NATO regrets not giving full them membership, because “it was seen as an invitation for Russia” to invade. And asks when will there be appetite for NATO expansion. Germany’s Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen: “I have been to a lot of NATO meetings… this summit has the most substance that I have seen”
President Trump asserts that Germany is ‘captive to Russia’ over pipeline project in testy exchange with NATO chief. That was at the breakfast meeting.

Then is Europe threatened by Russia, hence the reason for NATO? Yes, an example –>

A group of Russian special operations forces parachuted onto the island of Gogland in a Russian-controlled portion of the Gulf of Finland. They hid their parachutes, journeyed deep into the interior, and destroyed a series of mock communications stations, radars and ASM batteries. They then prepped a landing site for a helicopter escape — despite the fact that the island already has a helipad.

The troops jumped from a Mi-8AMTSH helicopter at an altitude of 2,500 meters, and used satellite navigation equipment to guide them to their landing site, notes a July 10 press release on the drill from the Russian Ministry of Defense. The soldiers that took part in the exercise had “not less than a hundred jumps with parachutes of various types,” it said.

Aki Heikkinen, who curates Russianmilitarywatch.com, pointed out that Gogland, seized by Russia in 1944, is just 24 miles from the Finnish city of Kotka. More here.

So, as these encounters went on today at the NATO Summit, Trump went so far as to suggest 4% of GDP payments to NATO members.

Meanwhile: NATO existed below the creation of the European Union, and…

President Trump has consistently railed against other members of the NATO security alliance for freeloading off the United States and not doing enough to manage their own defense.

“NATO has not treated us fairly,” he told reporters before leaving for a NATO summit meeting this week in Brussels. “We pay far too much and they pay far too little.”

As with many Trump crusades, there’s truth to his claims—but more to the story. Trump will press for more European defense spending at this week’s meeting, which is likely to be contentious. Other NATO members are already pushing back, arguing that their commitment to defense is rising and they back US priorities in other important ways. But the basic numbers support Trump.

The United States has been the biggest contributor to NATO since Western nations founded the alliance in 1949 to help prevent any more world wars and shield Europe from the Soviet Union. Underpayments by European nations have been contentious since long before Trump started complaining about the problem–especially following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, when many nations began to slash defense spending.

In 2014, NATO agreed that each member country should spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense within a decade. So far, only five countries meet that threshold: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia and Latvia. The United States spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, the most of any NATO member. Among other big NATO members, France spends 1.8% of GDP on defense, Germany 1.2%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%.

NATO has 29 member countries. Here’s how they measure up:

Graphic by David Foster

NATO said earlier this year that eight members will meet the 2% threshold in 2018, with Poland, Romania, and Lithuania joining the club. The alliance also said 15 nations would hit the target by 2024, though it hasn’t identified the other seven. That would still leave 14 members falling short of NATO’s own spending target. And that’s if there’s no recession by then, which could force governments to cut spending, not raise it, as tax revenue declines.

European leaders seem to realize they have a weak argument when Trump blasts them for subpar defense spending. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, argued in a statement prior to Trump’s visit that Europe spends more on defense than China and Russia, and he urged Trump to “appreciate your allies.” But he also acknowledged that Trump is right on spending, saying “dear Europe, spend more on your defence, because everyone respects an ally that is well-prepared and equipped.”

While Trump is right about the spending numbers, some analysts worry he’s overly fixated on one metric that doesn’t fully capture the way various NATO members contribute to real-world security operations. Also important, for instance, are troop and equipment contributions to NATO missions. By those metrics, some of the deadbeat members look much more involved.

NATO members other than the United States have taken on steadily more of the NATO mission in Afghanistan since the US first invaded in 2001, for instance. Seven nations—the Czech Republic, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Denmark, Croatia and Germany—contributed more troops to Afghanistan operations, as a percentage of their total military force, than the United States did between 2015 and 2017, according to analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

By the same metric, nine NATO members, led by Canada, Norway and Denmark, contributed a larger portion of their military force to operations against ISIS than the US did in 2016. And the US ranks 18th in refugees taken in due to Mideast instability as a percentage of total population, with Turkey, Sweden and Norway accepting the most.

 

Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, Will it Pass?

Posted on by

You can read this proposed legislation here.

It has only been introduced in the House….a very long way to go. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

The 3 co-sponsors are:

Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2]*
Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13]*
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]*

Antifa's Berkeley Violence Ought to Frighten the Left ... photo

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalty enhancements for committing certain offenses while in disguise, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018”.

SEC. 2. Interference with protected rights while in disguise.

(a) In general.—Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 249 the following:

Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

“(b) Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully carrying out the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States, or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item related to section 249 the following:


“250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise. ”.

SEC. 3. Destroying buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction while in disguise.

Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Whoever, during the commission of an offense under this section, wears a disguise, including a mask, shall, in addition to any term of imprisonment otherwise imposed under this section, be imprisoned for 2 years.”.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/28/01/439F6FDE00000578-0-Gibson_second_from_left_and_his_body_guard_retreat_behind_police-a-15_1503878660344.jpg photo

*** Last year, the New York Times did an interesting summary on the unmasking. In part, please note:

Since 1949, it has been illegal to wear a mask in public in Alabama outside of occasions like Halloween and Mardi Gras. That sweeping law, and others enacted across the country around that time, was in direct response to the Ku Klux Klan.

Numerous states have laws governing the wearing of masks in public. In Ohio, for instance, it is illegal for two or more people to wear “white caps, masks or other disguises” while committing a misdemeanor. In West Virginia, a broad law prohibiting the wearing of masks includes several exceptions: holiday costumes and winter sports attire, among others.

California had an expansive anti-mask law for decades, until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iranian-Americans in California sued over the law, saying it kept them from shielding their identities for safety purposes in protests against the new leadership in Iran. The law was struck down.

“The California court recognized, and other courts recognize, that people wear masks in all sorts of situations for completely nonviolent and, in fact, purposes that are protected by the First Amendment,” Michael T. Risher, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said in an interview.

After that case, the state enacted a far narrower provision: It is illegal to wear a mask in the act of committing a crime. The University of California, Berkeley, also has its own regulation for masks: People who are not affiliated with the university cannot wear masks on campus for the purpose of intimidation. Read more here.