Cuba Re-designated as State Sponsor of Terror

President Obama removed Cuba from the designation and it is expected early into the Biden administration, this action will again be reversed.

The United States has once again designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, accusing it of granting safe haven to terrorists and also providing support for acts of “international terrorism”. The move by the Trump administration comes days before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, who would have liked to start where he and Obama left the US-Cuba relations in 2016. Former President Barack Obama had delisted Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 2015, seeking normalisation of ties with the Communist State.

State Department officials say the decision is not politically motivated and argue Cuba has not met the standards to remain off the list during the Trump administration.

American Enterprise Institute research fellow Ryan Berg affirmed the basis of the Trump administration’s decision.Cuba sees Obama terror promise as healing of historic wound

“Cuba has provided unequivocal support to terrorist and insurgent groups throughout Latin America for many decades, such as Colombia’s ELN and the FARC, to name just a few,” Berg told the Washington Free Beacon. “Today, it also continues to support the consolidated dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, aiding and abetting what the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has declared to be ‘crimes against humanity.'”

Havana has also played a role in helping China expand its influence in the Caribbean. In November, Cuba followed the lead of China in echoing far-left talking points regarding race relations in America at the United Nations, and China covered for Cuba on its record of harboring terrorism. China, meanwhile, has reportedly expanded its surveillance capabilities in the Caribbean, using telecommunications networks to spy on American mobile phones in the region.

The move could affect President-elect Joe Biden’s approach to reengaging with the communist country, a policy out of the Obama administration’s playbook. Biden’s transition team for the Department of Defense included Frank Mora, an Obama administration holdover who advocated lifting sanctions on Havana.

Berg said the Cuba policy favored by Mora and Biden would probably require a reversal of the decision to return Cuba to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

“A diplomatic opening with a country designated as a ‘state sponsor of terror’ is a difficult lift,” Berg said. “Therefore, one of the first steps to any Cuba opening would likely require a reversal of this decision.” source

Pelosi Refusing to Advance China Task Force Legislation Items

Primer: China's Xi Jinping warned Trump could sow 'chaos' after 2016 election -  Business Insider

On September 25, 2015, during CCP General Secretary Xi’s state visit to the United States, President Obama and Xi gave remarks to the press in the White House Rose Garden. The two leaders announced that they had agreed “neither the U.S. or the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage.” Xi also pledged that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” of the South China Sea. Neither of these promises to the American people were made in good faith. Today, “China is using cyber-enabled theft as part of a global campaign to ‘rob, replicate, and replace’ non-Chinese companies in the global marketplace,” according to Assistant Attorney General John Demers. Meanwhile, the PRC’s military outposts in the South China Sea have been proven “capable of supporting military operations and include advanced weapon systems,” according to the Pentagon.

October 01, 2020 Congressional Record

COUNTERING THREAT OF CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for 5 minutes. Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, after months of hard work and collaboration, the China Task Force has released our final report, which includes more than 400 solutions to counter the growing threat of the Chinese Communist Party.

This report is the framework for combating the aggressive Chinese Communist regime. After meeting with more than 130 experts, we developed realistic and achievable solutions that take a comprehensive approach to strengthening America’s national security and holding the Chinese Government accountable. We realized that out of our 400 recommendations, 180 are legislative solutions, of which 64 percent are bipartisan and one-third have already passed either the House or the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense solutions that we can vote on today to strengthen our strategic position for tomorrow. As the only physician serving on the China Task Force, it was my privilege to delve into opportunities to strengthen our supply chains and ensure that Americans are never again beholden to the Chinese Government for key medicines or healthcare supplies.

On the Health and Technology Subcommittee, I led efforts to strengthen [[Page H5110]] the supply chains for medicines, semiconductors, and other vital materials. Congress has passed several provisions aimed at advancing research and the manufacturing of critical medical supplies here in the United States. We also created new reporting requirements to help us better understand international supply chains and counter vulnerabilities in the system.

To bolster our technology supply chain, I cosponsored H.R. 7178, the CHIPS Act, to increase domestic production of advanced semiconductors, which will help Americans to develop next-generation telecom technology, fully automated systems, and, importantly, new weapons systems. I also introduced the ORE Act, H.R. 7812, to incentivize the domestic production of rare earth materials, which is key to breaking the Chinese monopoly on critical supply chains. America cannot allow China to win the race to next-generation technology. We want innovative breakthroughs to happen here in this country, and the China Task Force is making progress through the legislative process. As a leader on the competitiveness committee, I focused on issues ranging from combating Chinese Communist-sponsored theft of intellectual property to exposing the influence of the Chinese in U.S. research institutions and countering the importation of illicit fentanyl.

Too often, American companies are being coerced to surrender intellectual property to the Chinese Government in order to gain entry into the Chinese marketplace. In extreme cases, we hear of outright theft by Chinese hackers and agents. The China Task Force has produced recommendations that direct the Federal Government to ramp up investigations of individuals acting as pawns of the Chinese Communist Party and enforce antitheft laws.

Our Nation has also seen wholesale efforts of the Chinese Government to steal research and gain influence at United States universities. In my own backyard, the FBI arrested a former Penn State researcher suspected of espionage. The task force has compiled provisions to increase transparency and accountability in the higher education system, and I introduced legislation to close loopholes and force the disclosure of all foreign money in our research systems. Finally, we must stop illicit fentanyl from reaching our communities and killing our neighbors.

The China Task Force has produced recommendations to stop the importation of these devastating analogues from China. In the House, I cosponsored legislation to hold foreign nations, including China, accountable if they fail to cooperate with U.S. narcotics control efforts and prosecute the production of fentanyl in their countries. I thank Senator Toomey for championing this provision in the Senate.

By implementing these solutions, we can make America safer, stronger, and better equipped to lead in the 21st century. The China Task Force final report is a framework. It is our playbook to make a difference. While our work on this report has finished, our commitment to this cause must and will continue. Phase two starts today.

The 141 page report is found here.

After Lying, Ambassador Yovanovitch has a Fat Job at Georgetown

Ambassador (ret.) Marie L. Yovanovitch is a Senior Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which is at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch announced today that it received 210 pages of records from the State Department which show that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch had specifically warned in 2017 about corruption allegations against Burisma Holdings. During her November 2019 testimony in the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, Yovanovitch told lawmakers that she knew little about Burisma.

The records were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed in January 2020 seeking records of communications from the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv mentioning Burisma (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:20-cv-00229)).

On October 4, 2017, Michael Polt, a former ambassador to Estonia and Serbia and who until October 2020 was Senior Director at the McCain Institute, emailed Yovanovitch regarding the McCain Institute’s plan to conduct leadership development training for Ukrainian prosecutors that would be funded by Burisma. The idea was suggested to Polt by Sally Painter, Burisma’s lobbyist at Blue Star Strategies, and a Burisma executive. In the email, Polt notes that he was introduced to Painter by U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker. Volker was also a Trump impeachment witness.

Polt emails Yovanovitch on October 4, 2017:

Dear Masha: Greetings from the home front and all the best for your complex assignment in Kiev! I wonder if I could pick your brain on a leadership development we have been asked to run for Ukrainian public prosecutors here at the McCain Institute. Kurt cannot get involved with this, due to his other role as Special Envoy. Sally Painter of Blue Star Strategies, whom Kurt introduced to me and then stepped aside, together with Vadym Poharskyi of the Burisma Group have asked us whether we could provide a two-week Leadership Development and Professional Capacity Building program for Ukrainian public prosecutors proposed to us by the Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor. Burisma would fun this. We are prepared to do this, as we have done for similar groups from the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] and from Pakistan. I would greatly appreciate your view if you know Burisma and/or Vadym or others.

Yovanovitch, in her response, warned Polt about Burisma, writing:

Mike: Sorry not to have responded more quickly. I will get back to you with a fuller response, but I would urge caution in dealing with the Burisma Group. It is widely believed that the owner was the beneficiary of the corrupt justice system here and I think –to the extent that anyone is aware that Burisma is funding the training –there would be raised eyebrows in Kyiv over the irony of Burisma training prosecutors and to what end.

I’d also note that the PGO [Prosecutor General’s Office] is one of the entities here that remains resolutely unreformed. After a year and a half of trying, we pulled out and reprogrammed our resources into other areas in the justice sector that were ready for change. Wish I had better news and will get back to you with more details.

In a November 7, 2017, email to Yovanovitch, Polt indicates that he is taking her “sage advice” and “not moving forward” with Burisma’s funding of the training.

During her November 15, 2019, testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in the impeachment proceedings, Yovanovitch said she didn’t have much knowledge about Burisma, and noted that she only learned of its connection to the Biden family through “press reports” she read while preparing for her Senate confirmation hearing.

The new production of records from the State Department also includes several emails regarding the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv’s response to John Solomon’s reporting for The Hill. The emails are almost entirely redacted, as are the names of the officials involved. In one email regarding this effort, an unidentified official cites a report by the George Soros-funded Anti-Corruption Action Center defending itself against the reporting as a “useful reference point.”

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv closely monitored media and social media reaction to many conservatives and journalists in potential violation of federal law.

“Marie Yovanovitch knew much more about Burisma than what she revealed in her testimony at the sham impeachment hearings,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch will continue its efforts to unearth the shady details in the Burisma-Biden scandal that is not going to go away.”

In an October production from the State Department, Judicial Watch received records which included a briefing checklist of a February 22, 2019, meeting in Kyiv between Yovanovitch and Painter. The briefing checklist noted that Painter also planned to meet with Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) Officer Martin Claessens “regarding the Burisma Group energy company.”

At the time of the meeting, Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, was serving on the board of directors for Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy firm, despite having no previous experience in the energy industry. Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019.

In September 2020, Judicial Watch made public records that show George Kent, the Obama administration’s deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of Ukraine policy, which was copied to Yovanovitch, highlighting Russia-linked media “trolling” Joe Biden over “his son’s business.”

In a related case Judicial Watch uncovered records showing the U.S. embassy in Ukraine monitoring, in potential violation of law, Donald Trump, Jr. Rudy Giuliani, and major journalists on Twitter on their commentary on Ukraine, “Biden-Burisma 2020,” and George Soros. The search terms that were flagged to be monitored by State Department officials on social media included Yovanovitch, Ukraine Ambassador, Ukrainian Ambassador, Ukraine Soros, Clinton campaign, and Biden-Burisma.

Space Command Alarmed at Russia’s Anti-Satellite Weapons Test

WASHINGTON — Russia conducted its second test this year of a direct ascent anti-satellite missile test, according to a U.S. Space Command, yet again drawing sharp criticism from the U.S.

“Russia has made space a war-fighting domain by testing space-based and ground-based weapons intended to target and destroy satellites. This fact is inconsistent with Moscow’s public claims that Russia seeks to prevent conflict in space,” said Space Command head Gen. James Dickinson in a statement. “Space is critical to all nations. It is a shared interest to create the conditions for a safe, stable and operationally sustainable space environment.”

U.S. SPACECOM nominee Dickinson says countries must be ...

Space Command said the direct-ascent anti-satellite missile tested is a kinetic weapon capable of destroying satellites in low Earth orbit. A similar anti-satellite missile test by India in March 2019 that destroyed the nation’s own satellite on orbit drew criticism from observers, who noted that the debris created from the threat could cause indirect damage to other satellites.

Russia has completed tests of its Nudol ballistic-missile system several times in recent years, including in April of this year. Nudol can be used as an anti-satellite weapon and is capable of destroying satellites in low Earth orbit. According to the CSIS Aerospace Security Project’s “Space Threat Assessment 2020,” Russia conducted its seventh Nudol test in 2018.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has used the development and testing of anti-satellite weapons by Russia and China as a justification for creating both Space Command and the U.S. Space Force in 2019.

“The establishment of U.S. Space Command as the nation’s unified combatant command for space and U.S. Space Force as the primary branch of the U.S. Armed Forces that presents space combat and combat support capabilities to U.S. Space Command could not have been timelier. We stand ready and committed to deter aggression and defend our nation and our allies from hostile acts in space,” Dickenson said.

Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller made similar comments last week as the White House released a new National Space Policy, which calls for the U.S. to defeat aggression and promote norms of behavior in space

“Our adversaries have made space a war-fighting domain, and we have to adapt our national security organizations, policies, strategies, doctrine, security classification frameworks and capabilities for this new strategic environment. Over the last year we have established the necessary organizations to ensure we can deter hostilities, demonstrate responsible behaviors, defeat aggression and protect the interests of the United States and our allies.”

***

Kilopower  An illustration of a Kilopower nuclear reactor on the moon. Development of surface nuclear power technologies is a key element of the roadmap included in Space Policy Directive 6. Credit: NASA

The White House released a new space policy directive Dec. 16 intended to serve as a strategic roadmap for the development of space nuclear power and propulsion technologies.

Space Policy Directive (SPD) 6, titled “National Strategy for Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion,” discusses responsibilities and areas of cooperation among federal government agencies in the development of capabilities ranging from surface nuclear power systems to nuclear thermal propulsion, collectively known as space nuclear power and propulsion (SNPP).

“This memorandum establishes a national strategy to ensure the development and use of SNPP systems when appropriate to enable and achieve the scientific, exploration, national security, and commercial objectives of the United States,” the 12-page document states.

SPD-6 sets out three principles for the development of space nuclear systems: safety, security and sustainability. It also describes roles and responsibilities for various agencies involved with development, use or oversight of such systems.

Much of the document, though, is a roadmap for the development of nuclear power and propulsion systems. It sets a goal of, by the mid-2020s, developing uranium fuel processing capabilities needed for surface power and in-space propulsion systems. By the mid to late 2020s, NASA would complete the development and testing of a surface nuclear power system for lunar missions that can be scalable for later missions to Mars.

SPD-6 calls for, by the late 2020s, establishing the “technical foundations and capabilities” needed for nuclear thermal propulsion systems. It also sets a goal of developing advanced radioisotope power systems, versions of radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) long used on NASA missions, by 2030.

Many of the initiatives outlined in SPD-6 are already in progress. NASA has been working with the Department of Energy (DOE) on a project called Kilopower to develop surface nuclear reactors, including efforts to seek proposals to develop a reactor for use on the moon. NASA has also been studying nuclear thermal propulsion, an initiative backed by some in Congress who have set aside funding in NASA’s space technology program for that effort.

“We have these individual initiatives going on — nuclear thermal power, the Kilopower activities — and what we’re trying to do is pull together a common operating picture for Defense, NASA and DOE,” said a senior administration official, speaking on background about SPD-6.

That roadmap and schedule is also intended to prioritize those activities. Surface nuclear power is needed in the nearer term to support lunar missions later in the decade, particularly to handle the two-week lunar night. Nuclear thermal propulsion, as well as alternative nuclear electric propulsion technologies, are less critical since they are primarily intended to support later missions to Mars.

“Those things are important for going to Mars,” the official said of nuclear propulsion, “but first we’re doing the moon and leveraging terrestrial capabilities and technologies to put that foothold on the moon.”

Another issue addressed in SPD-6 is the use of different types of uranium. Tests in 2018 as part of the Kilopower program used highly enriched uranium, or HEU. That project, and discussions by NASA and DOE to use HEU for flight reactors, raised concerns in the nuclear nonproliferation community. They were worried that it could set a precedent for renewed production of HEU, which is also used in nuclear weapons.

SPD-6 restricts, but does not prohibit, the use of HEU in space nuclear systems. “Before selecting HEU or, for fission reactor systems, any nuclear fuel other than low-enriched uranium (LEU), for any given SNPP design or mission, the sponsoring agency shall conduct a thorough technical review to assess the viability of alternative nuclear fuels,” it states.

“We want to keep those proliferation concerns foremost in our minds,” a senior administration official said. “We don’t want to necessarily rule out HEU if that’s the only way to get a mission about, but we want to be very deliberate about it.”

The policy, an official said, “sets an extremely high bar” for non-defense use of HEU on space systems, citing progress on high-assay low enriched uranium, which can provide power levels similar to HEU systems with only a modest mass penalty.

The White House released SPD-6 a week after it issued a new national space policy during a meeting of the National Space Council. That broader policy briefly addressed space nuclear power and propulsion, discussing roles for various agencies, but did not mention the roadmap or other details found in SPD-6.

Many thought the release of the national space policy would conclude the administration’s work on space policy, making SPD-6 something of a surprise. A senior administration official said work on various space policy directives and the national space policy had been slowed down by the coronavirus pandemic, but wouldn’t rule out additional announcements in the remaining five weeks of the Trump administration.

AG Barr Resigns

Image

Image

Politico lists a critique of the relationship between President Trump and AG Barr.

Now, what action items has AG Barr launched in recent weeks and what may be expected…

  • Barr had sounded frequent alarms in advance of the election about the potential for fraud, particularly through foreign interference in mail-in balloting, infuriating Democrats who emphasized there was no evidence such a plot was afoot.
  • Barr unilaterally appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, known as Crossfire Hurricane — and in October, he elevated Durham’s ongoing inquiry into a full-fledged special counsel investigation.
  • Barr also appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to review the FBI’s handling of the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a probe that became the basis of Barr’s decision to recommend dismissing charges against him. The U.S. District Court judge in that case, Emmet Sullivan, considered the Justice Department’s reasons as “dubious” and likely a pretextual effort to protect an ally of the president, but he ultimately dropped the matter after Trump pardoned Flynn.
  • The US attorney’s office in Delaware is led by David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump and sworn into the position in February 2018. A spokesperson for the US attorney’s office in Delaware declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation of Hunter Biden, the Biden family which has become comprehensive including money-laundering, foreign agency crimes and income tax fraud.

AG Barr has appointed Jeffrey Rosen to the position of Acting Attorney General. For reference his credentials include:

  1. Taking the lead on the antitrust case against Google.
  2. Driving the sensitive litigation that the White House had an interest in, including a lawsuit against Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, over the publication of his book in June.
  3. Mr. Rosen also led the Justice Department’s charge against Purdue Pharma LP. It agreed to plead guilty to three felonies related to its marketing and distribution of powerful painkiller OxyContin as part of an $8.34 billion settlement over tactics the government said helped fuel the opioid crisis.

Additionally, Richard Donoghue has been elevated at the DoJ. Donoghue served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, where he was a Military Magistrate Judge, Prosecutor, Defense Counsel, and Contract Litigator. He also served in the 82nd Airborne Division. Donogue worked at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York before leaving to serve as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Counselor to the U.S. Attorney General. Donogue was selected to serve as United States Attorney in January 2018. In 2020, it was announced that Donoghue would leave the Eastern District to serve as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice

*** You should consider that AG Barr is a veteran of how Washington DC works and in his last days has crafted an operational playbook not only for the White House Office of Legal Counsel but to the Department of Justice. Interesting items are on deck that do include the Biden family, the still open wounds of the existing and former FBI officials, China operatives in the U.S. embedded with Democrat politicians and then cases against Google and Big Tech and the matter of a fraudulent election system in also front and center. Sadly, we must be wait and hence we need to judge slowly.