American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Postauthoritarian America]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/549041-oan-staffer-fired-after-he-blasts-network-in-nyt

OAN staffer fired after he blasts network in NYT

Former producer Marty Golingan tweeted “confirmed” in response to a tweet about his firing from Times reporter Rachel Abrams, who quoted him in her story about OAN’s continued amplification of conspiracy theories surrounding former President Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

For her piece, Abrams spoke with 18 current and former OAN staffers, 16 of whom said the network airs reports that are “misleading, inaccurate or untrue.”

Golingan told Abrams he at first thought OAN was “scrappy” when he joined it, but that opinion changed as time went by.

“The majority of people did not believe the voter fraud claims being run on the air,” he told Abrams talking about his coworkers.

He never expected the face-eating leopards would eat his face...

[Cisairse]

Walter Mondale, a former Senator of Minnesota and 42nd Vice President, has died at 93.

damn

[Zurkerx]

Walter Mondale, a former Senator of Minnesota and 42nd Vice President, has died at 93.

damn

Oh? You've returned I see!

Anyway, it seems Republicans, especially in Georgia (as one person describes it: "it's almost like insanity"), can't let go of the fact that they lost and regurgitated false claims of fraud despite no evidence of cases of massive fraud. Georgia's GOP seems to be at war with itself: Trump Loyalists are attacking Republicans like Kemp and Raffensperger for their refusal to overturn the election, causing a rift in the party.

But while the GOP continues down this path in Georgia, they risk further isolating moderates and independents, especially in the suburbs- a once reliable voting base turning against them. That could have disastrous ramifications during the midterms and help propel the likes of Warnock winning re-election, Abrams being elected, and Democrats making some gains in the State Legislature though with the new voting restrictions, it could hamper those results.

[The New California Republic]

Walter Mondale, a former Senator of Minnesota and 42nd Vice President, has died at 93.

Also forgot Democratic candidate in '84.

To be fair though he never stood a chance against an incumbent Reagan, he wasn't strong enough a figure to outshine Reagan in terms of "presence".

[Greater Miami Shores]

Walter Mondale, a former Senator of Minnesota and 42nd Vice President, has died at 93.

damn

No I Have Not Returned. I made it clear that I will return to the Politics thread, after a long vacation. I just posted because I wanted to post my respects to Democrat Vice President Walter Mondale, my way as I posted it. I just happened to see your comment so I quoted you to Splain. There is no need for the damn MY Friend. I am on all the other Threads and the RP Forums I Love. All I will do on this thread is read. So nobody should worry if you see me online on this thread.

You May Call Me Alberto.

Your Good Friend.

GMS Alberto.

[Zurkerx]

“It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog”: DHS watchdog declined to pursue investigations into Secret Service during Trump Administration, as well as the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks.

We all remember that dark day- the day that we got see the true colors of that man. The fact it wasn't investigated and shelved is deeply concerning- well, it's no surprises: Cuffari was a Trump Nominee. Hopefully more light can be shed on this.

The chief federal watchdog for the Secret Service blocked investigations proposed by career staff last year to scrutinize the agency’s handling of the George Floyd protests in Lafayette Square and the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks, according to documents and people with knowledge of his decisions.

Both matters involved decisions by then-President Donald Trump that may have affected actions by the agency.

Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, rejected his staff’s recommendation to investigate what role the Secret Service played in the forcible clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square on June 1, according to internal documents and two people familiar with his decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions.

After the sudden charge by police on the largely peaceful protesters, the Secret Service was able to move Trump to a church at the edge of the park, where the White House staged a photo opportunity for the president.

Cuffari also sought to limit — and then the office ultimately shelved — a probe into whether the Secret Service flouted federal protocols put in place to detect and reduce the spread of the coronavirus within its workforce, according to the records.

Hundreds of Secret Service officers were either infected with the coronavirus or had to quarantine after potential exposure last year as Trump continued to travel and hold campaign events during the pandemic.

DHS investigators argued that both investigations were essential to their office’s duty to hold the department and the Secret Service accountable, according to the people.

The Secret Service has declined to answer questions about the agency’s role in the Lafayette Square episode, though officials have stressed the clearing of protesters was under the direction of the U.S. Park Police.

The agency has also asserted that it followed best practices and federal protocols to try to contain the spread of coronovirus and prioritized the health of its employees.

Cuffari’s decisions not to pursue the probes were revealed in records obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group, and shared with The Washington Post.

Staff argued that the coronavirus investigation should have been a high priority because of the health risks at stake, the people said. Internal DHS reports showed a spike in the number of Secret Service employees who tested positive for coronavirus last summer, a situation that potentially endangered their co-workers, senior government officials and even the president. Trump contracted the coronavirus in the fall, although it is unclear how he was infected.

The DHS inspector general’s office has not launched a probe specifically examining the Secret Service’s performance since the Obama administration.

Erica Paulson, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said in a statement that Cuffari prioritizes investigations based on a limited budget and greenlights those that target the highest risks and are likely to have the greatest impact.

“Our office does not have the resources to approve every oversight proposal,” she said. “We have less than 400 auditors and inspectors to cover the entire Department of Homeland Security, an agency with almost half a million employees and contractors. Like all IGs, we have to make tough strategic decisions about how to best use our resources for greatest impact across the Department.”

Paulson continued: “In both of these cases, we determined that resources would have a higher impact elsewhere.”

Staffers inside the inspector general’s office privately complained that Cuffari — a Trump nominee confirmed in 2019 who previously worked for two GOP governors in Arizona, Jan Brewer and Doug Ducey — at times appeared skittish about investigations that could potentially criticize the president’s policies or actions, according to the people with knowledge of discussions.

Paulson disputed that, noting that Cuffari launched probes that examined controversial polices of the Trump administration, including those of DHS detention facilities. Cuffari’s office reported last year on the Secret Service’s total spending for Trump’s 2018 visit to the Trump Turnberry Golf Course in Scotland, an audit requested by Congress and launched by Cuffari’s predecessor.

“Evidence that IG Cuffari does not shy away from politically sensitive topics can be found in numerous DHS OIG published reports, as well as ongoing projects,” Paulson said in her statement.

The revelation that he declined to approve the two proposed Secret Service investigations could fuel criticism that Cuffari provided weak oversight of the second-largest federal agency at a time when Trump frequently used the Department of Homeland Security to implement some of his most polarizing policies. The House Committee on Homeland Security, whose chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has raised alarm about what he considers Cuffari’s failure to conduct thorough investigations, has scheduled an oversight hearing Wednesday on the inspector general’s oversight.

“Cuffari pulled his punches on exactly the type of sensitive reviews his office was created to perform,” said Nick Schwellenbach, senior investigator at the Project On Government Oversight. “It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog.”

Last summer, staff investigators in the inspector general’s office believed they had strong arguments for taking a close look at the Secret Service’s handling of both the Lafayette Square clearing and the agency’s coronavirus protocols.

Both issues had spurred intense criticism — the first for violating Americans’ right to protest and the second for potentially endangering workers’ lives and public health.

According to internal documents, Cuffari’s investigators submitted a draft plan on June 10 to investigate whether the Secret Service violated its use-of-force policies in the June 1 clearing of Lafayette Square, an abrupt move by law enforcement about 30 minutes before Trump marched through the park for a photo op. The staff noted that hundreds of protesters had been shot at with rubber bullets and sprayed with chemical irritants; 60 people had been injured.

Trump and his aides planned the walk across the park to project a look of strength and control over the city amid the civil unrest that followed Floyd’s death. The U.S. Park Police order that came about 6:30 pm to forcibly clear Lafayette Square shocked senior D.C. police officers and National Guard officers on the ground, they have said, because the protesters that Monday had been largely peaceful and did not pose an imminent threat.

But at a June 18 meeting to discuss possible new investigations, Cuffari said the office would not probe the Secret Service’s handling of the protests or clearing of the square, according to the two people familiar with the discussion. Instead, the inspector general suggested that Secret Service Director Jim Murray could look into the episode, they said.

Staff investigators were taken aback. Given that the Secret Service is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the president’s security for any movement he makes in public, the Secret Service’s agents and supervisors would have been directly involved in planning his walk across Lafayette Square.

Paulson said that the inspector general chose not to review the Secret Service’s role in Lafayette Square because he determined the U.S. Park Police played a larger role in the handling of the protests, which the Interior Department’s inspector general planned to scrutinize.

“DHS OIG closely coordinated with Justice and Interior OIGs, who were each planning reviews given the greater presence and participation of their agencies on that day,” she said in her statement.

Two months later, Cuffari moved to curtail another proposed inquiry related to the Secret Service.

At the time, routine internal reports on the numbers of new positive coronavirus cases among DHS employees showed the number of infections among Secret Service employees had risen quickly. On Aug. 10, a special review team submitted a proposal to investigate what steps the Secret Service was taking to prevent the spread of the coronavirus among its workers.

In an Aug. 13 meeting to consider proposed investigations, Cuffari questioned the level of risk involved that the office would be scrutinizing, according to the people familiar with the discussion.

Investigators told Cuffari that if Secret Service agents and officers were spreading the coronavirus, more of them could get sick and possibly die. It would also increase the risk of exposure for the people the Secret Service protected, including the president.

Cuffari told the team they should narrow the probe, and suggested only examining how the spread of the coronavirus affected the Secret Service’s investigative work rather than its protection assignments.

But coronavirus infections in the Secret Service were falling the hardest on agents and officers working protective roles, who were required to travel around the country to secure public rallies for Trump’s campaign.

Many Secret Service agents who worked near the president opted not to wear masks in the early days of the virus’s arrival in the United States. Some members of the president’s detail urged other agents not to wear masks when they helped secure sites for presidential trips, saying the president didn’t like to see them.

In the end, the investigation was shelved, according to records and the people familiar with the decision.

Paulson said the office has devoted significant resources to examining the handling of the pandemic inside DHS, especially in detention settings.

“COVID-19 was and is a significant risk for DHS and we have numerous investigations, inspections and audits that appropriately address those risks throughout DHS,” she said in her statement.

The reluctance by Cuffari to pursue the Secret Service probes came even as Democratic lawmakers were pushing his office to more aggressively investigate DHS.

In a July letter, the chairs of three House committees asked Cuffari and the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate Homeland Security actions both at Lafayette Square on June 1 and in Portland, Ore. The lawmakers argued federal officials didn’t have unfettered rights to chase off or arrest American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

“The legal basis for this use of force has never been explained,” they wrote of the Lafayette Square clearing. “The Administration’s insistence on deploying these forces over the objections of state and local authorities suggest that these tactics have little to do with public safety, but more to do with political gamesmanship.”

Cuffari’s office did launch a probe related to DHS personnel dispatched to protests in Portland. In November, the office issued an alert on a technical matter, finding that the Federal Protective Service did not properly designate its employees by name who were sent to protect federal property there.

In March of last year, Thompson, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was deeply troubled by many failures and factual flaws in an investigation by Cuffari’s office of the death of an 8-year-old boy in U.S. custody after Customs and Border Patrol agents detained him and his father at the border.

Thompson said the report inaccurately stated the cause of the child’s death, left out key details about the detention facility’s delay in treating the child and failed to examine whether the policies at the facility were followed or sufficient to prevent such a tragedy.

Thompson said “the many critical shortcomings in the work of the OIG raise significant concerns about the thoroughness of the office’s reviews as well as the willingness of the office to conduct in-depth examinations of sensitive topics.”

The Post reported last year that the number of investigations conducted under Cuffari’s watch had plummeted, noting that lawmakers from both parties were concerned. At the time, Cuffari’s office was on pace to conduct 40 investigations and audits by the end of the fiscal year that ended in September 2020, the fewest in nearly two decades. That would have represented one-fourth the productivity of the office in the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Productivity has increased markedly since then, according to the list of reports on the inspector general’s public website. The office completed 80 reports by the end of the 2020 fiscal year.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

“It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog”: DHS watchdog declined to pursue investigations into Secret Service during Trump Administration, as well as the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks.

We all remember that dark day- the day that we got see the true colors of that man. The fact it wasn't investigated and shelved is deeply concerning- well, it's no surprises: Cuffari was a Trump Nominee. Hopefully more light can be shed on this.

The chief federal watchdog for the Secret Service blocked investigations proposed by career staff last year to scrutinize the agency’s handling of the George Floyd protests in Lafayette Square and the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks, according to documents and people with knowledge of his decisions.

Both matters involved decisions by then-President Donald Trump that may have affected actions by the agency.

Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, rejected his staff’s recommendation to investigate what role the Secret Service played in the forcible clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square on June 1, according to internal documents and two people familiar with his decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions.

After the sudden charge by police on the largely peaceful protesters, the Secret Service was able to move Trump to a church at the edge of the park, where the White House staged a photo opportunity for the president.

Cuffari also sought to limit — and then the office ultimately shelved — a probe into whether the Secret Service flouted federal protocols put in place to detect and reduce the spread of the coronavirus within its workforce, according to the records.

Hundreds of Secret Service officers were either infected with the coronavirus or had to quarantine after potential exposure last year as Trump continued to travel and hold campaign events during the pandemic.

DHS investigators argued that both investigations were essential to their office’s duty to hold the department and the Secret Service accountable, according to the people.

The Secret Service has declined to answer questions about the agency’s role in the Lafayette Square episode, though officials have stressed the clearing of protesters was under the direction of the U.S. Park Police.

The agency has also asserted that it followed best practices and federal protocols to try to contain the spread of coronovirus and prioritized the health of its employees.

Cuffari’s decisions not to pursue the probes were revealed in records obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group, and shared with The Washington Post.

Staff argued that the coronavirus investigation should have been a high priority because of the health risks at stake, the people said. Internal DHS reports showed a spike in the number of Secret Service employees who tested positive for coronavirus last summer, a situation that potentially endangered their co-workers, senior government officials and even the president. Trump contracted the coronavirus in the fall, although it is unclear how he was infected.

The DHS inspector general’s office has not launched a probe specifically examining the Secret Service’s performance since the Obama administration.

Erica Paulson, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said in a statement that Cuffari prioritizes investigations based on a limited budget and greenlights those that target the highest risks and are likely to have the greatest impact.

“Our office does not have the resources to approve every oversight proposal,” she said. “We have less than 400 auditors and inspectors to cover the entire Department of Homeland Security, an agency with almost half a million employees and contractors. Like all IGs, we have to make tough strategic decisions about how to best use our resources for greatest impact across the Department.”

Paulson continued: “In both of these cases, we determined that resources would have a higher impact elsewhere.”

Staffers inside the inspector general’s office privately complained that Cuffari — a Trump nominee confirmed in 2019 who previously worked for two GOP governors in Arizona, Jan Brewer and Doug Ducey — at times appeared skittish about investigations that could potentially criticize the president’s policies or actions, according to the people with knowledge of discussions.

Paulson disputed that, noting that Cuffari launched probes that examined controversial polices of the Trump administration, including those of DHS detention facilities. Cuffari’s office reported last year on the Secret Service’s total spending for Trump’s 2018 visit to the Trump Turnberry Golf Course in Scotland, an audit requested by Congress and launched by Cuffari’s predecessor.

“Evidence that IG Cuffari does not shy away from politically sensitive topics can be found in numerous DHS OIG published reports, as well as ongoing projects,” Paulson said in her statement.

The revelation that he declined to approve the two proposed Secret Service investigations could fuel criticism that Cuffari provided weak oversight of the second-largest federal agency at a time when Trump frequently used the Department of Homeland Security to implement some of his most polarizing policies. The House Committee on Homeland Security, whose chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has raised alarm about what he considers Cuffari’s failure to conduct thorough investigations, has scheduled an oversight hearing Wednesday on the inspector general’s oversight.

“Cuffari pulled his punches on exactly the type of sensitive reviews his office was created to perform,” said Nick Schwellenbach, senior investigator at the Project On Government Oversight. “It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog.”

Last summer, staff investigators in the inspector general’s office believed they had strong arguments for taking a close look at the Secret Service’s handling of both the Lafayette Square clearing and the agency’s coronavirus protocols.

Both issues had spurred intense criticism — the first for violating Americans’ right to protest and the second for potentially endangering workers’ lives and public health.

According to internal documents, Cuffari’s investigators submitted a draft plan on June 10 to investigate whether the Secret Service violated its use-of-force policies in the June 1 clearing of Lafayette Square, an abrupt move by law enforcement about 30 minutes before Trump marched through the park for a photo op. The staff noted that hundreds of protesters had been shot at with rubber bullets and sprayed with chemical irritants; 60 people had been injured.

Trump and his aides planned the walk across the park to project a look of strength and control over the city amid the civil unrest that followed Floyd’s death. The U.S. Park Police order that came about 6:30 pm to forcibly clear Lafayette Square shocked senior D.C. police officers and National Guard officers on the ground, they have said, because the protesters that Monday had been largely peaceful and did not pose an imminent threat.

But at a June 18 meeting to discuss possible new investigations, Cuffari said the office would not probe the Secret Service’s handling of the protests or clearing of the square, according to the two people familiar with the discussion. Instead, the inspector general suggested that Secret Service Director Jim Murray could look into the episode, they said.

Staff investigators were taken aback. Given that the Secret Service is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the president’s security for any movement he makes in public, the Secret Service’s agents and supervisors would have been directly involved in planning his walk across Lafayette Square.

Paulson said that the inspector general chose not to review the Secret Service’s role in Lafayette Square because he determined the U.S. Park Police played a larger role in the handling of the protests, which the Interior Department’s inspector general planned to scrutinize.

“DHS OIG closely coordinated with Justice and Interior OIGs, who were each planning reviews given the greater presence and participation of their agencies on that day,” she said in her statement.

Two months later, Cuffari moved to curtail another proposed inquiry related to the Secret Service.

At the time, routine internal reports on the numbers of new positive coronavirus cases among DHS employees showed the number of infections among Secret Service employees had risen quickly. On Aug. 10, a special review team submitted a proposal to investigate what steps the Secret Service was taking to prevent the spread of the coronavirus among its workers.

In an Aug. 13 meeting to consider proposed investigations, Cuffari questioned the level of risk involved that the office would be scrutinizing, according to the people familiar with the discussion.

Investigators told Cuffari that if Secret Service agents and officers were spreading the coronavirus, more of them could get sick and possibly die. It would also increase the risk of exposure for the people the Secret Service protected, including the president.

Cuffari told the team they should narrow the probe, and suggested only examining how the spread of the coronavirus affected the Secret Service’s investigative work rather than its protection assignments.

But coronavirus infections in the Secret Service were falling the hardest on agents and officers working protective roles, who were required to travel around the country to secure public rallies for Trump’s campaign.

Many Secret Service agents who worked near the president opted not to wear masks in the early days of the virus’s arrival in the United States. Some members of the president’s detail urged other agents not to wear masks when they helped secure sites for presidential trips, saying the president didn’t like to see them.

In the end, the investigation was shelved, according to records and the people familiar with the decision.

Paulson said the office has devoted significant resources to examining the handling of the pandemic inside DHS, especially in detention settings.

“COVID-19 was and is a significant risk for DHS and we have numerous investigations, inspections and audits that appropriately address those risks throughout DHS,” she said in her statement.

The reluctance by Cuffari to pursue the Secret Service probes came even as Democratic lawmakers were pushing his office to more aggressively investigate DHS.

In a July letter, the chairs of three House committees asked Cuffari and the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate Homeland Security actions both at Lafayette Square on June 1 and in Portland, Ore. The lawmakers argued federal officials didn’t have unfettered rights to chase off or arrest American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

“The legal basis for this use of force has never been explained,” they wrote of the Lafayette Square clearing. “The Administration’s insistence on deploying these forces over the objections of state and local authorities suggest that these tactics have little to do with public safety, but more to do with political gamesmanship.”

Cuffari’s office did launch a probe related to DHS personnel dispatched to protests in Portland. In November, the office issued an alert on a technical matter, finding that the Federal Protective Service did not properly designate its employees by name who were sent to protect federal property there.

In March of last year, Thompson, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was deeply troubled by many failures and factual flaws in an investigation by Cuffari’s office of the death of an 8-year-old boy in U.S. custody after Customs and Border Patrol agents detained him and his father at the border.

Thompson said the report inaccurately stated the cause of the child’s death, left out key details about the detention facility’s delay in treating the child and failed to examine whether the policies at the facility were followed or sufficient to prevent such a tragedy.

Thompson said “the many critical shortcomings in the work of the OIG raise significant concerns about the thoroughness of the office’s reviews as well as the willingness of the office to conduct in-depth examinations of sensitive topics.”

The Post reported last year that the number of investigations conducted under Cuffari’s watch had plummeted, noting that lawmakers from both parties were concerned. At the time, Cuffari’s office was on pace to conduct 40 investigations and audits by the end of the fiscal year that ended in September 2020, the fewest in nearly two decades. That would have represented one-fourth the productivity of the office in the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Productivity has increased markedly since then, according to the list of reports on the inspector general’s public website. The office completed 80 reports by the end of the 2020 fiscal year.

Life under Trump was like being in a banana republic.

[Shrillland]

“It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog”: DHS watchdog declined to pursue investigations into Secret Service during Trump Administration, as well as the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks.

We all remember that dark day- the day that we got see the true colors of that man. The fact it wasn't investigated and shelved is deeply concerning- well, it's no surprises: Cuffari was a Trump Nominee. Hopefully more light can be shed on this.

The chief federal watchdog for the Secret Service blocked investigations proposed by career staff last year to scrutinize the agency’s handling of the George Floyd protests in Lafayette Square and the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks, according to documents and people with knowledge of his decisions.

Both matters involved decisions by then-President Donald Trump that may have affected actions by the agency.

Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, rejected his staff’s recommendation to investigate what role the Secret Service played in the forcible clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square on June 1, according to internal documents and two people familiar with his decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions.

After the sudden charge by police on the largely peaceful protesters, the Secret Service was able to move Trump to a church at the edge of the park, where the White House staged a photo opportunity for the president.

Cuffari also sought to limit — and then the office ultimately shelved — a probe into whether the Secret Service flouted federal protocols put in place to detect and reduce the spread of the coronavirus within its workforce, according to the records.

Hundreds of Secret Service officers were either infected with the coronavirus or had to quarantine after potential exposure last year as Trump continued to travel and hold campaign events during the pandemic.

DHS investigators argued that both investigations were essential to their office’s duty to hold the department and the Secret Service accountable, according to the people.

The Secret Service has declined to answer questions about the agency’s role in the Lafayette Square episode, though officials have stressed the clearing of protesters was under the direction of the U.S. Park Police.

The agency has also asserted that it followed best practices and federal protocols to try to contain the spread of coronovirus and prioritized the health of its employees.

Cuffari’s decisions not to pursue the probes were revealed in records obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group, and shared with The Washington Post.

Staff argued that the coronavirus investigation should have been a high priority because of the health risks at stake, the people said. Internal DHS reports showed a spike in the number of Secret Service employees who tested positive for coronavirus last summer, a situation that potentially endangered their co-workers, senior government officials and even the president. Trump contracted the coronavirus in the fall, although it is unclear how he was infected.

The DHS inspector general’s office has not launched a probe specifically examining the Secret Service’s performance since the Obama administration.

Erica Paulson, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said in a statement that Cuffari prioritizes investigations based on a limited budget and greenlights those that target the highest risks and are likely to have the greatest impact.

“Our office does not have the resources to approve every oversight proposal,” she said. “We have less than 400 auditors and inspectors to cover the entire Department of Homeland Security, an agency with almost half a million employees and contractors. Like all IGs, we have to make tough strategic decisions about how to best use our resources for greatest impact across the Department.”

Paulson continued: “In both of these cases, we determined that resources would have a higher impact elsewhere.”

Staffers inside the inspector general’s office privately complained that Cuffari — a Trump nominee confirmed in 2019 who previously worked for two GOP governors in Arizona, Jan Brewer and Doug Ducey — at times appeared skittish about investigations that could potentially criticize the president’s policies or actions, according to the people with knowledge of discussions.

Paulson disputed that, noting that Cuffari launched probes that examined controversial polices of the Trump administration, including those of DHS detention facilities. Cuffari’s office reported last year on the Secret Service’s total spending for Trump’s 2018 visit to the Trump Turnberry Golf Course in Scotland, an audit requested by Congress and launched by Cuffari’s predecessor.

“Evidence that IG Cuffari does not shy away from politically sensitive topics can be found in numerous DHS OIG published reports, as well as ongoing projects,” Paulson said in her statement.

The revelation that he declined to approve the two proposed Secret Service investigations could fuel criticism that Cuffari provided weak oversight of the second-largest federal agency at a time when Trump frequently used the Department of Homeland Security to implement some of his most polarizing policies. The House Committee on Homeland Security, whose chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has raised alarm about what he considers Cuffari’s failure to conduct thorough investigations, has scheduled an oversight hearing Wednesday on the inspector general’s oversight.

“Cuffari pulled his punches on exactly the type of sensitive reviews his office was created to perform,” said Nick Schwellenbach, senior investigator at the Project On Government Oversight. “It doesn’t look like he’s an independent watchdog.”

Last summer, staff investigators in the inspector general’s office believed they had strong arguments for taking a close look at the Secret Service’s handling of both the Lafayette Square clearing and the agency’s coronavirus protocols.

Both issues had spurred intense criticism — the first for violating Americans’ right to protest and the second for potentially endangering workers’ lives and public health.

According to internal documents, Cuffari’s investigators submitted a draft plan on June 10 to investigate whether the Secret Service violated its use-of-force policies in the June 1 clearing of Lafayette Square, an abrupt move by law enforcement about 30 minutes before Trump marched through the park for a photo op. The staff noted that hundreds of protesters had been shot at with rubber bullets and sprayed with chemical irritants; 60 people had been injured.

Trump and his aides planned the walk across the park to project a look of strength and control over the city amid the civil unrest that followed Floyd’s death. The U.S. Park Police order that came about 6:30 pm to forcibly clear Lafayette Square shocked senior D.C. police officers and National Guard officers on the ground, they have said, because the protesters that Monday had been largely peaceful and did not pose an imminent threat.

But at a June 18 meeting to discuss possible new investigations, Cuffari said the office would not probe the Secret Service’s handling of the protests or clearing of the square, according to the two people familiar with the discussion. Instead, the inspector general suggested that Secret Service Director Jim Murray could look into the episode, they said.

Staff investigators were taken aback. Given that the Secret Service is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the president’s security for any movement he makes in public, the Secret Service’s agents and supervisors would have been directly involved in planning his walk across Lafayette Square.

Paulson said that the inspector general chose not to review the Secret Service’s role in Lafayette Square because he determined the U.S. Park Police played a larger role in the handling of the protests, which the Interior Department’s inspector general planned to scrutinize.

“DHS OIG closely coordinated with Justice and Interior OIGs, who were each planning reviews given the greater presence and participation of their agencies on that day,” she said in her statement.

Two months later, Cuffari moved to curtail another proposed inquiry related to the Secret Service.

At the time, routine internal reports on the numbers of new positive coronavirus cases among DHS employees showed the number of infections among Secret Service employees had risen quickly. On Aug. 10, a special review team submitted a proposal to investigate what steps the Secret Service was taking to prevent the spread of the coronavirus among its workers.

In an Aug. 13 meeting to consider proposed investigations, Cuffari questioned the level of risk involved that the office would be scrutinizing, according to the people familiar with the discussion.

Investigators told Cuffari that if Secret Service agents and officers were spreading the coronavirus, more of them could get sick and possibly die. It would also increase the risk of exposure for the people the Secret Service protected, including the president.

Cuffari told the team they should narrow the probe, and suggested only examining how the spread of the coronavirus affected the Secret Service’s investigative work rather than its protection assignments.

But coronavirus infections in the Secret Service were falling the hardest on agents and officers working protective roles, who were required to travel around the country to secure public rallies for Trump’s campaign.

Many Secret Service agents who worked near the president opted not to wear masks in the early days of the virus’s arrival in the United States. Some members of the president’s detail urged other agents not to wear masks when they helped secure sites for presidential trips, saying the president didn’t like to see them.

In the end, the investigation was shelved, according to records and the people familiar with the decision.

Paulson said the office has devoted significant resources to examining the handling of the pandemic inside DHS, especially in detention settings.

“COVID-19 was and is a significant risk for DHS and we have numerous investigations, inspections and audits that appropriately address those risks throughout DHS,” she said in her statement.

The reluctance by Cuffari to pursue the Secret Service probes came even as Democratic lawmakers were pushing his office to more aggressively investigate DHS.

In a July letter, the chairs of three House committees asked Cuffari and the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate Homeland Security actions both at Lafayette Square on June 1 and in Portland, Ore. The lawmakers argued federal officials didn’t have unfettered rights to chase off or arrest American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

“The legal basis for this use of force has never been explained,” they wrote of the Lafayette Square clearing. “The Administration’s insistence on deploying these forces over the objections of state and local authorities suggest that these tactics have little to do with public safety, but more to do with political gamesmanship.”

Cuffari’s office did launch a probe related to DHS personnel dispatched to protests in Portland. In November, the office issued an alert on a technical matter, finding that the Federal Protective Service did not properly designate its employees by name who were sent to protect federal property there.

In March of last year, Thompson, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was deeply troubled by many failures and factual flaws in an investigation by Cuffari’s office of the death of an 8-year-old boy in U.S. custody after Customs and Border Patrol agents detained him and his father at the border.

Thompson said the report inaccurately stated the cause of the child’s death, left out key details about the detention facility’s delay in treating the child and failed to examine whether the policies at the facility were followed or sufficient to prevent such a tragedy.

Thompson said “the many critical shortcomings in the work of the OIG raise significant concerns about the thoroughness of the office’s reviews as well as the willingness of the office to conduct in-depth examinations of sensitive topics.”

The Post reported last year that the number of investigations conducted under Cuffari’s watch had plummeted, noting that lawmakers from both parties were concerned. At the time, Cuffari’s office was on pace to conduct 40 investigations and audits by the end of the fiscal year that ended in September 2020, the fewest in nearly two decades. That would have represented one-fourth the productivity of the office in the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Productivity has increased markedly since then, according to the list of reports on the inspector general’s public website. The office completed 80 reports by the end of the 2020 fiscal year.

Life under Trump was like being in a banana republic.

And we're not out of the banana plantation yet either.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Life under Trump was like being in a banana republic.

And we're not out of the banana plantation yet either.

Yeah it's still cumbersome.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -statehood

White House formally backs DC statehood bill.

"Establishing the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth as the 51st state will make our Union stronger and more just," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy. "Washington, D.C. has a robust economy, a rich culture, and a diverse population of Americans from all walks of life who are entitled to full and equal participation in our democracy."

The statement further called for Congress "to provide for a swift and orderly transition to statehood for the people of Washington, D.C."

[Kowani]

To stop Republicans from engaging in delay tactics, Democrats in the Oregon state legislature have struck a deal to relinquish total control over redistricting

Legislative Democrats in Oregon have agreed to relinquish a powerful advantage in redrawing the state’s political districts for the next 10 years in exchange for a commitment from Republicans to stop blocking bills with delay tactics.

The surprise deal, reached Wednesday evening after a weeks-long standoff that has brought legislative action to a trickle, fundamentally shifts the dynamics not only of the 2021 session, but of one of the most consequential actions lawmakers will take this year. With the agreement, Democrats, stymied so far despite holding supermajorities in both legislative chambers, appear to have gained a far easier path to passing much of the agenda they’ve queued up this year.

But they’ve essentially granted veto power to Republicans, who can now block any map of legislative or congressional districts from passing.

“It’s a gamble,” said state Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland, shortly after the deal was reached. The first hints of a deal emerged Wednesday evening, as a House floor session scheduled for 7:30 p.m. was delayed from starting until nearly 9 p.m. When proceedings finally began, Rep. Duane Stark, R-Grants Pass, immediately moved that legislative rules requiring that bills be read in full before a final vote be suspended for the remainder of the 2021 session. Those are the same rules that Republicans have used to slow bill passage for more than a month.

Once that motion passed with apparent unanimity, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, announced a change to the House Redistricting Committee, one of two bodies with a primary responsibility for redrawing political maps this year. Kotek announced she would be bumping up the committee’s vice chair, Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, to co-chair, and adding another Republican to the body, House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, of Canby.

That change means that Republicans and Democrats will be evenly split on the committee with three members apiece, and so a party-line vote will be insufficient to pass new maps. Sources within both the House and Senate said they expected Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, to make a similar move in the Senate Redistricting Committee.

The deal gives Republicans a far weightier say over what boundaries for the state’s 90 legislative districts will look like for the next 10 years, a decision that can hold enormous sway over the distribution of power in the state. Republicans also have increased their influence in a potentially more interesting matter: How to divide the state into six congressional districts, rather than the current five, if Oregon is awarded an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives as expected.

But Democrats have retained a backstop, too — particularly when it comes to legislative districts. If lawmakers fail to successfully pass new legislative boundaries by late September, the task will fall to Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a progressive Democrat who few Republicans would want to see in charge of that process.

Should lawmakers fail to come to an agreement on new U.S. House districts, the matter would be settled in the courts.

The deal reached Wednesday did not involve an agreement by Democrats to kill any specific bills, according to three sources speaking on background. But the move did come a day after the field of potential bills was narrowed significantly, following a legislative deadline.

The agreement also comes as Kotek signaled she was willing to require lawmakers to spend nearly 50 hours in floor sessions next week, in order to continue passing bills over Republican delay tactics.

With Stark’s successful motion Wednesday evening, bills will be read by their titles before a final vote for the remainder of the session — a step that takes seconds, rather than hours. Democrats, who’ve been using a computer program to read the longest bills, can give the robots a rest.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

To stop Republicans from engaging in delay tactics, Democrats in the Oregon state legislature have struck a deal to relinquish total control over redistricting

Legislative Democrats in Oregon have agreed to relinquish a powerful advantage in redrawing the state’s political districts for the next 10 years in exchange for a commitment from Republicans to stop blocking bills with delay tactics.

The surprise deal, reached Wednesday evening after a weeks-long standoff that has brought legislative action to a trickle, fundamentally shifts the dynamics not only of the 2021 session, but of one of the most consequential actions lawmakers will take this year. With the agreement, Democrats, stymied so far despite holding supermajorities in both legislative chambers, appear to have gained a far easier path to passing much of the agenda they’ve queued up this year.

But they’ve essentially granted veto power to Republicans, who can now block any map of legislative or congressional districts from passing.

“It’s a gamble,” said state Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland, shortly after the deal was reached. The first hints of a deal emerged Wednesday evening, as a House floor session scheduled for 7:30 p.m. was delayed from starting until nearly 9 p.m. When proceedings finally began, Rep. Duane Stark, R-Grants Pass, immediately moved that legislative rules requiring that bills be read in full before a final vote be suspended for the remainder of the 2021 session. Those are the same rules that Republicans have used to slow bill passage for more than a month.

Once that motion passed with apparent unanimity, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, announced a change to the House Redistricting Committee, one of two bodies with a primary responsibility for redrawing political maps this year. Kotek announced she would be bumping up the committee’s vice chair, Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, to co-chair, and adding another Republican to the body, House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, of Canby.

That change means that Republicans and Democrats will be evenly split on the committee with three members apiece, and so a party-line vote will be insufficient to pass new maps. Sources within both the House and Senate said they expected Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, to make a similar move in the Senate Redistricting Committee.

The deal gives Republicans a far weightier say over what boundaries for the state’s 90 legislative districts will look like for the next 10 years, a decision that can hold enormous sway over the distribution of power in the state. Republicans also have increased their influence in a potentially more interesting matter: How to divide the state into six congressional districts, rather than the current five, if Oregon is awarded an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives as expected.

But Democrats have retained a backstop, too — particularly when it comes to legislative districts. If lawmakers fail to successfully pass new legislative boundaries by late September, the task will fall to Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a progressive Democrat who few Republicans would want to see in charge of that process.

Should lawmakers fail to come to an agreement on new U.S. House districts, the matter would be settled in the courts.

The deal reached Wednesday did not involve an agreement by Democrats to kill any specific bills, according to three sources speaking on background. But the move did come a day after the field of potential bills was narrowed significantly, following a legislative deadline.

The agreement also comes as Kotek signaled she was willing to require lawmakers to spend nearly 50 hours in floor sessions next week, in order to continue passing bills over Republican delay tactics.

With Stark’s successful motion Wednesday evening, bills will be read by their titles before a final vote for the remainder of the session — a step that takes seconds, rather than hours. Democrats, who’ve been using a computer program to read the longest bills, can give the robots a rest.

That was a really stupid thing for the dems to do.

[San Lumen]

To stop Republicans from engaging in delay tactics, Democrats in the Oregon state legislature have struck a deal to relinquish total control over redistricting

Legislative Democrats in Oregon have agreed to relinquish a powerful advantage in redrawing the state’s political districts for the next 10 years in exchange for a commitment from Republicans to stop blocking bills with delay tactics.

The surprise deal, reached Wednesday evening after a weeks-long standoff that has brought legislative action to a trickle, fundamentally shifts the dynamics not only of the 2021 session, but of one of the most consequential actions lawmakers will take this year. With the agreement, Democrats, stymied so far despite holding supermajorities in both legislative chambers, appear to have gained a far easier path to passing much of the agenda they’ve queued up this year.

But they’ve essentially granted veto power to Republicans, who can now block any map of legislative or congressional districts from passing.

“It’s a gamble,” said state Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland, shortly after the deal was reached. The first hints of a deal emerged Wednesday evening, as a House floor session scheduled for 7:30 p.m. was delayed from starting until nearly 9 p.m. When proceedings finally began, Rep. Duane Stark, R-Grants Pass, immediately moved that legislative rules requiring that bills be read in full before a final vote be suspended for the remainder of the 2021 session. Those are the same rules that Republicans have used to slow bill passage for more than a month.

Once that motion passed with apparent unanimity, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, announced a change to the House Redistricting Committee, one of two bodies with a primary responsibility for redrawing political maps this year. Kotek announced she would be bumping up the committee’s vice chair, Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, to co-chair, and adding another Republican to the body, House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, of Canby.

That change means that Republicans and Democrats will be evenly split on the committee with three members apiece, and so a party-line vote will be insufficient to pass new maps. Sources within both the House and Senate said they expected Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, to make a similar move in the Senate Redistricting Committee.

The deal gives Republicans a far weightier say over what boundaries for the state’s 90 legislative districts will look like for the next 10 years, a decision that can hold enormous sway over the distribution of power in the state. Republicans also have increased their influence in a potentially more interesting matter: How to divide the state into six congressional districts, rather than the current five, if Oregon is awarded an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives as expected.

But Democrats have retained a backstop, too — particularly when it comes to legislative districts. If lawmakers fail to successfully pass new legislative boundaries by late September, the task will fall to Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a progressive Democrat who few Republicans would want to see in charge of that process.

Should lawmakers fail to come to an agreement on new U.S. House districts, the matter would be settled in the courts.

The deal reached Wednesday did not involve an agreement by Democrats to kill any specific bills, according to three sources speaking on background. But the move did come a day after the field of potential bills was narrowed significantly, following a legislative deadline.

The agreement also comes as Kotek signaled she was willing to require lawmakers to spend nearly 50 hours in floor sessions next week, in order to continue passing bills over Republican delay tactics.

With Stark’s successful motion Wednesday evening, bills will be read by their titles before a final vote for the remainder of the session — a step that takes seconds, rather than hours. Democrats, who’ve been using a computer program to read the longest bills, can give the robots a rest.

That was a really stupid thing for the dems to do.

If no deal can be reached on redistricting by September the Secretary of State will draw the lines.

[Kowani]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says moving the MLB All-Star Game out of Georgia cost Atlanta's economy "100 million jobs"

(there are about 10.5 million people in Georgia)

[San Lumen]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says moving the MLB All-Star Game out of Georgia cost Atlanta's economy "100 million jobs"

(there are about 10.5 million people in Georgia)

What a dumb comment. I didn't know Georgia had so many people and was nearly 30 percent of the US population. How did we get only 4 million votes cast in a state with 100 million people?

[The Opinions Guy]

Biden wants Congress, not courts, to decide on adding women to military draft

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to let Congress resolve the potential constitutional problem of a male-only draft.

President Joe Biden’s Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a legal brief Wednesday in a case that is challenging whether the current male-only Selective Service System, which requires only that men ages 18 to 25 register for a potential military draft, is unconstitutional.

In the brief, Prelogar said that since Congress is considering requiring women to sign up as well, the high court should let the legislative branch resolve the question.

“Congress’s attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the court to grapple with that constitutional question,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Coalition for Men, filed the current petition on Jan. 8, after a lower court previously ruled to declare the draft unconstitutional for not including women.

Prelogar’s brief does not argue that the draft should include women.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar told the Washington Post that the brief revealed some of the Biden Administration’s thinking on the issue.

“Noticeably absent from the government’s brief is any argument that men-only registration is constitutional,” Mar told the Post. “That is not surprising given that men-only registration is outdated, based on gender stereotypes, and no longer recommended by the military itself.”

In February former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and eight other prominent retired general and flag officers signed on in support of the ACLU’s petition.

The ACLU argues that the high court should overturn a 1981 ruling when the same challenge was made.

In that case, Rostker v Goldberg, the justices ruled that the draft was constitutional because its main function was to ensure combat-ready forces for the defense of the nation. Women were excluded from combat roles at that time.

The combat ban was officially lifted in 2013.

If the Supreme Court sides with the ACLU and overturns the previous ruling, it wouldn’t instantly open the draft to women.

Congress would still likely have the final say in how to change the Selective Service System.

The ACLU’s filing offers options for Congress, including extending selective service registration to women, eliminating the registration requirement, which would effectively abolish the draft or designing a new system for military readiness.

Legislative proposals on the issue in recent years, including part of the 2016 defense spending bill, have stalled out in Congress over worries over traditional family roles for women and the viability of the Selective Service System itself.

The system costs about $23 million a year and studies been critical as to whether it would be effective if officials needed it to conduct a draft.

Legislation dubbed the “Selective Service Repeal Act,” reintroduced in April, has called for abolishing the Selective Service System entirely.

“The Selective Service has far outlived its expiration date, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars per year to prepare for a draft is no longer relevant to our military,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

In early 2020, a report by the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service recommended that women register for future military drafts.

The report pointed to a 2016 Pentagon assessment, which showed only about a third of those aged 17 to 24 would be eligible to serve, roughly half of them women.

Some of the report’s recommendations could be tied to this year’s annual defense spending bill by this fall, Military Times reported.

That timing is part of Prelogar’s argument, to give Congress the time to make changes.

[Cannot think of a name]

Biden wants Congress, not courts, to decide on adding women to military draft

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to let Congress resolve the potential constitutional problem of a male-only draft.

President Joe Biden’s Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a legal brief Wednesday in a case that is challenging whether the current male-only Selective Service System, which requires only that men ages 18 to 25 register for a potential military draft, is unconstitutional.

In the brief, Prelogar said that since Congress is considering requiring women to sign up as well, the high court should let the legislative branch resolve the question.

“Congress’s attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the court to grapple with that constitutional question,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Coalition for Men, filed the current petition on Jan. 8, after a lower court previously ruled to declare the draft unconstitutional for not including women.

Prelogar’s brief does not argue that the draft should include women.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar told the Washington Post that the brief revealed some of the Biden Administration’s thinking on the issue.

“Noticeably absent from the government’s brief is any argument that men-only registration is constitutional,” Mar told the Post. “That is not surprising given that men-only registration is outdated, based on gender stereotypes, and no longer recommended by the military itself.”

In February former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and eight other prominent retired general and flag officers signed on in support of the ACLU’s petition.

The ACLU argues that the high court should overturn a 1981 ruling when the same challenge was made.

In that case, Rostker v Goldberg, the justices ruled that the draft was constitutional because its main function was to ensure combat-ready forces for the defense of the nation. Women were excluded from combat roles at that time.

The combat ban was officially lifted in 2013.

If the Supreme Court sides with the ACLU and overturns the previous ruling, it wouldn’t instantly open the draft to women.

Congress would still likely have the final say in how to change the Selective Service System.

The ACLU’s filing offers options for Congress, including extending selective service registration to women, eliminating the registration requirement, which would effectively abolish the draft or designing a new system for military readiness.

Legislative proposals on the issue in recent years, including part of the 2016 defense spending bill, have stalled out in Congress over worries over traditional family roles for women and the viability of the Selective Service System itself.

The system costs about $23 million a year and studies been critical as to whether it would be effective if officials needed it to conduct a draft.

Legislation dubbed the “Selective Service Repeal Act,” reintroduced in April, has called for abolishing the Selective Service System entirely.

“The Selective Service has far outlived its expiration date, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars per year to prepare for a draft is no longer relevant to our military,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

In early 2020, a report by the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service recommended that women register for future military drafts.

The report pointed to a 2016 Pentagon assessment, which showed only about a third of those aged 17 to 24 would be eligible to serve, roughly half of them women.

Some of the report’s recommendations could be tied to this year’s annual defense spending bill by this fall, Military Times reported.

That timing is part of Prelogar’s argument, to give Congress the time to make changes.

I hate to ask the obvious question but why are we bothering with the draft in the first place...

[The Opinions Guy]

Biden wants Congress, not courts, to decide on adding women to military draft

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to let Congress resolve the potential constitutional problem of a male-only draft.

President Joe Biden’s Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a legal brief Wednesday in a case that is challenging whether the current male-only Selective Service System, which requires only that men ages 18 to 25 register for a potential military draft, is unconstitutional.

In the brief, Prelogar said that since Congress is considering requiring women to sign up as well, the high court should let the legislative branch resolve the question.

“Congress’s attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the court to grapple with that constitutional question,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Coalition for Men, filed the current petition on Jan. 8, after a lower court previously ruled to declare the draft unconstitutional for not including women.

Prelogar’s brief does not argue that the draft should include women.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar told the Washington Post that the brief revealed some of the Biden Administration’s thinking on the issue.

“Noticeably absent from the government’s brief is any argument that men-only registration is constitutional,” Mar told the Post. “That is not surprising given that men-only registration is outdated, based on gender stereotypes, and no longer recommended by the military itself.”

In February former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and eight other prominent retired general and flag officers signed on in support of the ACLU’s petition.

The ACLU argues that the high court should overturn a 1981 ruling when the same challenge was made.

In that case, Rostker v Goldberg, the justices ruled that the draft was constitutional because its main function was to ensure combat-ready forces for the defense of the nation. Women were excluded from combat roles at that time.

The combat ban was officially lifted in 2013.

If the Supreme Court sides with the ACLU and overturns the previous ruling, it wouldn’t instantly open the draft to women.

Congress would still likely have the final say in how to change the Selective Service System.

The ACLU’s filing offers options for Congress, including extending selective service registration to women, eliminating the registration requirement, which would effectively abolish the draft or designing a new system for military readiness.

Legislative proposals on the issue in recent years, including part of the 2016 defense spending bill, have stalled out in Congress over worries over traditional family roles for women and the viability of the Selective Service System itself.

The system costs about $23 million a year and studies been critical as to whether it would be effective if officials needed it to conduct a draft.

Legislation dubbed the “Selective Service Repeal Act,” reintroduced in April, has called for abolishing the Selective Service System entirely.

“The Selective Service has far outlived its expiration date, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars per year to prepare for a draft is no longer relevant to our military,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

In early 2020, a report by the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service recommended that women register for future military drafts.

The report pointed to a 2016 Pentagon assessment, which showed only about a third of those aged 17 to 24 would be eligible to serve, roughly half of them women.

Some of the report’s recommendations could be tied to this year’s annual defense spending bill by this fall, Military Times reported.

That timing is part of Prelogar’s argument, to give Congress the time to make changes.

I hate to ask the obvious question but why are we bothering with the draft in the first place...

I agree. It seems odd that they're fighting for women to be added to the draft, instead of just fighting for it to be abolished.

[Galloism]

Biden wants Congress, not courts, to decide on adding women to military draft

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to let Congress resolve the potential constitutional problem of a male-only draft.

President Joe Biden’s Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a legal brief Wednesday in a case that is challenging whether the current male-only Selective Service System, which requires only that men ages 18 to 25 register for a potential military draft, is unconstitutional.

In the brief, Prelogar said that since Congress is considering requiring women to sign up as well, the high court should let the legislative branch resolve the question.

“Congress’s attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the court to grapple with that constitutional question,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Coalition for Men, filed the current petition on Jan. 8, after a lower court previously ruled to declare the draft unconstitutional for not including women.

Prelogar’s brief does not argue that the draft should include women.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar told the Washington Post that the brief revealed some of the Biden Administration’s thinking on the issue.

“Noticeably absent from the government’s brief is any argument that men-only registration is constitutional,” Mar told the Post. “That is not surprising given that men-only registration is outdated, based on gender stereotypes, and no longer recommended by the military itself.”

In February former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and eight other prominent retired general and flag officers signed on in support of the ACLU’s petition.

The ACLU argues that the high court should overturn a 1981 ruling when the same challenge was made.

In that case, Rostker v Goldberg, the justices ruled that the draft was constitutional because its main function was to ensure combat-ready forces for the defense of the nation. Women were excluded from combat roles at that time.

The combat ban was officially lifted in 2013.

If the Supreme Court sides with the ACLU and overturns the previous ruling, it wouldn’t instantly open the draft to women.

Congress would still likely have the final say in how to change the Selective Service System.

The ACLU’s filing offers options for Congress, including extending selective service registration to women, eliminating the registration requirement, which would effectively abolish the draft or designing a new system for military readiness.

Legislative proposals on the issue in recent years, including part of the 2016 defense spending bill, have stalled out in Congress over worries over traditional family roles for women and the viability of the Selective Service System itself.

The system costs about $23 million a year and studies been critical as to whether it would be effective if officials needed it to conduct a draft.

Legislation dubbed the “Selective Service Repeal Act,” reintroduced in April, has called for abolishing the Selective Service System entirely.

“The Selective Service has far outlived its expiration date, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars per year to prepare for a draft is no longer relevant to our military,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

In early 2020, a report by the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service recommended that women register for future military drafts.

The report pointed to a 2016 Pentagon assessment, which showed only about a third of those aged 17 to 24 would be eligible to serve, roughly half of them women.

Some of the report’s recommendations could be tied to this year’s annual defense spending bill by this fall, Military Times reported.

That timing is part of Prelogar’s argument, to give Congress the time to make changes.

Of course, then congress can sit on the problem for another 40 years like they did the last time this was brought up.

No thanks.

[Zurkerx]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says moving the MLB All-Star Game out of Georgia cost Atlanta's economy "100 million jobs"

(there are about 10.5 million people in Georgia)

He misspoke it looks like: he meant to say $100 Million though I'm not sure if that is even the right number.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/549041-oan-staffer-fired-after-he-blasts-network-in-nyt

OAN staffer fired after he blasts network in NYT

Former producer Marty Golingan tweeted “confirmed” in response to a tweet about his firing from Times reporter Rachel Abrams, who quoted him in her story about OAN’s continued amplification of conspiracy theories surrounding former President Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

For her piece, Abrams spoke with 18 current and former OAN staffers, 16 of whom said the network airs reports that are “misleading, inaccurate or untrue.”

Golingan told Abrams he at first thought OAN was “scrappy” when he joined it, but that opinion changed as time went by.

“The majority of people did not believe the voter fraud claims being run on the air,” he told Abrams talking about his coworkers.

iS tHiS cAnCel cUltUre?!?!?!

[The Black Forrest]

The Democratic Party is full of clowns. Rioting in the streets and yet Maxine Waters encourages rioters to be more confrontational. Maxine Waters should be removed from Congress

Did she now? Your evidence?

Should we charge the ex-president for encouraging the insurrection?

[The Black Forrest]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says moving the MLB All-Star Game out of Georgia cost Atlanta's economy "100 million jobs"

(there are about 10.5 million people in Georgia)

Probably meant to say money?

Even then; it’s MLB being a bastard versus all the recent voter suppression laws and punishment law for handing out water and food.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Biden wants Congress, not courts, to decide on adding women to military draft

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to let Congress resolve the potential constitutional problem of a male-only draft.

President Joe Biden’s Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed a legal brief Wednesday in a case that is challenging whether the current male-only Selective Service System, which requires only that men ages 18 to 25 register for a potential military draft, is unconstitutional.

In the brief, Prelogar said that since Congress is considering requiring women to sign up as well, the high court should let the legislative branch resolve the question.

“Congress’s attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the court to grapple with that constitutional question,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Coalition for Men, filed the current petition on Jan. 8, after a lower court previously ruled to declare the draft unconstitutional for not including women.

Prelogar’s brief does not argue that the draft should include women.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar told the Washington Post that the brief revealed some of the Biden Administration’s thinking on the issue.

“Noticeably absent from the government’s brief is any argument that men-only registration is constitutional,” Mar told the Post. “That is not surprising given that men-only registration is outdated, based on gender stereotypes, and no longer recommended by the military itself.”

In February former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal and eight other prominent retired general and flag officers signed on in support of the ACLU’s petition.

The ACLU argues that the high court should overturn a 1981 ruling when the same challenge was made.

In that case, Rostker v Goldberg, the justices ruled that the draft was constitutional because its main function was to ensure combat-ready forces for the defense of the nation. Women were excluded from combat roles at that time.

The combat ban was officially lifted in 2013.

If the Supreme Court sides with the ACLU and overturns the previous ruling, it wouldn’t instantly open the draft to women.

Congress would still likely have the final say in how to change the Selective Service System.

The ACLU’s filing offers options for Congress, including extending selective service registration to women, eliminating the registration requirement, which would effectively abolish the draft or designing a new system for military readiness.

Legislative proposals on the issue in recent years, including part of the 2016 defense spending bill, have stalled out in Congress over worries over traditional family roles for women and the viability of the Selective Service System itself.

The system costs about $23 million a year and studies been critical as to whether it would be effective if officials needed it to conduct a draft.

Legislation dubbed the “Selective Service Repeal Act,” reintroduced in April, has called for abolishing the Selective Service System entirely.

“The Selective Service has far outlived its expiration date, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars per year to prepare for a draft is no longer relevant to our military,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.

In early 2020, a report by the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service recommended that women register for future military drafts.

The report pointed to a 2016 Pentagon assessment, which showed only about a third of those aged 17 to 24 would be eligible to serve, roughly half of them women.

Some of the report’s recommendations could be tied to this year’s annual defense spending bill by this fall, Military Times reported.

That timing is part of Prelogar’s argument, to give Congress the time to make changes.

Biden really isn't that smart, is he?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

The Democratic Party is full of clowns. Rioting in the streets and yet Maxine Waters encourages rioters to be more confrontational. Maxine Waters should be removed from Congress

Did she now? Your evidence?

Should we charge the ex-president for encouraging the insurrection?

That was proven wrong in the impeachment trial.