20 Episode results for "department of homeland security"

China-linked hackers are targeting US coronavirus vaccine research, FBI warns

Audioburst Editors Picks Feed

00:25 sec | 1 year ago

China-linked hackers are targeting US coronavirus vaccine research, FBI warns

"The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security Cyber Division warning that hackers backed by the Chinese government maybe attempting to steal the work of researchers dealing with a response to the current virus pandemic the two agencies issued a public service announcement of the potential threats. Today comes amid heightened tensions between the two countries over the source of the outbreak and China's response.

Department of Homeland Securit FBI Chinese government China
Department of Homeland Security Confirms It Will Not Require US Citizen Face Scans at Airports - DTH

Daily Tech Headlines

06:11 min | 1 year ago

Department of Homeland Security Confirms It Will Not Require US Citizen Face Scans at Airports - DTH

"These are the daily tech headlines for Friday December sixth two thousand nineteen. I'm rich drop Alito. The US Department of Homeland Security confirmed it will not expand facial. Id Scans to citizens arriving and departing at airports in government filing earlier this week the department proposed to amend the regulations to provide that all travelers including US citizens may be required to be photographed upon entry or departure currently non US citizens must submit to face. Scans want arriving or leaving the US while citizens may opt out an agency. Spokesperson said the change was initially considered because having separate processes for citizens and foreign nationals critic critic logistical and operational challenges that impact security at Qualcomm snapdragon summit the company announced snapdragon extra to platform a high a are VR platform. That offers double the compute. Angie puke power of the X. are one the extra to support five G. for low latency experiences over fast. Data connections supports supports eight K.. Three hundred sixty degree video playback and can output to three K. by three K.. Per Eye displays running at ninety frames per second it also includes a vision processor supports up to seven cameras for tracking and dedicated a engine for object in voice recognition five. Oem's are developing headsets on the platform qualcomm also announced what's the partnership with Pokemon go developer Mantech to create reference hardware software and cloud components for augmented reality glasses based on the ex- are two with support from the anteks. It's real world platform. QUALCOMM also announced two new windows on arm systems on a chip the snapdragon. Eight and seventy the agency is meant to be a successor to the snapdragon. Eight fifty offering up to thirty percent better performance with a cry of four ninety. CPU adrenal six seventy five GPU and an integrated x twenty twenty four L. T. Modem with the option to include an extra fifty five five G. Modem the seventy is meant to for more entry level laptops and includes an OCTA core Kreil for sixty eight. CPU CPU Torino six ATP and X Fifteen Lt Modem with no Yup Shin Qualcomm says the seventy will offer twenty five percent better system performance and toys is the battery life of competing x eighty six platforms at the same price point. The previously announced snapdragon. Eight will remain the highest performance windows on arm. SEC although as was Kinda Garden Burger the verge points out no devices with that stock platform have shipped yet Bloomberg reports that according to sources Samsung's upcoming Galaxy S.. Eleven device will feature a one hundred eight megapixel camera as part of four overall on the pack. The other cameras will include a five x optical Zoom Lens and an Ultra Wide Angle. Lent's as well as time of flight depths in camera the high resolution sensor and telephoto camera will also reportedly be included on galaxy fold clam shell device. Both devices are are expected to be announced in February earlier. This week security expert. Brian Krebs reported that iphones make use of location data. Even when a user there has turned off the location setting apple told tech crunch that this was caused by international regulations that require Ultra wideband to be turned off in certain locations apple. It says Iowa's requests location for the purpose of complying with those regulations. Apple says the request is handled entirely on the device. An apple does not collect that location. Apple says we'll ask a toggle for ultra wideband in future. IOS Updates Ultra wideband enables precise location awareness between devices. Though things like apple tags have yet to be released to take advantage of it Alibaba back Chinese startup auto has applied to test. self-driving vehicles without backup drivers in California. Which would be the second company after Waymo to do so auto X. would be able to test self-driving cars with a backup provided as a remote human operator rather than a driver in the vehicle if granted the permanent Wednesday users of what's up in Kashmir began to disappear from group Chats busby news reports that the reason is that India shutdown Internet access in the the region for months ago and many users are now subject to an inactivity policy that removes a what's up account if a user does not log in for one hundred twenty days that policy is meant to to maintain security and limit data retention users may lose access to chat logs entered images if they have not been backed up India's? What's up largest market with an estimated three eight hundred forty million users Kashmir has approximately three million smartphone users netflix? CEO Hastings announced the company plans to invest roughly four hundred twenty million dollars on content India across fiscal years. Two Thousand Nineteen and twenty twenty with majority of that spent unoriginal content. Netflix has already commissioned fifteen original the series and over twenty original local language films in the Country Hastings previously stated. The company plans to invest fifteen billion dollars in content in two thousand nineteen and identified India India as a key part of netflixing international subscription growth. WAYMO launched its APP and the IRS APPS for allowing residents in the Phoenix Arizona area to to sign up and request rides on. Its way one autonomous car service signing up at new users to a wait list and be invited to join the Waymo one early right program Waymo Mo launch an APP on Google play back in April and finally the Space Startup Rocket Lab completed its tenth ever launched which saw its to stage electron rocket it carry an artificial meteoroid spacecraft and six micro satellites into orbit the lodge also saw rocket lab testing new guidance system as an initial test orient the booster for re the entry with plans to eventually reuse the booster unlike spacex or blue origin. The plant isn't a vertically. Land the booster rocket lab plans to use helicopters to capture first-stage stage boosters under a controlled fall the aim with reuse is increased frequency with an eventual goal of a once a week electron launch featuring a five hundred pound payload. Remember for discussion of the news of the day subscribed to take new show at think. NEW SHOW DOT com. You could find shelter and links all these headlines there as well. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you next time for an from all of us here at daily tech headlines Remember Hab a super sparkly day.

apple US qualcomm Qualcomm snapdragon India US Department of Homeland Secu netflix Waymo Alito Shin Qualcomm Brian Krebs L. T. Modem Angie Kashmir Mantech Samsung
DHS and your money

ACLU Civil Liberties Minute

01:33 min | 1 year ago

DHS and your money

"Earlier this year president trump circumvented the congressional appropriation process by declaring a national emergency. I'm Bill Newman and this is the civil liberties minute and and then based on his alleged national emergency funding military money to D h s the Department of Homeland Security to build his border wall all both the House and the Senate voted to terminate trump's national emergency but trump then vetoed the house and Senate action as expected this back back and forth with the Legislative branch demonstrates the president's blatant disregard for the will the people who largely rejected his anti immigrant agenda in the midterm elections as well as his intransigent disregard for Congress's power as a CO equal branch of government but there is a way to fight back right now now congress is deciding the Department of Homeland Security Budget for the next fiscal year and it is I suggest important for us to raise our voices while we have a chance chance we can contact our senators representatives right now and demand that they cut. DHS's budget and prevent the president from transferring money from other agencies to the the Department of Homeland Security. If we want to pursue the inclusive humane values that we as a country profess and for which we have stood many times in the past then we you must hold trump's d._h._S. accountable and that means cutting its budget the civil liberties minute is made possible by the A._C._l._U. because freedom can't protect itself.

trump Department of Homeland Securit president Senate Congress Bill Newman Legislative branch DHS
The Expanded Intelligence Activities of the Department of Homeland Security

The Lawfare Podcast

56:48 min | 9 months ago

The Expanded Intelligence Activities of the Department of Homeland Security

"There's no law enforcement authority in virtually any homeland security sub agency that extends to State Law, and so what I think is the move here. That is both ominous, and and I am unjustified is the move to treat both relatively minor federal crimes, and perhaps even some stay defenses as the kinds of threats to homeland security that all of these statutory authorities then trigger various responses to it. Ah Context in which you know, there's no suggestion outside of maybe right way in media that local authorities are unwilling or unable to enforce the relevant. Federal Statutes. I'm David Preece, and this is the law podcast July Twenty First Two thousand twenty. Yesterday law fair published an article revealing analyzing a document from the Department of Homeland Security. Offering legal guidance to analysts in its office of Intelligence and analysis. Regarding the appropriate intelligence activities to mitigate the threat to monuments, memorials and statues among other things. To discuss this new information in its implications, we assembled in the virtual jungle studio, not only the two authors of that article. Law Affairs Editor in Chief Benjamin Widows and University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck, but also carry Cordeiro senior fellow in general counsel at the Center for new American security, who has researched and written extensively on dhs authorize and policies and Paul Rosenzweig bike, senior fellow for national security and Cybersecurity at the St Institute and himself a former deputy assistant secretary for policy at DHS H.. It's the Law Fair podcast July twenty first the expanded intelligence activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Ben Start US off today. l'affaire posted an article DHS authorizes domestic surveillance to protect statues and monuments. What is this all about? What information came forward? And what does it indicate? Well yesterday evening I received a copy of a guidance document which was sent to the DHS office of intelligence analysis, which purports to give a legal guidance, regarding collection, retention and distribution of intelligence. In connection with. The protests that are going on. The specific context appears to be Portland, although it is not one hundred percent clear from the document that that's what generated it. The document describes the president's executive order of a month ago late. June which we'd kind of all thought was a nothing burger at the time designating the protection of monuments and statues as well as federal property and buildings as a significant homeland security issue. And therefore concluded that it was appropriate for. The Intelligence and analysis group at DHS to do domestic collection and intelligence, concerning people and organizations that posed a significant threat either to federal personnel to federal buildings or activities, but also to monuments and statues public memorial statues, whether they are federal or not, and so the question that this raise to me was hey, I I did I. You know I knew that. DHS had a sort of analytic cadre that. Did kind of terrorism and you know other sort of homeland security threats, but since when did statues and monuments become a homeland security threat of the sort of magnitude that would justify essentially spying on protesters right? Into be fair. It's important to note what the document did not say it had some retention guidelines. If I recall requiring that US, person information that was not mission related must be purged within one hundred and eighty days, and it said something about the surveillance had to be for the sole purpose of monitoring activities could not. Be Related to First Amendment exercises or the purpose of suppressing criticism. Is that right? Yeah, so you know these are the basically the attorney general's guidelines for D. H. S.. Intelligence activities, and those are kind of standard components of them, and they do apply to this as well and this document. Sort of reemphasize is that you know it would not be appropriate under this document to say well Hey David priests. Protesting you know. Next to the. Nathan, Bedford Forrest Memorial therefore, let's check out all his his social media posts, but it would be appropriate for example if you were involved in such a protest and you. For some reason, they had a good faith basis for believing that you pose a threat to that monument to say checkout all your social media post, public social media posts, and presumably who you were following, who was? was part of the the group that you were putting together for this protest, and so you end up spying on a lot of people who, even if there was a reasonable basis to fear that you might do something to this statue, there would be you know all the people around. You might be implicated in in this collection in a fashion that really poses I think some First Amendment concerns. Let's dig a little bit deeper on this then, Steve at its core, then assuming that there is some actual defacing of a monument memorial or a statue is what this memo inside DHS talks about is it legal and how so? So I mean I think the short answer is yes. It is probably legal in the sense that the office of Intelligence and analysis is not. It's not the NSA they're not directly intercepting communications. They are not conducting the kinds of surveillance that raised fourth amendment concerns where we might have to talk about you know who's who has nation of privacy in the like I think the place where it really starts looking sketchy to me and where one argument might be that it exceeds the statutory mission of the Department Home Security. Is In so far as the monuments and memorials that are being defaced are not federal and are nonfederal property. I mean there are ways to read the memo so that the defacement of any public memorial would qualify within the relevant. Hook and you know no one's going to dispute that face Santa Memorial is as a crime whether it's a federal memorial or a state or local memorial, but the notion that the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction in a case in which it's purely state or local property, and even it has jurisdiction the notion that it ought to be a homeland security priority within the auspices of the Homeland Security Act, you know. Know that's where I think there's an art. There are certainly arguments that this is not a naked violation of the statute, but you know man. This is not what the Department of Homeland Security was created to do, and you know separate from the sort of more goal in optical concerns I have it just it's. It's part and parcel of what strikes me about the entire Portland phenomenon, which is the executive branch of the Federal Government use them some isolated acts of vandalism of federal property and one assault on a US marshal service deputy as justification for effectively this massive federal response that now as we've learned from this memo includes intelligence gathering on. for better for worse peaceful protesters who just happen to be in the neighborhood with other people who might vandals, and so you know the short answer is. Probably just skirts the line of being legal I mean I. Don't think this government has willy nilly dozens that are illegal, but it just seems like a just terrible abuse in optical in normative terms of why we have a Department of Homeland, security, and why we have enough intelligence analysis within it so fair to you to say that. It may not be illegal. That is there may be legal reasoning behind it, but that doesn't make it good policy. Lawful but awful if you will. But and just to stress the off apartment I mean you know the the as we say in the piece, and this is something that I think the original that we clarified it after we wrote initially, you know because counterintelligence. On the hunt security. They're only collecting public source information that is to say they're only getting information. That's already available out there in the world, which is a big part of why I suspect it's not unlawful, but you know there are reasons why we don't just let the government do that any reason at any time and you know I just I have very little faith that the government in a position to meet him fully. Fully separate out the very small number of people who actually are committing federal crimes in the middle of these protests from the hundreds of folks who may at most be committed local and state crimes, and the thousands of folks who are doing nothing illegal, indeed who are exercising the quintessential. First Amendment right of protests in their government. That's where this memo like so much of the federal government's response in Portland Mix. Me Enormously queasy. By coincidence it seems carry today in the bulwark. You wrote that the Department of Homeland Security is becoming almost a rogue arm federal law enforcement, due to a combination of what you call inherent insufficient within its own internal controls and inappropriate political pressure. Talk through that a bit. And how do you see this new guidance as a manifestation of that? Short will the piece in the bulwark also talks about how I think that D.. H. S. is basically going down the road of becoming an accidental internal security service, or at least that the potential the groundwork is sort of there for them to do it if they wanted to and within I, think twelve hours of that piece going up. Ben and Steve have written as l'affaire piece that in some ways confirms that that's the Path A. A the department has been going on, so my concerns with respect to the oversight and accountability of the department stemmed from the fact that I don't think Congress intended to make the Department of Homeland Security. The Nation's largest law enforcement force, and yet that is actually what has happened. I think if you asked most members of the public or even most members of Congress. Perhaps you know who's the chief law enforcement officer of the country I. I think they probably would tell you. The attorney general may be somewhat think of the FBI director in that role but I don't think they would tell you. It was Chad Wolf and yeah. The acting secretary now commands in over sixty thousand person, strong law enforcement component of the federal government, and when you couple that with the president's political aspirations and political narrative where he wants to present himself as a quote, law and order President and. And the political malleability that we're seeing amongst the leadership at dhs where now he has fired or removed nearly every original Senate confirmed official who has served in that department it just makes for a toxic brew of a large law enforcement force that has a variety and broad array of legal authorities to perform the particular mission, and now those authorities are being manipulated by week. Leaders who are influenced politically and it's a very bad combination. Paul let me get your take on this because you among us have actually served in the Department of Homeland Security in a policy role, but That might make you more aware than any of us about the application of the Homeland Security Act of two thousand, two to the day to day, duties of the Department and that act was very clear. The primary mission of the department was listed as preventing terrorist attacks within the United States reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism to minimizing damage from terrorist attacks. That sure doesn't sound like what this guidance is offering. How do you think this jobs with the statutory creation of Homeland Security and how it has evolved to this point? Well I think Steve got it exactly right. It's lawful but awful. which is to say that the department was created with a lot of discretionary authorities that made sense at the time and make sense even today if they're deployed in the face of true emergencies that require. Exigent responses by the executive branch say to a terrorist threat or attack of some sort. What is unique about what the department is doing now? What the trump administration is doing now is deploying those same discretionary authorities in the service of essentially the president's political agenda, and in the service of an aggrandizement to the Department of authority over domestic issues that nobody would have anticipated it would have at the time of its founding carry is exactly right that one of the factors that's allowing this to happen is the absolute dearth of leadership at the department. Everybody's in an acting capacity of one form or another in ways that transgress. The spirit, if not the letter of the Vacancies Reform Ogden, Steve can talk to about that at length. I'm sure, but all of these authorities make some sense I mean initially you like the idea that the federal protective service can be supplemented with other personnel if necessary and emergency. What's wrong here is that it's a fake emergency. The only thing that any of my colleagues have said so far that I would sort of disagreed with A. A little bit, and it actually makes the point. Even stronger is a Steve's caution Inari note that this involves protection of non federal monuments and icons, and sadly That's true of a lot of s authority, most of the critical infrastructure that the department is assigned responsibility for in one way, or another is non federal in nature, and sometimes it exercises that protective authority in a regulatory way sometimes exercises in a physical way one of my. Favorite stories from the beginning was our. Decision that I was mistaken at the time and has since been rescinded to include the Iowa State County Fair as critical infrastructure at because of the potential for catastrophic terrorist attack was in an election year because it may be. Well I think it was, but it was state owned is is the point and yet it was. It was listed in the in the DHS list of of early protected icons, monuments and events. Because of its potential for negative terrorist consequence, so that one piece of what Steve said I don't think actually forms a good break point at least not in terms of the way. The department is historically operated. I think what is more manifest about that. Now end with this is that most of those all of those were offered by state says things that we want to Da that they want to D. H. Assistance Rower. So what's really unique about this circumstance? Of course? Is that at least in Portland the governor and the mayor saying to dhs get out and each say no. No, we're here anyway. which is truly a bizarre application of the State Federal Partnership Idea that under girded? DHS. Sure let me get a response to that Kerry. What do you think? So I do want to just point out and I'm curious as to Paul. In Steven Benz, reaction to this that I do think there is an argument, however that the activity at least as it was described in their piece, I haven't seen the the complete original memo, so just going based off of what they have reported i. do think there's an argument that the activity described does go beyond the statutory authorization, the statutory mandate for the Intelligence Analysis Unit which is supposed to do because it's a title analysis. And the way that that's described in the homeland, Security Act is that it would do analysis. Of Information obtained by other components, so it's other components within the department itself and information obtained from other governmental entities so the way I understand N A to have been designed is that it was the repository where information collected from other components within the department, so for example information that ice might come across in the conduct of conducting immigration, enforcement or information that state and locals might obtained in the context of doing their law enforcement activities or Obtain from the intelligence community that needs to be pushed out to law enforcement and state locals that I was supposed to do that analysis. I do think that this is a big jump and potentially outside the scope of their statutory responsibilities to have analysts be authorized to do collection. Steve! What do you think about this? I I. Harry is certainly right that it's a big jump especially from what the practice has been for the first. You know definite and a half little more of the department. I just I was looking at the statute, which has six. USC Section, one twenty-one. D. And you know there's discussion in the statute about other threats right so so of the focus as understandably as on terrorism and vulnerabilities arise from potential terrorist attacks etcetera, but there are these vague references to other threats to the homeland, and I think you know when I sort of think all the rubbers on the road, both in Portland at the shortly in Chicago. Is this notion that any offence against? Against Federal, law can be a threat to the homeland right, and then so titus back to Paul's one quibble with me, which was perfectly fair. You know it's always been true that homeland security has plenty of interests and oversight and responsibility for stuff. That isn't just federal in federal property. The one exception I would say though is there's no law enforcement authority in virtually any homeland security sub agency that extends to State Law. And so I think the move here. That is both ominous and and I think unjustified is the move to treat both relatively minor federal crimes, and perhaps even some state offenses as the kinds of threats to homeland security that all of these statutory authorities than trigger various responses to it a context in which you know, there's no suggestion outside of maybe right way in media that local authorities are unwilling or unable to enforce the relevant. Federal Statutes Right I WANNA get I. WanNa get responses from Paulin ben to that, but let me let me put this question out there to help frame those responses. Responses at at one level. The kind of activity that's being described here is triggering this INA action is just minor property crime after all, and that doesn't seem to constitute a threat to the security of the homeland on the other hand, any relatively minor crime against the person of the president would be considered a threat to the security of the homeland. So there's some difference between the person of the president and a confederate statue in where that lies is at the heart of this interpretation of lawful but awful so i Paul respond to that and to Steve and then we'll turn to Ben. Well? I guess the way I would characterize. This is one of discretionary judgment. The statute is written broadly, especially given that it was crafted at a time of of national crisis, in which it was thought that a large fraction of what had caused nine eleven was the rigidity of bureaucratic processes, and there's obviously some historical debate about that, but that was kind of what was animating this and so. To a large degree, the statute recapitulated something that's very common in all of our national security laws, which is strong congressional authorizations and limits with executive exceptions, and what we're seeing now is the weakness of that overall structure, a we rely on judgment to distinguish between minor threats to the person of the president and minor threats to a statute of Nathan, a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest and yet the statute written as such probably can't capture that distinction. So it authorizes responses in both places on I would add one other thing, and this is actually a bit of response to carry. which is I actually strongly suspect notwithstanding what the memo may say or what Ben says, the memo says because I haven't seen it that the. Analysts are not actually doing the collecting They don't have the drones. They don't have the access to the cameras. They may be trolling open source like facebook and twitter for leads on future protests, and in that sense they might be conducting collecting, but they would have told you that was analysis. Even beforehand I suspect most of the what's new about. This is an integration of existing collection activity by ice and BP Border Patrol into their analysis and different targeting to to a different collection requirement now they're going to collect about threats to statues instead of about threats to the president. That discretionary changes really the more fundamental problem. Ben Yeah so I showed a little bit of light on on this question that carry on Paul both allude to which is what the what the memo says, and is it really? Is it really describing collection by Iana and the answer is? Yes, it really is describing collection by I n a but Paul's point is well taken that it may not actually mean that it may actually mean something more akin to what Paul is describing that is i. n a people doing a certain amount of social media collection in that sense and sort of looking. Looking at open source stuff that's available online, but actual other collection coming from the components that said the memo is titled Dhs Office of Intelligence Analysis. Activities in furtherance of protecting American monuments, etc, and it is written in the second person you can do this, and so it's written actually to the office of Intelligence and analysis. The section on reasonable belief says is your reasonable belief. You must have a reasonable belief that to do any intelligence activity addressed in this job a that it supports a mission. It's all written in the second person then when it. Gets to the section entitled executing these missions, it says you. May collect retain and disseminate information in as follows, and so the entire thing is written to you I. The office of Intelligence and analysis, and there is an explicit discussion of collection, and when you are allowed to collect that said I, think Paul is probably right that what this? Is Contemplating as a whole bunch of analysts doing the sort of network tracing. You know to go back to my original example We know that David priests wants to do damage to that. Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue so. Let's see. Let's look at all. His facebook posts and maybe see who his friends are on facebook, and who's clicking that they like those you know. Let's blow up. Are Not blow up because that would be terrorism. Let's paint a horns on Nathan Bedford. Forrest, right and so I I think it is possible to read the memo in a number of different ways in that regard and I think probably for reasons that Stephen I can explain in more detail were almost certainly talking more about public record, collation and annotation and. Collection here and social media trawling, and were probably not talking about a lot of physical surveillance and so I guess is, we're talking about the reason. It's written that this way is because it is contemplating a bunch of analysts sitting around kind of chasing down social media stuff. Right, it would take a very ambitious analyst indeed to read that authorization for collection and say to herself. Okay that allows me to set up a covert network of sources to infiltrate or On my own it. It does read more like using the quote collection that you do in the course of your duties against terrorist targets. For example you can now do that against people who I will say to all of you does not include me at this point who are facing the Nathan Bedford. Forrest statues not yet anyway well. You don't rule anything out. Ben Steve Let me! Turn to you to follow up on that specifically. Which is the memo talking about? The sole purpose of this collection in pointing out that in some detail about the analysts need to establish reasonable belief to support this activity that they can't rely on hunches or intuitions which are insufficient, but must be based on experience, training, knowledge, facts, and circumstances, which you can articulate talk through that. Why was that necessary for? Whomever had the sad duty of writing this thing. Why did they have to put that in there to tell analysts don't rely on hunches to create a reasonable belief. Yeah, I mean. That sounds a heck of a lot like the jurisprudence regarding reasonable suspicion under the horns amendment. And and what? Losses could tell you chapter in verses is the doctrine of Terry stops. So, the the case law is replete with discussions of how government officers, especially law enforcement officers formulate reasonable suspicion in theory. How do it at the time? They're actually acting on it, but in practice it's usually how they do it after the fact when they have to explain themselves in court. And you know that's the case. Law says quite aggressively hunches don't count right. It has to be based on experience as we based on. It could be circumstantial evidence, but has to be evidence and so I think the idea here. Is that the you know whatever kind of coalition and collection the analysts are doing for it to be actionable in the sense that is going to produce a report that is distributed to somebody else. You know the memo basically incorporated in Italy something akin to a terry. Stop Standard for the idea that before we're going to be. Putting together this file on an American citizen, we have to have reasonable suspicion that they were doing more than just exercising their first amendment rights. We have reasonable suspicion that they were somehow related to the ongoing or prior acts of criminality that we're investigating, and then just I think raises the question well, what makes reasonable suspicion that one of hundreds of protesters in a crowd who, perhaps on social media has video of an episode of vandalism is him or herself somehow. Somehow responsible for the venues, MIAMI? I think the the reasonable suspicion. Standard is notoriously malleable, and so I think the concern in this context is that you know it's very easy to impose reasonable suspicion by association in a context where you have clear acts of vandalism, perhaps even some federal crimes and a heck of a lot of people. Who are you know in the neighborhood at it in the wrong place at the wrong time if that's where all this leads. The president by now has fired or has removed or has pressed to resign. Nearly every Senate confirmed leadership official in the Department of Homeland Security such that the organization now looks quite different from most other executive departments carry. You've argued recently in your report for the centre of new American security that the Department of Homeland Security urgently requires congressional attention to improve internal controls and its accountability mechanisms, and yet so far today we have. Have not heard howls of rage from Congress about this activity from DHS, which implies that for some reason, this is not yet the tipping point to call for better congressional oversight of D. H. S. to be frank is not just a function of the last three years, but has been out there for some fifteen years. What do you think Congress can and should do to respond to this potential misuse of D H S authority. Thanks yet will so first of all just a word on that report, which actually Paulo's also sat on the task force that that helped give advice that went into that report, which was issued in May and the report, really focused on ways that Congress can increase the oversight and accountability of of the department focused in particular on the border. Security Immigration Enforcement and law enforcement components of the department, so I did a deep dive into a the oversight that is very weak within the department and one. One of the things that came out of that was number one. The Need for new guidelines modernized investigative guidelines that would apply for all of the law enforcement related activity that the department does and two that the mission needed to be updated so that it would be of the department so that it would reflect its actual activities as opposed to the terrorism focus that it was originally created for and yet we all know that it's day to day. Activities are very much out of sync with that. I do see members of Congress in particular. The senators out of Oregon concerned and expressing concern publicly about what has transpired in Portland what I am. A have been a little bit nervous about today is that they will take that concern that they have with what they're seeing. In Portland in create legislative fixes that are very very narrow, very very tailored, so for example I've seen proposals to require that the. Officers display their names or I at least identify themselves because there's been so many reports of. Official federal government officials who are not identified. In any meaningful way and I guess I would say that's important in. That's useful, but that doesn't even scratch the surface. Of what really needs to be done in the department, they need to take a much broader view at the fact that there is no component in the department that effectively coordinates internal oversight in control. That's why we ended up I. Think with officers in military style fatigues deployed who who are at least according to the reporting I've seen. Most likely originating from the the border. Patrol or customs and border. Protection deployed into the interior of the United City in Egypt activities that have nothing to do with the mission of their originating agency and then engaging in those activities in a way that is potentially violent of of constitutional rights to take for example, the reports of people being detained without probable cause and and being released, which is something that you know we all in the national security space have heard of in other countries in other world that do not have the United States constitution, so it's very concerning to see something like that here, so all of which is to say that I. do hope that members of Congress. Seize this moment. And understand that there really might be an opportunity here to take a really hard luck at d. h. s and make much broader legislative adjustments that are far overdue, instead of just a couple of things that might sound good, but but really don't solve problems and just one other final thought on that I think there there could be a perspective that while look you know, carry were in. In the middle of a pandemic, we have all of these other, which is a a national health and economic civic crisis, and you know it would be nice to reform H., but this really isn't the time and you know to that I would say it time in times of crisis that adherence to the rule of law in having procedures and rules that law enforcement follows are actually most. Most important, and so I don't think it's a coincidence that we are in a crisis where the country is just exhausted and overwhelmed by the corona virus, and this happens to be the time that the trump administration, and the Department of Homeland Security are taking advantage of in sang that they're going to start deploying homeland security officials to numerous American cities right before I circle back to Stephen. Stephen Ben, Paul Carey just namedrop you there, so so let me let you follow up on the congressional angle will wrap that up. You've talked not just in contributing to that report, but for more than ten years you've been writing about the fact that well more than a hundred different subcommittees in Congress have some portion of jurisdiction over DHS. So, what can and should congress do now? Well I think the problem that we face here is really a lack of congressional will if you will. you know Congress has known for fifteen years that it needs to rationalize its oversight, and it will never do so because that means that they are engaged in some form of zero sum game with some people gaining and some people losing and so. The mechanics of what they need to do you know reforming the oversight process and giving more authority to the Homeland Security Committees is is trivial easy. Really the challenge frankly is getting somebody to care enough to do it I it is. Beyond my comprehension that Congress has yet to to undertake this seriously, but even if they did reorganize it that wouldn't be enough. They'd have to want to use that authority. They'd have to want to exercise oversight over the department in a way that effectively manages its activities. The department has not had an authorization bill since it was formed. The Department of Defense gets an authorization bill every year so I I don't want one every year, but let's give D. H. S. one every three years just. Metal, set and guide it right, yeah! Steve let me. Let me turn to you both to respond to that, and then I have a question for you about the courts go ahead. Yes, so I had to sort of quick thoughts in response to to carry and Paul I. I mean on the vacancy point. It's worth stress in I. In case you, you lost track of your scorecard. Today is the four hundred and sixty a day that there has not been a Senate confirmed secretary of Department of security or even a nominee that is the longest vacancy in a cabinet position in the history of this. This country and I just I'm floored every day that this has not become a huge. You know sort of rallying cry for Institutional Minded Republicans in the Senate that their institutional authority is basically being completely eroded in the name of politics, and you know I think it is remotely stretch to suggest as carry has both you know here and elsewhere that digest especially prone to much of this Michele. Gospel caused. These are all acting officials and the triumvirate of acting. Secretary Wolf Tengku Cinelli. Who keeps unlawfully referring to himself as the acting deputy secretary when it isn't. And Mark Morgan. Who's the acting commissioner? Part how we got here on Congress I think it's worth stress in that the administration may have actually time this very poorly, because although deitch has doesn't do authorization bills, the do do appropriations, bills and appropriations is on the house agenda for next week, and so I'm going to be very interested to see what I mean. I I don't think we should be surprised at all. If Democrats rally around at least some kind of funding cut off for some of. What did JESS DOING IN PORTLAND? I think the real question is whether that puts you know Republicans in the Senate into any kind of a pretty pickle or whether I mean. So far. I've only seen one senator one Republican Rand Paul come out and criticize what's been going on in Portland so I guess time will tell that's going to go anywhere, but the one power Congress still has is the power to not appropriate funds for departments in the adjusts. I think is is one where the Democrats may actually have for the moment a little bit of a stick. And on the issue of acting officials, I have to mention that acting secretary Chad Wolf has just said on. Fox News something that I think it's imaginable that it confirmed secretary would say, but it's a stretch. He said I don't need invitations by the state mayors or governors to do our job. We're going to do that whether they like us there. Or Not Ben Chime in here well. You know that is the kind of thing that is appropriate to say if it is the Eisenhower Administration and the state officials are trying to prevent the integration of. A university or a public school, but it is in an environment in which what you're referring to when you describe yourself as doing your job. Is You know patrolling? The streets of a city in a fashion that the local community finds quite offensive and in defense of Principles that are you know? The federal interest in downtown Portland is not the the strongest federal interest in the world. I mean I would never say that. Protecting Federal Court is not an important equity, but it's not an equity that you need to affect. In a fashion quite like that, and it's perfectly doable, other means, and so you know you have to ask the question. Why are they doing this? And in in that regard I do think it's important to come back to Steve's original point. which is you know they're doing this? Because the president is interested in projecting a particular image, and it's the same image. He tries to project about the border he. He is the guy who is going to protect you from caravans. He is the guy who's GonNa. Protect you from anarchists in your cities, and you know there's a significant racial element to to this way of talking and I. Do think that you know the deployment of the Department of Homeland Security for this purpose is a Guinea grotesque politicization of law enforcement and it's one that is going to require. Lot of restoration of confidence, and that kind of brings me back to carries point which I really WanNa. Foot stomp. You know the answer to this problem is not a law that requires you know that people have names on their badges, although they should have their names displayed, and they should identify their agencies. The the answer to this problem is not a narrow set of reforms that. Bans the specific practices that people are finding offensive. The answer to this problem is to ask in a in a deep way. Why is the Department of Homeland Security Amenable to this kind of politicization in a way that for example, the FBI or the secret service have not been right, and you don't see the secret service. They're doing this and you don't see the. Domestic components of the FBI counter and a intelligence people. Being deployed on issue on matters like this and you say so. What's functioning in those entities? have had their own problems to be sure, but they're functioning at a level that things that. Are Not and because DHS is so big I mean. CB is the biggest law enforcement agency in the country by a lot, and you know the possibility that it becomes the shock troops of the president's agenda, whatever president and whatever agenda is not a healthy thing for a democratic culture, Carey and Paul. Let me turn to both of you to follow up on this with some specific angles. Carry you. You've done a lot of looking not just at. At deitch S, but also others operating in this wider area, and that's the National Counterterrorism Center NC t C., or the analysts said FBI even perhaps CIA in cooperation with them. Do you get the sense that this guidance that happened to go to the Department of Homeland? Security's Office of Intelligence and analysis I A. Do you think there may be things going on at places like NC TC, and if so, is this the tip of the iceberg? Well I don't know I haven't seen anything like that reported I'm inclined to think not because it doesn't sound like again. I'm relying on the on the right above this memo, but it doesn't sound like there's any foreign angle that is being alleged and as David. The intelligence community is focused on collecting foreign intelligence so with respect to the CIA with respect to most of what NC TC does, they would all be looking for foreign intelligence angle now now whether or not the FBI in its domestic terrorism remit is looking at this I. Think gets to an important question because we have now heard over the last couple of months since the protests have begun following. The killing of George Floyd. We have heard the attorney general talk about anarchists, Antifa and wow, we heard multiple homeland security officials talk about Arcus than we've heard the president talk about anarchists and. Clear is whether there actually is any US government intelligence analysis that indicates that there is some organized effort in other words organ, whether they're domestic or not, they could be domestic, but but organized domestic groups that are plotting violent activity. I Feel Lake particularly out of homeland, security and out of out of the White House that we're hearing things that sound like that, but I haven't actually seen anything that confirms it and so I'm disinclined to believe it. Not You know in in small part because of the lack of truth, telling rocker that the president has so one of the major concerns that I have about this memo that that Bannon Steve have reported. Is! That it raises. The question of is the president setting intelligence. Collection Priorities, and that's a job normally that we would think of would be the director of National Intelligence, who sets intelligence collection priorities for the agency for the intelligence community writ large, and for intelligence, caution components, and that's based on. A studied objective review of the threat picture. And we have neither been the benefit of a worldwide briefing this year for the first time in I think twenty five years, there was no annual worldwide rap briefing, and so we really have this big gaping question as to whether or not, there is any truth at all to the administration talking points that these protests have components of them that are some kind of organized anarchist agenda I'm not yet convinced it might be that that information is there although I think if it was there, they probably would communicate it to back themselves up, but I'm hearing it. Paul Lemme Lemme, ask you to on that, but also do include your perspective as a former policy official at dhs I I know the culture of CIA into a lesser extent, the State Department and FBI from spending a lot of time in those places. I, don't know the culture of the Department of Homeland. Security is there a culture of the analysts? I N, a simpler standing up, saluting saying Yup. If you tell us that we're going to deploy all of our authorities, and all of our assessments to the issue of peaceful protesters. Dammit, we're going to do it because we do what we're told. Talk through a little bit of that culture in your answer before we close out with Steve. Well I, I think that there's an unstated and incorrect premise in your question, which is the DHS has culture. He knows. Each of the components has a historical culture Most of them were. Seriously transformed by the events of nine eleven. If you'd have asked what customs and border protections culture was before nine eleven, the border patrol is would have been basically cowboys on the border and the customs. Guys would've been much more. Yell Clerks, if you will managing trade with a little bit of of of work with respect to immigration, but not that much. An a didn't exist fifteen years ago, so it has no culture at all. There's a reason that as Ben Accurately says, we haven't seen this sort of collapse at the FBI or even at the secret service, and that's because they are traditional storied agencies. They've made mistakes. Lord knows in the past and they they've tried to learn from them, but they have a an inculcated view of what their role is in this world, and even the oldest agencies that DHS like CB BP had that inculcated. Radically transformed know just fifteen years ago and they're still trying to figure out what is the only agency? At DHS that has retained in my view, it's real sense of self. Is the coastguard roaches sensually has continued on as it had before without too much change in in any of its focus or activities so. It is actually the lack of culture, and frankly the lack of any ability at the senior management level to create such a culture. The secretary and centralizing forces lack any ability to bind the department together in a way that could that could create such a culture, and so they've they've lacked that leadership in terms of capabilities ever since the formations to what extent they had success, it was through force of will of strong secretaries. Like Chertoff and Jay Johnson, and that and that's what is lacking now. Is You know as as Chad wolves quote makes clear. He's about as weakened and subservient man, as you can imagine in this position, so as a corollary of that Paul, you don't see the strong sense of culture especially in Vienna prompting resignations over something like this. Not at all. Not at all, if there, if if there's any resignations and principal over this at dhs I will eat my shorts it certainly at the political level I imagine there may be some analysts Chris a lot of the cadre. is Ex. or Ex FBI, so they have a sense of that. This shouldn't be happening and there may be some at the GS eleven or twelve level, but otherwise now Steve let me close with you. We've talked about the executive and legislative branches, but is there any judiciary action possible in the near-term on this that is does an individual protester, even based on the revelation of this have any standing to sue based on the presumption of harm of this kind of collection for first amendment activity. Probably not I mean. The you know there's a there's a case from the nineteen seventies that I think is is not familiar to many folks called layered versus tatum and Laird Verses Tatum was actually a lawsuit, arising out of allegations turned out to be pretty true about live scale government surveillance of domestic protests during the Vietnam War. And the Supreme Court in their versa, tatum through the case opposite held that the plaintiffs didn't have standing because they couldn't actually demonstrate that they themselves have been subjected to the surveillance. They had been harmed I. think that would probably be the end result of any lawsuit that arises out of the conduct. That's tracing this memo. It's worth stressing. There are already pending lawsuits one by the ACLU and I think one by the Oregon Department of Justice against the Department of Homeland. Security arising out of many of the activities on the ground in Portland, but you know. I'm I'm always one to think that the courts have something to do and I think this is actually an area where they have very little to do i. mean this is ultimately. A question of reining in statutory authorities that are being used in ways that I don't think anyone can reasonably argue congress ever intended and renting them in mind you for a department that was created. You know eighteen seventeen eighteen years ago entirely so that we would be better prepared to face real threats to the homeland and. This is what the Department of Homeland. Security is more interested in finding out who defaced federal courthouse in Portland, than it is in actually helping to combat the spread of a deadly and unprecedented public health virus crow virus says just about everything that there is to say about how the trump administration structures priorities at about what kind of fifth we should have and that kind of decision making. Well. I have a feeling. This overall conversation is not over, but the particular one is Benjamin US Steve Vladic carry, Cordeiro and Paul. Rosenzweig thanks for joining me. The law fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Please share in rate the podcast whatever you can do to help us spread the word about it especially on an important topic like this. This episode is edited and produced by Gen, PACI Howell. Zachary Frank of Rodeo studios is our ever patient audio engineer and Sophia Yan performed our music. As always. Thanks for listening.

Department of Homeland Securit Homeland Security Bannon Steve Rand Paul president Department of Homeland Portland Congress executive Stephen Ben DHS FBI Senate United States secretary official Federal Government
Federal officers may not have been properly trained when sent to Portland this summer, report says

KUOW Newsroom

00:57 sec | 5 months ago

Federal officers may not have been properly trained when sent to Portland this summer, report says

"A new report from the department of homeland. Security's inspector general says federal law enforcement officers. Who were sent to downtown portland this summer to respond to the large protests. There may not have been properly trained oregon public broadcasting. Conrad wilson has more. The inspector general says it found several department of homeland security officers who deployed to portland to protect federal property in weren't trained on the federal law that outlined required conduct according to the report. Some of those officers use force. The inspector general also found the federal protective service sent officers from other agencies to cities across the country. But those officers were not properly authorized under the law. The officers who deployed to portland repeatedly engaged in questionable conduct as they tried to quell protests including using unmarked vehicles and military uniform to detain people. Who were not charged for its part homeland. Security largely dismissed the reports findings and recommendations. I'm conrad wilson in portland.

department of homeland Conrad wilson portland department of homeland securit oregon conrad wilson
Top WA elections official threatened, doxxed after challenging Trump campaign's election misinformation

KUOW Newsroom

01:08 min | 4 months ago

Top WA elections official threatened, doxxed after challenging Trump campaign's election misinformation

"State officials say someone has made death threats against washington's election director. This is the state's electoral college met in olympia k. O. w. politics reporter. David hite has more before. Washington's twelve electors voted in favor of the biden harris. Ticket secretary of state. Kim wyman broke down. This is a moment in our country's history where electors in state capitals across america are convening to cast their votes. It's not clear what brought wyman to tears. But behind the scenes washington state officials notified the department of homeland security and the state owned counterterrorism center about a death threat. The target state elections director loria gino. A website shows her face inside crosshairs along with a photo of her home and her home address. It says she's being targeted because she called the twenty twenty election the most secure in american history. The website also goes after election officials and governors and five other states as well as employees voting machine manufacturers david hyde k. u. o. w. news.

David hite biden harris Kim wyman washington olympia loria gino wyman Washington department of homeland securit america david hyde
Season Three Trailer

Why It Matters

02:00 min | 6 months ago

Season Three Trailer

"The world is a big place and this year it's come home to us like never before we have tremendous partisan conflict polarization in the society that would be the worst recession since the nineteen thirties. If the coronavirus pandemic isn't a wakeup call nothing will be what happens anywhere can affect US everywhere and even as we face the present new challenges are gathering on the horizon. Our. Intensive fishing sacrifices, millions of fish. We a biological limit tribe has bought our silence with their the end of the century four out of ten people will African. Given rise to national security. Investigation. The Department of Homeland Security says white supremacy will still be the most persistent. Threatening us through twenty twenty one why it matters is here to help we're looking past the headlines and working with the best minds in the business to understand what's coming and what can be done. Maybe. Let's zoom out a little bit at this point. You know what's at stake for the world when it comes to the survival of the Amazon. So what the Amazon really is, it's sort of like a climate bomb and as soon as you start cutting down the rainforest that bomb is released. So World Toilet Day is coming up. Why would we need a day like that? Well, what would you do if you didn't have toilet if you had one message to communicate to the world about this issue what would it be? Good question sounds like something out of a movie. It sounds so magical. Well, there have been movies about that, but it's real. Real So join the Council on Foreign Relations and Gabrielle Sierra. Bring some of the world's most powerful stories home to you. This is why it matters.

Amazon US Department of Homeland Securit Council on Foreign Relations Gabrielle Sierra
More federal officers are being sent to Portland

KUOW Newsroom

01:02 min | 9 months ago

More federal officers are being sent to Portland

"Oregon public broadcasting confirms more out of town. Federal law. Enforcement officers are deploying to Portland in the coming days Conrad. Wilson reports multiple federal law enforcement sources say they're deploying dozens of additional. US marshals and officers with the Department of Homeland Security Court documents from last week show one hundred and fourteen officers from a variety of federal agencies are defending the federal courthouse in downtown Portland at the same time. Federal officials are acknowledging privately. They've contributed to the quick escalation between law enforcement and groups of protesters earlier this month protests. Protests, in Portland, had dwindled to less than one hundred people at times, but actions by federal law enforcement have escalated the situation, not only was a protester shot in the head with the crowd control device, but officers under the direction of Homeland Security made questionable late night arrests using unmarked vans. The government's response so far has sparked four civil rights, lawsuits and a Department of Justice. Inspector General Investigation lawmakers in Congress have also proposed legislation limiting the role of federal law enforcement in American cities I'm kind of Wilson in Portland.

Portland Department of Homeland Securit Wilson Department of Justice Oregon US Conrad Congress
A Public Charge: Trump v. Immigrants (again).

ACLU Civil Liberties Minute

01:30 min | 1 year ago

A Public Charge: Trump v. Immigrants (again).

"October Eleventh Two Thousand Nineteen United States District Court for the Southern District of New York I'm Bill Newman and this is the civil liberties minute. In the case of the city and State of New York Connecticut and Vermont versus the Department of Homeland Security the issue was the new proposed.

Nineteen United States Distric New York Connecticut New York Bill Newman Department of Homeland Securit Vermont
Seattle City Light using same software that foreign agents notoriously hacked

KUOW Newsroom

00:56 sec | 4 months ago

Seattle City Light using same software that foreign agents notoriously hacked

"We've learned seattle city. Light was using the computer software. That's been widely infiltrated by suspected hackers from russia but his kyw's page browning reports officials say the utilities network remained secure. Us government officials revealed last week that numerous agencies have been hit by hackers with data being monitored possibly as far back as march agencies impacted include the pentagon and the department of homeland security a spokesperson for the seattle. Mayor's office says the city of seattle is not impacted by these breaches. But they also say that seattle city light did download the software that's been breached a product of the company. Solar winds city light has disconnected solar winds and evaluated their computer logs for suspicious activity. A city spokesperson says. They've found no indications their system was compromised page browning k. u. o. w. news.

seattle city kyw browning seattle russia department of homeland securit pentagon Us
Reports of Chinese seeding attacks on the supply chain. Five Eyes and other allies push back at Russia's GRU. NPPD to become Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

The CyberWire

23:53 min | 2 years ago

Reports of Chinese seeding attacks on the supply chain. Five Eyes and other allies push back at Russia's GRU. NPPD to become Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

"More on the possibility that China's People's Liberation army engaged in seeding the supply chain with militias chips. All five is denounce Russia's GRU for hacking Russia response on convincingly. Adam Anderson from elements. Security joins us to discuss the role of behavioral science in the fight against cybercrime, and the n. p. p. will become a new agency within the US department of homeland security and the lead civilian agency responsible for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. It's time for a message from our sponsor recorded future. You've heard of recorded future. They're the real time threaten tellers company. Their patented technology continuously analyzes the entire web to give Infosec analysts unmatched insight into emerging threats. We subscribe to and read their cyber daily. They do some of the heavy lifting and collection and analysis that frees you to make the best informed decisions possible for your organization. Sign up for the cyber daily Email. And every day you'll receive the top results for trending technical indicators that are crossing the web cyber news. Targeted industries, threat actors, exploited vulnerabilities, malware suspicious IP addresses and much more subscribed today and stay ahead of the cyber attacks. Go to recorded future dot com. Slash Intel and subscribe for free threatened, telling updates from recorded future. It's timely. It's solid and the price is right. It's recorded future dot com, slash Intel, and we thank recorded future for sponsoring our show. Major funding for the cyber wire podcast is provided by silence from the cyber wire studios at data tribe. I'm Dave bittner with your cyber wire summary for Friday, October. Fifth, when he eighteen. Bloomberg's reporting on a Chinese seething attack on motherboards supply chains is still developing. Bloomberg is standing by its story. Amazon and apple both cited in the reporting as having noticed the malicious chips and reported their presence quietly to US authorities, flatly denied the story. The UK's national cyber security center says it has no reason to doubt Amazon and apple. Amazon says the only issues it found with super micro products were some application and firmware issues. Relatively minor and swiftly fixed apple says that they have over the course of Bloomberg's investigation repeatedly and on the record, given them information that refutes the central claim of the story apple thinks may be Bloomberg is confusing. This story with a single incident in which apple found an accidental infected driver on one super micro server. They had in one of their labs. Bloomberg sourced its story to anonymous US officials and industry figures. It's not identifying them. Bloomberg says because of the sensitivity of material they discussed, but it is standing by the story. They report that the evidence points to an attempt to gain long-term access to sensitive government data and valuable intellectual property, both Amazon and apple categorically and unambiguously say that there's nothing to the Bloomberg story and it's unusual for companies to issue that kind of denial casually. But Bloomberg story is difficult to dismiss out of hand. They say that their sources include people within the companies who are denying the incident. However, the story eventually settles concerns about Chinese involvement in the supply chain are unlikely to be resolved quickly, Lenovo and z. t. e. neither of which are mentioned in Bloomberg's report have already seen their stock prices punish today as speculators clearly think the entire. Chinese hardware industry is likely to suffer. The global supply chain is thoroughly international, and it will be difficult to unin tangle, but it seems likely that many countries will try to bring more aspects of hardware manufacturing home. The exposure and denunciation of hacking by Russia's GRU that came this week from several western nations is being regarded as a hard push back at Russia's assertiveness in cyberspace and offers a good example of what imposing consequences can look like it is as Reuters put it a coordinated effort to expose GRU hacking and misconduct. Generally, some of the harshest language came from the United Kingdom, which characterises Russia as a pariah state. The most immediate consequences were imposed by the Netherlands which expelled five GRU officers under conditions that reflected no credit whatsoever on the Russian military intelligence, competence and tradecraft. The most comprehensive response came in the US indictment of seven GRU who are to be sure unlikely to appear in a US court, but we'll now have American teeth in their lives essentially forever. The three other five is joined the US and UK in denouncing the Russian organization, Canada, assessed with high confidence that the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency was among the targets and Australia and New Zealand offered their own condemnations Australia chided that cyberspace wasn't the wild west, which seems unfair to the actual wild west, but we're far enough east that will let that one pass. The GRU techniques have been detailed in US documents may seem to have done quite a bit of brazen ward driving physically parking in front of hotels and other locations where they expected their targets to be using poorly protected WI fi access points pretty brazen stuff. Indeed, it's the stuff that got several of them caught red handed. The informational aspects of this conflict campy lightly, written off, ridicule and embarrassment are among the consequences. Western governments quite wittingly impose the GRU is convincingly portray. But as a crew of vicious stumble bums, they would be hilarious. A times of London op-ed says, if they weren't so sinister and it's no accident, surely that so much commentary has linked today's GRU too. It's even more sinister predecessors in Russian and Soviet history. Russian counter thrusts. In this information, battle include angry dismissal of the accusations, angry and aggrieved, but also mocking the Russian foreign ministry called the whole shebang. A diabolical perfume cocktail emanating from someone's rich imagination. This response seems to be reaching the limits of its usefulness. Soviet propaganda usually had some legs, no matter how preposterous it became in part because of the ideological cult that underpinned the communist regime. It's not clear that President Putin can count on similar reinforcements. There was a communist international. It's not clear that except perhaps in a few tax havens that there's really an oligarch international and weariness with political classes may prove unlikely to sustain any implausible, systematic messaging. And some of the information operations take the form of an elaborate and phony to Kway Moscow has made the fairly preposterous claim that the US is running a secret biowarfare civility in the country of Georgia. There's a certain symmetry with the well-founded British account of the Nova chock attack. But this seems to be overreaching. There is a Georgian, public health and veterinary research center into Blee established in twenty thirteen named an honor of former US Senator Richard Lugar who was instrumental in working to secure the very active biowar- program left behind when the Soviet Union broke up Russia's ministry of defence hopes, Georgia, and the US will come clean and an investigation. The Pentagon calls it all hogwash and international investigation is on likely. The department of homeland security's national protection and programs directorate will become the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. The US Senate has unanimously passed cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency act of 2017 a Bill that cleared the house also unanimously late last year, this will make the newly named cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. The lead civilian agency for cyber security and critical infrastructure protection. And finally, Alon musk is unhulled by his encounter with the security and Exchange Commission over his tweets that appeared to speculate about tesla. He's been back on Twitter rolling the SEC as the short seller enrichment commission. Now a moment to tell you about our sponsor, observe it. It's twenty eighteen traditional data loss prevention tools aren't cutting it anymore. They're too difficult to deploy too time consuming to maintain too heavy. On the end point, they are high maintenance and require endless fine tuning. It's time to take a more modern approach with observe it. You can detect insider threats investigate incidents quickly and prevent data loss with its lightweight agent and out of the box insider threat library, observe it is quick to deploy and far more effective at stopping data from leaving your organization. That's because observe it focuses on user behavior. It's built to detect and respond to insider threats, and it's extremely difficult even for the most technical users to bypass bring your data loss prevention strategy into the modern era with observe it, learn more at observant dot com slash cyber wire that's absurd. Dot com slash cyber wire, and we thank observe it for sponsoring our show. And I'm pleased to be joined once again by Malek Ben Salamn. She's the senior RND manager for security at Accenture labs. She's also a new America. Cybersecurity, fellow Malek welcome back over their century. You all recently published some information on pervasive cyber resilience. Take us through what's going on here. We did a survey with a number of cease. We executives, and our goal was to identify how companies are securing the enterprise today, but how are they building cyber resilience in order to secure the future enterprise? As you know, companies are racing to adopt new IT based business models in order to achieve higher growth, but they're not prepared for the new risks that come with those business models. And I'm thinking of the increased connectivity, the increased risk due to the autumn. Of processes and the risks that come from the intelligence being used to derive outta mated decision making through data, an Esa, curated professionals, beekeeper iterating the message that companies off to be cyber resilient, that they need to infuse security into everything they do today, but also into everything they do or they're preparing to do in the future. And so through that survey were we interviewed about fourteen hundred c. suite executives, including CISCO's about how they prioritize security business initiatives, how their security plans address, future business needs, what security capabilities they have and the level of internal and external collaboration that they're working on a security. We found out that only thirty eight percent of companies bring the Cisco into all discussions at the beginning stage off considering new business opportunities. So. So there is a lot of of room for improvement. If companies are serious about building cyber resilience, not just for today, but for the future as they consider new business opportunities, they need to get CISCO's involved into that discussion concert, understand that impulse that we want to get out there. We want to start doing business. We want to beat the competition be first to market and all those sorts of things that you're saying that that might not be a successful long term strategy. Absolutely. I think companies off to be thinking about all the implications of new business initiatives, and we actually duck deeper into what this means for companies, and we asked the survey respondents about individual technologies that they're thinking of adopting in the future and how much they think. There are ready a protected of for those types of technologies. So we asked about things like robotics, virtual work environments. Obviously, I t cloud services. We found out that there was an acknowledgement that for certain technologies, these organizations didn't feel as protected or adequately protected, and that appeared clearly, for instance, for virtual work environment where for two percent of the respondents said that they don't think they're protected. On the other hand, they thought that for the adoption of IOT in IT devices, they think they're much more protected. What's interesting also to me is that for a technologies that was one of the technologies where they survey respondents felt very confident that they're protected, which is which I. Found very interesting and which I think is a blind spot to them. Particularly as we start as a security research community starts being more involved into the issues of AI security and how sheen learning models need to be protected. This is a very nascent field that's being looked at by the research community. So I think they're four for a I in particular, there is an overconfidence that this technology you know is is protected versus what we think of as a research community that this AI technology actually is creating a new attacks turfs for companies. Melik Salaam, thanks for joining us. A few words from our sponsor silence. They're the people who pretend our own end points here at the cyber wire and you might consider seeing what silence can do for you. You probably know all about legacy antivirus protection. It's very good as far as it goes, but guess what? The bad guys know all about it too. It will stop the skids, but to keep the savvier hoods hands off your end points. Silence thanks. You need something better. They've just introduced version two point, three of silence optics. It turns every endpoint into its own security operation center. Silence optics deploys algorithms formed by machine learning offer, not only immediate protection, but security that's quick enough to keep up with the threat by watching learning and acting on systems behavior and resources. Whether you're worried about advanced malware, commodity hacking or malicious insiders. Silence optics can help visit silence dot com to learn more. And we thank silence for sponsoring our show. My guest today is Adam Anderson. He's scholar in residence at Clemson university's center for corporate learning and founder of elements security group. Our conversation focuses on his efforts to integrate behavioral science into the fight against cybercrime of gotten very frustrated with the arms race of we develop new security measures, and they develop ways to get by it. And I constantly felt like I was losing no matter what I did our product I installed and it wasn't until I really started a dressing behavioral science talking to people about what good cyber hygiene as how to act correctly. Then I felt that I was actually having an impact and that really showed in side of small and mid sized businesses. I feel like the enterprise typically does a fantastic job building a cyber fortress and keeping the gates shut, but with supply chains and trusting vendors, I find that. The small business is really the big security risks that I'm most interested in for those guys. You move on needle with behavioral science, not with spending a lot of money on technology. Yeah. I mean, it strikes me that the folks like you say, the small business people are the least prepared certainly budget wise to to build that moat around their business. What? Why do you find that behavioral science gives them the best bang for the buck because they have messed up beliefs. There's not a CSO in the fortune five hundred that's not going to have a voice with executive management staff. They're going to be able to say, cybercrimes, important, and everyone nods their head and says, yes, but for a small business owner, they have three core beliefs that screws everything up. They think they're not important, no one's looking for them. They think they have nothing anyone would want and they think, hey, there's nothing I can do to stop you anyway. So that leads a victim mentality on the table that they put their head in the sands, and they just don't act. So let's walk through those one by one. What? What are the ways to combat those beliefs? The thing is, is there correct? Beliefs are just old beliefs. Small business owner is going to thank I don't have intellectual property or a whole lot of data that a hacker is want to steal and sell on the black market. And so my message to them like, hey, you're absolutely right, but you know what you have gotten money and they're gonna screw with you until they get she to actually pay them something. So the the mind shift that happens on those three beliefs, Lisa, I two is to say, you know, you do have what you want, and if you have low self esteem, good news, you're just with the cybercriminals looking for. So at the end of the day, the first two are all about changing the mindset from. I've got intellectual property or I've got trade secrets that people want versus I've got cash flow and money and I can buy bitcoins incent them. Do you suppose some of this is is sort of. Paralysis. You mentioned you know, thinking that there's nothing they can do about it, and it strikes me that maybe they don't have to build that fortress around around their business. It's kinda that old joke about, you know how to I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun. You. Exactly right. If the business down the street is less secure than I am, they're going to be easier pickings. Yeah, using analogy with them with fly fishing where the hacker walks into a mountain stream has got a fly fishing rod, and to me, that's witchcraft technology have never been able to get that to work. And they are hunting fish individually. And when the catch one fish all the other Fisher safe, but I tell them the things have changed. It's not a guy in a stream anymore. It's a guy on trawler. It's a lower skill person, pulling a giant net behind a boat and catching all of the fish. So the I cannot run the bear thing that doesn't work. You need a new skill set how to avoid nets and then escape them or recover after you've been in them. How do we go about getting this message to sink in without just spewing Fudd at these people? Right? So fud will only take them so far. And I tell folks that especially small business owners, you if you're buying based on fear, then you're buying the allusion of. Security and you're buying based on compliance, you are basically securing someone else. And if you don't think of this as just another business process, like sales marketing, you're going to suffer announce this process. So when I can pull them away from thinking about the technology and say, look at business processes, understand which ones are important, and then find a smart cyber security person to apply the correct security controls to keep your processes running that they're very excited about because they understand business process and I say, don't worry. You don't have to understand the technology. You just have to tell the cyber expert what you need to protect. So that mindset, I mean, it would. It sounds like you're describing is not unlike, you know, a lot of small businesses will hire an outside accountant, take care of their counted on a higher fulltime person, though Hira an outside attorney. They don't have the funds to have someone on staff all the time. Cyber security should be given the. Same approach? Yeah, I tell folks, there's four key things. Small business needs a banker insurance agent, a CPA in a lawyer, and I believe the future for small business is also going to be a fractional chief security officer where you're going to push that person. They're gonna help you build a business continuity plan. They're going to keep it updated, help build your disaster recovery plan, and then they're gonna manage the vendors for you. So very much like you said, we're going to add a fifth key role that every small business is gonna have in the future. The message I give to folks as I say, look, spend somebody else's money, be iota, not Luke Goto the marketing person who makes all of the technology purchases at this point and has the CFO's ear and say, you know that new mobile initiative you're trying to do and make all of our stores point assails are mobile and all that. You know, there are some security stuff that we don't care of your project might stop, but hey, it's not. My call. I'm here just to tell you what's going on, but maybe we should go ahead and ask for another million dollars to fund this project to make sure you don't have a failure in two years. So the idea here is the CIO see, SO needs to partner with the other cease wheats and align the cyber security initiatives up with the stuff that the other sweets are doing. Because when to see x. owes come in and talk to the CFO on. They're on the same page. It's really hard for the CFO to say, no, our thanks to Adam Anderson from element security group for joining us. You can learn more about what he's up to at element security group dot com. And that's the cyber wire thanks to all of our sponsors for making the cyber wire possible, especially to are sustaining sponsor silence find out how silence can help protect you using artificial intelligence, visit silence dot com. And silence is not just a sponsor. We actually use their products to help protect our systems here at the cyber wire, and thanks to our supporting sponsor VM ware, creators of workspace. One intelligence learn more at VM ware dot com. The cyber wire podcast is proudly produced in Maryland out of the startup studios of data tribe with their co building the next generation of cybersecurity teams and technology are cyber wire editor is John Patrick social media editor, Jennifer, Ivan technical editor, Chris Russell executive editor Peter Kilby, and I'm Dave bittner. Thanks for listening.

US Russia Adam Anderson GRU Bloomberg apple business owner department of homeland securit United Kingdom Intel Dave bittner Bloomberg Amazon China US Senate CISCO CFO
Another Whistleblower Comes Forward

What Next | Daily News and Analysis

23:48 min | 7 months ago

Another Whistleblower Comes Forward

"This episode is sponsored by Charles Schwab. The news coming out of Washington can be overwhelming making it difficult to sort through all of the noise and figure out what really matters to the markets. Washington wise investor isn't original podcast from Charles Schwab. It explores how decisions made in Washington could never realtime effect on your finances and portfolio listen at Schwab dot com slash Washington wise. This episode is brought to you by wire cutter, the Product Review Service from the New York Times. Like everything in two thousand, twenty, this back to school season is a little off. It's hard to know what school supplies to buy where to get them, and whether you even need them in the first place. That's where wire cutter comes in wire cutter is full of in-depth buying guides on everything you need to start this bizarre school year, right so whether you're sending a college freshman across the country or kindergartner across the hall checkout Wire Cutter I to be sure you're getting the very best recommendations for any school situation checkout wire-cutters back to school coverage and more at ny times dot com slash back to school. Last week. Shane. Harris over at the Washington Post was one of the very first people to get his hands on a brand new trump administration whistleblower report. Yeah, another one. Yeah. It is a heck of a report. It's very dense. Something around eight separate allegations. These allegations are about how intelligence has been manipulated over the Department of Homeland Security Intelligence about immigration election security, domestic terrorism. But to Shane it's not just what the whistle blower is saying that stands out what was really striking and then I was not prepared for was who was making these allegations. They're coming from a guy named Brian Murphy who is until recently was the head of intelligence for the Homeland Security Department and is somebody who is running the office that he says is being subjected to manipulation by the president. He has dates he has conversations attributed to people by name. So he says, you know Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said this on this date or the deputy secretary can Tonelli said the following to me and these are all pieces of information these are all allegations that can be substantiated or refuted. So he's basically handed over a roadmap these allegations he's kind of brought the receipts. This is the top top. Level person at the leadership level it's quite striking. Did. You know about this guy before this complaint was filed I knew about Brian Murphy because I had written a series of articles about intelligence activities that the office he runs was engaged in in. Article. Shane was writing a few weeks back Murphy was tyrant of the story not the hero Shane reported Murphy's Office had compiled intelligence reports on journalists covering the unrest in Portland. Story came out Murphy Got Demoted Murphy was very much portrayed by the leadership of the Department as the bad actor here, the one who had been overseeing this wholly inappropriate kind of activity that infringed on the First Amendment and the Secretary of the Acting Secretary Chad Wolf put out a statement saying this is unacceptable I'm ordering an investigation and Murphy was. Removed within a day or so of those reports coming out now comes Murphy to say, no, no, no, you don't know the whole story. I'm the one who's been keeping really bad stuff from happening and I've been getting crusher for years now from people in the White House to change and manipulate an abused the authorities of this intelligence office that I run. Today, on the show who's to blame for leading intelligence analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. After a summer in which departments work seemed increasingly political this whistle blower is offering answers. I'm Mary Harris you're listening to next stick with us. Google's free tools are designed to help millions of businesses around the country adapt to a new way of working from updating their business owes to switching to curbside pickup to activating online booking small businesses are being found online and staying connected to their customers. They can even receive support from their community by adding gift card and donation links in their free business profile on Google. Explore Google's free tools. Small businesses at Google dot com slash grow. That's google dot com slash grow. This episode is brought to you by wire cutter, the product or service from the New York Times. Like everything in two thousand, twenty this back to school season is a little different. It's hard to know what school supplies to buy where to get them for if you'll be able to use them whether you even need them in the first place that's wire comes in. Wire cutter is full of in-depth buying guides on everything. You need to start this bizarre school year, right the best laptops and Webcams for the kids learning from home, the best backpacks, lunchboxes, and water bottles for kids heading back to school, and of course, all those dorm central's for college. Freshman. Wire cutter answers the questions you've got and the questions you haven't even thought to ask. So whether you're sending a college freshman across the country or a kindergartner across the hall checkout Wire Cutter to be sure you're getting the very best recommendations for any school situation. Checkout wire-cutters back to school coverage and more at Ny. TIMES DOT com slash back to school. One things that made Brian Murphy's complaint. So interesting to Shane Harris. Is that Murphy is a career National Security Guy he seemed pretty on board with administration's law and order messaging. So Brian Murphy started out his will he has he is both Ben FBI agent and he has been in the armed forces serving overseas after nine eleven. Before the terrorist attacks he actually worked terrorism cases for the Bureau and then signed up and served in the military, and then actually was brought back to work in the bureau again, and we're GONNA famous case about terrorism financing as well. So he's kind of been. In the thick of it as it were for the FBI and know we used to call the war on terrorism. So that's kind of where he's forge is out there working cases, gathering evidence, developing sources, and rather gathering this evidence to ultimately try and disrupt terrorist attacks, and also to help prosecutions. He then goes over the Homeland Security Department and for some time was serving as the the deputy to the undersecretary for intelligence and analysis. So does that mean that is also called I N Day I and That is the part of the Homeland Security Department, which remembers this massive department deals with securing aviation, and you know they do the TSA checks at the airport and it's the border patrol. It's the coastguard. IENA. Is kind of this tiny division in there that is DHS's contribution to the broader intelligence community in the course of the intelligence community is the CIA, the FBI the NSA those are kind of the big three letter agencies that we know. Yeah. I. Mean at some point I talked to another reporter about this particular part of the agency and it was funny he was like, yeah, they're kind of like the junior intelligence division. He, you know it sounded like this particular unit inside the Department of Homeland Security was sort of struggling to define itself. That is definitely true and frankly even people who work there. We'll tell you that even though there are many competent in finalists, they're they are not the FBI, they're not the CIA they're not the NSA. Kids on the block they are a much more junior partner. Junior varsity is a word that I've used in a story that I've written about them, and there aren't people at the FBI and the CIA who kind of roll their eyes at them and say like you know what value are they really adding because it's not like they're going out in recruiting assets or spies they're not gathering intelligence, the way, the CIA or the FBI might or the NSA they're. kind of analyzing things are analyzing a lot of stuff that's in the news and they're kind of focused more on the Homeland Security Mission, which is about internal security border security. Really kind of DAS kind of become a big border security agency to be honest and these other agencies are much more focused on global politics and foreign leaders and stuff that frankly is kind of sexier and has a longer history and they don't really have hold in really high esteem. It's important to remember the underdog mentality at. When you're considering the whistleblower complaint filed by Brian Murphy, this guy who felt thwarted by his employer in a couple of ways he's he wants to sort of beef up I A and like and make it even a bigger player than it is an expos. You can't hold them again, hold that against him. He wants to do the best job he can. But there are people who work in the office who feel that he has been trying to craft it into some kind of miniature, FBI? Or something that looks like one of the big players and I think that his personality that drives a lot of that ambition that does come across in the report he somebody with just a very strong sense of right and wrong and what the mission of that office is. You know for better for worse and I think that comports with how he's been described me by people who've worked with them. Can we just take off exactly what's in the complaint from Brian Murphy because it does to me when I look at, it has a kind of narrative like the allegations aren't all connected, but they seem to build on each other. So I wonder if you can just lay out a few of the allegations in here. Sure. The most serious of them I think comes from back in May late that month in which he says on two separate occasions, he was told to essentially stand down from his office compiling any reports about Russia's interference in the twenty twenty election. In one instance, he says, that secretary acting. Secretary Wolf told him I don't want you writing reports about Russian interference because quote it makes the president look bad. So this was specifically in order to stop doing this in order to help the president he says. And there are other indications there as well. We have that the administration was applying pressure in a separate conversation. He says that Wolf told him in addition to not reporting on Russia I want you to spin up your focus on Iran and China and make more reports about their election interference. Murphy objected to this saying essentially that would Russia's doing in a category of its own and would Iran and China are doing aren't the same thing and if we try and Tell. The public Iran and China are the big threats to worry about. We're going to be misleading the public in this very serious issue and he says that he was told by Wolf at this order came directly from Robert O'Brien who is the White House national security adviser. So there he's alleging the White House putting its thumb on the scale and trying to color the intelligence in a way that looks better for president trump specifically, and really laying out like a bread crumb trail like. Saying I heard this from this person. He heard this from that person go figure it out exactly. He's telling an investigator these people you should go talk to, and this is the date that it happened. He even says, one of these conversations happened after a deputies level meeting at the National Security Council while I mean they'll be able to find the date and find everybody who was in that meeting and trace it back and ask them do you think that's what order was being conveyed? And this theme here that he's laying out of the trump administration trying to fudge or color or shade intelligence reports that is the overall theme of all his allegations another one deal that he he details from from some time ago deals with pressure that he says was applied on the office to inflate the number of known suspected terrorists. They're called K. s ts in the parlance that were being detected, crossing the border with Mexico in order to provide more justification for building the president's border wall. The reality is that you know a handful you know in the single digits. Probably of these so-called KS ts are ever confirmed the administration he says wanted to say that there were thousands of these. Terrorists, which is just so wildly inaccurate according to people we've talked to wow and in separate occasion he was told to. Amplify, put more information reports about far left groups and ANTIFA groups and their role in the protests that we've seen than he murphy thought was justified by the facts. So he says this instant Ken Cuccia Nellie tells him more or less. You know joop the numbers and the end the language on Antifa and tamp down the languages in these reports on white supremacist and far right groups when. We know that actually FBI and others have actually studied this in found a far-right extremists are more of a homeland security threat and that ANTIFA and far left groups are not really driving these protests. So he says again, here is the White House and the administration trying to color these reports in a way that fits the political argument that the president is out there making on the campaign trail. Part of what I think is interesting about the complaint is that it builds on itself. You know the complaint encompasses years of disagreements between Murphy and his bosses about what to say, and it sort of starts with you mentioned the difference between known terrorists coming across the border and just sort of suspected people who might be connected to terrorism and these sort of fine green details and things that. People sometimes acted on and sometimes didn't basically just like hints of something not quite right and then it builds to what was going on this spring in summer where it sounds like the new leadership of the Department of Homeland Security came in and basically said, listen, we need to not be talking about Russian intelligence threats to the election because that's going to be threatening to the president and so. In some ways it, it creates a very strong narrative and you can see things getting more extreme. I don't know if you saw it that way I did I mean what he is alleging here is not an instance of behavior. He's alleging a pattern of behavior that each one of these allegations is of a piece with the overall pressure that he says has been applied for years now by the administration to color. Intelligence and distort the facts to fit a political narrative and a political argument and importantly Brian Murphy although he is a very senior witness to all of these alleged activities is hardly the only one providing evidence of that I mean just looking at Russian election interference in the past month. Or. So the director of National Intelligence, which kind of oversees all of the intelligence agencies and has election security in its portfolio put out a statement talking about the threat from Russia China and Iran and immediately got opposition from Democrats and experts saying, why are you putting all these three countries together? Why are you conflating this in a way that makes? It look like they're all on the same playing field when Russia we know and it's in your own reporting, deny is the one that's actively trying to hurt Joe. Biden and helped Donald Trump and these other two countries are kind of in the realm of election security but it's clearly not the same where you confusing people well enter Brian Murphy. Saying? Hey. was happening at my department to I saw it happening I objected to it when it happened and now I'm GonNa lay it all out in a story. Frankly it's it's quite breathtaking to hear this level of manipulation of intelligence which is what he's essentially alleging. mentioned, how Murphy isn't a perfect witness here so have you and other reporters been able to confirm what he's alleging here. We've definitely been able to confirmed issue around pressure to inflate the number of known suspected terrorists crossing the border I think there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest that the administration has been clearly leaning into blaming Antifa for protests when I think there's lots of data to suggest that they're not some kind of driver of the protests and then we're of course looking. Into other allegations of his as well particularly on the Russian threat in the elections I will say broadly so far with the exception of some some errors in dates that he has subsequently corrected publicly that, yeah. I his information checks out and I certainly think semantically it checks out not only with what we've seen publicly. But what my reporting been for a couple of months now about how the administration is approaching dealing with election interference I think it's a credible document there's whistleblower allegation. I think might be some people who hear about this complaint and think. So what? Like didn't we know this all we've seen over the summer with how the Department of Homeland Security has been used when it comes to protests in Portland when it comes to border security you know. Why should we click in to these office struggles at the Department of Homeland Security. That seemed to show us what we might feel like we know. Well I mean somebody who reports on intelligence you know I'm highly aware of the history that this country has the very ugly history of abusing intelligence authorities and national security powers to political ends in you know the the laws that we have in place now that control with a lot of these agencies do came out of the era of. Watergate and the FBI spying on protesters in the Vietnam War and wiretapping Martin Luther King. I mean real abuses of civil liberty and government power to constrain people's First Amendment rights into in many cases to you know to trample them, and so when we see allegations that a presidential administration is trying to manipulate information or use these national security authorities for political ends. That should be setting off alarm bells everywhere. This is precisely how we have tried to construct our intelligence community not to perform right. You know the way that we have a strong national security apparatus in a free and open society is to have transparent regulation of that system and to have rules and boundaries that you can't cross. Yeah. It stood out to me that. Just a few days after your reporting in to what happened here the Department of Homeland Security there was reporting that the administration has been interfering with CDC and they're reporting about the corona virus, which almost seemed like the same thing you know transferred to another agency and wonder if you see those two reports is kind of companions in a way. I do because I think that the president you know who lies repeatedly I think that he views the entire government as an apparatus that supposed to be in service of him and helping. Him Win an argument and I think that you can view pressure on the CDC or the DA chess or any other agency to change information to color information to take out inconvenient facts, input new facts in that help your your argument that's not just spin. What we're talking about here is distortion manipulation and it's just standard procedure in so many cases in this administration I think people are kind of Numb to that because they think all presidents lie all administrations try to win an argument, but this is just qualitatively different you're talking about. Marching orders gone out to senior officials in government to manipulate official reporting down into the bowels of bureaucracies in a way that doesn't make the president look bad or that helps give him talking points that is anathema to the way that the intelligence community is supposed to work. Certainly, it's not what we think of when we talk about the president, you know trying to preserve the public trust. I mean this is this is turning government into almost essentially a arm of his campaign. Is there a next step here for say Congress. Well Congress is going to investigate. Allegations for sure that takes time. It's my take away from the last year and we know how the administration just loves to respond to subpoenas when they're issued to them. We are two months out now from the election I at this point I, don't really know what Congress can practically do to try and. Reverse what has been, you know a pattern and practice of behavior that arguably goes back to the beginning of administration just in terms of always trying to color in shade the truth on this particular issue that what I think you're gonNA probably see is Congress trying to ring the bell just as loudly as it can. And trying to alert the public that you're not getting the full story or the clearest story that you should be when it comes to election interference but they're up against, you know obviously a clock and they're also up against the guy with the biggest megaphone donald trump who is out there every day talking about how mail in balloting is rife with fraud and the relations going to be rigged he is essentially. The biggest source of disinformation and misleading information about the election of anyone and you know I have talked to people in the intelligence community who are you know practically interiors over the fact that you know Vladimir Putin can basically just sit back and pat himself on the back. Donald. Trump. Is doing his work forum when it comes to trying to undermine the public's confidence in the security and legitimacy of electoral process. It's it's not great. Shane Harris. Thank you so much for talking to me. You're welcome. It's always great to to you. Thank you. Shane Harris covers national security over the Washington Post. And that's the show what next is produced by Mary Wilson Jason Leone Daniel, Hewitt and Elena Schwartz. We get help everyday from slate executive editor Alison Benedict and slate executive producer. At least in Montgomery I'm Mary Harris. I will catch you back here tomorrow.

Brian Murphy Department of Homeland Securit Shane Harris president Homeland Security Department Department of Homeland Securit FBI Mary Harris White House Russia Donald Trump FBI New York Times Washington Post Google Washington CIA Chad Wolf National Security Council
Monitor Show 22:00 02-03-2021 22:00

Bloomberg Radio New York - Recording Feed

01:42 min | 2 months ago

Monitor Show 22:00 02-03-2021 22:00

"Upgrade your view of mortgage backed securities us bloomberg core mortgage premiums. Emp to build custom data and analytic solutions used by industry professionals worldwide fully automate urinalysis thousands of bonds and scenarios gained full access to the bloomberg prepay and credit models and analyze mortgage and structured finance securities from new perspectives with core mortgage premium. Learn more about your all access pass to bloomberg's advanced eight an olympic services at bloomberg dot com slash mortgages in twenty four hours a day at bloomberg dot com on the bloomberg business app and bloomberg. Quick take this is bloomberg radio now. A global news update president biden is issuing a series of executive orders aimed at modernizing america's immigration system biden signed three orders. Today the first of which calls to form a task force to reunite migrant families who were separated at the southern border. Speaking to reporters biden slammed the trump administration for the impact it had on migrant families and the moral shame of the previous administration literally not figuring ritual from the arms of their families and the mothers and fathers order. Members of the house will be fine. If they don't complete a security screening before entering the chamber the house passed the new rule. Establishing a five thousand dollar penalty for the first time. A member doesn't comply with the screening that fine jumps to ten grand for a second offense to new members are joining. The president's cabinet alejandro may orcas was confirmed as department of homeland security secretary after a fifty six to forty three vote while buddha church was confirmed as secretary of the us transportation department within eighty six.

bloomberg president biden biden olympic america alejandro orcas buddha church department of homeland securit cabinet us transportation department
Tear Gas & Flash Grenades in Portland, OR

ACLU Civil Liberties Minute

01:29 min | 9 months ago

Tear Gas & Flash Grenades in Portland, OR

"What's the justification for those federal troops in Portland Oregon firing, tear gas and flash grenades and marble sized balls filled with caustic chemicals at protesters. I'm bill. Newman, and this is the civil liberties minute. Following the murder of George Floyd there were weeks and weeks and weeks of protests in Portland most were completely peaceful and involve no damage or destruction of property, although there was some of that, the protests were reducing in size and intensity, and then donald trump sent in the troops, federal law enforcement, which impart changed the focus of the protests from the outrage over the death of George. Floyd to the outrage about federal law enforcement being deployed. Deployed to the city, an acting like as Oregon Senator Ron, Wyden put it as an occupying army, the head of the Department of Homeland Security justified federal law enforcement action by pointing to a federal law that allows agents to conduct investigations into crimes committed at or on a federal building, but the assaults on and abduction of protesters by these federal troops have happened at locations where the federal building was nowhere in sight. That's some investigation. Donald? Trump is threatening to send federal law enforcement to cities across the country. Raising the specter that what has happened in Oregon does not necessarily stay in Oregon as that state's Attorney General Ellen Rosenbloom said quote. It could be happening in your city next. The civil liberties minute is made possible by the ACLU because freedom can't protect itself.

donald trump Oregon George Floyd Portland Ellen Rosenbloom ACLU Newman Department of Homeland Securit murder Senator Ron Attorney Wyden
Weekly Update --- Libertarian Terrorists?

Ron Paul Liberty Report

04:55 min | 2 months ago

Weekly Update --- Libertarian Terrorists?

"Hello everybody and thank you for tuning into the weekly report. Libertarian terrorists the department of homeland security issued on wednesday a nationwide terror alert lasting until april thirtieth the alert warns of potential terrorist attacks from americans who are ideologically motivated then have objection to the exercise of government authority and the presidential transition as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives. The language used in the alerts suggests that millions of americans are potential terrorists second amendment supporters antiwar anti-tax anti politics anti militarism pro-life and anti federal reserve activists certainly have objections to the exercise of government. Authority they are certainly viewed by the political class and its hands made in big tech and the mainstream media as ideological extremists. Anyone who gets his news from sources other than mainstream media or big tech or who uses certain unapproved social media platforms is considered to have had his grievances fueled by false narratives for something to be considered a false narrative. It needs only contradicted. The official narrative the domestic terrorist alert is the latest sign activities on january six on capitol hill like the attacks of september eleventh. Two thousand one are being used to advance a long standing. Anti liberty agenda legislation expanding. The federal government is authority to use it. Surveillance and other unconstitutional powers against domestic. Terrorists is likely to soon be considered by congress just as the patriot act was written years before two thousand and one. This legislation was written long before january. Sixth the bill's proponents are simply taking advantage of the hysteria following the so called insurrection to push the bill onto the congressional agenda former cia director. John brennan recently singled out libertarians. As among the people that government should go after. This is not the first time. Libertarians have been snared in two thousand nine a federally funded fusion center identified people who supported my presidential campaign. My campaign for liberty or certain libertarian and constitution party's candidates as potentially violent extremists. The idea that libertarianism creates terrorists is absurd. Libertarians support the non aggression principle so they reject using force to advance their political goals. They rely instead on peaceful persuasion libertarianism as being attacked because it does not support just reforming a few government policies instead it presents a formidable intellectual challenge to the entire welfare warfare state. The older my goal of those pushing for a crackdown on domestic terrorism is to make people unwilling to even consider radical ideas to make people so afraid of certain ideas that they refused to even give those ideas a fair hearing progresses who are tempted to support what is being promoted as a crackdown. On right wing. Violence should consider the history of government harassment of progressive movements and leaders. Such as martin luther king. What do they think. A future right wing. Authoritarian would do if given power to go after ideological extremists. All americans cherish. The bill of rights should come together to stop this latest. Crackdown on liberty. My campaign for liberty. We'll be mobilizing americans to stop passage of any domestic terrorism legislation while my institute for peace and prosperity and my liberty report will provide americans with the most up to date information about the continuing attempts to smear those who speak the truth about government lies. You can watch the ron paul. Liberty report live on youtube monday through friday at noon eastern time. Thanks for listening.

department of homeland securit John brennan capitol hill federal government cia congress bill martin luther king ron paul Liberty youtube
Blocked Bulletin from DHS

Powerhouse Politics

34:00 min | 8 months ago

Blocked Bulletin from DHS

"Hello and welcome to powerhouse politics maybe news chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl and I'm ABC News Political Director Klein Reclaim. We had a major election already It's only beginning. September. But we had an election. In Massachusetts in Massachusetts. Primary what lady primary. So late anyway the big headline on a Massachusetts is the Joe Kennedy. The third has become the first Kennedy to lose a Democratic primary in the State of Massachusetts in American history there have been quite a few of them losing to to sender markey tried to try to to knock him off Ed. Markey of course, has been in Congress longer than. Joe Kennedy two thirds been alive and I think maybe blogger we've been alive or pretty close been around for a long time. This was a quite a result coming out of Massachusetts Joe Kennedy. The third who, I know. Well, I know you know him as well a friend of the podcast actually. A A real talent somebody who seen having a a big future in in democratic politics. But. He took a big risk here by trying to knock off incumbent senator who was you know from the start quite popular in the state of Massachusetts A in the context in this race is important. You know as you know John I covered masses politics at the Boston Globe starting in two zero, two, thousand I I've known market for a long time now Joe Kennedy for for a long time. Everyone is always said about Joe Kennedy since back when he was a DA that that he had national abilities inclinations, he could go all the way he could be a president candidate. He could be a senator Kennedy, in fact, the Senate seats kind of had a name on it, his name on it for while he was trying to jump the line though because things were getting crowded in Massachusetts politics is changing and there's a lot of folks that. Believe that the next time a Senate seat opens up in Massachusetts and keep my they don't open up very long those guys named Kennedy and Kerry how those seats for a long time up that Presley member of the squad who knocked off incumbent on our own two years ago is GonNa WanNa jump into the fray. There is an opening. So he took a risk. It was a calculated risk to try to knock off Ed Markey who is a progressive? Good Guy I don't think anyone ever speaks ill of him dean of the delegation in Massachusetts well, well known in Washington perhaps better known in Washington Massachusetts. But when he announced a year ago, you love people that I talked to him I thought that. Marquee might retire he get out of the way. Kennedy would would would be a shoe in to win this and then something weird happens something interesting happened which is The voters happened, and of course. Got Involved and if you listen to Ed Markey in this campaign, you heard a lot about Alexandria Cossio Cortez who defied a lot of people's expectations of her and endorsed Ed Markey and they teamed up on the green new deal and suddenly Ed Markey age seventy, four in Washington since the mid nineteen seventies became the insurgent and he was able to rebrand recast himself and tap into a lot of the young progressive energy that's out there Allah Bernie Sanders contemporary of his and beat a Kennedy in Massachusetts. It is. It is stunning in the broad scope of things at tells us something important about where the Democratic Party today. And it was the endorsements were interesting actually across the board I mean you had on one hand. endorsing Ed Markey, but you know Joe Kennedy. Had had a very impressive elicit endorsements including Nancy Pelosi I gotta say and I and I and I WANNA get on to to the president's activities this week in Joe Biden's response but I have to say that they'd knowing in following a Joe's career. A. This is a setback without question but I think that he's I think he's got a a I always very hung. But. But I think that I think he's got a next act that will that will be very he'll. He'll pull something off it's going to be. He's I. Think he's going to be a player democratic politics major propeller major major player Democratic Politics for for Longtime Despite this serious setback I agree with that, he loses his house seat. If Joe Biden wins, you can easily see him sliding into the administration. He's always gonNA be a Kennedy. That's an interesting thing about family legacy is that you could be a former whatever you're always going to be a candidate. He's in he is he is attractive and Bright Guy, and he'll east has all of those things ahead of him. But for now it is Senator Markey and it Senator Markey powered by a progressive movement that by the way is not necessarily Joe Biden's Democratic Party Ed Markey and Joe Biden see eye to eye on lots of things but you know talk green new deal talk Medicare for all and you start to see some some Some breakdowns and Democratic Unity going forward and these are these are the little fissures that are going to play out in maybe more dramatic fashion if Biden is able to win the presidency. Okay now, we broke a big story on ABC this morning on election interference. We really got the goods on this rack was a an intelligence bulletin. that was written early July that was supposed to be sent out of warning about a Russian campaign, a scheme to plant stories about about Joe, Biden's mental mental health and this thing was set to go out. It did not go out. We got the details on how that will happen. So we're GONNA come back in the show and we're GONNA. Talk. To John Cohen who used to work on the intelligence unit over the Department of Homeland Security and in the secretary's office and he's GonNa help us explain what went down with this bulletin. But before we get to that, I, want to talk about a different kind of interference this interview that the president had with Laura Ingraham which was spread out over two days. had. A LOT OF A. Lot of interesting things from the president but none more interesting than what he had to say about these dark forces in the shadows. Controlling Joe Biden take a listen. Biden strings I. IS IT former? That you've never heard of people that are in the dark shadows people that I was that mean that sounds like conspiracy theory dark show people that you haven't heard of the people that are on the streets. There are people that are controlling the street. We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city, this weekend and the plane it was almost completely loaded with with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this, and that there there are a plant where's. I'll tell you sometime but it's under investigation right now. And then rick so I mean. On a plane in new he can't tell us where was what he's GonNa tell us sometime. But in any way he look the he's the president He has access on this, but he has access to the to the best intelligence that there is I mean he's got as I bleed. He's got the clearance. You can see anything. So he's got he's got a thing called the CIA out there he's got at the deny the got a you know they got a whole bunch of other intelligence agencies. He's got the FBI can talk to Anyway he was asked what he actually meant by this thought about this that you were referring spot. I could probably refer you to the person and they could do it. I'd like to ask that person who is okay but a person was on a plane. said that there were about six people like that person more or less. And what happened is the entire plane filled up with? Looters the anarchists, the riders, people that obviously were looking for trouble. And the person felt very uncomfortable the plant this was a firsthand account. Of a plane going from Washington to wherever. Had I'll see if I can get that information for you. Maybe they'll speak you maybe they weren't. Person Woman Man Luder rioter. It does tell you that he's talking to people that are probably more influential than even his own intelligence community when it comes to getting inside his head if this is an e theory as to who rick and. I I'm well who gave the president this sizzling hot piece of intelligence that had apparently evaded the the FBI. I don't have a name for you but I do think I think it is probably someone that we see on TV a couple of times that would be my guess is that these? Part of the network of people who are in touch with the president on a regular basis passing things that passing on things. A lot of these people are on nationally recognized radio and television programs on on a regular basis talking about the president's insights, it's a wild. Way To manage a white houses, you know well John but look there's no evidence we should stated forthrightly there's no evidence that anyone is organizing these or paying for these. Protests of the plane the thugs on a plane theory has not had any evidence. To support it, and this is a week. Also Joe Biden I think you know took a very firm stance a- against it and and basically call the president of out to say you're not going to be able to just sit. Somebody that I'm not listen to what what he said on Monday about the efforts by the president to try to portray him in a way. Ask, yourself. Why look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for riders? Really. I WANT WANNA. Safe. America. Safe from cove. Safe from crime and loonie safe from racially motivated violence safe from bad cops. Let me be crystal. Clear. SAFE FROM FOUR MORE YEARS OF DONALD TRUMP. Call, it the really strategy right the you're going to buy that really lead me, and this is why we see this polling. John. We see this I think in our perceptions of of the race throughout it's going to be very hard to turn Joe Biden into a radical left wing. Maybe Shell who's WHO's doing the bidding of people on the fringes. It's hard to do is that a possible and president's doing probably ineffective jaw of? The debate rounds quote Unquote Law and order when as we talked about these sites and sounds from his own America but making Joe Biden into. This. Crazy socalist monster is going to be a very difficult task and I think Biden is he emerges a little bit more now he's GonNa be going Wisconsin tomorrow. He's GonNa make it difficult for the president that tournament to something that he is a yeah but it's not so much biden is a socialist monster it's it's what you pointed to the Shell the the the the Biden isn't controlled by Biden that those people in the shadows. But what he's saying when he when he's a little more convincing is he is he's he's saying that look Biden is the figurehead here but the Democratic Party has gone far the left they're the ones that can have the real influence. You know it's going to be a a OC it's going to be Bernie. Sanders is can be the far left. I mean I I don't know I don't know. But when he goes off in talks about plane loads full of looters and riders so they wear uniforms. Identify on the plane you gotTa Luder, a writer and agitator. I by the same token John. I. Mean You're right. But I also think we can't underestimate the degree to which people may be watching the sights and sounds of from from Portland from Wisconsin the earlier in the summer Minnesota and said, wait a second what is going on here and if they again, it's awkward for the president because literally he is the president now. But if they associate the president, the incumbent president with the guy who wants a crackdown on it and associate the Challenger was someone who? Is Wink wink nod nod. Okay. With with with violence continuing That's that's a different election and that's an election donald trump can win. Right, and the images of of of storefronts being smashed in of you know fires being said of. Looting and rioting. Psalm on the on on the fringes offering intellectual defense of looting. as as a as a form of legitimate protests I mean that's the kind of stuff they did. Donald trump will try to an and his campaign will try to tie directly to Joe Biden and to say that's basically what what the case Joe Biden's making on show Biden. Himself was ever made any case anywhere near anywhere remotely like that throughout his lengthy career in public office, but they will try to make that case maybe it's Person Looter Rieter Camera TV something. continue to say I would I would fail the quiz. So I'm not going to even engage I already I said. All, right. Well, let's let's take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to take a deeper dive into this story about the DHS. Intelligence bulletin warning about a Russian schemed interfere with the election in a bulletin odd. It was withheld and withheld a it appears to be a at the direction of office of the acting secretary. Of Homeland Security Chad. Wolf. We will be right back. I welcome back to power politics and we are joined now by John. Cone former undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security in ABC News contributor. John. Thanks for joining us. Hey, great to be with you. Wanted to bring you on to talk about this story that that we just broke here on ABC which seems. Pretty clear. Cut In quite remarkable. This is a story about how the DHS had prepared an intelligence bulletin that was going to go out to to various local and state law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders about Russian interference in the election I've alert, the bulletin which we obtain. said very simply give you the title. The title was a Russia Likely, to denigrate health of US candidates to influence twenty twenty election and this bulletin a made it clear that it was really US candidate that US candidate is Joe Biden. They say we as we assess Russian, malign influence actors likely to continue denigrating. Presidential candidates through allegations of poor mental or physical health to influence the outcome of the twenty twenty elections. That's from the bulletin they point to some examples including. Stories that were placed in Russia controlled News outlets like rt in sputnik about Biden Biden's occasional misspeaking is signs of dementia and anyway. So the this Bolton was was set to go out we obtained a an email that went internally to the senior leadership of of DHS. Sayings was dated July seventh this destroy seventy two months ago about two months ago saying that the Bolton was GonNa go out on July ninth. But here's to you know everybody take look at before we send it out and then within that memo going out we have. An email coming back from. The Chief of staff to Chad Wolf saying hold on. Wait. We. D. I discussed this with with as your the actual language of the email. Please hold on sending this one out until you have a chance to speak to as warm as one acting secretary Chad Wolf. That was two months ago the memo never came out. Now John. In reporting this, we obviously went to get a response from the public. Affairs folks the Department of Homeland, security? What surprised me is this response came in late last night. Is Absolutely no denial of the story. In fact, they confirmed the story they said the the reason why the memo did not go out. This bulletin did not go out is because They had questions about it. did it wasn't fully developed in terms of of of the? Intelligence behind it and. The language of this bulletin. So that's why they held it back they say. I'm suspicious of that. He told me what what, what's your take on this you worked over there you worked in Intelligence Department of Homeland Security. What what is the significance of this bulletin being drafted seemed rather routine Planned to be sent out in suddenly because the chief of staff to the secretary says hold off it doesn't go out. Yeah. So there's a few issues and I'm skeptical as you are. So I as it relates to the release of this specific or any product coming out of HSS intelligence arm intelligence analysis office is. As a product is developed it goes through rigorous scrutiny by lawyers by a part of the department involved with civil liberties in civil rights, protection and privacy, and it goes to rigorous review from an intelligence perspective are the sources credible is the information credible you know can we confirm and if it passes all those bars if all that? You know if it goes through all of that, that product is finalized and right before it's released. A memo an email goes out with saying this products about to be released take a look at it. You may get questions so it's not that it's sent around the department for approval it sent out to Legislative Affairs Public Affairs the secretary's office saying we're about to release this intelligence product get questions about it. We WanNa give you a heads up about it. That's the point that this memo was apparently blocked, and that's highly unusual and in my time at DHS and as you pointed out I work both in the secretary's office. And I also lead I in a a short time period. During my time. In my experience, a product was never blocked in that way. Maybe you played with the timing of the release because someone had an event or on travel depending on the on the importance of the event but. You never I never experienced a product being blocked the second point that's really important about this is that. This along with other reporting suggests that Russia's still of concern they're they're using the spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories in an effort to influence the outcome of the election The way they are doing that is through a combination of Social media to and and what they call grey sites which are. Online sites that are supposed to look like a media think site and they introduce this information and they hope that mainstream media sources, politicians, others will amplify disinformation they're sending in your story suggests that that's the process that was followed with this that dhs in the intelligence community picked up that this was a a narrative that Russian Russia was using as part of their disinformation campaign and they were able to successfully get the mainstream environment to pick up on it I and amplify it as well. Now one point is this bulletin and again I've posted this. If you look on posted on my twitter feed, you'll be able to see a full right up on all this on ABC News Dot Com. You can go look and you can see the actual documents here and it's important that the bulletin. Headline about Russia the bulk of it is about Russia at also says that they assess That actually, the Iranians and the Chinese off are trying to do a similar thing questioning the mental health preparedness of presidential candidates although in that case, eighties. Trying to raise questions about the mental preparedness of of Donald Trump suggesting he's a narcissist and. An has mental problems. That's the Chinese and the Iranians but the bulk of this is is about the Russians. What I want to ask is the other part of the one I wanna ask you about is the other part of the DHS explanation as to why this was blocked. They say the three other bulletins on election security were sent out by the Department of Homeland, security in the month of August alone. So in other words, they're not blocking information about elections security is just that they didn't believe this one was really ready to go. Do you what do you make of that explanation in? Do you have any visibility on that? These are these are not classified documents, but they're also not generally public released documents they go out to to to law enforcement. And other stakeholders do do you know about these other three bulletins and? Whether or not they actually get into this question of Russian interference specifically. I don't know what three bulletins they are referencing in particular. There has been reporting that has come out of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The intelligence community more broadly and even Department of Homeland, security talking about. Interference in the twenty twenty election but there but there's also a growing body of public reported and some of this is coming from people who recently have left the the trump administration that the intelligence community is basically operates under an understanding that reporting on Russia will be met with anger by the president will a negative response and the way that they can get information out about Russia is by blending it together with references to other countries like China and Iran, and that's really from my perspective as somebody who has worked for Republicans and Democratic administrations who has worked in Homeland Security and law enforcement a national security for over three decades. That's really dangerous because. The only thing that should be guiding the release of intelligence products. Particularly, intelligence products are intended to help us counter act a serious threat. is to make sure that their objective and they're based on fact, and they're not influenced altered or blocked for political considerations and if in if important intelligence and think about this, right, we're talking about disinformation campaigns we're talking about foreign intelligence services. Planting conspiracy theories and lies into the public discourse to influence how people on election day whether they decide not to come out and vote or whether they vote in a certain. The only way you can counteract that is by identifying those. That inaccurate information and notifying people and that's what this bulletin was intended to write. This bulletin was intended was a message from the Department of Homeland Security saying, Hey, we feel highly competent that Russia as part of their disinformation effort is spreading this line narrative about Joe Biden's mental acuity, and we think you need to know this so that when you see this information, you disregard it. So by blocking this, you're actually undermining the ability of our government to protect against foreign interference. John can you try to decode for us the the meaning of make sure you make sure you're talking to Chad Wolf before this goes out Chad Wolf has been a controversial figure John John Giancarlo interviewed him on Sunday on this week but a lot of folks have been arguing that his that he's in the role now as acting secretary and an improper fashion, the president of has indicated that he's. Nominating him although it's unclear if he's ever going to be installed on a permanent basis, he was chief of staff before to to Secretary Nielsen. But what does it mean to you or how can you read between lines here to to figure out what it means that you had to check with Chad? Wolf before we go any further? I think it means exactly what you just described I. Think it's a message being sent to the Office of. Intelligence analysis that this product is not to go out until secretary says, it can go out everything. Is there another leap you can you can draw based on who had is how this administration operates that this is this does this suggest to you that that kind of flag that that the Secretary Wolf would have because of the president's concerns There have been concerns that raised, regarding, acting secretary wealth at his willingness to embrace the political rhetoric. In the narrative, the political narratives of this administration have. Has served undermine the credibility or at least created perception much broad part of our population that the department is operating based on political considerations verse says. Operational hand and. What the threat intelligence actually tell us and I think you can point to over the past three and a half years. This isn't simply limited to to chat chadwell though I. Think there are some things that he's doing right now that have people scratching their heads particularly as it relates to his rhetoric involving state and local authorities during this time period the time period of these protests but you know if you look at the department in the way that it described conditions at the southern border to. Suggest that there were terrorists point across the border or that conditions were more dangerous than they were to justify the border wall and some of the other actions taken if you look at the fact that the department's leadership. And the White House. Emphasized the threat posed by of left describe as left wing radical extremists versus what their own intelligence reporting saying, which is there's violence occurring in cities across the country by. Extremists on both the fire right in the fire left. The willingness to attack local officials with very. Virulent language. You know in my experience, if you have concerns about how local officials were behaving operationally, that was a private discussion between senior managers at the department does local officials the willingness to throw out there publicly in blame local officials for destruction violence occurring in cities you is problematic. It undermines. The credibility of the organization, but it also undermines the relationship with the state and local officials in the department. Of Homeland. Security has a broad set of missions and he can't conduct an almost any of them without strong support from state and local governments. So there's a number of law enforcement official spoken to over the past few days are scratching their heads saying, why? Why would he take such a hostile tone? You know. With with partners he has to rely on. In the days months weeks ahead to protect the homeland so that you know they're hard concerns being raised that you know he has been. More, willing than others to embrace the partisan political rhetoric and amplify that rhetoric on behalf of the president, and that's not helpful to the departments being able to carry out its critical mission John. What what other questions connecting dots here we saw the announcement from the administration over the weekend that that in person intelligence briefings from the office of the Director of national, intelligence would cease for members of Congress they're concerned about leaks. There's a lot of information that federal government has a and discretion that the federal government has in how that information is disseminated. You see a pattern here you see connective tissue between those these different storylines that that we're talking about. Nye. It's the latter I see connective tissue I. Think you know particularly as it relates to the Intel committees the Senate and House intelligence committees. It's a regular occurrence on it. Other other officials across the intelligence community regularly go to this committee's in providing person breathing in person briefings are important because it allows the the members of the intelligence committees to ask questions that allow them to evaluate how intelligence was collected. To evaluate the credibility of the intelligence if you are restricting in person briefings at the same time, you're blocking or altering intelligence products so that they either don't piss off the president or are they or they support the political of the partisan political narrative or the campaign narrative than you you? There are concerns. Ripe Rightful Concerns that Congress isn't getting the whole picture. So you know look as relates the to the election, right? where it's just around the corner, we know that Russia has Russia and other foreign hostile countries have have are engaged in an effort to influence the outcome of those elections. We know that there are concerns that enough hasn't been done to counteract those activities particularly as it relates to the use of a conspiracy theories disinformation too. Since a voter behavior we know that one of the ways that you counteract those types of campaigns by sharing information as broadly as possible with Congress those running for office, the political, parties, state, and local officials, and even the public so that they can. Understand. How disinformation is being spread and can recognize it when they see it so you want to share information about the content of this information and you do that because that's how Yukon Iraq disinformation campaigns you tell people hey, you may be saying this you may be hearing this. It's not true and it's part of an effort by a foreign government influence your behavior before you walk into a voting booth if you even decide to go to the voting booth based on you seeing this information. So this isn't the time to restrict the flow of information to anybody we the government has a core part of their efforts to protect twenty twenty election should be out there. Sharing Information as broadly as possible in particular Congress so. Again as the security and law enforcement professional I, find it really disturbing. The the the pattern that is becoming clearer and clearer. That the Actions that are vital to protecting this nation, not only through the election. More broadly are just not occurring and and it's not occurring because intelligence professionals are afraid of of of angering the president. Or putting something out that's viewed as being inconsistent with their political narrative. Well, I thought that one of the more alarming things that I found out through the process of writing front row at the trump show was the Kirsten Nielsen in her entire tenure. As the Secretary of Homeland Security A- tenure that included the midterm elections presiding over during the midterm elections when there was an obvious threats a verified threat of from foreign actors including the Russians to interfere. that. She had a grand total of one. One conversation with the president of the United. States. About election security one conversation a briefing odd. That was held in the situation room scheduled of although the relevant players and the way the briefing was described to me. Yeah. I write in my book. It started out with a brief cheat she said but it was going to be about The. President said it's very clear that that the Russians didn't do anything the change to to get me elected right is it didn't change a single out. and. Then it went off the rails on fell other subjects they never actually went and discuss the security of the upcoming election. So it was one conversation election security and it was not a detailed conversation, and if you don't have the president of the United, states setting the agenda and describing what the priorities are you know as you know somebody who has worked at high levels administration, it's You know it's harder to get things done. So, but John John Cohen, thank you for for coming on powerhouse politics in helping us understand would seem to me to be a pretty significant story here this morning on ABC. News. Yeah thanks it was nice being with you. All the time we have for power politics. We will be back next week for Trevor Hastings who has returned. Avery Miller and the entire power house politics team. Thank you for listening and we'll talk to you.

Biden Biden president secretary Russia John Joe Kennedy Department of Homeland Securit Joe Biden Senator Markey Department of Homeland DONALD TRUMP ABC Massachusetts Congress Intelligence Department of Hom Democratic Party Ed Markey Kennedy Washington
CDC Shortens Recommended Coronavirus Quarantine Period

WSJ Minute Briefing

01:43 min | 5 months ago

CDC Shortens Recommended Coronavirus Quarantine Period

"This episode is sponsored by. Sap your business and sap solutions together. We got this. Here's your mid brief for wednesday december. Second i'm jr whalen for the wall street journal. The cdc is shortening. The recommended quarantine period for people who've been exposed to the corona virus or who've returned from a domestic trip health officials. Say a person can end to self quarantine after seven days if they've tested negative and have no symptoms but without a test. The cdc recommends attended quarantine and additional four days of self monitoring for symptoms with covid nineteen vaccines on track for federal authorization. This month the nation's biggest drugstore chains are planning for how to roll them out to tens of thousands of nursing homes and long term care facilities. Cvs and walgreens will deliver most doses to those facilities but hurdles include. Vaccines are require. More than one dose. Rollout rules that vary by state and potential reluctance from staffers. To get the shots and we report that the department of homeland security's internal watchdog says. Ill investigate the use of mobile phone surveillance technologies without a warrant to track americans. The wall street journal previously reported that several agencies within dhs using commercial product containing location information on millions of us mobile devices. We'll have a lot more coverage of the day's news on the wsj's what's news. Podcast you can add to your playlist on your smart speaker or listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Twenty twenty didn't see. That one coming disrupted supply chains employees working from home customers changing their minds at sap. We've helped hundreds of thousands of companies face their business challenges together. We got this. Learn more at sap dot com slash together.

jr whalen cdc the wall street journal seven days four days walgreens Cvs department of homeland securit dhs sap
DHS Warns Of Heightened Threats From Violent Domestic Extremists

NPR's Story of the Day

03:48 min | 2 months ago

DHS Warns Of Heightened Threats From Violent Domestic Extremists

"The department of homeland security says. The country faces a heightened risk of attack by domestic extremists. In the coming months such warnings have been rare in recent years but dhs says the recent attack on the us capital may have emboldened radicals across the us for more joined by npr national security correspondent. Greg mary hi greg hi sarah so is the department of homeland security citing a specific threat. Here no they aren't This bulletin doesn't name any individual or any group or any specific threat. It's a very generalized warning. It's clearly referring to the far right though. It doesn't mention any anybody by name and there. Is this sense that there's an elevated threat for the next few months it talks about domestic extremists who may be fueled by what they say is false narratives related to the election last november. The january sixth assault on the capital and even last week's presidential transition and people may remember homeland security was known for its warnings in the past those color coded warnings about jihadist groups. Like al-qaeda for instance but is this new to warn about domestic far-right groups. Yes it really is Dhs was created after the nine eleven attacks. Almost twenty years ago and those color coded warnings were were around for nearly a decade. there were often mocked. it was hard to understand. Is this an imminent threat. should you avoid airports. And they faded away and we don't see a lot of these warnings anymore but it really is unique in new here to see the government issuing a warning about the far-right President biden clearly believes that his predecessor president trump didn't deal with this and played it down despite mounting evidence. There was no strong public. Warning leading up to the january. Sixth events and biden clearly wants to get ahead of this His homeland security nominee for secretary of that department alejandro yorkers hasn't been confirmed yet but the biden administration has already asked for an f. b. i. To have an intelligence assessment about this threat and now we see this warning issued by vhs. Okay so what do we know about what we should make this morning. Which at the general public think. So i spoke about this with daniel byman. He's a georgetown university professor who studies terrorism and he says the biden administration is sending a message to several groups. It's telling law enforcement. This is going to be a priority is telling far right groups. They're going to be under scrutiny. But he says it's also important to see this as a message to the public. It's a warning to the broader public trying to say that this is a genuine threat on power with other forms of terrorism and is trying to sneak. The new administration is going to emphasize not only jihadist terrorism by groups like isis which is going to focus on a much wider range of tobacco cigarettes. There's been a growing number of arrests greg. Since january six violence at the capitol house the far right responding well on social media. We see that there is a lot of talk that they know they're being watched. Maybe a good time to be cautious and stay under the radar been about one hundred and fifty arrests related to the january sixth events and hundreds more cases or under investigation. Now we still have several thousand national guard forces in the dc area. They're expected to stay here through the trump impeachment trial next month and maybe well into march just to make sure the atmosphere stays calm by really appears to be laying down a marker and declaring that this issue is going to be a priority throughout his entire tenure. That's npr's greg. Mary greg thanks so much for talking with us. My pleasure sarah.

department of homeland securit Greg mary hi greg hi sarah biden administration President biden alejandro yorkers npr daniel byman us qaeda trump biden al georgetown university capitol house greg dc Mary greg sarah
DHS Conspiracy Theory - 8/3/2020

Quick News Daily Podcast

14:55 min | 9 months ago

DHS Conspiracy Theory - 8/3/2020

"Hello and welcome to the Quick News daily podcast where we give you all the latest news and under twenty minutes. No fluff. No filler just news made for the twenty first century. Today is Monday August third. Thanks for meeting me back here. That's kind of weird to think isn't it that it's already August well, for the first show in August will briefly go over trump's bluff on tick tock why jared Kushner is an awful human. I shake up at the Department of Homeland Security and some other miscellaneous stories. Let's get caught up. Just because we've been following this story since its beginning let's start with a roller coaster of a weekend that tiktok had. On Friday trump made in announcement outside marine one that he was banning the social media APP through an executive order. Well as a recording this show, there's still no executive order. The reason for this is laid out in an exclusive story on Reuters in which sources say that trump has given tick tock parent company Bite Dance Forty five days to sell tick tock to Microsoft. Probably in a total coincidence that sounded all related, the Microsoft CEO Satya Della announced on Sunday that he talked trump into his working to address trump's concerns. He also mentioned that he hopes the sale would be done by September fifteenth at the latest. If you're doing the math along at home. As of Sunday September fifteenth was. You guessed it. Forty five days away. kind of a chicken and the egg situation here I'm wondering who caved first Microsoft or trump. I'm sure tiktok definitely didn't. WanNa get banned because then they would be worth nothing in a sale so they were probably pressing Microsoft to make a deal. But I'm just going with my personal gut feeling that Microsoft said that they needed until September fifteenth ish. So trump agreed. This is trump's bargaining style. Go really far to the extreme to try to scare the crap out of the other person or country or whatever, and then when they get scared, they offer a compromise and he accepts it's just bluffing. He did it with north. Korea. When he started getting in the button wars saying his nuclear button was bigger and that we'd nuke them off the face of the earth than north. Korea offers a summit. Trump accepts and nothing happens. He doesn't all the time in the trade war with China when he says, he'll raise tariffs like every month. I also guarantee you that this is how he thought. He was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall if he ever actually believed that. Honestly, you know what? He reminds me of in the horrible bosses movies. Jamie Fox character mother love for Jones. WHO's at terrible negotiator I can give you ask. Fifty thousand. Six Hundred You should not pink Perry. I'm sorry. The weirdest negotiated. See. He just goes for the most extreme thing and then backs way off back to the sale Microsoft said it would purchase the tick Tock Service for the US Canada Australia and New Zealand but Reuters points out how weird that is like how they able to do that and then still have tick tock out there in Europe and Asia. I'm guessing someone would have to change names because there's no way all have the same. Software and things like that. And it's like the McDonald's franchise in your city. McDonald's corporate isn't going to be too happy if they start changing too much the last thing though trump just declaring all of this like I'm GonNa Been Tiktok I'm GonNa. Make a healthcare plan or something. It just reminds me Michael Scott. I declare. Gloves. Hey I just wanted to know that you can't just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen. I'd say I declared. Moving onto this reshuffling at the Department of Homeland Security the Acting Under Secretary for the D. H. S. Office of intelligence, and analysis a fast whose name is Brian Murphy was reassigned from that position sometime between Friday and Saturday just before we get too far. This is another one of my pet peeves in all these articles they say at DHS. Or something like that where they don't put the the infirm vhs because that's just how people say, I guess. But that doesn't make sense basically saying. At Department of Homeland Security like. That just drives me nuts. anyways, this is after news emerged on Thursday, that the DHS the DHS. Sent Open Source Intel reports to other federal law enforcement agencies, and these reports were summaries of tweets sent by two journalists who had published unclassified leaked documents about the Portland situation. This behavior, which has the fancy description of collection and dissemination of intelligence on the press is a big no-no since it's the sort of thing that Putin does or any other dictator would do. The First Amendment definitely frowns on that thing about the trump administration is that it makes you see conspiracy theories around every corner. and. The story definitely seems fishy to me I murphy is career official, not necessarily some trump stooge and second. The article says that they're source told them at gathering this Intel in sending it out was done by quote, lower level officials acting on broad guidance in that Murphy wasn't fully aware of what happened until it was already sent out. So this sort of seems like Murphy was the scapegoat instead of acting. Secretary. Chad. Wolf who's a full on trump Est.. The really cynical part of me even thinks that this could be a convenient way to get someone out of the way if they didn't fully back the whole. Sending unmarked agents to kidnap protesters idea especially because he was only reassigned. If you do something this agreed against the First Amendment empty. Think you might be fired just a little more than reassigned the inspector general at the DHS. The House Intel Committee are both looking into the situation and if Murphy did have any part in it, he deserves what he got and more. But this is definitely something I'll be keeping in the back of my mind going forward. Let's take time out and talk about your voting plan. You might have noticed that Donald Trump has been trying to say there's a lot of mail in voting fraud, but that absentee voting is a okay. The truth is this is basically the voting version of all squares are rectangles, but not every rectangle is a square. Both absentee in mail-in involve mailing dropping your belt off after having it mailed to you. It's just a how many people get them part that's different with absentee. You have to request it for some states you have to give a reason some like mine you don't. Win The election is completely through the mail and you send it back, drop it off. The. Usual benefit to this is that people who might not usually be able to vote actually get to participate meaning turnout is often higher. This is the real reason. Trump and Republicans aren't in favor even though there are forty six states who have some mail option for this year when turnout is high, DEMOCRATS DO BETTER THAN REPUBLICANS Donald, even let it slip earlier this year. When he said, no Republicans would be elected if mail in voting went nationwide. That's obviously not true because Wyoming will still always vote Republican because that's who lives there. But we know what he means. The real burden of mail in voting is that most states aren't used to end out the new postmaster general is telling post offices to slow down the mail, which is pretty clearly designed to make votes miss the deadlines in not count which probably helps trump. Why is this clear? Well the new postmaster general is a trump donor and he's the first postmaster general come from outside meaning. He hasn't been in career person working in the postal system. Just. Another thing trump is corrupted. So, what does this mean for your vote? It means Senate early or better yet chop it off quickly in person if you do either of these, you'll reduce the chances. Something funky happens with the postal service nothing your mailman is bad or the enemy or anything like that. But they're being handcuffed by their new leader. PS Donald can't say absentee voting is bad because he basically everyone close to always votes absentee. So he doesn't answer how they can do it and we can't. All right onto the main attraction jared Kushner and being the main attraction isn't something jared is necessarily used to. Towards the end of last week, there was this exclusive in Vanity Fair that's just too evil not to talk about in this article vanity, fair was able to establish a timeline using actual invoices and messages. By the end of March, the Corona Virus Response Team that was led by Kushner had developed a strategy for national testing that would solve the delays and shortages that were still seeing. They felt good about it and by the the lower level people and the health experts that they brought in. And they were told trump would announce it in the rose. Garden. In early April well, obviously, we've never seen that speech. So what happened? Well at some point before trump announced, it jared killed the idea exact reason isn't one hundred percent clear. But one named health expert who's in contact with a team thinks that it may have something to do with one member of the team suggesting they didn't actually need testing plan because the virus is only hitting states controlled by Democrats. Instead of spending the time finding and sending out supplies. They should just blame the Democrats and power which would help trump politically. It doesn't take Einstein to pretty quickly connect the dots and figure out that if the virus got from China in Italy to the US. From California to Arizona and keep going like that. So I'm not sure what the thinking was there. Let's just for argument's sake give them the extreme benefit of the doubt. And say jared killed the plan for some other reason This story tells us that these people only see us as chess pieces. As trump voters or non trump voters. Frankly, it's always been ridiculous that the trump family seen as the fighters for the Working Class folks. But this is just the icing on that cake. These cartoonish villains don't care about you or me and they never have they just live in a different world than us. And they always will. All right onto our lead story here America's first department store originally opened in eighteen, twenty six. Their name is Lord and Taylor for anyone who didn't get those trivia clues. And they just filed for chapter. Eleven bankruptcy protection on Sunday chapter eleven is where companies restructured their debts. So it's not necessarily the end of the chain, but it is just another company that's fallen to Covid, which is pretty astounding because they made it through the civil war to world wars the Great Depression in the great. Recession. And this was the one that got them, but they were just bought out last fall. So maybe it has more more to do with that parent company they're. Now. All of that is significant but I also told the story just to say that when I saw that when I saw Lord and Taylor trending on twitter I actually got a little excited because I got Lord and Taylor mixed up with Lord and Miller. The film writers and directors who've done stuff like cloudy with a chance of meatballs the new twenty one jump street's and spider man into the spider verse in spite of versus actually getting a sequel I think it was supposed to be next year but who knows nowadays? So I got on look excited like Ooh what's the news about spiders is not maguire coming back. But Alas No. It was just America's first department store declaring bankruptcy. I. Guess what I'm trying to say is I'm the real victim in this whole story. Alright. Gang that's all the news here for today. Don't forget to use the Lincoln the description to check if you're registered to vote and or request your mail in ballot or absentee as we learned today. There's also a link for you to become a contributor and help the show out or in return you get some benefits and those change based on how much you looked contribute no sweat. If you can't though I know times are tough out there and I'll especially understand if it's between me and a political candidate who needs our help. All right stay safe. Make a plan for how you'll be voting. It's never too early this year with the Post Office Shenanigans and I'll see you back here tomorrow.

Donald Trump jared Kushner Microsoft DHS Department of Homeland Securit Brian Murphy tiktok Reuters Taylor Korea China America executive Intel US Quick News Mexico Jamie Fox
Race and Immigration in Trump's America

Words Matter

53:08 min | 1 year ago

Race and Immigration in Trump's America

"Welcome to words matter with Katie Barlow and Joe Lockhart welcome to words matter. I'm Katie Barlow. Our the goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts words have power and words have consequences Joe and I are pleased he's to welcome our first guest to the show Eugene Scott covers identity politics for the Washington Post. He joined the post from C._N._N.. Politics where he covered the two thousand sixteen presidential election and was the senior reporter on the websites breaking news team. He's a regular on air contributor providing analysis on M._S._N._B._C. C._N._N.. C._B._S. N._p._R.. Eugene is a graduate of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government Minute Eugene Scott Welcome towards matter. Thank you so much for having me he eugene <hes> I guess is it's been a pretty busy time for you. As the identity politics correspondent for the Washington Post one of the things we hear a lot about Donald Trump when when he speaks her tweets is people say they're shocked but not surprised so answer both of those questions for me if you can were you shocked by the tweet that started all this and what's come out sense and we surprised surprised by it well. I certainly would not surprise but I was a bit shot and one of the reasons I was shocked. It's because there's so much coming out of this administration in their area of identity politics that it is difficult to keep up with everything that is happening. Most people don't realize that this is not the first time president trump has told someone to leave the country if he did not agree with their politics or better yet if they did not agree with his in two thousand eighteen eighteen he suggested that Colin Kaepernick leave America <hes> Colin Kaepernick as we know is the former San Francisco Forty niner football player who would kneel during the national anthem to protest racism and police violence <hes> something the president found deeply deeply disrespect for them problematic and so I was shocked because I initially thought wow this is the next chapter of a world view that the president has consistently espoused but then when I looked back at some some owed pieces I've written I've caught it. He had gone in this area previously so I know you've looked a little bit over the last few months at kind of the the Ark of the Republican Party and race going going back to George Wallace Lester Maddox to Richard Nixon to Donald Trump. I think Lee atwater it's pointed best when he talked about how the Republicans believed that speaking in dog whistles rather than directly worked much better for them but still racism and race baiting was part of the message I let's play that clip and then we can talk about it and before we play this clip. We want our listeners to know that it contain several uses of a graphic racial slur. We decided to play it because we thought it was important to give you the full context of the words that were used. Here's a as a as a statistician look. I know it's a psychologist which I'm not is is how abstract you handle wasteland. Oh would you start out. You're now. You're you start at nineteen before by saying Nigger Nigger nigger my nineteen sixty H._p.. Saying that hurts you back by so you say stuff like a fourth person states lights and all that stuff and you get it so extract now you're talking about cutting cutting taxes and all of these things you're talking about a totally economic things in the byproduct of May last get hurt worse one and subconsciously. Maybe that is for but I'm not saying but I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract act that coded <hes> that that we were doing away with the racial problem one way or the other you because obviously sitting around saying <hes> we want to cut taxes we want to cut this one is much more abstract than than even the bussing thing and hello abstracted so anyway look at it races come on back. Do you see this as a brand new chapter where now now the president rather than third parties and rather than you know. Speaking in code is speaking directly and using very graphic language to send the message that it's it's US versus them. It's white people versus the others. Is this something new. Is that something that was always there and he's just found a new way to articulate it. It is a new chapter and it's a continuation of strategy that we know has been effective in the past and previously implemented but we certainly are in a time where we're not hearing dog whistles anymore. It's been said that the president speaking through a bullhorn and when confronted earlier this week about whether or not he wanted to back away away from this statement because of how popular it was with white nationalist. He said he did not in part because many people agreed with him. This is not something we would have seen people focused on turning out white working class voters in decades pass would have Bohley said because they would have been aware of just how expensive it was to associate so closely with Neo Nazis and white nationalist but we know that the president is very aware of his base. He knows what he campaigned on that was effective in winsome and he's made it clear that he wants to continue doing what he did. Has the country changed has trump change the country. I mean that's what's the chicken and egg on this one. I certainly do not credit the president with the current political climate. I think the world views that exists existed before June twenty fifteen. I think the president was aware of what many people who he communicated with regularly on on Fox News and social media were already feeling and he tapped into that in a way that other candidates could not but I think we over a state his contribution to the political climate when we credit him perhaps he has is put a label on it and allowed US identifying in ways that we had not before but I like to think that trump is I'm began before the president in the Oval Office in will exists after he leaves. Do you think that it exists in part and existed in part art as a reaction to or response to electing Barack Obama as president or do you think that's just part of the baked in narrative that we always had this part of our culture in this part of American society that just didn't get to come out in the sunlight as often or was that impart reactionary to the previous president so I think it's a bit of both these ideas as we communicate earlier aren't new ideas. That's why you see people like David Duke who's been politics and in white supremacy circles for decades. Save this guy. This president is saying the things we've been saying for years but there's no doubt that the popularity of trump is a reaction to Obama and the first black president but also everything they've met and so I think a previous question was asking if the country it changed one of the things I go back very often. It's the number of a trump supporters that say they backed him because of their own cultural anxieties about the direction in which the the country was going that doesn't just mean having people of color like the president in high positions of leadership and influence in the culture but also the the demographics looking different. I mean there are communities that have large Latino populations relations that have like no Latinos thirty years ago and that's been very difficult for some Americans. The progress according to the left on issues related to gender and sexuality have been quite difficult for a lot of traditionalist us more women in positions of power and influence in the metoo movement calling behavior and words unacceptable that have been common in workplace environments for decades L._G._B._T.. Issues becoming core platform issues on the left and. And even conservatives speaking out about the importance of giving gay Americans more rights there are a lot of Americans who just feel like this is moved very quickly and in ways that make them uncomfortable and either want to see things slow down in that as they move in that direction or or go backwards and go back meaning again making America great again the idea that America was great before these things were in place. You wrote about something last week that some may have missed with everything else that was going on congressman. Mike Kelly a white Republican from Pennsylvania told Vice News that he is a person of color and here's what he said quote you know they talk about about people of Color. I'm a person of color. I'm white. I'm Anglo Saxon. People say things all the time but I don't get offended with a name like Mike Kelly. You can't be from any place but Ireland Eugene. How do you explain the term people people of Color to congressman Kelly and others like him who just don't seem to get it? Yeah I mean so I don't know representative Kelly. I don't know if he actually knows what it means or even cares but what what I do know is that that statement I don't think was Israeli about the exclusivity of the term people of color but just really trying to respond to people of Color and other marginalized communities about what he perceives as them being overly sensitive and getting round up about things that that he thinks they should not but if he's open to the conversation I would explain that the the phrase people have colored became popular in the Nineteen Seventies. Although we know that it has been used since at least the mid nineteenth century to refer for two people of color usually people who were neither black or white but mixed race people during slavery in the years following but in the nineteen seventies people of color really took on more popularity for a few reasons up until that point the most common I'm in way to identify people of Color West minorities or a non white people in the recent trouble. Some for some people is because both of those phrases are a reaction to whiteness and are centered centered whiteness the ideas what you are is that you're not white it was also concerning for people because they weren't always accurate so let's take Washington D._C.. For example <hes> there were years in the nineteen seventies where Washington D._C.. was seventy percent black and so to call a group that seventy percent of the population that minority mathematically is just inaccurate network for the chocolate city doesn't right and so and that that people were really frustrated about that and it's not even a rejection of whiteness it wasn't about whiteness being wrong as much as they're making room for just the diversity of communities and how to be able to identify them in ways that were accurate but I am a bit sensitive at best nice to people who do struggle with the appropriate terminology of groups be they people of color or members of the L._G._B._T.. Community because the truth is we do identify people in ways now that perhaps we and like twenty years ago once upon a time like the word colored and Negro were acceptable that are no longer acceptable and then you have words like queer which were unacceptable but now they are acceptable and so keeping up with how groups when identify is not easy but when you really do care to represent the interests of your constituents that's the least of your concerns and I think his statement with all due respect. What's a bit disingenuous? I would not assume if I saw the name Mike Kelly sitting on a piece of paper. It was an Irish immigrant or the a descendant of Irish immigrants <hes> and I don't think most people would but I do think that at best and I feel like maybe being a bit charitable where representative Kelly Kelly may have been tapping into is the fact that Irish immigrants once upon a time did find themselves offs on the receiving end of criticism not that different from what we hear now directed towards Latinos we definitely saw the Irish emigrants were accused of being you know subversive or taking all of the jobs that being a part of your narrative using that as excuse to dismiss the concerns of other demographic groups is a bit odd. You would think that one would tap into their own experience and say I know where you're coming from considering that. Perhaps my grandparents went through the same thing. Do you think he just you set it to perhaps encourage or give a wink to president trump to continue with the racist attacks. I definitely think he wanted to make it clear to president trump that he was not disavowing the president's words or pushing back or criticizing him which is something we've seen multiple Republicans do for a very important reason the republican electorates with President Trump. They've made that very clear and to criticize the president in a way that irks him is to put your your seat in jeopardy also last week you wrote about the history and the use of the phrase quote go back to where you came from and how it's been applied to black Americans in particular and here's what you wrote quote a big part of the reason for the immense backlash to President Trump's weekend tweets telling four democratic congresswoman to quote go back to where they came from is that phrases well-worn use in racist. I end xenophobic ways to talk about the history of the phrase a little bit and how it has engendered racist policies. Yeah we saw go back use this week towards Americans who are of Asian descent and Latin American countries in <hes> African countries but it really picked picked up steam here in the states as the abolitionist movement was becoming increasingly effective in moving towards the end of slavery and so you had organizations usually led by White Americans who found bounce slavery to be troublesome but did not want black people who were enslaved to have the same rights and privileges as white Americans and so they were trying to figure out what do you do when slavery ends and and you have these communities that are predominantly consisted of black people but white people still want to maintain power some individuals including people of faith including people who thought of themselves as more progressive on issues. I thought the best solution was for these black people to go back to Africa or the Caribbean or South America but anywhere that made it less likely that they would dismantle the structures that had been put in place in the United States and so that was like the first time we really saw go back really surface but repeatedly throughout history since then it's resurfaced whenever black people began to complain and protest and attempt to dismantle white supremacy eugene covering identity politics for the Washington Post. I'm sure you and your editors have had to wrestle with how to deal with racism defining it and how and when do you call someone a racist. Can you talk a little bit about that. Absolutely we had our top editor Marty Baron right about how we decided to identify trump's tweets as races and it's a very detailed approach. I believe helping people understand why we thought it was important to do that and and and it is in part because of the go back sentiments really are rooted in the desire to discriminate innate against people of Color. I was working on a piece just today with my editor that I did not finish about one of the reasons I believe the Republican Party is having a hard time getting on the same page and how it responds it's too trump is in part because so many people have different ideas about what racism is and is not there are individuals who think something it's only racist when it hits extreme levels when someone uses the N. Word or someone one is lynched and there are other individuals who believe that racism is is simply having a prejudice and <hes> preference regarding one ethnicity over others and there are other people who also believe that racism is rooted at least in America and a contract that just sensors whiteness right and so you can't talk about racism in America without talking about white supremacy and so getting people on the same page about racism is very difficult. And it's increasingly difficult when you move and spaces where it just simply even acknowledging raising talking about race is viewed as difficult and negative and something to be avoided so a new saw the rally in Greenville last week and Dan saw a sea of white faces chanting sent her back are those people racists. I would think that most of them are and it wasn't because of the send them back. I would think that most of the individuals saying that these lawmakers need to go back Hoda view that says America is at its greatest when people are embracing a hierarchy that is rooted and the values and politics of the pass and not moving towards the diversity of what these lawmakers are hoping to build. I may have known some folks there I know or or maybe I knew no one there. That's it's a harder. That's a hard question to answer. After hearing you know just one phrase but I think the easier question for me would be to ask them. Why should I not think you are racist after chanting that back after those tweets for and supporting this administration given its policies since they want and let me stay on this for one more hard question and give it back to Katie are one hundred ninety seven Republicans whose refused refused to condemn the sentiments in the tweet? Are they racist or they racist enablers. They're definitely trump enablers and that is what we know for sure <hes> these are lawmakers who some of whom went it's public with their disdain for the president's comments but chose not to actually go on the record as condemning him in part because they fear him and he's been proven to be effective in responding responding harshly to those in his party who criticize them and so these lawmakers do enable the president to continue to behave and speak and act in the way that he thinks his best. I'M GONNA lead off with a quote from American novelist less Toni Morrison and follow up with with something else. I saw this week to couch. This question that I'm going to ask Tony Morrison said quote the function. The very serious function of Racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work and Bakari sellers the he's on C._N._N.. Also the the South Carolina state legislature this week said let's not get bogged down on the fact that the president is in fact racist. That's too simplistic. Let's focus on systems of oppression in this country. Racism is pervasive so the question is this when these comments come out when President Trump tweets racist comments and we already have a lot of evidence on the table to indicate that he is in fact racists. It's news was that he tweets it but in it is your job to cover it and it is the the squad's job the congresswoman's job to put their head down and keep doing the work of the people that they represent but for the rest of us in the middle. How do we grapple with this this when it happens is it to engage with it to talk about it to call it out or is it to not let that be a distraction? Call it what it is a distraction and move on because we already have enough evidence that this is a racist president and and we don't need to know any more than that what's next. What's our role there for all of us in between it's really difficult? I mean it always depends on what else is happening. What issues are connected to the incident that led that conversation in that moment to begin so one thing Republicans who've been critical of the president have said is explain why these lawmakers world views and policies are troublesome and don't tell them to just get out explain explain to your base why you think they are harmful focused on the policy focus on the issues? The squad has really in this past week really tried to stay in front of the cameras explaining the things that they believe will make America great and thinks that the president is pushing back on and so there really is a way to talk about both and racism has to be spoken about especially when it's coming from positions of power and privilege in the government they shouldn't be ignored. His tweet should not be ignored their official White House statements and we have to find a way to talk about all of it in a way that leaves readers and consumers as informed as possible about what is going on Eugene. I guess one last big question and and it's hard to answer with any certainty but it's a two parter. What's the possibility that this works that the way the country is the dividing the country in half will lead to trump's reelection and if that happens where does the conversation about race in this country go to well? I think there's a good chance that the president will be reelected anyone covering the Democratic Party or at least I should say the left knows that the left ideologically is far more diverse than the right is the right is largely behind. Donald Trump never trumpers and Republicans who do not support the president art are not a large enough number number two have any significant shaping impact on their side this whole thing started because of disagreements on the left between Nancy Pelosi Establishment and the Progressive Base and so the spectrum Ron's far more broadly than we even talk talk about it just within the Democratic Party not even mentioned outside of the Democratic Party folks like Bernie Sanders and so I believe that diversity could be so split up so divided that it's that the left will not rally behind nine a candidate enough and twenty twenty two defeat trump <hes> we know that the states that trump needed to win in two thousand Sixteen Michigan Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have large percentages white working class voters and so the the left putting for a candidate that can encourage its base to turn out and nip away at some of the independent voters and maybe even some of the voters that self identifies Republican is quite a feat and so it's not impossible but I don't think anyone looking at the current political climate would look at this race and conclude that trump doesn't have a shot. I has a very good shot and if trump continues to be trump which he is most likely to do there is not going to be a pivot. I think most people understand that at this moment then conversations about race will continue and move forward in those of us who write about it because we see how it affects business and culture and faith in sports and entertainment will be very busy but it will probably be very busy even if trump loses because this president has has greatly reshaped this country in terms of how we talk about identity think about identity and and view it and I speak with voters on a regular basis who who find themselves thinking about the diversity of this country and how that shapes policy making in politics in ways that they had not before and that's not necessarily negative. That's just to become aware of the fact at this country has three hundred million people in and passing policies and laws and ideas the benefit all of them or as many of them as possible is very very difficult. Let me finish with one last question Russian Eugene. Is there any silver lining in this. Is there any silver lining in the fact that the dog whistle is gone. We now have a president who's willing to come out and speak as a racist openly brazenly. Can we look at that and say this is a moment where just by the sheer audacity and immorality of Donald Trump that this has surfaced an issue that we now can no longer ignore I entered enter the mainstream media at least re entered after Grad school after studying a public policy and so I'm a policy nerd and I like to talk about you know these white papers and how we can put forward things that make improve who've that may improve a community and one of the things I've been enjoying so far with this campaign. which is what happens when you have five thousand people running for president? It's that so many people are putting out plans and ideas about how to fix tissues and many of the issues that people are talking about are so rooted in discrimination and so one of the one of the great examples is we had way more conversation in two thousand sixteen about income inequality will you can't talk about. The wealth gap between black people and white people or that's you know people in White people without talking about racism. You can't talk about unequal pay with between women and men you can't talk about the absence of access to health care gaps APPs wise in rural communities versus more suburban affluent communities without talking about race and so on nightly news I mean we're seeing experts. Come in from academia and think tanks that are really discussing topics topics at a depth that I don't think we had before previously and I think the the move towards finding solutions to some of these problems. It's more likely where we currently are just because everything is so out front and on the table and I think that's good well. We appreciate you coming on and sharing all that with us again where we know you're busy and it's it's GonNa get even busier given the fact that this is going to be a central part of the trump campaign and that is heating up right in front of our eyes. Thank you so much for having me. Thanks Gene Joe and I are pleased to welcome our next <unk> guest Molly O'Toole. Molly is an immigration reporter for the Los Angeles Times based here in Washington D._C.. Previously she was a senior reporter. At foreign policy covering the two thousand sixteen election and trump administration molly has covered immigration and security from Mexico Central America West Africa the Middle East the Gulf and South Asia Molly O'Toole welcome to words matter. Thanks for coming molly. There's been a lot of rhetoric around immigration building the wall Mexico paying for U._S.. Policy each side pointing fingers at the other in the midst of that the administration seems to have made a very important decision on changing our asylum policy and they did it in a somewhat unique way can can you talk for a minute about what they did and what it means for people trying to reach this country last week the trump administration took a really significant step probably the most aggressive step they've taken so far to essentially dismantle the U._S.. Asylum system and they did so by publishing a rule in the Federal Register on Monday that took effect on Tuesday and it essentially says that any migrant that arrives arrives at the United States who has transited at least one country prior to arriving at the southern land border of the United States is no longer eligible to apply for asylum in the United States and that basically clean wipes out any asylum claim at the southern border because most migrants have to travel through at least one country in order to get there except for Mexican residents and so basically wipes out everyone else and it's the it's really quite it's significant that they're doing this and they're already. We should note that there already is a lawsuit from the A._C._l._U. and several other groups to challenge it because at least on its face in several ways directly contradicts U._S. Asylum Law U._S. Immigration Law Yeah that took twenty four hours for them to file I think in the northern district of California right at least one there right so they filed in San Francisco and obviously the president has made clear his own displeasure with the with the courts out West because they have blocked several of his immigration policies. Let's see so far and it's expected potentially that they could do so again. They did take twenty four hours to file. I think they were also waiting for the policy to actually go into effect right so the rule was published on Monday. A Federal Register took effect act on Tuesday last Tuesday so this means that people come from Guatemala Honduras El Salvador in some ways the bulk of the people coming to the southern border. Now we'll be denied the ability to apply hi for political asylum and may have an impact on people coming from other countries also right right it it certainly <hes> the way a lot of the coverage was framed as that this was directed towards Central Americans. It's not it's actually directed toward anyone while Al Central Americans account for the majority particularly Central American families and unaccompanied minors account for the majority of arrivals at the southern border right now and have for some time they're actually people coming from all over the world <unk> who are using the essentially not only Central America but also South America basically as a Land Bridge to get to the U._S.. Mexico border where they can claim asylum so I was recently doing reporting in South Texas and in northern Mexico and meeting people in an impromptu refugee camp in this small Mexican city and people from Cameroon people from Angola people from the Democratic Republic of Congo a lot of Haitians a lot of Cubans Cubans so people from all over the world and this policy is not ex-. It's not explicit. It's not specific to Central Americans. It's really anyone who's transit another country. I should note they're very narrow exceptions in the rule but they're so narrow as to basically be negligible one which is it's almost comical how impossible it is. There's an exception if you transit directly from a handful of countries around the world who are not signatories to the conventions against torture conventions on refugees so if somehow managed to come directly from North Korea Myanmar then potentially be eligible for asylum the United States obviously that itinerary doesn't even exist so some of these exceptions that have been carved out in this rule are basically next to impossible and do you have a theory theory about giving it the the import of this why this hasn't gotten the attention that rhetoric like build the wall or send them back or things like that well. I think it was it was approached in a different way. Play was published quietly in the Federal Register last Monday and that something probably that a lot of the American public aren't even familiar with and so sort of done as an administrative rule after the fact we have the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice who put out a joint statement but there wasn't any big press conference about it. The president didn't announce it in advance in fact he's hardly addressed it this week. He sort of address it obliquely in some remarks in a cabinet meeting and when you look at the published published rule so they were sort of it's it's a little wonky and if you look at the language that the government uses in the rule it's really interesting. They said part of the reason they didn't do a sort of public comment period which is generally required with a when a rule is published in the Federal Register is because they didn't want to give the Central American countries and Mexico heads up because they thought efforts would be taken to block it and they also talked about how they're basically using this as leverage in the ongoing negotiations she ations to try and force Mexico and then countries further south particularly Guatemala to agree to what's known as safe third country agreement by which if any migrant pass through their country before attempting to claim asylum in the United States dates they'd be ineligible because that country would be considered quote unquote safe but what this new rule does it effectively says that the entire world is a safe third country without the rest of the world having agreed but I thought it was really interesting the language if you actually read the rule that the administration us they seem to be acknowledging that they almost expected it to be struck down but they were using it as a leverage point in these ongoing ago negotiation sort of failing to get Guatemala Kamala to agree or Mexico to agree to safe third country agreement. This is what they were then going to be using in the meantime right there effectively by bypassing this this noticing comment period this period that would allow the public to generally comment on the rule which is required under the law they are yes carving out all of those countries that would be able to comment or try and get around the rule but they're also not allowing the American public who has a right to comment on these rules before they become public to engage in this process of making the rule of final on their cutting off the ability of anyone in the American public to be able to participate in this rulemaking process but it's not the first time the trump administration has bypassed this notice and comment period this period that allows input from the various constituencies that at our engaged in that have equities in the decisions that they're making related to asylum so we could talk all day about asylum. We want to ask you about a few more things before we let you go notably your reporting in some other areas including the ice rates that. I have been a hot topic for the past week. Ice Rates were supposed to take place in approximately tenuous cities weekend before last over the weekend and I want to quote from your reporting on this issue the on again off again raids favored by the White House and some of the president's most hard-line AIDS are also deepening fissures within his already embattled department of Homeland Security so what actually happened with the raids and is this part of a larger battle within the trump administration on immigration immigration. Absolutely I think we should read it this way. So obviously this is the second time in which the president acknowledged or announced that there were going to be the sort of mass raids and there was a differing reporting about how big they would be eh this time <hes> they were talking about targeting two thousand Central American families mostly recent arrivals who they said had final orders of removal and basically hadn't shown up for court hearings. There's some dispute about actually that in and of itself there's been issues with essentially final orders removal being issued without the person ever having known about their court appearance and so there's been some challenges with that but we the first time the president announced bounce the raids and then essentially immigration and customs enforcement had to pull back because they said well they're they're agents were endanger and essentially that the operation was undermined. The president announced it himself but there was a feeling lying within ice and there was some anonymous comments came from the administration that Somehow Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin macalinsan had given out certain operational details to some reporters and that was the real reason that the rates were called off the first time so then we have this second go around the president did also confirmed it was going to happen. The New York Times reported that it was going to happen now. It should be noted that ice officials were really reticent to comment on this. They said we're not going to essentially they weren't going to undermine fine the operation by giving out the details because in theory if you actually wanted to conduct raids and remove people from the country you would do it quietly. You wouldn't want to give them any notice so that people knew that they were going to becoming essentially so this is twice now where it's been publicized in some way and then they sort of pulled back again now ice does sort of do their ongoing raids on a smaller scale so part of it is okay. What is this big operation that the administration in his highlighting and what is normal business? What is a political spin to make it look like the trump administration is really cracking down on people who are inside the country with orders of removal or who are here illegally and what is just sort of normal operations transfer is so there's a lot of that going on but I think the important thing to look at now twice at this has happened? Is it really does reveal tensions within the Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security. Has I think it's about a dozen vacancies in top leadership posts acting in front of almost every title that comes up almost no one is Senate confirmed at this point the purge quote unquote purge that sort of started with the ouster of Kirstin Nielsen and that came shortly on the heels of of the man who the trump administration had actually formally nominated to lead ice. They withdrew his nomination at the last minute the next day Nielsen the former Homeland Security Secretary who was confirmed she resigns this perch really has been in continuing and it has revealed tensions within the Department of Homeland Security and so now there's tensions with Mac lean and his the acting homeland security secretary and with Mark Morgan who has moved over from the acting head of ice and was a really strong advocate of these raids the quote unquote family up what they were calling it and he's now moved over to be the head of customs and Border Protection which is the parent agency of Border Patrol so there's a lot of tension within D._H._A.. Is that tension with India. H S BETWEEN D H S in the White House or within the White House or all of the above all of the above okay. There seems to be a lot of disagreement because there's there's I mean the the heart of the matter is that there's ongoing frustration within the trump administration that they essentially the president campaigned on reducing immigration immigration and stepping up enforcement and while the first year of the trump administration of fiscal year two thousand seventeen which part of it is the Obama White House it was fifty year lows in terms of apprehensions at the border which is the best measure we use for illegal immigration fifty year lows their first year and then it steadily started creeping up again and there's still continued frustration within the White House that no matter how aggressive the steps they've taken to reduce immigration both legal and illegal they haven't been able all to turn back that trend they haven't been able to reduce that number. We now have one month in June in which there was a decrease but they're still frustration within the White House that essentially no matter how hard line AH policy they try and implement they haven't actually succeeded in deterring that migration Maui. Isn't it possible that much if not all of this is is just political I look at the ice rates and I see that the president didn't have that much interest in ice rates. He wanted to look tough but he also wanted to scare the hell out of a lot of people who are here that are undocumented and those people who went into hiding last weekend. They don't really care whether the rates were real or not. They were afraid and so a lot of people have said that when it comes to trump cruelty is the point you put people in cages so that more people won't come again that Stephen Miller is upset that one more person came into this country but isn't a lot of this if not all driven by politics politics I think much of it is with the ice rates as you rightly noted and think it almost doesn't matter whether it does matter. I don't mean to suggest it doesn't matter especially to people's you know it does matter to people's lives but we try and look at it from a political analysis standpoint almost doesn't matter whether they go forward or not part of the intention is the fear that's created is the appearance of doing something of being aggressive and it doesn't actually matter whether the ice rates take place or not but one the interesting effects of these on again off again ice rates especially after last weekend is it seems one of the biggest takeaways is that people now have more clarity about their rights. There's been some reporting that they could be routine. Ice Enforcement Zeman actions that have taken place over the last couple of days and people have an open their doors because it was widely publicized that you don't have to open your door to an ice agent unless they have a warrant that signed by judge so while the trump administration I do believe there's a political political intent was sort of creating this fear and this appearance of action whether or not the action actually happens it could have backfired in another way which is to make people more aware of their rights but I think the connection that you made we can also connect it with the new asylum rule and these on again off again rates. There almost seems to be the expectation that the new asylum rule isn't going to stand but it still a win that can be pulled out by the trump administration if it does get blocked by the courts or if the ice rates don't I don't in fact happen molly based on your reporting down at the border and the and your colleagues I'd love to get your thoughts on the conditions down there vice president pence was there now with a while ago and he came came out and said it was akin to summer camp. There are others that call them concentration camps. I'm interested in what you believe about the conditions and then secondly how much of this is intentional cruelty. How much of this is an administration? That just doesn't know what the Hell it's doing. It can't manage something this complicated I wished I had the answer between the degree to which it's intentional cruelty and simply administrative dysfunction we talked about all all of the vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security the tensions within Homeland Security Agency to agency within the leadership between the White House and Homeland Security so there certainly is evidence of bureaucratic dysfunction and that absolutely contributes to so they're flailing response to the situation at the border. I also think that the president in his rhetoric his top aides and his top officials they've been explicit in that a lot of these policies are intended to who deter and so there is an element of intentional cruelty there what's really interesting about the revelations about con detention conditions and we're talking about a few different areas. We're talking about detention conditions. Editions at Border Patrol facilities that are never meant to hold people. They're supposed to be sort of just temporary processing facilities the most immediate place people might go. We're talking at the border. We're talking about customs and Border Protection facilities which are also supposed to be temporary holding finding facilities but they're for little sort of longer term processing and then we have immigration and customs enforcement facilities and those are longer term detention that would happen before a person is removed within the United States and then we're talking about health human services and they're the ones charged with taking care of unaccompanied minors so all these things have been conflicted but together they they should be seen as a I think symptomatic of really terrible conditions across all the agencies across the border and Homeland Security the trump administration and homeland security officials have sort of pushed back and said that these claims about terrible conditions are unsubstantiated and that has not been what we have found in our reporting the Homeland Security Department also before some of this came out basically offered no access to these detention facilities ones that they were in charge of but H._H._S. also doesn't offer much access to the detention facility so the most of the reporting that we got were from people who came out of them and we're describing things like not being given any access to showers not being given access to enough water basically being fed cookies three times a day or meals that were not nutritional and very small and so always being hungry the term that's been used for a long time is Allegra for some of the detention facilities which means icebox in Spanish so describing being very cold only being given a space blanket they have described these conditions and this was sort of the best we could do but then once all of the reporting comes out then see B._p.. Gives access to these detention facilities these choreographed tours and said see look everything is fine even though they weren't offering access to those facilities before so the pushback from Homeland Security and from the administration that these descriptions of really horrible conditions not just for migrant children for migrants in general at the border that doesn't follow with our reporting it doesn't follow with with the government's own reporting Inspector General Accountability Office with court appointed lawyers and doctors who have gone into these facilities and there's also been an interesting rhetorical turn Kevin McLean in acting homeland security secretary is basically saying saying we warned you. We've been asking for money for a year now and we warned you how bad things were getting and how overstretched we were but congress. You wouldn't give us the money and so this is your this is essentially your fault which I think is a very interesting getting rhetorical. Turn also especially because now they have passed the humanitarian bill which is four point six billion dollars. It doesn't answer for all the various ways in which we know that the Department of Homeland Security is not spending. The money already has efficiently patiently. This is not just a matter of O._C.. B._P. was trying its best with a difficult situation. No there are laws about how migrants should be held and those laws were broken doesn't matter if you're in a difficult situation or not that's not some kind of legal exception and so it'll be interesting to see what kind of accountability there will be. If any for those conditions that we've reported on and others have reported on regardless of whether homeland security officials in the White House wants to either claim it's unsubstantiated or that somehow the fault of the Congress. I would imagine that if you're you're cold you're hungry. You have no place to sleep and you haven't showered in a month. It doesn't matter whether it's intentional cruelty or bureaucratic screw ups. It's shameful Holden's happening in this country Maui. Thanks for joining us. We learned a lot here yeah. We'll certainly invite you back. Once we get to the accountability phase of this conversation and we look forward to it. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me all right Joe so for what's on your mind this week. I want to go back to your famous. Now maybe infamous op Ed to impeach or not to impeach in the great debate with Felipe here and on their podcasts unredacted. Are you still toeing the line on do not impeach is getting harder. Trump makes it harder and bill bar makes it harder and the brazenness of defying congressional authority it makes it harder but you know my bottom line in that piece was that I think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party and this past week is a prime example of that. He has taking the party to a place where he's now espousing his own racism as the party's racism and there are only four members of his party in Congress who are willing to stand up to him and I think in the long run rather than then go through an impeachment process that will get blocked in the Senate. The country will be in a better place a more progressive place as the Republican Party collapses unto itself because you know as I argued in the piece the things that Republicans have been known for Free Trade that brings economic expansion here at home and creates jobs being tough on communism and dictators particularly in Russia. All those things are gone. They all of the foundations of the the Republican Party are gone except for one and that's you know what I politely call intolerance. That's the racism xenophobia the homophobia and that's what trump has left for the party when he's gone you you you can be certain that some in the party might WanNa go back to some of their previous positions but the party will be leaderless and without foundation and I think in the long run that's the price here. The price here is to not only undo what trump is done to the country culturally politically at the Supreme Court is to turn the government around the priorities around to more closely match where the people are which I firmly believe or in a much more progressive place than the Republican Party can even begin to address all right and we also saw in the past week that the southern district of New York concluded the campaign finance finance investigation involving Michael Cohen and the trump organization and individual one who we all know is president trump. What do you make of no further charges and how that investigation wrapped up? I think it's really curious. I think there was a lot of informed speculation from people who used to work in the southern district of New York whose legal expertise is unparalleled that there would be more action on that case we we know from the indictment of Michael Cohen that individual one now the government officially recognizes as the president of the United States is in all intents and purposes and Unindicted Co conspirator we know from the documents that were released in the middle of last week that the president was intimately involved in the transactions in the plotting to silence stormy Daniels and MS McDougal but it's it is does stretch credibility. I think that other people in the organization this the C._F._O.. For example and other people in the trump organization were also not involved so I don't think we know the end of this story yet and I think a big question and we may not be able to I answer this until this president has gone is the role of Bill Bar. He is clearly serving first as the president's personal defense attorney and second as the Attorney General and I think it will be very important and get his role defined and whether he used his position as attorney general as the head of the southern district of New York and all of the other districts to terminate this investigation because I think that raises multiple troubling doing questions the final question I have is it is it's clear from the more investigation and they conversation around that that D._O._J.. Does not think a president can be indicted so that's a potential reason and why president trump was not indicted in this case the evidence is clear that he was a conspirator and the question will be when there's another attorney general in January of two thousand twenty one whether the president will face charges in this campaign finance conspiracy. That's an open question and I think we'll get answers to both that question and the role of attorney general bar only after trump is out of office all right Joe Thank you. That's all we've got this week. We'll.

president President Trump US America Republican Party White House Homeland Security Department department of Homeland Securit Donald Trump Washington Post Ireland Eugene Katie Barlow Democratic Party Barack Obama Joe Lockhart Gene Joe Lee atwater Department of Homeland Securit Mexico Congress