Thursday, March 2, 2017

Dreamer Arrested After Speaking To Media Will Be Deported Without Hearing, Attorney Says

“ICE’s assertion that her detention is ‘routine’ is absurd and seems anything but,” one lawmaker said.


Go to Original
By Elise Foley, Dana Liebelson

WASHINGTON ― A 22-year-old undocumented immigrant arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday after speaking to the media about her family’s detention is set to be deported without a court hearing, her attorney said on Thursday.
Daniela Vargas, who came to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 7 years old, previously had a work permit and deportation reprieve under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Her DACA status expired last November, and because she was saving money for the renewal — which costs $495 — her new application wasn’t received until Feb. 10.
On Wednesday, a spokesman for ICE said Vargas would go through court proceedings to determine whether she is eligible for some type of relief, adding that the agency would take no further action until those proceedings were completed.
But Abby Peterson, Vargas’ attorney, said ICE agents told her on Thursday that they would instead pursue immediate deportation without a court hearing or bond because Vargas entered the country through the visa waiver program, which allows certain foreign nationals to enter the U.S. for under 90 days without a visa. (Argentina was previously part of the program, although it no longer is.) Individuals who use the visa waiver program have no right to a hearing or to contest their removal unless they are seeking asylum.
Peterson argued that the facts of Vargas’ case should be considered, including that she received DACA relief and had reapplied to the program.
“She was 7 years old at the time [she came to the U.S.],” Peterson said. “She didn’t waive those rights, her parents waived those rights. And now she’s an adult trying to assert her own rights.”
An ICE spokesman said the agency has no additional comment on Vargas’ case and directed The Huffington Post to the statement it made on Wednesday.
She was 7 years old at the time [she came to the U.S.]. She didn’t waive those rights, her parents waived those rights. And now she’s an adult trying to assert her own rights.Abby Peterson, attorney for Daniela Vargas
Vargas’ father and brother were detained on their way to work on Feb. 15. After her father was apprehended in the driveway, Vargas hid in the house for hours until ICE agents came in with a warrant, wielding guns. Agents questioned Vargas about her DACA status — an ICE official claimed she said she had it — but let her go.
When HuffPost emailed with her on Tuesday, Vargas — who was planning to go back to school to study to be a math professor — said she was moving around because she was “afraid to stay in one spot and be taken back to Argentina.”
Vargas talked to news outlets about ICE picking up her brother and father, and on Wednesday, she appeared at a press conference about immigrants’ contributions to the community. She was pulled over and arrested by ICE after leaving the press conference that day.
Vargas’ plight has drawn the attention of numerous immigration advocates, inspiring several social media hashtags — including #FreeDaniela. United We Dream, an immigrant rights group, also started a petition asking DHS Secretary John Kelly to grant her protection from deportation, which had received more than 11,000 signatures by Thursday
Several lawmakers have raised questions about Vargas’ detention. “ICE’s assertion that her detention is ‘routine’ is absurd and seems anything but,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement on Thursday. “Those like Ms. Vargas just want a better life for themselves and their families.”
Vargas is currently being held at an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. She asked Peterson to share her message that she wants a chance to contribute to the U.S. 
“I strongly feel that I belong here and I strongly feel that I should be given a chance to be here and do something good and work in this economy,” Vargas said, according to Peterson, who recorded their conversation.
“I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.”
Read Vargas’ full comments on her detention below:
I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can. I mean I can’t help that I was brought here but I don’t know anything else besides being here and I didn’t realize that until I was in a holding cell last night for 5 hours. I was brought here. I didn’t choose to be here. And when I was brought here, I had to learn a whole new country and leave behind the one that I did know. And I barely knew that one. I feel, I strongly feel that I belong here and I strongly feel that I should be given a chance to be here and do something good and work in this economy. There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Did Trump reverse an Obama order last month because he knew there would be a Sessions-Russia investigation?

Go to Original
By 

On  Feb. 9,  the same day current Attorney General Jeff Sessions was sworn into office, Donald Trump quietly signed an executive order that effectively changed the line of succession within the Department of Justice, laying out who will succeed Sessions in the event he dies, resigns or otherwise becomes incapacitated.

Trump’s order was a reversal of one signed a month prior by then-president Barack Obama. A week before leaving office, Obama authorized Executive Order 13762, “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice.” That order inexplicably removed Obama appointee Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, from the DOJ line of succession. As USA Today reports, at the time Obama offered no justification for why he removed an attorney he appointed from the order of succession within the DOJ.
Fast-forward to Jan. 30, less than two weeks after Trump took office, when the president dramatically fired Obama holdover Sally Yates as Acting Attorney General after she refused to defend Trump’s controversial (and ultimately futile) immigration ban. As Sessions had yet to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Trump was able to elevate whomever he pleased to take Yates’ place.
If Boente’s name sounds familiar, that’s not surprising. In the wake of Yates’ ouster, Trump asked Boente to serve as Acting AG. The Virginia attorney was officially named Acting Attorney General on Feb. 9, the same day Sessions was sworn into office—and the same day Trump signed the executive order reversing Obama’s line of succession.
On Thursday, Sessions announced he would recuse himself from any investigation into Russia’s involvement with the 2016 presidential election, after the Washington Postreported that he failed to disclose multiple meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during his confirmation hearing. As Politico’s Eric Geller reports, Boente will now take over “any election-related investigations.”
News of Boente’s elevated role in the investigation comes after a New York Times report published Wednesday revealed that in the waning days of the Obama administration, the White House scrambled to disseminate information about Russia’s efforts to undermine the election, as well as potential ties between Trump associates and Russian officials. According to the Times, the Obama administration’s goal was two-fold: to make sure Russia never interfered in that capacity again, and to present a clear trail of evidence for investigators.
Though officials told the Times that “none of the efforts were directed by” the former president, it reflects an unease the prior administration harbored regarding a possible connection between Moscow and Trump.
In December, Obama ordered a full assessment of Russian influence in the 2016 election. The 17 agencies and offices that comprise the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in an effort to help elect Trump. The full extent of Russia’s interference—and the Trump campaign’s potential involvement—is currently under investigation; as the story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: Despite the administration’s claims to the contrary, there is a “there” there.

‘The fuse is lit’: Dan Rather says Trump-Russia scandal is about to go off like a bomb

Go to Original
By 

Veteran CBS News anchor Dan Rather wrote on Facebook Thursday that the scandal over Pres. Donald Trump’s personal and political connections to the Russian government and those of his aides is like a bomb with a lit fuse.
“Every once in a while in Washington, the fuse is lit for what seems to be a big scandal,” said Rather. “Much more rarely does that fuse lead to an explosion of the magnitude we are seeing with Russia and the new Administration, and frankly the Republicans in Congress.”
With revelations that Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions apparently perjured himself regarding contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, another key Trump appointee appears to be on the verge of going down in flames like national security adviser Gen. Mike Flynn.
Flynn resigned last month after wiretaps on Kislyak’s phone revealed that he and Flynn had multiple conversations prior to the president’s inauguration that Flynn later lied about to the public and to Vice President Mike Pence.
“Sessions is but the latest person close to President Trump who seems to be ensnared in a story that is more worthy of Hollywood melodrama than the reality of the governance of our country. Democrats are calling for Sessions to resign, and this story could move very quickly,” said Rather on Facebook.
He continued, “We are well past the time for any political niceties or benefits of the doubt. We need an independent and thorough investigation of Russia’s meddling in our democracy and its ties to the President and his allies. We don’t know what we don’t know.”
“The press is doing an admirable job,” he wrote. “But there is only so much it can do without such things as subpoena powers. Let’s just make this clear. This is about a foreign and hostile power trying to influence our election while being in contact with close aides to the presidential campaign that the Kremlin wanted to win. Furthermore, there are serious questions about Mr Trump’s longstanding ties to Russian money and influence peddlers. We don’t know where this might go, but it isn’t going away.”

What Really Scared Me About Trump's Speech

Go to Original
By Kelly Hayes

I didn't watch Donald Trump's speech Tuesday night, not because I was skipping it in protest, but because I was otherwise engaged. I was on a panel at a bookstore in Chicago, discussing civil disobedience. I didn't really need to know the content of the speech to know my time would be better spent discussing activation and strategy, rather than drinking my way through another round of "Just How Doomed Are We?" I knew I would get the full rundown when I got home, and catch all the varying takes online in the morning because, well, that's part of my job. When I did get caught up, I didn't find much of the news surprising, but as any marginalized person can tell you, you don't have to be surprised by something to be frightened by it, and here's what scares me: Trump is upping his game, and we, as resisters, aren't ready.
Some have raged against the praise Trump has received. I've seen many posts and tweets bristling at the notion that actually reading from a teleprompter, and thus not losing his way mid-sentence, made Trump more "presidential" than he's been in the past, but let's be real. It does. To acknowledge that, of course, we have to put aside some cultural illusions about what the word "presidential" means. As far as I can tell, most people say it with some nostalgia for presidents they thought were particularly respectable, or even honorable. But as anyone with a sense of history can tell you, there is nothing inherently elegant or admirable about the presidency.

If you give the matter some thought, I'm sure you won't have to reach far for examples of presidents who don't match any lofty standard one might like to attach to "the leader of the free world" or the commander-in-chief of the US military. But truly, to have an honest conversation, we have to de-romanticize that office, and what it means for a man like Trump to sit in it. He is not the first president with conflicts of interest. He is not the first president with a racist, xenophobic, predatory agenda. And he has not yet begun to let loose the havoc that many before him have caused. Climate change and nuclear weapons give Trump more world-ending potential than most former presidents, but in a contest of character, well, let's just say that, be there a hell, Donald will no doubt run into at least a few of his predecessors in the Ninth Circle.
But as we all (hopefully) know, merely acting "presidential" will win over a lot of people who are inclined to sit back and "give him a chance."

People want to believe that they're safe, and that their system of government, albeit flawed, will never completely betray them. They want to believe that in spite of any conflict or tumult, the center will hold, and nothing extraordinarily awful will happen. And Tuesday night, they got a glimpse of the kind of consistency they've been longing for. A president, standing before a joint session of Congress, coherently reading from a teleprompter, and acknowledging the wife of a Navy Seal who was killed in action. Some characterized this act as exploitative -- and to be clear, it is -- but as Glenn Greenwald pointed out, that exploitation is also standard presidential behavior. Trump wasn't the first to invoke it, and if he doesn't manage to end the world as we know it, he won't be the last.

Trump hit a number of standard notes, for a presidential address, and the praise that followed is relatively unsurprising. The media is fickle, and so is the public, and too often, neither is concerned with details.
It shouldn't be easy to erase heinous policies that target marginalized people, just as it shouldn't be easy to erase the culture of hate that Trump's administration is cultivating, but we just saw a chilling demonstration of how distractible the public really is. Rather than talking about the substance of what Trump had to say, most focused on the style in which he said it.

Now, let's think about what this means, moving forward.

On Tuesday, Jeff Sessions announced that the federal government will lay off on civil rights investigations of police departments. As this news emerged on Twitter -- that the attorney general of the United States was tacitly cosigning police violence, including murders committed by police, the broader public conversation seemed fixed on Trump's presentation and presence. Even as Trump announced in his speech that he is creating a new office to track the crimes of immigrants, bringing to mind the Nazi propaganda tactic of publishing crimes committed by Jews, the conversation was centered on the feel of the speech, with more than one pundit saying that Trump truly became president Tuesday night.
Sadly, Trump has been president since he was inaugurated, and people living in the margins have felt the violence of his administration since that time. I sincerely wish that there were something decidedly unpresidential about his vicious agenda, but there isn't. If there were, countless American atrocities never would have occurred.

The initial stumbles of the administration, and Trump's general cluelessness, gave organizers a running start on the PR front, but that head start was never going to last. In his early weeks, the media didn't know what to make of the Trump administration. Trump's team was accused of being wickedly genius one week, and comically idiotic the next. And while it was my feeling, from the beginning, that Trump's crew had stumbled out of a clown car and into a space they didn't understand, I also knew that most of their setbacks would be temporary. I warned people, including myself, not to take comfort in Trump's cluelessness, or the cluelessness of his team, because they would get better at this. After all, they have no shortage of resources or advisers. Their ability to strategize was always going to have an upward trajectory.
And here we are.

The president spoke in complete sentences and praised a fallen soldier, and suddenly, for some people, the world isn't spinning out of control. This is the actual problem to address. Because, as much as I hate to say this loudly, we're not ready. We weren't ready when Trump got elected, and we're not ready now. These people have the full power of government behind them and they are laying out plans that end horribly for many of us. And yet, here we are, allowing establishment Democrats to call themselves "the resistance" and entertaining arguments about what failed candidate should have won and why.

I don't want to imply that no one is gearing up. Some people are already throwing down hard, and effectively. In California, some faith groups are openly offering residential sanctuary to the undocumented. There are plenty of people out there who recognize that this is a time of severity that requires aggressive action. But without thorough cultivation, mass movement momentum will fade. That will happen here and now, if we don't strategically mobilize. I obviously don't have a playbook for victory here. No one does, because we are living in a unique historic moment, but in the interest of being productive, I do have some advice, based on my own analysis and experience.
Get the names of failed candidates out of your mouths. Those fights are over, and the fights unfolding around us are life and death affairs. It isn't simply hubris to argue about Hillary and Bernie at this point. It's downright disrespectful to the people whose lives and rights we ought to be using our energies to defend.
Arguing about the failure of your preferred candidate is not social justice work, and it will avail us nothing.

Get your learn on. Most of what you've been told about past resistance movements is candy-coated garbage, generated by a system that doesn't want you to know how to adequately resist it. Most of us don't understand the past well enough to thoughtfully relate it to the present, and we bicker so much about the tactics being employed eight states away, or what ought to have happened eight months ago, that we are not learning fast enough, or building collective power fast enough. So start learning now. If you are interested in protest, find a direct action training in your area. Read up on varying tactics. Know the history of employing those tactics -- when they've worked, and when they haven't. Read up or get trained up in strategic campaign planning, to get a sense of how to structure the story you're telling. Because if you are trying to influence the public, you are telling a story, and it needs to be compelling and well thought out. There is an art to protest. Study it, and then live it.
Stop policing what everyone else is doing. Becoming a full-time movement critic is the fastest way to lose track of what's in front of you, and it's fruitless. The goal is to have a mass movement, and if we get there, none of us will have any centralized control of tactics or messaging. That's the way of things. We will disagree a lot. That's fine. People tend to characterize movements of yesteryear as having had some level of unity that puts us all to shame, but the truth is, changemakers, throughout history, have often found each other insufferable. If you read deeply into most of the movements the public tends to romanticize, you will find a broad spectrum of opinions on tactics, respectability and long-term visions. These conflicts have always been with us in movement work, but the people who got things done knew when to face forward and focus on the task at hand. We can and must challenge each other.
We can and must enact tactics that are transformational, as opposed to simply oppositional, but not everyone will line up with what everyone else has to say -- or what they choose to do -- and we are really going to need to learn to pick our battles. Please consider, we have not adequately begun to fight the real enemy, and we do not have the social infrastructure to protect and defend those who are in danger. Pick your battles, and prioritize. This is a time for triage, for preparation, for building relationships we didn't have before and approaching friends we haven't met yet. And if you are not spending a lot more time learning, healing and building than you are talking smack about other leftists, you are not helping us move forward.
Moving forward is a matter of survival for some of us, so I would appreciate it if we could get a move on.
Build culture and community. We need community spaces where we can learn history and tactics together. We need to break bread together. We need to get close enough to one another to understand that, whatever divides us, we have more in common with each other than we do with those who now govern us. Movements must be grounded in culture, community and action. There is resistance work going on in this country. But is there a broader culture of resistance? The word itself is being co-opted by the establishment that helped pave the path to this dark moment. If we don't connect with one another, we will remain segmented and self-oriented in our advocacy and in our organizing. We have to break free of that. To fight together, we need to build together.

People go to protests, and every once in a while, they make a friend, or connect with a new organization, but most of the time, we just go home, either empowered or deflated by the experience. The idea that movements only happen in the streets is a major hindrance to growth. It is important for people who care and who are able, to show up in the streets, but that's simply not going to be everyone's role. Whether the issue is distance, disability, or any other hindrance, we need to make it clear to people that everyone has an essential place, somewhere within the framework of the work we are doing -- which leads us to my next suggestion.

Figure out what you have to give and who you ought to be giving it to. I hear from people all the time that they can't take certain risks. I understand, as there are risks I cannot take myself, though I have, at times, pushed my boundaries. Any analysis of what we can or can't give should be an analysis of what's at stake, and what is possible for us personally. With so much at stake (the fate of the earth itself, for example), I am willing to go the extra mile when I can, but as a person with a disability, I simply won't make every action or meeting, and there are some tasks that I simply can't take on. If our organizing does not account for these variations in ability and availability, we are failing. Everyone who wants to contribute should be able to do so, and by the same token, if you want to bring down the likes of Trump, figure out what you can do, and where to do it. As organizers and community members, we all have to make that effort, to connect our skills, abilities and raw political will with actual contributions. Whether it's food for a training or meeting, artistic contributions, the use of space, printing materials, running teach-ins or offering your skills as a photographer or writer -- there are countless ways to help, and everyone who wants to help should have work in front of them, because all hands are needed on deck.
Remember that you don't have to like someone to respect their humanity or struggle. We won't always get along and we don't have to. I don't have to like you to respect you, and I don't have to agree with you to know that you deserve to live, and be free. By the same token, you don't have to agree with me about much of anything to know that my people, Native people, deserve to live. We will, at times, come into conflict, and there will be times when that conflict is necessary, but as my parents used to say, "Do your homework first." Because our enemies are getting stronger and more adept, and they are being normalized. The culture they are building needs to be countered, and the clock is ticking. So get your hands dirty, and start building.

Francois Fillon: French conservative candidate's home raided

Go to Original

The Paris home of France's conservative presidential candidate Francois Fillon has been raided by investigators, French media report.
The search was part of an investigation into an allegedly fake job given to his wife. He denies any wrongdoing.
Mr Fillon has vowed to continue his presidential campaign, despite growing pressure for him to step down.
He was once seen as the favourite to win the election but his poll ratings have dropped since the scandal emerged.
The allegations circling around the Fillon family focus mainly on his Welsh-born wife Penelope, who is also reported to be facing an investigation.
The Le Canard Enchaine newspaper alleges she was paid €831,400 (£710,000; $900,000) over several years for working as a parliamentary assistant for Mr Fillon and his successor, but had no parliamentary pass - raising questions over whether she did the work she was paid for.
The raid on Thursday morning happened as the candidate visited winegrowers in southern France. His parliamentary office had already been searched last month.
Many on the right will see the operation as another sign of how the scandal has totally eclipsed Mr Fillon's ability to run a campaign, the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris reports.
For the first time since the affair broke out a month ago, there is open dissension in the ranks about his candidacy, our correspondent adds.
Senior Republicans have gathered support for ex-Prime Minister Alain Juppe, 71, who was defeated by Mr Fillon in the primaries.
On Thursday evening, thousands of supporters turned out to his rally in the town of Nimes. "You have a fighter before you," Mr Fillon told a cheering crowd. "I have no intention of giving in."
On Wednesday, Mr Fillon said he had been summoned to appear before a judge over the case.
He complained he was the victim of a "political assassination", and vowed to continue his run for president - despite previously pledging to stand down if his case was placed under formal investigation.
Following his announcement, several key allies resigned, including his foreign affairs spokesman and deputy campaign director.
Mr Fillon will appear in court on 15 March, just two days before the deadline for candidates to submit their final applications.
The first round of the election takes place on 23 April, followed by a run-off on 7 May.

What Putin Is Up To

And why he may have overplayed his hand

Go to Original
By  AND 

Each year on December 20, the Russian intelligence community pays homage to its enduring guardianship of the Motherland. It was on this date in 1917, six weeks after the Bolshevik Revolution, that Vladimir Lenin established the Cheka, an acronym for “Emergency Commission.” Over the ensuing decades, the commission’s nomenclature and organization chart mutated: It became the OGPU from 1923 to 1934, the NKVD until the early 1950s, and then the KGB for nearly 40 years. After the collapse of the USSR, the sprawling institution was split into separate foreign and domestic agencies. Operatives of both are still called chekists, and they share Lenin’s original purpose: countering Russia’s enemies at home and abroad.

President Vladimir Putin was a KGB officer for 15 years leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the director of domestic intelligence in the late 1990s during his meteoric rise to power. He regularly throws a gala at the Kremlin on December 20 to extol the “sacred mission” of the state security services, recall their past heroes, and highlight their latest exploits. For the last 22 years, Chekist’s Day has been an official holiday in Russia.

Last December, Putin must have been in particularly ebullient sprits. Over the course of 2016, he oversaw the boldest, most consequential covert operation against Russia’s principal ideological and geopolitical foe for much of the last century, breaching the firewall of American democracy and influencing a high-stakes presidential election. Putin seemed to have made a big bet and come away with a trifecta: He could congratulate himself for settling old scores with a traditional foe, relish the prospect of a Russia-friendly counterpart in the White House, and let the ripple effect of the U.S. election further confound and further unsettle the democracies in a wobbly Europe.  

Meanwhile, the reverberations of the Russian attack have the U.S. government in an uproar. The disruption has triggered bitter public tensions between the White House and the agencies it supervises, fueled a partisan debate in Congress, and opened a schism within the Republican party, most recently over potential perjury by the nation’s top justice official. 

Ever since Lenin dispatched the first Soviet undercover agent across the Atlantic in 1921, Kremlin leaders have sought, with some success, to undermine the United States. In the late 1940s, Lavrentiy Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police, masterminded the pilfering of America’s nuclear secrets. There were also sub rosasorties into American domestic politics. In 1968, the Kremlin deemed Richard Nixon “profoundly anti-Soviet,” and sought to frustrate his White House aspirations by extending financial assistance to his Democratic rival, Hubert Humphrey, who rejected the offer. The Soviets were particularly active in the 1976 presidential election, fabricating an FBI report designed to damage Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Cold War hawk, during his bid for the Democratic nomination, then recruiting a mole inside the Democratic Party to report on Jimmy Carter’s winning campaign. Once Carter was in the White House, the KGB attempted to smear his hardline National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as a traitor and anti-Semite. In 1982, Yuri Andropov—the chairman of the KGB, who would soon ascend to leadership of the Kremlin—directed a multi-pronged campaign to thwart the re-election two years later of Ronald Reagan, who famously called the USSR “the evil empire.” Ironically, Andropov wanted his successor to be Mikhail Gorbachev, who, later in that decade, would forge a transformative partnership with Reagan.

But most of these efforts failed, and all of them pale next to Russia’s attempts to hack both major U.S. political parties, and subsequent leak of a trove of documents in an effort to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, U.S. intelligence agencies released a public report describing the Russian operation as a Putin-ordered influence campaign intended “to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” Putin’s government, the intelligence community concluded, “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

Putin saw Clinton as a serial regime-changer, eager to foment yet another “color revolution” in Russia like those in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, three former Soviet republics. He made no secret of this conviction. On December 5, 2011, Clinton publicly questioned the openness of parliament elections in Russia. In response, Putin accused Clinton of “set[ting] the tone for certain actors inside [Russia]. She gave the signal,” he said at televised crisis meeting with his subordinates. “They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work,” he said. He was referring to the tens of thousands of Russian citizens who protested peacefully against his sudden announcement in September of that year that he would return to the presidency after serving as prime minister for four years.

Clinton’s support for the demonstrations hardly constituted a threat to Putin’s return to the Kremlin. But it seems he saw it that way. This conspiracy theory was typical of a worldview forged during his years at the KGB working chiefly in counterespionage—less a spy, and more spy-catcher, a profession that not only generates paranoia but also, to a degree, demands it. Aside from his anyone-but-Clinton mindset, Putin had additional reasons to boost her opponent: Candidate Trump’s admiration for Putin; his declared preference for nationalism over globalism; his apparent intention to revert to a world order based on great-power spheres of influence; his skepticism toward the European Union (he has urged members to follow Britain to the exit); and his denigration of NATO as “obsolete.”
Those last sentiments have been especially unsettling. Nothing would please Putin more than for the 45th president of the United States to weaken the political 

West’s two bedrock institutions—or, better yet, to allow them to be dismantled, altogether. During Trump’s campaign and transition, Putin must have been delighted to hear him repudiate the values and strategy of Atlanticism that guided his 12 predecessors—six Democrats and six Republicans—stretching back 70 years to Harry Truman. The dissolution of the political West would be delicious payback for what, in Putin’s eyes, was a Western plot to tear the Soviet state asunder.  

This theme in Putin’s narrative of grievance against North America and Western Europe is a bizarre case of cognitive dissonance: His rise would have been impossible if not for the patronage and promotions of Boris Yeltsin, who, in 1991 and 1992, was the principal instigator of the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.   
Yet Putin has managed to rewrite history for much of Russia’s citizenry and for himself, in order to justify a revanchist foreign policy. Therefore, he had every reason to cast his own vote in the U.S. election and, on November 8, celebrate the result. U.S. intercepts of Russian communications indicate that top officials in Moscow did not wait until Chekist’s day to pop the champagne bottles when they heard the final returns. They toasted Trump’s victory—and their own.

The vast damage to American interests wrought by Putin is likely to deepen for years to come. It is bad for Trump, since the ongoing revelations of a foreign adversary’s contamination of an American election undermines the outcome’s validity. This would be the case however Trump handled the matter, but he has exacerbated the qualms and controversy. His fury over leaks from U.S. intelligence agencies and investigative stories by the mainstream American media created the impression that he is shooting the messengers in order to divert attention from the core message that Russia successfully attacked America’s democracy, tarnished its reputation worldwide, and cast a pall over its president’s legitimacy. Trump has seemed more outraged at his own government than Putin’s, rousing public anger from two former CIA directors. During the campaign, Mike Morrell, former acting director of the CIA under Obama, called Trump Russia’s “unwitting agent.” Michael Hayden, who led the agency under George W. Bush, chimed in, scorning Trump as Moscow’s “useful fool.”

There is perhaps no more vivid instance of the president’s odd, insouciant posture toward Russia than the Michael Flynn episode. Before Trump’s inauguration, Flynn, his pick for national security adviser, indicated to Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador in Washington, that the White House might ease or lift the sanctions President Obama imposed on Russia for its alleged interference with the U.S. election. What Trump knew of those conversations remains unclear. But when he fired Flynn for lying to Vice President Mike Pence about the conversation with Kislyak, Trump said, “I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.”

While Trump’s team seems to have sent a welcome signal to Moscow, the president himself declared a vendetta against his own agencies. The White House put out the word that a billionaire financier and political ally of Trump’s, Stephen Feinberg, would conduct a broad review of the U.S. intelligence community. The episode seemed like punishment of the agencies for gathering information on contacts between the president’s campaign aides and Russian agents over the last year and for leaking them. In February, when details of an ongoing FBI probe into that embarrassing and potentially criminal matter appeared in the press, Trump’s White House leaned on the bureau to discredit them. The FBI refused.

Meanwhile, longstanding allies and friends of the United States are appalled by his constant effort to change the subject whenever the Russian mega-hack comes up. While the president’s national-security team has sought to reassure America’s allies around the world, many leaders, especially in Europe, are concerned that he remains in thrall to Putin who, in some cases, continues to meddle in their own elections. For example, he is deploying an array of clandestine, propagandistic, and financial assets to tip the scales in favor of France’s Marine Le Pen, who has sworn to remove the country from the European Union if she becomes president this year, while working against German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most stalwart and powerful champion of the Western-led liberal world order, who is under political stress herself. 

The Russians make no secret of their intent, nor did Putin just sit back and watch these benefits to Russia accumulate. He continued to prod, provoke, and jeer. Two weeks ago, his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put Putin’s goal in stark, smug terms: The world is on the brink of a “post-West” order, he said. The unmistakable implication is that the locus of global power will move eastward, reinforcing the Kremlin’s ability to design and enforce an order that suits its national and nationalistic interests.

Given how Russia has manifested those interests—perpetuating the carnage of Syria’s civil war, annexing Crimea and virtually occupying the Donbass region of Ukraine, keeping ethnic conflicts simmering in the Caucasus, attempting to overthrow a pro-Western government in Montenegro, engaging in constant military incursions, cyberattacks, provocations, and bullying in the Baltics—we have a clear idea of what sort of “order” Putin has in mind.

But therein lies some consolation. Over the centuries, Russia has shown a predilection to overplay its hand. Precisely because of Putin’s flagrant forays beyond Russia’s borders, he has awakened its neighbors to the threat—and, as a consequence, underscored the need for NATO and an equally vigilant, clear-eyed, and reliable U.S. administration.

Trump's EPA budget proposal targets climate, lead cleanup programs

Go to Original
By Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici 

The White House is proposing to slash a quarter of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's budget, targeting climate-change programs and those designed to prevent air and water pollution like lead contamination, a source with direct knowledge of the proposal said on Thursday.
President Donald Trump has long signaled his intention to reverse former Democratic President Barack Obama's climate-change initiatives. But the Republican president has vowed his planned overhaul of green regulation would not jeopardize America's water and air quality.
The 23-page 2018 budget proposal, which aims to slice the environmental regulator's overall budget by 25 percent to $6.1 billion and staffing by 20 percent to 12,400 as part of a broader effort to fund increased military spending, would cut deeply into programs like climate protection, environmental justice and enforcement.
Politico and other news outlets reported the staff and overall budget cuts earlier, but the source disclosed new details on the impact the cuts would have on programs and grants to states.
Environmentalists slammed the proposed cuts, which must be approved by the Republican-led Congress.
The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the budget proposal or its counter proposal. The White House said it had no comment.
Under the proposal, which was sent to the EPA this week, grants to states for lead cleanup would be cut 30 percent to $9.8 million, according to the source, who read the document to Reuters.
Grants to help Native American tribes combat pollution would be cut 30 percent to $45.8 million. An EPA climate protection program on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases like methane that contribute to global warming would be cut 70 percent to $29 million.
The proposal would cut funding for the brownfields industrial site cleanup program by 42 percent to $14.7 million. It would also reduce funding for enforcing pollution laws by 11 percent to $153 million.
The budget did not cut state revolving funds for programs, that Congress tapped last year to provide aid to Flint, Michigan, for its lead pollution crisis.
All staff at a research program, called Global Change Research, as well as 37 other programs would be cut under the plan.
CONGRESSIONAL HURDLES
Some of the cuts are unlikely to pass the Republican-led Congress as they are popular with both Democrats and Republicans. Congress would be unlikely to approve a proposal to cut all staff in a diesel emissions program, for example.
Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, told U.S. mayors on Thursday he would make a priority of cleanups of industrial and hazardous waste sites and improving water infrastructure, even as the White House proposed severe proposed cuts to those programs.
"In this budget discussion that is ongoing with Congress that is just starting, there are some concerns about some of these grant programs that EPA has been a part of historically," Pruitt said.
"I want you to know that with the White House and also with Congress, I am communicating a message that the brownfields program, the Superfund program and the water infrastructure grants and state revolving funds are essential to protect," he said.

Greenpeace spokesman Travis Nichols said: "As a candidate, Trump made a big deal out of EPA's failure in Flint, but now he's cutting 30 percent out of lead cleanup in his proposed budget. This is an example of his empty promises to do right by the American people."
Officers of the Environmental Council of the States, composed of local regulators, raised concerns to the White House and EPA about the budget process, which they said lacked input by directly affected states.
ECOS officers will meet with the environment team of the Office and Management and Budget, a White House office, on Friday and have slated a teleconference with Pruitt in March.
ECOS head Alexandra Dapolito Dunn said states had been hopeful after Pruitt's confirmation hearing that they would get resources to do their work. "Now they are feeling very vulnerable,” she said.

US Senate calls on British spy Christopher Steele to give evidence on explosive Trump-Russia dossier

Exclusive: Republicans and Democrats in Congress keen to facilitate discreet meetings in the UK or on neutral territory, as pressure grows on President

Go to Original
By Kim Sengupta

Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spy who prepared the explosive Trump report, has been approached about testifying before the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the new President’s alleged links with RussiaThe Independent can reveal.
Mr Steele’s friends say it is currently unlikely he would be willing to travel to the US. But it is understood Democrats – as well as some Republicans – in Congress are prepared to facilitate discreet initial meetings in the UK or on other neutral territory.
John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent an intermediary to London in November last year to collect Mr Steele’s dossier, which was subsequently passed personally by the Senator to FBI director James Comey.
And Mr Steele had, while carrying out his Trump inquiry, himself liaised for regular periods with the bureau.
Mr Trump has personally attacked Mr Steele, declaring the report on the Kremlin connection by the former MI6 officer as a fabricated work, put together by a “failed spy”.
In reality, Mr Steele was, and continues to be, held in high regard by British security and intelligence services as well as the American security officials who worked with him in the past.
It emerged this week that the FBI had, at one stage, proposed to pay him to continue his investigation into Mr Trump and his associates.
But that deal fell through and Mr Steele ultimately continued to work without pay because he was so worried by what he was discovering.
Mr Steele has not yet responded to requests to meet with Senate officials – described as informal at this stage – for testimony, which have come over the last fortnight. But friends say he may be willing to speak about his investigation to senators and US officials if certain security conditions are met.
The development comes amid fresh revelations of the Trump administration’s interaction with the Russians. It has emerged that Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, was in contact with Moscow’s ambassador to the US during the election campaign.
Mr Trump’s national security adviser, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, was forced to resign after details of similar communications surfaced last month.
It has also emerged that in the last days of Barack Obama’s presidency, officials were so worried that the incoming Trump administration would try to suppress or destroy incriminating material that they passed on information to the intelligence agencies and senior figures in Congress.
There is now similar concern that the Trump White House is trying to sabotage the Russia investigations. Democrats have asked for an inquiry into attempts by White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, to get the FBI to dismiss media reports about members of Mr Trump’s coterie contacting Russian officials.
The drive to contact Mr Steele and others, according to those familiar with the issue, is to try and ensure that as much information as possible is gathered by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The committee is carrying out its own investigation, separate from one being conducted by the FBI, on the Russian links and attempts by the Kremlin to interfere in the American political process. There will, however, be mutual sharing of relevant material.
The Washington Post this week reported the plan by the FBI to pay Mr Steele, who was one of MI6’s foremost Russia specialists, to continue his inquiries.
The Independent understands that the offer came after the discovery of a campaign of cyber hacking on state electoral systems in September, which led to a public charge against Moscow by the Obama administration.
Mr Steele became involved in the Trump investigation through the Washington-based firm Fusion GPS, which had been hired by Republican opponents of Mr Trump in September 2015.
In June 2016, Mr Steele joined up with the team. In July, Mr Trump won the Republican nomination and the Democrats became new employers of Mr Steele and Fusion GPS. With that contract due to come to an end with the election, the FBI stepped in with its offer of funding.
Mr Steele has been regularly supplying information to the FBI. In June last year, for instance, he produced a memo which went to the bureau stating that Mr Trump’s campaign team had agreed to a Russian request to dilute attention on Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine.
Four days later Mr Trump stated that he would recognise Moscow’s annexation of Crimea: officials involved in his campaign having already asked the Republican party’s election platform to remove a pledge for military assistance to the Ukrainian government against separatist rebels in the east of the country. 
Mr Steele claimed the Trump campaign was taking this path because it was aware that the Russians were hacking Democratic Party emails. The same day that Mr Trump spoke about Crimea, he called on the Kremlin to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. 
However, Mr Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him.
He came to believe there was a cover-up, that a cabal within the bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. The MI6 officer’s passing of information to the FBI ceased in December last year.