What's going on with the Executive Departments

[GreyhoundFan]

Another quality appointee (note sarcasm): "Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee was let go at law firm after he ‘just didn’t show’"

Spoiler

A former Trump campaign worker appointed at age 23 to a top position in the White House’s drug policy office had been let go from a job at a law firm because he repeatedly missed work, a partner at the firm said.

While in college, late in 2014 or early in 2015, Taylor Weyeneth began working as a legal assistant at the New York firm O’Dwyer & Bernstien. He was “discharged” in August 2015, partner Brian O’Dwyer said in an interview.

“We were very disappointed in what happened,” O’Dwyer said. He said that he hired Weyeneth in part because both men were involved in the same fraternity, and that the firm invested time training him for what was expected to be a longer relationship. Instead, he said, Weyeneth “just didn’t show.”

In a résumé initially submitted to the government, Weyeneth said he worked at the firm until April 2016. When an FBI official called as part of a background check in January 2017, the firm said Weyeneth had left eight months earlier than the résumé indicated, O’Dwyer said.

A spokesman at the Office of National Drug Control Policy — where Weyeneth, 24, is deputy chief of staff — said Weyeneth was unavailable for comment. In replies to The Post, the White House did not address questions about Weyeneth’s work at the law firm.

An administration official previously said that Weyeneth revised his résumé to correct “errors.” In a revised résumé, Weyeneth said he worked at the law firm from November 2014 to August 2015. Details of his time there and the circumstances of his departure have not been previously reported.   

A Jan. 14 Post story detailing Weyeneth’s rapid rise at the drug policy office, or ONDCP, prompted 10 Democratic senators on Wednesday to write President Trump. The lawmakers, including Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), expressed “extreme concern” about Weyeneth’s promotion and unfilled drug policy jobs.

“You have claimed that the opioid epidemic is a top priority for your administration, but the personnel you have staffing these key agencies — and the lack of nominees to head them — is cause for deep concern,” the letter said.

Following his graduation, in May 2016, Weyeneth served as a paid member of Trump’s presidential campaign and then as a volunteer with the transition, arranging housing for senior administration officials. He worked closely with Rick Dearborn, now White House deputy chief of staff.

Weyeneth’s only professional experience after college and before becoming an appointee was working on the Trump campaign and transition.

After being contacted by The Post about Weyeneth’s qualifications and inconsistencies on his résumés, an administration official on Jan. 12 said Weyeneth will return to the position he initially held at the agency, as a White House liaison. The official said that Weyeneth has been primarily performing administrative work, rather than making policy decisions, and that he had “assumed additional duties and an additional title following staff openings.”

On his résumés, Weyeneth revised dates relating to job assignments, and he cut the number of hours he claimed he had volunteered at a monastery in Queens while at St. Johns from 275 to 150. A third résumé, provided by the White House, does not mention volunteer work at the monastery.

Weyeneth left unchanged a portion of his résumés that indicated he had a master’s degree from Fordham University, though a university official told The Post he has not finished his coursework. Weyeneth also left unchanged an assertion that he served for three years as vice president of Kappa Sigma. That claim was contradicted by a fraternity spokesman, Nathan Glanton, who told The Post that Weyeneth was vice president for only 18 months.

Weyeneth was named to the liaison job at ONDCP in March, after a brief stint at the Treasury Department. In the months following, seven of 11 political appointees assigned to the office left, including a person who was serving as general counsel and acting chief of staff. Amid the turnover and vacancies, Weyeneth was promoted to deputy chief of staff in July, according to his LinkedIn page. He also assumed some of the chief of staff’s responsibilities, internal documents show.

An administration official said Friday that Weyeneth remains deputy chief of staff as the search for a replacement continues.

Good grief. That is all.

[AmazonGrace]

A shutdown government is perfect for him then .

 

I'm old enough to remember when Trump promised America would be respected again

[GrumpyGran]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Another quality appointee (note sarcasm): "Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee was let go at law firm after he ‘just didn’t show’"

  Reveal hidden contents

A former Trump campaign worker appointed at age 23 to a top position in the White House’s drug policy office had been let go from a job at a law firm because he repeatedly missed work, a partner at the firm said.

While in college, late in 2014 or early in 2015, Taylor Weyeneth began working as a legal assistant at the New York firm O’Dwyer & Bernstien. He was “discharged” in August 2015, partner Brian O’Dwyer said in an interview.

“We were very disappointed in what happened,” O’Dwyer said. He said that he hired Weyeneth in part because both men were involved in the same fraternity, and that the firm invested time training him for what was expected to be a longer relationship. Instead, he said, Weyeneth “just didn’t show.”

In a résumé initially submitted to the government, Weyeneth said he worked at the firm until April 2016. When an FBI official called as part of a background check in January 2017, the firm said Weyeneth had left eight months earlier than the résumé indicated, O’Dwyer said.

A spokesman at the Office of National Drug Control Policy — where Weyeneth, 24, is deputy chief of staff — said Weyeneth was unavailable for comment. In replies to The Post, the White House did not address questions about Weyeneth’s work at the law firm.

An administration official previously said that Weyeneth revised his résumé to correct “errors.” In a revised résumé, Weyeneth said he worked at the law firm from November 2014 to August 2015. Details of his time there and the circumstances of his departure have not been previously reported.   

A Jan. 14 Post story detailing Weyeneth’s rapid rise at the drug policy office, or ONDCP, prompted 10 Democratic senators on Wednesday to write President Trump. The lawmakers, including Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), expressed “extreme concern” about Weyeneth’s promotion and unfilled drug policy jobs.

“You have claimed that the opioid epidemic is a top priority for your administration, but the personnel you have staffing these key agencies — and the lack of nominees to head them — is cause for deep concern,” the letter said.

Following his graduation, in May 2016, Weyeneth served as a paid member of Trump’s presidential campaign and then as a volunteer with the transition, arranging housing for senior administration officials. He worked closely with Rick Dearborn, now White House deputy chief of staff.

Weyeneth’s only professional experience after college and before becoming an appointee was working on the Trump campaign and transition.

After being contacted by The Post about Weyeneth’s qualifications and inconsistencies on his résumés, an administration official on Jan. 12 said Weyeneth will return to the position he initially held at the agency, as a White House liaison. The official said that Weyeneth has been primarily performing administrative work, rather than making policy decisions, and that he had “assumed additional duties and an additional title following staff openings.”

On his résumés, Weyeneth revised dates relating to job assignments, and he cut the number of hours he claimed he had volunteered at a monastery in Queens while at St. Johns from 275 to 150. A third résumé, provided by the White House, does not mention volunteer work at the monastery.

Weyeneth left unchanged a portion of his résumés that indicated he had a master’s degree from Fordham University, though a university official told The Post he has not finished his coursework. Weyeneth also left unchanged an assertion that he served for three years as vice president of Kappa Sigma. That claim was contradicted by a fraternity spokesman, Nathan Glanton, who told The Post that Weyeneth was vice president for only 18 months.

Weyeneth was named to the liaison job at ONDCP in March, after a brief stint at the Treasury Department. In the months following, seven of 11 political appointees assigned to the office left, including a person who was serving as general counsel and acting chief of staff. Amid the turnover and vacancies, Weyeneth was promoted to deputy chief of staff in July, according to his LinkedIn page. He also assumed some of the chief of staff’s responsibilities, internal documents show.

An administration official said Friday that Weyeneth remains deputy chief of staff as the search for a replacement continues.

Good grief. That is all.

Ok, you have got to be kidding me. This made the hairs on my neck stand up. Sorry, there are only two ways this guy would have this job. 

Let's see, college in Queens, what a surprise. Daddy gets him prestigious job while he's still in school and he doesn't bother to come to work. Claims he was doing lots of volunteer work but not so much. Claims he has an advanced degree that he doesn't have. He submits three different resumes. Had some other job "briefly".

There is no way a 24-year-old is qualified for the job he has. No way. Especially him. What next, Dump's grandchildren meeting with foreign leaders? Oh, wait, that's already happened.

 

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

Ok, you have got to be kidding me. This made the hairs on my neck stand up. Sorry, there are only two ways this guy would have this job. 

Let's see, college in Queens, what a surprise. Daddy gets him prestigious job while he's still in school and he doesn't bother to come to work. Claims he was doing lots of volunteer work but not so much. Claims he has an advanced degree that he doesn't have. He submits three different resumes. Had some other job "briefly".

There is no way a 24-year-old is qualified for the job he has. No way. Especially him. What next, Dump's grandchildren meeting with foreign leaders? Oh, wait, that's already happened.

 

Ok, I googled this guy's school, just his school and now "Tina" from China wants to know if I like her and wants to chat with me. I'm just sayin'.  

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Ok, you have got to be kidding me. This made the hairs on my neck stand up. Sorry, there are only two ways this guy would have this job. 

Let's see, college in Queens, what a surprise. Daddy gets him prestigious job while he's still in school and he doesn't bother to come to work. Claims he was doing lots of volunteer work but not so much. Claims he has an advanced degree that he doesn't have. He submits three different resumes. Had some other job "briefly".

There is no way a 24-year-old is qualified for the job he has. No way. Especially him. What next, Dump's grandchildren meeting with foreign leaders? Oh, wait, that's already happened.

 

No, he isn't qualified, but t hat sadly is the point. Trump's plan to create as much dysfunction as he can before Muller gets him. 

[GrumpyGran]

28 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

No, he isn't qualified, but t hat sadly is the point. Trump's plan to create as much dysfunction as he can before Muller gets him. 

There's something fishy about this kid. Step-dad, supposedly divorced from his mom now, convicted of bring steroids from China. No mention I could find of a father. Hmm.

[AmazonGrace]

Tbh I never thought Ross was particularly woke

[Cartmann99]

On 1/22/2018 at 3:00 PM, AmazonGrace said:

Tbh I never thought Ross was particularly woke

I know meetings can be boring as hell, but Wilbur should really see his doctor to make sure he doesn't have narcolepsy or sleep apnea. 

[fraurosena]

This is a subject that lies very close to my heart, as I have a son who is an insuline dependant diabetic.

I am appalled, absolutely and utterly appalled by the fact that people in the US have to resort to Gofundme to pay for life-saving insuline. What the ever-loving fuck? My son has been a diabetic since he was six years old. Not once has he ever had to pay for his insuline, for his pens, his glucose checker, strips, glucagon, needles, or even his insuline pump and other parafernalia that goes with his diabetes, or visits to his internist, diabetes nurse, ophthalmologist, dietitian or GP. Everything is covered by his health insurance. Every.single.thing. 

If we can do it in Europe, why can't America?

Why can't America put the lives of its very own people before the almighty dollar?

Why?

[candygirl200413]

I'll forever be scarred (and there are obviously more stories than this) about an intern in DC who aged out of his parents health care and had to ration his insulin before medicaid would kick in. He died :(. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Aw, he's being pressured to step down, poor baby. Maybe Junior and Eric will hire him for one of Dumpy's companies: "Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee to step down by month’s end"

Spoiler

A 24-year-old former Trump campaign worker who rose rapidly to a senior post in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy will step down by the end of the month because of controversy surrounding his appointment, the White House said late Wednesday.

Taylor Weyeneth, who graduated from college in May 2016, was named a White House liaison to the drug office the following March and then promoted to deputy chief of staff in July, at age 23. His only professional experience after college and before becoming a political appointee was working on the Trump presidential campaign.

The office, known as ONDCP, is responsible for coordinating anti-drug initiatives at 16 federal agencies and supporting President Trump’s efforts to confront the opioid epidemic.

“Mr. Weyeneth has decided to depart ONDCP at the end of the month,” the White House statement said. A spokesman said Weyeneth was not available to speak.

The announcement follows Washington Post stories that detailed Weyeneth’s rapid rise at ONDCP — in large part because of staff turnover and vacancies — and inconsistencies and inaccuracies on three résumés he submitted to the government.

Early last year, Weyeneth revised dates relating to certain jobs he held, including one at a New York law firm. A partner at the firm told The Post that Weyeneth was “discharged” because he stopped showing up for work.

On all three résumés, Weyeneth maintained that he had a master’s degree from Fordham University, although a university spokesman said Weyeneth had not completed his coursework.

In response to inquiries from The Post, the White House on ­Jan. 12 said that Weyeneth would remain at ONDCP but would return to the position he initially held in the agency.

Weyeneth stayed on through the brief government shutdown that began over the weekend and was one of three ONDCP employees designated as essential, officials said. The White House’s announcement Wednesday came after questions from The Post about that designation.

Good grief, so he worked during the shutdown because he was "essential". That's a sad joke.

[GrumpyGran]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Maybe Junior and Eric will hire him for one of Dumpy's companies:

No, no, no, then he'll want in the will. Oops!

You tell me how you get designated as essential with the credentials he doesn't have. Or how you even end up in a job like that. I'm sorry, my tin hat's on fire with this one.

[GreyhoundFan]

"How Mick Mulvaney is dismantling a federal agency"

Spoiler

From the moment Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Republicans attacked it as a “rogue agency,” “unaccountable,” “malicious” and run by an out-of-control “dictator” who desperately needs more oversight.

Mick Mulvaney has apparently set out to prove them right.

In November, in a move that set off a power struggle still tied up in the courts, President Trump appointed Mulvaney acting director of the CFPB. He’s running the bureau part time, in addition to his Cabinet-level post as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Because, hey, not like there’s been a lot going on budget-wise these days.

Miraculously, Mulvaney has found time to show how malicious, rogue and out-of-control an unchecked CFPB director can be. He has perverted the agency’s mandate from protecting the public from scammers and cheats to letting the worst, scammiest, cheatingest companies run roughshod over the public.

Most emblematic of this was changing the CFPB’s mission statement to emphasize its commitment to deregulation.

Which — huh?

The bureau was created as an independent agency after the financial crisis and was dedicated to helping consumers fight back when financial institutions rip them off. In its first five years, it provided  $11.7 billion in relief for more than 27 million harmed consumers. In addition to enforcing the law already on the books, it passed new rules and regulations to protect consumers.

Accordingly, bureau releases used to describe it as “a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives.”

Around Christmas, this changed. 

Most of that original language remains. But now the first example the statement offers to illustrate how the bureau “helps consumer finance markets work” is “regularly identifying and addressing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations.”

This language is more than symbolic. 

The agency has begun revisiting or delaying new regulations. It has also pulled back from enforcing existing laws and regulations. 

Last week, without explanation, the bureau withdrew a lawsuit against a group of online payday lenders that were charging interest rates as high as 950 percent. These loans were not just expensive and predatory; they were also, according to the original lawsuit, illegal under many states’ laws and therefore void.

Then this week, the bureau dropped an investigation into an installment lender that was a subject of a ProPublica series documenting questionable lending practices.

Coincidentally, that same company, World Acceptance Corp., donated thousands to Mulvaney’s own congressional campaigns. (The bureau said the determination to drop the probe was made by career staff and that “any suggestion that Acting Director Mulvaney had any role in the decision is simply inaccurate.”) 

Other investigations may have been shelved, too, though we don’t know how many, because the CFPB is not required to disclose when it opens or closes an investigation. We only know about the World Acceptance Corp. case because the company announced it to shareholders. 

When he was a congressman, Mulvaney co-sponsored a bill to eliminate the bureau, making him at least the second Trump appointee to run an agency or department that the appointee previously suggested should not exist. He lacks the power to kill the agency, but he has nonetheless managed to put his money where his mouth is.

Literally. Last week, Mulvaney told the Federal Reserve the bureau deserved zero dollars in the second quarter and pledged to draw down its emergency reserves instead.

Mulvaney recently released a letter to CFPB staffers (a version of which was also published in the Wall Street Journal) explaining the philosophy behind all these changes.

“We don’t just work for the government, we work for the people. And that means everyone: those who use credit cards, and those who provide those cards; those who take loans, and those who make them; those who buy cars, and those who sell them,” he wrote in the memo.  

You know what? That’s bogus.

The CFPB was designed to defend defenseless consumers, not business interests. “Consumer” is literally in its name. There are plenty of entities, both within and outside the government, that seek to balance interests of public and industry participants. The CFPB is not among them.

But forget that. It’s not clear why looking the other way when companies cheat customers is good for the business community, either. 

All this does it disadvantage companies that play by the rules. If your business model is to be more deceptive than your competitors, maybe the economy doesn’t need you at all. 

Mick the Dick needs to go...NOW.

[47of74]

Meanwhile Fuck Face and Tillerson are engaging in retribution against State Department employees

Quote

A growing number of State Department employees are charging they are being put in career purgatory because of their previous work on policy priorities associated with President Barack Obama and in offices the Trump administration is interested in closing.

The situation has got so serious that several officials tell CNN they have retained attorneys after repeatedly trying unsuccessfully to raise concerns about being assigned to low-level jobs in Foggy Bottom such as answering Freedom of Information Act requests.

But many of those assigned to the "FOIA Surge" effort resemble a band of misfit toys, including several ambassadors returning from overseas and senior career and civil service members who were detailed to other agencies. Others worked in offices created by Obama as policy priorities, which the Trump administration has announced it intends to close.

"This administration has already done serious harm to American diplomacy by forcing seasoned officials out and ignoring the expertise of career State Department professionals," Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN: "If the allegations are true that the administration is punishing public servants as a form of political retribution, those responsible must face consequences. I intend to get answers about this."

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This goes along with the article @47of74 posted: "How to work for a president who loathes the civil service"

Spoiler

President Trump spent his first year in office attacking institutions that are fundamental to our democratic system. His inflammatory rhetoric about “fake news” media and courts that dared to challenge the legality of his decisions continued themes established during his 2016 campaign. But since becoming president, Trump has also begun bashing another target that’s equally critical to our democracy: the people who work for the federal government.

Derided by Trump advisers as “Obama holdovers” and vilified by the president as members of a nefarious “deep state,” federal employees are clearly perceived by the White House and its allies as a threat. Many Trump Cabinet officials are openly hostile to the legislated mandates of their agencies and are slashing budgets and ousting personnel. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services have entered truly Orwellian territory as Trump appointees attempt to ban terms such as “evidence-based,” “science-based,” “diversity” and “climate change.” 

Long before the chaotic shutdown last weekend, public servants throughout the federal government were struggling with an agonizing dilemma. Many have already resigned . Those who remain are questioning how, in the current administration, they can continue to bring professionalism, nonpartisanship and a clear sense of purpose to their vital work. Public servants must loyally serve every administration with discipline and dedication. They must carry out the orders of their agency heads, even ones they disagree with. At the same time, they are also duty-bound to refuse instructions that are illegal, immoral, or based on false or destructive premises.

From 2011 to 2017, I worked to cultivate the ranks of these public servants. As director of the U.S. Foreign Service Institute and as senior vice president of the National Defense University, I was responsible for training military and civilian officers from more than 50 agencies throughout the federal government. Of all the things I have done in my career in public life, including serving as an ambassador overseas and as a policy adviser in the White House, it is this work supporting the next generation of government employees of which I am most proud. 

The vast majority of federal employees are highly qualified and deeply committed to serving this nation and its elected leaders. And when the tragic saga of the Trump administration ends, they are the people who will rebuild the institutions that are so essential to our country. With Trump careening ever further outside the norms of good governance and the rule of law, here is how civil servants should navigate the ethical and professional minefields that lie before them. 

Hold the high ground

The controversy, chaos and surreal quality that defined Trump’s first year will increase. As they do, it is critical that federal employees uphold the most exacting standards of personal and professional integrity. No matter how bizarre the circumstances become or how flagrant the violations by the president, his family and his cronies appear to be, there can be no justification for employees’ failure to observe all applicable rules, regulations and laws. Many “normal” restrictions will feel increasingly ludicrous, such as the requirement to conduct an annual financial disclosure while the president continues to violate his promise to reveal his tax returns, or the prohibition on accepting any gift that costs more than $19.99 while the Trump family profits by marketing its brand on government property. But the more this administration transgresses, the more scrupulous the federal workforce must be. Civil servants should remember that every small step matters and should never allow themselves to further enable the corrosion of ethical norms and accountability standards. 

Lock the partisan trapdoor

Many career officials have extensive and positive experience working under both Republican and Democratic administrations. All are well-versed in the legal restrictions on partisan activity in the workplace imposed by the Hatch Act, and they consistently observe the cardinal rule that politics don’t come to the office. So it was shocking when this administration attempted to impose partisan litmus tests, with transition officials telling me directly of their intent to root out “liberal Democrats” and “Hillary supporters” from the federal workforce.  More recent allegations of a “deep state” and suggestions that an “anonymous bureaucracy ” is conspiring to undermine the president’s agenda are blatant efforts to discredit and delegitimize the workforce. Career officials, especially those in more senior positions, should blunt these manipulations by showcasing the loyal, and in many cases courageous, service of their colleagues and subordinates. They should also call out the inappropriate nature of these attacks, which are naked attempts at fear baiting. 

Take notes and names . This administration is attempting to affect widespread changes in policy, programs and personnel, often without documenting the rationale or the intended outcomes. From civil rights enforcement to scientific research on climate change, long-standing government practices requiring written instructions and comprehensive record-keeping are being brushed aside in favor of word-of-mouth directives that are impossible to accurately source or effectively track. All federal employees, especially those with management responsibilities, should extensively document decisions and their ramifications. In agencies experiencing budget cuts and workforce reductions, it will be crucial to document lost capacities and discontinued services. Taking copious notes and maintaining thorough records have always been encouraged in the federal government, and chances are high that these practices will become increasingly vital, both to understand ongoing changes and to retain institutional memory. 

Don’t leak, but do blow the whistle

It is a federal crime to leak classified information, and civil servants should not do it. But that doesn’t mean there’s no way to expose misconduct and mismanagement. On the contrary, federal employees are expected to call out illicit, illegal and destructive activity — including by their agency’s leadership. If a government worker sees wrongdoing and chooses to look the other way, he or she becomes complicit. Most agencies have an independent inspector general responsible for investigating allegations of fraud, abuse and illegal activity. There is also a separate agency, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose primary mission is to safeguard federal employees from whistleblower reprisals. Feds with knowledge of misconduct can reach out to employee associations and seek private legal counsel.

Speak up and out

This administration is obsessed with loyalty and defines it as obsequious and unquestioning obedience. Trump’s alleged personal demands for loyalty from FBI officials, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s assertion that one-third of his workforce is disloyal, reports that the EPA is scouring personnel lists and former White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s warning that civil servants should “either get with the program or they can go” make this excruciatingly clear. This deeply flawed approach is guaranteed to produce bad policies. It will also engender a climate of fear. Career officials must push against this destructive trend by respectfully and openly expressing their views and fostering frank debate whenever possible. Disagreement is not disloyalty. On the contrary, it is the only way to facilitate a full examination of various policies, the potential consequences and possible alternatives. Going beyond internal debate, it is important — and a long-standing practice — to maintain dialogue about current developments with counterparts in other agencies, relevant groups in civil society, affected congressional committees and reputable journalists. Transparency is a hallmark of good governance.

Draw bright red lines

A key feature of federal training for crisis management is the development of “trip wires” or “red lines.” The idea is to identify in advance — before circumstances overwhelm individual and institutional capacity for nuanced analysis — those factors or events that would signify a qualitative shift requiring a different strategy. Soldiers, diplomats and intelligence officers around the world routinely use preestablished red lines to guide their decision-making in the face of chaos and crisis. Public servants need to employ the same approach now, clarifying the red lines of principle and policy that they will not cross. When those lines are approached, they will then have a clear path: Refuse to comply and if necessary resign. 

A strong moral compass and personal values of patriotism and integrity are what draw most individuals into federal service. These same values can sustain them now as they continue to fulfill the vital functions of government and serve the American people. Public service is a privilege that carries heavy responsibilities. Every federal employee takes an oath of office and swears to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Rarely have those words echoed with more resonance than right now. 

 

[fraurosena]

Please, only listen to what I say, and don't ever look at what I do.

Leaked Documents Reveal the Trump Administration’s Plan to Sell off Our Public Lands

Quote

President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have repeatedly said they oppose selling off federal lands. 

“I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do,” Trump told Field & Stream magazine in January 2016. He re-emphasized this in a subsequent interview with the Outdoor Sportsman Group: “We’re not looking to sell off land.”

It was over this very issue that Zinke—a former Montana congressman—resigned as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2016. And in a speech one day after arriving at his new post, Zinke promised Interior staffers: “You can hear it from my lips. We will not sell or transfer public land.”

But a leaked White House infrastructure plan has many conservation groups concerned that Trump and Zinke could soon be singing a different tune: that of the Republican Party, whose platform calls for transferring control of federal lands to states.

The draft plan, which Politico and Axios obtained this week, includes this line: “Disposition of Federal Real Property: would establish through executive order the authority to allow for the disposal of Federal assets to improve the overall allocation of economic resources in infrastructure investment.” 

To be clear, the document is a draft plan—one Paul Teller, a special assistant to the president for legislative affairs, told Politico this week does not reflect the final proposal. Nonetheless, it is easy to see how one might read “disposal” to mean that the government will look to sell off, trade or transfer federal assets, including land, to help pay for crumbling bridges and highways.

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters declined to say whether this “disposal” would include federal lands. “We are not going to comment on the contents of a leaked document but look forward to presenting our plan in the near future,” she wrote in an email to HuffPost.

Politico reported Wednesday that Trump could release his long-anticipated infrastructure plan in as little as two weeks. If it takes aim at public land, Zinke will almost certainly face the brunt of public outrage. After all, it was Zinke who said last month, “No one loves public land more than I. You can love it as much, but you can’t love it any more.”

Fearing a looming about-face, conservation groups sent a shot across the administration’s bow this week. 

“It raises suspicions from everybody that cares about public lands,” Brad Brooks, public lands campaign director at The Wilderness Society, told HuffPost. “And if they are proposing to sell off public lands, the American public is not going to stand for D.C. politicians trying to steal our land.”

Brooks added that Zinke needs to explain—one way or another—what’s going on. To his knowledge, there is no precedent for public land being disposed of via executive order. 

Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement that the draft infrastructure plan is the latest example of Zinke saying one thing and doing another.

“This plan calls for the disposal of federal lands, it’s right there in black and white,” she said. “The secretary owes the American public an honest answer: Will he continue to be complicit in President Trump’s attempts to sell off our public lands?”

Whit Fosburgh, president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, told HuffPost that he too is looking for clarification about what the White House means, but said “it smells like selling off public [lands].”

Fosburgh said the leaked plan reminds him of a bill former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced last year to sell off 3.3 million acres of public landin 10 Western states. The proposal included explicit language, calling for the “disposal” of millions of acres of “excess” federal lands that he said had “been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers.”

The move provoked outrage from conservationists, hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts, who labeled Chaffetz an “anti-public lands congressman.” Chaffetz ultimately pulled the bill, citing concerns from his constituents. 

“I hear you,” he wrote in an Instagram post that included a photo of him dressed in hunting camouflage, and promised to kill the bill.

Public lands advocates celebrated Chaffetz’s move as a major victory—and vowed to stand firmly against anyone who threatens their national heritage.  

Zinke continues to paint himself a champion of public lands and “a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist.” But the conservation and outdoor sporting groups that once supported his nomination have largely walked away, as the interior secretary has led the administration’s effort to gut national monuments and prioritized energy development over conservation.

The Interior Department did not respond a request for comment on the language in the draft infrastructure plan.

But in an interview Thursday with conservative radio commentator Josh Tolley, Zinke re-emphasized his commitment to maintaining federal control of public land.

“We’re not transferring or selling public land,” he said. “What we’re doing is we’re working with the states to open up recreation opportunities. We don’t want to be in an adversarial role. And that’s been the tension out west, is that the local voice, communities, have been ignored. And that’s not right.”

 

[Howl]

The drastic reduction in the size of Bears Ears and Dominguez Escalante National Monuments is a sop to fanatical states rights/Sagebrush Rebellion types in Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and to some extent Oregon and Arizona.  I think everyone realizes that if you transfer ownership to a state and the state has no financial resources to maintain or care for it, they will sell it off.   Glargh. 

[fraurosena]

Why are there people that think it's fine to implement policy that is clearly detrimental to human life, even their own?*

 

*A rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is that loss of common sense and decency is the unfortunate side effect of lusting after greenbacks.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is appalling, infuriating, and sad: "Unshackled by the Trump administration, deportation agents discount basic decency"

Spoiler

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS Enforcement, the federal agency whose deportation agents have been unshackled by the Trump administration, has intensified its efforts to such a degree that cruelty now seems no impediment to its enforcement decisions, and common sense appears to play a diminishing role.

Recent months have brought news of one senseless detention and deportation after another. From all appearances, the agency seems to have embraced the idea that it is just to sunder established families and separate immigrant parents from their U.S.-born children — even in cases involving garden-variety technical violations of immigration rules.

Yes, the Obama administration also deported some longtime residents who had committed no serious offenses, but its deportation efforts were focused on criminals. By contrast, detentions of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled in the first year of President Trump’s administration — to 13,600 in 2017 from 5,498 in 2016. Evidently seized by a vainglorious notion of its mission, ICE too often discounts basic decency as a guiding tenet.

How else to explain the detention and imminent deportation of a 27-year-old Ohio man, arrested for driving without a license, who is the only means of financial support, and one of just two trained medical caregivers, for a 6-year-old paraplegic boy (who also happens to be a U.S. citizen)? How else to explain the deportation of a construction worker in Michigan, the father of 10- and 3-year-old U.S.-born boys, who provided critical help to police in Detroit in their investigation of a shooting?

How else to explain the airport arrest and deportation of a 22-year-old female college student from Spain, visiting the United States for a vacation at the invitation of a librarian at Oregon State University, on grounds that she would give Spanish lessons to the librarian’s young son for a few weeks — work for which she lacked the right visa? How else to explain the deportation of a 39-year-old landscaper living in the Detroit suburbs, a father and husband of U.S. citizens, who had lived in the United States since age 10 and whose record was so unblemished that it didn’t even feature a traffic violation? How else to explain the Israeli undergraduate at the University of California at San Diego, a “dreamer” studying legally in the United States, who was detained upon trying to cross back into the United States minutes after his roommate made a wrong turn on the highway, unintentionally driving into Mexico?

In its boilerplate communiques, the agency defends its actions by insisting that it prioritizes bona fide threats to national security and public safety but exempts no category of “removable alien” from enforcement. Which raises a question: Have discretion and humanity been dropped from the attributes that Americans can expect of their law enforcement agencies?

 

[fraurosena]

9 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is appalling, infuriating, and sad: "Unshackled by the Trump administration, deportation agents discount basic decency"

  Hide contents

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS Enforcement, the federal agency whose deportation agents have been unshackled by the Trump administration, has intensified its efforts to such a degree that cruelty now seems no impediment to its enforcement decisions, and common sense appears to play a diminishing role.

Recent months have brought news of one senseless detention and deportation after another. From all appearances, the agency seems to have embraced the idea that it is just to sunder established families and separate immigrant parents from their U.S.-born children — even in cases involving garden-variety technical violations of immigration rules.

Yes, the Obama administration also deported some longtime residents who had committed no serious offenses, but its deportation efforts were focused on criminals. By contrast, detentions of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled in the first year of President Trump’s administration — to 13,600 in 2017 from 5,498 in 2016. Evidently seized by a vainglorious notion of its mission, ICE too often discounts basic decency as a guiding tenet.

How else to explain the detention and imminent deportation of a 27-year-old Ohio man, arrested for driving without a license, who is the only means of financial support, and one of just two trained medical caregivers, for a 6-year-old paraplegic boy (who also happens to be a U.S. citizen)? How else to explain the deportation of a construction worker in Michigan, the father of 10- and 3-year-old U.S.-born boys, who provided critical help to police in Detroit in their investigation of a shooting?

How else to explain the airport arrest and deportation of a 22-year-old female college student from Spain, visiting the United States for a vacation at the invitation of a librarian at Oregon State University, on grounds that she would give Spanish lessons to the librarian’s young son for a few weeks — work for which she lacked the right visa? How else to explain the deportation of a 39-year-old landscaper living in the Detroit suburbs, a father and husband of U.S. citizens, who had lived in the United States since age 10 and whose record was so unblemished that it didn’t even feature a traffic violation? How else to explain the Israeli undergraduate at the University of California at San Diego, a “dreamer” studying legally in the United States, who was detained upon trying to cross back into the United States minutes after his roommate made a wrong turn on the highway, unintentionally driving into Mexico?

In its boilerplate communiques, the agency defends its actions by insisting that it prioritizes bona fide threats to national security and public safety but exempts no category of “removable alien” from enforcement. Which raises a question: Have discretion and humanity been dropped from the attributes that Americans can expect of their law enforcement agencies?

 

This is how things started in 1930s Germany. 

There is something about these situations that bother me mightily. Yes, there can be horrible people who by hook or by crook get into high offices of the country. That's awful, and appalling, as they have the power to change policy and wreak havoc in a country. However, what I just cannot fathom, not one little bit, is that these policies, these atrocities, can only be enforced by others, by so-called ordinary people, who do as they're told without question. Why? Why do they choose to enforce these horrible new rules? How can they be so cruel? Why do they simply follow orders? Are they just thinking Befehl ist Befehl...?

This scares the heck out of me, much more so than the administration or the executive departments.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The rise of David Bowdich, the former sniper in line to become the FBI’s new deputy director"

Spoiler

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is stepping down from his job and is expected to be replaced by David Bowdich, a senior official who headed the FBI’s response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., according to people familiar with the plans.

McCabe will formally retire in March but plans to leave the deputy director position now, a person close to the matter confirmed to The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky on Monday. McCabe has often been a target of President Trump — who asked the deputy director in a private discussion whom he had voted for in the presidential election — and congressional Republicans, who have criticized the FBI for its Russia probe. He will use leave time to fill out his remaining time at the agency.

Here’s what we know about Bowdich:

He began his career as a police officer in New Mexico

The Albuquerque native graduated from New Mexico State University in 1991. He worked as an officer with the Albuquerque Police Department from 1991 to 1995, patrolling the Southeast and North Valley area commands, according to the Albuquerque Journal. He also worked as a detective during his time in the North Valley.

“He was very ambitious, very smart and very physically fit,” Deputy Police Chief Robert Huntsman told the Albuquerque Journal. Huntsman was a sergeant when Bowdich was a cadet at the police academy.

“He was an informal leader for the other cadets,” Huntsman said.

He’s a former FBI SWAT team member and sniper 

Bowdich joined the FBI in 1995 as a special agent and served as a SWAT team member and sniper at the agency’s San Diego field office. There, he investigated violent crimes and gangs, according to an FBI news release.

One of his investigations included a year-long wiretap that resulted in the first federal criminal racketeering convictions brought against a street gang in Southern California, according to FBI officials. In 2005, he started leading a multiagency gang task force that through undercover operations and wiretaps investigated drug and racketeering cases against the Mexican Mafia, Bloods and Crips gangs and the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, FBI officials said.

He oversaw non-white-collar crime investigations at the FBI’s San Diego field office . . .

In 2009, Bowdich became the assistant special agent in charge of the bureau’s San Diego office. In that role, he identified the emerging kidnapping trend of Mexican cartel-related groups and, in response, created the country’s first FBI squad to pinpoint kidnapping threats on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

That squad brought cases against 43 cartel members and associates who ran multiple kidnapping cells in the San Diego area, according to FBI officials.

Bowdich also oversaw the investigation of the deaths of two U.S. Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty.

. . . and later ran the Los Angeles field office 

In 2014, he was named the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office — overseeing seven Southern California counties with a population of nearly 19 million people, according to Los Angeles Times.

He talked to longtime writer and columnist Patt Morrison in 2015 about how federal agencies had to change after the 9/11 attacks. “Former Director [Robert] Mueller told the story about how he went to see President Bush right after 9/11. He began to tell him all the resources in place at the Pentagon; the World Trade Center; in Shanksville, Pa; and President Bush puts up his hand and says, ‘I got it. What are we doing to stop the next one?’ And that was the sea change the FBI had to make.”

In L.A., he was on alert for the possibility of a terrorist attack months before the San Bernardino mass shooting  

In February 2015, Bowdich told Los Angeles Times’s Morrison that he believed Southern California was a potential terrorist target. He cited a conversation he had at the time with William J. Bratton, who was then police commissioner in New York City.

“[Bratton] said New York is focused on terrorism because they’ve been hit. Their memory is very long. And they’ve had several plots that have been disrupted since,” Bowdich told the Times. “Los Angeles is a big, big city, and we have some iconic potential targets. My concern is that we not become complacent, because complacency is very dangerous.”

He added that people had a responsibility to report concerning messages on social media or suspicious behavior.

“People have a right to say what they want, but if it appears they’re getting ready to go fight or conduct some sort of attack, those are a concern,” he said.

He led the FBI response to the San Bernardino shooting

After the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others, Bowdich asked the public at a January 2016 news conference for help in figuring out whether the husband and wife behind the attack — Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik — had communicated with anyone after the shooting. An 18-minute period after the shooting, from 12:59 p.m. to 1:17 p.m., puzzled investigators, who wondered if Farook and Malik went to a home or business or contacted anyone else.

Using traffic cameras, surveillance footage and witness accounts, Bowdich and investigators had already pieced together what Farook and Malik were doing in the four hours before the shooting, The Post’s Mark Berman reported at the time. And investigators knew that about 45 minutes after the shooting the couple visited the city’s Lake Seccombe. Divers were dispatched into the water to see what they could recover, but none of the items they found appeared to be relevant to the investigation, the FBI said.

Bowdich, who at the time still ran the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told reporters then that “until we close that gap, we just don’t know for sure.”

He later told Los Angeles Times that the husband and wife intended to detonate a pipe bomb hidden inside a bag at the Inland Regional Center, where the shooting took place.

His favorite cops-and-robbers movie is “The Untouchables”

“Eliot Ness’ character was unyielding, tenacious, principled,” he told the Times’s Morrison. “That describes what a law enforcement professional should be.”

 

[GrumpyGran]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

How else to explain the deportation of a 39-year-old landscaper living in the Detroit suburbs, a father and husband of U.S. citizens, who had lived in the United States since age 10 and whose record was so unblemished that it didn’t even feature a traffic violation?

I assumed that marrying a US citizen gave you the right to become a citizen yourself. Did this guy just not apply? Why is he not given the opportunity now?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe our First Lady magically became qualified to be a citizen on her own, just based on her "merits". Maybe her parents are somehow magically in this country because of their "merits"? Maybe I don't really understand what evil chain migration is.

[Coconut Flan]

Carry on here: