Hey, big spender

Michael Bloomberg is spending loads of money to win the Democratic nomination .
Financial disclosures made by the Bloomberg campaign indicated that as of Dec. 31 , he had sunk more than $ 200 million into his organization .
Last week , the Los Angeles Times reported that he has already spent more than $ 100 million on advertising in the Super Tuesday states alone .
He is luring top consulting talent by offering lavish salaries , new iPhones , MacBooks , and other amenities .
With a net worth of more than $ 50 billion , he can easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City has drawn criticism for his free-spending ways .
As Rich Lowry wrote for Politico , `` Bloomberg 2020 is still an affront to small-d democratic sensibilities , a tribute not to his superior political skills or messaging compared with the other candidates , but his access to a personal bank account that the rest of them lack . ''
Lowry is certainly correct .
Bloomberg ’ s candidacy has more than a whiff of aristocracy , or even monarchy , to it .
One of the virtues of kingly government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the sovereign was placed in such an elevated position that he could not be purchased .
He had all the wealth and social status he could possibly desire , and so his main motivation would be glory , a drive that would attach his interests irrevocably to the national good .
Among the Founding Fathers , Alexander Hamilton was a strong advocate for such a “ high toned ” executive .
He wanted a president who embodied the virtues of the “ natural ” aristocracy — wisdom , prudence , courage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated from what he called the “ small arts of popularity.
” Apply these ideals to Bloomberg , and there is overlap .
His wealth has enabled him to spend lavishly on campaign ads without having to worry about financing , be it through cultivating ideologues who give small-dollar amounts or wealthy interests who bundle contributions and give millions to super PACs .
It has allowed him to skip the early contests , and thus not have to worry about pressing the flesh with voters in New Hampshire and Iowa , who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parochial concerns .
It has made it easy to put together a top-flight , no-expenses-spared campaign organization in which he can easily pay lavish salaries for political consultants without worrying about its effect on his bottom line .
And by the same token , his vast fortune has allowed him to donate lavishly to various Democratic causes , which has bought him a measure of goodwill .
Stacey Abrams , the Democrat whose narrow defeat in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial contest has made her a cause celebre among progressives , seemed to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg .
But it turns out that he had given millions of dollars to her political organization .
As one blogger at the progressive DailyKos put it , “ Money CAN Buy You Love.
” Americans have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this kind of nest-feathering , but it does have its virtues .
Defenders of aristocratic government would say this is a good thing because Bloomberg can not be bought .
He is free to pursue the national interest , and if he has to bribe petty politicians and consultants to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then is it not a good thing that he has the resources to do it ?
No less an eminence than David Hume , the great philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment , argued that the power of the king to bribe the Parliament was “ necessary ” for the maintenance of the British system of government , which Hume ( and others , such as Montesquieu ) believed was the greatest the world had produced up to that point in time .
The problem with this view , however , is the implicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wisdom , or perspective to appreciate what the national interest is .
And the same may be said of Bloomberg .
It is good that he can not be bought , but he still nevertheless represents a narrow slice of American society .
Does he have the true interests of the United States at heart ?
Does he have the wisdom and temperament to bring his vision of America into being ?
Maybe , but maybe not .
And the problem is that , against a man of such wealth , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay elaborate fees to consultants , and lavish donations upon charitable organizations of would-be critics , it is difficult to raise questions like that , at least to a volume loud enough for people .
But is the Bloomberg model of campaign finance much better than the status quo ?
Not necessarily .
Consider , for instance , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s public tearing up of President Trump ’ s State of the Union address .
That was manifestly a play to the small donors who increasingly fund political campaigns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests that contribute to politics , particularly on the congressional level , in pursuit of this or that bounty that the federal government can bestow .
Is self-financing by an out-of-touch billionaire obviously worse than a politics financed by uncompromising , ideological purists and special interests ?
No .
Both shift our politics away from the political center , where compromise , mutual accord , and even harmony can be discovered .
If nothing else , the Bloomberg candidacy reveals the uncomfortable yet undeniable fact that Americans have naive views about how politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic of 330 million people , it is very expensive to campaign for public office , especially the presidency .
And while people collectively have identified sources of money that we do not like , such as special interest groups , labor unions , ideological extremists , self-funding billionaires , we have never as a people thought seriously about where the money should come from .
And thanks to our collective lack of deliberation , a system of financing built on conflicts of interest and ideological extremism has flourished .
If we the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unacceptable alternative to the status quo , we still need to think seriously about how current campaign finance laws distort our democracy .
And we need to have a public discussion among all ideological persuasions , conservatives , centrists , and liberals , about how we go about paying for politics .
Jay Cost is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute .

Michael Bloomberg is spending loads of money to win the Democratic nomination. Financial disclosures made by the Bloomberg campaign indicated that as of Dec. 31, he had sunk more than $200 million into his organization. Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that he has already spent more than $100 million on advertising in the Super Tuesday states alone. He is luring top consulting talent by offering lavish salaries, new iPhones, MacBooks, and other amenities. With a net worth of more than $50 billion, he can easily afford it.
The former mayor of New York City has drawn criticism for his free-spending ways. As Rich Lowry wrote for Politico, "Bloomberg 2020 is still an affront to small-d democratic sensibilities, a tribute not to his superior political skills or messaging compared with the other candidates, but his access to a personal bank account that the rest of them lack."
Lowry is certainly correct. Bloomberg’s candidacy has more than a whiff of aristocracy, or even monarchy, to it. One of the virtues of kingly government, it was once thought, was that the sovereign was placed in such an elevated position that he could not be purchased. He had all the wealth and social status he could possibly desire, and so his main motivation would be glory, a drive that would attach his interests irrevocably to the national good. Among the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton was a strong advocate for such a “high toned” executive. He wanted a president who embodied the virtues of the “natural” aristocracy — wisdom, prudence, courage, and so on — and who was separated from what he called the “small arts of popularity.”
Apply these ideals to Bloomberg, and there is overlap. His wealth has enabled him to spend lavishly on campaign ads without having to worry about financing, be it through cultivating ideologues who give small-dollar amounts or wealthy interests who bundle contributions and give millions to super PACs. It has allowed him to skip the early contests, and thus not have to worry about pressing the flesh with voters in New Hampshire and Iowa, who are used to presidential candidates deferring to their parochial concerns. It has made it easy to put together a top-flight, no-expenses-spared campaign organization in which he can easily pay lavish salaries for political consultants without worrying about its effect on his bottom line.
And by the same token, his vast fortune has allowed him to donate lavishly to various Democratic causes, which has bought him a measure of goodwill. Stacey Abrams, the Democrat whose narrow defeat in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial contest has made her a cause celebre among progressives, seemed to go against type last week when she praised Bloomberg. But it turns out that he had given millions of dollars to her political organization. As one blogger at the progressive DailyKos put it, “Money CAN Buy You Love.”
Americans have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this kind of nest-feathering, but it does have its virtues. Defenders of aristocratic government would say this is a good thing because Bloomberg cannot be bought. He is free to pursue the national interest, and if he has to bribe petty politicians and consultants to work on behalf of the public good, then is it not a good thing that he has the resources to do it? No less an eminence than David Hume, the great philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, argued that the power of the king to bribe the Parliament was “necessary” for the maintenance of the British system of government, which Hume (and others, such as Montesquieu) believed was the greatest the world had produced up to that point in time.
The problem with this view, however, is the implicit assumption that a king has the virtue, wisdom, or perspective to appreciate what the national interest is. And the same may be said of Bloomberg. It is good that he cannot be bought, but he still nevertheless represents a narrow slice of American society. Does he have the true interests of the United States at heart? Does he have the wisdom and temperament to bring his vision of America into being? Maybe, but maybe not. And the problem is that, against a man of such wealth, who is able to dominate the airwaves, pay elaborate fees to consultants, and lavish donations upon charitable organizations of would-be critics, it is difficult to raise questions like that, at least to a volume loud enough for people.
But is the Bloomberg model of campaign finance much better than the status quo? Not necessarily. Consider, for instance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s public tearing up of President Trump’s State of the Union address. That was manifestly a play to the small donors who increasingly fund political campaigns. Moreover, think of all the economic interests that contribute to politics, particularly on the congressional level, in pursuit of this or that bounty that the federal government can bestow.
Is self-financing by an out-of-touch billionaire obviously worse than a politics financed by uncompromising, ideological purists and special interests? No. Both shift our politics away from the political center, where compromise, mutual accord, and even harmony can be discovered.
If nothing else, the Bloomberg candidacy reveals the uncomfortable yet undeniable fact that Americans have naive views about how politics should be financed. In a continent-spanning republic of 330 million people, it is very expensive to campaign for public office, especially the presidency. And while people collectively have identified sources of money that we do not like, such as special interest groups, labor unions, ideological extremists, self-funding billionaires, we have never as a people thought seriously about where the money should come from. And thanks to our collective lack of deliberation, a system of financing built on conflicts of interest and ideological extremism has flourished.
If we the people decide that the Bloomberg model is an unacceptable alternative to the status quo, we still need to think seriously about how current campaign finance laws distort our democracy. And we need to have a public discussion among all ideological persuasions, conservatives, centrists, and liberals, about how we go about paying for politics.
Jay Cost is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Trump: Drudge is 'starting to treat me good again'

President Trump claimed that Matt Drudge , founder of top conservative news aggregation website the Drudge Report , is “ starting to like ” him again .
Speaking at a campaign rally in Colorado on Thursday , Trump began discussing his past debate performances during the 2016 presidential election .
He touted a number of informal polls from various debates , including one on the Drudge Report .
Although it isn ’ t clear which debate the poll was from , Trump held a printed-out sheet that showed him leading after one of the Republican primary debates .
Sen. Ted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in third , and then-Ohio Gov .
John Kasich , an outspoken Republican opponent of the president , came in fourth .
“ OK .
Here ’ s Drudge Report .
Drudge , you ’ re starting to treat me good again .
You ’ re starting to like me again .
I like him , ” Trump said .
`` Look : Trump .
And Ted Cruz .
I can say he came in second .
You know , he was a great debater . ''
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ And a guy who I don ’ t like much — and they don ’ t like him to much in Ohio , either — Kasich .
Kasich .
He was way down .
Way down .
OK ?
Look , who won ?
Trump !
” he said .
Trump ’ s comments about Drudge come after a report last month where , according to Columbia Journalism Review 's Bob Norman , the 53-year-old Drudge seemed to distance himself from the president despite strong support for Trump during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they noticed a shift and have vied to pick off some of Drudge ’ s audience by founding their own aggregation websites .
It is unclear what made Trump say that Drudge is “ starting to like ” him again at the Thursday rally .

President Trump claimed that Matt Drudge, founder of top conservative news aggregation website the Drudge Report, is “starting to like” him again.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Colorado on Thursday, Trump began discussing his past debate performances during the 2016 presidential election. He touted a number of informal polls from various debates, including one on the Drudge Report.
Although it isn’t clear which debate the poll was from, Trump held a printed-out sheet that showed him leading after one of the Republican primary debates. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas came in second, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in third, and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich, an outspoken Republican opponent of the president, came in fourth.
“OK. Here’s Drudge Report. Drudge, you’re starting to treat me good again. You’re starting to like me again. I like him,” Trump said. "Look: Trump. And Ted Cruz. I can say he came in second. You know, he was a great debater."
“And Marco came in third,” he continued. “And a guy who I don’t like much — and they don’t like him to much in Ohio, either — Kasich. Kasich. He was way down. Way down. OK? Look, who won? Trump!” he said.
Trump’s comments about Drudge come after a report last month where, according to Columbia Journalism Review's Bob Norman, the 53-year-old Drudge seemed to distance himself from the president despite strong support for Trump during the 2016 election.
Other conservative figures have said they noticed a shift and have vied to pick off some of Drudge’s audience by founding their own aggregation websites.
It is unclear what made Trump say that Drudge is “starting to like” him again at the Thursday rally.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Spy chief team told House Intelligence Committee that Russia supports Trump in 2020

Intelligence officials warned members of the House Intelligence Committee last week the Russians were attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential contest with the goal of helping Trump win reelection , according to reports .
The briefing was conducted by Shelby Pierson , the Intelligence Community election threats executive under outgoing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire .
During the meeting , Pierson warned that “ Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump reelected , ” according to five people familiar with the matter cited by the New York Times .
Russian interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not been publicly confirmed by the U.S. Intelligence Community .
Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded last year the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election in a “ sweeping and systematic ” fashion , but he did not establish any criminal conspiracy between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign .
Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are leading an internal inquiry into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation .
The day after last Thursday 's briefing , the report claimed Trump “ berated ” Maguire for letting it happen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the briefing ” of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff “ as a particular irritant.
” In a separate piece on Thursday , the Washington Post cited sources who claimed Trump “ erroneously believed ” Pierson had given intelligence “ exclusively ” to Schiff and that Trump thought “ it would be helpful to Democrats if released publicly.
” That report cited an anonymous source who claimed “ there was a dressing down ” of Maguire by Trump and “ that was the catalyst ” that led Trump to replace him with Trump ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenell on Wednesday .
The New York Times cited two administration officials who cast doubt on the notion that Trump was irritated at Maguire because of the briefing , saying that “ the timing was coincidental , '' that “ Mr .
Grenell had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new roles , ” and that “ Mr .
Trump had never felt a personal kinship with Mr. Maguire.
” Former Rep. Trey Gowdy said the buzz on Capitol Hill is that Trump was not angry with Maguire before announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hill tell me he was not upset with Maguire , that this was a move that was coming anyway , '' Gowdy said on Fox News .
Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he “ would like to thank Joe Maguire for the wonderful job he has done ” and said , “ We look forward to working with him closely , perhaps in another capacity within the Administration !
” Grenell tweeted early Thursday to say he would only be the “ Acting ” head of the Intelligence Community and that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not me ) sometime soon.
” The ambassador , a longtime Russia hawk , has been a forceful and effective advocate for Trump ’ s foreign policy agenda .
Grenell has taken on an outsize role in pressuring NATO to increase spending , criticizing Germany for getting too cozy with Russian energy endeavors , and pushing for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality .
“ Members on both sides participated , including ranking member Nunes , and heard the exact same briefing from experts across the Intelligence Community , ” a committee official cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s briefing .
“ No special or separate briefing was provided to one side or to any single member , including the chairman.
” The New York Times also said , `` Mr. Trump ’ s allies challenged the conclusions , arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security '' during the briefing .
Beyond the indictments against members of Russian military intelligence handed down by Mueller , the Trump administration has imposed a number of significant sanctions against Russia and has built up the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its push for increased spending by NATO member countries has resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in increased military expenditures to confront an increasingly combative Russia .
Jack Langer , the communications director for Rep. Devin Nunes , the ranking member on the committee , told the Washington Examiner he could not divulge details about classified briefings .
A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told the Washington Examiner : “ Thank you for your query ; we have nothing for you at this time.
” Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office immediately responded to a request for comment .
Trump has a history of speaking out against members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities , including former FBI Director James Comey .
He called Mueller 's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election a `` witch hunt . ''
Earlier this month , when Rep. Eric Swalwell pressed FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether the Russians were actively helping any specific campaign , Wray deflected .
“ I ’ d have to think about whether or not I can say anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wray told the House Judiciary Committee .
“ But I would say , in general , that the efforts to sow discord on both sides of an issue and to generate controversy and to generate distrust in our democratic institutions on our election process , that is very much ongoing.
” Pierson told WTOP earlier this month that “ election security remains a top priority for the U.S. federal government as a whole ” and said , “ We have significantly evolved since 2016 , and I don ’ t imagine we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged last month the extent of Russian interference in 2016 but emphasized that other countries pose challenges .
“ We do not assess that any other country influenced the United States election in 2016 on the scale of what the Russians did , ” Pierson said on CBS News ’ s Intelligence Matters podcast , adding that , when it comes to 2020 , “ We see a more complicated threat landscape .
This is not just a Russia-only problem .
”

Intelligence officials warned members of the House Intelligence Committee last week the Russians were attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential contest with the goal of helping Trump win reelection, according to reports.
The briefing was conducted by Shelby Pierson, the Intelligence Community election threats executive under outgoing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. During the meeting, Pierson warned that “Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump reelected,” according to five people familiar with the matter cited by the New York Times.
Russian interference on behalf of Trump in 2020 has not been publicly confirmed by the U.S. Intelligence Community.
CNN's Jake Tapper cited a national security official “I know and trust” who rejected the framing of the story along with “others with firsthand knowledge."
“What's been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again,” the official said. “But the intelligence doesn't say that.”
Tapper’s source said “the problem is Shelby said they developed a preference for Trump” and “a more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the president is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker. But not that they prefer him over Sanders or Buttigieg or anyone else. So it may have been mischaracterized by Shelby.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded last year the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election in a “sweeping and systematic” fashion, but he did not establish any criminal conspiracy between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are leading an internal inquiry into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
The day after last Thursday's briefing, the report claimed Trump “berated” Maguire for letting it happen, also alleging Trump “cited the presence in the briefing” of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff “as a particular irritant.”
In a separate piece on Thursday, the Washington Post cited sources who claimed Trump “erroneously believed” Pierson had given intelligence “exclusively” to Schiff and that Trump thought “it would be helpful to Democrats if released publicly.” That report cited an anonymous source who claimed “there was a dressing down” of Maguire by Trump and “that was the catalyst” that led Trump to replace him with Trump ally and U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell on Wednesday.
The New York Times cited two administration officials who cast doubt on the notion that Trump was irritated at Maguire because of the briefing, saying that “the timing was coincidental," that “Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new roles,” and that “Mr. Trump had never felt a personal kinship with Mr. Maguire.”
The national security official cited by Tapper also said “the president was upset that he had to hear about an intelligence conclusion from a member of the House Republicans rather than from the intelligence community, so he was out of joint with Maguire on that process.”
Former Rep. Trey Gowdy said the buzz on Capitol Hill is that Trump was not angry with Maguire before announcing his exit. "My sources on the Hill tell me he was not upset with Maguire, that this was a move that was coming anyway," Gowdy said on Fox News.
Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he “would like to thank Joe Maguire for the wonderful job he has done” and said, “We look forward to working with him closely, perhaps in another capacity within the Administration!”
Grenell tweeted early Thursday to say he would only be the “Acting” head of the Intelligence Community and that “the President will announce the Nominee (not me) sometime soon.”
The ambassador, a longtime Russia hawk, has been a forceful and effective advocate for Trump’s foreign policy agenda. Grenell has taken on an outsize role in pressuring NATO to increase spending, criticizing Germany for getting too cozy with Russian energy endeavors, and pushing for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.
“Members on both sides participated, including ranking member Nunes, and heard the exact same briefing from experts across the Intelligence Community,” a committee official cited by the Washington Post said about last week’s briefing. “No special or separate briefing was provided to one side or to any single member, including the chairman.”
The New York Times also said, "Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security" during the briefing. The national security official who talked with Tapper said “both Democrats and Republicans were challenging this at the briefing."
Beyond the indictments against members of Russian military intelligence handed down by Mueller, the Trump administration has imposed a number of significant sanctions against Russia and has built up the U.S. military’s presence in Eastern Europe. Its push for increased spending by NATO member countries has resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in increased military expenditures to confront an increasingly combative Russia.
Jack Langer, the communications director for Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the committee, told the Washington Examiner he could not divulge details about classified briefings.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told the Washington Examiner: “Thank you for your query; we have nothing for you at this time.”
Neither the White House nor Schiff’s office immediately responded to a request for comment.
Trump has a history of speaking out against members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, including former FBI Director James Comey. He called Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election a "witch hunt."
Earlier this month, when Rep. Eric Swalwell pressed FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether the Russians were actively helping any specific campaign, Wray deflected.
“I’d have to think about whether or not I can say anything in an open setting like that,” Wray told the House Judiciary Committee. “But I would say, in general, that the efforts to sow discord on both sides of an issue and to generate controversy and to generate distrust in our democratic institutions on our election process, that is very much ongoing.”
Pierson told WTOP earlier this month that “election security remains a top priority for the U.S. federal government as a whole” and said, “We have significantly evolved since 2016, and I don’t imagine we’ll decelerate anytime soon.”
She acknowledged last month the extent of Russian interference in 2016 but emphasized that other countries pose challenges.
“We do not assess that any other country influenced the United States election in 2016 on the scale of what the Russians did,” Pierson said on CBS News’s Intelligence Matters podcast, adding that, when it comes to 2020, “We see a more complicated threat landscape. This is not just a Russia-only problem.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Democrats trying to delegitimize labor watchdog agency under Trump

The National Labor Relations Board , the primary federal labor law watchdog agency , has had an all-Republican board since December , and Democrats have shown more interest in criticizing the board than in adding Democrats .
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has the responsibility of nominating candidates to fill the remaining slots , which are reserved for the party opposite the president .
Even with several months of warning , Democrats did n't announce preferred candidates before the seats became open .
Nevertheless , the Democrats have not ignored the board .
They 've frequently attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal agencies , the board became prominent under President Barack Obama 's administration when it began aggressively reinterpreting old rules to benefit labor organizing .
Under President Trump 's administration , the board has systematically been working to reverse the changes made under the prior administration .
Democrats have responded by attacking the NLRB on multiple fronts , painting the current members as tainted by conflicts of interest .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has pushed for strict enforcement of ethics standards for board members recusing themselves from cases .
They 've also sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation .
`` Instead of protecting graduate workers , the National Labor Relations Board is trying to strip them of their rights , '' Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , a top contender for the Democratic nomination , said in January when introducing legislation that would prevent proposed rule-making by the NLRB regarding unionizing and graduate students .
The board has been quite active in the last year , putting out some controversial rulings that have been applauded by business and slammed by unions .
Late last year , it overturned the Obama administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that franchiser corporations could be `` joint employers '' legally responsible for violations by their franchisees , a potentially massive expansion of legal liability .
It also ruled last year that misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor is not itself a violation of federal law .
It ruled that businesses can ban nonemployee union activists from their property and made it easier for employers to alter provisions in labor contracts without the union 's permission .
It has also proposed tightening rules limiting the National Labor Relations Act protections for the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racially insensitive language by labor activists .
The board 's last Democratic appointee , Obama pick Lauren McFerran , stepped down in December when her term expired .
That leaves the board down to Chairman John Ring and members William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan .
A White House spokesman and Schumer 's office both declined to comment .
`` It 's the first time in history that the board has been all-Republican , '' noted Wilma Liebman , former NLRB chairwoman first appointed by President Bill Clinton and currently a senior research associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term expires in August , so the board could soon lack a majority for a period until the White House can get a replacement through the Senate .
While past disputes between the Senate and the White House have often resulted in seats being left open , sometimes for years , the current situation sets a poor precedent .
It represents ugly politics , in the eyes of many labor law experts .
Board decisions have no dissenting opinions , an unusual situation that makes for bad appearances .
`` We all take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of employers and unions alike , '' said Steve Bernstein , a manager-side lawyer with the firm Fisher & Phillips .
Democrats clamored for a full five-member board during the Obama administration .
However , any Democratic nominees would likely find themselves outvoted on most important cases since the board operates by a simple majority .
The current board 's three Trump-picked members do give it a functioning quorum , but if just one can not participate , it can not issue decisions .
Recusals are a significant issue for the current board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling in an important 2017 decision called Hy-Brand involving joint-employer corporate liability when the board 's inspector general determined that Emanuel should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest .
Emanuel contended no such conflict existed .
The inspector general 's investigation was initiated following complaints by Democratic lawmakers such as Warren and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington .
They 've continued to push aggressively for the members to recuse themselves in other cases .
In response , the board launched an 18-month comprehensive review of its ethics policies and procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections against conflicts of interest .
Democrats have continued to push for board members to recuse themselves in cases .
Ring told the Washington Examiner in an interview after the report 's release that `` for those who want to weaponize ethics and board-member recusals to further an agenda , probably nothing will satisfy them .
That 's truly unfortunate . ''

The National Labor Relations Board, the primary federal labor law watchdog agency, has had an all-Republican board since December, and Democrats have shown more interest in criticizing the board than in adding Democrats.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has the responsibility of nominating candidates to fill the remaining slots, which are reserved for the party opposite the president. Even with several months of warning, Democrats didn't announce preferred candidates before the seats became open.
Nevertheless, the Democrats have not ignored the board. They've frequently attacked it.
Long considered a backwater among federal agencies, the board became prominent under President Barack Obama's administration when it began aggressively reinterpreting old rules to benefit labor organizing. Under President Trump's administration, the board has systematically been working to reverse the changes made under the prior administration.
Democrats have responded by attacking the NLRB on multiple fronts, painting the current members as tainted by conflicts of interest. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has pushed for strict enforcement of ethics standards for board members recusing themselves from cases.
They've also sought to reverse the board's policies through legislation. "Instead of protecting graduate workers, the National Labor Relations Board is trying to strip them of their rights," Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a top contender for the Democratic nomination, said in January when introducing legislation that would prevent proposed rule-making by the NLRB regarding unionizing and graduate students.
The board has been quite active in the last year, putting out some controversial rulings that have been applauded by business and slammed by unions. Late last year, it overturned the Obama administration's most prominent decision, the ruling that franchiser corporations could be "joint employers" legally responsible for violations by their franchisees, a potentially massive expansion of legal liability. It also ruled last year that misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor is not itself a violation of federal law. It ruled that businesses can ban nonemployee union activists from their property and made it easier for employers to alter provisions in labor contracts without the union's permission. It has also proposed tightening rules limiting the National Labor Relations Act protections for the use of profane, verbally abusive, and racially insensitive language by labor activists.
The board's last Democratic appointee, Obama pick Lauren McFerran, stepped down in December when her term expired. That leaves the board down to Chairman John Ring and members William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan. A White House spokesman and Schumer's office both declined to comment.
"It's the first time in history that the board has been all-Republican," noted Wilma Liebman, former NLRB chairwoman first appointed by President Bill Clinton and currently a senior research associate at Harvard Law School.
Emanuel's term expires in August, so the board could soon lack a majority for a period until the White House can get a replacement through the Senate.
While past disputes between the Senate and the White House have often resulted in seats being left open, sometimes for years, the current situation sets a poor precedent. It represents ugly politics, in the eyes of many labor law experts. Board decisions have no dissenting opinions, an unusual situation that makes for bad appearances.
"We all take notice. It has caught the attention of employers and unions alike," said Steve Bernstein, a manager-side lawyer with the firm Fisher & Phillips.
Democrats clamored for a full five-member board during the Obama administration. However, any Democratic nominees would likely find themselves outvoted on most important cases since the board operates by a simple majority. The current board's three Trump-picked members do give it a functioning quorum, but if just one cannot participate, it cannot issue decisions.
Recusals are a significant issue for the current board. It was forced to vacate a ruling in an important 2017 decision called Hy-Brand involving joint-employer corporate liability when the board's inspector general determined that Emanuel should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Emanuel contended no such conflict existed.
The inspector general's investigation was initiated following complaints by Democratic lawmakers such as Warren and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington. They've continued to push aggressively for the members to recuse themselves in other cases. In response, the board launched an 18-month comprehensive review of its ethics policies and procedures, which found that they provided strong protections against conflicts of interest. Democrats have continued to push for board members to recuse themselves in cases.
Ring told the Washington Examiner in an interview after the report's release that "for those who want to weaponize ethics and board-member recusals to further an agenda, probably nothing will satisfy them. That's truly unfortunate."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--How much does John Bolton know about Ukraine scandal? He's not saying

For three weeks , John Bolton had kept his counsel .
After leaks from his manuscript sent shock waves through President Trump 's impeachment trial and reignited demands that witnesses be called to give evidence , the man who had so far declined to give testimony was about to speak .
`` I 'm so pleased that Duke has been able to do what neither the House nor the Senate was able , '' said his host Peter Feaver , professor of political science , his words drowned out by a mix of groans , laughs , and applause from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auditorium .
`` Good luck , '' Bolton replied .
In two words , he signaled his intention to spend the next hour and a quarter deflecting , dodging , and ducking questions about his working relationship with Trump in general and impeachment in particular .
Still , he was taking no chances .
His contract with Duke specified that the audience was not allowed to record his words .
And after three minutes of mostly introductory remarks , television crews were given the prearranged signal to turn off their cameras , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyone who thought that might herald the start of a candid examination of Trump 's foreign policy process by his former national security adviser was swiftly disabused of the notion .
Instead , the audience got a familiar rundown of Bolton 's finest moments — America 's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court , the overturning of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism , and Washington pulling out of various nuclear treaties .
Feaver , the genial host , tried again , asking about Venezuela and whether Trump took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his intention to replace Nicolas Maduro as president .
Wait for the book , came the answer from Bolton , who several times plugged his forthcoming memoir The Room Where It Happened , which is due to be published on March 17 .
`` Well , I 'll have to say … why we ca n't talk about it … because you can talk about right now .
This is a safe space , '' said Feaver , to more laughter .
There was nothing he would like better , insisted Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House 's `` prepublication review . ''
`` But we 're in the process now and may have something to say about it later , but for now , I 'm going to let it go , '' he said .
And so , it went on .
Questions about Russia and Ukraine came and went without Bolton budging .
No , he could n't comment on whether he thought Trump 's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was `` perfect , '' as the president claimed .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was his teasing reply .
Nor would he describe what it was like behind the scenes of Trump 's cringingly bad meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki two years ago .
`` I could read a chapter from my book here and give you the answer to that question , '' he said .
But then , who would buy his book ?
We did n't even get to the question everyone wanted to know .
Was the New York Times story accurate in claiming that Trump told his national security adviser that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in security assistance to Ukraine until its government helped with investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter ?
Is the episode recounted in his manuscript ?
And did he know how those details , undercutting a vital part of the president 's defense , came to be leaked at a crucial point of the Senate trial ?
No questions and no answers .
Instead , Bolton was happy to play the analyst rather than the White House insider , offering the sort of views that will no doubt eventually get him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , he was happy to criticize Trump 's foreign policy for not being hawkish enough .
On Iran : `` Well , I think it 's failing because I do n't think it lives up to its bumper sticker slogan of maximum pressure .
I do n't think we 're applying maximum pressure on Iran . ''
And on North Korea : `` It was perfectly evident it was going to fail . ''
An audience that had come to hear about the Ukraine scandal was sent on its way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow and a tour of Bolton 's ( well-known ) hawkish views on the world .
The question now is whether his book will follow the same course .

For three weeks, John Bolton had kept his counsel. After leaks from his manuscript sent shock waves through President Trump's impeachment trial and reignited demands that witnesses be called to give evidence, the man who had so far declined to give testimony was about to speak.
"I'm so pleased that Duke has been able to do what neither the House nor the Senate was able," said his host Peter Feaver, professor of political science, his words drowned out by a mix of groans, laughs, and applause from the capacity audience in the Duke University auditorium.
"Good luck," Bolton replied. In two words, he signaled his intention to spend the next hour and a quarter deflecting, dodging, and ducking questions about his working relationship with Trump in general and impeachment in particular.
Still, he was taking no chances. His contract with Duke specified that the audience was not allowed to record his words. And after three minutes of mostly introductory remarks, television crews were given the prearranged signal to turn off their cameras, which had been operating without audio anyway.
Anyone who thought that might herald the start of a candid examination of Trump's foreign policy process by his former national security adviser was swiftly disabused of the notion.
Instead, the audience got a familiar rundown of Bolton's finest moments — America's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, the overturning of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism, and Washington pulling out of various nuclear treaties.
Feaver, the genial host, tried again, asking about Venezuela and whether Trump took a harder line than Bolton and was serious in his intention to replace Nicolas Maduro as president.
Wait for the book, came the answer from Bolton, who several times plugged his forthcoming memoir The Room Where It Happened, which is due to be published on March 17.
"Well, I'll have to say … why we can't talk about it … because you can talk about right now. This is a safe space," said Feaver, to more laughter.
There was nothing he would like better, insisted Bolton, if it weren't for the White House's "prepublication review."
"But we're in the process now and may have something to say about it later, but for now, I'm going to let it go," he said.
And so, it went on. Questions about Russia and Ukraine came and went without Bolton budging. No, he couldn't comment on whether he thought Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "perfect," as the president claimed. "You'll love chapter 14," was his teasing reply.
Nor would he describe what it was like behind the scenes of Trump's cringingly bad meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki two years ago. "I could read a chapter from my book here and give you the answer to that question," he said.
But then, who would buy his book?
We didn't even get to the question everyone wanted to know. Was the New York Times story accurate in claiming that Trump told his national security adviser that he wanted to continue withholding $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until its government helped with investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter? Is the episode recounted in his manuscript? And did he know how those details, undercutting a vital part of the president's defense, came to be leaked at a crucial point of the Senate trial?
No questions and no answers. Instead, Bolton was happy to play the analyst rather than the White House insider, offering the sort of views that will no doubt eventually get him a post as a TV talking head.
And so, he was happy to criticize Trump's foreign policy for not being hawkish enough.
On Iran: "Well, I think it's failing because I don't think it lives up to its bumper sticker slogan of maximum pressure. I don't think we're applying maximum pressure on Iran."
And on North Korea: "It was perfectly evident it was going to fail."
An audience that had come to hear about the Ukraine scandal was sent on its way after an extended tease of more to follow and a tour of Bolton's (well-known) hawkish views on the world. The question now is whether his book will follow the same course.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Fixing the FBI and CIA

Fixing the FBI and CIA

Like most of what ails us today , the seeds of the current crisis in republican governance — the severance of Washington ’ s omnipotent law enforcement and intelligence apparatus from democratic accountability — were sown in the 1960s and ’ 70s .
That was when we began to erase the salient distinction between law and politics .
Under the guise of “ national security , ” we insulated governmental actions and policies from the reckoning of our citizens , whose safety and self-determination hang in the balance .
Fast forward to 2020 .
The FBI , in its bungling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election away from its preferred candidate , Hillary Clinton .
The sprawling “ community ” of intelligence agencies ( led by the FBI and CIA ) covertly used dubious foreign sources to justify monitoring an American political campaign and , later , a U.S. presidential administration .
To do so , it invoked daunting foreign-counterintelligence surveillance powers , based on a fever dream that its bête noire , Donald Trump , was an agent of the Kremlin .
And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently chastised the FBI for feeding it false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently calculating that this extraordinary public expression of wrath will divert attention from its own shoddy performance in approving highly intrusive spy warrants based on sensational , blatantly uncorroborated rumor and innuendo .
As usual , Washington is reacting with high-decibel inertia .
In an era of hyperpartisanship , Democrats defend the politicization of the law enforcement and intelligence that resulted in the Trump-Russia investigation .
Republicans , meanwhile , wail about being victimized — even as the victim-in-chief ham-handedly dabbles in his own mini-version of the abuse : the Ukraine kerfuffle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futilely , to leverage the investigative and foreign affairs powers of the executive branch for domestic political advantage .
Few are willing to confront the crisis .
Even acknowledging it seems politically impossible .
Not only are Democrats invested in defending the Russia investigation and its excesses , but their post-Watergate surveillance reforms forged the modern law enforcement and intelligence apparatus , which tends to be politically like-minded , at least in the supervisory ranks .
For their part , Republicans pay lip service to limited government and political accountability while continuing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key to political success .
Any questioning of the status quo , as opposed to criticism of the individual abuses that the status quo reliably produces , is framed as a green light to foreign sabotage and domestic lawlessness .
Yet there are indications we ’ ve reached an inflection point : The public is growing weary and not a little bit angry .
The politicization of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering threatens everyone , regardless of political persuasion .
And officials seem always to escape accountability .
Consider the center-right , the part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aggressive spy powers have traditionally found their staunchest defenders , myself very much among them .
We see several Trump operatives ( Carter Page , Michael Flynn , George Papadopoulos , Roger Stone , and Paul Manafort ) subjected to groundless surveillance or prosecuted with unseemly zeal for process crimes ( usually , misleading investigators ) , or for offenses unrelated to the fictional Trump-Kremlin conspiracy .
In stark contrast , government officials who misled investigators , judges , and lawmakers evade prosecution .
The latest example : the Justice Department ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s former deputy director , Andrew McCabe , will not be indicted despite serially misleading agents who were probing a media leak that he orchestrated .
Here is the problem : The immense powers wielded by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus are essential to protecting the United States .
The agencies that wield them , as currently constructed , are not .
The intelligence community ’ s performance is often subpar .
While officials have played an admirable part in preventing a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities , they have also promoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ techniques are fit tools for the tasks at hand .
For example , the notion that international terrorism is primarily a law enforcement matter led for years to a focus on post-attack prosecutions rather than the prevention of attacks from happening .
Indeed , the specter of jihadist strikes ebbed only after domestic law enforcement was subordinated to military operations against overseas terrorist sanctuaries .
And let ’ s not forget the bulk collection of communications and metadata involving tens of millions of innocent Americans , supposedly necessary for intelligence agencies to target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which amounted to the risible suggestion that heaping ever more hay in the stack somehow makes the needles easier to find .
Yes , we need aggressive intelligence collection , mission-focused rather than warehoused without much discrimination , to protect the nation from very real foreign threats .
But this is a political responsibility , and government officials who carry it out must be accountable .
When officials are permitted to shroud their work in complete secrecy , making themselves unaccountable , an outraged public will eventually react to abuses of power by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back or repealed .
Our nation would be imperiled from without by foreign aggressors , even as we remained threatened from within by a politicized bureaucracy .
Some history is in order .
In its 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States , the Supreme Court completed its transformation of the Fourth Amendment .
Originally , it had been rooted in principles of trespass , a venerable criminal-law doctrine whose application is straightforward : The government must respect property rights .
The new rule of the road was expectation of privacy .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do technology ( which enables government monitoring without physical trespass ) and the public ’ s expanding conception of zones of personal activity and intercourse that should be shielded from prying , investigative eyes .
Brokering the eternal tension between security and privacy is a political task .
It should be governed by legislated rules that police can easily carry out .
Instead , we ’ ve put our police in the position of intuiting what privacy invasions the courts might indulge .
That is asking them to do policy , not policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy matter , categorically different from law enforcement .
In requiring judicial warrants for wiretaps in ordinary criminal investigations in Katz , the court recognized that distinction , stressing that its ruling did not encompass government actions to protect national security .
In 1968 , Congress recognized the same distinction when it enacted the federal wiretapping statute .
Lawmakers took pains to note that they were not encroaching on the president ’ s constitutional authority to protect national security and guard against espionage by obtaining foreign intelligence , including by electronic surveillance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and law enforcement intersect ?
In the 1972 Keith case , the Supreme Court was forced to confront it , in that instance regarding insurrection and its related crimes by domestic terrorists .
The intelligence agencies sought to treat the matter as a security threat , suitable for such national defense tactics as warrantless surveillance , not a policing challenge calling for the due process and substantive safeguards attendant to court prosecutions in peacetime .
Reasoning that politically motivated violence was bound up with constitutionally protected political dissent , the court ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression had to be respected , even if a judicial warrant requirement was certain to make monitoring them more difficult ( and preventing their attacks more challenging ) .
Again , however , the justices caveated that the “ scope of our decision … involves only the domestic aspects of national security ” ( emphasis added ) .
The court was not saying that foreign powers and their agents were entitled to the due process protection .
Such caution was well-founded .
In 1948 , in the Chicago & Southern Air Lines decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iconic figure in politics , national security , and jurisprudence , the Supreme Court explained why judges were not institutionally competent to regulate foreign intelligence matters or be taken into “ executive confidences ” regarding them .
“ The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political , not judicial.
” In our system , Jackson observed , such decisions are “ wholly confided ” to the executive and legislative branches .
Because the most significant decisions a free society makes are those about its security , they must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil , ” not to the unaccountable judiciary .
But Washington threw caution to the wind .
The FBI and judges were already making policy decisions about where constitutional protections should yield to law enforcement demands .
In 1978 , in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , Congress extended this delegation to intelligence policy .
Enacted in the wake of Watergate and domestic spying scandals that led to Congress ’ s Pike and Church Committee inquiries , FISA empowered federal judges to oversee the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Originally , this power was limited to the FBI ’ s surveillance of clandestine foreign agents in the United States ; later , it was dramatically expanded to cover intelligence collection targeting foreigners outside the U.S .
Plainly , lawmakers calculated that the creation of a separate court to handle all applications for foreign-intelligence surveillance would grow judicial expertise , addressing the institutional incompetence problem to which Jackson had alluded .
FISA is heedless , though , of the more serious constitutional problem : the transfer of responsibility for innately political national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , away from democratic accountability .
It is the culture of law enforcement to expect independence from politics .
Such independence is imperative for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system , on which depend the rule of law and thus domestic peace and prosperity .
The framers understood that nothing lends itself to tyranny more than police powers unmoored from political accountability .
The FBI and the Justice Department ( of which the bureau is a component ) are part of the executive branch , answerable to the president , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the executive branch ’ s political leadership does not involve itself in day-to-day policing , content to set programmatic enforcement priorities ( e.g.
, deciding whether to allocate more resources to violent crime or healthcare fraud ) .
There is no political interference in decisions about what cases to bring and which defendants to charge .
Those are left to police professionals , who apply Congress ’ s penal statutes in proceedings overseen by courts .
National security , on the other hand , is an innately political responsibility .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solely to support the president ’ s national defense duties , not to develop prosecutable court cases .
If the FBI and the courts are doing national security , they are necessarily practicing politics .
Arms of government that make political determinations can not properly be independent of political oversight and accountability .
I ’ ve always believed the FBI could handle these related but different responsibilities .
History proved me wrong .
The bureau arrogantly insists on independence from political oversight not just in criminal cases but even when it is carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free hand to act and even make policy judgments in the political realm , but it demands insulation from political accountability .
The courts , analogously , have shed their healthy reluctance to become embroiled in national security policy disputes , as well as their formerly laudable line-drawing between political questions and controversies fit for judicial resolution .
FISA was a well-meaning effort to give a modicum of due process to Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents .
In point of fact , it does not provide meaningful due process because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for truth that is the hallmark of judicial proceedings .
The FBI and Justice Department appear ex parte before the court ; the surveillance subject can not be effectively represented , and the proceedings are classified , so the expectation is that no one will ever check the executive ’ s representations .
This is unlike criminal cases , which lead to prosecution , discovery , and significant legal consequences if government agents duped the judge into granting warrants .
More important , the FISA framework intended to provide more oversight of executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the judges are not constitutionally responsible for national security , they are loath to second-guess the officials who are .
The system perversely incentivizes those officials to seek warrants on questionable premises .
They know that the judge will probably approve the warrants .
Once that ’ s done , the agents can brandish these judicial imprimaturs as proof that their actions are unimpeachable — and thus to claim there is no legitimate reason for Congress , much less the public , to pierce the veil of secrecy .
And now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve witnessed the abuse of power many FISA critics predicted for decades : the pretextual invocation of FISA surveillance powers to conduct a criminal investigation for which the investigators lack a criminal predicate — in this instance , the hunt for some crime that might render Donald Trump unelectable or removable .
Worse , and quite naturally , the abuse has happened in a political context : the incumbent Democratic administration using the threat posed by a hostile power , Russia , to rationalize foreign counterintelligence surveillance of the opposition party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two years and impeded the Trump administration ’ s capacity to govern .
This was all predictable .
It may even have become inevitable , as law enforcement was increasingly intertwined with political policymaking in the areas of privacy and national security , and as intelligence-gathering and criminal investigations were increasingly intermingled .
A fix is not that hard to grasp .
It is doubtful , though , that our political culture could muster the consensus and will it would take for implementation .
The FBI should be relegated to the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excels in executing its law enforcement duties and can be trusted to operate with minimal political supervision because the criminal justice system features transparent judicial oversight .
The foreign counterintelligence mission should be transferred to other intelligence community components and subjected to beefed-up congressional regulation and oversight .
FISA should be repealed , with the courts returned to their judicial role of providing a forum for those injured by governmental overreach , rather than aiding and abetting in the overreach .
Much more rethinking of the intelligence community needs to be done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an insightful and provocative intelligence expert , argues the CIA is obsolete , politicized , and counterproductive .
He would assign foreign intelligence responsibilities to the departments that carry out national defense and foreign relations missions — mainly , the Defense and State Departments — tailoring the gathering of intelligence to the practical needs of these missions .
This would strip down the so-called “ deep state , ” a leviathan that warehouses mountains of intelligence to the detriment of our liberties and with dubious benefits to our security .
Codevilla would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth exploring .
What is already clear , however , is that national security against foreign powers is not a fit responsibility for police agencies and courts .
Assigning it to them is a failed experiment : a temptation to intrusive surveillance of innocent citizens and politicized law enforcement .
We should end the experiment before the public , in its frustration over the lack of accountability , clips the powers vital to our national defense .
Andrew C. McCarthy , a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contributing editor at National Review , and a Fox News contributor .

Like most of what ails us today, the seeds of the current crisis in republican governance, the severance of Washington’s omnipotent law enforcement and intelligence apparatus from democratic accountability, were sown in the 1960s and ’70s. That was when we began to erase the salient distinction between law and politics. Under the guise of “national security,” we insulated governmental actions and policies from the reckoning of our citizens, whose safety and self-determination hang in the balance.
Fast forward to 2020. The FBI, in its bungling partisanship, very likely swung the 2016 presidential election away from its preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. The sprawling “community” of intelligence agencies (led by the FBI and CIA) covertly used dubious foreign sources to justify monitoring an American political campaign and, later, a U.S. presidential administration. To do so, it invoked daunting foreign-counterintelligence surveillance powers, based on a fever dream that its bête noire, Donald Trump, was an agent of the Kremlin. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently chastised the FBI for feeding it false and unverified information — the secret court apparently calculating that this extraordinary public expression of wrath will divert attention from its own shoddy performance in approving highly intrusive spy warrants based on sensational, blatantly uncorroborated rumor and innuendo.
As usual, Washington is reacting with high-decibel inertia. In an era of hyperpartisanship, Democrats defend the politicization of the law enforcement and intelligence that resulted in the Trump-Russia investigation. Republicans, meanwhile, wail about being victimized — even as the victim-in-chief ham-handedly dabbles in his own mini-version of the abuse: the Ukraine kerfuffle, in which the president sought, however futilely, to leverage the investigative and foreign affairs powers of the executive branch for domestic political advantage.
Few are willing to confront the crisis. Even acknowledging it seems politically impossible. Not only are Democrats invested in defending the Russia investigation and its excesses, but their post-Watergate surveillance reforms forged the modern law enforcement and intelligence apparatus, which tends to be politically like-minded, at least in the supervisory ranks. For their part, Republicans pay lip service to limited government and political accountability while continuing to see national security and law-and-order hawkishness as key to political success. Any questioning of the status quo, as opposed to criticism of the individual abuses that the status quo reliably produces, is framed as a green light to foreign sabotage and domestic lawlessness.
Yet there are indications we’ve reached an inflection point: The public is growing weary and not a little bit angry. The politicization of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering threatens everyone, regardless of political persuasion. And officials seem always to escape accountability.
Consider the center-right, the part of the political spectrum where the FBI and aggressive spy powers have traditionally found their staunchest defenders, myself very much among them. We see several Trump operatives (Carter Page, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort) subjected to groundless surveillance or prosecuted with unseemly zeal for process crimes (usually, misleading investigators), or for offenses unrelated to the fictional Trump-Kremlin conspiracy. In stark contrast, government officials who misled investigators, judges, and lawmakers evade prosecution. The latest example: the Justice Department’s mid-February announcement that the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, will not be indicted despite serially misleading agents who were probing a media leak that he orchestrated.
Here is the problem: The immense powers wielded by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus are essential to protecting the United States. The agencies that wield them, as currently constructed, are not.
The intelligence community’s performance is often subpar. While officials have played an admirable part in preventing a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities, they have also promoted misconceptions that they and their intrusive information-collection techniques are fit tools for the tasks at hand. For example, the notion that international terrorism is primarily a law enforcement matter led for years to a focus on post-attack prosecutions rather than the prevention of attacks from happening. Indeed, the specter of jihadist strikes ebbed only after domestic law enforcement was subordinated to military operations against overseas terrorist sanctuaries. And let’s not forget the bulk collection of communications and metadata involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, supposedly necessary for intelligence agencies to target a relative handful of bad actors — which amounted to the risible suggestion that heaping ever more hay in the stack somehow makes the needles easier to find.
Yes, we need aggressive intelligence collection, mission-focused rather than warehoused without much discrimination, to protect the nation from very real foreign threats. But this is a political responsibility, and government officials who carry it out must be accountable. When officials are permitted to shroud their work in complete secrecy, making themselves unaccountable, an outraged public will eventually react to abuses of power by demanding that the powers themselves be pared back or repealed. Our nation would be imperiled from without by foreign aggressors, even as we remained threatened from within by a politicized bureaucracy.
Some history is in order. In its 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court completed its transformation of the Fourth Amendment. Originally, it had been rooted in principles of trespass, a venerable criminal-law doctrine whose application is straightforward: The government must respect property rights. The new rule of the road was expectation of privacy. That is a fluid standard, evolving as do technology (which enables government monitoring without physical trespass) and the public’s expanding conception of zones of personal activity and intercourse that should be shielded from prying, investigative eyes.
Brokering the eternal tension between security and privacy is a political task. It should be governed by legislated rules that police can easily carry out. Instead, we’ve put our police in the position of intuiting what privacy invasions the courts might indulge. That is asking them to do policy, not policing.
National security is also a political policy matter, categorically different from law enforcement. In requiring judicial warrants for wiretaps in ordinary criminal investigations in Katz, the court recognized that distinction, stressing that its ruling did not encompass government actions to protect national security. In 1968, Congress recognized the same distinction when it enacted the federal wiretapping statute. Lawmakers took pains to note that they were not encroaching on the president’s constitutional authority to protect national security and guard against espionage by obtaining foreign intelligence, including by electronic surveillance.
What about the crossroads where national security and law enforcement intersect? In the 1972 Keith case, the Supreme Court was forced to confront it, in that instance regarding insurrection and its related crimes by domestic terrorists. The intelligence agencies sought to treat the matter as a security threat, suitable for such national defense tactics as warrantless surveillance, not a policing challenge calling for the due process and substantive safeguards attendant to court prosecutions in peacetime. Reasoning that politically motivated violence was bound up with constitutionally protected political dissent, the court ruled that the rabble-rousers’ rights to privacy and expression had to be respected, even if a judicial warrant requirement was certain to make monitoring them more difficult (and preventing their attacks more challenging). Again, however, the justices caveated that the “scope of our decision … involves only the domestic aspects of national security” (emphasis added). The court was not saying that foreign powers and their agents were entitled to the due process protection.
Such caution was well-founded. In 1948, in the Chicago & Southern Air Lines decision written by Justice Robert Jackson, an iconic figure in politics, national security, and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court explained why judges were not institutionally competent to regulate foreign intelligence matters or be taken into “executive confidences” regarding them. “The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial.” In our system, Jackson observed, such decisions are “wholly confided” to the executive and legislative branches. Because the most significant decisions a free society makes are those about its security, they must be left to the political actors “directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil,” not to the unaccountable judiciary.
But Washington threw caution to the wind. The FBI and judges were already making policy decisions about where constitutional protections should yield to law enforcement demands. In 1978, in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress extended this delegation to intelligence policy.
Enacted in the wake of Watergate and domestic spying scandals that led to Congress’s Pike and Church Committee inquiries, FISA empowered federal judges to oversee the executive’s foreign intelligence collection. Originally, this power was limited to the FBI’s surveillance of clandestine foreign agents in the United States; later, it was dramatically expanded to cover intelligence collection targeting foreigners outside the U.S. Plainly, lawmakers calculated that the creation of a separate court to handle all applications for foreign-intelligence surveillance would grow judicial expertise, addressing the institutional incompetence problem to which Jackson had alluded. FISA is heedless, though, of the more serious constitutional problem: the transfer of responsibility for innately political national security decisions to nonpolitical unelected officials — i.e., away from democratic accountability.
It is the culture of law enforcement to expect independence from politics. Such independence is imperative for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, on which depend the rule of law and thus domestic peace and prosperity. The framers understood that nothing lends itself to tyranny more than police powers unmoored from political accountability. The FBI and the Justice Department (of which the bureau is a component) are part of the executive branch, answerable to the president, who is accountable to the public. Prudently, however, the executive branch’s political leadership does not involve itself in day-to-day policing, content to set programmatic enforcement priorities (e.g., deciding whether to allocate more resources to violent crime or healthcare fraud). There is no political interference in decisions about what cases to bring and which defendants to charge. Those are left to police professionals, who apply Congress’s penal statutes in proceedings overseen by courts.
National security, on the other hand, is an innately political responsibility. Indeed, the foreign counterintelligence mission is conducted solely to support the president’s national defense duties, not to develop prosecutable court cases. If the FBI and the courts are doing national security, they are necessarily practicing politics. Arms of government that make political determinations cannot properly be independent of political oversight and accountability.
I’ve always believed the FBI could handle these related but different responsibilities. History proved me wrong. The bureau arrogantly insists on independence from political oversight not just in criminal cases but even when it is carrying out national security functions. It wants a free hand to act and even make policy judgments in the political realm, but it demands insulation from political accountability. The courts, analogously, have shed their healthy reluctance to become embroiled in national security policy disputes, as well as their formerly laudable line-drawing between political questions and controversies fit for judicial resolution.
FISA was a well-meaning effort to give a modicum of due process to Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents. In point of fact, it does not provide meaningful due process because it cannot replicate the adversarial search for truth that is the hallmark of judicial proceedings. The FBI and Justice Department appear ex parte before the court; the surveillance subject cannot be effectively represented, and the proceedings are classified, so the expectation is that no one will ever check the executive’s representations. This is unlike criminal cases, which lead to prosecution, discovery, and significant legal consequences if government agents duped the judge into granting warrants.
More important, the FISA framework intended to provide more oversight of executive surveillance has had the opposite effect. Because the judges are not constitutionally responsible for national security, they are loath to second-guess the officials who are. The system perversely incentivizes those officials to seek warrants on questionable premises. They know that the judge will probably approve the warrants. Once that’s done, the agents can brandish these judicial imprimaturs as proof that their actions are unimpeachable — and thus to claim there is no legitimate reason for Congress, much less the public, to pierce the veil of secrecy.
And now, with the Trump-Russia investigation, we’ve witnessed the abuse of power many FISA critics predicted for decades: the pretextual invocation of FISA surveillance powers to conduct a criminal investigation for which the investigators lack a criminal predicate — in this instance, the hunt for some crime that might render Donald Trump unelectable or removable. Worse, and quite naturally, the abuse has happened in a political context: the incumbent Democratic administration using the threat posed by a hostile power, Russia, to rationalize foreign counterintelligence surveillance of the opposition party’s political campaign, an abuse that continued for two years and impeded the Trump administration’s capacity to govern.
This was all predictable. It may even have become inevitable, as law enforcement was increasingly intertwined with political policymaking in the areas of privacy and national security, and as intelligence-gathering and criminal investigations were increasingly intermingled.
A fix is not that hard to grasp. It is doubtful, though, that our political culture could muster the consensus and will it would take for implementation.
The FBI should be relegated to the investigation and prosecution of crime. The bureau excels in executing its law enforcement duties and can be trusted to operate with minimal political supervision because the criminal justice system features transparent judicial oversight. The foreign counterintelligence mission should be transferred to other intelligence community components and subjected to beefed-up congressional regulation and oversight. FISA should be repealed, with the courts returned to their judicial role of providing a forum for those injured by governmental overreach, rather than aiding and abetting in the overreach.
Much more rethinking of the intelligence community needs to be done. The Claremont Institute’s Angelo Codevilla, an insightful and provocative intelligence expert, argues the CIA is obsolete, politicized, and counterproductive. He would assign foreign intelligence responsibilities to the departments that carry out national defense and foreign relations missions — mainly, the Defense and State Departments — tailoring the gathering of intelligence to the practical needs of these missions. This would strip down the so-called “deep state,” a leviathan that warehouses mountains of intelligence to the detriment of our liberties and with dubious benefits to our security. Codevilla would also repeal FISA.
His ideas are worth exploring. What is already clear, however, is that national security against foreign powers is not a fit responsibility for police agencies and courts. Assigning it to them is a failed experiment: a temptation to intrusive surveillance of innocent citizens and politicized law enforcement. We should end the experiment before the public, in its frustration over the lack of accountability, clips the powers vital to our national defense.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Kirsten Gillibrand wants a new privacy agency

A new bill in the Senate would create a new government agency focused on protecting consumer privacy and data security , removing that authority from the Federal Trade Commission .
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 's proposed Data Protection Agency would create and enforce new data protection rules .
It would encourage the development of new privacy technologies that minimize or eliminate the collection of personal data .
The agency would also take action against companies that deploy `` pay-for-privacy '' or `` take-it-or-leave-it '' provisions in their terms of service , according to Gillibrand , a New York Democrat .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get passed in the Senate , its proposal for a new privacy agency echoes legislation introduced by two Silicon Valley Democrats late last year .
Current data privacy rules are inadequate , and a `` lawlessness '' is governing the data privacy space , Gillibrand wrote in a Medium post .
`` You deserve to be in control of your own data , '' she wrote .
`` You have the right to know if companies are using your information for profit .
You need a way to protect yourself , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for you . ''
Gillibrand 's bill has received support from the Electronic Privacy Information Center , Public Citizen , the Center for Digital Democracy , and other privacy advocates .
The FTC declined to comment on Gillibrand 's Data Protection Act , but FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has defended his agency 's record on privacy .
The agency has brought hundreds of privacy cases against tech giants , with `` recent cases generating some of the largest privacy fines in the world , '' Simons wrote in a letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
Simons called for a new federal privacy law and more resources for the FTC .
`` But the solution to any privacy vacuum is not an untested new bureaucracy that would enter the game in the fourth quarter , '' he wrote .
`` The FTC is already a world-class , award-winning privacy agency , despite its limited authority and resources .
Imagine what we could do with more . ''
Meanwhile , some other privacy advocates applauded Gillibrand 's bill , saying an agency zeroed in on consumer privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a new agency would depend on several factors , including the resources available , said Doris Brogan , a professor at Villanova University 's Charles Widger School of Law .
`` The area is huge and complex and ever-changing , '' she said .
`` The problems are often under the radar until they explode , and the nature of the threats are often nuanced and subtle .
So , a good idea to create a dedicated agency ?
Yes , to the extent the agency comes to the table with real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expertise . ''
However , there is the chance that a specialized agency becomes too close to the companies it attempts to regulate , a long-recognized problem called regulatory capture .
`` With the oversized influence of big tech , and the issues of understanding a dense , rapidly evolving , tech-heavy industry , the risk is significant , '' she said .
If implemented correctly , a new agency `` has the potential to hit the nail on the head in addressing and punishing abuse and misuse of data privacy caused largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he said .
However , Congress would need to take care of setting up the new Data Protection Agency , he added .
`` It has the potential to become a bloated bureaucracy if it 's mission is n't clearly defined or watched over , '' he said .
Others questioned the value of a new agency .
Issues surrounding data privacy and security are `` extremely complex and significantly more nuanced than what appears on first blush , '' said David LaVine , founder of the tech- and engineering-focused RocLogic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create large numbers of new regulations that increase the cost of doing business , he added .
A new agency would have to limit its focus on reducing `` egregious practices '' at large companies collecting massive amounts of data , LaVine said .
`` That means it should only be applicable to a very small fraction of companies and not make every company suffer through regulation that should only be felt by a few , '' he said .
`` This agency would also recognize that data privacy is not a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a lot of gray area that should be dealt with in context , not absolutes . ''

A new bill in the Senate would create a new government agency focused on protecting consumer privacy and data security, removing that authority from the Federal Trade Commission.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's proposed Data Protection Agency would create and enforce new data protection rules. It would encourage the development of new privacy technologies that minimize or eliminate the collection of personal data. The agency would also take action against companies that deploy "pay-for-privacy" or "take-it-or-leave-it" provisions in their terms of service, according to Gillibrand, a New York Democrat.
While Gillibrand's bill faces an uphill battle to get passed in the Senate, its proposal for a new privacy agency echoes legislation introduced by two Silicon Valley Democrats late last year.
Current data privacy rules are inadequate, and a "lawlessness" is governing the data privacy space, Gillibrand wrote in a Medium post.
"You deserve to be in control of your own data," she wrote. "You have the right to know if companies are using your information for profit. You need a way to protect yourself, and you deserve a place that will look out for you."
Gillibrand's bill has received support from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, the Center for Digital Democracy, and other privacy advocates.
The FTC declined to comment on Gillibrand's Data Protection Act, but FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has defended his agency's record on privacy. The agency has brought hundreds of privacy cases against tech giants, with "recent cases generating some of the largest privacy fines in the world," Simons wrote in a letter to the editor of the New York Times late last year.
Simons called for a new federal privacy law and more resources for the FTC. "But the solution to any privacy vacuum is not an untested new bureaucracy that would enter the game in the fourth quarter," he wrote. "The FTC is already a world-class, award-winning privacy agency, despite its limited authority and resources. Imagine what we could do with more."
Meanwhile, some other privacy advocates applauded Gillibrand's bill, saying an agency zeroed in on consumer privacy could provide new protections.
The success of a new agency would depend on several factors, including the resources available, said Doris Brogan, a professor at Villanova University's Charles Widger School of Law.
"The area is huge and complex and ever-changing," she said. "The problems are often under the radar until they explode, and the nature of the threats are often nuanced and subtle. So, a good idea to create a dedicated agency? Yes, to the extent the agency comes to the table with real independence, adequate resources, and genuine expertise."
However, there is the chance that a specialized agency becomes too close to the companies it attempts to regulate, a long-recognized problem called regulatory capture. "With the oversized influence of big tech, and the issues of understanding a dense, rapidly evolving, tech-heavy industry, the risk is significant," she said.
Similarly, Rich Spinelli, principal engineer at information technology services firm Core Technologies, called the proposal "intriguing."
If implemented correctly, a new agency "has the potential to hit the nail on the head in addressing and punishing abuse and misuse of data privacy caused largely by social media and other tech giants," he said.
However, Congress would need to take care of setting up the new Data Protection Agency, he added. "It has the potential to become a bloated bureaucracy if it's mission isn't clearly defined or watched over," he said.
Others questioned the value of a new agency. Issues surrounding data privacy and security are "extremely complex and significantly more nuanced than what appears on first blush," said David LaVine, founder of the tech- and engineering-focused RocLogic Marketing. The new agency could potentially create large numbers of new regulations that increase the cost of doing business, he added.
A new agency would have to limit its focus on reducing "egregious practices" at large companies collecting massive amounts of data, LaVine said. "That means it should only be applicable to a very small fraction of companies and not make every company suffer through regulation that should only be felt by a few," he said. "This agency would also recognize that data privacy is not a black and white topic, but rather one with a lot of gray area that should be dealt with in context, not absolutes."