September 21 and 22, 2017


News and Views


FORMER PRESS SECRETARY SPICER IS IN THE NEWS BECAUSE CBS RECEIVED INFORMATION, AND CORROBORATED IT BY A PHOTO OF SPICER’S EVER PRESENT PERSONAL NOTEBOOK, THAT HE HAS TAKEN MANY NOTEBOOKS FULL OF MOMENT TO MOMENT COMMENTS ON THE WHITE HOUSE EVENTS. SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER IS NOW, CBS SPECULATES, LIKELY TO TRY TO OBTAIN THOSE NOTES.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-spicer-notes-draw-attention-special-counsel-robert-mueller/
By MAJOR GARRETT CBS NEWS September 21, 2017, 7:45 PM
Sean Spicer's notes draw attention of special counsel Robert Mueller

The special counsel's Russia investigation has cast a wide net for documents. Could they include the Spicer files?

An Associated Press photo of then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer appears to validate new reporting from the website Axios that Spicer kept copious notes during the campaign and while at the White House.

Those notes have drawn the attention of special counsel Robert Mueller.

The portion of Spicer's notes visible in the picture, in a close-up, refer to top administration officials: "RP" for then-chief of staff Reince Preibus and "Rex" for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The photo was shot at an April press conference with President Trump and the secretary general of NATO.

trumpspicer-garrett-grab1.jpg
An Associated Press photo of then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer appears to validate new reporting from the website Axios that Spicer kept copious notes during the campaign and while at the White House. CBS NEWS

Contacted by CBS, Spicer refused to comment on the photo or the suggestion his notes could become part of Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling and the Trump campaign.

On ABC this morning, Spicer deflected all Mueller-related questions.

As press secretary, he tried several ways to undercut the Russia story.

CBS News has confirmed Mueller is likely to request an interview with Spicer.

Mueller's interviews with White House officials -- past and present -- could begin as early as next week.



THE SEED OF THE ALT-RIGHT SHIFT IN THE GOP IS RACIAL ANIMUS. SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/05/donald-trump-and-the-tea-party-myth-why-the-gop-is-now-an-identity-movement-not-a-political-party/
Donald Trump and the Tea Party myth: Why the GOP is now an identity movement, not a political party
If Tea Party conservatives actually cared about spending, they’d rip apart Trump’s big government ideas
SEAN ILLING
08.05.2016•6:39 PM EDT•

In 2009, shortly after America elected its first African-American president, the Tea Party was born. The movement was sold as a grassroots explosion of conservatism. Middle America had had enough. Big government spending was out of control. The debt was a national crisis. We were bankrupting future generations of Americans. That none of these people were troubled by the previous 8 years under George W. Bush was more than a little suspicious. After all, it was Bush who dumped trillions of dollars into unwinnable wars. It was Bush who added nearly $6 trillion to the debt. It was Bush that signed the first bank bailout.

But when Obama was elected, fiscal conservatives found religion.

It was always clear the Tea Party had nothing to do with policy or ideology. It wasn't about spending or ObamaCare care or entitlements or state tyranny. This was a myth propagated by the silent financiers of the movement. The Tea Party was mobilized by the groups Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, both of which were financed by the Koch brothers. Indeed, these groups were formerly a single organization called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was founded in 1984 by the Kochs.

The Kochs created the first national website for the Tea Party and used the group to promote their Randian free market fetishism. But the movement itself had almost nothing to do with economics. On the ground, it was obvious this was about something broader, more fundamental. These were mostly white people (89 percent, in fact) reacting against cultural change. 75 percent of Tea Partiers were 45 years old or older, and 60 percent were men. They were united by a nebulous cocktail of ethnocentrism and white nationalism. A black man was president and they suddenly wanted to “Take the country back.”

The sentiments let loose by the Tea Party never went away. They've festered for eight years. Last year, Donald Trump read the political winds and set sail on this sea of cultural angst. Lest we forget, he launched his campaign by embracing birtherism, and he rocketed to the top of the Republican polls. “This is the day we take our country back,” he told supporters back in February. It was never explained what that phrase meant, but the slogan implied the answers. For the “silent majority” at least, it was well understood.

Trump's nomination has brought the GOP's race problem to a head. The Tea Party is the Republican Party. The fringe is now the base, and the base is neither conservative nor ideological. As I noted Thursday, political science research shows that Republicans, despite being more likely to hold racist beliefs, have rarely voted on the basis of those beliefs – not consciously in any case. But that changed with Trump. Racial enmity appears to be the motivating factor among his supporters. The only other comparably strong predictor of Trump support is anti-Muslim attitudes. There is, in other words, no pretense of conservatism. Trump voters are impelled by race and nativism.

If you're not convinced ideology is irrelevant, consider Trump's new infrastructure plan. As my colleague Simon Maloy pointed out, it's a trillion dollar government stimulus program. Conservative writer Jonathan Tobin rightly compared it to Obama's stimulus package, only bigger and, presumably, more socialist. In an appearance on the Fox Business Network, Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton's $275 billion dollar infrastructure plan was only “a fraction” of what's needed. Of course, he's been short on specifics, and to the extent that he's explained his proposal, it makes no sense. The point, though, is that none of that matters. You won't hear Trump voters complain about it and you won't hear his Republican apologists calling him a liberal statist. Once again: ideology has been reduced a prop.

If Tea Party conservatives (most of whom support Trump) gave a damn about spending, they'd denounce this “big government” monstrosity. But their fealty to Trump is untouched by policy. If Obama were to propose anything like this, cries of tyranny would echo at Trump rallies. With Trump, however, it's a non-issue.

Trump's ideological heresy goes beyond spending. Recall his open hostility to free trade, a sacrosanct principle among conservatives. If Trump wasn't riding this wave of racial resentment, I suspect we'd hear a lot more about his protectionism. But the base hardly noticed it. They don't care about free trade any more than they do limited government, which is to say they don't care about conservatism. Trump may be ideologically incoherent, but he's signaled that he's with his supporters on the cardinal issue – racial identity. Everything else is noise.

Now the Republican establishment has a crisis it can't contain. By bringing the racial resentment out into full view, Trump has cut through the veneer of conservatism that concealed the driving force of Republican politics.

The cultural hysteria is all that's left.


AND WHO IS AXIOS? AXIOS IS A SORT OF WATCHDOG SITE OVER ACTIVE POLITICAL GROUPS, ESPECIALLY ONLINE. ONE REPORT ON GOOGLE SAID THAT IT HAS A SLIGHTLY LIBERAL LEANING. ONE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE TOO LIBERAL TO DISLIKE AND FEAR THE ALT-RIGHT, THOUGH. YOU JUST HAVE TO BE LOGICAL AND DECENT.

https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html
The recent explosion of right-wing news sites
Sara Fischer Shannon Vavra Feb 23, 2017

Axios mapped the launch date of 89 news websites over the past quarter century. The data shows there has been an explosion of right-leaning news sites, coinciding with the rise of the Tea Party and alt-right movements beginning in 2010. Many of these sites, in turn, were instrumental in spreading pro-Trump news during the 2016 elections.

Data: Staff research; Chart: Lazaro Gamio / Axios

The data also shows a similar rise in left-leaning news sites during the Bush Administration and the launch of the Iraq war in 2003. Overall, while there has been a large increase in the number of new news sites over the past 20 years, almost all of them have a partisan angle.

Why it matters: According to experts, digital technology has made it easier to exploit the political divisions that have always existed. Sarah Sobieraj, associate professor of Sociology at Tufts University, told CNN there has been an increase in political polarization in the U.S., but not nearly enough to account for this development. "The technological, regulatory, and media space has shifted into one in which this is profitable, and profit is the driving force."

How they profit: Google and Facebook's algorithmically-driven news distribution platforms have created an environment in which:

a) partisan news sites can easily reach fringe audiences, and
b) news sites are financially incentivized to tilt one way or another.
Facebook, in particular, algorithmically favors content that appeals to user bias and interest. According to comScore Vice President Andrew Lipsman, to elicit high engagement and repeat visitation, "sites must usually speak to a very specific audience." Although this limits the appeal to a broader readership, it creates a sustained and engaged audience that appeals to advertisers.

The Bush burst: The launch of some left-leaning news sites during the Bush Administration captured audiences opposed to the administration's policies, primarily the Iraq War. John Amato, founder and publisher of the liberal, progressive news blog Crooks and Liars, tells Axios he started the site in September of 2004 because he thought that mainstream media wasn't critical enough of the Bush Administration, and he felt motivated to speak out.

The Obama opposition: According to Greg Mueller, president of CRC Public Relations, which has been representing conservative-leaning clients for decades, the rise of right-wing sites around the rise of the Tea Party movement came from the notion that the mainstream media was not fairly covering the scandals in the Obama Administration, like Fast-and-Furious and Benghazi. Vince Coglianese, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller, which launched in 2010, said the founders, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, started the site because they saw a tremendous market opportunity where a conservative news site could report on news with a different form of selection bias. "A different news outlet could come in and report on stories that people weren't seeing covered by mainstream outlets," he said.

What to watch: The same profit motive that created and helped sustain ideological news sites led to the creation of fake news sites. As Google and Facebook figure out their response to being the conduit for all those ad dollars for fake news sites, it might change the business models for ideological sites as well.

Axios mapped the launch date of 89 news websites over the past quarter century. The data shows there has been an explosion of right-leaning news sites, coinciding with the rise of the Tea Party and alt-right movements beginning in 2010. Many of these sites, in turn, were instrumental in spreading pro-Trump news during the 2016 elections.



THE SUBJECT OF RIGHTIST POLITICS, AS EXPRESSED SPECIFICALLY ON FACEBOOK, IS WHAT IS BECOMING ZUCKERBERG’S PERSONAL PROBLEM. HIS STATEMENT HERE WAS BLAND AND ANNOYINGLY UNINFORMATIVE, BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT HE IS CONCERNED ENOUGH TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT FACEBOOK IS REALLY ALRIGHT – NOT ANOTHER ALT-RIGHT MEDIUM.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-facebook-to-reveal-ads-purchased-by-russians-to-influence-election/
CBS NEWS September 21, 2017, 3:26 PM
Facebook Russian ads that influenced election
Facebook has agreed to disclose ads to Congress that were purchased by Russians on the social media platform in that country's effort to influence the 2016 election, the company announced Thursday.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the brief announcement in a live video update on his Facebook page.

"I care deeply about the democratic process and protecting its integrity," he said. "I don't want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy -- that's not what we stand for."

Zuckerberg said that Facebook has found and shut down thousands of fake accounts that have attempted to influence elections around the world.

"I wish I could tell you that we are going to be able to stop all interference. But that just wouldn't be realistic," he said. "There will always be bad actors in the world and we can't prevent all government from interference."

Facebook is taking nine steps, he said, to protect election integrity moving forward.

He said Facebook is actively working with the federal government on its ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the election. When the social networking platform discovered the Russia-linked ads recently, they provided them to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Zuckerberg said, and it is now providing those ads to Congress.

Zuckerberg said that Facebook will continue its own investigation into what happened on its platform and will continue to work with the government in discovering how foreign actors and other former Soviet states used its tools.

Going forward, Zuckerberg said that Facebook will work to make political advertising more transparent and that anyone will be able to visit an advertiser's page and view the ads they are disseminating on the platform.

Facebook, he said, will strengthen its own ad review process for political ads.
Facebook is also increasing its investment in security -- specifically in election integrity.

He said Facebook will expand partnerships with election commissions around the world.

Zuckerberg said that it's working to increase the sharing of threat information with other tech companies.

Facebook, he said, is working proactively to strengthen the democratic process.
Zuckerberg said that Facebook is working to ensure the integrity of the upcoming German elections.

Facebook promises greater cooperation in Russia investigation
Play VIDEO
Facebook promises greater cooperation in Russia investigation

The tech giant has been heavily criticized in recent weeks over its advertising policy, with critics – notably Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia -- alleging that ads purchased by Russian persons and entities could have influenced last year's presidential election. Facebook also came under fire for allowing advertisers to specifically target anti-Semites.

Warner told a CBS affiliate in Richmond, Virginia, that the proof of Facebook's cooperation will be revealed in what it hands over to Congress.

"I feel like Facebook has finally been responsible, but the proof will be in the extent of the materials they give us next week, and then will they continue to work with us to identify other sites that may have originated in Russia," Warner said.

Hemu Nigam, an Internet security expert, told CBS News the identity of the ad buyers shouldn't have been a mystery to the social media giant, because they would know where those IP addresses originated.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been tasked with investigating any potential Russian interference in the election as well as any ties President Trump or his associates have or had with the Russian government.



THIS INTERESTING ARTICLE TELLS WHY REPUBLICANS HATE OBAMACARE SO, AND LIKE THEIR PLAN SO MUCH MORE, BUT YET BOTH SITUATIONS ARE TOXIC FOR THEM. THEIR PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS STILL A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (TRUMP HASN’T BEEN IN OFFICE LONG ENOUGH TO TURN THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT YET) AND IN THE END THE PEOPLE WILL WIN IF WE ARE SUFFICIENTLY AROUSED.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/grassley-trump-health-care/index.html
CNN Politics
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 4:06 PM ET, Thu September 21, 2017

Washington (CNN)When Iowa reporters asked Sen. Chuck Grassley on Wednesday about the attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, his answer was remarkable and revealing.

"You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn't be considered," the Iowa Republican said. "But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That's pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill."

So. Huge points to Grassley for honesty there. And, he's right.

To be fair, this is far from the first time a party has tried to jam something through without knowing all the consequences -- as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said about Obamacare in 2010, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

But the simple fact is that Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place here.

The rock is the seven years of near-constant campaign promises that the first thing they would do if given full power in Washington is repeal and replace Obamacare. Republicans won control of the House in 2010 -- and gained seats in 2014 -- almost entirely on that message.

To not make good on the promise -- with total control of Washington and no one to blame -- would be, in the minds of many Republican elected officials, a complete betrayal of their base, with potentially disastrous consequences on the ballot next fall.

The hard place is the fact that the legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is being moved rapidly through the legislative process because of a drop-dead deadline of the end of the month. That means that it isn't going through anything close to regular order -- up to and including the fact that the Congressional Budget Office won't score the bill -- for costs etc. -- before the Senate needs to vote.

Grassley spokesman Michael Zona explained his boss's choice of words: "It's remarkable and unfortunate that it's newsworthy that a senator believes in keeping his promises," Zona told CNN.

"Obamacare is failing to deliver, as Democrats' recent embrace of single-payer makes clear," he added. "As with anything that is a product of compromise, no bill is perfect, but Graham-Cassidy begins to move health care decisions out of Washington and empower states like Iowa to deliver better health care options. It also helps put federal programs like Medicaid on a sustainable path so that they're available for the next generation of Iowans who need them."

There's also lots of polling evidence to suggest that people simply do not want Obamacare to be repealed and replaced. In August, six in 10 people said it was a "good thing" that Senate Republicans failed to repeal and replace Obamacare in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. A similar number (57%) said they wanted Republicans to work with Democrats to make the ACA better.

They may not love the Affordable Care Act but it is a benefit they have grown used to. When you take away a benefit, people get angry. And when people get angry, they vote.

Want a visual on just how hard that hard place is? Try this map on for size:

That's the political dilemma Republicans face. Choose not to repeal and replace Obamacare and face the potential wrath of your base. Choose to repeal and replace Obamacare and run the risk of facing a slew of horror stories about people who lost or couldn't afford their coverage -- not to mention the fact that people, judging by the polls, do not want this law radically altered.

There is no good answer here. And yet, Republicans have backed themselves into a corner due to their rhetoric surrounding the bill over the past seven years. To do nothing is unacceptable. And to do something is unacceptable. The only good choice is not to choose. And when you are an elected official, you don't get that choice.

Remember, always, the words of John Boehner on health care.

"Now, they're never — they're not going to repeal and replace Obamacare," Boehner said in February. "It's been around too long. And the American people have gotten accustomed to it. Governors have gotten accustomed to this Medicaid expansion, and so trying to pull it back is really not going to work."



MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 AT 9 P.M. ET ARE THE BIG DAY AND HOUR. I DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT KLOBUCHAR, BUT SHE’S A DEMOCRAT, AND NOT JUST A PLAIN VANILLA DEMOCRAT. SHE’S IN THE “MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC-FARMER-LABOR PARTY.” THAT HAS TO MEAN THAT SHE IS A BASIC PROGRESSIVE. FOR THAT PARTY, SEE THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE: HTTPS://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/MINNESOTADFL/. I’M GLAD TO SEE SOME NEW PARTIES ON THE LEFT. THE PROBLEM THAT BERNIE HAD WITH THE DEMS HAS MORE TO DO WITH THEIR POSITION OF BEING THE FEARSOME “ABSOLUTE POWER,” WHO HAVE INDEED BECOME AS CORRUPT, ALMOST ANY WAY, AS THE REPUBLICANS, THAN HIS BEING "RADICAL." THAT’S WHY I’M NOT WITH THE DEMS ANYMORE.

THIS DEBATE, SINCE KLOBUCHAR DID NOT SIGN ON TO SANDER’S MEDICARE FOR ALL BILL, WILL AT LEAST BE INTERESTING AND ENLIGHTENING ON WHAT OUR 2020 CHOICES MAY BE.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/graham-cassidy-town-hall-sanders-kobuchar/index.html
CNN to host town hall debate Monday with Graham, Cassidy, Sanders and Klobuchar
By Daniella Diaz, CNN
Updated 4:45 PM ET, Thu September 21, 2017

-

Photograph --From left to right: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

(CNN)CNN will host a town hall with Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, who will be debating health care with Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on Monday, September 25 at 9 p.m. ET.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper and chief political correspondent Dana Bash will moderate the 90-minute live event from Washington.

Graham and Cassidy are the namesake sponsors of a last-ditch effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ahead of an end-of-the-month deadline, while Sanders introduced a new "Medicare for all" health care bill with a third of the Senate Democratic caucus by his side.

According to the chamber's parliamentarian, senators only have until the end of the month to pass a bill with just 51 votes under the procedure known as reconciliation, and the Senate's latest push isn't all that different than the one that ultimately resulted in a health care bill being passed in the House.

As of Thursday, it's not clear whether there are enough Republican votes to advance the Graham-Cassidy proposal, a health care bill that was released a week ago and would repeal the individual and employer mandates and turn the federal funding for Medicaid expansion and the subsidies into a block grant program.

Meanwhile, Sanders is pushing for his bill. He called the costs of the current system "insane and unaffordable," promising that the average family would benefit financially under his plan "because you will no longer be writing checks to private insurance companies."

Sanders, a Vermont independent, ran a hard-fought campaign for the Democratic presidential primary last year. Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is up for re-election next year, was not among those senators who co-sponsored Sanders' bill.

The town hall debate will air on CNN, CNN en Español and CNN International as well as stream live for subscribers on CNNgo and the CNN mobile apps for iOS and Android. The town hall debate will also air on CNN's SiriusXM Channel 116. The town hall debate will also be available September 26 on demand via cable or satellite systems, CNNgo platforms and CNN mobile apps.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar
Amy Klobuchar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amy Jean Klobuchar (/ˈkloʊbəʃɑːr/; born May 25, 1960) is the senior United States Senator from Minnesota. She is a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Party. She is the first woman to be elected as a senator for Minnesota and is one of twenty-one women serving in the current United States Senate.

Klobuchar previously served as the county attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the most populous county in Minnesota. As an attorney, she worked with former Vice President Walter Mondale.[1] She has been called a "rising star" in the Democratic Party.[2][3]

Early life and education[edit]

Born in Plymouth, Minnesota, Klobuchar is the daughter of Rose Katherine (née Heuberger), who retired at age 70 from teaching second grade,[4] and James John "Jim" Klobuchar, an author and a retired sportswriter and columnist for the Star Tribune.[5] Amy has one younger sister.[6] Jim's grandparents were Slovene immigrants, and his father was a miner on the Iron Range; Amy's maternal grandparents were from Switzerland.[7]

Klobuchar attended public schools in Plymouth and was valedictorian at Wayzata High School.[8][9] She received her B.A. degree magna cum laude in political science from Yale University in 1982, where she was a member of the Yale College Democrats, the Feminist Caucus, and member of the influential improv troupe Suddenly Susan. [10] During her time at Yale, Klobuchar spent time as an intern for Senator Walter Mondale.[6] Her senior thesis was published as Uncovering the Dome,[11] a 150-page history describing the ten years of politics surrounding the building of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis. Klobuchar served as an associate editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and received her Juris Doctor degree in 1985 from the University of Chicago Law School.



************************

THE FOLLOWING SEVERAL ARTICLES (BETWEEN THE ASTERISKS) ARE AN EYE-OPENER TO ME. THE USE OF THIS SURVEILLANCE DEVICE IN A TIME OF REAL NEED WOULDN’T BOTHER ME, BUT AS THE COURT RULED, IT SHOULDN’T BE DONE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN SECRECY. IT IS ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC THAT EVEN THE COURTS HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE DARK BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS, DUE TO A “NON-DISCLOSURE” CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. THAT SOUNDS POINTLESS TO ME. WHY SHOULD THE MAKER CARE HOW THE DEVICE IS USED? HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL IN THE MAKING OR MARKETING OF THE EQUIPMENT? THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE GOES INTO THE RANGE AND DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM, AND WHY THE COURTS STEPPED IN. IT REALLY IS A LITTLE LIKE POLICE STATE ISSUES, SO THAT’S NOT GOOD AT ALL.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/d-c-court-rules-warrant-is-required-for-stingray-cell-phone-tracking/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS September 21, 2017, 3:11 PM
D.C. court rules tracking phones without a warrant is unconstitutional

Photograph -- GETTY IMAGES

Law enforcement use of one tracking tool, the cell-site simulator, to track a suspect's phone without a warrant violates the Constitution, the D.C. Court of Appeals said Thursday in a landmark ruling for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights as they pertain to policing tactics.

The ruling could have broad implications for law enforcement's use of cell-site simulators, which local police and federal agencies can use to mimic a cell phone tower to the phone connect to the device instead of its regular network.

In a decision that reversed the decision of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and overturned the conviction of a robbery and sexual assault suspect, the D.C. Court of Appeals determined the use of the cell-site simulator "to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person's actual, legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search."

The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Secret tracking of cellphones
Play VIDEO
Secret tracking of cellphones

D.C. Metropolitan Police's use of such cell-site simulator technology to nab suspect Prince Jones in 2013 "violated the Fourth Amendment," the court decided against the U.S. government on Thursday.

"We thus conclude that under ordinary circumstances, the use of a cell-site simulator to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person's actual, legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search," the court ruling said. "The government's argument to the contrary is unpersuasive."

A December 2016 report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found U.S. taxpayers spent $95 million on 434 cell-site simulator devices between 2010 and 2014, with the price tag for a single device hovering around $500,000.

"While law enforcement agencies should be able to utilize technology as a tool to help officers be safe and accomplish their missions, absent proper oversight and safeguards, the domestic use of cell-site simulators may well infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the right to free association," the report said.

Under former Attorney General Eric Holder — under some pressure from Congress — the Department of Justice in 2015 issued a policy that federal authorities could only use cell-site simulators with a warrant. But that policy was never inked into law, and policies can change. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' tough-on-crime stance has worried some privacy advocates as to how he might use tools like cell-site simulators.



https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them
ACLU MULTIMEDIA
Stingray Tracking Devices: Who's Got Them?

The map below tracks what we know, based on press reports and publicly available documents, about the use of stingray tracking devices by state and local police departments. Following the map is a list of the federal agencies known to have the technology. The ACLU has identified 72 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays, but because many agencies continue to shroud their purchase and use of stingrays in secrecy, this map dramatically underrepresents the actual use of stingrays by law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators" or "IMSI catchers," are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspect's cell phone, they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby.



THERE IS A TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION HERE IN WIKIPEDIA OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE DEVICES, BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU TO READ. THE MATTER OF LAW INTERESTS ME MORE. THE POLICE STATE CONTINUES TO GROW AND PROLIFERATE. (CONSERVATIVES WORRY ABOUT “THE DEEP STATE,” BUT LIBERALS WORRY ABOUT THE POLICE STATE. AS POSSIBLE ILLEGALITY, I CAN ALSO SEE THIS AS A CORPORATION (HARRIS) TAKING CONTROL OVER US LAW AND GOVERNMENT BY INCREMENTS. IT’S TOO BAD THAT THE FBI UPHELD THAT VIEWPOINT. I HAD COME TO THINK BETTER OF THEM.

AS USUAL, THOUGH, THE ACLU PRESENTED A COMMONSENSE VIEW AND WON THEIR CASE. THEY CITE A BREACH OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSOCIATION, OVER A FEAR THAT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW OF THE DEVICE AND HOW IT WORKED, IT MIGHT WOULD NO LONGER BE AS EFFECTIVE. IT IS TRUE THAT NOT LONG AFTER POLICE STARTED USING RADAR DEVICES TO DETECT SPEEDING, TECHNOLOGY EMERGED TO GET AROUND IT. THAT’S LIFE IN A CAPITALIST STATE, GUYS.

ON THE LAW, SEE THE FOLLOWING WIKI EXCERPT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker
Stingray phone tracker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . . .
The use of the devices has been frequently funded by grants from the Department of Homeland Security.[34] The Los Angeles Police Department used a Department of Homeland Security grant in 2006 to buy a StingRay for "regional terrorism investigations".[35] However, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the "LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable."[36]

In addition to federal law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, StingRays have in recent years been purchased by local and state law enforcement agencies.

The use of the devices has been frequently funded by grants from the Department of Homeland Security.[34] The Los Angeles Police Department used a Department of Homeland Security grant in 2006 to buy a StingRay for "regional terrorism investigations".[35] However, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the "LAPD has been using it for just about any investigation imaginable."[36]

In addition to federal law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, StingRays have in recent years been purchased by local and state law enforcement agencies.

In 2006, Harris employees directly conducted wireless surveillance using StingRay units on behalf the Palm Bay Police Department — where Harris has a campus[37] — in response to a bomb threat against a middle school. The search was conducted without a warrant or Judicial oversight.[38][39][40][41] . . . .

According to the most recent information published by the American Civil Liberties Union, 72 law enforcement agencies in 24 states own StingRay technology in 2017. Since 2014, these numbers have increased from 42 agencies in 17 states [60]. The following are federal agencies in the United States that have validated their use of cell site simulators: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, US Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Marshals Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US National Guard, US Special Command, and National Security Agency [60].[4
. . . .

Secrecy[edit]

The increasing use of the devices has largely been kept secret from the court system and the public.[50] In 2014, police in Florida revealed they had used such devices at least 200 additional times since 2010 without disclosing it to the courts or obtaining a warrant.[2] One of the reasons the Tallahassee police provided for not pursuing court approval is that such efforts would allegedly violate the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that police sign with the manufacturer.[51] The American Civil Liberties Union has filed multiple requests for the public records of Florida law enforcement agencies about their use of the cell phone tracking devices.[52]

Local law enforcement and the federal government have resisted judicial requests for information about the use of stingrays, refusing to turn over information or heavily censoring it.[53] In June 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union published information from court regarding the extensive use of these devices by local Florida police.[54] After this publication, United States Marshals Service then seized the local police's surveillance records in a bid to keep them from coming out in court.[55]

In some cases, police have refused to disclose information to the courts citing non-disclosure agreements signed with Harris Corporation.[53][56][57] The FBI defended these agreements, saying that information about the technology could allow adversaries to circumvent it.[56] The ACLU has said "potentially unconstitutional government surveillance on this scale should not remain hidden from the public just because a private corporation desires secrecy. And it certainly should not be concealed from judges."[2]

In 2015 Santa Clara County pulled out of contract negotiations with Harris for StingRay units, citing onerous restrictions imposed by Harris on what could be released under public records requests as the reason for exiting negotiations.[58]


***************************

I WONDER WHAT THE “13 DIFFERENT AREAS” MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE BELOW ARE. I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT MUELLER IS MOVING TO THE WHITE HOUSE, NOW. MAYBE WE WILL FIND OUT CONCLUSIVE PROVABLE MISDEEDS SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED AS A NATION.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-special-counsel-seeks-documents-from-trump-presidency/
By BLAIR GUILD CBS NEWS September 20, 2017, 5:19 PM
Special counsel seeks documents from Trump presidency

CBS News has confirmed special counsel Robert Mueller has asked the White House for documents relating to President Trump's actions since taking office.

Sources with direct knowledge of the Mueller inquiry and its current request for documents confirm the documents are tied to former national security adviser Michael Flynn's firing, CBS News' Major Garrett reports. The documents are also tied to the firing of FBI Director James Comey, an Oval Office meeting between a Mr. Trump with Russian officials and any White House involvement in Mr. Trump's son Donald Trump Jr.'s campaign meeting with various Russians in 2016.

The sources said the requests were in the hands of the White House for several weeks and there has been a energetic effort bordering on frantic to comply with the investigators' request for relevant documents.

The pursuit of responsive documents has strained relations among some White House attorneys with some lawyers -- chief among them Ty Cobb -- pushing for full disclosure in hopes of expediting the end of the probe and others, led by White House Counsel Don McGahn, seeking to evaluate each document release through the institutional lens of protecting presidential prerogatives now and in the future.

The disclosure of Mueller's specific requests has rattled the White House legal team. But these two camps are in agreement in what they perceive will be the likely outcome of Mueller's probe -- that it will not yield any charges against the president or top officials.

"There have been leaks in this story," said one source close to the White House process. "It is fair to say this one did not come from Mueller's side. And this is not helpful to the White House. It rattles people."

Extracting positive implications of the Mueller probe has been a challenge for those sympathetic to the White House. The interpretation after this disclosure is that Mueller's team is, in terms of its White House engagement, staying within the scope of the Russia election probe and not seeking documents about past financial transactions, documents or business relationships.

The White House and Cobb declined to comment on any specifics of the Mueller investigation. Cobb merely repeated his long-standing pledge that the White House will "respect the integrity" Mueller's investigation and "cooperate fully."

Mueller's request was first reported by The New York Times.

The request for documents from Mr. Trump's time as president represents a shift in the inquiry's focus to Mr. Trump's behavior since starting his term in the White House.

The Times reported that in recent weeks, the special counsel has requested information on 13 different areas Mueller's team hopes to investigate. In response, Trump administration lawyers have begun searching through emails and seeking other documents relating to Mueller's request.

Cobb, Mr. Trump's lawyer responsible for managing the multiple Russia investigations led by congressional committees, intelligence agencies and the special counsel, told Mueller's office that he will turn over several documents this week, according to the Times.

"We can't comment on any specific requests being made or our conversations with the special counsel,'' Cobb told the Times.



SENATOR WARNER’S PITHY STATEMENT THAT THE FEDS SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED STATES “IN REAL TIME” OF THEIR ATTACKS, IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THEY NEED NOTICE TO CHECK FOR FLAWS IN THE DATA AND REPAIR THEIR SYSTEMS WHEN IT HAPPENS AND NOT OVER A YEAR LATER. PLUS, I’LL BET IF A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE HAD BEEN ATTACKED IN THE MANNER THERE WOULD BE A RIOT OVER IT. IT’S NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT TRUMP HAS TWO OR THREE TIMES HINTED THAT THE REAL PARTNERS TO THE HACKERS WERE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. SURE. HE PROBABLY THINKS WE FAKED THE CROWD PICTURES AT HIS MAGNIFICENT INAUGURATION, TOO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-tell-21-states-they-were-targeted-during-election/
AP September 22, 2017, 5:16 PM
Feds tell 21 states they were targeted during election

Photograph -- A polling station in Christmas, Florida on November 8, 2016. GREGG NEWTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The federal government on Friday told election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems last year, although in most cases the systems were not breached.

The government told The Associated Press last year that more than 20 states were targeted by hackers believed to be Russian agents before the 2016 elections. But for many states, the calls Friday from the Department of Homeland Security were the first official confirmation of whether their states were on the list.

The AP contacted every state election office on Friday. While not all of them responded immediately, those that said they were targeted were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The government did not say who was behind the hacking attempts or provide details about what had been sought. But election officials in three states said Friday the attempts could be linked to Russia.

NSA report says Russia tried to hack U.S. election systems days before vote
Play VIDEO
NSA report says Russia tried to hack U.S. election systems days before vote

The Wisconsin Election Commission, for example, said the state's systems were targeted by "Russian government cyber actors."

Federal officials said that in most of the 21 states, the targeting was preparatory activity such as scanning computer systems. The targets included voter registration systems but not vote tallying software. Officials said there were some attempts to compromise networks but most were unsuccessful.

Only Illinois reported that hackers had succeeded in breaching its voter systems.

Colorado said the hacking wasn't quite a breach.

"It's really reconnaissance by a bad guy to try and figure out how we would break into your computer," said Trevor Timmons, a spokesman for the Colorado secretary of state's office. "It's not an attack. I wouldn't call it a probe. It's not a breach, it's not a penetration."

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, on Friday said it's unacceptable that the federal government took almost a year to notify states that their elections systems were targeted.

He said he's relieved the Department of Homeland Security is finally informing top elections officials in all 21 affected states "that Russian hackers tried to breach their systems in the run up to the 2016 election."

Warner said Homeland Security needs to notify state and local governments in real time of attempts to attack voting systems.

The disclosure to the states comes as a special counsel probes whether there was any coordination during the 2016 presidential campaign between Russia and associates of Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump, a Republican who defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, has called the Russia story a hoax. He says Russian President Vladimir Putin "vehemently denied" the conclusions of American intelligence agencies.



MADDOW TIME 9/22/17 COMMENTS

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/21/17
Trump government hires based on politics, not qualifications
Rachel Maddow looks at the grifty nature of the Trump administration, from handing out government jobs to unqualified staffers as a political favor, to cabinet members using their office to increase their own wealth. Duration: 19:23


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Trump finds others to pay family legal bills



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr5_JpmIv5Y
Grassley runs into conflict with Mueller
Afternoon MSNBC
Published on Sep 21, 2017
Via msnbc
Ron Weich, former assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, talks with Rachel Maddow about which investigation takes precedence when Congress conflicts with Robert Mueller.



THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/21/17
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/democrats-look-to-run-out-the-clock-on-gop-health-bill-1052348483669
Democrats look to run out the clock on GOP health bill
Rachel Maddow reports on the return of activism to oppose Republican attempts to pass legislation to destroy Obamacare, and notes that the narrow legislative timeline is a point of focus for some strategies. Duration: 3:29


THE NAME OF THIS WRITER IS NOT MENTIONED THAT I WAS ABLE TO FIND, BUT HE GIVES A VERY GOOD RUNDOWN ON HOW MCR FOR ALL WOULD WORK, AND MAKES IT LOOK VERY PLAUSIBLE. HE CALLS SANDERS “CRAFTY,” BUT I JUST CALL HIM A VERY SMART GUY. OR, AS THE OLD SCOTS PUT IT, “CANNY.” READ THE PLAN AS IT IS LAID OUT IN THE LAST FEW PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ARTICLE.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-political-genius-of-bernies-medicare-for-all-bill/
CONGRESS BERNIE SANDERS EDITORIAL OCTOBER 9, 2017, ISSUE
The Political Genius of Bernie’s ‘Medicare for All’ Bill
It blends a principled stand with a crafty incremental approach.
By The Nation Twitter YESTERDAY September 20, 2017 2:38 PM

[“fbtw” – Odd As it may seem, and a little scary, this acronym meaning “fine be that way,” according to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fbtw showed up in my blog file RIGHT UNDER THE ARTICLE NAME HERE, AND ALL ON ITS’ OWN! It is not visible on my computer screen, so where did it come from? Did a black hat computer geek slip it into my file some way? IF HE DID, I CAN ONLY SAY TO HIM, “U2.”]

Single-payer health care is not a new idea, not even here in the United States, the only wealthy Western nation without universal coverage. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights that included “the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.” Roosevelt, of course, spoke at a heady moment, when Democrats were signing up as co-sponsors for sweeping national health-care legislation. After Roosevelt’s death, Harry Truman embraced the cause and agitated for it more aggressively than any president since, only to be blocked by a Red Scare that presaged McCarthyism, as well as a vicious campaign funded by the American Medical Association.

President Lyndon Johnson used his 1964 landslide election to enact Medicare and Medicaid, but the Democratic presidents who came after him have pulled their punches on health care—mostly promoting schemes to better organize the intersection of private and public care that mirrored those once advanced by a dying breed of moderate Republicans.

And here Democrats have paid a political price, not for compromising on any eventual legislation, but for failing from the outset to put forward a clear and simple vision of health care as a fundamental right. In 1993, Bill and Hillary Clinton produced a byzantine and dispiriting plan that blended new regulations, subsidies, mandates, and free-market competition in a stew they called “managed care.” “We have no pride of authorship” over any aspect of the bill, they both conceded during the rollout. Lacking a moral center, the proposal died quickly under a withering attack from the right and the insurance industry. Barack Obama, of course, was considerably more successful in this regard. But he began the negotiations by preemptively taking single-payer off the table, despite having repeatedly stated that such systems make the most sense. With Obama’s punt, there went any room to negotiate even for a public option.

RELATED ARTICLE
The Nation
‘SINGLE PAYER IS A RATIONAL HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM’: AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH BERNIE SANDERS ON HIS ‘MEDICARE FOR ALL’ PLAN
John Nichols

Now Democrats find themselves yet again defending a law that even its eponymous sponsor publicly acknowledges needs significant fixes. Make no mistake, the latest Republican attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare—this time with the Graham-Cassidy bill—is in many ways stupider and crueler than its predecessors. There is no Congressional Budget Office score yet for this hasty, last-ditch effort, but replacing most of the Affordable Care Act with inadequate block grants to states, along with other cuts, will easily leave upwards of 32 million people uninsured. Seemingly as a middle finger, the bill disproportionately targets the blue states that expanded their Medicaid rolls. To this moral obscenity, Democrats have been unified in saying no. But what are they saying yes to?

Enter Senator Bernie Sanders. Building from a presidential campaign that rocked the Democratic Party establishment by putting unabashedly progressive proposals front and center, Sanders has used his newfound stature to assemble an unlikely coalition of Democrats to back a “Medicare for All” bill.

The basic premise isn’t novel: Medicare for All has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman John Conyers for over a decade, as well as promoted by groups like Physicians for a National Health Care Program and the National Nurses United. Four years ago, when Sanders proposed a similar measure, he found exactly zero co-sponsors. Today he has 16, including prospective 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker. So what changed?

Galvanized by the economic and social movements that found expression in Sanders’s campaign, Democrats are undeniably more willing to embrace big ideas, even and especially in the age of Trump. As Hillary Clinton observes in her memoir What Happened, “the conclusion I reach from this is that Democrats should redouble our efforts to develop bold, creative ideas that offer broad-based benefits for the whole country.” On health care in particular, according to a recent Pew survey, a majority of Americans now believe that the federal government should be responsible for making sure everyone has coverage, and a majority of Democrats think that single-payer is the best way to achieve that goal. All of this forms the context for the sudden popularity of Medicare for All, but there is also a quieter genius to Sanders’s particular bill that helped bring about this moment.

The Medicare for All Act of 2017 is unambiguous about its goal: It would eliminate all private insurance and replace it with a vastly expanded government program. Doctors, hospitals, and drug companies would make less, but everyone would have access to comprehensive health services—including dental, vision, substance-abuse treament, and reproductive care—without any out-of-pocket costs. That is its principle, and it is unwavering about it.

The bill’s pragmatism lies in how it gets there. Medicare expansion would spool out over several years, first by enrolling children under 18 and dropping the eligibility age to 55, a step that even non-backers like Senator Tim Kaine support. By its fourth year, incremental expansions would finally create a true Medicare for All program. During that transition, many people who are uncovered would be able to buy into the system through provisions championed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who supports the bill, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, who doesn’t—yet.

Canvassing his fellow senators, including those who have taken a wait-and-see approach, was key to Sanders’s ability to build a surprisingly broad base of support, as was the backing of dozens of outside groups, from MoveOn.org to the Working Families Party to the United Mine Workers. That Sanders was one of the most vocal defenders of Obamacare—even as he consistently criticized it as insufficient—helped build credibility, too.

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.