Category: News

No Democratic Memo; Wikileaks Offers Up Another Million Dollar Reward

Nunes Releases Statement on Democratic Memo

A statement from the White House on the memo:

This afternoon, the President met with the Director of the FBI, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the White House Counsels Office to discuss the memorandum from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and receive their input. The President is weighing his options and will respond soon. Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah

—

Jonathan Easley

National political reporter

The Hill

Fentanyl Analogues: Sensenbrenner Introduces Bill to Save Lives and Curb the Opioid Epidemic

February 5, 2018

Washington, D.C.—Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05), introduced the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues (SOFA) Act that will save lives by fighting the spread of fentanyl analogues. Specifically, the bill adds nineteen identified fentanyl analogues to the Schedule I drug list and provides the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with the tools needed to quickly add other analogues as they are identified.

Sensenbrenner: “With the opioid crisis tearing apart families across Wisconsin and the U.S., we must ramp up efforts to stop the proliferation of these drugs. This important legislation closes the loophole that allows these deadly drugs to continue pouring into our neighborhoods. It also provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to more effectively identify and schedule new fentanyl analogues. As Co-chair of the Congressional Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus, I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end this epidemic.”

Background on the SOFA Act:

Fentanyl is currently classified as a Schedule II controlled substance used to treat cancer patients. However, it is dangerous and can be lethal outside of the careful supervision of a doctor. Fentanyl abuse is one of the leading contributors to the opioid epidemic.

A new chemical compound, known as an analogue, is created by modifying one small piece of the chemical structure of fentanyl. These compounds fall into a legal loophole and contribute to the alarming rate of opioid-related deaths in the U.S. In fact, data from the Center for Disease Control (see below) indicates that synthetic opioids, which includes fentanyl and its analogues, are the leading cause of drug overdoses.

Analogue producers are likely to continue developing new variations, and law enforcement agencies must have the tools to adapt to these changes. Under current law, DEA scheduling practices are reactive in nature. Typically, fentanyl analogues are only scheduled after they have resulted in deaths across multiples states.

The SOFA Act closes the legal loophole by adding nineteen known fentanyl analogues to the Schedule I list. It also gives the DEA the authority to immediately schedule new fentanyl analogues as they are discovered, making enforcement and scheduling procedures more proactive.

The bill shares the acronym of an organization started by Oconomowoc, WI resident Lauri Badura, who lost her son Archie to an overdose in 2014. Shortly after, she founded the faith-based non-profit Saving Others for Archie, Inc. to raise awareness and fight the opioid epidemic.

Lauri recently attended President Trump’s first State of the Union address as the guest of Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who has introduced the Senate Version of SOFA.

The full text of H.R. 4922, the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act is available here.

MS-13 Fact Sheet Released by White House

Photo: Newsday, Long Island, New York.

FACT SHEETS

Protecting American Communities from the Violence of MS-13

 Issued on: 

A THREAT TO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: MS-13 has brought violence, fear, and suffering to communities across the country.   

  • MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, is a violent transnational gang primarily composed of immigrants or descendants of immigrants from El Salvador.
  • MS-13’s motto is “mata, viola, controla” which means “kill, rape, control.”
    • They commit shocking acts of violence to instill fear, like machete attacks, execution-style murders, gang rape, and human trafficking
  • MS-13 has more than 30,000 members worldwide, including more than 10,000 in the United States.
    • The violent gang recruits middle- and high-school students, primarily immigrants, and uses fear of retribution to keep their recruits from leaving
  • The gang is known to regularly conduct activities in at least 40 states and the District of Columbia.
    • MS-13 primarily generates income through extortion, prostitution, membership dues, and illicit trafficking.
  • As revealed by recent investigations, MS-13 gang leaders are known to send representatives across the United States border to take control of local MS-13 “cliques,” local units, and connect the local members to gang leaders abroad.
    • MS-13 gang leaders have directed American MS-13 cliques to become more violent in order to control territory.
  • In recent years, MS-13 has taken advantage of the large flow of foreign nationals from Central America and Mexico into the U.S. by hiding in these populations.
  • MS-13 has preyed on American communities, committing horrendous acts of violence.
    • Approximately 38 percent of all murders in Suffolk County, New York, between January 2016 and June 2017, were linked to MS-13.

COMBATING MS-13: President Trump’s Administration has undertaken serious efforts to bring the violent criminals of MS-13 to justice.

  • President Trump spoke on the threat posed by MS-13 in his remarks on the State of the Union and described the bravery of our Nation’s law enforcement officers who continue to combat this violent gang.
  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions designated MS-13 as a priority for the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces in October 2017.
  • Under President Trump, DOJ has worked with partners in Central America resulting in the filing of criminal charges against more than 4,000 members of MS-13.
  • ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made 4,818 criminal arrests related to gang activity in FY 2017, as well as 892 administrative arrests that resulted from gang investigations.
    • HSI arrested 796 MS-13 gang members and associates in FY 2017, an 83 percent increase from FY 2016.
  • In FY 2017, U.S. Border Patrol Agents arrested 536 gang-affiliated illegal aliens, of whom 228, more than 40 percent, were affiliated with MS-13.

SECURING OUR BORDERS: President Donald J. Trump has released an immigration framework which includes border security measures vital to preventing the entry of criminal aliens like MS-13 members into the United States.

  • President Trump has proposed an immigration framework that includes the tools and resources required to secure our borders and close legal loopholes exploited by cartels and criminals.
  • The President has made clear that, as a part of our efforts to curb illegal immigration, we must ensure criminal aliens, gang members, violent offenders, and aggravated felons are detained and quickly removed from the United States.

White House Announces Public Vetting Center

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 6, 2018

*Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding the Creation of the National Vetting Center *

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum to establish a National Vetting Center (NVC) to coordinate the efforts of departments and agencies to better identify individuals seeking to enter the country who present a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety.

The NVC, which will be led by the Department of Homeland Security, will help fulfill the Presidents requirement that departments and agencies improve their coordination and use of intelligence and other information in the vetting process.

The Federal Governments current vetting efforts are ad hoc, which impedes our ability to keep up with todays threats. The NVC will better coordinate these activities in a central location, enabling officials to further leverage critical intelligence and law enforcement information to identify terrorists, criminals, and other nefarious actors trying to enter and remain within our country. The NVCs operations will adhere to Americas strong protections for individuals privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The Administrations top priority is the safety and security of the public, and the NVC will empower our frontline defenders to better fulfil that obligation.

###

President’s Statement:

SUBJECT: Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the National Vetting Enterprise

Border and immigration security are essential to ensuring the safety, security, and prosperity of the UnitedStates. The Federal Government must improve the manner in which executive departments and agencies (agencies) coordinate and use intelligence and other information to identify individuals whopresent a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. To achieve this goal, the UnitedStates Government must develop an integrated approach to use data held across national security components. I am, therefore, directing the establishment of a National Vetting Center (Center), subject to the oversight and guidance of a National Vetting Governance Board (Board), to coordinate the management and governance of the national vetting enterprise.

_Section_ _1_. _Policy_. (a) The UnitedStates must protect its people from terrorist attacks and other public safety threats. Vetting procedures associated with determining whether individuals pose threats to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety play a critical role in meeting this obligation. It is the policy of the UnitedStates, as authorized and appropriate, to collect, store, share, disseminate, and use accurate and timely biographic, biometric, and contextual information in support of immigration enforcement and border security, including with respect to individuals

who (i) seek a visa, a visa waiver, or other immigration benefit, or a protected status; (ii) attempt to enter the UnitedStates; or (iii) are subject to an immigration removal proceeding.

(b) Where authorized and appropriate, it is also the policy of the UnitedStates to process biographic, biometric, and contextual information, including on a recurrent basis, so as to identify activities, associations with known or suspected threat actors, and other relevant indicators that inform adjudications and determinations related to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. These activities should be conducted using all relevant and appropriate Federal Government information, including both intelligence and law enforcement information.

(c) The activities described in this memorandum should always be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution; Executive Order12333 of December4, 1981 (UnitedStates Intelligence Activities), as amended; other applicable law and Presidential guidance; and policies and procedures pertaining to:

(i) the appropriate handling of information about United States persons (as defined in Executive Order12333) and other individuals protected by UnitedStates law;

(ii) the protection of sources, methods, and activities;

(iii) privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and

(iv) the protection of other sensitive information.

The coordinated efforts of agencies to conduct all of these activities in the manner described above constitute the national vetting enterprise.

_Sec_. _2_. _ Implementation_. The policy described in section1 above shall be implemented as follows:

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish the Center to support the national vetting enterprise.

(i) The Center shall coordinate agency vetting efforts to identify individuals who present a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. Agencies may conduct any authorized border or immigration vetting activities through or with the Center. Agencies may support these additional activities, provided that such support is consistent with applicable law and the policies and procedures described in subsections(b) and (d) of this section.

(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall designate a fulltime senior officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security to serve as the director of the Center. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall detail or assign senior officials from their respective agencies to serve as deputy directors of the Center.

(iii) The director shall lead the day-to-day operations of the Center, communicate vetting needs and priorities to other agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise, and make resourcing recommendations to the Board established pursuant to subsection(e) of this section.

(iv) Agencies shall provide to the Center access to relevant biographic, biometric, and related derogatory information for its use to the extent permitted by and consistent with applicable law and policy, including the responsibility to protect sources and methods. Agencies and the Center shall, on a consensus basis, determine the most appropriate means or methods to provide access to this information to the Center.

(v) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall, on a continuing basis, work together to ensure, consistent with the authorities and available resources of each official’s respective agency, that the daily operations and functions of the Center, as determined by the Board, are supported, including through the assignment of legal and other appropriate personnel, and the provision of other necessary resources, consistent with applicable law, including the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535). To the extent permitted by law, details or assignments to the Center should be without reimbursement.

(vi) The day-to-day operations of the Center shall be executed by appropriate personnel from agencies participating in the national vetting enterprise, to the extent permitted by law, ina manner that adequately facilitates active and timely coordination and collaboration in the execution of the Center’s functions. Agencies shall participate in the Center and shall provide adequate physical presence to enable the Center to effectively accomplish its mission. To the extent appropriate, additional agency co-location may be virtual rather than physical. Each agency shall fund its participation in the Center, consistent with the agency’s mission and applicable law. There shall be no interagency financing of the Center.

(vii) The Center shall not commence operations until the President has approved the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section.

(b) The Center shall enable and facilitate the appropriate use and interagency deconfliction of all relevant information provided to it to inform the adjudication decisions of the national vetting enterprise.

(i) Databases, data sets, knowledge bases, systems, and technical architectures controlled by the Federal Government, including those established pursuant to Presidential guidance or other Federal policies, may be used to support the activities of the Center to the extent permitted by and consistent with the legal and policy frameworks governing their use.

(ii) Information provided to and used by the Center shall be managed and maintained consistent with applicable information security and cybersecurity laws, standards, practices, and procedures.

(c) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of relevant Intelligence Community (IC) elements, shall establish a support element to facilitate, guide, and coordinate all IC efforts to use classified intelligence and other relevant information within IC holdings in direct support of the Center.

(i) The Director of National Intelligence shall assign a seniorofficial from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or from another IC element (with the concurrence of the head of that IC element), and in accordance with applicable law, to serve as the head of the support element. This official shall provide dayto-day direction and guidance for the support element’s operations in support of and in consultation with the director of the Center. The official shall report to the Director of National Intelligence through an Identity Intelligence Executive.

(ii) The support element shall provide focused, dedicated support to the Center, responding to the Center’s needs by ensuring it receives appropriate, standardized, and timely access to biographic, biometric, and related derogatory information relevant to the national vetting enterprise, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with applicable policy, including section 1 of this memorandum, and in accordance with the operational considerations of both the Center and the IC elements supporting it.

(iii) Where appropriate, the personnel and other resources of thesupport element may be virtually rather than physically colocated at the Center, with such virtual support facilitated on a day-to-day basis by assigned personnel from agencies that are physically present at the Center, as determined in the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section.

(d) Consistent with section1(c) of this memorandum, all activities of the Center and the support element shall be, atall times, conducted in a manner consistent with the Constitution; Executive Order12333, as amended; other applicable law and Presidential guidance; and policies and procedures pertaining to:

(i) the appropriate handling of information about UnitedStates persons (as defined in Executive Order 12333) and other individuals who may have rights under United States law;

(ii) the protection of sources, methods, and activities;

(iii) privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and

(iv) the protection of other sensitive information.

(e) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall establish the Board.

(i) The national vetting enterprise shall act under the guidance of the Board, which shall serve as the senior interagency forum for considering issues that affect the national vetting enterprise and the activities of the Center and its support element. The Board shall adopt appropriate guidance for agencies to enable the successful execution of the national vetting enterprise and make related resource recommendations to agencies providing direct support to the Center. The Board shall also advise the Director of National Intelligence, through the Identity Intelligence Executive, on the IC resources necessary to support the mission of the Center.

(ii) The Board shall consist of six senior executives, one designated by each of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(iii) The Board may invite other relevant agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise to participate as required to achieve the national security objectives of the national vetting enterprise.

(iv) The chair of the Board shall rotate annually among the individuals designated from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The director of the Center shall serve as an observer at Board meetings.

(v) The Board shall endeavor to reach consensus on all matters presented to it, including the scope of the Center’s activities. If issues cannot be resolved by consensus, the Board shall refer them to the staff of the National Security Council for consideration, consistent with National Security Presidential Memorandum4 of April4, 2017 (Organization of the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and Subcommittees)(NSPM-4), or any successor document.

(vi) To ensure that the activities of the Board andthe Centercomply with applicable law and appropriately protect individuals’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, the Board shall establish a standing Legal Working Group and a separate standing Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Working Group, both of which shall routinely review the activities of the Center and advise the Board. These working groups shall also review the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section prior to its submission to the President.

(f) The heads of agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise shall prioritize, as a vital national security mission, the provision of necessary and appropriate resources to support the national vetting enterprise, including the Center, consistent with their agency’s respective authorities and appropriations.

(g) Within 180days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and using the NSPM4 process, jointly submit to the President for approval a plan to implement this memorandum. The implementation plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:

(i) the initial scope of the Center’s vetting activities;

(ii) the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in the Center;

(iii) the roles and responsibilities of IC elements participating in the Center’s support element;

(iv) the initial categories of information to be used in support of the Center’s activities;

(v) a resourcing strategy for both the Center and its support element, which shall include the initial projected cost and staff required to operate the Center;

(vi) the relationship between the Center and other relevant UnitedStates Government entities and initiatives, including the National Targeting Center and Terrorist Screening Center;

(vii) the development or adoption, as appropriate, of relevant processes, procedures, and practices needed to ensure compliance with applicable law and policy and to appropriately protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, as well as sources and methods; and

(viii) a projected schedule to reach both initial and full operational capability.

(h) Within 180days of approval by the President of this implementation plan and every 180days thereafter until its execution is complete, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, theAttorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and using the NSPM4 process, jointly submit to the President a report detailing the efforts made to execute this memorandum and the implementation plan.

_Sec_. _3_. _ General Provisions_. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent withapplicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the UnitedStates, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

###

Hillary Clinton Rethinks Decision to Retain Employee Accused of Inappropriate Behavior

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Hillary Clinton

Yesterday at 7:45pm

The most important work of my life has been to support and empower women. I’ve tried to do so here at home, around the world, and in the organizations I’ve run. I started in my twenties, and four decades later I’m nowhere near being done. I’m proud that it’s the work I’m most associated with, and it remains what I’m most dedicated to.

So I very much understand the question I’m being asked as to why I let an employee on my 2008 campaign keep his job despite his inappropriate workplace behavior.

The short answer is this: If I had it to do again, I wouldn’t.

Before giving some of the reasons why I made a different choice back then and why looking back I wish I’d done it differently, here’s what happened and what my thinking was at the time.

In 2007, a woman working on my campaign came forward with a complaint about her supervisor behaving inappropriately toward her. She and her complaint were taken seriously. Senior campaign staff and legal counsel spoke to both her and the offender. They determined that he had in fact engaged in inappropriate behavior. My then-campaign manager presented me with her findings. She recommended that he be fired. I asked for steps that could be taken short of termination. In the end, I decided to demote him, docking his pay; separate him from the woman; assign her to work directly for my then-deputy-campaign manager; put in place technical barriers to his emailing her; and require that he seek counseling. He would also be warned that any subsequent harassment of any kind toward anyone would result in immediate termination.

I did this because I didn’t think firing him was the best solution to the problem. He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong. The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job. I believed the punishment was severe and the message to him unambiguous.

I also believe in second chances. I’ve been given second chances and I have given them to others. I want to continue to believe in them. But sometimes they’re squandered. In this case, while there were no further complaints against him for the duration of the campaign, several years after working for me he was terminated from another job for inappropriate behavior. That reoccurrence troubles me greatly, and it alone makes clear that the lesson I hoped he had learned while working for me went unheeded. Would he have done better – been better – if I had fired him? Would he have gotten that next job? There is no way I can go back 10 years and know the answers. But you can bet I’m asking myself these questions right now.

Over the years, I have made, directly and indirectly, thousands of personnel decisions – everything from hiring to promoting to disciplining to firing. Most of these decisions worked out well. But I’ve gotten some wrong: I’ve hired the wrong people for the wrong jobs; I’ve come down on people too hard at times. Through it all, I’ve always taken firing very seriously. Taking away someone’s livelihood is perhaps the most serious thing an employer can do. When faced with a situation like this, if I think it’s possible to avoid termination while still doing right by everyone involved, I am inclined in that direction. I do not put this forward as a virtue or a vice – just as a fact about how I view these matters.

When The New York Times reported on this incident last week, my first thought was for the young woman involved. So I reached out to her – most importantly, to see how she was doing, but also to help me reflect on my decision and its consequences. It’s never easy when something painful or personal like this surfaces, much less when it appears all over the news. I called her not knowing what I’d hear. Whatever she had to say, I wanted her to be able to say it, and say it to me.

She expressed appreciation that she worked on a campaign where she knew she could come forward without fear. She was glad that her accusations were taken seriously, that there was a clear process in place for dealing with harassment, and that it was followed. Most importantly, she told me that for the remainder of the campaign, she flourished in her new role. We talked about her career, policy issues related to the work she’s doing now, and her commitment to public service. I told her how grateful I was to her for working on my campaign and believing in me as a candidate. She’s read every word of this and has given me permission to share it.

It was reassuring to hear that she felt supported back then – and that all these years later, those feelings haven’t changed. That again left me glad that my campaign had in place a comprehensive process for dealing with complaints. The fact that the woman involved felt heard and supported reinforced my belief that the process worked – at least to a degree. At the time, I believed the punishment I imposed was severe and fit the offense. Indeed, while we are revisiting whether my decision from a decade ago was harsh enough, many employers would be well served to take actions at least as severe when confronted with problems now – including the very media outlet that broke this story. They recently opted to suspend and reinstate one of their journalists who exhibited similarly inappropriate behavior, rather than terminate him. A decade from now, that decision may not look as tough as it feels today. The norms around sexual harassment will likely have continued to change as swiftly and significantly in the years to come as they have over the years until now.

Over the past year, a seismic shift has occurred in the way we approach and respond to sexual harassment, both as a society and as individuals. This shift was long overdue. It occurred thanks to women across industries who stood up and spoke out, from Hollywood to sports to farm workers – to the very woman who worked for me.

For most of my life, harassment wasn’t something talked about or even acknowledged. More women than not experience it to some degree in their life, and until recently, the response was often to laugh it off or tough it out. That’s changing, and that’s a good thing. My own decision to write in my memoir about my experiences being sexually harassed and physically threatened early in my career – the first time was in college – was more agonizing than it should have been. I know that I’m one of the lucky ones, and what happened to me seemed so commonplace that I wondered if it was even worth sharing. But in the end, that’s exactly why I chose to write about it: because I don’t want this behavior or these attitudes to be accepted as “normal” for any woman, especially those just starting out in their lives.

No woman should have to endure harassment or assault – at work, at school, or anywhere. And men are now on notice that they will truly be held accountable for their actions. Especially now, we all need to be thinking about the complexities of sexual harassment, and be willing to challenge ourselves to reassess and question our own views.

In other words, everyone’s now on their second chance, both the offenders and the decision-makers. Let’s do our best to make the most of it.

We can’t go back, but we can certainly look back, informed by the present. We can acknowledge that even those of us who have spent much of our life thinking about gender issues and who have firsthand experiences of navigating a male-dominated industry or career may not always get it right.

I recognize that the situation on my 2008 campaign was unusual in that a woman complained to a woman who brought the issue to a woman who was the ultimate decision maker. There was no man in the chain of command. The boss was a woman. Does a woman have a responsibility to come down even harder on the perpetrator? I don’t know. But I do believe that a woman boss has an extra responsibility to look out for the women who work for her, and to better understand how issues like these can affect them.

I was inspired by my conversation with this young woman to express my own thinking on the matter. You may question why it’s taken me time to speak on this at length. The answer is simple: I’ve been grappling with this and thinking about how best to share my thoughts. I hope that my doing so will push others to keep having this conversation – to ask and try to answer the hard questions, not just in the abstract but in the real-life contexts of our roles as men, women, bosses, employees, advocates, and public officials. I hope that women will continue to talk and write about their own experiences and that they will continue leading this critical debate, which, done right, will lead to a better, fairer, safer country for us all.

NASA TV: How to Watch Super Blue Blood Moon and Lunar Eclipse

Wednesday, Jan. 31, 5:30 a.m.: Live stream of “super blue blood moon” and lunar eclipse, NASA TV. Weather permitting, the broadcast will feature views from the varying vantage points of telescopes at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California; Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles; and the University of Arizona’s Mt. Lemmon SkyCenter Observatory.

The Jan. 31 full moon is special for three reasons: it’s the third in a series of “supermoons,” when the Moon is closer to Earth in its orbit — known as perigee — and about 14 percent brighter than usual. It’s also the second full moon of the month, commonly known as a “blue moon.” If you live in North America, Alaska, or Hawaii, a lunar eclipse will be visible before sunrise on Jan. 31. For those in the Middle East, Asia, eastern Russia, Australia and New Zealand, the “super blue blood moon” can be seen during moonrise in the morning on the 31st.

 

White House Sends Out Preview of State of the Union Address

Photo courtesy White House.

Previewing tonight’s State of the Union 

Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, President Donald J. Trump will deliver his first State of the Union Address before Congress. The speech will outline the record-setting accomplishments of his first year and lay out the Administration’s vision for the next 12 months: building a safe, strong, and proud America.

A few important issues that you’ll certainly hear about tonight:

  • Tax cuts and the economy: The biggest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in at least three decades is already fueling an economic boom.
  • Infrastructure: President Trump will outline a $1 trillion investment for a large-scale, fast rebuild of America’s depleted infrastructure.
  • Immigration: The President will explain his framework on immigration reform, including border security, DACA legalization, protecting the nuclear family, and replacing the visa lottery with a skills-based approach.
  • Trade: Building on the President’s address at Davos last week, America will insist on trade deals that are fair and reciprocal.
  • National security: America is returning to “peace through strength” in world affairs, making our stances clear to friends and enemies alike.

 

Watch the State of the Union Address live at 9 p.m. ET.

Largest Ever Red Flag 18-1 Air Force Combat Training Kicks Off

Brig. Gen. Christopher Short, 57th Wing commander, taxis down the runway in an F-16 Fighting Falcon after being sprayed by fire trucks during his fini flight at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., April 8, 2016. A fini flight is a pilot’s last flight in an aircraft before he/she leaves a squadron, a wing, or retires from the Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: January 27, 2018

Aircraft incident on Nellis Air Force Base

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. – At approximately 10:45 a.m. this morning, a military aircraft experienced an incident during takeoff on the Nellis Air Force Base flight line.

Emergency services are on scene.  No serious injuries are reported.

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE:

Defence can confirm an incident involving an EA-18G Growler at Nellis Air Force Base during Exercise Red Flag. Royal Australian Air Force personnel are safe and no serious injuries have been sustained. Defence is currently working with the United States Air Force to investigate and will provide an update with further details once known. See photo of Growler below.

—————-

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev.The U.S. Air Force kicks off its largest three-week premier air-to-air combat training exercise, Red Flag 18-1, which will continue until Feb. 16, 2018.

Base officials want to remind Southern Nevada residents will notice increased military aircraft activity due to aircraft departing from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, twice-a-day to participate in training exercises on the Nevada Test and Training Range.

“We’re trying a few new and different things with Red Flag 18-1,” said Col Michael Mathes, 414th Combat Training Squadron commander. “It’s the largest Red Flag ever with the largest number of participants, highlighting the balance of training efficiency with mission effectiveness.”

While Red Flag occurs in multiple iterations annually, each one has a unique training purpose – 18-1 is no exception.

“Red Flag 18-1 primarily is a strike package focused training venue that we integrate at a command and control level in support of joint task force operations,” said Mathes. “It’s a lot of words to say that we integrate every capability we can into strike operations that are flown out of Nellis Air Force Base.”

The training offered during Red Flag has prepared armed forces for future engagements.

“Red Flag remains a great mix of heritage and future potential,” said Mathes. “We are very proud of our heritage with the way that red flag had improved survivability and readiness over the years. We look forward as we continue to grow readiness through integrated training as well as improving training efficiency.”

The exercise typically involves a variety of attack, fighter and bomber aircraft as well as participants from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Air Force.

Courtesy Royal Air Force, UK

MAJOR ROLE FOR RAF AT WORLD’S PREMIER AIR COMBAT EXERCISE

The world’s premier air combat exercise is underway in Nevada, with the Royal Air Force (RAF) playing a major role alongside American and Australian counterparts.

Set at Nellis Air Force Base, Red Flag pits ‘Blue’ coalition forces against hostile ‘Red Force’ aggressors, mirroring real-life threats in air-to-air, air-to-ground, space and cyber warfare.

Typhoons, from 6 Squadron, RAF Lossiemouth, are operating in a swing-role capacity, fighting their way into hostile airspace, launching precision strikes on ground targets and fighting their way out again.

20170127-Red Flag-1

Air Force Releases 2017 Year in Photos

 

 

Oklahoma High School Football Team Sexually Assaults Teammate; Attempted Cover-Up by School Officials Now Under Investigation; Parent Attempted to Purchase Video Evidence

In a case of what is beginning to look like putting the welfare of a high school football team ahead of the welfare of a minor child, a public school in Bixby, Oklahoma is facing allegations of a failure to report a sexual assault of a team member and a potential cover-up of the incident by responsible school officials.

According to an Affidavit filed November 27, 2017 with the State of Oklahoma, Tulsa County:

  1. The Oklahoma State Attorney has designated a special prosecutor to investigate the incident. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation has also been called into the probe.
  2. In addition to an investigation of the sexual assault, the investigation will determine whether mandatory reporting of the incident occurred as well as whether there were attempts to thwart an investigation.
  3. Electronic evidence has been seized from:

Superintendent of Schools

Principal

Head Football Coach

Athletic Director

All football players implicated in the incident

4. The male victim, age 16, was interviewed by the special investigator on Nov 13, 2017.  The victim was at a team function in a private home belonging to the Superintendent of Bixby Public Schools. The Superintendent’s son is also a player on the team.

5. The victim was held down by three teammates as a fourth teammate inserted a pool stick into his anus through his shorts. A fifth team member filmed the event. A sixth team member held the door to the room closed. All other football team members stood by laughing. The victim left after the incident. His mother later reported it did result in rectal bleeding.

6. The victim said he was aware the video was shown to others. He was told the video had been deleted. In addition, the victim reported to the investigator a similar incident in 2016 had occurred at the same location.

—————-

The victim’s mother was interviewed on Nov 15, 2017. She reported that she was contacted by the school’s Athletic Director on Oct. 26.

She was only told that her son had been the subject of a hazing or bullying incident.  He asked if she wanted police contacted and she declined, not knowing it was a sexual assault.

On Oct 31, during a meeting with the superintendent, the mother and her husband still were not told the nature of the assault. She went home to discuss with her son when he told her it was actually a sexual assault and had happened before.

The investigator does not know the exact date when school officials became aware of assault, but knew that it was at least October 26. The incident was not officially reported to the Bixby police until November 1 or 2. The Department of Human Services was not notified until November 10.

By Nov 9, the OSBI was brought in as it appeared school officials were not cooperating.

A second Affidavit reveals that all the football players have cooperated and admitted to their involvement in the assault. It also revealed that a parent tried to purchase the telephone used in the filming of the incident. Further, it seems to show increasing evidence of an attempt to cover-up the incident involving school officials and perhaps the entire board of directors, and certainly seems to indicate a failure to report the incident in a timely fashion. According to the investigator, “It certainly appears that any reporting of the incident was significant and has caused difficulty in the investigation, especially including the inability to preserve evidence. It also appears that there may have been some initial effort by one or others to not report the incident at all.”

A grand jury has been convened and the case is currently in recess as investigators continue to gather evidence.

Affidavits:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/bixby-affidavits/pdf_b92f74c7-0d70-5eae-9e4f-a02a37b0a8cc.html

“I Love Trump,” Says Ugandan President Museveni

Ugandan President Museveni says he loves Donald Trump, feels Africa does need to improve, and admires Trump’s frankness.