Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

Now that ‘The Day’ (according to Jerry Nadler) has arrived, it’s time to examine whether Attorney General William Barr should release the Mueller report without redactions or whether parts of the report shouldn’t be seen by Congress or the public. Put differently, should the Attorney General follow the law or should he listen to Chairman Nadler?

That question seems to tie Democrats in knots. Jerry Nadler wants everything released, including Grand Jury testimony, national security sources and methods and information about ongoing investigations. In this report, Manu Raju said that “precedent had been set by the Ken Starr report.” It’s worth noting that the Starr report was governed by a totally different law with different requirements.

The Starr report was required to publish grand jury testimony. The Mueller report was required to keep grand jury testimony out of the report except if a judge ruled that testimony was allowed into the report.

The special counsel law is well written because grand jury testimony is, ultimately, one-sided in favor of the prosecutors. The people testifying aren’t cross-examined. Defense witnesses aren’t usually called, either, to present both sides of the story.

Ultimately, House Judiciary Committee Democrats will be able to point to the witnesses’ testimony. Republicans won’t have anything to point to. Does that sound fair? I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s even close to fair.

For that reason alone, grand jury testimony shouldn’t be included.

Finally, isn’t it interesting that Rep. Nadler argued against full transparency when the report involved Bill Clinton?

One of the first things out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth is potentially stupid. In her op-ed, cowritten with Jim McGovern, Pelosi said “In November, the American people went to the polls and sent an unmistakable message to Washington. By a historic 10 million vote margin, they asked for a Congress that would be more transparent, ethical and focused on debating and advancing good ideas no matter where they come from. They asked for a Congress that would prioritize a positive, forward-looking agenda for the people.”

It’s worth remembering that Ms. Pelosi didn’t initiate a review into Keith Ellison’s alleged molestation of Karen Monahan. Further, Ms. Pelosi is the personification of the Swamp, having started serving in Washington, DC, in 1987.

Ms. Pelosi didn’t check into Rep. Ellison’s alleged misdeeds because that might’ve gotten into her way of becoming speaker again. Is that the personification of a person who’s going to clean the swamp? I don’t think so. Then there’s this:

Third, we will restore Congress’ constitutional role recognizing that the legislative branch is Article I, the first branch of government, coequal to and a check and balance on the executive and the judiciary. We will strengthen the representation of all Americans, and expand the voting rights of representatives elected by our more than 4.5 million fellow Americans from Washington, D.C., and the territories.

This is nothing more than the Democrats’ justification for non-stop investigation into President Trump rather than passing legislation that helps people. The truth is that expectations aren’t high that Pelosi’s House will attempt to accomplish much substantively.

During her speech, Ms. Pelosi said that they “would debate good ideas no matter where they came from.” She’s already failed on that count because walls have protected Israelis from terrorists and South Koreans from invading armies. Frankly, Ms. Pelosi lied during her speech because that’s the Democrats’ nature.

The only question left is how long it’ll take before Democrats go too far.

When it comes to talking out of both sides of their mouth, nobody’s better at it than Nancy Pelosi. At the 6:34 mark of this video, Ms. Pelosi said “I don’t think we should have a debate in front of the press on this but the fact is the House Republicans could bring up this bill and pass this bill, if they had the votes, immediately and set the tone” for the debate:

Later in the meeting with President Trump, Ms. Pelosi said “There are no Republican votes for the wall.” Earth to Ms. Pelosi: here’s breaking news for you — the House already passed the bill that includes $5,000,000,000 for President Trump’s wall. Still later, Ms. Pelosi said “We’re coming in here in good faith to negotiate with you to see how we can keep the government open.”

What a pile of BS. What Ms. Pelosi means by “good faith negotiations” is that she expects President Trump to drop his funding for the wall. She and Sen. Schumer accused President Trump of wanting to shut down the government unless he got what he wanted. The Democrats’ position is just as hardline as President Trump’s. The difference is that President Trump highlighted how effective a border wall is. The difference is that Ms. Pelosi rejected President Trump’s verified facts.

In fact, Ms. Pelosi insisted that Israel’s wall wasn’t effective. Seriously?! Any idiot that thinks that the Israelis don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to their security is either stupid or lying. Period. What’s hilarious is when President Trump interjects that “It’s called transparency, Nancy”, then she replies “It isn’t transparency when we don’t agree on a set of facts.”

Actually, whether both sides agree on a set of facts or not, negotiations held in front of the TV cameras is transparency. The root word for transparency is transparent. The definition of transparent is “having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.” Other definitions for transparent are “manifest; obvious; open; frank; candid.”

What’s more open or candid than a negotiation held in front of TV cameras? Frankly, Ms. Pelosi appears to want these negotiations to be held behind closed doors so she and Sen. Schumer can come out to the TV cameras and mischaracterize what was said behind closed doors.

Reading ISAIAH’s recent email survey certainly makes me question whether they’ve violated the IRS’s prohibitions on 501(c)(3) organizations with regard to political campaigns. In their email, Laura Johnson, ISAIAH’s Lead Organizer, wrote “As we think about 2020, we want to dig in on the things that work and that make honest connections with voters, and stop doing the ones that people hate or that don’t get people engaged.”

Based on this information, it certainly sounds like they’ve overstepped their boundaries:

Some activities that the IRS has found to violate the prohibition on political campaigning include:

1. inviting a political candidate to make a campaign speech at an event hosted by the organization
2. using the organization’s funds to publish materials that support (or oppose) a candidate
3. donating money from the organization to a political candidate
4. any statements by the organization’s executive director, in his or her official capacity, that support a candidate
5. criticizing or supporting a candidate on the organization’s website
6. inviting one candidate to speak at a well-publicized and well-attended event, and inviting the other candidate to speak at a lesser function
7. inviting all candidates to speak at an event, but arranging the speaking event or choosing the questions in such a way that it is obvious that the organization favors one candidate over the others
8. conducting a “get out the vote” telephone drive in a partisan manner by selecting caller responses for further follow-up based on candidate preference, and
9. using the organization’s website to link to only one candidate’s profile.

“Making connections with voters certainly sounds like they’re “conducting a ‘get out the vote’ drive, doesn’t it? It certainly doesn’t sound like they’re conducting a voter registration drive, which is allowed. This confirms my suspicions:

Indigenous, Black, Hispanic and Muslim Minnesotans Partner in GOTV for Day of Action

This is a picture from ISAIAH’s blog. They aren’t trying to hide the fact that they’re engaging in a GOTV operation. As I highlighted earlier, the IRS has long found that GOTV operations as violating 501(c)(3) rules. I don’t know how a case could be more open-and-shut than that.

According to this article, MN.IT is almost out of the $10,000,000 appropriated in late March. I’d argue that Ms. Clyborne is spending money like a drunken sailor but I think drunken sailors have more restraint.

Clyborne has had the $10,000,000 for 82 days! How can you spend that much money in that short of time? Spending at that rate would cause MNLARS to spend almost $50,000,000 in a year. MNLARS is attempting to pass the blame. According to the article, “Minnesota IT Services and the Department of Public Safety updated state legislators this week in a required quarterly progress report on ongoing efforts to fix MNLARS gaps and defects. Agency officials noted some improvements since their initial report was delivered in late April. But they also highlighted the looming financial problem. Another ramp-down of the repair work is coming, Minnesota IT Service Commissioner Johanna Clyborne said in an interview. She’s just not sure when. ‘We’re going to do as much as we can with the funding that we have and we’re going to have to make some tough decisions,’ Clyborne said.”

This is what utter incompetence looks like:

Discussions continue this week with deputy registrars, auto dealers and other MNLARS users to rank the repairs and improvements they want in the system, Clyborne said. She said the timing of the ramp-down will become clearer once the list of priorities is set. “The question is whether I ramp down in August or whether I ramp down in October or somewhere in between,” she said.

That’s a 2+ month difference in “ramp-down” time estimates. If you’re spending money and that’s the best you can do in terms of pinpointing spending, then you should be fired immediately for incompetence.

The DFL has insisted that Republicans have to fund the MNLARS disaster without providing oversight. One of their chief arguments is that not funding MNLARS is that the programmers who’ve bungled the project thus far might leave if Republicans don’t fund MNLARS to the tune of $43,000,000. Tom Steward’s article for the Center for the American Experiment highlights the DFL’s argument, saying “‘We’re going to lose all these programmers,’ Dibble said. ‘We might as well turn off the lights and not proceed with MNLARS anymore if we don’t do this today.'”

DFL Rep. Rick Hansen “issued this long shot in the Morning Take tip sheet. ‘…Now these highly sought after workers are seeking new jobs and at least one top project developer has resigned…Continuous stalling, blaming and pontificating, instead of problem-solving, continues to make the problem worse and will add months until we have a fully functioning system for Minnesotans…There is a cost to the House Republican inaction…Republicans now own the MNLARS problem. It’s on them and only them.'”

Republicans should be praised for getting rid of the programmers who created the MNLARS mess. Republican legislators should be further praised for insisting on rigorous oversight of the project. The MNLARS project has been a disaster from the time the Dayton administration took it over. The Dayton administration was told before MNLARS went online that it would fail. The Dayton administration ok’d the project anyway. Then it insisted on a ton more money to fix MNLARS. That took it from a $40,000,000 price tag to a $93,000,000 price tag.

It’s still failing. The additional $50,000,000 didn’t fix the DFL’s MNLARS crisis either. Now the DFL is insisting that Republicans will be blamed if they don’t write another $43,000,000 blank check to the Dayton administration, who will use the money to pay these failed programmers.

Meantime, Dayton has proposed penalizing Minnesotans even further for the dysfunctional system with a $2 per vehicle transaction fee to go to fixing MNLARS. Not a chance, according to MNN’s coverage. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jim Knoblach from Saint Cloud says that’s dead on arrival. “To me it just adds insult to injury. He’s now going to try to charge everyone who uses the system to pay for this disaster. We’re not gonna do that,” Knoblach says.

Chairman Knoblach is right in declaring that proposal DOA. Why should we pay for the Dayton administration’s incompetence?

I’ve said it before but I’ll repeat it here. The DFL is the party of big government. Gov. Dayton and DFL legislators like Scott Dibble, Rick Hansen and Frank Hornstein have insisted that the money be appropriated but that the legislature not provide oversight on the project.

This can’t be taken seriously. Republicans are right in insisting on rigorous oversight. If that costs us a few of these programmers, it’s worth it.

Technorati: Mark Dayton, Scott Dibble, MNIT, MNLARS, Frank Hornstein, Rick Hansen, Programmers, Cost Overruns, DFL, Election 2018

This LTE, written by Maureen Warren, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, is pure CYA. In the LTE, Warren states “As part of our work, we are required to hold quarterly meetings with stakeholders that are involved in the process of helping to resettle refugees. These stakeholders include officials from local government, county personnel in human services, and representatives from public health, public safety, housing community, public education, social services, businesses and other service providers.”

There’s ample proof that county officials have gotten briefed on the programs. After all, they administer most of these programs. However, there’s no proof whatsoever that city officials have attended these meetings. Mayor Kleis has repeatedly said that the city doesn’t have anything to do with refugee resettlement. He’s also said “We don’t have any funding that goes to refugee resettlement.”

That’s pretty slippery wording. Notice that Mayor Kleis didn’t say that the city budget doesn’t spend money on refugees who’ve already settled here. Further, citizens who support Councilman Johnson’s moratorium haven’t talked about city budgets:

Since July 10, 22 people have spoken about refugee resettlement. Many of the speakers said they are concerned about the taxpayer cost of refugees.

Once the refugees have been here 90 days, federal funding disappears. At that point, the taxpayers get hit with the costs of supporting refugees. The same taxpayers that pay property taxes to the city get hit with property tax increases from the school district to pay for programs that help refugees learn the English language. That’s why St. Cloud’s education rating is awful. By comparison, Sartell, which doesn’t have to deal with refugees, earns a higher rating for education and for crime.

Our focus is to increase communication and seek solutions to meet the needs of refugee populations. This is a working group. Quarterly meetings were never intended to be an open public forum.

Thus far, it’s apparent that LSS’s focus is on keeping these proceedings secret.

We know there is community interest in learning more about refugee resettlement. To create greater understanding about this work, we are opening our December quarterly consultation meeting to interested public observers.

How quaint. LSS is opening up a meeting one time so LSS can say that they’ve been transparent.

Resettling refugees is humanitarian work. We’ve been involved in refugee resettlement for nearly 10 years in St. Cloud, and many decades in Minnesota. Our role is to help refugees get off to a good start and become productive members of the community as quickly as possible.

Actually, it’s a racket. Businesses that hire refugees who’ve been unemployed more than 6 months qualify for a tax credit of up to $9,600. Businesses hiring refugees aren’t hiring them for middle management positions. They’re hiring them for unskilled positions. In other words, businesses get cheap labor and a huge tax credit for hiring cheap labor.

Meanwhile, LSS gets paid $1,000 for each refugee it finds a home for. This year, LSS will get $225,000 to resettle refugees. That doesn’t sound like humanitarian work. That’s what a lucrative racket sounds like. This letter from Ron Branstner lays things out beautifully:

Technorati: Lutheran Social Services, Refugee Resettlement, Dave Kleis, Jeff Johnson, Transparency

Of all the idiotic things I’ve heard Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), say this takes the cake. According to the article, “Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, floated the possibility of a new investigation in response to news that President Trump actively pursued lifting a gag order on an undercover FBI informant so he could testify to Congress about the Russian nuclear industry’s bribery and money laundering during the time of the Obama administration.”

Schiff is the worst salesman of conspiracy theories I’ve ever witnessed. This morning, Schiff tweeted “If President personally intervened with DOJ to advance case against political opponent it’s beyond disturbing; I intend to pursue in new probe.” WOW! It’s absurdity on steroids to think that insisting on transparency would create howls of partisanship.

Yes, Congressman Schiff, it’s ok to investigate a political opponent if that’s where the evidence takes you. It’s only wrong if there’s nothing pointing to a person’s political opponents. In this case, the political opponent is Hillary Clinton, the personification of political corruption. She’s a corruption magnet.

Is. Rep Schiff suggesting that people engaging in corrupt acts be spared if they’re someone’s political opponent? That’s what it appears he’s suggesting in this interview:

What’s frightening is that Congressman Schiff hasn’t hesitated in engaging in a baseless witch hunt against President Trump while trying his best to discourage the testimony of a whistleblower who can provide information on the Russians’ operations:

On Wednesday, it was revealed the FBI informant can now testify to Congress after being released from a confidentiality agreement by the Justice Department. The informant’s identity has not been publicly disclosed because he was undercover for almost five years. During that time, he provided agents information about Russia’s atomic energy business in the U.S.

A report from The Hill last week said the FBI has evidence dating as far back as 2009 that nuclear industry officials from Russia had been involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering that benefited Russian President Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy project expansion with the U.S.

As long as the administration isn’t engaging in a fishing expedition, I don’t see what the problem is. The minute it becomes a fishing expedition, though, that’s a problem.

President Trump’s hands are clean on this because he’s insisting on more information and transparency rather than secrecy. If Congressman Schiff has a problem with transparency, then he’s got a problem with the American people. I can’t imagine that’s a battlefield Schiff wants to fight on because it’s all downside for him.

Technorati: Whistleblowers, Investigations, Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Intelligence, Money Laundering, Extortion, Vladimir Putin, Democrats, Donald Trump, Non-Disclosure Agreement, Transparency, Republicans

Last night, St. Cloud City Councilmember George Hontos made a motion “for a study session on refugee resettlement.” When St. Cloud City Council President Carol Lewis voted against the motion, she said that the subject was “a federal issue, it may have some state implications, but we really have nothing we can say.”

A loyal reader of LFR contacted me to correct Ms. Lewis’ information. According to this loyal reader of LFR, the federal statute that deals with the Refugee Act of 1980, which “created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program”, is quite specific. 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(2)(A) states that “The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1), shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.”

Further, the statute states that “The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.”

In summation, the State Department is required to regularly consult with local governments prior to the resettlement of refugees. Based on what the federal government and county and city governments have shared with the public, those consultations haven’t happened.

Let’s be clear, though. It’s entirely possible that the State Department has consulted with the various NPOs about the program. That’s possible because the various levels of government have been as transparent as a brick wall.

Later in the statute, it says “Such policies and strategies, to the extent practicable and except under such unusual circumstances as the Director may recognize, shall- provide for a mechanism whereby representatives of local affiliates of voluntary agencies regularly (not less often than quarterly) meet with representatives of State and local governments to plan and coordinate in advance of their arrival the appropriate placement of refugees among the various States and localities, and
(iii) take into account-
(I) the proportion of refugees and comparable entrants in the population in the area,
(II) the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services) for refugees in the area,”

In other words, municipal and county governments and school boards must meet with the federal government and put together a plan that doesn’t overtax “educational, health care, and mental health services.” Additionally, this plan must be in place prior to the first refugee is resettled in a city.

The city of St. Cloud hasn’t shared any information on these required plans. That’s possibly because there isn’t a plan. That’s possibly because they’re just being exceptionally secretive. At this point, we don’t have proof that a plan was ever put in place. This video (from Tennessee) seems to indicate that the federal government isn’t taking their obligations seriously:

Technorati: Refugee Resettlement Program, State Department, City Council, School Board, Refugee Act of 1980, Carol Lewis, School Board, Nonprofit Organizations, Transparency, Accountability

People will insist that I’m being overly dramatic about refugee resettlement. That’s fine. Some members of St. Cloud’s City Council have already suggested that people who’ve asked for information on the economic impact of the State Department’s refugee resettlement program are racists. The St. Cloud Times has accused people who have simply asked for information of being bigots or Islamophobes. While visiting St. Cloud in October, 2015, Gov. Dayton told lifelong residents that they should leave Minnesota if they didn’t accept Somali refugees. Our congressman, Tom Emmer, is disinterested in the subject.

According to this KNSI article, “St. Cloud residents voiced their concerns about refugee resettlement at Monday’s city council meeting. A group of five people addressed the council asking for refugee population statistics and economic data, saying they haven’t been able to get any answers on the issue.” After they spoke, Councilman George Hontos made a “motion for a study session on refugee resettlement.” Hontos’ motion failed on a 4-3 vote.

The cowardly councilmembers who voted against even talking about the issue were Steve Laraway, Carol Lewis, John Libert and Jeff Goerger. City Council President Lewis attempted to defend her vote by saying that it’s “a federal issue, it may have some state implications, but we really have nothing we can say.”

Lewis is right in the sense that the refugee resettlement program is a federal program run through the U.S. State Department. It’s also a cowardly answer in the sense that refugees use local resources like schools, hospitals and other resources. Those things are definitely within the City Council’s purview.

It’s important to note that this motion wasn’t on a resolution condemning the program. It was a motion to spend a study session studying the impact the program has on St. Cloud’s transportation system, schools and hospitals. Goerger, Laraway, Lewis and Libert were too cowardly to even agree to that.

When those councilmembers are up for re-election, I hope St. Cloud residents remember that these councilmembers voted against transparency and accountability. In my opinion, those politicians are a disgrace. Here’s the video of Gov. Dayton telling lifelong Minnesota residents they should leave:

Technorati: Refugee Resettlement Program, City Council, Carol Lewis, Study Session, Mark Dayton, St. Cloud, George Hontos, Jeff Johnson, Accountability, Transparency