📎 Note:
Per due process the outcome of this incident has not been resolved but I am sharing this story at this point in time because 1.) We are living under a Putin installed Trump who is under investigation for possible involvement in conspiring with Trump to install himself in the Oval Office which gives him and his party absolutely no credibility at all and ; 2.) Because I find it quite fascinating that GOP might go this far to gain an advantage over another candidate but refuse to inform the citizenry as to the background of Judge Kavanaugh.
Focused Read in 3-4 minutes
"In An Unprecedented Move, The US Postal Service Released A Former CIA Officer’s Security Application To A Republican Group
The former officer, Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger, has suggested the information was released for partisan purposes.
The United States Postal Service has released the entire federal security clearance application of a former CIA officer running for Democratic Congressional seat, in what experts say is a highly unusual and perhaps unprecedented move, given the extensive, highly personal nature of the information contained in such documents.
In an interview with the New York Times published Tuesday, the former officer, Abigail Spanberger, accused the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan, of improperly obtaining the document, and suggested that the Trump administration may have leaked the information for partisan purposes.
But BuzzFeed News can confirm that an unredacted copy of the federal security clearance application was obtained by America Rising, a research group allied with the Republican Party, through what the organization believed was a response to its July 9 Freedom of Information Act request from the US Postal Service's human resources section.
Once America Rising obtained the documents it then shared it with its client, the Congressional Leadership Fund.
“America Rising submitted a standard Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information from the National Personnel Records Center which was referred to the United States Postal Service, an independent agency, which provided us responsive documents,” America Rising CEO Joe Pounder said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
“Why the USPS disclosed certain information in response to the FOIA is for their response.
At the end of the day, this Democrat candidate is trying to block the one thing FOIA is meant to provide, transparency.”
Documents viewed by BuzzFeed News show that the request for Spanberger’s entire civilian personnel file was submitted early last month...America Rising's request...did not explicitly mention the federal security clearance application...Historically, such records would be withheld or heavily redacted under a FOIA privacy act exemption. ...
... A spokesperson for the NPRC did not respond to requests for comment.
On July 30, the USPS human resources division provided America Rising with Spanberger’s entire personnel folder, including the SF-86.
USPS spokesperson David Partenheimer told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday, "We are looking into this matter. I will reach out to you when we have more to say."
According to the Times, the SF-86 is one of two security clearance applications Spanberger submitted when she first applied to work for the federal government in 2002: one to the CIA and one for a postal inspector job at USPS, which she took while waiting to hear back about the job at the intelligence agency.
The decision by USPS to release the unredacted document was unusual, FOIA and security clearance expert Bradley Moss, an attorney with Mark S. Zaid, P.C., told BuzzFeed News.
The SF-86 form is an extensive and probing questionnaire that asks applicants for all manner of personal background details, including where the applicant has lived and worked, their history of drug and alcohol use, and a number of other questions that could yield potentially embarrassing facts, he said.
Spanberger has said that Republicans seemed to be looking for information related to her brief stint as a teacher at the Islamic Saudi Academy, a private international baccalaureate program in Alexandria, Virginia, funded by the Saudi Arabian government.
“Someone at the USPS FOIA office is getting fired,” Moss said. “If they truly managed to release this file without noticing the Standard Form 86 paperwork in the file, there is justifiable cause to fire that FOIA officer.”
“SF-86 paperwork is categorically privacy-protected and to my knowledge has never been released through FOIA to a third party absent a privacy waiver,” he added.
Spanberger’s campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have called the release of the information troubling, and suggested that the documents may have been improperly released by the Trump administration, noting the president’s persistent attacks on US intelligence agencies and personnel.
In a letter to congressional candidates seen by the Times, DCCC Chair Ben Ray Luján wrote that Spanberger’s SF-86 was “an official government document that only President Trump’s administration should have in its possession in its unredacted form.”
“To be clear, we have no reason to believe that Republican groups have illegally obtained any of your personnel files, nor are we certain how C.L.F. got Ms. Spanberger’s document in the first place,” Mr. Luján conceded. “But even the evidence of this isolated incident is deeply troubling.”..."
You can read more here
You can also read more here
↻ ("Oversight Democrats Want Probe Into Postal Service’s Release of Candidate’s Records ~ Ryan-aligned super PAC received highly sensitive information on Virginia congressional hopeful")
* To be fair: A Buzz Feed News Update ⬇
I picked this up this morning, following this morning's publishing of Network For #StrongerTogether Blog!:
The US Postal Service Says “Human Error” Is To Blame For Releasing A Former CIA Officer’s Security Application To A Republican Group
“We take full responsibility for this unfortunate error, and we have taken immediate steps to ensure this will not happen again.” ...
I'm still a wait and see on this one, but I would say, hey: America Rising CEO Joe Pounder -- get used to not getting the benefit of the doubt from me. A preponderance of evidence says Russia ATTACKED America to install Trump with GOP blessing putting the burden on GOP to back up what any member of said party says with evidence. Just sayin'.
You can read the article here
Focused Thought 30 seconds
Focused Action 30 seconds
You can share the Beto music video Tweet here
Focused Point of Interest in 5 minutes
You can find a copy of the
draft proposal which was, as noted in the
blog below, passed -- substantially --
as is, here
"Delegate Selection Rules for 2020
(By tmess2 | Published August 26, 2018)
This weekend, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) held its “Summer” Meeting.
One of the items on the agenda was the RBC’s (Rules and By-laws Committee's) draft of the various documents that together comprise the rules for the 2020 nomination process.
For first time readers of this site, the Democrats have a multi-step process for drawing up the rules for delegate selection.
Typically, step 1 is a Festivus-type Commission in which the party head appoints a Commission drawing from all parts of the party for an airing of the grievances from the last cycle. ...
Step 2 is the Rules and By-laws Committee (RBC) of the DNC actually takes those suggestions (and other suggestions by RBC members) and amends the rules from the last cycle to incorporate those suggestions that have the support of the RBC.
Step 3 is that the full DNC then reviews and approves the new set of rules and issues them to the state parties.
Step 4 is that the state parties then (taking into account both legislative changes in their state and the new national rules) draft the state rules. Typically, the state rules need to be completed by the late spring/early summer of the year after the mid-term.
Step 5 is that the state rules are then submitted to the RBC for review for compliance with the national rules and approval (or directions to make changes to comply with the national rules).
The reports out of the Summer Meeting suggests that the RBC drafts were adopted essentially intact...
First, the 2020 Convention will take place in mid-July. (Call, Preamble). The DNC will select the site later this year or early next year. The delegate selection process will end by June 20, 2020. (Call, Part III).
Second, the formula for allocating delegates to the states remains relatively the same.
A base of 3200 that allocates delegates based on the average of each state’s share of the popular vote (over the last three elections) and the state’s share of the electoral vote. (Call, Part I.B).
A state can get additional delegates for going later in the process (a bonus for going in April with a larger bonus for going in May or June) and/or being part of a “regional cluster” (a minimum of three neighboring states occurring after the fourth Tuesday in March). (Call, Part I.C).
Each state also gets 15% over its base delegation (for Pledged Party Leaders and Elected Official Delegates a/k/a PLEOs). (Call, Part I.D). For those territories (and Democrats Abroad) that do not have electoral votes, the rules assigns each territory a number of delegates. (Call, Part I.E).
In terms of the composition within each state’s delegation — 75% of the base delegation is considered to be “district” delegates and 25% of the base delegation is considered to be the at-large delegation. (Rule 8.C). The sequence for choosing delegates remains district delegates then PLEO delegates then at-large delegates. (Rule 8, Rule 10, Rule 11).
Third, “superdelegates” (members of the DNC, elected officials, and certain former party leaders) are now “automatic delegates.” (Call, Part I.F&G&H).
An automatic delegate can opt to run for a “pledged” delegate slot giving up their automatic status if they win. (Call, Part I.J).
Those attending the convention as automatic delegates will not be eligible to cast a vote on the first ballot for President, but will be able to vote on later ballots. (Call, Part IX.C.7.b&c).
Fourth, the existing requirement that candidates for the Democratic nomination must be Democrats is beefed up by requiring candidates to sign an affirmation that they are Democrats. (Call, Part VI). In particular, the affirmation is that the candidate is a member of the Democratic Party, that the candidate will accept the nomination if the candidate wins, and the candidate will serve as a Democrat if elected. (Call, Part VI).
Fifth, the rules for state delegations on the various standing committees of the Convention (Rules, Platform, Credentials) are changed to recognize non-binary genders. (Call, Part VII.E). Such individuals do not count toward the requirement that the delegation be balanced between men and women. (Call, Part VII.E). A similar change is made to the rules regarding the state delegation to the convent. (Rule 6.C)
Sixth, there is a change to the rules regarding participation in the delegate selection process. The current version of Rule 2.C (defining who state parties must allow to participate) refers back to Rule 2.A and its subparts. The new version just refers back to Rule 2.A. Whether this change is stylistic only or substantive is unclear. This question could matter because Rule 2.A.1 requires that a voter’s party preference must be publicly recorded before a person is eligible to participate.
(Currently in states that do not publicly record in which primary a voter opts to vote, the state parties record participants in delegate selection meetings on a form signed by the participants in which the participants self-identify as democrats.)
However, Rule 13.H now requires that — if a state has party registration — any candidate for delegate must be a registered Democrat.
Seventh, in some sections, the rules replace “primary” with “process.” (Rule 2.F&G). The rules also now include a provision encouraging the use of a state-run primary, but still permit other “processes” (i.e. caucuses) with certain requirements, including efforts to allow participation by those who unable to attend their local caucus. (Rule 2.K; Rule 2.K.1&8-9).
One of these new requirements is that caucus states must now record and count the initial first preference vote of attendees and the allocation of delegates to the national convention must be based on and fixed by that initial first preference vote. (Rule 2.K.4-8).
Eighth, the timing rules remain the same from 2016 ...
Ninth, in a minor change to the “threshold” for earning delegates, if no candidate reaches fifteen percent, the threshold will be half of the vote total of the candidate who finishes first. (Rule 14.F).
What will be the practical effect of these changes?
If I understand the intent of these rules and the states are required to comply with them, some of the caucus states may see significant changes to how they announce results and allocate delegates.
For example, for the purpose of electing county or district level delegates, many caucus states have a period of time after the “first preference” vote to allow attendees who support a candidate beneath the fifteen percent threshold to either move to a viable candidate or persuade supporters of other candidates to join them and bump their candidate over fifteen percent.
These states then report how many delegates were won to the next level where the same process repeats with delegates only being allocated at the district and state conventions.
Under the new rules, while these same processes for choosing delegates to county conventions will continue, the initial vote will now be reported and that vote total will be what drives the allocation of delegates.
This change could lead to dramatically different outcomes from the early caucus states.
For example, in Iowa in 2016, Governor O’Malley won 0.54% of the delegates to the county conventions. That probably translated into getting around 5-10% of the initial vote. Those voters then went to another candidate. (Did they uniformly go to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or was their behavior based on precinct-by-precinct deals?) Imagine how differently the subsequent process would have gone if instead of announcing essential a 50-50 tie, the results had been Senator Sanders of Secretary Clinton winning by 10%.
Or back in 2008, Joe Biden won about 1% of the county convention delegates and Bill Richardson won about 2%. If you again assume that translates to around 10% of the vote, who did that vote go to on the second round. If it mostly went to Barrack Obama, think about how a three-way tie between Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and John Edwards would have impacted the future primaries.
The other big change is the one that has gotten the most attention — the loss of the vote on the first ballot for automatic delegates. The impact of this change may depend on how these delegates act (and how the losing candidates act).
The last two competitive cycles have seen the battle for pledged delegates continue through the last primary. In 2016, there were no other candidates who won any delegates. In 2008, however, John Edwards won 32. In 2004, the early “dropouts” won over 200 delegates. If we have another close battle that goes to the last primary and no candidate wins an absolute majority (the situation in 2008), then the dropout candidates and the automatic delegates could have an impact on whether the convention goes to a second ballot.
If the dropout candidates release their delegates and request them to vote for the “winner” of the primaries, then things should work as normal (particularly if the automatic delegates make clear what will happen on the second ballot). On the other hand, if the dropout candidates obstruct the process, there will be a second ballot on which anything could happen...
In short, a lot is staying the same, but the changes could make things interesting in another 18 months."
You can read more here
( You can also find all of the relevant documents as they were submitted for voting at the August DNC meeting, courtesy of here )
Focused Monthly Inspiration
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
( #its2018now )
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are also shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify -- even if it's me. I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
Also, NOT exactly a Democratic Party specific source under a GOP majority but a good place for to hear and to watch speeches & hearings directly C-SPAN
→ Some of my favorite, most active organizations -- some existing & some developing to elect Democrats:
Born from conversations between Governor Howard Dean and Secretary Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Onward Together was established to lend support to leaders — particularly young leaders — kicking off projects and founding new organizations to fight for our shared progressive values. here
Since #StandOnEveryCorner has grown, it’s become a stand by all of us to protect our democracy from corruption and treason...A stand not at your State Capitol, but in your own backyard. Not once every few months, but as often as you can here
→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists
in alphabetical order...
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of my favorite, highly credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
📰📰📰📰 The Washington Post
→ Some of my favorite Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
→ Some of my favorite media/panelists -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
✅✅✅ Jennifer Rubin Conservative blogger at @ WashingtonPost's Right Turn,MSNBC contributor
✅✅✅ Natasha Bertrand Staff writer @ The Atlantic covering national security & the
intel community. @ NBCNews/@ MSNBC contributor
→ Some of my favorite Democrat Party Leaders to follow on Twitter, not in elected office but proving knowledge & experience are positives & not negatives are:
Former First Lady Michelle Obama
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former Labor Secretary/Today's DNC Chair Tom Perez
Former Attorney General Eric Holder
Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area and unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees in general elections. I don't support bashing Democrats.
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, this blog is often gently edited and/or excerpted for quick reading, with occasional personal commentary in the form of the written word and/or in the form of emphasis noted. Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can find me on Twitter
( You can also find me on Facebook
at https://www.facebook.com/ProgressDems/)
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
Vote411 here
*
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment