#federal employment attorney

[federalpractice]

MSBP Appeals Attorney

The Federal Practice Group provides experienced legal representation for individuals navigating the complex process of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeals. With a dedicated MSPB Appeals Attorney on your side, you can effectively challenge adverse employment actions, including wrongful termination, demotions, or other workplace injustices. Our attorneys bring in-depth knowledge of federal employment laws and MSPB procedures to ensure your case is handled with precision and care.

[eltristanexplicitcontent]

California AG: 'A Law-Abiding President...Shouldn't Be Too Much To Ask For'

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #38

Oct 11-18 2024

President Biden announced that this Administration had forgiven the student loan debt of 1 million public sector workers. The cancellation of the student loan debts of 60,000 teachers, firefighters, EMTs, nurses and other public sector workers brings the total number of people who's debts have been erased by the Biden-Harris Administration using the Public Service Loan Forgiveness to 1 million. the PSLF was passed in 2007 but before President Biden took office only 7,000 people had ever had their debts forgiven through it. The Biden-Harris team have through different programs managed to bring debt relief to 5 million Americans and counting despite on going legal fights against Republican state Attorneys General.

The Federal Trade Commission finalizes its "one-click to cancel" rule. The new rule requires businesses to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it was to sign up for it. It also requires more up front information to be shared before offering billing information.

The Department of Transportation announced that since the start of the Biden-Harris Administration there are 1.7 million more construction and manufacturing jobs and 700,000 more jobs in the transportation sector. There are now 400,000 more union workers than in 2021. 60,000 Infrastructure projects across the nation have been funded by the Biden-Harris Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Under this Administration 16 million jobs have been added, including 1.7 construction and manufacturing jobs, construction employment is the highest ever recorded since records started in 1939. 172,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during the Trump administration.

The Department of Energy announced $2 billion to protect the U.S. power grid against growing threats of extreme weather. This money will go to 38 projects across 42 states and Washington DC. It'll upgrade nearly 1,000 miles worth of transmission lines. The upgrades will allow 7.5 gigawatts of new grid capacity while also generating new union jobs across the country.

The EPA announced $125 million to help upgrade older diesel engines to low or zero-emission solutions. The EPA has selected 70 projects to use the funds on. They range from replacing school buses, to port equipment, to construction equipment. More than half of the selected projects will be replacing equipment with zero-emissions, such as all electric school buses.

The Department of The Interior and State of California broke ground on the Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project. The Salton Sea is California's largest lake at over 300 miles of Surface area. An earlier project worked to conserve and restore shallow water habitats in over 4,000 acres on the southern end of the lake, this week over 700 acres were added bring the total to 5,000 acres of protected land. The Biden-Harris Administration is investing $250 million in the project along side California's $500 million. Part of the Administration's effort to restore wild life habitat and protect water resources.

The Department of Energy announced $900 Million in investment in next generation nuclear power. The money will help the development of Generation III+ Light-Water Small Modular Reactors, smaller lighter reactors which in theory should be easier to deploy. DoE estimates the U.S. will need approximately 700-900 GW of additional clean, firm power generation capacity to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Currently half of America's clean energy comes from nuclear power, so lengthening the life space of current nuclear reactors and exploring the next generation is key to fighting climate change.

The federal government took two big steps to increase the rights of Alaska natives. The Departments of The Interior and Agricultural finalized an agreement to strengthen Alaska Tribal representation on the Federal Subsistence Board. The FSB oversees fish and wildlife resources for subsistence purposes on federal lands and waters in Alaska. The changes add 3 new members to the board appointed by the Alaska Native Tribes, as well as requiring the board's chair to have experience with Alaska rural subsistence. The Department of The Interior also signed 3 landmark co-stewardship agreements with Alaska Native Tribes.

The Department of Energy announced $860 million to help support solar energy in Puerto Rico. The project will remove 2.7 million tons of CO2 per year, or about the same as taking 533,000 cars off the road. It serves as an important step on the path to getting Puerto Rico to 100% renewable by 2050.

The Department of the Interior announced a major step forward in geothermal energy on public lands. The DoI announced it had approved the Fervo Cape Geothermal Power Project in Beaver County, Utah. When finished it'll generate 2 gigawatts of power, enough for 2 million homes. The BLM has now green lit 32 gigawatts of clean energy projects on public lands. A major step toward the Biden-Harris Administration's goal of a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.

Bonus: President Biden meets with a Kindergarten Teacher who's student loans were forgiven this week

[introvert-in-hell]

ReproductiveRights.Gov Information

Copied all of the information off of ReproductiveRights.Gov using the WayBackMachine (<3) seeing as it's gone now. I don't know how much of it will hold in the coming days but it's still important now. If you want to see the website here's a link that works (as of 21/1/25), and if it stops I copied all the info below the cut.

YOUR RIGHTS

Update on Medication Abortion

On June 13, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the plaintiffs in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked standing to challenge FDA’s actions. Mifepristone—which FDA approved as safe and effective more than 20 years ago—remains available under the conditions of use approved by FDA.

The Biden-Harris Administration remains committed to protecting reproductive rights, ensuring women can make their own decisions about their own bodies, and preserving the FDA’s authority to make science-based determinations about what medications are safe and effective. Read statements from President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Know Your Rights: Reproductive Health Care

Reproductive health care, including access to birth control and safe and legal abortion care, is an essential part of your health and well-being. While Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion remains legal in many states, and other reproductive health care services remain protected by law. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is committed to providing you with accurate and up-to-date information about access to and coverage of reproductive health care and resources. Our goal is to make sure you have appropriate information and support.

Your Reproductive Rights

Below you will find information on your right to access reproductive health care, what your health insurance is required to cover, and where to go if you need health insurance.

Whether you get coverage through your employer, Medicaid, HealthCare.gov, or elsewhere in the private insurance market, most plans cover family planning counseling, birth control, and other preventive services at no additional cost to you. Federal law allows federally-funded health coverage (like Medicaid) to cover abortion in some situations, and some private health insurance plans also cover abortion care.

Your Right to Emergency Care

In light of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it's more important than ever that you know your rights on receiving emergency medical care.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare-participating hospital emergency departments to offer any person who requests it an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.

If the hospital determines that you have an emergency medical condition, federal law requires the hospital to offer you treatment until your emergency medical condition is stabilized, or an appropriate transfer to another hospital if you need it.

An emergency medical condition includes any medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms and that, in the absence of immediate medical attention, could reasonably be expected to place the person’s health in serious jeopardy. Emergency medical conditions involving pregnant patients may include, but are not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of a pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features. In some instances, the treatment reasonably necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman’s emergency medical condition may be an abortion.

These federal rights preempt any directly conflicting state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.1

To learn more click here.

1 Please note: pursuant to the injunction in Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:22-CV-185-H (N.D. Tex.), HHS may not enforce the following interpretations contained in the July 11, 2022, CMS guidance (and the corresponding letter sent the same day by HHS Secretary Becerra): (1) the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation that Texas abortion laws are preempted by EMTALA; and (2) the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation of EMTALA — both as to when an abortion is required and EMTALA’s effect on state laws governing abortion — within the State of Texas or against the members of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA).

Your Right to Birth Control Coverage

The Affordable Care Act requires most employer-based health plans and private health insurance plans to cover family planning counseling and to cover certain birth control methods with no out-of-pocket costs to you if you have a prescription. This includes, but is not limited to:

Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings

Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®

Barrier methods, like diaphragms and sponges

Patient education and counseling

Sterilization procedures

And additional forms of contraceptives approved, granted, or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

To learn more about birth control coverage requirements for different types of health coverage, visit here. To learn more about birth control methods, visit here.

Some birth control methods are available over-the-counter and without a prescription including:

Emergency contraception, like Plan B®

Condoms

Birth control pills, like Opill®

Your Right to Access Medication

The law prohibits pharmacies that receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in their health programs and activities. While pharmacies regularly dispense medications; make determinations regarding the suitability of a prescribed medication for a patient; and advise patients about medications and how to take them, pharmacies that receive federal financial assistance may not discriminate against pharmacy customers on the bases prohibited by statute when they do so. Read the guidance for the nation's retail pharmacies here.

HHS is committed to ensuring that people are able to access health care free from discrimination. If you believe that you or another person’s civil rights have been violated, you can file a complaint with HHS here

Your Right to Access Abortion

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, access to abortion will depend on the state you live in even more than before.

Mifepristone, in a regimen with misoprostol, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2000 for the termination of early pregnancy, and is safe and effective when used as directed. Mifepristone for medication abortion currently is available for dispensing by mail by certified prescribers or by certified pharmacies for prescriptions issued by certified prescribers, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

If you are covered through Medicaid:

While federal Medicaid funds can only cover abortion in the circumstances of rape, incest or if the patient’s life is in danger, there are over a dozen states that provide more comprehensive coverage for abortion using state Medicaid funds. To find out more on state funding of abortions under Medicaid visit this website

If you are covered through your employer, a plan offered through the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces, or elsewhere in the private market:

Coverage will vary by state, employer, and insurance company. In some states, private health insurance plans (including employer coverage) are required or allowed to cover abortion in either all or certain circumstances. Review your plan benefits document to find out whether your plan covers abortion. If you are using a plan where you are not the primary policy holder (for example if you are on a parent’s or spouse’s plan), be mindful that the policy holder may receive documentation from the plan known as an “Explanation of Benefits” that includes information about your care.

If you need help paying for an abortion, abortion funds may be able to provide financial assistance. Information about abortion funds and resources to help are available at AbortionFinder.org

If you need information on your state’s laws or legal help, you may consider this website: AbortionFinder.org

Your Right to Coverage of Other Preventive Health Services

Most employer health plans and health insurance plans must cover certain other preventive health services with no out-of-pocket costs because of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, they are required to cover women’s preventive health services, including:

An annual well-woman visit to screen your health (which may be completed at a single visit or part of a series of visits over time) including a pap smear, breast exam and regular checkup

Certain counseling and screening services

Breast and cervical cancer screenings

Prenatal care, which is care you would receive while pregnant

Breastfeeding services and supplies

Interpersonal violence screening and counseling (e.g., sexual assault evidence collection exams)

HIV screening and sexually transmitted infection (STI) counseling

If You Do Not Have Health Insurance Coverage

Go to HealthCare.gov and see if you qualify for insurance coverage and financial assistance to make coverage more affordable.

Title X Family Planning Clinics provide a broad range of family planning services and provide preventive health services that benefit reproductive health, such as STI and HIV testing, HIV counseling, and HPV vaccines. Find a Title X Family Planning Clinic near you.

Health centers are community-based organizations that deliver high-quality primary health care services, regardless of your ability to pay. Find a health center near you.

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program provides medical care, medications, and essential support services to people with HIV. Find how to get HIV care and services through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program near you.

Civil Rights Complaints

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in health programs receiving federal financial assistance. If you believe that your or another person’s civil rights or health information privacy rights have been violated, you can file a complaint with HHS here.

Patient Privacy

Federal law prohibits health care providers, health insurance plans, and other entities subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule from using or sharing your health information to investigate or impose liability on yourself or any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating lawful reproductive health care.2 To learn more click here.

Understand your rights to protect your private medical information under federal law. If you think your privacy has been violated, click here to learn how to file a complaint.

Guidance on Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet may be found here.

Guidance on the HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care may be found here.

Guidance on the Use of Online Tracking Technologies by HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates may be found here.

Department of Justice Resources

The U.S. Department of Justice is also working to protect access to reproductive health services under federal law. Visit the Justice Department's Reproductive Rights Task Force website for more information.

EMERGENCY CARE

Update on Emergency Medical Care

On June 27, the Supreme Court issued its order in Moyle v. United States, reinstating the protections of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) for pregnant women experiencing emergency medical conditions in Idaho. On July 2, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter reminding hospitals and provider associations that it is a hospital’s legal duty to offer necessary stabilizing medical treatment, including abortion care (or transfer, if appropriate), to all patients in Medicare-participating hospitals who are found to have an emergency medical condition.1

The Biden-Harris Administration remains committed to protecting reproductive rights and maintains our long-standing position that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need. Read statements from President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

Your Right to Emergency Medical Care

In light of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it's more important than ever that you know your rights on receiving emergency medical care.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare-participating hospital emergency departments to offer any person who requests it an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.

If the hospital determines that you have an emergency medical condition, federal law requires the hospital to offer you treatment until your emergency medical condition is stabilized, or an appropriate transfer to another hospital if you need it.

An emergency medical condition includes any medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms and that, in the absence of immediate medical attention, could reasonably be expected to place the person’s health in serious jeopardy. Emergency medical conditions involving pregnant patients may include, but are not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of a pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features. In some instances, the treatment reasonably necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman’s emergency medical condition may be an abortion.

These federal rights preempt any directly conflicting state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.1

1 Please note: pursuant to the injunction in Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:22-CV-185-H (N.D. Tex.), HHS may not enforce the following interpretations contained in the July 11, 2022, CMS guidance (and the corresponding letter sent the same day by HHS Secretary Becerra): (1) the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation that Texas abortion laws are preempted by EMTALA; and (2) the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation of EMTALA — both as to when an abortion is required and EMTALA’s effect on state laws governing abortion — within the State of Texas or against the members of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA).

If you are a health care provider:

For frontline health care providers, EMTALA requires a hospital to provide stabilizing medical treatment to any pregnant patients presenting to the hospital with an emergency medical condition, regardless of any directly conflicting restrictions in the state where you practice.

This means that physicians and other qualified medical personnel are required by federal law to offer stabilizing medical treatment (or an appropriate transfer) to a patient who presents to the emergency department and is found to have an emergency medical condition. This requirement preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandate that might otherwise prohibit such treatment, such as state prohibitions or restrictions on abortions.

Stabilizing treatment could include medical and/or surgical interventions (such as abortion, removal of one or both fallopian tubes, anti-hypertensive therapy, or methotrexate therapy), irrespective of any directly conflicting state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.

Health care professionals and institutions with religious or conscience objections to providing abortions do not have to do so. To learn more click here.

If you are a patient:

If you present to the emergency department, you must be offered an appropriate medical screening examination to determine if you have an emergency medical condition. If you do, your health care providers in the emergency department are not permitted to wait until your emergency medical condition deteriorates before they provide stabilizing treatment.

The enforcement of EMTALA is a complaint driven process. If you or someone you know did not receive the emergency stabilizing medical care to which they were entitled, you can file an EMTALA complaint either by contacting your state’s survey agency or by using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services webform.

To contact your state's survey agency, use the tool below.

To file a complaint with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services click here.

Contact Info (Take into account I don't know if these still work)

200 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20201

1-877-696-6775

Contact Us

[saywhat-politics]

Jan. 27, 2025, 2:28 PM MST

By Ken Dilanian and Ryan J. Reilly

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Monday that it fired several career lawyers involved in prosecuting Donald Trump, escalating the president's campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies.

The employees worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation that led to now-dismissed indictments against Trump over his handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump," a Justice Department official told NBC News. "In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda. This action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government."

Among those let go, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News, were career prosecutors Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara and Mary Dohrmann.

Smith resigned earlier this month ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump's re-election effectively ended the federal criminal cases against him due to the Justice Department's long-standing policies against prosecuting a sitting president.

Trump's New York hush money case, brought by Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg, is the sole case criminal case against Trump to lead to a conviction. Trump was sentenced earlier this month to penalty-free unconditional discharge, making him the first convicted felon to assume the presidency.

[fatehbaz]

“Is it green energy if it’s impacting cultural traditional sites?”

Yakama Nation Tribal Councilman Jeremy Takala sounded weary. For five years, tribal leaders and staff have been fighting a renewable energy development that could permanently destroy tribal cultural property. “This area, it’s irreplaceable.”

The privately owned land, outside Goldendale, Washington, is called Pushpum, or “mother of roots,” a first foods seed bank. The Yakama people have treaty-protected gathering rights there. One wind turbine-studded ridge, Juniper Point, is the proposed site of a pumped hydro storage facility. But to build it, Boston-based Rye Development would have to carve up Pushpum — and the Yakama Nation lacks a realistic way to stop it.

Back in October 2008, unbeknownst to Takala, Scott Tillman, CEO of Golden Northwest Aluminum Corporation, met with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a collection of governor-appointed representatives from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana [...]. Tillman, who owned a shuttered Lockheed Martin aluminum smelter near Goldendale, told the council about the contaminated site’s redevelopment potential, specifically for pumped hydro storage [...]. Shortly thereafter, Klickitat County’s public utility department tried to implement Tillman’s plan [...].

Meanwhile, Tillman cleaned up and sold another smelting site, just across the Columbia River in The Dalles, Oregon, a Superfund site where Lockheed Martin had poisoned the groundwater with cyanide. He sold it to Google’s parent company, Alphabet, which operates water-guzzling data centers in The Dalles and plans to build more. For nine years, the county and Rye plotted the fate of Pushpum — without ever notifying the Yakama Nation.

The tribal government only learned of the development in December 2017, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a public notice of acceptance for Rye’s preliminary permit application. Tribal officials had just 60 days to catch up on nine years of development planning and issue their initial concerns and objections as public comments. [...]

When the tribe objected, FERC said it could file more public comments to the docket instead of consulting. [...]

When asked what Rye could offer the Yakama people as compensation for the irreversible destruction of their cultural property, Steimle suggested “employment associated with the project.” [...] Presented with the reality that Yakama people might not want Rye’s jobs, Steimle hesitated. “Yeah, I mean I, I can’t argue that — maybe it won’t be meaningful to them.” [...]

Klickitat County’s eagerness creates another barrier to the Yakama Nation. In Washington, a developer can take one of two permitting paths: through the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, or through county channels. Both lead to FERC. In this case, working with the county benefits Rye: Klickitat, a majority Republican county, has a contentious relationship with the Yakama Nation [...]. “Klickitat County refuses to work with us,” said Takala. [...]

Fighting Rye's proposal has required the efforts of tribal attorneys, archaeologists and government staffers from a number of departments. [...]

And Rye’s project is just one of dozens proposed within the Yakama Nation’s 10 million-acre treaty territory. Maps from the tribe and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife show that of the 51 wind and solar projects currently proposed statewide — not including geothermal or pumped hydro storage projects, which are also renewable energy developments — at least 34 are on or partially on the Yakama Nation’s ceded lands.

---

Headline, images, graphics, captions, and text by: B. Toastie Oaster (High Country News). “Green colonialism is flooding the Pacific Northwest.” As published at The Wenatchee World. 25 March 2023.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

It has often been said that Donald Trump was running for president to keep himself out of prison. Mission accomplished.

But the fact that Trump wasn’t behind bars long ago, that he didn’t suffer any consequences for his criming and now likely never will, can be laid squarely at the feet of one man: Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland dragged his feet on prosecuting Trump for election interference and pilfering classified documents, making it easy for him to run out the clock.  Coming in on the heels of a literal insurrection, Garland was a bad fit for his job from the jump. He made clear early on that he didn’t see addressing issues from the Trump era as a priority, declaring that he would not look backward. Garland is an institutionalist, leading him to see his real job as protecting the Department of Justice rather than imposing any consequences on Bill Barr and others who turned the DOJ into a corrupt playground. Someone who saw the abstract notion of an institution as more important than actual people and actual wrongdoing was never going to be the person who aggressively pursued an ex-president whose crimes were always in full view, which was what the country desperately needed back in 2021.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight

Rather than moving quickly to prosecute people — including Trump — for January 6, Garland’s first moves were to take actions that actually favored Trump, all in the name of protecting the institution. In May 2021, the DOJ went to court to block the release of most of a Bill Barr memo that might have revealed how hard Barr worked to avoid charging Trump with obstruction of justice after the Mueller report. There, Garland was continuing work that had begun under Trump. But while it made sense that Barr would want to block the release of information revealing his role in helping Trump, it made no sense for Garland to want the same. The country had both a right and a need to learn everything possible about what happened during the first Trump presidency and led to a spasm of treasonous violence. That’s far more important than getting a generally favorable ruling on the DOJ’s right to sit on memos. 

Garland also moved quickly to defend Trump against defamation claims by E. Jean Carroll, brought after Trump claimed she made up her accusation of sexual assault to sell books. The DOJ filed a brief substituting the government as the defendant for Trump so it could argue that Trump’s defamation of Carroll was done in the scope of his employment as president, which would likely have resulted in the case getting dismissed. As with the Barr memo, Garland decided it was more important to preserve the DOJ’s general ability to protect federal officials from defamation claims than to acknowledge the unprecedented nature of Trump’s behavior and let him suffer the consequences he clearly deserved.  Taken in a vacuum, neither of these actions would be quite so galling. In both instances, Garland was generally trying to maximize the DOJ’s power, which isn’t necessarily awful. But what is galling is that he took these two steps with such swiftness, only a few months after being confirmed, while not showing nearly the same concern to address Trump’s crimes. 

Fairness to the point of absurdity

Garland’s desire to always appear evenhanded is also what led to the ridiculously aggressive pursuit of Hunter Biden, naming a special counsel and ultimately successfully prosecuting the president’s son for tax evasion and lying on a federal form to obtain a gun. And don’t forget how swiftly Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate President Biden’s retention of classified material. In early November 2022, the White House voluntarily disclosed that some classified documents had been found at Biden’s think tank. The FBI opened an investigation five days later, and Garland raced to name a special counsel, appointing Robert Hur in January 2023. Hur was a Trump appointee, serving as United States Attorney for the District of Maryland from 2018 to 2021, and he demonstrated his hackishness by releasing a report in February of this year that did grave political damage to Biden by gratuitously describing him as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

While Garland couldn’t move fast enough to protect the DOJ and to aggressively pursue the Biden family to show his evenhandedness, he didn’t get around to naming Jack Smith as a special prosecutor until November 2022, nearly two years after the insurrection. By that time, it was likely already too late. This is true even if Smith had not run into unexpected obstacles, such as Trump winning over the Supreme Court with an absurd argument that he was basically wholly immune from criminal charges.

[...]

All those motions and appeals take time, which is why it was a bad idea to wait until November 2022 to appoint Smith, who then had to convene a grand jury to consider criminal charges over Trump’s willful retention of classified documents and his lies to the FBI about it. Smith didn’t issue an indictment in that case until June 2023. Smith had to convene a separate grand jury for charges related to the insurrection, so the DOJ didn’t indict Trump on those charges until August 2023.

This left Smith overseeing two incredibly complex cases against a defendant with nearly limitless resources, given that Trump could keep tapping political action committees for his legal bills, shifting the cost to his campaign donors and the RNC. By March 2024, Trump had racked up $100 million in legal fees, and while he kept draining the coffers of various PACs, donors were always eager to replenish those funds. Therefore, Trump could file as many frivolous motions as he wanted and run out the clock without taking any money out of his pocket. Smith never honestly had a chance that these cases would wrap up before Election Day. Garland’s foot-dragging on naming Smith is precisely what allowed Trump to run out the clock on his federal criminal charges, setting the stage for a presidential run that culminated Tuesday with his shockingly thorough defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Appointing Merrick Garland to AG was a terrible choice in retrospect, as his timidness allowed a criminal to get off scot-free and run for President (and win).

[embodiedfutures]

introductory excerpts on COINTELPRO

it came to my awareness that some folks don't know what COINTELPRO is still, so imma drop some excerpts from the wikipedia page. ofc there are a billion other resources you can check out, especially firsthand accounts, but this is always a good place to start! link attached below:

[Note that the embedded link above's photo has the following caption: "COINTELPRO memo proposing a plan to expose the pregnancy of actress Jean Seberg, a financial supporter of the Black Panther Party, hoping to "possibly cause her embarrassment or tarnish her image with the general public". Covert campaigns to publicly discredit activists and destroy their interpersonal relationships were a common tactic used by COINTELPRO agents."]

The Introduction:

COINTELPRO (syllabic abbreviation derived from Counter Intelligence Program; 1956–1971) was a series of covert and illegal[1][2] projects actively conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations.[3][4] FBI records show COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals the FBI[5] deemed subversive,[6] including feminist organizations,[7][8] the Communist Party USA,[9] anti–Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights and Black power movements (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), Chicano and Mexican-American groups like the Brown Berets and the United Farm Workers, independence movements (including Puerto Rican independence groups such as the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party), a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left, and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan[10][11] and the far-right group National States' Rights Party.[12]

Methods COINTELPRO Utilized

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used five main methods during COINTELPRO:

Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit, disrupt and negatively redirect action. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used a myriad of "dirty tricks" to undermine movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials, and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.[74]

Harassment via the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.[73][75]

Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[73] The objective was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.

Undermine public opinion: One of the primary ways the FBI targeted organizations was by challenging their reputations in the community and denying them a platform to gain legitimacy. Hoover specifically designed programs to block leaders from "spreading their philosophy publicly or through the communications media". Furthermore, the organization created and controlled negative media meant to undermine black power organizations. For instance, they oversaw the creation of "documentaries" skillfully edited to paint the Black Panther Party as aggressive, and false newspapers that spread misinformation about party members. The ability of the FBI to create distrust within and between revolutionary organizations tainted their public image and weakened chances at unity and public support.[49]

The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various factions in the black power movement, for example between the Black Panthers and the US Organization. For instance, the FBI sent a fake letter to the US Organization exposing a supposed Black Panther plot to murder the head of the US Organization, Ron Karenga. They then intensified this by spreading falsely attributed cartoons in the black communities pitting the Black Panther Party against the US Organization.[49] This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were San Diego Black Panther Party members John Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[73] Another example of the FBI's anonymous letter writing campaign is how they turned the Blackstone Rangers head, Jeff Fort, against former ally Fred Hampton, by stating that Hampton had a hit on Fort.[49] They also were instrumental in developing the rift between Black Panther Party leaders Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, as executed through false letters inciting the two leaders of the Black Panther Party.[49]

...

In order to eliminate black militant leaders whom they considered dangerous, the FBI is believed to have worked with local police departments to target specific individuals,[78] accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them. Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, a Black Panther Party leader, was incarcerated for 27 years before a California Superior Court vacated his murder conviction, ultimately freeing him. Appearing before the court, an FBI agent testified that he believed Pratt had been framed, because both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department knew he had not been in the area at the time the murder occurred.[79][80]

...

In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black Panther Party had concluded that in his city, at least, the Panthers were primarily engaged in feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the agent's career goals would be directly affected by his supplying evidence to support Hoover's view that the Black Panther Party was "a violence-prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means".[84]

Hoover supported using false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: "Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the Black Panther Party and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge."[85]

Intended Effects of COINTELPRO

The intended effect of the FBI's COINTELPRO was to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize" groups that the FBI officials believed were "subversive"[58] by instructing FBI field operatives to:[59] 1. Create a negative public image for target groups (for example through surveilling activists and then releasing negative personal information to the public) 2. Break down internal organization by creating conflicts (for example, by having agents exacerbate racial tensions, or send anonymous letters to try to create conflicts) 3. Create dissension between groups (for example, by spreading rumors that other groups were stealing money) 4. Restrict access to public resources (for example, by pressuring non-profit organizations to cut off funding or material support) 5. Restrict the ability to organize protest (for example, through agents promoting violence against police during planning and at protests) 6. Restrict the ability of individuals to participate in group activities (for example, by character assassinations, false arrests, surveillance)

When did they start?

Centralized operations under COINTELPRO officially began in August 1956 with a program designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections" inside the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Tactics included anonymous phone calls, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits, and the creation of documents that would divide the American communist organization internally.[9] An October 1956 memo from Hoover reclassified the FBI's ongoing surveillance of black leaders, including it within COINTELPRO, with the justification that the movement was infiltrated by communists.[31] In 1956, Hoover sent an open letter denouncing Dr. T. R. M. Howard, a civil rights leader, surgeon, and wealthy entrepreneur in Mississippi who had criticized FBI inaction in solving recent murders of George W. Lee, Emmett Till, and other African Americans in the South.[32] When the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), an African-American civil rights organization, was founded in 1957, the FBI began to monitor and target the group almost immediately, focusing particularly on Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levison, and eventually Martin Luther King Jr.[33]

How did the news get out about COINTELPRO?

The program was secret until March 8, 1971, when the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI burgled an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, took several dossiers, and exposed the program by passing this material to news agencies.[1][54] The boxing match known as the Fight of the Century between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier in March 1971 provided cover for the activist group to successfully pull off the burglary. Muhammad Ali was a COINTELPRO target because he had joined the Nation of Islam and the anti-war movement.[55] Many news organizations initially refused to immediately publish the information, with the notable exception of The Washington Post. After affirming the reliability of the documents, it published them on the front page (in defiance of the Attorney General's request), prompting other organizations to follow suit. Within the year, Director J. Edgar Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled case by case.[56][57]

[collapsedsquid]

The disgraced New York politico’s lead counsel, Kenneth Caruso, and attorney, David Labkowski, dropped him as a client on Wednesday, declaring in a motion in federal court that they had reached a “fundamental disagreement” with Giuliani. The legal duo argued that they were entitled to peel away from their client, citing a New York rule that grants attorneys the ability to withdraw when a client “insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement,” when the client insists on “presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument,” or when “the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively.”

How far a man can fall

[vague-humanoid]

The federal government is going MAGA — fast.

Why it matters: President Trump has only been in office a week, but the departments under his command are moving with blazing speed to transform the federal bureaucracy into an army of loyalists.

The new administration immediately moved to freeze nearly all foreign aid, root out DEI programs, remove officials and whole offices deemed ideologically suspect, and muzzle public health agencies.

"We're getting rid of all of the cancer ... caused by the Biden administration," Trump told reporters while signing a Day One executive order that stripped employment protections from civil servants.

Driving the news: Late Friday night, the White House fired 17 inspectors general — independent agency watchdogs responsible for identifying fraud, waste and corruption.

The mass firings, relayed via email, appear to violate a federal law that requires the administration to notify Congress 30 days before removing inspectors general.

Amid outrage from Democrats and ethics experts, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — a Trump ally and longtime advocate for whistleblowers — called on the president to explain his decision to Congress.

Zoom in: DEI offices and programs have been shuttered across the government, including at the CIA, Department of Veterans Affairs, Army and Air Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Federal workers have been ordered to report colleagues who may seek to "disguise" DEI efforts by using "coded language."

And Trump directed federal agencies to each identify "up to nine" major companies, universities or non-profits to investigate over their DEI practices.

There have been hundreds of staff removals or reassignments, including at the State Department, where far more career officers were asked to resign than in past administrations.

The Department of Justice reassigned at least 15 senior career officials, including a top counterintelligence attorney involved in the FBI's investigation of classified documents Trump stashed at Mar-a-Lago.

The DOJ also rescinded job offers to recent law school graduates who were placed through the Attorney General's Honors program.

Trump's National Security Council sent home around 160 staffers while Trump officials conducted loyalty screenings to ensure they're aligned with his agenda.

One of the administration's highest-profile firings so far was Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military. She was accused of leadership failures and an "excessive focus" on DEI at the Coast Guard Academy.

Between the lines: Trump loyalists have also moved to centralize control around public messaging, particularly when it comes to public health.

The Department of Health and Human Services ordered an unprecedented "immediate pause" on all health reports and social media posts through at least the end of the month, leading scientists to cancel CDC meetings on the escalating bird flu outbreak.

The Pentagon also ordered a global pause on all official social media posts until the confirmation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has promised a radical culture shakeup across the U.S. military.

The new administration is also moving quickly on issues including LGBTQ and civil rights.

The State Department froze all passport applications with "X" designated as the gender.

DOJ ordered a freeze on civil rights litigation and is weighing a potential reversal of police reform agreements negotiated by the Biden administration.

It also ordered federal prosecutors to investigate local and state officials in so-called "sanctuary cities."

Meanwhile, the Pentagon moved to abolish an office set up during the Biden administration focused on curbing civilian deaths in combat operations.

Zoom out: Trump made no secret of his intentions to build a MAGA-aligned federal workforce during the campaign, and he quickly imposed a hiring freeze after taking office.

The vast majority of federal workers are career employees, not political appointments, but the president has made clear he wants them all to board the Trump train.

His administration is currently testing the ability to email the entire federal government workforce from a single email address.

What to watch: Trump's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, will be a key architect of the White House's efforts to re-engineer the administrative state.

Vought has assailed "the woke and weaponized bureaucracy," and said in a 2023 speech to his conservative think tank that he wants to put federal bureaucrats "in trauma," ProPublica reported.

"When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains," Vought said — comments he defended during his confirmation hearing.

[homemadehaunting]

From the river to the sea

hey all! firstgrave here

I was somewhat recently banned on tumblr for “targeted harassment”. the post that got me banned? a post in which I said Israeli settlers and former IDF soldiers had actively engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide. 

I attempted to appeal the ban but have gotten nowhere, and I do see this as the final reason in why I should stay away from tumblr as a whole. I am no longer interested in coming back to tumblr, and will be making no future efforts to do so.

however, some important updates I want to give: many people whom I was mutuals with were there for my entire law school journey, the passing of the bar, and my entrance into the career of public defender. this is something I’ve been dreaming of and working towards for years now. 

in october, the union which represents the office of public defenders I work with, and the majority of public defenders in NY entirely, proposed a resolution on the genocide in Palestine, reinforcing the rights of union members to speak out against apartheid and ethnic cleansing and calling for an end to Israeli occupation. in response, four Zionist members of the union have commenced a lawsuit in attempt to get an injunction against the union members voting on the resolution. the union has now filed a motion to move the case to federal court, thus removing it from the jurisdiction of conservative Long Island state court judges, but also to have the action deemed as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. 

since the lawsuit was filed, a supervisor at my office has cursed out myself and the 8 new attorneys I was hired with, telling us to “get the fuck” out of her office if we don’t support Israel, and we do not deserve to work there if we do not agree with her. so now we are also in the process of filing a union grievance and EOC claim against the supervisor. this has put us at significant odds against management and we may very well lose our jobs over this (we are at-will employees for the first 3 years of our contract, so while discriminatory firings are illegal, it would be near impossible to prove in this instance.) I am likely to lose my dream job that I have worked years to reach over this. 

The attempts to silence any and all people who speak out against the atrocities being committed with our tax funding cannot be ignored. When we look back at the atrocities of history and wonder how they were allowed to occur, it is because many people feel more comfortable turning a blind eye to the suffering of those “other” to them, and those that do care are faced with coordinated censorship campaigns armed with threats of loss of employment, homelessness, incarceration, violence, and even death. 

In the time all of this has occurred, thousands of men, women, and children have been senselessly and brutally massacred by Israeli forces, aided by other world powers. The US is actively and happily funding the genocide of Palestinians, as well as Britain, Canada, and other imperial nations. Babies have been abandoned and denied humanitarian aid, cities have been leveled, and families have been devastated. 

Attached here is the proposed resolution of the legal aid union. I stand by it wholeheartedly, and ask others to share it as well. There is no excuse for silence or complacency in the face of genocide. Those who are not in Palestine, have not witnessed and experienced the horrors in which every Palestinian citizen has been forced to endure, do not get the benefit of turning a blind eye. 

May we see a free Palestine in our lifetimes. 

[federalpractice]

Military Defense Lawyer

A Military Defense Lawyer from Federal Practice Group is your trusted advocate when navigating the complexities of military law. Our team of seasoned attorneys specializes in defending military personnel against a wide range of charges, offering tailored legal strategies to protect your rights and career. With a focus on providing personalized attention and expert representation, we work tirelessly to secure the best possible outcome for every client.

[mariacallous]

If Donald Trump wins the US presidential election in November, the guardrails could come off of artificial intelligence development, even as the dangers of defective AI models grow increasingly serious.

Trump’s election to a second term would dramatically reshape—and possibly cripple—efforts to protect Americans from the many dangers of poorly designed artificial intelligence, including misinformation, discrimination, and the poisoning of algorithms used in technology like autonomous vehicles.

The federal government has begun overseeing and advising AI companies under an executive order that President Joe Biden issued in October 2023. But Trump has vowed to repeal that order, with the Republican Party platform saying it “hinders AI innovation” and “imposes Radical Leftwing ideas” on AI development.

Trump’s promise has thrilled critics of the executive order who see it as illegal, dangerous, and an impediment to America’s digital arms race with China. Those critics include many of Trump’s closest allies, from X CEO Elon Musk and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen to Republican members of Congress and nearly two dozen GOP state attorneys general. Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance, is staunchly opposed to AI regulation.

“Republicans don't want to rush to overregulate this industry,” says Jacob Helberg, a tech executive and AI enthusiast who has been dubbed “Silicon Valley’s Trump whisperer.”

But tech and cyber experts warn that eliminating the EO’s safety and security provisions would undermine the trustworthiness of AI models that are increasingly creeping into all aspects of American life, from transportation and medicine to employment and surveillance.

The upcoming presidential election, in other words, could help determine whether AI becomes an unparalleled tool of productivity or an uncontrollable agent of chaos.

Oversight and Advice, Hand in Hand

Biden’s order addresses everything from using AI to improve veterans’ health care to setting safeguards for AI’s use in drug discovery. But most of the political controversy over the EO stems from two provisions in the section dealing with digital security risks and real-world safety impacts.

One provision requires owners of powerful AI models to report to the government about how they’re training the models and protecting them from tampering and theft, including by providing the results of “red-team tests” designed to find vulnerabilities in AI systems by simulating attacks. The other provision directs the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to produce guidance that helps companies develop AI models that are safe from cyberattacks and free of biases.

Work on these projects is well underway. The government has proposed quarterly reporting requirements for AI developers, and NIST has released AI guidance documents on risk management, secure software development, synthetic content watermarking, and preventing model abuse, in addition to launching multiple initiatives to promote model testing.

Supporters of these efforts say they’re essential to maintaining basic government oversight of the rapidly expanding AI industry and nudging developers toward better security. But to conservative critics, the reporting requirement is illegal government overreach that will crush AI innovation and expose developers’ trade secrets, while the NIST guidance is a liberal ploy to infect AI with far-left notions about disinformation and bias that amount to censorship of conservative speech.

At a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December, Trump took aim at Biden’s EO after alleging without evidence that the Biden administration had already used AI for nefarious purposes.

“When I’m reelected,” he said, “I will cancel Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order and ban the use of AI to censor the speech of American citizens on Day One.”

Due Diligence or Undue Burden?

Biden’s effort to collect information about how companies are developing, testing, and protecting their AI models sparked an uproar on Capitol Hill almost as soon as it debuted.

Congressional Republicans seized on the fact that Biden justified the new requirement by invoking the 1950 Defense Production Act, a wartime measure that lets the government direct private-sector activities to ensure a reliable supply of goods and services. GOP lawmakers called Biden’s move inappropriate, illegal, and unnecessary.

Conservatives have also blasted the reporting requirement as a burden on the private sector. The provision “could scare away would-be innovators and impede more ChatGPT-type breakthroughs,” Representative Nancy Mace said during a March hearing she chaired on “White House overreach on AI.”

Helberg says a burdensome requirement would benefit established companies and hurt startups. He also says Silicon Valley critics fear the requirements “are a stepping stone” to a licensing regime in which developers must receive government permission to test models.

Steve DelBianco, the CEO of the conservative tech group NetChoice, says the requirement to report red-team test results amounts to de facto censorship, given that the government will be looking for problems like bias and disinformation. “I am completely worried about a left-of-center administration … whose red-teaming tests will cause AI to constrain what it generates for fear of triggering these concerns,” he says.

Conservatives argue that any regulation that stifles AI innovation will cost the US dearly in the technology competition with China.

“They are so aggressive, and they have made dominating AI a core North Star of their strategy for how to fight and win wars,” Helberg says. “The gap between our capabilities and the Chinese keeps shrinking with every passing year.”

“Woke” Safety Standards

By including social harms in its AI security guidelines, NIST has outraged conservatives and set off another front in the culture war over content moderation and free speech.

Republicans decry the NIST guidance as a form of backdoor government censorship. Senator Ted Cruz recently slammed what he called NIST’s “woke AI ‘safety’ standards” for being part of a Biden administration “plan to control speech” based on “amorphous” social harms. NetChoice has warned NIST that it is exceeding its authority with quasi-regulatory guidelines that upset “the appropriate balance between transparency and free speech.”

Many conservatives flatly dismiss the idea that AI can perpetuate social harms and should be designed not to do so.

“This is a solution in search of a problem that really doesn't exist,” Helberg says. “There really hasn’t been massive evidence of issues in AI discrimination.”

Studies and investigations have repeatedly shown that AI models contain biases that perpetuate discrimination, including in hiring, policing, and health care. Research suggests that people who encounter these biases may unconsciously adopt them.

Conservatives worry more about AI companies’ overcorrections to this problem than about the problem itself. “There is a direct inverse correlation between the degree of wokeness in an AI and the AI's usefulness,” Helberg says, citing an early issue with Google’s generative AI platform.

Republicans want NIST to focus on AI’s physical safety risks, including its ability to help terrorists build bioweapons (something Biden’s EO does address). If Trump wins, his appointees will likely deemphasize government research on AI’s social harms. Helberg complains that the “enormous amount” of research on AI bias has dwarfed studies of “greater threats related to terrorism and biowarfare.”

Defending a “Light-Touch Approach”

AI experts and lawmakers offer robust defenses of Biden’s AI safety agenda.

These projects “enable the United States to remain on the cutting edge” of AI development “while protecting Americans from potential harms,” says Representative Ted Lieu, the Democratic cochair of the House’s AI task force.

The reporting requirements are essential for alerting the government to potentially dangerous new capabilities in increasingly powerful AI models, says a US government official who works on AI issues. The official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, points to OpenAI’s admission about its latest model’s “inconsistent refusal of requests to synthesize nerve agents.”

The official says the reporting requirement isn’t overly burdensome. They argue that, unlike AI regulations in the European Union and China, Biden’s EO reflects “a very broad, light-touch approach that continues to foster innovation.”

Nick Reese, who served as the Department of Homeland Security’s first director of emerging technology from 2019 to 2023, rejects conservative claims that the reporting requirement will jeopardize companies’ intellectual property. And he says it could actually benefit startups by encouraging them to develop “more computationally efficient,” less data-heavy AI models that fall under the reporting threshold.

AI’s power makes government oversight imperative, says Ami Fields-Meyer, who helped draft Biden’s EO as a White House tech official.

“We’re talking about companies that say they’re building the most powerful systems in the history of the world,” Fields-Meyer says. “The government’s first obligation is to protect people. ‘Trust me, we’ve got this’ is not an especially compelling argument.”

Experts praise NIST’s security guidance as a vital resource for building protections into new technology. They note that flawed AI models can produce serious social harms, including rental and lending discrimination and improper loss of government benefits.

Trump’s own first-term AI order required federal AI systems to respect civil rights, something that will require research into social harms.

The AI industry has largely welcomed Biden’s safety agenda. “What we're hearing is that it’s broadly useful to have this stuff spelled out,” the US official says. For new companies with small teams, “it expands the capacity of their folks to address these concerns.”

Rolling back Biden’s EO would send an alarming signal that “the US government is going to take a hands off approach to AI safety,” says Michael Daniel, a former presidential cyber adviser who now leads the Cyber Threat Alliance, an information sharing nonprofit.

As for competition with China, the EO’s defenders say safety rules will actually help America prevail by ensuring that US AI models work better than their Chinese rivals and are protected from Beijing’s economic espionage.

Two Very Different Paths

If Trump wins the White House next month, expect a sea change in how the government approaches AI safety.

Republicans want to prevent AI harms by applying “existing tort and statutory laws” as opposed to enacting broad new restrictions on the technology, Helberg says, and they favor “much greater focus on maximizing the opportunity afforded by AI, rather than overly focusing on risk mitigation.” That would likely spell doom for the reporting requirement and possibly some of the NIST guidance.

The reporting requirement could also face legal challenges now that the Supreme Court has weakened the deference that courts used to give agencies in evaluating their regulations.

And GOP pushback could even jeopardize NIST’s voluntary AI testing partnerships with leading companies. “What happens to those commitments in a new administration?” the US official asks.

This polarization around AI has frustrated technologists who worry that Trump will undermine the quest for safer models.

“Alongside the promises of AI are perils,” says Nicol Turner Lee, the director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, “and it is vital that the next president continue to ensure the safety and security of these systems.”

[zoeflake]

CALL IT BY ITS NAME: A COUP -and it's happening now.

An excerpt: "Here is a partial list of what is happening:

Elon Musk and a team of DOGE infiltrators have taken over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by connecting non-government computer servers to the US personnel mainframe computers. They have reportedly seized private information about millions of federal employees. They have locked the senior managers of the OPM out of their agency’s computers. They have moved “sofa beds” into the OPM offices and put the offices into a “lockdown mode.” See Reuters, Exclusive: Musk aides lock government workers out of computer systems at US agency, sources say.

The hostile takeover of OMP allowed Musk to send an unauthorized memo inviting millions of federal employees to resign in exchange for eight months of “non working paid employment.” [Two unions representing federal workers have filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's plan to reclassify and terminate hundreds of thousands of federal workers.]

Elon Musk and a team of DOGE infiltrators have attempted to seize control of the US Treasury payments system—the gateway through which ALL funds from the federal government flow. When a senior manager at the Treasury asked why Musk needed access to the highly sensitive system, the manager was immediately placed on leave. He chose to quit, instead. See The New Republic, Top Official to Quit as Musk Tries to Get Hands on Key Payment System

As of Friday evening, the Acting US Attorney for Washington, D.C., fired about 30 US Attorneys who prosecuted January 6 insurrectionists. See Politico, DOJ fires dozens of prosecutors who handled Jan. 6 cases. Think about that for a moment: The convicted felons who attacked the Capitol have been pardoned and the loyal servants of the Constitution who prosecuted them have been fired. That fact should outrage every American.

Also on Friday evening, the FBI told eight of its most senior leaders to resign or be fired on Monday. Those senior officials head divisions of the DOJ responsible for cybersecurity, national security, and criminal investigations. Senior FBI leaders ordered to retire, resign or be fired by Monday | CNN Politics

The FBI has fired dozens of agents who worked on investigations of January 6 insurrectionists and has asked for a list of every agent across the US who worked on the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI. That list will include hundreds—possibly thousands of FBI agents. The implication of the memo ordering the compilation of the list is that those agents may be fired. See Reuters, Trump's DOJ launches purge of Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents.

Also on Friday, the FBI told the senior agents in charge of field offices in Miami, Philadelphia, Washington, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles to resign or be fired on Monday. Reuters.

Readers alerted me to postings on Facebook and elsewhere (that I cannot authenticate) claiming to be from current government employees describing an atmosphere of chaos and fear as DOGE infiltrators ominously demand lists of employees who are apparently “next” to be fired.

Dozens of government websites were taken offline on Friday, ostensibly to be scrubbed for references to diversity, gender, or human attributes that are not white, male, and Christian. The effort was brutish, clumsy, and ignorant. The Census Bureau website was offline as DOGE infiltrators attempted to remove references to the fact that America includes people who are not white male Christians. Websites relating to LGBTQ equality, women’s health, transgender issues, and scientific knowledge in general were taken down.

The Pentagon has advised NBC, NYT, NPR, and other mainstream media outlets that they would be “rotated out of the building (i.e., the Pentagon)” to make room for NYPost, Brietbart, and OANN. See @DefenseBaron.bsky.social.

And as all of the above is happening, Republicans in the Senate will vote to confirm a Director of National Intelligence with suspiciously warm views toward Putin and an FBI Director who published an “enemies list” that included dozens of politicians, journalists, military officers, and career government officials.

It is up to us to help spread the word."

[trickricksblog08]

BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the $1.7 TRILLION spending bill the house passed in 2022 was unconstitutional because Democrats passed the bill without establishing a quorum "In sum, the Court concludes that this case is justiciable and that the House of Representatives’ passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause." "The Court orders that the Attorney General, the United States Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charlotte A. Burrows, Jocelyn Samuels, Keith E. Sonderling, Andrea R. Lucas, Christopher W. Lage, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act"



5:26 PM · Feb 27, 2024

[darkmaga-returns]

President Donald Trump's Justice Department on Monday fired more than a dozen employees who worked with special Counsel Jack Smith in prosecuting Trump, claiming the decision was in line with the administration's mission to end the weaponization of the federal government.

The terminations come after the administration reassigned at least 15 individuals at the agency to smaller roles last week, per the New York Post, including one official who pushed for the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago. 

Acting Attorney General James McHenry ordered the terminations because he did not trust the officials to “faithfully [implement] the president’s agenda,” a DOJ official told Fox News on Monday.

“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” the official said in a statement. “In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda.”

The statement did not include a precise number of people who were terminated, or details on the roles of the individuals. But those who were fired were notified via letters.