Tag Archives: oversight

Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 — after oversight officials asked for them, watchdog says

The letter, which was originally sent to the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, says the messages were erased from the system as part of a device-replacement program after the watchdog asked the agency for records related to its electronic communications.

“First, the Department notified us that many US Secret Service text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a device-replacement program. The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6,” the letter from DHS IG Joseph Cuffari stated.

“Second, DHS personnel have repeatedly told OIG inspectors that they were not permitted to provide records directly to OIG and that such records had to first undergo review by DHS attorneys,” Cuffari added. “This review led to weeks-long delays in OIG obtaining records and created confusion over whether all records had been produced.”

The US Secret Service and the Homeland Security inspector general did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment. The House select committee declined to comment.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, chairs both the House Homeland Security and January 6 committees.

While the letter does not say whether the DHS watchdog believes these text messages were erased intentionally or for a nefarious reason, the incident adds to growing questions about the Secret Service’s response to the US Capitol attack.

The Secret Service has been in the spotlight since witnesses have described how former President Donald Trump angrily demanded that his detail take him to the Capitol following his speech at the White House Ellipse — shortly before rioters breached the building.

A former adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence also referenced the Secret Service in his testimony. Greg Jacob, Pence’s former counsel, told the panel that Pence refused to get into the vice presidential vehicle after being evacuated from the Capitol, raising concerns that the driver would have taken him to a secure location and thus prevent him from certifying the electoral results.

More than a year after the riot, the Homeland Security inspector general review of the Secret Service and its actions on January 6 remains ongoing.

This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

CNN’s Whitney Wild and Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.

Read original article here

House oversight committee, Daniel Snyder disagree on testimony terms

Comment

If Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder agrees to provide “full and complete” testimony, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform will accept his offer to appear remotely July 28 as part of its investigation of the NFL team’s workplace, the chairwoman wrote to Snyder’s attorney Tuesday.

The date was one of two offered last week by Karen Patton Seymour, an attorney for Snyder, but significant disagreement remains over the terms of his appearance.

Seymour has stated Snyder would appear only if his concerns about “due process” could be resolved. To that end, she has offered that Snyder could appear “voluntarily,” which means he would not be placed under oath and could decline to answer certain questions. Seymour also informed the committee staff that Snyder would not address questions on matters covered by nondisclosure agreements. Many former Commanders employees who have come forward with stories of sexual harassment or mistreatment were required to sign NDAs to receive severance pay.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) made clear in Tuesday’s letter such conditions are unacceptable and the committee intends to proceed with a subpoena “to ensure that Mr. Snyder’s testimony will be full and complete and will not be restricted in the way it would be if the deposition were conducted voluntarily.”

Under a subpoena, Snyder would be placed under oath, could not choose which questions he would answer and could not cite NDAs as a reason for refusing to answer questions. Such questioning would be done by House lawyers and would be conducted in a private setting.

A spokesperson for Snyder said late Tuesday, “Mr. Snyder’s attorneys are reviewing the Committee’s letter to determine if their due process concerns, including the circumstances of Mr. Snyder’s appearance, have adequately been addressed.”

Daniel Snyder was not ‘hands off’ as an NFL owner, witnesses told committee

In Tuesday’s letter, Maloney wrote: “You have made clear to Committee staff that a voluntary appearance would exclude matters covered by nondisclosure agreements (NDA). Mr. Snyder has a troubling history of using NDAs to cover up workplace misconduct — behavior that is central to our investigation — and it would be highly inappropriate for him to employ the same tactic to withhold information from the Committee. Other former Commanders employees have participated in Committee depositions under subpoena, and Mr. Snyder should not be treated any differently.”

Snyder declined the committee’s invitation to testify at its June 22 public hearing on Capitol Hill about the team’s workplace, citing a schedule conflict and concerns about the proceeding’s fairness and “due process.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell accepted the panel’s invitation and testified remotely that day. In response to Snyder’s snub, Maloney said she would issue a subpoena to compel Snyder’s testimony via a deposition the following week. To date, Snyder and his attorney have refused to be served with the subpoena. Seymour has said Snyder remains out of the country.

In closing Tuesday’s three-page letter, Maloney noted the committee had postponed Snyder’s deposition nearly one month to accommodate his schedule and would extend such additional accommodations as allowing him to testify remotely, giving him access to exhibits and transcribed interviews of other witnesses and providing him with a description of the types of information redacted in prior transcripts.

Maloney set a deadline of noon Wednesday for Snyder’s lawyer to confirm that she will accept service of the committee’s subpoena and that Snyder will appear for a recorded Zoom deposition July 28.

Read original article here

Daniel Snyder is resisting subpoena, House oversight committee says

Placeholder while article actions load

Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder has “refused to accept service” of a subpoena by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the committee said Monday.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), the committee’s chairwoman, announced during Wednesday’s Capitol Hill hearing on the Commanders’ workplace that she would issue the subpoena in an effort to compel Snyder to testify via a deposition this week.

“Mr. Snyder has so far refused to accept service of the Committee’s subpoena,” a committee spokesperson said in a statement Monday. “While the Committee has been, and remains, willing to consider reasonable accommodations requested by witnesses, we will not tolerate attempts to evade service of a duly authorized subpoena or seek special treatment not afforded to other witnesses who testified in this matter.”

In snubbing House panel, Daniel Snyder may have increased his legal peril

A person close to Snyder said his attorney began reaching out to the committee on Friday. The committee had asked his attorney, Karen Patton Seymour, if she could accept service of the subpoena, but she declined because she is out of the country. The sides spoke Monday about matters beyond the subpoena, including additional concerns, but a resolution was not reached on the delivery of the document.

“Mr. Snyder has not refused to appear for a deposition,” a spokesperson for Snyder said in a statement. “The Committee offered only one date — June 30 — and Mr. Snyder’s attorney is out of the country and unavailable on that date. Mr. Snyder’s lawyer has provided alternative dates to the Committee and looks forward to finding a path forward for Mr. Snyder’s further cooperation and to address remaining due process concerns.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testified remotely at last week’s hearing. Snyder declined to testify, even after being urged to reconsider by Maloney. His attorney cited issues of fairness and due process, along with a schedule conflict related to a business commitment for Snyder out of the country.

Maloney rejected the reasons Snyder provided for declining to testify. “Mr. Snyder has not been held accountable,” she said during the hearing. “His refusal to testify sends a clear message that he is more concerned about protecting himself than coming clean with the American people.”

Goodell said during the hearing that he does not “have any responsibility” over Snyder’s decision regarding testifying.

“That is not my choice,” Goodell told the committee, under Maloney’s questioning. “That is his choice.”

Daniel Snyder conducted ‘shadow investigation’ of accusers, panel finds

The committee concluded in an investigation that Snyder and members of his legal team conducted a “shadow investigation” and compiled a “dossier” targeting former team employees, their attorneys and journalists in an attempt to discredit his accusers and shift blame following allegations of widespread misconduct in the team’s workplace.

Republicans on the committee have expressed their disdain for the Democratic-led investigation of Snyder, the Commanders and the NFL. During a sharp exchange with Maloney during Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said, “What is the purpose of this hearing?”

Congress could hold Snyder in contempt if he refuses to comply with the subpoena.

Snyder could attempt to run out the clock on the Democrats if he can resist testifying long enough and the Republicans take control of the House — and, therefore, the committee — in January, based on the results of November’s midterm elections.

“Come January, if Republicans take back the House, Oversight Republicans have no intention of continuing an investigation into the Washington Commanders and will return the Committee to its primary mission of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government,” Austin Hacker, a spokesman for committee Republicans, said in a statement last week.

Read original article here

House Oversight Committee: Daniel Snyder has refused to accept service of subpoena

Getty Images

Last week, U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Reform chairperson Carolyn Maloney said that she would subpoena Commanders owner Daniel Snyder to testify at a deposition this week. That will be difficult to do if the subpoena can’t be served.

Snyder, according to a Committee spokesperson, has refused to accept service of the subpoena.

Here’s the full comment, via Ben Standig of TheAthletic.com: “Mr. Snyder has so far refused to accept service of the Committee’s subpoena. While the Committee has been, and remains, willing to consider reasonable accommodations requested by witnesses, we will not tolerate attempts to evade service of a duly authorized subpoena to seek special treatment no afforded to other witnesses who testified in this matter. The Committee will not be deterred from obtaining Mr. Snyder’s testimony, and we remain committed to ensuring transparency about the toxic workplace culture at the Washington Commanders and the NFL’s inadequate response.”

Snyder just keeps making this harder for himself. He should have voluntarily testified. He should accept service. The harder he tries to dig in his heels, the more determined the Committee will become to take out his kneecaps.

And they will. He’ll be subpoenaed. He’ll have to testify. Unless he chooses to thumb his nose at the Committee, and to accept the consequences.

If he testifies, he’ll have to decide whether to answer questions truthfully, whether to not tell the truth in response to one or more questions, or to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

However it turns out, the process keeps generating more and more drama — and Snyder only has himself to blame for it.



Read original article here

House Oversight Committee invites Dan Snyder, Roger Goodell to testify at hearing

Washington Commanders owner Dan Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have been requested to testify at a congressional hearing on June 22.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-New York), the chairperson of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois), the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, announced Wednesday morning the committee sent letters to both men requesting their presence at the hearing.

With its announcement, the Committee on Oversight and Reform is broadening the scope of its congressional investigation to include the league. In a statement, the June 22 hearing will also examine “the NFL’s role in setting and enforcing standards across the League, and legislative reforms needed to address these issues across the NFL and other workplaces.” The committee has been investigating the Commanders’ hostile workplace culture since October.

“The NFL really needs to answer the question of why it conducted the investigation in the way it did and why hasn’t it brought transparency as to how the investigation was conducted,” Krishnamoorth told ESPN.

He said if they declined to testify then, “all options are on the table. Subpoena and compulsory process are options available to the committee as well.”

Krishnamoorthi said the fact that there’s a lot of public interest in this — as well as public pressure — should highlight the urgency to testify.

“It’s in their best interest to come and tell their own side of the story in a manner they would find illuminating for us,” he said. “What I find often on Capitol Hill is that when a party comes forward voluntarily as opposed to being subpoenaed, it ends up having a better chance of being able to explain the situation rather than events overtaking it.”

The NFL said it would respond to the request for Goodell to testify “in a timely manner.”

“The NFL has cooperated extensively throughout the Committee’s lengthy investigation of the Washington Commanders, including by producing more than 460,000 pages of documents and responding to numerous questions in writing and in conversations with the Committee’s staff,” league spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement.

Last June, the NFL fined the Commanders $10 million as a result of its investigation, led by Wilkinson, into the franchise’s workplace culture. Last October, Maloney and Krishnamoorthi sent a letter to Goodell requesting all documents related to the investigation. Goodell, however, has said the full report on the investigation will not be released to protect the anonymity of the people who cooperated with the investigation.

The Washington Post reported in November that Snyder tried to prevent Wilkinson from interviewing a woman who had accused the owner of sexual misconduct in 2009. The woman was ultimately paid a $1.6 million settlement. Goodell, however, has denied that Snyder hindered the league’s investigation.

“We are pleased the House Oversight Committee has invited Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell to testify in front of the Committee,” attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, who represent ex-employees of the Washington franchise, said in a statement. “We hope they will demonstrate the same courage as our clients and agree to testify. Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell have a lot to answer for.”

In February, at a congressional roundtable, Tiffani Johnston, a former marketing and events coordinator for the team, levied a new allegation against Snyder, accusing him of touching her without her consent at a work dinner about 13 years ago. Snyder issued a statement denying her allegations. The NFL has launched an investigation into the allegations.

In April, the Committee on Oversight and Reform sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission and several attorneys general alleging that the Commanders failed to refund security deposits, concealed revenue and kept two sets of financial books. The allegations of financial improprieties were made by former longtime employee Jason Friedman who, on March 14, met with members of the committee as part of its investigation into the team’s workplace culture. The FTC told ESPN it can neither “confirm nor deny” if it has launched an investigation as a result of the committee’s letter.

The Commanders have denied the allegations. The Virginia and D.C. attorneys general announced last month they would open an investigation into the allegations. Also in April, New York’s attorney general sent a letter to the NFL on behalf of a coalition of six other attorneys general to call upon the league “to address recent allegations of workplace inequity” and “a culture of sexism and widespread workplace discrimination within the NFL, including but not limited to, sexual harassment, targeted retaliation, and harmful stereotyping.”

In response, the NFL said in a statement on April 6, “We share the commitment of the attorneys general to ensuring that all of our workplaces — including the league office and 32 clubs — are diverse, inclusive and free from discrimination and harassment. We have made great strides over the years in support of that commitment, but acknowledge that we, like many organizations, have more work to do. We look forward to sharing with the attorneys general the policies, practices, protocols, education programs and partnerships we have implemented to act on this commitment and confirm that the league office and our clubs maintain a respectful workplace where all our employees, including women, have an opportunity to thrive.”

From the beginning, Republicans have maintained that the committee should not be investigating this situation, saying it should be left up to the courts. The Republican committee spokesman, Austin Hacker, stressed that again Wednesday.

“The Democrats’ sham investigation into the Washington Commanders is a misuse of congressional oversight authority,” he said. “There is nothing Congress can do to remedy any of the specific allegations made. If Congress can’t provide a solution, why are the Democrats wasting valuable resources and scheduling a hearing?”

Read original article here

Crypto Executives Defend Industry as Congress Considers Oversight

WASHINGTON—Cryptocurrency industry executives appeared before Congress on Wednesday to argue that their technologies hold promise for the future, as lawmakers and regulators wrestle with how to bring the more than $2 trillion market under government oversight.

The House Financial Services Committee, led by

Rep. Maxine Waters

(D., Calif.), called the hearing in hopes of improving lawmakers’ understanding of crypto assets and how the sector fits into existing regulations. While millions of Americans have invested in crypto assets, many experts say the asset class needs clearer rules of the road, which Congress could provide.

Cryptocurrency is a name given to a broad group of digital assets such as bitcoin. While the assets are criticized by some as volatile, opaque and presenting risks to users and the broader financial system, the industry executives said cryptocurrency can make financial transactions faster, less expensive and more accessible to users around the world.

“The industry has the potential to improve a lot of people’s lives,” FTX Trading Ltd. Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried told lawmakers.

Senior executives from stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Financial Ltd., crypto exchange

Coinbase Global Inc.,

COIN 0.37%

bitcoin-mining firm Bitfury Group Ltd., cryptocurrency-payments system Stellar Development Foundation and blockchain firm Paxos Trust Co. also testified. They aim to tout what supporters believe to be the potential upsides of crypto and blockchain technology while playing down the dangers highlighted by many policy makers and consumer-protection advocates.

Ms. Waters raised concerns about the crypto industry’s lack of regulation. “Currently, cryptocurrency markets have no overarching or centralized regulatory framework, leaving investments in the digital-asset space vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and abuse,” she said Wednesday.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What were you most interested in hearing from the CEO testimonies? Join the conversation below.

As the crypto industry builds out its lobbying presence in Washington, it has found more allies in the GOP than among Democrats. The top Republican on the financial-services committee, Rep.

Patrick McHenry

of North Carolina, echoed industry lobbyists’ warning Wednesday that excessive regulation of cryptocurrency could push technological innovation to other countries, leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage.

“We don’t need knee-jerk reactions by lawmakers to regulate out of fear of the unknown rather than seeking to understand,” he said. “That fear of the unknown and the move to regulate before understanding will only stifle American ingenuity and put us at a competitive disadvantage”

The executives argued that cryptocurrencies don’t fit neatly within the existing structure of U.S. financial regulations and that lawmakers should consider tailor-made legislation for their industry. Critics say the industry wants to write its own rules to avoid the oversight that banks, brokers and stock exchanges face.

“Because of their nascent stage of development and unique underlying technology, digital assets trade in markets that are fundamentally different from traditional financial markets,” Coinbase Chief Financial Officer

Alesia Haas

said in her testimony. “As a result, existing regulatory regimes often do not accommodate this new technology.”

Crypto proponents believe that the technology can facilitate faster and cheaper transactions than traditional payment networks and that it has the potential to foster innovation and financial inclusion.

“When you look at the number of people who are underbanked or unbanked, both in the United States and globally, it’s indicative of a system that does not work for everyone,” Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It’s a product of payments infrastructure that is difficult and clunky enough to use that it just does not work for most people.”

Five percent of American adults didn’t have a bank account in 2020, according to the Federal Reserve.

Lawmakers including Rep.

Ritchie Torres

(D., N.Y.) asked about the potential for crypto to help immigrants send remittances between countries, a process that can be slow and costly through banks or money-transfer companies. Supporters often tout that as a use.

But such transactions remain uncommon. Using cryptocurrency involves a learning curve, mistakes can be irreversible, and there aren’t enough outlets offering crypto remittances to give it a competitive presence.

Coinbase Chief Financial Officer Alesia Haas said ‘existing regulatory regimes often do not accommodate’ digital assets.



Photo:

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg News

Many policy makers worry that the rapid growth of the crypto market, which has more than quadrupled in value over the past year, poses a threat to financial stability. They say that the market is rife with fraud, that bitcoin mining wastes vast amounts of electricity and that criminals use cryptocurrencies to evade taxes and circumvent anti-money-laundering laws.

Oversight of crypto markets is spotty in the U.S., where financial regulation is split between federal and state agencies. Major gaps exist, according to regulators.

One of the few confrontational exchanges Wednesday took place between

Rep. Brad Sherman

(D., Calif.) and Ms. Haas over the amount of Coinbase’s transaction fees. Mr. Sherman asked if buying and selling $100 of bitcoin over two days could result in nearly $6 in fees. After initially saying she couldn’t answer the question, Ms. Haas eventually said depending on the product, he could be correct.

Mr. Sherman expressed deep skepticism of cryptocurrency’s potential uses and urged regulators to protect investors if Congress fails to pass meaningful legislation.

Most lawmakers displayed less-formed opinions of the crypto industry than they typically do of other sectors such as social media or banking. While testifying in Congress can often be uncomfortable for corporate bosses, some of the executives who participated in Wednesday’s hearing expected it to advance their cause.

“I think it went really, really well,” Circle Chief Executive

Jeremy Allaire

said after the hearing. “It was very comprehensive, not contentious.”

Shiba Inu Coin’s recent surge, and subsequent fall in value, is part of a growing trend of meme coins that are rivaling some of the largest digital tokens in the world. WSJ retail investing reporter Caitlin McCabe explains why investors are pouring money into this meme based cryptocurrency. Photo: Amber Bragdon/Getty Images

Corrections & Amplifications
Alesia Haas is Coinbase’s chief financial officer. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said she was CEO. (Corrected on Dec. 8)

Write to Paul Kiernan at paul.kiernan@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Boeing shareholders reach settlement in 737 MAX board oversight suit

Current and former Boeing Co. directors have reached an approximately $225 million agreement to settle a shareholder lawsuit that claimed the plane maker’s board failed to properly oversee safety matters related to the 737 MAX, according to people familiar with the matter.

As part of the proposed settlement, Boeing has agreed to hire an ombudsman to handle internal issues and appoint a board member with experience in aviation safety, some of these people said.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The settlement isn’t expected to include an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the directors, including Chief Executive David Calhoun, some of the people said. Mr. Calhoun, a director since 2009, was among board members who oversaw management during the airplane’s development and between two MAX accidents, which took 346 lives.

The monetary portion of the settlement would be paid by directors’ insurers to the corporation, the people familiar with the agreement said.

A Boeing 737 MAX (Associated Press)

The proposed settlement was expected to be filed in Delaware’s Court of Chancery as soon as Friday and would require a judge’s approval, some of these people said.

US LAWMAKER BLAMES BOEING LEADERS FOR CULTURE THAT LED TO CRASHES

Two of Boeing’s 737 MAX jets crashed in late 2018 and early 2019. The company has since shaken up its board and management and changed how it handles safety, including adding a board committee focused on the topic.

Lead plaintiffs in the case are administrators of two public pensions: New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the New York State and Local Retirement System; and the Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado.

Boeing 737 MAX aircraft at Boeing facilities at the Grant County International Airport in Moses Lake, Washington, REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson

Among its claims, the lawsuit alleged Boeing’s board failed to challenge then-CEO Dennis Muilenburg over 737 MAX safety issues, or his campaign to counter negative news reports between the two fatal accidents.

BOEING WORKERS STAGE PROTEST OVER VACCINE MANDATE

The suit also claimed Boeing’s Mr. Calhoun, who previously served as lead director and chairman, exaggerated to journalists the extent of directors’ safety oversight.

Boeing had argued the plaintiffs’ suit portrayed an incomplete and misleading picture of directors’ safety oversight. The company has also said the plaintiffs misrepresented Mr. Calhoun’s public comments about board oversight.

The proposed settlement would come weeks after the judge overseeing the case, Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn of Delaware’s Court of Chancery, denied Boeing’s attempt to have the suit dismissed.

Ticker Security Last Change Change %
BA THE BOEING CO. 213.03 -0.35 -0.16%

After the second crash in 2019, Boeing’s board formed a safety committee as part of a broader revamp aimed at increasing senior leaders’ oversight of engineering and safety matters. Accident investigators in the crash largely blamed a faulty flight-control system for sending the jets into fatal nosedives.

The Boeing case is different from a securities-fraud lawsuit through which plaintiffs themselves might recoup investment losses. Known as a shareholder derivative complaint, such legal actions seek to hold company officials responsible for alleged missteps and could result in defendants or their insurers paying monetary damages to a corporation and prompt internal governance changes. The plaintiffs in the Boeing case drew upon thousands of internal board documents such as meeting minutes and emails they accessed under Delaware state law.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Last year, Wells Fargo & Co. settled with plaintiffs who filed a similar legal action related to the scandal over the bank’s sales tactics, according to court documents in the case. The agreement included $240 million paid by defendants’ insurers to the corporation, as well as governance changes and clawbacks, according to the court documents.

Write to Andrew Tangel at Andrew.Tangel@wsj.com

Read original article here

Mormon leader says family donation to Biden was an oversight

The New York Times

Police Shrugged Off the Proud Boys, Until They Attacked the Capitol

A protester was burning an American flag outside the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland when Joseph Biggs rushed to attack. Jumping a police line, he ripped the man’s shirt off and “started pounding,” he boasted that night in an online video. But police charged the flag burner with assaulting Biggs. The city later paid $225,000 to settle accusations that police had falsified their reports out of sympathy with Biggs, who went on to become a leader of the far-right Proud Boys. Two years later, in Portland, Oregon, a Proud Boy named Ethan Nordean was caught on video pushing his way through a crowd of counterprotesters, punching one of them, then slamming him to the ground, unconscious. Once again, police charged only the other man in the skirmish, accusing him of swinging a baton at Nordean. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times Now Biggs, 37, and Nordean, 30, are major targets in a federal investigation. They face some of the most serious charges stemming from the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January: leading a mob of about 100 Proud Boys in a coordinated plan to disrupt the certification of former President Donald Trump’s electoral defeat. But an examination of the two men’s histories shows that local and federal law enforcement agencies passed up several opportunities to take action against them and their fellow Proud Boys long before they breached the Capitol. The group’s propensity for violence and extremism was no secret. But the FBI and other agencies had often seen the Proud Boys as they chose to portray themselves, according to more than a half-dozen current and former federal officials: as mere street brawlers who lacked the organization or ambition of typical bureau targets like neo-Nazis, international terrorists and Mexican drug cartels. Although law enforcements agencies cannot investigate political groups without reasonable suspicion of a crime, some former officials said they were surprised by the Proud Boys’ apparent impunity. Police officers have appeared at times to side with the Proud Boys, especially when they have squared off against leftists openly critical of law enforcement. Some local officials have complained that without guidance from federal agencies, their police departments were ill-equipped to understand the dangers of a national movement like the group. To preempt violence by other far-right groups, federal authorities have often used a tactic known as the “knock and talk.” Agents call or confront group members to warn them away from demonstrations, sometimes reviving past criminal offenses as leverage. Christopher Wray, the FBI director, told a Senate committee this month that agents had done that in the run-up to a pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 6 that preceded the Capitol assault. They contacted “a handful” of people already under criminal inquiry to discourage attendance, he said. Enrique Tarrio, chair of the Proud Boys, said that federal agents had called or visited him on eight or so occasions before rallies in recent years. But it was never to pressure him to stay away. Instead, he said, the agents asked for march routes and other plans in order to separate the Proud Boys from counterprotesters. Other times, agents warned they had picked up potential threats from the left against him or his associates. But before the Jan. 6 event, no one contacted the leaders of the Proud Boys, Tarrio said: “They did not reach out to us.” ‘Disavow, Disavow, Disavow’ In summer 2017, neo-Nazis, Klansmen and other white supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, to announce their resurgence at the “Unite the Right” rally. Its organizer, Jason Kessler, was a member of the Proud Boys. The group had been founded a year earlier by Gavin McInnes, now 50, the co-creator of the media outlet Vice. (The company has long since severed all ties.) He was a Canadian turned New Yorker with a record of statements attacking feminists and Muslims. The Proud Boys had been volunteering as bodyguards for right-wing firebrands like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos and frequently clashed with left-wing crowds. Proud Boys “free speech” rallies in bastions of the left like Seattle, Portland or Berkeley, California, routinely ended in street fights. Yet McInnes shunned the Unite the Right gathering, saying in an online video, “Disavow, disavow, disavow.” By his account, the Proud Boys were not white supremacists but merely “Western chauvinists.” That stance helped the Proud Boys evade scrutiny from federal law enforcement. The rally turned violent; a participant drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one and injuring more than a dozen. Despite McInnes’ cautions, several prominent Proud Boys attended, including Tarrio. But members cite his role to argue that the Proud Boys are not racially exclusive: Tarrio’s background is Afro Cuban, making him one of the rare nonwhite faces in the group. The group, whose total membership is unknown but believed to be in the thousands, has never articulated a specific ideology or dogma. Its rallies, though, feature hypernationalist chants about immigration, Islam and Trump. Their events often appear to be thinly disguised pretexts to bait opponents into confrontations. The Proud Boys have made little effort to hide violent intentions. Career officials in federal enforcement have complained that the Trump administration sought to divert investigative resources toward poorly defined threats from the left, such as the movement of violence-prone activists known as antifa. Yet the Proud Boys’ belligerence fit the definition of terrorism, other officials said: unlawful violence and intimidation for political aims. Members raised money to travel across state lines to dozens of rallies with the intent of street fighting, at least once explicitly targeting a Muslim community in upstate New York for harassment — activities that could have justified the scrutiny of federal law enforcement. A spokesperson for the FBI declined to comment on the group. Nordean became one of the group’s marquee stars, mainly through a viral video of his 2018 knockout punch in Portland. An amateur bodybuilder who had once trained to be a Navy SEAL, Nordean first encountered the Proud Boys in 2017, during a scuffle in Seattle with immigrant rights demonstrators. In June 2018, Nordean went to Portland. After a so-called Freedom and Courage rally at a federal building, dozens of members marched around the block to confront waiting counterprotesters. Video footage showed Nordean shoving one to the ground before another, David Busby, approached with a metal baton. By then a street-fighting veteran, Nordean had put shin guards on his forearms to prepare for combat. Deflecting the baton with one arm, he delivered a right hook to Busby’s jaw that knocked him unconscious, then threw the man to the ground. Busby was hospitalized with a “significant concussion,” a police report noted. On six Facebook pages the group uses to vet new recruits, the number of prospective members jumped more than 70% over the next 30 days, adding more than 820 potential Proud Boys, said Cassie Miller, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The number of active chapters around the country exploded, increasing from three in 2017 to about 44 by the end of 2018, according to a count by the center. Two other Proud Boys were arrested that day for violence during previous clashes. But Nordean was not. He “claimed he exercised his right to defend himself and others,” the police report noted. The department declined to comment, as did Nordean’s lawyer. Biggs, the future Proud Boys leader who attacked the flag burner in Cleveland, was a barrel-chested Army veteran. He got his start on the far-right working as an Infowars correspondent, which is how he encountered Nordean and the Proud Boys. Biggs’ record of violence predated his affiliation with the group. He was arrested in North Carolina on a domestic violence charge in 2007; prosecutors dropped the case after his wife failed to appear as a witness. He was convicted of resisting arrest in South Carolina in 2012 and sentenced to probation. And he was arrested in early 2016, accused of assaulting a security officer outside his apartment in Austin, Texas. Biggs was at the Republican convention in Cleveland as a correspondent for Infowars when he attacked the flag burner, Gregory Johnson, now 64. A member of the Communist Party, he had been the plaintiff in the landmark 1989 Supreme Court case Johnson v. Texas, which established that the First Amendment protected flag burning. Although video recordings indicated that Biggs started the melee by pummeling Johnson, a police officer said in an affidavit that Johnson “caused two media members to get burned by the fire” — Biggs and an Infowars colleague. A lawyer for Biggs declined to comment. Trump adviser Roger Stone, an Infowars regular, introduced Biggs to Tarrio, the Proud Boys chair, and by 2019 he had started helping him organize events. In August, Biggs helped organize an “End Domestic Terrorism” rally in Portland. FBI agents pulled Biggs and Tarrio aside at the Portland airport but did not ask them to stay away from the rally, the Proud Boys chair recalled. Instead, he explained, the agents warned the two Proud Boys of threats against them from antifa activists. At the end of 2020, as Trump was trying to overturn his election loss, Biggs and Tarrio marched at the head of hundreds of Proud Boys during a pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington. Washington police arrested Tarrio on Jan. 4, charging him with illegal possession of two high-capacity magazines for an AR-15. But authorities released him on condition he stay out of the District of Columbia during the Trump rally two days later. No other Proud Boys were arrested in connection with the incident. The Proud Boys made no effort to hide their anticipation of political violence in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6. “If there ever was a time for there to be a second civil war, it’s now,” Biggs wrote in a blog post shortly after the election. “Buy ammo, clean your guns, get storable food and water.” Nordean, meanwhile, used social media to solicit donations for “protective gear” and “communications equipment,” court papers say. After Tarrio was expelled from Washington, according to prosecutors, the Proud Boys tapped Nordean to assume “war powers” and lead them at the Capitol. (It is unclear exactly what “war powers” referred to.) The 100-strong mob behind Biggs and Nordean was almost certainly the single largest organized group that took part in the attack, and prosecutors said its members spearheaded the violence. One Proud Boy, Dominic Pezzola, was among the first to shatter a window and break into the Capitol, court papers say. Federal agents have now executed search warrants on Proud Boys in four states. Prosecutors have so far accused 10 members of crimes, including destruction of government property and threatening a federal officer. They are now seeking to link as many as possible in an overarching conspiracy indictment. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. © 2021 The New York Times Company

Read original article here

House Oversight Committee demands release of $6B USPS vehicle contract

The House Oversight Committee is demanding that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) release a contract with a private company for a new delivery vehicle fleet that is reportedly worth up to $6 billion.

Oversight and Committee Chairwoman Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn MaloneySchumer, Gillibrand call on Cuomo to resign How two controversies collided for Cuomo Nadler, NY Democrats call on Cuomo to resign MORE (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoyLouis DeJoyWatch live: Postmaster General DeJoy testifies before House panel Prepaid postcards going to every household in Canada to boost ‘meaningful connection’ USPS announces next phase of organizational changes MORE on Friday voicing several concerns about potential interference and asking for documents relating to a contract with Oshkosh Defense.

The USPS is contracted to purchase up to 165,000 new fuel efficient or electric postal vehicles.

USPS announced the deal with the Wisconsin-based company in late February, under which it paid a $482 million initial investment. The Postal Service said in a statement that the contract was the first part of a multi-billion dollar, 10-year effort to replace its delivery fleet.

According to Maloney, contract was a “surprise announcement” and marked the end of a “highly secretive” selection process that lasted six years. 

In her letter, Maloney voiced concerns that the vehicles would not be fuel efficient. The New York lawmaker noted that part of President BidenJoe BidenPentagon takes heat for extending Guard’s time at Capitol Booker to try to make child tax credit expansion permanent Sullivan says tariffs will not take center stage in talks with China MORE‘s plan to combat climate change is to transition to a fully-electric fleet. 

Maloney wrote that Oshkosh submitted a prototype with a gasoline engine despite prototypes from competitors incorporating electric powertrains. The initial announcement claimed that Oshkosh’s vehicles would be fuel efficient or contain electric powertrains.

However, Maloney noted that DeJoy told the committee in a hearing last month that only 10 percent of the initial order for the fleet would be electric.

Maloney further voiced concerns about the contract, pointing to a report from Bloomberg News, which alleges that an unknown party purchased $54.2 million worth of stock in Oshkosh the night before the deal was announced.

Maloney demanded documents by March 26.

“These reports raise concerns about the Postal Service’s selection process and contract award for the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle program,” Maloney wrote. “A thorough review is warranted to ensure the award process is free from undue influence and potential interference.”

The news comes amid support from Maloney for a bill from Rep. Jared HuffmanJared William HuffmanDemocrats debate fast-track for infrastructure package Lawmakers unveil measure to give Postal Service B for electric vehicles Democrats don’t trust GOP on 1/6 commission: ‘These people are dangerous’ MORE (D-Calif.) to allocate $6 billion to the Postal Service and require that at least 75 percent of its new fleet be electric or zero-emissions.

The Hill has reached out to DeJoy and Oshkosh for comment.



Read original article here

California counties sidestep direct Blue Shield vaccine oversight

California counties that have refused to sign on to the state’s new COVID-19 vaccine program run by Blue Shield of California are expected to instead reach a separate agreement with the state to end a stalemate that threatened to slow delivery of shots.

Blue Shield President Paul Markovich said Friday that counties were concerned about signing the vaccine distribution contract with a private company, which had been a requirement for all vaccine providers that wanted to continue receiving doses in California under the new program. A spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health confirmed the change.

“They’re much more comfortable with an agreement with the state, which is fine by us as long as there’s agreement that they will participate in the performance management system that allows us to deliver on the performance in our contract,” Markovich said in a call with reporters Friday. “It should be just fine.”

Markovich said the deal between the state and counties is expected to be finalized soon to “avoid disruption.” It’s unclear what changes will be made in a memorandum of understanding between counties and the state, and how those might differ from the provisions of the contract initially required by Blue Shield. It’s also uncertain how many counties that refused Blue Shield’s contract will sign with the state, with at least one county saying it will not sign either agreement.

Counties have been locked in a weeks-long stalemate with the state and Blue Shield over California’s decision to hand over vaccine delivery decisions to the private insurance company. Los Angeles County officials were the latest to ask for the ability to opt out of the Blue Shield contract, highlighting concerns with the outsourced oversight of distribution.

As of Friday, only Kern County had signed a contract with Blue Shield, and Markovich said he expected other counties to sign directly with the state.

Markovich said the change would not affect vaccine allocation decisions in which the state sets priorities on which the insurance company bases its algorithm to determine where to send doses. Under the revamped vaccine program run by Blue Shield, allocations are also made based on how effective vaccine providers are at administering shots.

That setup bypasses the state’s previous system in which the state decided how much vaccine each county would receive, but the counties controlled where doses were sent locally.

“The state, as part of the transition to a system where the state directly allocates vaccines to specific providers, is working with counties to finalize language to memorialize their continued role as vaccine providers,” said Darrel Ng, a communications advisor for California’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force. “We look forward to continue working with counties to equitably and efficiently vaccinate Californians.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the significant changes to California’s vaccine delivery system in January after widespread criticism that the state was too slow in its rollout of inoculations. The Newsom administration tapped Blue Shield as the independent overseer of California’s network of COVID-19 vaccine providers, with the governor saying the private insurer would streamline the state’s fragmented system and create “more efficient distribution, speed, and equity and transparency with vaccines.”

As of Friday, 92 vaccine providers had signed the contract with Blue Shield to operate more than 1,300 vaccine sites across the state, according to the insurance company.

The state signed a separate deal with Kaiser Permanente, allowing the healthcare system to oversee its own distribution of doses at additional vaccine sites independent of Blue Shield’s oversight.

It’s unclear what will happen if a county refuses to sign the Blue Shield contract or memorandum of understanding with the state, but it could result in local public health agencies in those areas being cut off from future vaccine allocations. In that case, vaccines would still be available in the county through other providers, such as pharmacies, hospitals or clinics that have signed the contract with Blue Shield.

Blue Shield is scheduled to take full management responsibility for the statewide network by March 31. In the meantime, counties will continue to receive vaccine, whether or not they have signed agreements with the state or Blue Shield.

Newsom characterized some of the pushback from counties as a natural aversion to change, but local government officials have said that making changes midstream will cause upheaval in the vaccine distribution system.

“I think all of the counties feel at this point like they have really strong public health departments that have a lot of experience and knowledge around setting up and executing vaccination programs,” Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said Tuesday.

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Hilda Solis and Chair Pro Tem Holly Mitchell asked that the county be exempted from Blue Shield’s oversight in a March 2 letter to Newsom. They wrote that Blue Shield officials “have not demonstrated they have an adequate understanding of the unique needs and features of Los Angeles County, its diverse population, and where our residents go for health care.”

On Friday, a Santa Clara County official said the county will not sign a contract directly with Blue Shield and does not plan to sign the agreement with the state as it stands now.

County Executive Jeff Smith said the state’s agreement doesn’t address the key concerns Santa Clara County has about the state and Blue Shield deciding where the vaccine should go in its communities. Smith said the county has communicated with the state about what kind of conditions officials there would agree to.

“We are quite confident that Blue Shield doesn’t know what is needed in every community in the state,” Smith said. “We have created a large network and a very effective reporting system so everyone knows where the doses have gone.”

Ventura County previously asked the state for the ability to opt out of the new system as well.

Barry Zimmerman, chief deputy director for the county’s Health Care Agency, said state and Blue Shield officials told Ventura County that opting out entirely was not an option. In addition, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors requested that the county’s counsel explore options for opting out of the “tremendous bureaucratic system” supervisors said would be implemented under Blue Shield.

The contract with Blue Shield has caused concerns since it was first sent to vaccine providers. The University of California Health system said the initial contract with Blue Shield sought an expansive amount of medical data. The system signed the contract after changes were made.

The state is requiring counties to use its My Turn appointment system, which has been beset by complaints of glitches and compatibility issues in the last two weeks.

Critics of the scheduling system have complained that it is unable to reserve vaccine appointments for people living in underserved communities, one of the key components of the state’s efforts to ensure doses are being distributed equitably. Vaccine providers have said that it would create unnecessary additional work by requiring information to be entered twice — into their own systems and My Turn. Others have said that an online appointment system does not work for reaching some key hard-hit communities and groups, such as agriculture workers.

The state has continued to push the system, saying that 1 million appointments set with My Turn have been completed in seven weeks and that the site will increasingly play a key role in California’s focus on ensuring vaccine equity.

Markovich said Friday that more than half of the county health agencies are using My Turn or will be in less than a week.

window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({

appId : '134435029966155',

xfbml : true, version : 'v2.9' }); };

(function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site