Post Sources: FEMA, NBC News, Washington Post, WRAL, Youtube
***** FEMA already setting up Florence relief operation at Fort Bragg
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is setting up its relief operation for Hurricane Florence even before the massive storm hits North Carolina.
FEMA tractor-trailers filled with water and non-perishable food began rolling in Monday at Simmons Army Airfield on Fort Bragg. Officials said the staging area will provide hurricane relief to South Carolina and parts of Virginia as well as to North Carolina.
Portable generators – some large enough to power a small city – sit on flatbed trailers at the staging area.
Gov. Roy Cooper said officials have learned from past hurricanes that flooded roads and downed trees and power lines can make it hard to get supplies distributed after the storm, so he asked FEMA to move some of the supplies closer to areas that are likely to be hardest hit by Florence.
On Tuesday afternoon, Cooper met with the FEMA team at Fort Bragg and was briefed on the supplies on hand.
"We've distributed to a number of areas now because we know that they will be needed," he said. "Food, water, supplies, cots, generators are already being distributed out there in places that we know will need it."
Meanwhile, about 80 Black Hawk and Apache Longbow helicopters flew out of Simmons Army Airfield earlier Tuesday to a location near Atlanta to get out of Florence's path.
The Black Hawk helicopters could be used to help with hurricane relief efforts, if requested by the governor. But the Apache helicopters are purely fighting machines and wouldn't be useful in hurricane relief.
"If we lose these aircraft to a storm, it impacts our ability to be ready in case of any type of contingency world-round," said LTC Bryan Hummel, of the 82nd Airborne Division's Combat Aviation Brigade. "So we got to make sure we get them out and get them in a safe location, and then when the storm's passed – a couple of days after that – most likely we'll go back and recover them back here, and we'll continue to start training."
Because the Apache helicopters cost $16 million to $20 million each, it's also cheaper to fly the 80 aircraft to Georgia that risk any of them being damaged in the storm.
Every now and then, a political leader seems to capture what is on our minds. Franklin Roosevelt had that ability. So did John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and occasionally Barack Obama. Even Chris Christie could do it until he became intoxicated with his presidential ambitions and his bully ways.
This week Cory Booker found his voice – and ours, too, with just six words.
“She hit a nerve in me.”
Booker was not talking about one of his colleagues in the U.S. senate or even one of his constituents back in New Jersey. His words, spoken during an interview on CNN, were directed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.
It was evening in Washington, D.C. Booker looked worn out. He was sporting a five o’clock shadow beard when he appeared on CNN.
Hours earlier, in one of his first appearances as a new, very junior Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker had listened quietly as Nielson said she “could not recall specific words” when President Trump reportedly cursed a blue streak a week earlier as he criticized an immigration plan suggested by Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican.
As almost everyone in America has heard, the “specific words” that Trump is said to have uttered are “s---hole” during that immigration discussion. The president was not describing the plan or any of the people in the Oval Office. His words were aimed at Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. Simply put, the president wanted to register his disapproval of immigrants from those “s---hole” nations.
After the meeting broke up, Durbin went public with Trump’s vulgarity, saying Trump was out of line and disrespectful of those nations and their people. Graham backed Durbin up. Neither Trump nor the White House tried to deny the “s---hole” remark – at least not initially.
But as uproar spread across the nation that the president – indeed, any political leader – would describe poor nations like that, Trump had second thoughts. He suggested that he didn’t quite use the “s---hole” phrase.
So what did Trump say?
About a dozen people were in the Oval Office for the immigration discussion. But it seems that everyone except Durbin and Graham came down with a sudden case of hearing loss, amnesia or had taken a monk-like vow of silence.
Actually, that’s not quite correct. After first claiming they did not know what Trump said, two GOP senators who were present for the discussion said that Trump did not say “ s---hole” but “s--- house.”
As if that makes a difference.
But now, here was Kirstjen Nielsen several days later testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe she could recall what Trump actually said. Was it “s---hole” or “s--- house” – or something else?
Instead of shedding light on what happened, Nielsen did her best imitation of Sergeant Schultz, the rotund, dim-witted Nazi prison guard in the 1960’s TV sitcom, “Hogan’s Heroes,” who habitually exclaimed to “know nothing” when asked by his commander whether the American and British prisoners of war were planning to escape.
Nielson first claimed too many people were talking at once so she couldn’t quite determine what was being said. Then, she conceded that she managed to hear what she described as “rough talk.” She just couldn’t recall anything specific. So how did she know the talk was “rough”?
As Nielson offered this lame explanation, the TV footage showed Booker in what could kindly be called a slow burn. When it was his time to speak, his eyes widened and he declared that he was “seething with anger” over Trump’s alleged comments.
He then used his entire 10-minute session that had been set aside for him to question Nielson to lecture her. He mentioned Ghandi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also described his parents’ difficulty in confronting bigotry when they purchased a home in Harrington Park.
Booker's message was simple: Why wasn’t Nielson confronting bigotry – in this case, the words of her boss, the president?
Nielson sat stone-faced.
“I sit here right now because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred, they stood up,” Booker declared.
Nielson still sat stone faced.
When Booker had finished, Nielsen did not address what he said but instead talked about threats from white supremacists. Then Nielson said she believed that the president was trying to suggest in that Oval Office discussion that America ought to have a “merit-based” immigration system – meaning that highly educated immigrants or those with skilled would be admitted.
She didn't have to say that immigrants from “s---hole” nations would be rejected. She didn’t need to. Suggesting a “merit-based” immigration system was her clever way of avoiding any discussion of immigrants from “s---hole” nations – the poorest of the poor.
What is disturbing here is not just the president’s words, but the reaction from those closest to him like Kirstjen Nielson. Simply put: What is it going to take for people in the White House – or, frankly, in the Republican Party – to criticize Trump for stepping over a line?
We shouldn’t be surprised by the silence. Remember Trump’s “rapist” comment about Mexicans? Or when he doubted that John McCain was a war hero? Or when he disparaged the Muslim parents of an Army officer who was killed in Iraq? Or when he mocked a disabled journalist?
Trump loves picking on anyone who is vulnerable. But the uproar over Trump’s litany of outrageous statements was often brief at best and coming mainly from Trump’s critics. Trump’s allies were mostly mute, dulled into tacit acceptance.
This pattern seemed to bother Booker deeply – and rightly so. What does it take for Trump’s buddies to speak up?
And so, when Kirstjen Nielson seemed overcome with amnesia, Booker fired back. And a few hours later, when asked on CNN why he was so bothered, he said, “She hit a nerve in me.”
In that simple sentence, Booker captured the frustration that so many have felt in the first year of Trump’s presidency. He not only strikes a nerve when he opens his mouth, but his supporters strike that same nerve in their silence.
MARYLAND'S REAL ID ACT ABUSE, BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT (MVA):
HOW THE US DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALLOWS MARYLAND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACKS & LATINOS.
If you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) have been adversely impacted via the State of MARYLAND'S Motor Vehicle Dept (MVA) inaccurately and Illegally interpreting a Federal law called the REAL ID ACT, which was enacted by Congress in 2005, to instruct States on proper procedures to authenticate documents used for identification purposes and that adverse action by the State of MARYLAND'S Dept of Motor Vehicle (MVA) has prevented you from being EMPLOYED, then please watch this video.
Illegally denying you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) a Drivers License or ID Card so you can be gainfully EMPLOYED, is indeed a Barrier to EMPLOYMENT which causes Unreasonable Hardship.
So if you have VALID identification documents which you previously used in other states to obtain Federal Employment, US Military Enlistment and Drivers Licenses or ID Cards, yet in MARYLAND you are being denied by the MVA, then please do watch this video.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress that modified U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, is enforced by the US Dept of Homeland Security.
Sources: NBC News, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, YouTube
**** D.C., Maryland and Virginia drivers find different licensing rules despite federal ID law
Protecting the nation from international terrorists is primarily a federal job. Testing and credentialing people to drive is a local task. During the past several weeks, D.C. residents have been learning that, under federal law, the two overlap.
That’s the reason they now need to collect a bunch of identity documents and bring them to the Department of Motor Vehicleswhenever their driver’s licenses expire. In many ways, the applicants are going back to square one to prove who they are, where they are and that it’s legal for them to be here.
This is not so much about making sure the right people are driving cars. It has much more to do with who is boarding airplanes. What D.C. drivers will go through when they renew licenses stems from the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, passed with the knowledge that many of the terrorists who brought down planes on Sept. 11, 2001, had been issued state driver’s licenses.
In the nine years since the act was passed, the effort to impose uniform security standards on the various approaches to issuing driver’s licenses has raised concerns among civil libertarians, privacy advocates and immigrant groups. But the ID law also has run into something at least as powerful: state bureaucracies that had their own histories of providing motor vehicle services.
Some states have refused to conform to the law. Many have been deemed in compliance. Some are still figuring out their own ways of conforming in consultation with the federal Department of Homeland Security.
The D.C. region illustrates the diverse responses to a law requiring uniformity.
The District Department of Motor Vehicles is now on track to revalidate their drivers as they come in with expiring licenses. The drivers must appear in person at a DMV office to supply proof of identity, address and Social Security number.
After this one-time-only appearance, they will be mailed a new style of driver’s license marked with a star in the upper right corner. The star indicates compliance with the REAL ID Act. This year and early next, the federal government is phasing in a requirement that only this compliant type of driver’s license can be accepted when a driver’s license is presented for identification at a secure federal facility or a nuclear power plant.
It may eventually be the only type of driver’s license accepted for boarding a commercial airliner, but that won’t apply before 2016.
Drivers who live in Maryland or Virginiawho are aware of the new procedure for D.C. licenses may be wondering if they’ll get the same treatment as their licenses expire.
The answer is no. If I took my Maryland driver’s license in for renewal this week, I’d be subject to the usual vision screening, but I wouldn’t need to rummage for my birth certificate, or passport or proof of residence. And I’d walk out of with a license similar to the one I went in with — except for my somewhat older looking mug.
No star in the upper right.
And yet the Department of Homeland Security deemed Maryland compliant with the REAL ID Act back in 2012. For many years now, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration has been electronically verifying its drivers’ identifies, said spokesman Buel Young. The MVA worked through the long list of long list of security issues identified under the federal rules and the Homeland Security department accepted the state as compliant with the law, Young said.
Virginia is different. In fact, the General Assembly reacted to the REAL ID Act by passing its own bill in 2009 that prohibits the commonwealth from implementing any part of the REAL ID Act or other federal law that would compromise the economic privacy or biological data of any Virginian.
The Senate version of the bill was sponsored by then-state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and signed into law by then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).
As of this spring, Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles is not compliant with the federal law. And the DMV has scheduled no changes in its licensing process.
But, said DMV spokeswoman Sunni Blevins Brown, “The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged Virginia DMV’s significant progress enhancing the security and issuance process for credentials, and as a result, Virginia has been granted an extension until at least October.
“Virginians will not experience any difficulty in obtaining federal services or access to federal facilities with their Virginia credentials.”
It’s some of that e pluribus unum we’re famous for. The goal is the same, but for drivers, the procedures are looking a bit different.
“Virginia has one of the most secure licenses in the country,” Brown said of her non-compliant state.
What’s a driver to do? Follow the mailed instructions from your motor vehicle agency when renewal time approaches.
JOHN KELLY COMPLETES TRUMP'S FLEET OF EXECUTIVE CABINET GENERALS:
EXCELLENT, COMPETENT CHOICES FOR AMERICAN LEADERSHIP.
Sources: Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube
***** Trump poised to tap John Kelly for DHS, adding another general to team
Adding yet another general to his administration, President-elect Donald Trump is expected to tap retired Marine Gen. John Kelly as his choice to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
Kelly told Fox News Trump already has asked him to serve in the DHS position.
“I have been asked and would consider it an honor,” he said.
Kelly would be the third general Trump has picked for his administration, after announcing James Mattis – who along with Kelly is a four-star general -- as his pick for Defense secretary. Trump also announced in November that retired Gen. Michael Flynn would be his national security adviser.
Kelly retired from the Marine Corps earlier this year after leading U.S. Southern Command for three years, during which he was involved in the oversight of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the southern border.
Kelly was picked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to serve as his senior military adviser and then served in the same position under Leon Panetta before moving to Southern Command.
Kelly complained at his last Pentagon press conference in January that after 40 years as a Marine he had the authority to watch drug dealers heading to the border by sea, but he could not disrupt them. He is believed to have a good relationship with current DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, with whom he served as Pentagon general counsel.
He served three tours in Iraq, and holds the somber distinction of being the most senior military officer to lose a child in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. His son, Marine 2nd Lt. Robert Kelly was killed in November, 2010, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Known as an outspoken but loyal commander, Kelly will be first to lead the department who is not a lawyer and the fifth overall. The department was formed after the 9/11 terror attacks in order to help foil future attacks on the American homeland.
Sources say Trump has settled on Kelly for the role, and is expected to name him in the next few days. Kelly’s selection will require confirmation by the Senate.
Immigration enforcement is a familiar issue for Kelly, and a big part of the DHS portfolio. Southern Command, which is based in South Florida, regularly works with DHS on missions to identify and dismantle immigrant smuggling networks. And it has partnered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in an operation targeting human smuggling into the U.S. and helped with the rescue of children arriving alone at U.S. borders.
While Trump has tapped military officials for key appointments, doing so can also bring complications. Gen. Mattis will need to secure a waiver from Congress in order to be considered due to a requirement that military officials be out of service for seven years before being secretary of Defense.
Trump, meanwhile, said Wednesday that he has taken, and acted on, advice from President Obama on who he should appoint to various positions in his administration.
“I have asked him what he would think of this one and that one,” Trump said on NBC's "Today" show. “I would say that, yes, I take his recommendations very seriously and there are some people that I will be appointing, and in one case have appointed, where he thought very highly of that person, yes.”
While he did not go into specifics, he said that he likes Obama "as a person" despite the brutal criticism he leveled at the president on the campaign trail.
"I will say this, I've now gotten to know President Obama. I really like him. ... I can't speak for him, but we have a really good chemistry together. We talk,” Trump said.
A coziness between current and former presidents is not unusual. President George H.W. Bush wrote President Bill Clinton a warm note when Clinton took office, while President Obama has repeatedly spoken of how accommodating President George W. Bush's team was to Obama in the lead-up to him taking office in 2009.
GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION TALKS RESURFACE AFTER ORLANDO MASS SHOOTING:
ATLANTA, CHICAGO & ORLANDO NEED GUN CONTROL & ARMED WEAPON LOCKDOWN IMMEDIATELY.
Sources: CBS News, France24 English, YouTube
Cries for Federal Gun Control legislation have quickly resurfaced after the recent mass shooting event in Orlando, Florida at a Gay nightclub.
Of course whenever there is talk of Federal Gun Control legislation being enacted, many people go crazy about protecting their 2nd amendment rights.
If Congress and Pres Obama are successful in passing Gun Control legislation only Law Enforcement Authorities, Members of the US Military, and perhaps very Wealthy citizens will be legally allowed to possess and fire Armed Weapons. Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
However there is no guarantee that even if someone does in fact pass a Criminal and Mental Health Background Check, they will use an Armed Weapon RESPONSIBLY.
Thus the passage of Federal Gun Control legislation should be discussed more intensely.
Especially in wake of the recent Orlando Mass Shooting event.
I don't know where I currently stand on the issue of enacting Federal Gun Control legislation but it is imperative that Gun Control/ Armed Weapon Lockdown be enforced immediately in the cities of Atlanta, Chicago and Orlando.
Just days after the massacre in an Orlando nightclub left 49 people dead and 53 wounded, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday said that gun control is now a critical element of protecting the U.S. homeland and keeping Americans safe.
"We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security," Johnson said in an interview on "CBS This Morning." "We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country."
On the issue of people on the no-fly list and various other lists being able to purchase a weapon in the U.S., Johnson said, "I believe that that's something that has to be addressed."
Johnson said that President Obama is "frustrated" with the lack of action on preventing gun violence, but he's still "determined."
"I thought frankly after Sandy Hook where you have schoolchildren murdered in a classroom that maybe finally this will be the tipping point and we were not able to move the needle in Congress, unfortunately," Johnson said.
Efforts to make gun laws stricter have failed in Congress over the last decade. The assault weapons ban, for example, expired in 2004 and lawmakers have not renewed that legislation. Democrats on Capitol Hill have grown increasingly frustrated and on Monday evening, shouted down Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, after a moment of silence, demanding to know why the House isn't considering gun control legislation.
"At this stage in the investigation, we know of no accomplices," said Johnson, who reiterated that the U.S. intelligence community believes it was not a terrorist-directed attack, but rather terrorist-inspired.
In order to prevent homegrown terrorist attacks in the future, Johnson said it will require the government and the public to deepen their ties to U.S.-Muslim communities.
"We're going to continue to build bridges to American-Muslim communities, not vilify them and drive them into the corners and shadows," Johnson said.
FBI Director James Comey said Monday that the agency had interviewed the shooter three times between 2013 and 2014 and he was "thoroughly investigated," but the inquiries were eventually closed. The attack is now raising questions about whether the FBI made any mistakes or did anything wrong in their investigations.
"I have a lot of confidence in the FBI," Johnson said on CBS.
Rep. Peter King speaks his mind this morning during Homeland Security Committee Hearings. His statements regarding this serious, potentially dangerous situation were absolutely correct. In the role of White House Social Secretary Desiree can't be so caught up in Entertaining she forgets about Pres. Obama's Safety. 3 Secret Service Agents had to "take a bullet" for Desiree. Was this right? I don't think so. This was certainly a MAJOR Faux Pas! Thus its sometimes better to not give your friends jobs of high status. Remember former FEMA Director Michael "Brownie" Brown from the Bush Administration? Yeah!
Former Pres. George W. Bush: "Brownie your doing a heckuva job".
Crashers refusing to cooperate? The Salahis have been invited to appear before House lawmakers, but declined because they already cooperated with the Secret Service. A Morning Meeting panel discusses.
The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration and President Barack Obama was never at risk. Mark Sullivan said three uniformed officers have been put on administrative leave.
The chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said the country is fortunate the affair didn't end in a "night of horror."
Appearing before Thompson's panel for questioning, Sullivan acknowledge mistakes were made and that the Secret Service must have a "100 percent" performance record.
Thompson, D-Miss., also said that Congress needs to talk not only to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the couple who got in without invitations, but also to White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. All three have declined to appear. Thompson said he is likely to authorize a subpoena for the Salahis to testify. And the top Republican on the committee, New York's Peter King, said if Thompson doesn't subpoena the White House social secretary, King will.
King accused the White House of "stonewalling" in not permitting Rogers to appear. He said he thinks the White House is either afraid of something or doesn't want to take any heat for last week's incident.
Thompson said at midday that the Salahis could be cited for contempt of Congress if they continue to shun the committee's request that they proceed. He said he has asked staff to prepare subpoenas for the pair, and said "my door remains open." King indicated he would continue to press for Rogers to appear as well. The two appeared to differ on whether Rogers should be subpoenaed.
Thompson said at the outset: "This hearing is not about crashing a party at the White House. Nor is it about wannabe celebrities." He said the purpose is to better protect the president.
The Salahis have been trying to land a part on a Bravo reality show, "The Real Housewives of D.C.," and were filmed by the TV show around town as they prepared for the White House dinner.
"We're not concerned about agency embarrassment," Thompson said. "We're all fortunate that this diplomatic celebration did not become a night of horror. ... We must dissect every fact ... and after we do these things, we need to give thanks that no lives were lost," he said.
Said Sullivan: "In our judgment, a mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake."
"I fully acknowledge that the proper procedures were not followed," he said. " ... This flaw has not changed our agency's standard, which is to be right 100 percent of the time."
Thompson asked Sullivan what went wrong.
"Pure and simple, this was human error" in which normal security protocols were not followed, Sullivan said. The breach was not caused by poor screening technology, he added.
The Secret Service chief said the investigation so far has found three people from the agency's uniformed officer division responsible for the security breach and all three have been put on administrative leave. He added that the agency is still reviewing what security protocols weren't followed.
"What we find is if the protocols are followed, we would not run into this situation," Sullivan said.
Asked whether there was a risk posed to people attending the dinner for the visiting prime minister of India, Sullivan said he was confident there wasn't.
Sullivan said there was no threat to Obama, noting that "last week we took him to a basketball game, and there was 5,000 people sitting around the president."
In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs earlier this week described both Obama and his wife, Michelle, as angered by the incident.
Attending a White House event shouldn't be like "going to a bigbox retailer the day after Thanksgiving," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told Sullivan.
Asked by King if the pair would have been able to penetrate the White House if a representative of the White House had indeed been present for clearance assistance, the Secret Service chief replied, "It would have helped."
From now on, the White House has said, someone from the social office will be present to help the Secret Service if questions arise.
On the eve of the hearing, the Salahis' publicist, Mahogany Jones, issued a statement addressing why the couple would not appear before Congress.
The Salahis believe "there is nothing further that they can do to assist Congress in its inquiry regarding White House protocol and certain security procedures," the statement said. "They therefore respectfully decline to testify."
Jones said the couple's information makes clear they broke no laws, that White House protocol at the dinner "was either deficient or mismanaged" and that "there were honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved."
The White House also took some responsibility for the foul-up. "After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex," Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff, wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday.
Still, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs cited the separation of powers and a history of White House staff not testifying before Congress in explaining why Rogers, herself a guest at the dinner, wouldn't be coming.
A senior White House aide, Valerie Jarrett, defended Rogers' refusal to appear, telling a network news show Thursday morning that executive staff members have been allowed to testify to Congress only in rare circumstances in the past.
Jarrett said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that there was no need for Rogers to attend the hearing and answer questions because "we think we've really answered the questions fully."
Copies of e-mails between the Salahis and a Pentagon official have clouded the couple's claims that they were invited to the state dinner honoring the visiting Indian prime minister.
The Sahalis decline an invitation to attend a Homeland Security Committee hearing just like the White House allowed Desiree Rogers to do. A Subpoena may be next. However by not allowing Desiree to appear what type of "Transparency" example is that? Wasn't "Transparency" one of Pres. Obama's campaign promises?
Valerie Jarrett discusses Obama's Job Summit. She also defends the Obama White House's decision not to allow Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on Capitol Hill.
Congress just found the one spotlight the Salahis would rather stay out of. The AP is reporting that the couple known for crashing the White House state dinner Nov. 24 has decided against accepting the House Homeland Security Committee's invitation to the hearings being held on the state dinner incident tomorrow.
They may not have a choice, however. FishbowlDC reported that Homeland Security Committee chair Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-MS) said he'd subpoena the Salahis should they decline his invitation to appear.
Committee ranking member Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the Salahis as well as White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify at tomorrow's hearing investigating the events surrounding the Salahis' entrance into state dinner uninvited. Today, the White House declined to make Rogers available for the hearings, citing separation of powers.
Updated | 10:22 p.m. The White House on Wednesday invoked the "Separation of Powers" to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s Social Secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.
And the couple will not testify, either, according to a statement released late Wednesday by a public relations firm.
The statement says that the Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, have provided to the Secret Service and to the ranking members of the House committee conducting the hearing “all relevant e-mails and cellphone records that detail communications with a White House official,” and can do nothing else to help in the inquiry.
That evidence, the statement says, shows that no laws were broken, that White House protocol “was either deficient or mismanaged” and that there were “honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved.”
Earlier Wednesday at his regular briefing with reporters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Ms. Rogers would not testify. “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ he said. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’
Mr. Gibbs also said the flap over the unauthorized intruders has prompted the White House to change its procedures; from now on, a representative of the social secretary’s office will be stationed at Secret Service checkpoints for major social events in case questions arise. The White House deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, conducted a review and issued a directive to the staff.
“After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex,’’ Mr. Messina wrote in the memo, posted on the White House web site late Wednesday afternoon. “White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the check points helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening, but clearly we can do more, and we will do more.’’
The memo was the first admission by the White House of failures on the part of its own staff, and it came as scrutiny intensified on the social office and Ms. Rogers, its director. The House Homeland Security Committee is conducting a hearing on Thursday into the security lapse; Representative Peter T. King of New York, who is the senior Republican on the panel, had wanted Ms. Rogers to testify and criticized the administration for not allowing her to be a witness.
White Houses have often tried to prevent top advisers to the president from testifying on Capitol Hill; the Bush administration worked assiduously to prevent Karl Rove, the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, from talking to lawmakers under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors. That sparked an intense fight between the Bush administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Now, it is the Republicans’ turn to balk. Mr. King on Wednesday called Ms. Rogers’ decision not to testify “stonewalling” that would cause an “unnecessary confrontation with Congress.”
“I don’t want the Secret Service to be taking the hit here, what went wrong was the responsibility of the White House,” he said, adding, “for them not to be here just raises real questions.”
The director of the Secret Services, Mark Sullivan, is the only witness confirmed for tomorrow morning’s hearing. Even before the Salahis’ public relations firm released its statement, Mr. King said he thought it would be unlikely that the couple would appear at tomorrow’s hearing.
“They’d be crazy to testify,” he said, after meeting with the lawyers. “Their story, if they testify, would just not hold up.”
He said the couple has switched legal advisers from Paul Gardner, an entertainment lawyer, to a powerful Wall Street firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf.
The office of the committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, would not comment on the couple’s apparent decision not to appear.
Already the glamorous and successful Ms. Rogers – she possesses a Harvard M.B.A. and was a powerful social player in Chicago before joining the Obama White House — is taking a hit in the press for being more interested in showcasing herself in fashion magazines than in the traditional, behind-the-scenes role of the White House social secretary.
During the White House briefing, Mr. Gibbs answered a series of questions about Ms. Rogers’ role as the social secretary:
Q. Has there been any concern about Desiree Rogers’ performance prior to this instance?
Mr. Gibbs: No.
Q. No one has questioned the president or told the president that she is a very last-minute person, poor planner?
Mr. Gibbs: No, I think you — you all have been to and seen, either whether you’re part of a pool, whether some of you’ve been to receptions, the remarkable work that they have done in pulling off a lot of events here. The first family is quite pleased with her performance, and I’ve heard nothing uttered of what you talked about.
Q. Well, what about the issues of her being in fashion spreads early on in the administration? Did you put the brakes on that? I mean, that is — it’s been raised. It’s now public. It’s — you know, you saw it in the magazines, her pictorials. You saw her on the cover of –
Mr. Gibbs: There’s a — I get Sports Illustrated in my house.
The brouhaha over how the Salahis managed to talk their way into the dinner has been a major distraction for the White House at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to focus on the economy, health care and the war in Afghanistan. At his briefing on Wednesday, Mr. Gibbs finally cut off the questions, declaring, “I’m going to get back to weightier topics, like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.’’
Crashed party puts heat on WH Social Secretary. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs rejected suggestions from the press on Monday that the White House Social Office bears any responsibility for the now-infamous state dinner crash. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports. Yikes! Looks as if Desiree Rogers may have dropped the ball on this one.
She's been invited to tell her side of the story to Congress, but White House social secretary Desiree Rogers will not be testifying at tomorrow's hearing about how two socialites managed to get into last week's State Dinner without invitations.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters this afternoon that the Obama team is going to take a page from previous administrations -- Republican and Democratic -- and cite the separation of powers and past history as justifications for not having a member of the White House staff testify.
As Frank wrote on Monday, the whole Gategate saga not only highlighted a surprising lapse by the Secret Service -- which let Tariq and Michaele Salahi into the State Dinner for India's prime minister -- but also laid bare the decision by Rogers' office not to have a staff member at the entrance gate to help make sure that everyone allowed in was actually on the invite list.
That had been the practice in previous administrations. And, according to ABC News' Political Punch Blog, it will now be the practice in the Obama White House.
Tomorrow's hearing could still be a must-see, though. The House Committee on Homeland Security has called the Salahis to come testify. Since they haven't been exactly shy about talking this week, their appearance could be fascinating.
White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers will not testify in the congressional probe of last week's security lapse at the president's state dinner, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.
“I think you know that based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress,” Gibbs told reporters. “She will not be testifying in front of Congress tomorrow.”
Rogers has been under scrutiny in the last week following reports that her office did not station a staff member at the White House gate to help the Secret Service screen guests at the state dinner, as has long been protocol in past administrations.
Gibbs acknowledged that procedure has been changed since last week and a staffer was present at the security checkpoint for a holiday social event Tuesday night.
“As the Secret Service has reviewed their security procedures for how people get into this complex, so, too, has the White House looked at its procedures,” Gibbs said. “Last night was the first of many holiday parties that will happen in this complex over the next several weeks. We had staff at the security checkpoint to ensure that if there was any confusion about lists those would be double-checked with somebody representing the Social Office.”
Still, the White House has maintained that Rogers's office bore no responsibility for the breach that allowed a Northern Virginia Couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, to sneak into the state dinner uninvited.
While Gibbs said Tuesday that the president and first lady were "angry" about the security violation, he said in his Wednesday briefing: "The first family is quite pleased with [Rogers's] performance."
Sources: NPR, MSNBC, Politico, Cripes Suzette!, ABC News, House.gov, Wikipedia
Crashed party puts heat on WH Social Secretary. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs rejected suggestions from the press on Monday that the White House Social Office bears any responsibility for the now-infamous state dinner crash. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports. Yikes! Looks as if Desiree Rogers may have dropped the ball on this one.
Crashing the White House state dinner. A Hardball panel debates how the Secret Service failed to prevent two interlopers from attending a private event at the White House.
The couple who crashed the Obama administration's first State Dinner communicated with a senior Pentagon official about going to the event, but the official denies that she helped the couple get in.
Michele Jones, a special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said in a written statement issued through the White House on Monday evening that she never said or implied she would get Michaele and Tareq Salahi into the Nov. 24 White House dinner.
"I specifically stated that they did not have tickets and in fact that I did not have the authority to authorize attendance, admittance or access to any part of the evening's activities," Jones said. "Even though I informed them of this, they still decided to come."
This is the latest twist in the unfolding mystery of how the two reality show wannabes managed to get into the highly secured event and shake hands with President Barack Obama. Also on Monday, a House committee chairman asked the couple, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify at a hearing Thursday on the incident.
Crashed earlier event
WTTG-TV, the Fox affiliate in Washington, reported late Monday that the Salahis also crashed a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Awards dinner on Sept. 26 at which Obama spoke. The station's Web site quoted a foundation representative, Lance Jones, as saying the Salahis were escorted out by security guards after they were caught sitting at a table.
The station said that when the Salahis showed up at the dinner, they were followed by TV cameras from Bravo, which airs the "Real Housewives" reality programs, but were turned away at the door. WTTG reported that the Salahis later sneaked in through a busboy-catering entrance, and the station's Web site posted photos purported to be from the Black Caucus event.
Most the attendees at the event did not have access to Pres. Obama, WTTG reported.
A call to the Secret Service seeking comment was not immediately returned late Monday.
The White House issued Michele Jones' statement after questions were raised about communications between the administration and the couple prior to the state dinner. The White House did not provide details about Jones' relationship with the couple. Jones spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver on Obama's behalf, and is currently a Pentagon-based liaison with the White House.
Call for criminal charges
A friend of the couple, McLean, Va., real estate agent Casey Margenau, said in an interview with The Associated Press that the couple interpreted an e-mail exchange as permission to attend the exclusive White House event. Margenau said he did not personally see the e-mails and did not know with whom the couple was corresponding.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he wants answers about the Secret Service's security deficiencies that allowed the Salahis to attend the White House dinner. A White House photo showed the Salahis in the receiving line in the Blue Room with Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in whose honor the dinner was held. Obama and Michaele Salahi are smiling as she grasps his right hand with both of hers and her husband looks on. Singh is to Obama's left.
"This is a time for answers," Thompson said in a statement Monday. "This is not the time for political games or scapegoating to distract our attention from the careful oversight we must apply to the Secret Service and its mission."
Some lawmakers have called for criminal charges to be brought against the couple, but the Secret Service has not yet decided whether to refer the case for criminal prosecution.
The Secret Service declined to comment on whether Sullivan would testify Thursday.
On Friday, Sullivan issued a statement saying that his agency is "deeply concerned and embarrassed" by the circumstances surrounding the White House dinner.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said the couple was not on the approved list for the party, but they were allowed in. "This should not have occurred," he said.
"The preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, verifying that two individuals were on the guest list," Sullivan said Friday. "Although these individuals went through magnetometers and other levels of screening, they should have been prohibited from entering the event entirely. That failing is ours."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday the president shares the Secret Service director's concern about the incident.
"That's why there's an investigation," Gibbs said.
Gibbs said the president was not concerned about his safety and continues to have faith in the Secret Service.
The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Peter King of New York, also said there needs to be an investigation into what happened. King said he wants to be sure the hearing does not give away Secret Service operations or methods that could tip someone off how to get into the White House. King said he's been to at least 40 invitation-only events at the White House — including two state dinners — and security has always been tight and thorough.
Bragging on Facebook
The Salahis have boasted about going to the state dinner on their Facebook page: "Honored to be at the White House for the state dinner in honor of India with President Obama and our First Lady!" they wrote.
Michaele Salahi is a reality TV hopeful trying to get on Bravo's "The Real Housewives of D.C."
The couple's publicist, Mahogany Jones, could not immediately be reached for comment about whether the Salahis would testify Thursday. But earlier Monday, Mahogany Jones said allegations that the Salahis are shopping interviews and demanding money from television networks to tell their story are false.
NBC said Monday that the Salahis will be interviewed Tuesday by "Today" host Matt Lauer. The interview is scheduled to air in the 7 a.m. half-hour segment.
An appearance previously scheduled for Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live" has been canceled.
A TV executive who spoke on condition of anonymity to publicly discuss bookings had told The Associated Press that the couple's representatives had urged networks to "get their bids in" for an interview.
NYC's former top cop pleads guilty to lying. Fmr. NYC police Commissioner Bernard Kerik has admitted to lying about his taxes and to White House officials when he was in consideration to run the Department of Homeland Security. WNBC's Jonathan Dienst reports.
(Counterterrorism officials send security bulletins to police around the nation about terrorist interest in attacking stadiums, entertainment complexes and hotels.)
US Counter Terrorism officials have issued security bulletins to police around the nation about terrorist interest in attacking stadiums, entertainment complexes and hotels — the latest in a flurry of such internal warnings as investigators chase a possible bomb plot in Denver and New York.
In the two bulletins — sent to Police departments Monday and obtained by The Associated Press — officials said they know of no specific plots against such sites, but urged law enforcement and private companies to be vigilant. These two bulletins followed on the heels of a similar warning about the vulnerabilities of mass transit systems.
The bulletin on stadiums notes that an al-Qaida training manual specifically lists "blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin... and attacking vital economic centers" as desired targets of the organization.
"While DHS and FBI have no information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack, we believe it is prudent to remind transit authorities to remain vigilant," Homeland Security spokesman Sean Smith said Monday night.
Separately, law enforcement officials said a Colorado man may have been planning with others to detonate backpack bombs on New York City trains in a terrorism plot similar to past attacks on London's and Madrid's mass-transit systems.
The investigation and the earlier warning about mass transit system have already prompted officials around the nation to step up patrols.
Terror Probe widens
Two law enforcement officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the investigation told The Associated Press late Monday that more than a half-dozen individuals were being scrutinized in the alleged plot.
In a statement, the FBI says that "several individuals in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere" are being investigated.
Investigators say Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghanistan-born immigrant who is a shuttle van driver at the Denver airport, played a direct role in the terror plot that unraveled after an overnight 1,600-mile trip from Denver to New York City around the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. He made his first court appearance Monday and remains behind bars.
Zazi and two other defendants have not been charged with any terrorism counts, only the relatively minor offense of lying to the government. But the case could grow to include more serious charges as the investigation proceeds.
Backpacks and cell phones were seized last week from apartments in Queens, where Zazi visited.
Zazi has publicly denied being involved in a terror plot, and defense lawyer Arthur Folsom dismissed as "rumor" any notion that his client played a crucial role.
Publicly, law enforcement officials have repeatedly said they are unaware of a specific time or target for any attacks. Privately, officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case said investigators have worried most about the possible use of backpack bombs on New York City trains, similar to attacks carried out in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004.
Backpack bombs ripped apart four commuter trains and killed 191 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004. On July 7 the next year, bombing attacks in London killed 52 subway and bus commuters.
Transit systems warned
In a bulletin issued Friday, the FBI and Homeland Security Department warned that improvised explosive devices are the most common tactic to blow up railroads and other mass transit systems overseas. And they noted incidents in which bombs were made with peroxide.
In the bulletin, obtained by The AP, officials recommended that transit systems conduct random sweeps at terminals and stations and that law enforcement make random patrols and board some trains and buses.
The effects of the warning were not immediately clear Monday. New York's transit agency said it was in touch with an FBI-NYPD task force but wouldn't comment further.
The task force feared Zazi may have been involved in a potential plot involving hydrogen peroxide-based explosives, according to two law enforcement officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.
Investigators said they found notes on bomb-making instructions that appear to match Zazi's handwriting, and discovered his fingerprints on materials — batteries and a scale — that could be used to make explosives. He also made a trip to Pakistan last year in which he received al-Qaida explosives and weapons training, the government said.
Zazi, a legal resident of the U.S. who immigrated in 1999, told the FBI that he must have unintentionally downloaded the notes on bomb-making as part of a religious book and that he deleted the book "after realizing that its contents discussed jihad."
Tracking Zazi
A strange sequence of events began to unfold nearly two weeks ago when Zazi — already under surveillance by federal agents — rented a car in Colorado and made the 1,600-mile trek across the heartland to New York. He told reporters that he went to New York to resolve an issue with a coffee cart he owned.
He was briefly stopped entering the city as part of what was believed to be a routine drug check, and proceeded to his friend's place in Queens. Once there, his car was towed and authorities confiscated his computer. He was told by an NYPD informant that detectives were asking about him, and decided to cut the trip short and fly back to Colorado, authorities said.
Their surveillance blown and their main suspect flying back to Colorado, officials speeded up the investigation and launched raids on several Queens apartments in a search for evidence of explosives.
Zazi and his 53-year-old father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, were arrested Saturday in Denver. Ahmad Wais Afzali, 37, was arrested in New York, where he is an imam at a mosque in Queens. The three are accused of making false statements to the government. If convicted, they face eight years in prison.
Afzali was ordered held without bail after prosecutors said they believed he might flee if released. He smiled and blew kisses to his wife and other relatives before deputy marshals led him out of the courtroom.
His attorney, Ron Kuby, accused authorities of trying to make Afzali a scapegoat for a botched investigation. Kuby told reporters outside court that before Afzali's arrest, authorities had begged him to help them in the Zazi investigation. He said his client knew he was being recorded, and never tried to mislead the FBI.
"They blew their own investigation and now they're trying to blame my client," he said.
Zazi's father is accused of lying when he told authorities he didn't know anyone by the name of Afzali. The FBI said it recorded a conversation between Mohammed Zazi and Afzali.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
