WHEN THERE WAS A 'DOUBLY-ILLEGAL' ACTING SECURITY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SOUNDS FAMILIAR AND NORMALIZED NOW: It was under Wolf’s direction that a motley crew of federal law enforcement — drawn from Border Patrol, ICE, the US Marshals, and Federal Protective Services — would occupy the city of Portland, Oregon, bathing its downtown district in a pea-souper of tear gas and snatching up its citizens for questioning in unmarked minivans. These brutal yet ineffective tactics were a response to the supposed “lawlessness” of the George Floyd protests in Portland. But Wolf’s own lawless occupation of the secretary’s seat would go largely unchecked. . .

Chad Wolf, the illegal secretary

6.29.22

Governance by tweet. Incorrect paperwork. Total chaos.

 

The Verge |

By: Sarah Jeong

Art: Klawe Rzeczy

Photos: Getty Images

"Kirstjen Nielsen’s tenure as the head of the Department of Homeland Security was perhaps best known for the family separation policy at the border. The recordings of crying toddlers, the children wrapped in silver foil blankets, the detention conditions likened to “cages” — this was her legacy. Nielsen was reviled by almost everyone from the center and leftwards. Ironically, President Trump himself disliked her, in part for not being tough enough on immigration, and would eventually force her out. 

Nielsen would be the last legal secretary of homeland security in the Trump administration. What would follow would be a chaotic parade involving governance by tweet, a thicket of laws and regulations, incorrectly amended paperwork, and a strangely hilarious internal legal memo referencing a @DHSgov tweet as though it held some kind of binding authority. Seven months later, Nielsen’s eventual successor, Chad Wolf, would take her place. . .

“My ‘actings’ are doing really great,” President Trump said to reporters in January 2019. “It gives me more flexibility. Do you understand that? I like ‘acting.’ So we have a few that are acting. … If you look at my Cabinet, we have a fantastic Cabinet. Really good.”

As flexible as the Vacancies Act is, there are still limits. The executive branch has 210 days — a little under seven months — after a vacancy is created to put forth an appointee for Senate confirmation. By the end of the Trump administration, countless key appointments had run out the clock, with over a dozen government officials squatting illegally in their acting roles. 

Unlike the vast majority of these cases, the question of who was legally the secretary of homeland security was not governed by the Vacancies Act. The infamous 210-day limit that became so widely known during the second half of the Trump administration was not at play. (Although, if it had been, Chad Wolf — who took office 216 days after Nielsen vacated her position — would still have been an illegal acting secretary).   

On April 9th, 2019, Nielsen filed two fateful pieces of paperwork that would haunt the agency for the rest of Trump’s term and beyond. The first was a boilerplate letter written by John Mitnick, the DHS general counsel, specifying that, “By approving the attached document, you will designate your desired order of succession for the Secretary of Homeland Security in accordance with your authority pursuant to Section 113(g)(2) of title 6, United States Code.” (This, importantly, is the Homeland Security Act and not the Vacancies Act.)

The second piece of paperwork was the “attached document,” which amended the succession order so that Kevin McAleenan — a DHS official whose harsh approach to immigration had found favor in Trump’s eyes — would succeed Nielsen, as was intended by the president. 

Unfortunately, Nielsen amended the wrong section of the succession order. . .[    ] But the unfortunate part of being an illegal secretary of homeland security is that the things you do are not legal. Under both the original succession order and Kirstjen Nielsen’s incorrectly amended succession order, Chad Wolf was not the next in line. He had been made acting head through the actions of an already illegal acting head; he was a doubly illegal acting secretary of homeland security. 

The Government Accountability Office called foul on the DHS succession in August 2020. In a reflection of the extraordinary chaos afoot, DHS responded to the government’s own watchdog agency with an inexplicably combative letter calling the report’s conclusions “baseless and baffling” and demanding that GAO “rescind its erroneous report immediately.” The letter was signed by yet another Chad — Chad Mizelle — who was also one of Trump’s actings, an official who was “performing the duties of the general counsel.”

. . .Shortly after the GAO report was released, Trump would officially nominate Wolf for the job. But the nomination itself couldn’t fix the illegal succession — and in any case, the nomination never went through.

For those on the outside looking in, Chad Wolf’s tenure would mostly be remembered for the battle of Portland. Wolf also oversaw an increasingly hostile immigration policy. He suspended — or rather, attempted to suspend — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. He made sweeping changes to the asylum system that, among other things, would have disqualified many refugees fleeing domestic abuse or anti-LGBTQ persecution. “These regulations aimed to strip immigrants of basic rights to work authorization and due process,” said Zachary Manfredi, an attorney with the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, who spearheaded litigation that tested the legality of Wolf’s appointment in court.

> Undocumented and semi-documented immigrants — human beings who are declared “illegal” in the mainstream rhetoric of the Republican Party — face overwhelming odds. They are left to navigate an inscrutable legal and regulatory code in a language they may or may not have facility in, often with limited access to legal counsel. Their fates frequently rest on the paperwork they have or have not filed, the declarations they have or have not made. The moment they set foot on American soil, unseen timers begin a countdown. For them, their entire lives can hinge on being able to prove themselves to the great and towering machine of bureaucracy.

> Kirstjen Nielsen had all the help of the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, and she still filed her paperwork incorrectly. Years later, the Biden administration is paying for that mistake. Biden’s DHS — now headed by a legal, Senate-confirmed secretary — has attempted to retroactively ratify Chad Wolf and Kevin McAleenan’s administrative rulemakings; federal judges have refused to accept this maneuver. These policies originated illegally, and they remain illegal. Laws matter, and the process matters, especially when applied to an agency that inflicts a mercilessly exacting process on so many people. . .

[    ]  The actions Chad Wolf ordered in Portland in the summer of 2020 stemmed from Trump’s own obsession with “lawlessness,” and Wolf justified the DHS’s brutality by citing damage to buildings on federal property and violence against law enforcement officers.

On January 6th, 2021, a pro-Trump mob would storm federal property and attack federal law enforcement. The next day, Trump withdrew Chad Wolf’s nomination for secretary of homeland security after Wolf urged him to condemn the violence at the Capitol.

There had been a long and predictable lead-up to January 6th, which started with Trump’s refusal to concede and his continuing assertion that the election had been stolen.

After Christopher Krebs, the director of the CISA Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, openly stated that there were no security anomalies in the 2020 election, Trump fired him via tweet. This was maybe par for the course; Trump had spent the last four years purging various top officials at the Department of Homeland Security for being insufficiently hard-line.

This is the third act, in which Chekhov’s gun makes its inevitable appearance. Krebs was the director of an agency that Trump himself had created in 2018; he had served in that position from the beginning. He was also, according to the last legally amended DHS succession order, the real legal Acting Secretary of Homeland Security."

___________________________________________________________________________

RELATED CONTENT ON THIS BLOG Christopher Krebs:

23 June 2019

The New Game of Double-Jeopardy: Offensive Cyberwarfare Attacks on "Virtual Territory"

According to a report by Ellen Nakashima in The Washington Post late yesterday afternoon, offensive cyber strikes were launched Thursday night by personnel with U.S. Cyber Command that  disabled Iranian computer systems used to control rocket and missile launches in response to its downing Thursday of an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone.
The subsequent reaction:Two days later the Trump administration on Saturday warned industry officials to be alert for cyberattacks originating from Iran.

> Ellen Nakashima notes in her report, "The White House declined to comment, as did officials at U.S. Cyber Command. Pentagon spokeswoman Elissa Smith said: “As a matter of policy and for operational security, we do not discuss cyberspace operations, intelligence or planning.'"

> . . . On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to U.S. industry that Iran has stepped up its cyber-targeting of critical industries — to include oil, gas and other energy sectors — and government agencies, and has the potential to disrupt or destroy systems. . .

“There’s no question that there’s been an increase in Iranian cyber activity,” said Christopher Krebs, director of DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “Iranian actors and their proxies are not just your garden variety run-of-the-mill data thieves. These are the guys that come in and they burn the house down.”

Krebs, in an interview, said, “We need everyone to take the current situation very seriously. Look at any potential incidents that you have and treat them as a worst-case scenario.

 

This is not you waiting until you have a data breach . . . This is about losing control of your environment, about losing control of your computer.”

 

“The reality is we’ve been seeing more and more aggressive activity for quite some time,” he said. “It’s just getting worse.”

All these offensive and defensive actions are a reflection of a new Cyber Command strategy — called “defending forward” — that its leader, Gen. Paul Nakasone, has defined as operating “against our enemies on their virtual territory.” 

The Implications of Defending Forward in the New Pentagon Cyber Strategy
Blog Post by Guest Blogger for Net Politics

September 25, 2018

Link to the source:

Council on Foreign Relations

 

Ben Buchanan is an assistant teaching professor at Georgetown University and the author of The Cybersecurity Dilemma. You can follow him @BuchananBen
_________________________________________________________________________________

". . . it was hard to know if the intruders were setting up for a significant cyberattack or if they were just gathering intelligence. In light of this ambiguity, and due to some particular operational factors endemic to hacking efforts, nations are likely to assume the worst and not give the intruders the benefit of the doubt.

It seems reasonable to expect that, as hard as it is to differentiate between intelligence collection and attack in cyber operations, it is even harder still to distinguish between defending forward and attacking forward.

If  the new strategy permits U.S. operators to be more aggressive than what the NSA was previously doing, that could have significant implications for escalation risks.  
. . . policymakers and scholars should not pretend that defending forward is an entirely new concept nor one without its own associated dangers.  "

TESTING NEUTRAL MUTATIONS IN YEAST TO TRACK PROTEIN EVOLUTION

So, does that mean it's time to throw out our idea that mutations in a gene that don't alter its protein sequence are neutral? And with it, all the tools we use to study protein evolution that are based on this assumption?

Worse than it looked —

Mutations thought to be harmless turn out to cause problems

Mutations in genes that don't alter proteins can still alter survival in yeast.

John Timmer - 6/11/2022, 5:31 AM

John became Ars Technica's science editor in 2007 after spending 15 years doing biology research at places like Berkeley and Cornell.

"Mutations are the raw ingredient of evolution, providing variation that sometimes makes an organism more successful in its environment. But most mutations are expected to be neutral and have no impact on an organism's fitness. These can be incredibly useful since these incidental changes help us track evolutionary relationships without worrying about selection for or against the mutation affecting its frequency. All of the genetic ancestry tests, for example, rely heavily on tracking the presence of these neutral mutations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSERT Research Article [. . .Selection thus provides a threshold for mutation accumulation, but robustness maintains a buffer necessary for protein evolution.]

Selection enhances protein evolvability by increasing mutational robustness and foldability

Science |

Selection enhances mutation toleration

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this week, a paper provided evidence that a significant category of mutations isn't as neutral as we thought they were. The big caveat is that the study was done in yeast, which is a weird organism in a couple of ways, so we'll have to see if the results hold in others. . .

[    ]

Make all the mutations

To test neutral mutations, the researchers started with a panel of 21 yeast genes, chosen partly because they are involved in a wide variety of cellular activities. The other part behind their choice is that eliminating these genes doesn't kill the yeast but makes it less healthy. That should make it easier to detect partial effects, where the mutation makes the yeast less healthy.

Within that stretch, the researchers picked a 150-base stretch in the DNA and made every single possible mutation, using DNA editing to make a yeast strain carrying the mutation. That is a total of over 9,000 individual yeast strains, with some carrying mutations that will change the amino acid sequence and others carrying mutations we'd expect to be neutral. But of course, this involved lab work, where things don't work for random, unknown reasons, so the researchers had to settle for testing about 8,300 mutant yeast strains.

_____________________________________________________________________________

INSERT FYI Yeast Spontaneous Mutation Rate and Spectrum Vary with Environment

(Graphical Abstract: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219303823)

The test was pretty simple. Throw equal numbers of normal and mutant yeast in a flask, and let them grow for a bit. Then, sample the population, and check the relative levels of normal and mutant yeast. If the mutation lowered the fitness, you'd see more normal yeast when you sampled the flask.

That was true for mutations that changed an amino acid.

These saw their relative fitness drop a bit, though not by much (their fitness was 0.988 that of the normal yeast). But the neutral mutations weren't notably different—they also dropped the yeast's fitness by a tiny amount relative to a normal strain. In effect, the mutations that didn't change any amino acids were, on average, indistinguishable from the ones that did. Beyond this average, you could tell a slight difference.

> There were more amino acid-altering mutations that had a stronger deleterious effect on fitness, and more neutral ones that had a minimal effect.

> But it's clear that, as a whole, the class expected to be neutral wasn't.

Wait, what?

On the surface, that doesn't make any sense. Both versions of the gene encode exactly the same amino acid. How could one possibly be less fit than the other?

The secret to understanding this is remembering that the gene's DNA isn't used directly to make a protein. Instead, it's transcribed into an RNA copy called a messenger RNA, and that is directly translated to make the protein. And alterations in the DNA can affect the RNA's three-dimensional structure, its stability in the cell, and the rate it's translated into protein.

> The researchers found that the mutations expected to be neutral often influenced the amount of messenger RNA present in the cell.

> They also appeared to influence the RNA's ability to fold into a three-dimensional shape.

> And they were also likely to affect the efficiency of the messenger RNA in translating into a protein.

Combined, these could account for why this group of mutations had a collective impact on fitness.

So, does that mean it's time to throw out our idea that mutations in a gene that don't alter its protein sequence are neutral? And with it, all the tools we use to study protein evolution that are based on this assumption?

The researchers give one major reason why this would be premature:

Yeasts are kind of weird.

 

To start, unlike animals, which mostly get a copy of a gene from their moms and another from their dads, yeast carries only one copy of every gene, so it will likely be more sensitive to subtle effects. Yeasts also live a lifestyle similar to bacteria, carrying a simplified genome and focusing on rapid reproduction—a relatively minor metabolic hit is more likely to slow them down.

And these effects are still very subtle. Even if you completely hammered the function of these proteins by creating a mutation that truncated the protein early, the fitness cost was slight (fitness was 0.94 of the yeast strain without any mutations). It's not even clear this behavior would occur in other genes in yeast, much less genes in other organisms.

The other thing that the researchers note is that, in actual populations that are evolving over the long term, evolutionary pressures are constantly shifting due to environmental changes. So, it could be that these mutations are effectively neutral in a realistic environment, so when we look at similar mutations in a natural population, they appear to be neutral.

All these results are an important caution and make it worth the time and effort needed to sort this out carefully."

=========================================================================

Why Should We Care About Neutral Evolution?

Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution

By: Laurent Duret, Ph.D. (Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Université Claude Bernard, France. ) © 2008 Nature Education 

Citation: Duret, L. (2008) Neutral theory: The null hypothesis of molecular evolution. Nature Education 1(1):218

In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the molecular level does not affect fitness and, therefore, the evolutionary fate of genetic variation is best explained by stochastic processes. This theory also presents a framework for ongoing exploration of two areas of research: biased gene conversion, and the impact of effective population size on the effective neutrality of genetic variants.

The main goal of biology is to understand how living organisms function and how they adapt to ever-fluctuating environments. So one may wonder why it is important to study neutral evolutionary processes that, a priori, seem to have little effect on the evolution of phenotypes. There are actually three primary reasons for this adjusted focus.

First, as mentioned earlier, the neutral theory is the underlying basis of selection tests. These tests are widely used to identify functional elements (e.g., genes and regulatory regions) within genomic sequences. The basic principle of this comparative genomics approach is that functional elements are subject to selective pressure, and hence their pattern of evolution differs from the neutral expectation. To be able to detect selection, it is therefore necessary to have a good understanding of all the nonadaptive evolutionary processes that affect sequence evolution—mutation, BGC, and genetic drift. Notably, the selection test mentioned above requires knowledge of u. This parameter can be estimated by measuring K in sites that are expected, a priori, to be neutral—pseudogenes or defective transposable elements, for example—although u may vary across chromosomes. Also, in some eukaryotic taxa, BGC appears to have a strong influence on genome evolution by favoring the fixation of AT to GC mutations (Marias, 2003). This BGC drive leads to enrichment of GC-content in genomic regions that feature high crossover rates. Many lines of evidence indicate this process is responsible for the strong regional variations in GC-content across mammalian chromosomes. In mammals, crossovers occur essentially in hot spots (typically 1 to 2 kilobases long), and BGC can create strong substitution hot spots, where the local substitution rate can be up to 20 times higher than in the rest of the genome (Duret & Arndt, 2008). In some cases, BGC may even counteract the action of selection and lead to the fixation of deleterious mutations, which implies that BGC can contribute to species maladaptation. Thus, before concluding that sequences are subject to selection, it is necessary to test whether the observed pattern of sequence evolution cannot be explained by this nonadaptive process (Galtier & Duret, 2007).

A second reason why knowledge of neutral sequence evolution is important is that it provides information about molecular processes that are involved in genome functioning. For example, it has been found that in some taxa, there is an asymmetry of substitution patterns between the two DNA strands. This pattern is caused by the asymmetry of the DNA replication process and can be used to infer the location of replication origins within chromosomes (Lobry, 1996). Similarly, the asymmetry of substitution patterns can be used to detect and orient transcription in the germ line of mammals (Green et al., 2003). The analysis of neutral substitution patterns also revealed the existence of a homology-dependent mechanism of DNA methylation in primates (Meunier et al., 2005).

Finally, one point that is often not fully appreciated is that neutral evolution can ultimately contribute to phenotypic evolution and to species adaptation. Kimura noted that many gene duplications may get fixed by random genetic drift, simply because they are not deleterious . Then, because of relaxation of selective pressures, one or both copies may accumulate mutations that otherwise would have been counterselected. Some of these mutants will turn out to be useful for the adaptation of organisms to their environment (Kimura, 1991). The idea that nonadaptive processes may have a major impact on the evolution of biological complexity has been largely developed by Michael Lynch (Lynch, 2006). Following duplication, the functions of the duplicates are initially redundant. Also, most gene products contribute to multiple aspects of an organism's phenotype. If one duplicate undergoes a mutation that knocks out part of its contribution to phenotype, it is released from purifying selection to maintain those functions. The reduction of negative selection efficiency allows a wider exploration of the space of possible genotypes, which may allow for improvements in remaining functions.

Also, regardless of the steps involved, the evolutionary trajectory between one genotype and another better-fit genotype may sometimes have to pass through a less-optimal genotype. Thus, a reduction of effective population size, which increases the effect of random drift, may allow the fixation of weakly deleterious mutations to pass through this less-optimal genotype, and hence can open a new evolutionary trajectory, possibly toward better-adapted genotypes.

REPORT TODAY FROM THE INTERCEPT: How the Pentagon Uses a Secretive Program to Wage Proxy Wars

WHOA! The documents and interviews provide the most detailed picture yet of an obscure funding authority that allows American commandos to conduct counterterrorism operations “by, with, and through” foreign and irregular partner forces around the world. . Experts told The Intercept that use of the little-known authority raises grave accountability and oversight concerns and potentially violates the U.S. Constitution. . .

Those programs include an authority, known as Section 1202, that first appeared in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act and provides “support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals” that are taking part in irregular warfare and are explicitly focused on so-called near-peer competitors. Congress has also authorized the secretary of defense to “expend up to $15,000,000 in any fiscal year for clandestine activities for any purpose the Secretary determines to be proper for preparation of the environment for operations of a confidential nature” under 10 USC § 127f, or “127 foxtrot.” Section 1057 authority similarly allows for intelligence and counterintelligence activities in response to threats of a “confidential, extraordinary, or emergency nature.”

How the Pentagon Uses a Secretive Program to Wage Proxy Wars

Exclusive documents and interviews reveal the sweeping scope of classified 127e operations.

Nick Terse and Alice Speri July 1 2022, 11:00 a.m.

The Intercept |

"Small teams of U.S. Special Operations forces are involved in a low-profile proxy war program on a far greater scale than previously known, according to exclusive documents and interviews with more than a dozen current and former government officials.

While The Intercept and other outlets have previously reported on the Pentagon’s use of the secretive 127e authority in multiple African countries, a new document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act offers the first official confirmation that at least 14 127e programs were also active in the greater Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region as recently as 2020. In total, between 2017 and 2020, U.S. commandos conducted at least 23 separate 127e programs across the world.

Separately, Joseph Votel, a retired four-star Army general who headed both Special Operations Command and Central Command, which oversees U.S. military efforts in the Middle East, confirmed the existence of previously unrevealed 127e “counterterrorism” efforts in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Another former senior defense official, who requested anonymity to discuss a classified program, confirmed that an earlier version of the 127e program had also been in place in Iraq. A 127e program in Tunisia, code-named Obsidian Tower, which has never been acknowledged by the Pentagon or previously identified as a use of the 127e authority, resulted in combat by U.S. forces alongside local surrogates in 2017, according to another set of documents obtained by The Intercept.

A third document, a secret memo that was redacted and declassified for release to The Intercept, sheds light on hallmarks of the program, including use of the authority to provide access to areas of the world otherwise inaccessible even to the most elite U.S. troops.

The documents and interviews provide the most detailed picture yet of an obscure funding authority that allows American commandos to conduct counterterrorism operations “by, with, and through” foreign and irregular partner forces around the world. Basic information about these missions — where they are conducted, their frequency and targets, and the foreign forces the U.S. relies on to carry them out — are unknown even to most members of relevant congressional committees and key State Department personnel.

“If someone were to call a 127-echo program a proxy operation, it would be hard to argue with them.”

Through 127e, the U.S. arms, trains, and provides intelligence to foreign forces. But unlike traditional foreign assistance programs, which are primarily intended to build local capacity, 127e partners are then dispatched on U.S.-directed missions, targeting U.S. enemies to achieve U.S. aims. “The foreign participants in a 127-echo program are filling gaps that we don’t have enough Americans to fill,” a former senior defense official involved with the program told The Intercept. “If someone were to call a 127-echo program a proxy operation, it would be hard to argue with them.”

Retired generals with intimate knowledge of the 127e program — known in military parlance as “127-echo” — say that it is extremely effective in targeting militant groups while reducing risk to U.S. forces. But experts told The Intercept that use of the little-known authority raises grave accountability and oversight concerns and potentially violates the U.S. Constitution.

One of the documents obtained by The Intercept puts the cost of 127e operations between 2017 and 2020 at $310 million, a fraction of U.S. military spending over that time period but a significant increase from the $25 million budget allocated to the program when it was first authorized, under a different name, in 2005.

Source: Pentagon documents and former officials.Graphics: Soohee Cho for The Intercept

While critics contend that, due to a lack of oversight, 127e programs risk involving the United States in human rights abuses and entangling the U.S. in foreign conflicts unbeknownst to Congress and the American people, former commanders say the 127e authority is crucial to combating terrorism.

“I think this is an invaluable authority,” Votel told The Intercept. “It provides the ability to pursue U.S. counterterrorism objectives with local forces that can be tailored to the unique circumstances of the specific area of operations.”

The 127e authority first faced significant scrutiny after four U.S. soldiers were killed by Islamic State militants during a 2017 ambush in Niger and several high-ranking senators claimed to know little about U.S. operations there. Previous reporting, by The Intercept and others, has documented 127e efforts in multiple African countries, including a partnership with a notoriously abusive unit of the Cameroonian military that continued long after its members were connected to mass atrocities.

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

For more than a year, the White House has failed to provide The Intercept with substantive comment about operations by U.S. commandos outside conventional war zones and specifically failed to address the use of 127e programs. Asked for a general comment about the utility of the 127e authority and its role in the administration’s counterterrorism strategy, Patrick Evans, a National Security Council spokesperson, replied: “These all fall under the Department of Defense.” The Pentagon and Special Operations Command refuse to comment on the 127e authority. “We do not provide information about 127e programs because they are classified,” SOCOM spokesperson Ken McGraw told The Intercept. . .

“There’s reason to suspect the Department of Defense has used 127e partners to engage in combat beyond the scope of any authorization for use of military force or permissible self-defense,” Ebright told The Intercept, noting substantial confusion at the Pentagon and in Congress over a stipulation that 127e programs support only authorized ongoing military operations. “That kind of unauthorized use of force, even through partners rather than U.S. soldiers themselves, would contravene constitutional principles.”

A U.S. Army Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha team soldier, likely on a 127e mission, according to journalist Wes Morgan, is seen along with Nigerien counterparts at a Nigerien Army range on Sept. 11, 2017.

Photo: Richard Bumgardner, SOCFWD-NWA Public Affairs

Global Proxy War

The origins of the 127e program can be traced back to the earliest days of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, as commandos and CIA personnel sought to support the Afghan Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. Army Special Operations Command soon realized that it lacked the authority to provide direct payments to its new proxies and was forced to rely on CIA funding. This prompted a broader push by SOCOM to secure the ability to support foreign forces in so-called missions, a military corollary to the CIA’s use of militia surrogates. First known as Section 1208, the authority was also deployed in the early years of the Iraq invasion, according to a former senior defense official. It was ultimately enshrined in U.S. law under U.S.C. Title 10 § 127e.

127e is one of several virtually unknown authorities granted to the Defense Department by Congress over the last two decades that allow U.S. commandos to conduct operations on the fringes of war and with minimal outside oversight. . .

No Vetting, No Oversight

While the documents obtained by The Intercept offer clues about the scope and contours of the 127e program, much remains unknown to both the public and members of Congress. Relevant reports required by law are classified at a level that prevents most congressional staffers from accessing them. A government official familiar with the program, who requested anonymity to discuss it, estimated that only a handful of people on Congress’s armed services and intelligence committees read such reports. Congressional foreign affairs and relations committees — even though they have primary responsibility for deciding where the U.S. is at war and can use force — do not receive them. And most congressional representatives and staff with clearance to access the reports do not know to ask for them. “It’s true that any member of Congress could read any of these reports, but I mean, they don’t even know they exist,” the government official added. “It was designed to prevent oversight.”

But it is not just Congress that’s largely kept in the dark about the program: Officials at the State Department with the relevant expertise are also often unaware. . ."

READ MORE >> https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/

 

UPDATED: Trump's Fake Slates of Electors + New Subpoenas Issued to Arizona GOP

Not mentioned in this report are Arizona Congressional members in The House of Representatives, among them Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar. Please scroll down for a more recent report about subpoenas issued to AZ

UPDATED Trump’s fake electors: Here’s the full list

11 Arizonans were among 84 people who signed onto bogus election documents in 2020

Kira Lerner

Arizona Mirror |

> Despite renewed attention in Washington on the fake electors, the vast majority of people involved in the scheme have so far escaped scrutiny. . ."

 

 

Continue reading >> Kira Lerner Arizona Mirror

 

RELATED CONTENT ON THIS BLOG

30 June 2022

FBI ISSUES MORE SUBPOENAS HERE IN ARIZONA | AZMirror Jerod MacDonald-Evoy

The subpoena appears to be part of a larger investigation into Trump allies and associates and their role in the Jan. 6 riot

The FBI subpoenaed Karen Fann and Kelly Townsend for information on the January 6 insurrection

Jerod MacDonald-Evoy

Arizona Mirror

"Arizona Senate President Karen Fann and Mesa Republican Senator Kelly Townsend were subpoenaed by the FBI for an on-going investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on state officials to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. 

“President Fann received a FOIA in the form of a subpoena by the FBI as part of the Biden Administration’s political theatrics as they look into ‘January 6,’” Kim Quintero, Director of Communications for Arizona Senate Republicans said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. “Nonetheless, President Fann is fully cooperating in releasing whatever emails and text messages they are requesting.” 

Arizona Senate President Karen Fann and Mesa Republican Senator Kelly Townsend were subpoenaed by the FBI for an on-going investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on state officials to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. 

“President Fann received a FOIA in the form of a subpoena by the FBI as part of the Biden Administration’s political theatrics as they look into ‘January 6,’” Kim Quintero, Director of Communications for Arizona Senate Republicans said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. “Nonetheless, President Fann is fully cooperating in releasing whatever emails and text messages they are requesting.” 

Fann, a Prescott Republican, hired and helped lead the “audit” of Maricopa County’s 2020 Presidential election results. She was also in communication with a number of Trump allies such as OANN correspondent Christina Bobb — who also worked for the Trump campaign and sent emails to Fann on behalf of Trump attorney Rudy Guiliani in December 2020 that included witness declarations, statements and expert testimony. Bobb’s non-profit would also supply volunteers for the “audit” itself as well as funding. 

Quintero also confirmed that Townsend, a staunch supporter of the “audit” efforts and bogus election fraud claims, was issued a similar subpoena. Quintero said she is not aware of any other senator who wsa issued a subpoena. 

“We have no reason to believe (Fann and Townsend) will be called to testify in Washington D.C.,” Quintero said. “The documents expressly say that she is not to comment on the matter, so this is all we can release at this time.”

The Arizona Capitol Times reported that Fann said there is a “list” of lawmakers who received a subpoena. 

A Republican spokesman for the Arizona House of Representatives said he was unaware whether any members of that chamber had also been subpoenaed. 

The subpoenas follow a string of other subpoenas to other high profile Arizona politicos who have found themselves enmeshed in election fraud claims and other legal battles.  . .

The document at the heart of the matter, which led the DOJ to issue a subpoena, involves 11 Arizona Republicans who met at the state party headquarters to falsely declare themselves the state’s official presidential electors - Rep. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, was one of those electors. Hoffman would later go on to own a business that looks and acts identical to the email campaign platform utilized by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to email 29 Arizona lawmakers asking them not to certify the election results. Former Rep. Anthony Kern, who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, was also one of the electors, along with Senate Candidate Jim Lamon and Turning Point Action head Tyler Bowyer.

=======================================================================

RELATED CONTENT ON THIS BLOG September 12, 2019

We Are So Blessed Here In Arizona! CD 5 AZ-Congressman Andy Biggs Is The Chosen One 

Biggs is a newbie to Washington DC, elected to Congress in 2017. Just in the time since then, he's gained a reputation as an outspoken conservative voice in the House, where he is a member of the Judiciary and Science and Technology committees. He has come out in support of private prisons that allegedly allow immigrant detainees to work for as little as $1 a day and contributed to an effort to transform the investigation into the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey into a probe of Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s email.
________________________________________________________________________

BREAKING NEWS: Our members elected @RepAndyBiggsAZ as our next chairman! pic.twitter.com/meI1v4TnRR

— House Freedom Caucus

(@freedomcaucus)  

September 10, 2019

________________________________________________________________________

House Freedom Caucus picks Andy Biggs as new chairman                        

By MELANIE ZANONA 09/10/2019 08:37 PM EDT

"The conservative House Freedom Caucus has a new leader.
The hard-line group has elected Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to be the new Freedom Caucus chief, replacing Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). . . "
_________________________________________________________
BLOGGER NOTE:
INSERT FROM ANOTHER POST:

My Turn: Why I picked Andy Biggs to replace me as congressman

Matt Salmon, AZ I See It 9:35 p.m. MT Aug. 7, 2016
Read entire article here 

"Andy is a man who has a strong record of standing for a smaller, transparent and more accountable government. Most importantly, I knew Andy recognized the importance of our constitutional government and the fight that would be necessary to save it."        

> Biggs also said he’s thankful to former Congressman Matt Salmon, his predecessor, who was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus in 2015.

Salmon now works as a lobbyist for Arizona State University.

He got that high-salaried gig before resigning from office ahead of his elected term end, making way for Andy Biggs.

Biggs is one of four Arizonans who are currently part of the Freedom Caucus.

• Paul Gosar,
• Debbie Lesko
• David Schweikert are also members

Reference: https://www.azmirror.com/blog

____________________________________________________________________________

“I’m grateful for the trust of my colleagues in selecting me to serve as the next chairman of the House Freedom Caucus,” Biggs said in a statement on Tuesday.
“The Freedom Caucus has revolutionized Capitol Hill because our members endeavor to keep our promises to the American people. Freedom Caucus members have shown that they will stand for principle over politics — every time.”
-------------------------------

The Freedom Caucus, a band of roughly 30 conservative bomb throwers who spent years as a thorn in the side of leadership, has played a key role in some of the most high-profile fights in the House GOP

. . . But with House Republicans now in the minority, the group’s influence has significantly waned. The Freedom Caucus has also come under fire for being unswervingly loyal to Trump, prompting one of its members, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, to quit the group earlier this year before leaving the GOP altogether - In July, Amash announced that he was leaving the GOP to become an independent.

_________________________________________________________________________________

RELATED CONTENT

House Freedom Caucus: What is it, and who's in it? | Pew ...

https://www.pewresearch.org › fact-tank › 2015/10/20 › house-freedom-ca...

 

Oct 20, 2015 - But what, exactly, is the House Freedom Caucus?

Pew Research Center has confirmed the identities of 36 Freedom Caucus members through

CANDIDATE MARCO LOPEZ IS THE ONLY ONE WITH CLEAR BORDER EXPERIENCE CREDENTIALS WHO CAN WIN THE ELECTION FOR ARIZONA GOVERNOR

If you watch the GOP candidates debate, you know what uncontrolled that was! The most ludicrous claims were made by Mesa native Karrin Taylor Robson, who no doubt has spent any time on the Arizona border while becoming a millionaire and making a fortune speculating on unsustainable real estate schemes creating endless suburban sprawl

AZ Democratic Gubernatorial debate becomes interview with one candidate absent

By:Jordan Bontke

Posted at 10:22 PM, Jun 30, 2022

and last updated 10:22 PM, Jun 30, 2022

KNXV |

"What was supposed to be a debate between Arizona's Democratic candidates for Governor ended up being a one-man interview with Candidate Marco Lopez and Arizona PBS’ Ted Simons.

After Wednesday night's contentious and often disjointed Republican debate, the former Nogales mayor and Obama administration alumni wasted no time Thursday sending jabs to his absent, Democratic opponent Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.

“The refrain has now always become, 'Dónde está Katie,' where is Katie,” said Lopez.

We asked the Hobbs Campaign that question hours before the debate and got this response:

"Katie's out talking to Arizona voters, meeting them where they're at in their communities, and hearing directly from them about their most pressing concerns like how much groceries will cost next week or if their child will get a good education. As the only candidate on either side of the aisle with a clear path through the primary, Katie remains focused on the big picture: winning in November so that she can defend Arizona from Kari Lake’s conspiracy theories and never-ending lies that threaten Arizonans’ freedoms."

Lopez wants to put aside $2.5 billion for students prioritizing public school over charter schools.

"We have to invest in our public education in district schools, once we fix that, I'm happy to consider it,” said Lopez explain the lack of equity with the current public education dynamic in Arizona.

Lopez was dubbed America's youngest mayor when he held the office for the border city of Nogales at just 24-years-old.

His immigration plan calls on using $364 million dollars to invest in infrastructure, technology and man-power instead of focusing on a border wall.

“I'm tired of the smuggler winning and we have to go after this fentanyl, I think that is two areas the state government can partner correctly with federal government,” said Lopez.

On the supreme court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Lopez unveiled a new plan to codify reproductive rights into the state constitution and pardon health care providers that perform abortions.

Afterward, Lopez told us women's reproductive rights are a top issue for AZ voters.

“It's a difficult issue for me to fully comprehend it's a difficult decision for women to make, with their families and healthcare providers,” he said."

Elections 2022 debates: Democratic candidates for governor

"Democratic gubernatorial candidate Marco Lopez came to discuss his candidacy. This was meant to be a debate between Marco Lopez and Katie Hobbs, but Hobbs declined to participate.

Marco Lopez became one of the youngest mayors in the country at age 22, served Governor Napolitano as Director of Commerce, and then served President Obama at the Department of Homeland Security. Since then, Marco has started his own small business which has brought high speed internet to 1 million low income families.

In this segment:

Marco Lopez, (D) Candidate, Arizona Governor

Elections 2022 debates: Democratic candidates for governor - Arizona PBS

azpbs.org › Arizona Horizon

 

4 days ago · Democratic gubernatorial candidate Marco Lopez came to discuss his candidacy. This was ...
Duration: 26:51
Posted: 4 days ago

 

Marco Lopez | Facebook

www.facebook.com › 1marcolopez

 

4 days ago · Former border city mayor, Obama admin alum, small business owner & proud immigrant ...
Duration: 3:40
Posted: 4 days ago

Top stories

Only 1 candidate appeared on televised Arizona democratic gubernatorial debate, ASU officials say

FOX 10 Phoenix · 15 hours ago

Marco Lopez (@1marcolopez) / Twitter

twitter.com › 1marcolopez

Candidate for governor. Proud immigrant, former border city mayor, Obama admin alum, & business owner running to restore the Promise of Arizona.¡Únete!

=====================================================================

RELATED CONTENT

Marco Lopez, business consultant and ex-Napolitano aide, running for Arizona governor

Jeremy Duda March 16, 2021 8:48 am

Arizona Mirror

Marco Lopez, an international business consultant, former Nogales mayor and Napolitano administration aide, and advisor to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, announced his candidacy for governor, kicking off the race for the state’s highest office in 2022.

Lopez is one of several candidates expected to vie for the Democratic nomination in next year’s gubernatorial contest, and is the first notable candidate to enter the race from either major party. Gov. Doug Ducey is termed out, leaving a wide open race for governor.

Lopez came to prominence in 2001 when he was elected mayor of Nogales at age 22, making him one of the youngest people to ever serve as a mayor in the United States. He served Gov. Janet Napolitano as executive director of the Arizona-Mexico Commission and later as a policy advisor on Latin America and foreign trade. Napolitano later appointed him director of the Arizona Department of Commerce. 

After President Barack Obama appointed Napolitano as his homeland security secretary, Napolitano appointed Lopez as chief of staff of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Lopez in 2011 founded Intermestic Partners, an international business advisory firm, and is also president and CEO of International Business Solutions, another business advisory firm. In addition, Lopez is a senior advisor to Slim, formerly the world’s richest person and currently the fifth richest. 

In his announcement video on Tuesday morning, Lopez touted his “uniquely Arizonan” story and roots in Nogales, where his parents came seeking a better life. His father was a plumber who rose to become a general contractor, and his mother owned a small business making candy and piñatas. 

“My parents taught us that hard work and education opens the door to opportunity. And it did for me. At 22, I became the mayor of the city of Nogales, then headed up Arizona’s department for jobs and trade, and worked for President Obama, helping run the country’s largest law enforcement agency and tackling crises head on,” he said.

Lopez said he creates jobs and opportunity now, helping to bring high-speed internet to low-income families and bringing a cargo hub to Mesa, which he said helps American companies export their products to Mexico and will create 15,000 jobs.

Lopez said his company also stepped up during the COVID-19 crisis when the government failed us, donating personal protective equipment to frontline workers.

“Let’s face it: State leaders failed us as the coronavirus cost us lives and hammered our economy,” Lopez said as the video showed an image of Ducey meeting with former President Donald Trump. “And our legislature is run by extremists promoting bizarre conspiracy theories instead of actually getting things done for you, the people. For too many, the promise of Arizona isn’t being met.”

Lopez said he wants to bring “bold leadership that transforms our education system” to the governor’s office, including apprenticeship and certification programs, implement a “make it in Arizona plan” that brings new manufacturing and technology jobs to the state, and ensure that all Arizonans have access to affordable health care.

Next year’s gubernatorial primary could be the most competitive that Arizona Democrats have seen in years. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Congressman Greg Stanton are also viewed as potential contenders for the Democratic nomination.

***UPDATE: This story has been updated to include additional information from Lopez’s announcement video.

>