Podcasts about defense department

Welcome to the DEFAERO Andy Marshall Strategy Series, our discussion with leading thinkers on security, business and technology. Michael Bayer, former Defense Business Board chairman and president of the Dumbarton Strategies consultancy, discusses the critical need for Defense Department leaders to increase agility, improve how they think about the challenges and solutions, revamp their approach to talent management if the United States is to better address the challenges the nation faces with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian. This conversation is part of a series of discussions with leading thinkers and strategists and dedicated to the memory of Andy Marshall, the former director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and sponsored by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.

In this episode, Jessica Yellin speaks with Professor India Thusi of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law. They discuss the case of former chief strategist to President Trump, Steven K. Bannon and his failure to comply with a federal subpoena about the events of January 6th, 2021. The select committee panel is scheduled to vote on the contempt charge against Bannon on Tuesday, October 19th and is expected to approve the charge. A vote could then be taken up by the full House of Representatives in short order. The possibility of holding Bannon in Contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor criminal offense, could result in up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Criminal contempt can only be pursued by the Justice Department.In addition to Bannon, the committee has subpoenaed documents and testimony from other key Trump advisers, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and Kash Patel, a former national security and Defense Department aide.India Thusi holds a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology and Law & Society and is a Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law with a joint appointment at the Kinsey Institute. Her articles and essays have been published in numerous law journals and she served as a federal law clerk in the US at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, that nation's highest court.​​ She is currently a Fulbright U.S. Global Scholar.India ThusiTwitter: twitter.com/inGerrYou can follow Jessica Yellin here:Instagram: instagram.com/jessicayellin​Twitter: twitter.com/jessicayellinWebsite: NewsNotNoise.comNewsletter: newsnotnoise.bulletin.comSupport this work:patreon.com/NewsNotNoiseJessica Yellin is the founder of News Not Noise, a channel dedicated to giving you news with real experts and providing information, not a panic attack. Jessica is a veteran of network news, traveling the globe, covering conflict and crisis. A former Chief White House Correspondent for CNN, she reported from around the world and won awards. Now, Yellin uses her voice to break down the news, calmly and clearly for you -- free of punditry, provocation, and yelling.

Judy Woodruff discusses Colin Powell's legacy with two men who knew him well: Richard Haass was the director of policy planning at the State Department when Powell was secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. He's now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael Gordon reports on the Defense Department, and has authored several books about the U.S. military. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Beowulf speaks with Norman Solomon about the true scope of American military spending and actions. This is made more palatable to the American people by calling the expenses 'defense' spending. While the official department is actually titled the Defense Department, and we need to use that name, we can use more accurate terms in other conversations not in direct reference to that formal institution.

The future of war is unwritten, but the Defense Department is constantly analyzing and preparing for that future. In the electromagnetic spectrum, in the wilds of cyberspace and on the battlefield, modernization is always on the minds of Pentagon officials. As part of GovExec Media's Roadmap to Modernization event recently, Defense One Technology Editor Patrick Tucker spoke to Colonel Elizabeth Sweet, Defense Engagement Lead, at the Defense Innovation Unit and Dr. Stephen Russell, Information Sciences Division Chief, U.S. Combat Capabilities Development Command, at the Army Research Laboratory. In this episode, they talk about how the  Defense Department is tackling the modernization challenges it faces.  

A'ndre and Ryan interview Mick Mulroy, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East (2017-2019), to get his take on U.S. Middle East policy in the aftermath of Afghanistan.  Mick, whose time as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense required that he oversee Middle Eastern policy for the Defense Department, discusses why he was in favor of maintaining a residual force in Afghanistan and elaborates on the consequences for U.S. security policy in the broader region and for counterterrorism purposes. Mick does outline why he is confident in the United States' ability to manage Middle Eastern policy in light of the 'Pivot to Asia', and digs into his views on the Yemen Civil War and Saudi involvement with it. We also dive a bit into Mick's service as a CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer and what that work in conflict zones entailed, and we highlight Mick's current work with the Lobo Institute and his advocacy on the issue of ending child soldiering.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/can-employers-punish-employees-if-spouses-arent-vaccinated/ There It Is – Study Finds Predominance of Antibody-Resistant SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Vaccine Breakthrough Cases in San Francisco Bay Area Pfizer scientist break silence on natural immunity. Food Stamp Benefits to Receive Historic Increase in October https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/10/01/food-stamp-benefits-to-receive-historic-increase-in-october/ People who receive food stamps, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), will notice a major and permanent increase starting in October. Beginning this month, the average benefits for food stamps will grow over 25 percent above pre-pandemic levels, and the additional assistance will be “available indefinitely to all 42 million SNAP beneficiaries,” “The increase coincides with the end of a 15% boost in SNAP benefits that was ordered as a COVID-19 pandemic protection measure, which expired on Sept. 30,” “In practical terms, the average monthly per-person benefits for qualified recipients will rise from $121 to $157 — or $36 per person, per month,” The increase is projected to cost an additional $20 billion per year but it doesn't have to be approved by Congress. A farm law passed in 2018 by the then-Republican led Congress and signed by former President Donald Trump already directed the department to reassess the Thrifty Food Plan by 2022 and every five years thereafter. Paper ball… Senate Republicans plan to block another debt ceiling vote as default risks rise https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/06/republicans-senate-debt-ceiling-default/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34e4a0a%2F615dcde29d2fda9d41004e99%2F5fd17c37ade4e21670c1cfd7%2F10%2F70%2F615dcde29d2fda9d41004e99 Senate Republicans plan to block Democrats from raising the country's debt ceiling, daring President Biden and his party's top lawmakers to devise another path forward just 12 days before the U.S. government could run out of flexibility to pay its bills. For the third time in as many weeks, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is set to hold a vote on a measure that would suspend the borrowing limit into next year, aiming to act before Congress blows past an Oct. 18 deadline that could catapult the country into an economic recession. But the proposal is likely to be as doomed as the two that preceded it. Democrats for the moment cannot advance in the debate over the debt ceiling unless 10 GOP lawmakers join them — and Republicans once again are refusing to supply the votes as part of their broader campaign to oppose Biden's economic agenda. “They basically want us to be aiders and abettors to their reckless spending and tax policies, and we just aren't going to do it,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). Absent congressional action, a default threatens to unleash widespread financial havoc: It could rattle markets, delay seniors' Social Security checks, prevent some families from receiving monthly child tax assistance and raise the cost of borrowing for millions of Americans by driving up interest rates. The Defense Department added Wednesday that it also would “seriously harm our service members and their families,” jeopardizing the government's ability to pay service members and civilians on time while providing benefits to veterans. Biden recently likened the doomsday scenario to a “meteor” crashing into the U.S. economy, only months after the coronavirus pandemic created the worst such devastation since the Great Depression. Paper ball… Democrats Wrangle Over How to Shrink $3.5 Trillion Proposal Lawmakers consider trims to package of healthcare, education and climate-change programs https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-wrangleover-how-to-shrink-3-5-trillion-proposal-11633466811?mod=itp_wsj&mod=djemITP_h President Biden acknowledged in a series of meetings with Democrats this week and on Friday that a package once pegged at $3.5 trillion would have to be smaller, given opposition from centrist Senate Democrats to a bill of that magnitude. Now, they are grappling with the tougher next step: deciding exactly how much narrower—and which of—their proposed child care, education or health programs would have to get trimmed or culled. “That's what the president wanted to hear from us: We know this isn't going to hit the $3.5 trillion—we all know that at this point—what are the most important needs of the American people?” said Rep. Cindy Axne (D., Iowa), who participated in a virtual meeting with Mr. Biden on Tuesday. Meeting with House Democrats on Friday, Mr. Biden had suggested that the package's overall spending level would likely be between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion. Although Democratic leaders had initially agreed to roughly $3.5 trillion in spending, centrist Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona balked at that level. The two moderate Democrats have been negotiating for days with White House officials and Democratic leaders over the specifics of what they will be able to support. The two senators' approval is crucial because Democrats are planning to pass the package through a process linked to the budget, known as reconciliation, that allows it to clear the Senate with just a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes most bills require. With no GOP support expected, that means Democrats must still secure the support of every member of the Democratic caucus in the evenly split Senate and can afford no more than three defections in the House. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Conference next fall. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless

About 200,000 service members and their families may be eligible for a temporary increase in monthly housing allowance in areas where available and affordable housing is hard to come by. An Air Force spouse shares her family's struggles to find a home and how to apply for the additional funds.See if your location is on the Defense Department's list.Follow The Spouse Angle on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

On this week's Cyber Report, sponsored by Northrop Grumman, Jennifer Walsmith, vice president of the Cyber and Information Solutions Business Unit of Northrop Grumman's Network Information Solutions Division, discusses how to best execute the Defense Department's Joint All Domain Command and Control vision especially its cyber dimensions, ensuring a secure and open architecture, improving hardware and software vulnerabilities of existing weapons and NDAA takeaways; and Col. Brian Beachkofski, USAF, the commander and the CEO of the US Air Force's Kessel Run agile software development unit — formally known as the Air Force Life-Cycle Management Center Detachment 12 — discusses the SlapShot application that played a critical role in the evacuation of more than 122,000 from Afghanistan, how it was developed and quickly adapted for the mission, the key to quickly developing secure cyber applications, lessons learned, and changing culture to accept risks that will yield big payoffs with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian.

A seemingly constant conversation around the Defense Department and innovation is the interplay between the private sector and the Pentagon. Contractors and commercial firms want to get their innovative ideas to the Defense Department and Pentagon officials want to speed up the process by which they  adopt new innovations from the commercial sector. As part of GovExec Media's Roadmap to Modernization event recently, Defense on Deputy Editor Brad Peniston spoke to Art Trevethan, Director of Corporate Ventures at the Army Applications Lab. In this episode, they talk about how the military draws from the private sector and how it finds, funds, and develops the next generation of weapons and systems.

A former Defense Department adviser says President Biden might succeed where President Obama failed, and the man formerly known as “Detainee 441” speaks. Today's show was produced by Haleema Shah, edited by Matt Collette, engineered by Efim Shapiro, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained. Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some are wondering why the US government is buying drones from a Chinese company deemed a national security risk by the Defense Department. The UAS Act was introduced to end all US governmental purchases of drones and drone materials from foreign adversaries.

In breaking news Thursday night, the Jan. 6 select committee subpoenaed four Trump associates including Steve Bannon. Additionally, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, his deputy Dan Scavino, and former Defense Department official Kash Patel have been subpoenaed. Joy Reid and her panel discuss this important development. Plus, Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema has come out against the reconciliation bill's drug price reforms, which the majority of the country supports, according to recent polling. Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) joins Joy Reid to discuss saying, "I think we are seeing the worst of what Americans believe about Congress play out in this moment." And, Joy Reid leads this episode of show with an anniversary of sorts. One year ago today, we got a warning sign that Donald Trump would not go quietly if he lost the 2020 election. Joy and her panel unpack the ongoing threat to our democracy. All this and much more in this edition of The ReidOut on MSNBC.

Corporations bribed politicians—it's legal, it's called campaign contributions—and they funded projects the Defense Department contracted out, giving the crooks a lot of money; that's still going strong today – says Lester Earnest, founder of the AI Lab at Stanford. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 26, 2018.

Dirt bikes do not belong in New York City and more. This is Toby Sumpter. Today is Tuesday, September 21, 2021. Thousands of Haitians Seeking Asylum in Del Rio https://apnews.com/article/health-mexico-texas-caribbean-immigration-56f1f0093039e2a43e128b7ef0015485 AP: More than 6,000 Haitians and other migrants have been removed from an encampment at a Texas border town, U.S. officials said Monday as they defended a strong response that included immediately expelling migrants to their impoverished Caribbean country and using horse patrols to stop them from entering the town. Calling it a “challenging and heartbreaking situation,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a stark warning: “If you come to the United States illegally, you will be returned. Your journey will not succeed, and you will be endangering your life and your family's life.” Mexico was busing Haitian migrants from Ciudad Acuña Sunday evening, according to Luis Angel Urraza, president of the local chamber of commerce. Mexico's immigration agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But a federal official told The Associated Press on Sunday that the plan was to take the migrants to Monterrey, in northern Mexico, and Tapachula, in the south, with flights to Haiti from those cities to begin in coming days. Mayorkas and U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said they would look into agents on horseback using what appeared to be whips and their horses to push back migrants at the river between Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, and Del Rio, Texas, where thousands of migrants remain camped around a bridge. Mayorkas said 600 Homeland Security employees, including from the Coast Guard, have been brought to Del Rio, a city of about 35,000 people roughly 145 miles (230 kilometers) west of San Antonio. He said he has asked the Defense Department for help in what may be one of the swiftest, large-scale expulsions of migrants and refugees from the United States in decades. He also said the U.S. would increase the pace and capacity of flights to Haiti and other countries in the hemisphere. The number of migrants at the bridge peaked at 14,872 on Saturday, said Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a labor union that represents agents. “When it was reported that were flights going back to Haiti, it got around almost immediately,” he said. “There has been talk that some of them are going to go back (to Mexico) but we have not seen very much movement.” Haitians have been migrating to the U.S. in large numbers from South America for several years, many having left their Caribbean nation after a devastating 2010 earthquake. After jobs dried up from the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, many made the dangerous trek by foot, bus and car to the U.S. border, including through the infamous Darien Gap, a Panamanian jungle. Some of the migrants at the Del Rio camp said the recent devastating earthquake in Haiti and the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse make them afraid to return to a country that seems more unstable than when they left. “In Haiti, there is no security,” said Fabricio Jean, a 38-year-old Haitian who arrived in Texas with his wife and two daughters. “The country is in a political crisis.” These really are heart-breaking scenarios. On the one hand, Christians are called to be open-handed and generous with the strangers and foreigners. On the other hand, we are not called to be open-handed foolishly, in a way that destroys our ability our duties, like protecting our families and neighbors from criminals. On the third hand, we have created a hand-out nanny state that invites this kind of mass migration, and on the fourth hand, despite all our problems, America is still a land with a lot more stability and opportunity than many other places. Why? Because there is still a semblance of Christianity here. Do not tell me that Christianity is not political. Christianity creates stable families, businesses, and nations. But we are fast throwing all of that away. Do not think that we cannot become a Haiti. Mayor Deblasio Has a Message: If You Have a Dirt Bike in NYC, It Will Be Crushed. https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1438664600053063683?s=20 Play Audio I can't believe this is real. Somebody please tell me this is a parody, a joke. Dirt bikes are dangerous Against the law Some problems are tough to overcome, but other problems you can smash and crush… I'm sorry, but we know what you mean by that. You mean little babies that are inconvenient. You and your other blood-thirsty cronies lit up the empire state building pink to celebrate it. This is hilarious and hilariously foolish. SF Mayor Explains Why She Did Not Follow Her Own Mask Mandate: https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1439969764852572170?s=20 Play Audio I've been feeling the spirit since this whole charade began. Speaking of the Spirit, we need a psalm of the day Psalm of the Day: Psalm 8 Play audio: 0:00-1:09 Out of the mouths of infants, God has ordained strength, to silence the enemy and avenger. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. This is Toby Sumpter with Crosspolitic News. A reminder: if you see news stories and links that you think we should cover on the daily news brief, please send them to news @ crosspolitic.com and don't forget to check deft wire dot com where we are constantly posting all our stories. Support Rowdy Christian media, and share this show or become a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member. You always get a free Fight Laugh Feast t-shirt with a membership and remember if you didn't make it to the Fight Laugh Feast Conferences, club members have access to all the talks and lots more. Join today and have a great day.

For the military, capabilities in the field matter most, not R&D. So, when it comes to artificial intelligence, the Defense Department has been moving quickly by standing up a special team, like a startup enterprise. Its first pilot project, “Project Maven,” began as an intelligence application. Now the push is on to apply it in other areas. Rob and Jackie sat down with retired Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, the first director of the Defense Department's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), to discuss how AI is being used in the defense world and the implications for the broader AI ecosystem. MentionedDaniel Castro, Michael McLaughlin, “Who Is Winning the AI Race: China, the EU, or the United States? — 2021 Update” (Center for Data Innovation, 2021).Rob Atkinson, Jackie Whisman, “Podcast: Innovating in the Defense Sector to Remain Competitive With China, Featuring Michael Brown” (ITIF, 2021).RelatedEvent, “How to Deepen Transatlantic Cooperation in AI for Defense” (CDI, 2021).Rob Atkinson, “Emerging Defense Technologies Need Funding to Cross ‘The Valley of Death'” (RealClear Defense, 2020).ITIF, “ITIF Technology Explainer: What Is Artificial Intelligence?” (ITIF, 2018).

Photo: The distinguished Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times all occasionally descend into tabloidism. @Batchelorshow 4/12: #CrossfireHurricaneDiary: Over three days, 2/28/17-3/4/17, Svetlana Lokhova is contacted by WSJ, WAPO, NYT, all of whom suspect her as a Russian agent. Svetlana Lokhova @TheRealSLokhova. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-didnt-report-2014-interaction-with-russian-british-national-1489809842 "WASHINGTON-—Former national security adviser Mike Flynn interacted with a graduate student with dual Russian and British nationalities at a 2014 U.K. security conference, a contact that came to the notice of U.S. intelligence but that Mr. Flynn, then the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't disclose, according to people familiar with the matter. "Mr. Flynn met Svetlana Lokhova at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, a gathering of former intelligence officials hosted at Cambridge University, in February 2014. Ms. Lokhova at the time was a graduate student studying the history of Russian intelligence, according to two people who attended the event. "There is no record showing that Mr. Flynn reported his interaction with Ms. Lokhova to security officials in the Defense Department, said a former senior U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. As the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is part of the Pentagon and the military's largest intelligence organization, Mr. Flynn was expected to notify officials about any contacts with foreigners he didn't know, particularly from an adversary nation such as Russia, the former official said...."

Elbridge Colby, co-founder of The Marathon Initiative, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Force Development at the Defense Department, and author of The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, joins The Realignment to discuss the War on Terror's legacy, how great power conflict will change U.S. foreign policy, and it will reshape the military and American society as a whole. New Yorker Profile: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/will-the-next-american-war-be-with-china

Defense Department seeks nuclear propulsion for small spacecraft; Epic appeals ruling in lawsuit against Apple over App Store rules

The war in Afghanistan is over. In this episode, we document how and why the Biden administration finally admitted defeat in our 20 year attempt to create a new government in Afghanistan and we take a hard look at the lessons we need to learn. Afghanistan is a country in a far away land, but there are disturbing similarities between the Afghanistan government that just collapsed and our own. We'd be wise not to ignore them. Executive Producer: Rachel Passer Executive Producer: Anonymous  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD210: The Afghanistan War CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War How We Got Here Craig Whitlock. The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Patrick Tucker. August 18, 2021. “Trump's Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says.” Defense One. Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley. August 17, 2021. “Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.” FactCheck.org. Eric Schmitt and Jennifer Steinhauer. July 30, 2021. “Afghan Visa Applicants Arrive in U.S. After Years of Waiting.” The New York Times. Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh. December 9, 2019. “The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war.” The Washington Post. Mark Landler and James Risen. July 25, 2017. “Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals.” The New York Times. John F. Harris. October 15, 2001. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden ” Washington Post. The Evacuation: Those Left Behind William Mauldin. September 2, 2021. “Afghanistan Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Staff Left Behind.” Wall Street Journal. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni. August 29, 2021. “Series of U.S. Actions Left Afghan Allies Frantic, Stranded and Eager to Get Out.” The York Times. Sami Sadat. August 25, 2021. “I Commanded Afghan Troops This Year. We Were Betrayed.” The New York Times. Marjorie Censer. August 18, 2021. “US contractors rush to get former employees out of Afghanistan.” Defense News. Siobhan Hughes. August 18, 2021. “Afghanistan Veterans in Congress Trying to Prevent ‘a Death Warrant' for Helping America.” Wall Street Journal. Alex Sanz and Tammy Webber. August 18, 2021. “US friends try to rescue brother in arms in Afghanistan.” AP News. Seth Moulton. June 04, 2021. "Moulton, Bipartisan Honoring Our Promises Working Group to White House: Evacuate our Afghan Partners.” Contractors in Afghanistan Matt Taibbi. August 18, 2021. “We Failed Afghanistan, Not the Other Way Around.” TK News by Matt Taibbi on Substack. Jack Detsch. August 16, 2021. “Departure of Private Contractors Was a Turning Point in Afghan Military's Collapse.” Foreign Policy. Matt Stoller. July 15, 2021. “‘A Real S*** Show': Soldiers Angrily Speak Out about Being Blocked from Repairing Equipment by Contractors.” BIG by Matt Stoller. Lynzy Billing. May 12, 2021. “The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan? Tell That to the Contractors.” New York Magazine. Oren Liebermann. March 29, 2021. “Pentagon could open itself to costly litigation from contractors if US pulls out of Afghanistan this year.” CNN. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. “Comment Submitted by Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman.” [Regulations.gov(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations.gov). Aaron Mehta. Oct 25, 2016. “30 Years: William Perry — Reshaping the Industry.” Defense News. Jared Serbu. August 22, 2016. “DoD now awarding more than half its contract spending without competitive bids.” Federal News Network. 41 U.S. Code § 3307 - Preference for commercial products and commercial services. Money: Lost and Gained David Moore. August 23, 2021. “Lawmakers Benefit From Booming Defense Stocks.” Sludge. Lee Fang. August 20, 2021. “Congressman Seeking to Relaunch Afghan War Made Millions in Defense Contracting.” The Intercept. Anna Massoglia and Julia Forrest. August 20, 2021. “Defense contractors spent big in Afghanistan before the U.S. left and the Taliban took control.” OpenSecrets.org. Stephen Losey. April 16, 2021. “The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising.” Military.com. Eli Clifton. February 16, 2021. “Weapons Biz Bankrolls Experts Pushing to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan.” Daily Beast. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Lobbying, 2021. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Money to Congress. Laws S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 Sponsor: Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Status: Became Public Law No: 116-92 on December 20, 2019 H.R. 3237: Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 May 20 House Vote Breakdown Congressional Budget Office Score Law Outline TITLE IV: BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM Sec. 401: Amends the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expand eligibility to include Afghans who worked not only for the US Government for more than 1 year but also our allies as an off-base interpreter or if they performed "activities for United States military stationed at International Security Assistance Force (or any successor name for such Force). Increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to Afghan partners by 8,000, for a total of 34,500 allocated since December 19, 2014. Sec. 402: Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of state to jointly waive for 1 year (maximum 2 years with an extension) the requirement that Afghan partners eligible for SIVs get a medical exam before they can receive their visa. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to create a process to make sure Afghan SIV holders get a medical exam within 30 days of entry into the United States. Sec. 403: Allows the surviving spouse or child or employee of the United States Government abroad to be eligible for immigration into the United States if the employee worked for our government for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. It also expands entry permissions for Afghan SIV applicants in addition to those who have already been approved. This is retroactive to June 30, 2021. Policies for Visa Processing: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Policy Manual, Chapter 9: Certain Afghan Nationals U.S Department of State -- Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans - Who Were Employed by/on Behalf of the U.S. Government.” Audio Sources Gen. Mark Milley: "There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days." August 18, 2021 General Mark Milley: The time frame of rapid collapse that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks to months, and even years following our departure, there was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days. Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. These plans were coordinated, synchronized and rehearsed to deal with these various scenarios. One of those contingencies is what we are executing right now. As I said before, there's plenty of time to do AARs(After Action Reviews) and key lessons learned and to delve into these questions with great detail. But right now is not that time. Right now, we have to focus on this mission, because we have soldiers at risk. And we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk. This is personal and we're going to get them out. President Biden on Afghanistan Withdrawal Transcript July 8, 2021 Sound Clips 01:30 President Biden: When I announced our drawdown in April, I said we would be out by September, and we're on track to meet that target. Our military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31. The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way, prioritizing the safety of our troops as they depart 3:40 President Biden: Together with our NATO allies and partners, we have trained and equipped nearly 300,000 current serving members of the military, the Afghan national security force, and many beyond that are no longer serving. Add to that hundreds of thousands more Afghan national defense and security forces trained over the last two decades. 04:04 President Biden: We provided our Afghan partners with all the tools, let me emphasize, all the tools -- training, equipment -- of any modern military. We provided advanced weaponry, and we're going to continue to provide funding and equipment and we'll ensure they have the capacity to maintain their Air Force. 5:54 President Biden: We're also going to continue to make sure that we take on Afghan nationals who worked side by side with US forces, including interpreters and translators. Since we're no longer going to have military there after this, we're not going to need them and they'll have no jobs. We're [sic] also going to be vital to our efforts. they've been very vital, and so their families are not exposed to danger as well. We've already dramatically accelerated the procedure time for Special Immigrant Visas to bring them to the United States. Since I was inaugurated on January 20, we've already approved 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas to come to the United States. Up to now, fewer than half have exercised the right to do that. Half have gotten on aircraft and come commercial flights and come and other half believe they want to stay, at least thus far. We're working closely with Congress to change the authorization legislation so that we can streamline the process of approving those visas. And those who have stood up for the operation to physically relocate 1000s of Afghans and their families before the US military mission concludes so that, if they choose, they can wait safely outside of Afghanistan, while their US visas are being processed. 8:13 President Biden: For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months, or just one more year, I asked them to consider the lessons of recent history. In 2011, the NATO allies and partners agreed that we would end our combat mission in 2014. In 2014, some argued one more year. So we kept fighting. We kept taking casualties. In 2015, the same, and on and on. Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that just one more year of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution, but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It's up to the Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country. Others are more direct. Their argument is that we should stay with the Afghans and Afghanistan indefinitely. In doing so they point to the fact that we we have not taken losses in this last year. So they claim that the cost of just maintaining the status quo is minimal. 9:19 President Biden: But that ignores the reality, and the facts that already presented on the ground in Afghanistan when I took office. The Taliban is at its strongest militarily since 2001. The number of US forces in Afghanistan had been reduced to a bare minimum. And the United States and the last administration made an agreement that they have to with the Taliban remove all our forces by May 1 of this year. That's what I inherited. That agreement was the reason the Taliban had ceased major attacks against US forces. 9:55 President Biden: If in April, I had instead announced that the United States was going to go back on that agreement, made by the last administration, the United States and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, the Taliban would have again begun to target our forces. The status quo was not an option. Staying would have meant US troops taking casualties, American men and women back in the middle of a civil war, and we would run the risk of having to send more troops back in Afghanistan to defend our remaining troops. Once that agreement with the Taliban had been made, staying with a bare minimum force was no longer possible. 10:34 President Biden: So let me ask those who want us to stay: how many more? How many 1000s more Americans' daughters and sons are you willing to risk? How long would you have them stay? Already we have members of our military whose parents fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Would you send their children and their grandchildren as well? Would you send your own son or daughter? After 20 years, a trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of 1000s of Afghan National Security and Defence Forces. 2,448 Americans killed, 20,722 more wounded, and untold 1000s coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. 11:51 President Biden: Today the terrorist threat has metastasized beyond Afghanistan. So, we are repositioning our resources and adapting our counterterrorism posture to meet the threats where they are now: significantly higher in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 12:07 President Biden: But make no mistake, our military and intelligence leaders are confident they have the capabilities to protect the homeland and our interests from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from Afghanistan. We're developing a counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed at any direct threat to the United States in the region and act quickly and decisively if needed. 12:38 President Biden: We also need to focus on shoring up America's core strengths to meet the strategic competition competition with China and other nations that is really going to determine our future. 14:58 Reporter: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? President Biden: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops, 300,000. Well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. 15:45 President Biden: Do I trust the Taliban? No, but I trust the capacity of the Afghan military who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war. 18:07 Reporter: Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse President Biden: That is not true 18:53 President Biden: And I want to make clear what I made clear to Ghani, that we are not going to walk away and not sustain their ability to maintain that force. We are. We're going to also work to make sure we help them in terms of everything from food necessities and other things in the region. But there is not a conclusion that in fact, they cannot defeat the Taliban. I believe the only way there's going to be -- this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community -- the only way there's only going to be peace and secure in Afghanistan, is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and they make a judgement as to how they can make peace. And the likelihood there's going to be one unified government in Afghanistan, controlling the whole country is highly unlikely. 21:30 Reporter: Mr. President, how serious was the corruption among the Afghanistan government to this mission failing there? President Biden: First of all, the mission hasn't failed yet. 22:00 President Biden: There were going to be negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan national security forces, and the Afghan government that didn't come to fruition. So the question now is where do they go from here? The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. 23:20 Reporter: Mr. President, "speed is safety," as you just said in your remarks. Are you satisfied with the timeline of relocating Afghan nationals? Is it happening quickly enough to your satisfaction if it may not happen until next month at the end? President Biden: It has already happened, there have already been people, about 1000 people have gotten on aircraft and come to the United States already on commercial aircraft. So as I said, there's over 2500 people, that as from January to now, have have gotten those visas and only half decided that they wanted to leave. The point is that I think the whole process has to be speeded up -- period -- in terms of being able to get these visas. Reporter: Why can't the US evacuate these Afghan translators to the United States to await their visa processing as some immigrants of the southern border have been allowed to? President Biden: Because the law doesn't allow that to happen. And that's why we're asking the Congress to consider changing the law. President Biden Remarks on Afghanistan Strategy Transcript April 14, 2021 Sound Clips 00:38 President Biden: I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt -- the Treaty room in the White House -- the same spot where in October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls, that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon and made hallowed ground in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would never forget. We went to Afghanistan in 2001, to root out al Qaeda to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear, the cause was just, our NATO allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress. More than seven years later, in 2008 weeks before we swore the oath of office -- President Obama and I were about to swear -- President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged, mountainous region on the border of Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country. And that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan Government. I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that, we accomplished that objective. I said, along with others, we would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did. And we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment into form. And that's exactly what happened Osama bin Laden was gone. That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to Bin Laden a decade ago. And we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. Al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. With the terror threat now in many places, keeping 1000s of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdraw and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. 5:01 President Biden: When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all US forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited. That commitment is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government. And that means something. So in keeping with that agreement, and with our national interest, the United States will begin our final withdrawal beginning on May 1 of this year. 8:11 President Biden: You all know that less than 1% of Americans serve in our Armed Forces. The remaining 99%, we owe them. We owe them. They've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) High-Risk List Center for Strategic and International Studies Transcript March 10, 2021 Speaker: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Sound Clips 7:40 John Sopko: But right now, that state is under threat. In the wake of the February 2020 withdrawal agreement, all is not well. Compromise appears in short supply on either side. Taliban attacks have actually increased since the agreement was signed. Assassination of prominent officials, activists, journalists, aid workers and others have also increased, including an unsuccessful attack on one of the female members of the peace negotiating team. And the Taliban offensive on Kandahar city last October, as peace negotiations were ongoing, may well have succeeded, were it not for U.S. air support. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have achieved little for Afghanistan so far, and only time will tell as to whether the new Biden administration initiative will bear fruit. And the Afghan people's fears for its own government survival are exacerbated by the knowledge of how dependent their country is on foreign military and financial support. 12:56 John Sopko: Another equally serious threat to Afghanistan's stability has also largely been ignored as we focus on the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is the provision of last year's U.S.-Taliban agreement that stipulates that in addition to the departure of U.S. and coalition troops, or non-diplomatic civilian personnel: private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting service personnel also must leave the country by May 1. Should this come to passSIGAR and many others believe this may be more devastating to the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces than the withdrawal of our remaining troops. Why is that? Because the Afghan government relies heavily on these foreign contractors and trainers to function. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 there are over 18,000 Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan, including 6000 Americans, and 7,000 3rd country nationals, 40% of whom are responsible for logistics, maintenance, or training tasks. Now, it is well known that the Afghan security forces need these contractors to maintain their equipment, manage supply chains, and train their military and police to operate the advanced equipment that we have purchased for them. For example, as of December, the Afghan National Army was completing just under 20% of its own maintenance work orders, well below the goal of 80% that was set and the 51% that they did in 2018. So that's actually going down. The Afghan National Police were just as bad if not worse, undertaking only 12% of their own maintenance work against a target of 35% and less than the 16% that we reported in our 2019 high risk list. Additionally, and more troubling. The Department of Defense does train, advise and assist command air, or commonly called TAC air recently reported that since late 2019, they have reduced their personnel in Afghanistan by 94%, and that the military drawdown now requires near total use of contract support to maintain the Afghan Air fleet. They assess that quote “further drawdown in the associated closure basis will effectively end all in country aviation training contracts in Afghanistan.” Again, why is this significant? Why do we view this as a high risk? Namely because contractors currently provide 100% of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force, UAE 60 helicopters and CE 130 cargo aircraft and a significant portion of Afghans Light Combat Support aircraft. TAC air this January gave a bleak assessment, namely, that no Afghan airframe can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months in the absence of contractor support. 17:51 John Sopko: Continued funding for U.S. reconstruction programs aimed at promoting economic development, rule of law, respect for human rights, good governance and security for the Afghan people may be more significant, because it may be the primary lever left for the US and other donors to influence that country. It appears that even the Taliban understand Afghanistan's dire need for foreign assistance. Because, as one of the few commitments that the US had to make last year was, “to seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, with the new post settlement, Afghan Islamic government.” Now how much the donor community wishes to stay involved will of course depend on what that government looks like and how it behaves. Numerous officials, including then Secretary of State Pompeo and Ambassador Halley, have stated that the US will be able to advance its human rights goals, including the rights of women and girls with the Taliban by leveraging or conditioning this much needed financial assistance. But unfortunately, as SIGAR has long reported, even when conditionality involved only dealing with the Afghan government, donors do not have a stellar record of successfully utilizing that conditionality to influence Afghan behavior. 27:19 John Sopko: Today our report suggests the donor community should realize the Afghan government is focused on a single goal, its survival. Afghanistan is more dependent on international support than ever before. It may not be an overstatement that if foreign assistance is withdrawn and peace negotiations fail, Taliban forces could be at the gates of Kabul in short order. Hearing: A PATHWAY FOR PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN: EXAMINING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Subcommittee on National Security February 19, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Afghanistan Study Group officials: Kelly A. Ayotte, Co-Chair; News Corp Board of Directors since April 2017 BAE Systems Board of Directors since June 2017 Blackstone Board of Directors Boston Properties Board of Directors Caterpillar Board of Directors Board of Advisors at Cirtronics General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. (Retired), Co-Chair Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Lockheed Martin Board of Directors since February 2020 Nancy Lindborg, Co-Chair President and CEO of the David Lucile Packard Foundation Former President and CEO of the US Institute for Peace Former Assistant Administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at USAID During the mid-Obama years. Sound Clips 3:13 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I'd also like to take a moment to thank the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace for the support and expertise they provided to the study group during the course of its work. 3:23 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill Congress led by Senator Graham Senator Patrick Leahy and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of state foreign ops and related programs. They tasked the independent and bipartisan Afghanistan study group to quote, consider the implications of a peace settlement or the failure to reach a settlement on US policy, resources and commitments in Afghanistan. After nearly nine months of review and consultation with current and former US and Afghan government officials, allies and partners and other key stakeholders, the Afghanistan study group issued its final report earlier this month. 15:12 Kelly Ayotte: We recommend that US troops remain beyond may 1. We believe a precipitous withdrawal of US and international troops in May, would be catastrophic for Afghanistan, leading to civil war, and allow the reconstitution of terror groups which threaten the United States within an 18 to 36 month period. 15:41 Kelly Ayotte: Let me be clear, although we recommend that our troops remain beyond may 1, we propose a new approach toward Afghanistan, which aligns our policies, practices and messaging across the United States government to support the Afghan peace process, rather than prosecute a war. Our troops would remain not to fight a forever war, but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again, for terrorists who threaten the United States of America. 37:15 General Joseph F. Dunford: Do we need to increase forces if the Taliban don't accept an extension past the first of May, and if they then would re initiate attacks against US forces? and Chairman, we heard exactly what you heard. In the fall. What we were told by commanders on the ground in the department of fence was that 4500 US forces, in addition to the NATO forces that are there was the minimum level to address both the mission as well as protection of our forces in the context of the conditions that existed in the fall in as you've highlighted, those conditions have only gotten worse since the fall so in in our judgment 2500 would not be adequate. Should the Taliban re initiate attacks against the United States Hearing: Examining the Trump Administration's Afghanistan Strategy House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on National Security January 28, 2020 Witness: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Sound Clips 48:54 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command, all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success, and that goes up. 54:24 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time,be cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that onus, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 1:10:25 John Sopko: Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. Wartime Contracting Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs September 21, 2011 Witnesses: Charles Tiefer: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Clark Kent Ervin: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Sound Clips 1:11:30 Charles Tiefer: Our private security in Afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoffs to the Taliban. Our report has the first official statement that it's the second-largest source of money for the Taliban. Sen. Carl Levin: After drugs. Charles Tiefer: After drugs, that's right. 1:25:18 Clark Kent Ervin: It's critical that the government have a choice, and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable, organic capacity on the part of these three agencies to perform missions themselves, so the next time there's a contingency, the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in-house and the determination can be made whether it's more effective to do it either way, whether it's cheaper to do it either way. As we said at the inception, right now the government doesn't have an option. Contractors are the default option because they're the only option. President George W. Bush announces U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan October 7, 2001 President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: close terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. ** International Campaign Against Terrorism Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 25, 2001 Witness: Colin Powell: Secretary of State Sound Clip 27:00 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. Executive Producer Recommendations Elect Stephanie Gallardo 2022 Krystal Kyle and Friends. August 21, 2021. “Episode 35 Audio with Matthew Hoh.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

WHY YOU MUST WATCH THIS NOW HIGHIGHTS:DANIEL Sheehan, esq: Famed Attorney in the fight with the #Pentagon to quicken #UFO #Disclosure & #Extraterrestrial Contact, on Dare to Dream Podcast with Debbi Dachinger-Why the ETs are here – their real mission?-Our true ET history and cover-ups-UFO sightings & direct contact-On the U.S. Defense Department lying about the UFO issue#DanielSheehan #UFO #ET #podcast #DebbiDachinger #AlienDisclosure #SETIProject #DareToDream #NASA #UFOSightings #CloseEncounters #AlienTechnology #Conspiracy #AlienSighting #UFONews #Attorney #Lakota #DisclosureProject #truth #GlobalWarming

Melanie Benesh is a Legislative Attorney at EWG (Environmental Working Group). PFAS at Defense Department sites threatens Great Lakes fish, residents, CONTINUED.

Melanie Benesh is a Legislative Attorney at EWG (Environmental Working Group). PFAS at Defense Department sites threatens Great Lakes fish, residents

If America's private security contractors sometimes run out of control, security industry scholar David Isenberg says the reason is, the people who hire them at the Defense Department are happy with the arrangement.  He cites recent reports from the Government Accounting Office (the GAO) on all things the Pentagon doesn't know about its PSCs, including how many they have, where they are and what they're doing.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban taking over the region and all the deadly events that have followed is having a major impact on many veterans, especially those who served in America's longest war. Even before the deadly terrorist attack in Kabul, the Defense Department and the Marine Corps two top commanders reached out to veterans, especially those wondering is their sacrifice was worth it; praising them for their service while urging them to take advantage of mental health resources if needed. A study released by the Cost of War Project in June estimated that more than 30,000 War on Terror veterans have died by suicide, compared to more than 7-thousan who were deployed, Earlier this week, host Lisa Brady spoke retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Christian Cabaniss about veterans' reaction to the Afghanistan withdrawal and the mental health struggles they currently face. The conversation was too long and we could not include the whole interview with the colonel. On today's FOX News Rundown EXTRA you will hear Colonel Cabaniss discuss the progress made on the mental health front, the many challenges that still remain for the men and women who served, what he wants the American public to recognize about those who have served this country and how the government and communities can help.

James Mievaldis - Afghan translators to America as promised by the defense department. by John Catsimatidis

The death toll in Thursday's suicide bombing outside Kabul's airport has risen. At least 169 Afghan civilians were killed, along with 13 U.S. service members. The Defense Department said Friday it was the work of one Islamic State bomber, not two as originally reported. Meanwhile, the U.S. and allies flew out 12,500 more people. More than 105,000 people have been evacuated. Jane Ferguson reports. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The death toll in Thursday's suicide bombing outside Kabul's airport has risen. At least 169 Afghan civilians were killed, along with 13 U.S. service members. The Defense Department said Friday it was the work of one Islamic State bomber, not two as originally reported. Meanwhile, the U.S. and allies flew out 12,500 more people. More than 105,000 people have been evacuated. Jane Ferguson reports. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

From the Taliban to Hezbollah, armed nonstate actors and civil warfare have dominated the US national security debate for much of the last 20 years. Yet, most analysis shares a critical underlying assumption: that non-state actors fight very differently than states do. In Nonstate Warfare: The Military Methods of Guerillas, Warlords and Militias (Princeton UP, 2021), Dr. Stephen Biddle argues that those ideas are not just misleading but dangerous. Through a careful review of five nonstate actors, Dr. Biddle shows that state and nonstate military methods vary more by degree than by kind. Still, degrees do matter. To predict how “conventionally” or “unconventionally” a nonstate actor will fight, Dr. Biddle develops a theory reliant on two key variables: the stakes leaders perceive in a conflict and the strength of a nonstate actor's institutions. The greater either variable, the more that actor will fight like we expect states to: defending and seizing ground, concentrating forces, employing heavy weapons, and implementing a stratified theater of war. On the episode, we talk about all that and more. I ask Dr. Biddle about the flaws in status quo theories of nonstate military methods, how the lethality of the modern battlefield creates similar tactical incentives for state and nonstate militaries, and what the implications of his theory are for international politics writ large and US defense planning in particular. Note: At the very end, I ask Dr. Biddle, who spent time on Defense Department analytical staffs focused on Afghanistan, for his opinion on the rapid advance of the Taliban. Please note that he is a private citizen and his statements do not represent the official view of the government. The podcast was also recorded on 7/13, two days before the fall of Kabul. Dr. Biddle is a Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, a member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Biddle has served on the Defense Department's Defense Policy Board, on General David Petraeus's Joint Strategic Assessment Team in Baghdad in 2007, as a Senior Advisor to the Central Command Assessment Team in Washington in 2008-9, and as a member of General Stanley McChrystal's Initial Strategic Assessment Team in Kabul in 2009, among other government advisory panels and analytic teams. John Sakellariadis is a 2021-2022 Fulbright US Student Research Grantee. He holds a Master's degree in public policy from the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia and a Bachelor's degree in History & Literature from Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

From the Taliban to Hezbollah, armed nonstate actors and civil warfare have dominated the US national security debate for much of the last 20 years. Yet, most analysis shares a critical underlying assumption: that non-state actors fight very differently than states do. In Nonstate Warfare: The Military Methods of Guerillas, Warlords and Militias (Princeton UP, 2021), Dr. Stephen Biddle argues that those ideas are not just misleading but dangerous. Through a careful review of five nonstate actors, Dr. Biddle shows that state and nonstate military methods vary more by degree than by kind. Still, degrees do matter. To predict how “conventionally” or “unconventionally” a nonstate actor will fight, Dr. Biddle develops a theory reliant on two key variables: the stakes leaders perceive in a conflict and the strength of a nonstate actor's institutions. The greater either variable, the more that actor will fight like we expect states to: defending and seizing ground, concentrating forces, employing heavy weapons, and implementing a stratified theater of war. On the episode, we talk about all that and more. I ask Dr. Biddle about the flaws in status quo theories of nonstate military methods, how the lethality of the modern battlefield creates similar tactical incentives for state and nonstate militaries, and what the implications of his theory are for international politics writ large and US defense planning in particular. Note: At the very end, I ask Dr. Biddle, who spent time on Defense Department analytical staffs focused on Afghanistan, for his opinion on the rapid advance of the Taliban. Please note that he is a private citizen and his statements do not represent the official view of the government. The podcast was also recorded on 7/13, two days before the fall of Kabul. Dr. Biddle is a Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, a member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition to his academic work, Dr. Biddle has served on the Defense Department's Defense Policy Board, on General David Petraeus's Joint Strategic Assessment Team in Baghdad in 2007, as a Senior Advisor to the Central Command Assessment Team in Washington in 2008-9, and as a member of General Stanley McChrystal's Initial Strategic Assessment Team in Kabul in 2009, among other government advisory panels and analytic teams. John Sakellariadis is a 2021-2022 Fulbright US Student Research Grantee. He holds a Master's degree in public policy from the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia and a Bachelor's degree in History & Literature from Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Today's episode on spam is read by the illustrious Joel Rennich. Spam is irrelevant or inappropriate and unsolicited messages usually sent to a large number of recipients through electronic means. And while we probably think of spam as something new today, it's worth noting that the first documented piece of spam was sent in 1864 - through the telegraph. With the advent of new technologies like the fax machine and telephone, messages and unsolicited calls were quick to show up. Ray Tomlinson is widely accepted as the inventor of email, developing the first mail application in 1971 for the ARPANET. It took longer than one might expect to get abused, likely because it was mostly researchers and people from the military industrial research community. Then in 1978, Gary Thuerk at Digital Equipment Corporation decided to send out a message about the new VAX computer being released by Digital. At the time, there were 2,600 email accounts on ARPANET and his message found its way to 400 of them. That's a little over 15% of the Internet at the time. Can you imagine sending a message to 15% of the Internet today? That would be nearly 600 million people. But it worked. Supposedly he closed $12 million in deals despite rampant complaints back to the Defense Department. But it was too late; the damage was done. He proved that unsolicited junk mail would be a way to sell products. Others caught on. Like Dave Rhodes who popularized MAKE MONEY FAST chains in the 1988. Maybe not a real name but pyramid schemes probably go back to the pyramids so we might as well have them on the Internets. By 1993 unsolicited email was enough of an issue that we started calling it spam. That came from the Monty Python skit where Vikings in a cafe and spam was on everything on the menu. That spam was in reference to canned meat made of pork, sugar, water, salt, potato starch, and sodium nitrate that was originally developed by Jay Hormel in 1937 and due to how cheap and easy it was found itself part of a cultural shift in America. Spam came out of Austin, Minnesota. Jay's dad George incorporated Hormel in 1901 to process hogs and beef and developed canned lunchmeat that evolved into what we think of as Spam today. It was spiced ham, thus spam. During World War II, Spam would find its way to GIs fighting the war and Spam found its way to England and countries the war was being fought in. It was durable and could sit on a shelf for moths. From there it ended up in school lunches, and after fishing sanctions on Japanese-Americans in Hawaii restricted the foods they could haul in, spam found its way there and some countries grew to rely on it due to displaced residents following the war. And yet, it remains a point of scorn in some cases. As the Monty Python sketch mentions, spam was ubiquitous, unavoidable, and repetitive. Same with spam through our email. We rely on email. We need it. Email was the first real, killer app for the Internet. We communicate through it constantly. Despite the gelatinous meat we sometimes get when we expect we're about to land that big deal when we hear the chime that our email client got a new message. It's just unavoidable. That's why a repetitive poster on a list had his messages called spam and the use just grew from there. Spam isn't exclusive to email. Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel sent the first commercial Usenet spam in the “Green Card” just after the NSF allowed commercial activities on the Internet. It was a simple Perl script to sell people on the idea of paying a fee to have them enroll people into the green card lottery. They made over $100,000 and even went so far as to publish a book on guerrilla marketing on the Internet. Canter got disbarred for illegal advertising in 1997. Over the years new ways have come about to try and combat spam. RBLs, or using DNS blacklists to mark hosts as unable to send blacklists and thus having port 25 blocked emerged in 1996 from the Mail Abuse Prevention System, or MAPS. Developed by Dave Rand and Paul Vixie, the list of IP addresses helped for a bit. That is, until spammers realized they could just send from a different IP. Vixie also mentioned the idea of of matching a sender claim to a mail server a message came from as a means of limiting spam, a concept that would later come up again and evolve into the Sender Policy Framework, or SPF for short. That's around the same time Steve Linford founded Spamhaus to block anyone that knowingly spams or provides services to spammers. If you have a cable modem and try to setup an email server on it you've probably had to first get them to unblock your address from their Don't Route list. The next year Mark Jeftovic created a tool called filter.plx to help filter out spam and that project got picked up by Justin Mason who uploaded his new filter to SourceForge in 2001. A filter he called SpamAssassin. Because ninjas are cooler than pirates. Paul Graham, the co-creator of Y Combinator (and author a LISP-like programming language) wrote a paper he called “A Plan for Spam” in 2002. He proposed using a Bayesian filter as antivirus software vendors used to combat spam. That would be embraced and is one of the more common methods still used to block spam. In the paper he would go into detail around how scoring of various words would work and probabilities that compared to the rest of his email that a spam would get flagged. That Bayesian filter would be added to SpamAssassin and others the next year. Dana Valerie Reese came up with the idea for matching sender claims independently and she and Vixie both sparked a conversation and the creation of the Anti-Spam Research Group in the IETF. The European Parliament released the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications in the EU criminalizing spam. Australia and Canada followed suit. 2003 also saw the first laws in the US regarding spam. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was signed by President George Bush in 2003 and allowed the FTC to regulate unsolicited commercial emails. Here we got the double-opt-in to receive commercial messages and it didn't take long before the new law was used to prosecute spammers with Nicholas Tombros getting the dubious honor of being the first spammer convicted. What was his spam selling? Porn. He got a $10,000 fine and six months of house arrest. Fighting spam with laws turned international. Christopher Pierson was charged with malicious communication after he sent hoax emails. And even though spammers were getting fined and put in jail all the time, the amount of spam continued to increase. We had pattern filters, Bayesian filters, and even the threat of legal action. But the IETF Anti-Spam Research Group specifications were merged by Meng Weng Wong and by 2006 W. Schlitt joined the paper to form a new Internet standard called the Sender Policy Framework which lives on in RFC 7208. There are a lot of moving parts but at the heart of it, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, or SMTP, allows sending mail from any connection over port 25 (or others if it's SSL-enabled) and allowing a message to pass requiring very little information - although the sender or sending claim is a requirement. A common troubleshooting technique used to be simply telnetting into port 25 and sending a message from an address to a mailbox on a mail server. Theoretically one could take the MX record, or the DNS record that lists the mail server to deliver mail bound for a domain to and force all outgoing mail to match that. However, due to so much spam, some companies have dedicated outbound mail servers that are different than their MX record and block outgoing mail like people might send if they're using personal mail at work. In order not to disrupt a lot of valid use cases for mail, SPF had administrators create TXT records in DNS that listed which servers could send mail on their behalf. Now a filter could check the header for the SMTP server of a given message and know that it didn't match a server that was allowed to send mail. And so a large chunk of spam was blocked. Yet people still get spam for a variety of reasons. One is that new servers go up all the time just to send junk mail. Another is that email accounts get compromised and used to send mail. Another is that mail servers get compromised. We have filters and even Bayesian and more advanced forms of machine learning. Heck, sometimes we even sign up for a list by giving our email out when buying something from a reputable site or retail vendor. Spam accounts for over 90% of the total email traffic on the Internet. This is despite blacklists, SPF, and filters. And despite the laws and threats spam continues. And it pays well. We mentioned Canter & Sigel. Shane Atkinson was sending 100 million emails per day in 2003. That doesn't happen for free. Nathan Blecharczyk, a co-founder of Airbnb paid his way through Harvard on the back of spam. Some spam sells legitimate products in illegitimate ways, as we saw with early IoT standard X10. Some is used to spread hate and disinformation, going back to Sender Argic, known for denying the Armenian genocide through newsgroups in 1994. Long before infowars existed. Peter Francis-Macrae sent spam to solicit buying domains he didn't own. He was convicted after resorting to blackmail and threats. Jody Michael Smith sold replica watches and served almost a year in prison after he got caught. Some spam is sent to get hosts loaded with malware so they could be controlled as happened with Peter Levashov, the Russian czar of the Kelihos botnet. Oleg Nikolaenko was arrested by the FBI in 2010 for spamming to get hosts in his Mega-D botnet. The Russians are good at this; they even registered the Russian Business Network as a website in 2006 to promote running an ISP for phishing, spam, and the Storm botnet. Maybe Flyman is connected to the Russian oligarchs and so continues to be allowed to operate under the radar. They remain one of the more prolific spammers. Much is sent by a small number of spammers. Khan C. Smith sent a quarter of the spam in the world until he got caught in 2001 and fined $25 million. Again, spam isn't limited to just email. It showed up on Usenet in the early days. And AOL sued Chris “Rizler” Smith for over $5M for his spam on their network. Adam Guerbuez was fined over $800 million dollars for spamming Facebook. And LinkedIn allows people to send me unsolicited messages if they pay extra, probably why Microsoft payed $26 billion for the social network. Spam has been with us since the telegraph; it isn't going anywhere. But we can't allow it to run unchecked. The legitimate organizations that use unsolicited messages to drive business help obfuscate the illegitimate acts where people are looking to steal identities or worse. Gary Thuerk opened a Pandora's box that would have been opened if hadn't of done so. The rise of the commercial Internet and the co-opting of the emerging cyberspace as a place where privacy and so anonymity trump verification hit a global audience of people who are not equal. Inequality breeds crime. And so we continually have to rethink the answers to the question of sovereignty versus the common good. Think about that next time an IRS agent with a thick foreign accent calls asking for your social security number - and remember (if you're old enough) that we used to show our social security cards to grocery store clerks when we wrote checks. Can you imagine?!?!

Civilian control over the military, and a non-partisan military, have been bedrock principles of American government since the founding of the country. In recent times, however, significant strains have developed in our civil-military relations. Why should we be alarmed about the growing politicization of the military in America? Why must partisan neutrality prevail, and why must civilians avoid using the military to advance their own partisan causes? In this Conversation, Eric Edelman shares his perspective. Edelman organized an important letter in January 2021, signed by all living former secretaries of defense, reminding military and civilians at the Defense Department that the peaceful transfers of power...are hallmarks of our democracy. The need for such a letter, according to Edelman, underscores how the bedrock principles of American civil-military relations have been challenged, especially within the last years, both from within the ranks and in our politics. In this timely and urgent discussion, Edelman explains how we have reached the current situation. He calls for reinforcing the norm of keeping the military out of partisan politics—and politicians not seeking military support for partisan aims.

In a conversation fresh from the Freakonomics Radio Network's podcast laboratory, Michèle Flournoy (one of the highest-ranking women in Defense Department history) speaks with Cecil Haney (one of the U.S. Navy's first Black four-star admirals) about nuclear deterrence, smart leadership, and how to do inclusion right.

Dr. Stephen Bryen is a leading expert in security strategy and technology. He has held senior positions in the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill and as the President of a large multinational defense and technology company. Currently, Dr. Bryen is a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy, the Center for Security Policy. He has served as a senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the Executive Director of a grassroots political organization, as the head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy, and as the founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. He is the author of Technology Security and National Power: Winners and Losers, and of three volumes of Essays in Technology, Security and Strategy. Dr. Bryen was twice awarded the Defense Department's highest civilian honor, the Distinguished Service Medal.

US airlines activated by Defense Department to to assist with Afghanistan evacuation efforts. Biden's Approval Rating Hits Low. How Bill Gates Stays Rich. Mike Richards Out As ‘Jeopardy!' Host, Amidst “Booth Slut” & “Booth Ho” Comments Resurfacing. Sha'Carri Richardson Takes Dead Last In 100 Meter Race. Manny Pacquiao Loses To Fill In Opponent. Coach Prime Promotes COVID-19 Vaccine.    

This week, Americans watched in disbelief as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in a matter of days — and we wondered what Craig Whitlock was thinking. Two years ago he and a team at The Post published a prescient and ground-breaking project called “The Afghanistan Papers,” revealing hundreds of secret interviews with U.S. officials candidly discussing the failures of the war.The interviews with some 400 people were part of a project called “Lessons Learned,” undertaken by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, and The Post obtained them after a three-year legal battle. These Afghanistan papers are a secret history of the war, Whitlock tells Martine Powers, and “they contain these frank admissions of how the war was screwed up and that what the American people were being told about the war wasn't true.” “They really do bring to mind the Pentagon Papers, which were the Defense Department's top-secret history of the Vietnam War,” Whitlock says. These recordings have new resonance this week. Read excerpts from Craig Whitlock's new book, ‟The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War”.Deceptions and lies: What really happened in AfghanistanThe grand illusion: Hiding the truth about the Afghanistan war's ‘conclusion'

Secrets will be uncovered! A man manages to hack into the Defense Department and gets classified reports about aliens and UFOs, which he gives to Mulder. But the reports are encrypted and Mulder is acting erratic and unhinged. Scully tries to get the documents un-encrypted, while Mulder gets a call from his father, who needs to tell him something important... It *might* be (about) aliens! (Originally recorded: 25 July 2021) (Originally released: 20 August 2021) Links: The 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time: History's Biggest Mysteries, Coverups, and Cabals by Jonathan Vankin & John Whalen FBI Records: The Vault — Majestic 12 “Majestic 12” — Wikipedia “The Secret History of Majestic 12” — Skeptoid, Episode 528, July 19, 2016 “The Rumor Equation” — Strange Arrivals, S2 E11, July 19, 2021 References: The Unofficial X-Files Companion by N.E. Genge X Marks the Spot: On Location with The X-Files by Louisa Gradnitzer & Todd Pittson The Complete X-Files: Revised and Updated Edition by Matt Hurwitz & Chris Knowles The Truth is Out There: The Official Guide to The X-Files by Brian Lowry Music: “Dark Science” by David Hilowitz “The Truth Is What We Make of It” by The Agrarians You can find links to all our episodes, ways to subscribe, social media, and more here! https://linktr.ee/iwtrw --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Did you know that the Department of Defense (DOD) is mandating that suppliers have Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) to a prescribed level? In this episode, Frank Smith, Manager of Security and Consulting Practice at Ntiva, shares all you need to know about CMMC. Discover what CMMC is, why you should care, the requirements needed for certification, who needs to be certified, and more. Listen up!

At MinistryWatch we bring you the latest in charity and philanthropy, all designed to help us become better stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us. On today's MinistryWatch Extra episode, I'm welcoming to the program, Dr. Michael Bennett. Michael Bennett has a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, and he spent most of his career as a Defense Department scientist and high-tech inventor and entrepreneur.  But in recent years he has turned his attention to writing thoughtful, deeply researched, and provocative books about the evangelical movement.  His latest book is Two Masters and Two Gospels, and he takes aim at talk radio and cable news – including Christian talk. The producers for today's program are Rich Roszel and Steve Gandy.   We get database and other technical support from Cathy Goddard, Stephen DuBarry, and Casey Sudduth. May God bless you.

Another 1,000 U.S. troops will be deployed to Kabul to help with the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan's capital city, two Defense Department officials said Sunday.

Have we learned nothing from history? Professor Paul considers the folly of our involvement in Afghanistan. We will examine numerous news sources and warnings that were ignored by the current criminal administration in Washington DC.  For our Duracoat Finished Firearm of the Week, Paul unveils the Mandalorian or the bounty hunter pistol. The gun is an homage to Boba Fett and even has the mythosaur image upon it.  What can we do to better prepare ourselves and our children? How can we ensure that our children are being educated in history? We have several suggestions for recommended reading.  Thanks for being a part of SOTG! We hope you find value in the message we share. If you've got any questions, here are some options to contact us: • Send an Email • Send a Text • Call Us Enjoy the show! And remember…You're a Beginner Once, a Student For Life! TOPICS COVERED THIS EPISODE • [0:04:39] DuraCoat Finished Firearms - DuraCoat University     - TOPIC: The Mandalorian Pistol• [0:15:41] Hundreds of years ago Sun Tsu warned of the folly of wasting a nation's blood and treasure on prolonged wars• Huge thanks to our Partners:Brownells | CrossBreed | Duracoat | SWAT Fuel • [0:30:00] Officials Try to Sway Biden Using Intelligence on Potential for Taliban Takeover of Afghanistan www.nytimes.com/2021• [0:31:38] Taliban may grab US military equipment as American troops leave Afghanistan www.militarytimes.com/news• [0:35:20] Afghanistan war: At least 27 children killed in three days, UN says www.bbc.com• [0:36:06] US sending 3K troops for partial Afghan embassy evacuation apnews.com/article FEATURING: Madison Rising, Jarrad Markel, Paul Markel, SOTG University PARTNERS: Brownells, Inc., CrossBreed Holsters, DuraCoat Firearm Finishes, SWAT Fuel FIND US ON: Full30, Parler, MeWe.com, iTunes, Stitcher, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, tumblr SOURCES From www.nytimes.com/2021: As President Biden signaled this week that he would let a May 1 deadline pass without withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, some officials are using an intelligence assessment to argue for prolonging the military mission there. American intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for Al Qaeda to rebuild its strength within the country, according to American officials. (Click Here for Full Article)   From www.militarytimes.com: U.S. military equipment could end up in the hands of Taliban fighters and terrorist groups as American troops withdraw thousands of vehicles, weapons and other military items from Afghanistan in coming months, Defense Department officials acknowledged on Thursday. But military planners said they are using the time left until the pullout is completed to minimize that threat, while doing as much as they can to leave Afghan partners with tools to continue the fight. (Click Here for Full Article)   From www.bbc.com: At least 27 children have been killed in Afghanistan in three days amid fierce fighting between the Taliban and government forces, the UN has said. The UN children's agency Unicef said it was shocked by the "rapid escalation of grave violations against children". The Taliban have been making major advances across the country as foreign troops withdraw, taking six regional capitals since Friday. (Click Here for Full Article)

In this episode, we chat with Futurist and technology innovator, Brian Satterfield, about his role in the DARPA Urban Challenge, in building robots that can navigate dynamically in dense crowds of people, and about covert robots that don't want you to know they're there. Listen in for front line stories about what it's like to lead generation after next innovation for the Defense Department and the robotics community. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/wewonder/message

Photo: Pinocchio, a symbol of untruthfulness. @Batchelorshow 4/12: #CrossfireHurricaneDiary: Over three days, 2/28/17-3/4/17, Svetlana Lokhova is contacted by WSJ, WAPO, NYT, all of whom suspect her as a Russian agent. Svetlana Lokhova @TheRealSLokhova. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-didnt-report-2014-interaction-with-russian-british-national-1489809842 "WASHINGTON-—Former national security adviser Mike Flynn interacted with a graduate student with dual Russian and British nationalities at a 2014 U.K. security conference, a contact that came to the notice of U.S. intelligence but that Mr. Flynn, then the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't disclose, according to people familiar with the matter. "Mr. Flynn met Svetlana Lokhova at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, a gathering of former intelligence officials hosted at Cambridge University, in February 2014. Ms. Lokhova at the time was a graduate student studying the history of Russian intelligence, according to two people who attended the event. "There is no record showing that Mr. Flynn reported his interaction with Ms. Lokhova to security officials in the Defense Department, said a former senior U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. As the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is part of the Pentagon and the military's largest intelligence organization, Mr. Flynn was expected to notify officials about any contacts with foreigners he didn't know, particularly from an adversary nation such as Russia, the former official said...."

President Joe Biden's fiscal 2022 budget blueprint would bring on thousands of employees to the Internal Revenue Service, which the administration claims could help ameliorate years of staff losses over the past decade. That plan presents an opportunity for the IRS, but it is also a challenge, as the agency must redefine the skills and expertise required of its employees in order for the IRS to be as effective as it can be. Dr. Ron Sanders was a federal civil servant for almost 40 years, serving in senior positions with the Defense Department, the IRS, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Internal Revenue Service. He is currently Staff Director for the Florida Center for Cybersecurity and a GovExec contributor. He is the co-author of a post on our site right now headlined “Shrinking the Tax Gap Requires a Renewed IRS Workforce.” He joined the show to discuss the IRS workforce.

Simon's live coverage for LBC News with presenter Chris Golds.

Congress has conducted at least eleven bipartisan hearings to investigate the security failures that permitted a mob of American citizens to riot inside the Capitol Building and successfully disrupt Congress while they certified the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021. In this episode, hear key highlights pulled from over 30 hours of testimony to understand exactly what happened that day. Executive Producer: Forrest Pttman Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Q: Into the Storm, HBO CD226: Lame Duck Bills H.R.1090 - District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act S.964 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 H.R.4192 - Confronting the Threat of Domestic Terrorism Act S.2043 - Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act H.R.4187 - Domestic Terrorism Penalties Act of 2019 Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act U.S. Department of the Treasury Articles/Documents Article: 587 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all. by Madison Hall, Skye Gould, Rebecca Harrington, Jacob Shamsian, Azmi Haroun, Taylor Ardrey, and Erin Snodgrass, Insider, July 23, 2021 Article: Tampa man, 20, admits intending to block Congress with Oath Keepers in new Capitol riot guilty plea by The Washington Post, July 20, 2021 Article: Tampa man, 20, admits intending to block Congress with Oath Keepers in new Capitol riot guilty plea by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6? by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: “You're Gonna Have a Fucking War”: Mark Milley's Fight to Stop Trump from Striking Iran by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, July 15, 2021 Article: To Trump's hard-core supporters, his rallies weren't politics. They were life. by The Washington Post, July 15, 2021 Article: Michael Flynn posts video featuring QAnon slogans By Marshall Cohen, CNN, July 7, 2021 Article: Latest alleged Oath Keeper arrested in Capitol riot turned over body armor and firearm by The Washington Post, July 2, 2021 Article: ‘Zip Tie Guy' and His Mother Plead Not Guilty to New Charges in U.S. Capitol Siege by Aaron Keller, Law & Crime, June 23, 2021 Article: Man charged with bringing molotov cocktails to Capitol on Jan. 6 has Texas militia ties, contacted Ted Cruz's office, court papers allege by The Washington Post, May 24, 2021 Article: Maryland man, indicted for bringing gun to Capitol riot, could face decades in prison by Jordan Fischer, Eric Flack, Stephanie Wilson, WUSA9, May 18, 2021 Article: DC medical examiner confirms causes of death of 4 who died in Jan. 6 Capitol riot By Kelli Dugan, Cox Media Group National Content Desk, 11NEWS, April 7, 2021 Article: The lawyer for the 'QAnon Shaman' wants to use Trump's speech before the insurrection as part of his defense by Jacob Shamsian, Insider, March 1, 2021 Two Members of the Proud Boys Indicted for Conspiracy, Other Charges Related to the Jan. 6 Riots By United States Department of Justice, January 29, 2021 Article: Former Army captain arrested after live-streaming Capitol riot By Kyle Rempfer, AirForceTimes, January 22, 2021 Article: 'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters. By Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel, The Washington Post, January 11, 2021 Article: Did 5 People Die During Jan. 6 Capitol Riot? by Alex Kasprak, Snopes, January 7, 2021 Article: FBI focuses on whether some Capitol rioters intended to harm lawmakers or take hostages by The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: Trump's supporters think they're being patriotic. And that's the problem. by Christine Adams, The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: Capitol riot: Army vet who tended bar accused by FBI of conspiring in insurrection  by AMSNBS, 2021 Article: All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes': In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: Capitol riots by The Washington Post, 2021 Article: Another MAGA Rally To Take Place In D.C. On The Day Congress Declares Election Results by Matt Blitz, WAMU 88.5, November 27, 2020 Article: Trump's Election Attack Ends December 14—Whether He Knows It or Not by Lily Hay Newman, Wired, November 27, 2020 Additional Resources U.S.A. v. Mark Grods U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 28, 2021 Defense Timeline for January 6th Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack: A Review of the Security, Planning and Response Failures on January 6 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee on Rules and Administration U.S.A. v. Christopher Alberts U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 27, 2021 U.S.A. v. Lonnie Leroy Coffman U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 11, 2021 U.S.A. v. Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Charles Donohue U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 8, 2021 Video: Seeking Information: Pipe Bombs in Washington, D.C. F.B.I., January 5, 2021 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: USCP OVERSIGHT FOLLOWING JANUARY 6 ATTACK, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, June 16, 2021 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Michael Bolton Inspector General of the US Capitol Police Transcript: 36:40 Michael Bolton: To me the biggest failure is that because we have allowed certain elements within the Capitol Police to be autonomous, they conduct their own training, okay? That's the issue. Whereas you if you have a Training Services Bureau and let's call it an office of training that is fully incorporated, they handle all the training they conducted. They make sure you get the training, they hold your officials accountable, your people doing your training, guess what, we're sending a letter to the chief and they can no longer work until they get required or what have you. Hearing: The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions (Part II), House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 15, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Lt. General Walter Piatt Director of the Army Staff General Charles Flynn Commanding General of the US Army Pacific Chris Wray FBI Director Transcript: 30:41 Lt. General Walter Piatt: My involvement with our response to this emergency began shortly after entering the Secretary of the Army's office at 2:20pm to provide a report of a suspicious package. While I was there, a panic call came in reporting several explosions in the city. To understand the situation, to indentify, what was needed from the army Secretary McCarthy convened a conference call. During this call DC and Capitol authorities frantically requested urgent and immediate support to the Capitol. We all immediately understood the gravity of the situation. Secretary McCarthy went down the hall to seek approval from the Acting Secretary of Defense. Before departing, she directed me to have the staff prepare a response. I communicated this on the conference call. But those are more and more convinced that I was denying their request, which I did not have the authority to do. Despite clearly stating three times that we are not denying your request, we need to prepare a plan for when the Secretary of the Army gains approval. 1:46:02 General Charles Flynn: There's four things in planning that we could have done. And we should have done. The first one there should have been clearly a lead federal agency designated. The second one is we should have had an integrated security plan. The third one is and much of this has been talked about already is information and intelligence sharing on criminal activities before the sixth of January. And then the fourth one would have been, we should have pre-federalized certain National Guard forces so that they could have immediately been moved to the Capitol and had those authorities in place before this happened. 2:09:30 Rep. Kweisi Mfume (MD): So that's what we are trying to do, keep our republic and to keep it from those who tried to overthrow this government who wanted to kill members of Congress, who wanted to hang Mike Pence. 2:43:37 Rep. Michael Cloud (TX): You mentioned domestic terrorism that this would qualify as that, would the riots that we saw across the cities for nights and nights and weeks and weeks on even months on end, qualify as domestic terrorism as well? Chris Wray: We've been treating both as domestic terrorism and investigating both through our Joint Terrorism Task Force. 2:51:19 Chris Wray: Among the things that we've taken away from this experience are a few. One, as you heard me say in response to an earlier question, we need to develop better human sources, right, because if we can get better human sources, then we can better separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. Two, we need better data analytics. The volume, as you said, the volume of this stuff is, is just massive, and the ability to have the right tools to get through it and sift through it in a way that is, again, separating the wheat from the chaff is key. And then the third point that I would make is we are rapidly having to contend with the issue of encryption. So what I mean by that is, yes, there might be chatter on social media. But then what we have found and this is true in relation to January 6th, in spades, but it was also true over the summer in some of the violence that occurred there. Individuals will switch over to encrypted platforms for the really significant, really revealing communications. And so we've got to figure out a way to get into those communications or we're going to be constantly playing catch up in our effort to separate as I said, the wheat from the chaff on social media. 3:01:00 Chris Wray: We consider the attack on capital on January 6 to be a form of domestic terrorism. 3:16:00 Chris Wray: As for social media, I think there's, there's it's understandable that there's a lot of confusion on this subject we do not we have very specific policies that Ben at the Department for a long time that govern our ability to use social media and when we have an authorized purpose and proper predication, there's a lot of things we can do on social media. And we do do and we aggressively do but what we can't do, what we can't do on social media is without proper predication, and an authorized purpose, just monitor, just in case on social media. Now, if the policies should be changed to reflect that, that might be one of the important lessons learned coming out of this whole experience. But that's not something that that currently the FBI has the either the authority or certainly the resources frankly, to do. 4:06:00 Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Has anyone been charged with inciting an insurrection? Chris Wray: I think I responded to an earlier question. I don't believe that that has been one of the charges us so far. But again, with that many cases, I want to build a little room for the fact that I might not know all the cases. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): So right as of right now, the answer would be no, fair to say? Chris Wray: That's my understanding. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. Has anybody been charged with sedition to your knowledge? Chris Wray: Same answer. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. No, again, Has anybody been charged with treason? Chris Wray: I don't believe so. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay, has anyone been charged with illegal possession of a firearm inside the Capitol? On that day? Chris Wray: I believe there has been at least one instance of someone arrested with a firearm in the Capitol. And there have been a number of arrests of individuals either en route to the Capitol or near the Capitol for the for the siege. 4:11:00 Rep. James Comer (KY): On December 31, Mayor browser requested DC National Guard assistance with the planned protest for January fifth and sixth, correct? Lt. General Walter Piatt: Correct, sir. Rep. James Comer (KY):And was that request for assistant ultimately approved by the Secretary of Army? Lt. General Walter Piatt: It was approved by the Acting Secretary of Defense as well. Rep. James Comer (KY):Were restrictions placed on that authority upon the request of Mayor browser and if so, what were those restrictions? Lt. General Walter Piatt: She had requested that they be unarmed and it did not take a place in any law enforcement activities. Hearing: The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions, Committee on Oversight and Reform, May 12, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Chris Miller Former Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Contee Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department Transcript: 00:22 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Today the committee will examine one of the darkest days in our nation's history. The January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. On that day, a violent mob incited by shameless lies told by a defeated president launched the worst attack on our republic since the Civil War. 00:42 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): We watched as the temple of our democracy, a building whereas familiar with as our own homes, was overrun by a mob bent on murdering the Vice President and members of Congress. 21:21 Chris Miller: I want to remind you and the American public that during that time, there was irresponsible commentary by the media about a possible military coup or that advisors the president were advocating the declaration of martial law. I was also very cognizant of the fears and concerns about the prior use of the military in June 2020 response to protests in the White House. And just before the electoral college certification 10 former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed published in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing inappropriately using the military. No such thing was going to occur and my watch, but these concerns and hysteria about them nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our armed forces to support civilian law enforcement during the electoral college certification. My obligation to the nation was to prevent a constitutional crisis. Historically, military responses to domestic protests have resulted in violations of American civil rights and even in the case the Kent State protests of the Vietnam War, tragic deaths. In short, I fervently believe the military should not be utilized in such scenarios, other than as a last resort, and only when all other assets had been expended. 26:02 Chris Miller: I stand by every decision I made on January 6th and the following days. I want to emphasize that our nation's armed forces are to be deployed for domestic law enforcement only when all civilian assets are expended and only as the absolute last resort. To use them for domestic law enforcement in any other manner is contrary to the constitution and a threat to the Republic. I ask you this consider what the response in Congress in the media had been if I had unilaterally deployed 1000s of troops into Washington DC that morning against the Express wishes of the Mayor and the Capitol Police who indicated they were prepared. 40:52 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th, did President Trump as the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces call you during the January 6 attack to ensure the capital was being secured? Mr. Miller? Chris Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the president to fulfill my constitutional duties. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with President Trump at all as the attack was unfolding? Chris Miller: On January 6th? yes. Chris Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to I had all the authority I needed and knew what had to happen. I knew what had to happen. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with Vice President Pence during the attack? Yes or no? Chris Miller: Yes. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): According to a defense department timeline, it was Vice President Pence and not President Trump, who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure. And to give you the direction to quote, 'clear the Capitol.' What specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day? Chris Miller: Vice President's not in the chain of command, he did not direct me to clear the capital. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized and was in coordination with local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol. 1:05:28 Chris Miller: I think I'd like to modify my original assessment. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Why am I not surprised about that? Chris Miller: Based on as Chief Contee said, we are getting more information by the day by the minute about what happened and the highlight some other observations that were made. It's clear now that there were organized... Although we're going to find out through the Department of Justice process in the law, and the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the Capitol that day. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time, I'm just asking you the same question you've answered before. Did did the President's remarks incite members to march, the people in the crowd to march on the Capitol, or did they not? Chris Miller: Well, he clearly said offered that they should march on the Capitol. So it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time. Let me just share with the committee what you have said before. This is your quote. This is your quote. What anyone? Would anybody have marched on the Capitol and tried to overrun the Capitol without the president speech? I think it's pretty much definitive. That would not have happened. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I think now, I would say that this is not the unitary factor at all. What's that? Chris Miller: I would like to offer I have reassessed. It was not the unitary factor at all. There was no...it's seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In your testimony for today. Reclaiming my time again, for your written testimony for today. For today, this morning, you stated the following about the President's quote, I personally believe his comments encouraged the protesters that day. So this is that this is that there's a very recent reversal of your of your testimony. Chris Miller: Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): You're ridiculous. Chris Miller: Thank you for your, your thoughts. I also want to highlight... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): No wait a minute, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. 2:06:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI): Has there been any progress made it all on on? Who would have put these bombs there? Robert Contee: No arrests have been made no suspects identified, working without partners on the federal side. There's been surveillance videos that have been released publicly showing that individual placing the pipe bombs, but no arrests have been made at this point. 3:01:05 Rep. Andrew Clyde (GA): Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. 3:12:18 Sen. Hank Johnson (GA): Were you ordered to delay deployment of troops? Chris Miller: 110% Absolutely not. No, that is not the case. 4:41:42 Chris Miller: If we had a valid request and a necessary requests from your body, I guarantee you that the Department of Defense would have been there in strength as required. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): So when you would acknowledge we lost the battle we lost for the first time since 1814... Chris Miller: Horrifying. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And it was everybody else's fault but DoD. Chris Miller: I absolutely disagree with the statement that it was... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I'm paraphrasing you the only way that makes sense when you say 'you wouldn't do anything differently, you wouldn't do anything differently.' Okay, that implies what I'm saying that it was everybody else's fault in your mind, because it was a catastrophic failure. Chris Miller: And I just had an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and guarantee that the armed forces were used appropriately, and not in a manner that would be seen as extraconstitutional. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) Look, the Constitution is not a treaty of surrender. It affords you the opportunity to do what's necessary to defend the people in the democracy of the United States. I mean, if looked upon the destruction afterwards, looking back, you say, 'well, at least I defended the Constitution' is another perverse way of looking at this. Nothing was DoDs fault. And at least you did, in your own mind, defend what you thought was right for the Constitution. Never mind how many people got hurt and how much damage was done to our government in the meantime. Chris Miller: I will absolutely take that on and take that as a compliment. Because the armed forces of the United States was completely prepared and ready to respond to any valid request from any department or agency or local or federal law enforcement office. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) You lost and you don't have the Intellectual fortitude to own up to your part of the responsibility. And I get it, a lot of people screwed up, you're one of them. I yield scaled back. Madam Chairman. Chris Miller: I respectfully disagree in that. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I was in the room, you weren't. Hearing: State and Local Responses to Domestic Terrorism: The Attack on the U.S. Capitol and Beyond, House Committee on Homeland Security: Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism, March 24, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Dana Nessel Attorney General, Michigan Aaron Ford Attorney General, Nevada John Chisholm District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Transcript: 07:19 Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): The post 9/11 era of security where the threats come from abroad is over. In the 20 years of the post 9/11 era, they came to an end on January 6th, the new reality is that we have to come to terms with is that it's our extremists here at home, seeking to explain internal divisions that pose the greatest threat. Hearing: JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, March 3, 2021 Day 2 (March 3, 2021) Day 2, Part 2 (March 3, 2021) Witnesses: Robert Salesses Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security at the U.S. Department of Defense Major General William Walker Commanding General of the DC National Guard Jill Sanborn Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Transcript: 06:42 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat and cluding violence driven by white supremacy and anti government groups is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that state and local law enforcement understands the threats that American communities face must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. 30:19 Robert Salesses: Over the weekend of January 2nd and third, my staff contacted the Secret Service, the Park Police, the marshal service, the FBI, the Capitol Police to determine if they planned to request DoD assistance. None of these law enforcement agencies indicated a need for DoD or DC National Guard Support. 30:45 Robert Salesses: After consultation with the Department of Justice, the Acting Secretary of Defense approved the DC government request for National Guard personnel to support 30 traffic control points and six metro stations from January 5th to the sixth. The Acting Secretary also authorized a 40 person quick reaction force to be readied at Joint Base Andrews. 31:17 Robert Salesses: On January 5, the Acting Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army received a letter from the mayor of DC, stating MPD is prepared and coordinated with its federal partners, namely the Park Police, the Capitol Police and the Secret Service. Based on these communications with federal and local civilian authorities DoD determined that no additional military support was required on January 5th, and 6th. 32:20 Robert Salesses: At approximately 2:30pm, the Secretary of the Army met with the Acting Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders of the Defense Department. After this meeting, the Acting Secretary of Defense determined that all available forces of the DC National Guard were required to reinforce the DC Metropolitan Police and the US Capitol Police and ordered the full mobilization of the DC National Guard at 3:04pm. 33:08 Robert Salesses: After reviewing the DC National Guard's missions, equipping and responsibilities to be performed at the Capitol Complex and supported the Metropolitan Police and Capitol Police, and conferring with the DC Metropolitan Police at their headquarters, at 4:10pm, the Secretary of the Army received the Acting Secretary of Defense's approval at 4:32 and ordered the DC National Guard forces to depart the armory for the Capitol Complex 49:59 Major General William Walker: The District of Columbia National Guard provides support to the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and other federal and district law enforcement agencies in response to planned rallies, marches, protest, and other large scale first amendment activity on a routine basis. The standard component of such support is the stand up of a off site quick reaction for us, an element of guardsmen held in reserve with civil disturbance response equipment, helmets, shields, battons, etc. They are postured to quickly respond to an urgent and immediate need for assistance by civil authorities. The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter to me withheld that authority for me to employ a quick reaction force. Additionally, the Secretary of the Army's memorandum to me required that a concept of operation be submitted to him before the employment of a quick reaction force. I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another. 54:50 Major General William Walker: So the memo was unusual in that it required me to seek authorization from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense, to essentially even protect my guardsmen. So no civil disturbance equipment could be authorized, unless it was came from the Secretary of Defense, now the Secretary of the Army, to his credit, did tell me that I could have force protection equipment with the guardsmen. So we do have helmets. shin guards, vest, we did have that with us. But that came from the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of Defense told me I needed his permission to to escalate to have that kind of protection. 55:50 Major General William Walker: What it says, without my personal authorization, the District of Columbia National Guard has not authorized the following to be issued weapons, ammunition bayonets, batons or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor. Now, again, to be clear, the Secretary of the Army told me to go ahead and issue that equipment. So we never were going to have weapons or ammunition and we no longer have bayonets. But we do have ballistic protection equipment, helmets body armor, and so I did have that with each guardsmen. 57:02 Major General William Walker: And at that time, Chief Conte and Chief Soon passionately pleaded for District of Columbia National Guard to get to the Capitol with all deliberate speed. So the Army senior leaders did not think that it'd look good. It would be a good optic, they further stated that it could incite the crowd. So their best military advice would be to the Secretary of the Army who could not get on the call. So we wanted the Secretary of the Army to join the call, but he was not available. We were told that he was with the Secretary of Defense and not available. But the Army Senior leadership, expressed to Chief Conte, Chief Sohn, Dr. Mitchell, the deputy mayor and others on the call, that it would not be their best military advice to have uniform guardsmen on the Capitol. 58:26 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): General Walker was the issue of optics ever brought up by army leadership when the DC National Guard was deployed during the summer of 2020. Was that discussed? Major General William Walker: It was never discussed. The week of June it was never discussed July 4, when we were supporting the city was never discussed August 28th when we supported the city. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): Did you think that was unusual? Major General William Walker: I did. 1:00:32 Major General William Walker: So I had them ready to go shortly after the phone call. So I brought, at 1500, I directed that the quick reaction for us that was based at Andrews Air Force Base, leave the base, get to the armory at all deliberate speed. I had a police escort bring them to the armory. They returned to the Armory in about 20 minutes. So we had them sitting there waiting. And then, in anticipation of a green light, a go, we put guardsmen on buses, we brought them inside the armory, so nobody would see them putting on the equipment and getting on the buses, and then we just waited to get the approval. And that's why we were able to get to the Capitol in about 18 minutes. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): What time were they on the buses Ready to go? Do you recall? Major General William Walker: By five o'clock, but at five o'clock, I decided, hey, you know, there's got to be an approval coming. So get on the buses, get the equipment on, get on the buses and just wait. And then a few minutes after that we did get the approval. I was on a secure video conference when the army leadership conveyed to me that the Secretary of Defense had authorized the employment of the National Guard at the Capitol. So my timeline has 1708, 5:08pm is when is when we wrote down that we had approval and read was about eight people in the office with me when I got that. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): How many guardsmen were ready. You said write a video earlier and they have gotten 155. So you could have sent 155 much, much earlier, what would have been the impact of sending those 155 right around that two o'clock timeframe? Major General William Walker: Well, based on my experience with the summer and I have 19 years, I have 39 years in the National Guard, and I was in the Florida guard Hurricane Andrew I've been involved in civil disturbances. So I believe that number could have made a difference. We could have helped extend the perimeter and help push back the crowd. 1:13:49 Robert Salesses: The only decision makers on the sixth of January were the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. There was a chain of command from the Secretary of Defense, to Secretary McCarthy to General Walker. That was the chain of command. 1:15:39 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): This morning, you have testified that you received this letter from our secretary McCarthy on January 5, so just the day before the attack on the Capitol. In that letter, did Secretary McCarthy prohibit you from employing the National Guard's quick reaction force without his authorization? Major General William Walker: So I have the letter in front of me, and his letter does not but it is the Secretary of Defense says that I have to use it as a last resort. But the Secretary of the Army told me and it's, I have the letter that I couldn't not use the quick reaction force. It would it would he with I'll just read it. Yeah, 'I withhold authority to approve employment of the District of Columbia National Guard quick reaction force, and will do so only as a last resort, in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of a civil- of a quick reaction for it. 1:16:05 *Major General William Walker:** Now a quick reaction force normally is a command was tool to go help either a civilian agency, but more typically to help the National Guardsmen who are out there in need, need assistance. 1:16:58 Major General William Walker: Just to be clear, the Secretary of Defense said I could use it as a last resort, right. But the Secretary of the Army says that I could only use it after he gave me permission. And only then after a concept of operation. Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Right, and we talked about the chain of command earlier, so your chain of command is both of these gentlemen. In other words, you you didn't have the authority to deploy that quick reaction force based on either the letter or the earlier memo that went from the Secretary of Defense, Acting Secretary defense to the Secretary of the Army. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Yes, sir. 1:17:23 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Yeah, I also thought it was odd and I think you said was unusual and very prescriptive that the January 5th letter required the Secretary of the Army to approve the movement of deployed guardsmen from one traffic control point to another. Did you find that unusual? Major General William Walker: In 19 years I never had that before happened. So on that day, the Metropolitan Police as they would any other day requested that a traffic control point move one block, one block over. No traffic was where they were. So they wanted the traffic control point to move one block. I had to get permission. I told him, I'll get back to you. I contacted Lieutenant General Piatt, who contacted Secretary of the Army, I had to explain where that contractor control point was in relationship to the Capitol. And only then did I get permission to move the three national guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan... Sen. Rob Portman (OH): These are three unarmed National Guardsmen who are helping with traffic control in parts of that Metropolitan Police can do other things. And they were not permitted to move a block away without getting permission from the Secretary of the Army. Is that true? Major General William Walker: That's correct. Yeah. 1:18:52 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): That January 4th memorandum from Acting Secretary Miller to the Army Secretary required the personal approval of the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard to be issued riot gear. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: That's correct. But but the secretary army told me to go ahead and put it into vehicles. So I give him credit for that. 1:19:08 Major General William Walker: Normally for a safety and force protection matter, a commander would would be able to authorize his guardsmen to protect themselves with helmet and protective equipment. 1:25:57 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): General Walker if the restrictions on your authorities hadn't been put in place by DoD, what would you have done when Chief Sund called you at 1:49 on January 6, with an urgent request for National Guards assistance? Major General William Walker: I would have immediately pulled all the guardsmen that were supporting the Metropolitan Police Department. They had the gear in the vehicles, I would have had them assemble in the armory, and then get on buses and go straight to the armory and report to the most ranking Capitol Police Officer they saw and take direction. And just let me add this, so one of my Lieutenant Colonel's on his own initiative, went to the Capitol, anticipating that we were going to be called, so he would have been there and he met with Deputy Chief Carroll of the Metropolitan Police Department who asked them, where is the National Guard? How come they're not here? And this Colonel said, Well, I'm sure they're coming. And I'm here to scout out where they're going to be when they get here. So that was the plan. I would have sent them there immediately. As soon as I hung up, my next call would have been to my subordinate commanders, get every single guardsman in this building, and everybody that's helping the Metropolitan Police. We mission them to the Capitol without delay. 1:32:11 Robert Salesses: That's when the Secretary of Defense made the decision at 4:32. As general Walker has pointed out, because I've seen all the timelines, he was not told that till 5:08 that's what Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): How's that possible? Mr. Salesses, do you think that the decision in the moment we were in was made at 4:32 and the person that had to be told, wasn't told for more than half an hour after the decision was made? Robert Salesses: Senator, I think that's that's an issue. 1:37:13 Sen. Maggie Hassann (NH): Looking back now, what might have made a difference in being able to move against some of those individuals sooner? Jill Sanborn: Yeah, I think that's great question. I think it's twofold. So it's the complexity of trying to gather the right intelligence that helps us predict indicators and warnings. And I spoke earlier about while there's a volume out there of rhetoric, trying to figure out that intent is very challenging for us in the intel community because it happens on private comms and encryption. So that's one aspect. And then the other aspect is of the people that we were investigating. So predicated investigations, we don't necessarily have the ability to mitigate the threat they might pose by travel if we don't have a charge. And so I think you're tracking that we were aware of some of our subjects that intended to come here. We took over action by going and talking them and trying to get them to not come and that worked in the majority of our already predicated cases. 1:49:46 To review the timeline at 1:49 Chief Sund contacted you. At 2:15 the capital was breached. I think in your testimony you said you had available 340 DC National Guard troops Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Sir, it was actually half of that. So, so half were on the streets helping the Metropolitan Police Department. The other half would have came in to relieve them, but we would have called them in to come in. 1:50:33 Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How quickly could have you gotten? How many people to the Capitol? Major General William Walker: 20 minutes? Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How many people? Major General William Walker: 150 1:56:47 Jill Sanborn: We're seeing people that got caught up in the moment got caught up in the sort of the energy etc. and made their way into the captain on those are probably the ones that you're seeing the charges simply of trespassing and then we're definitely seeing that portion that you're pointing out which is small groups and cells now being charged with conspiracy that coalesced either on site or even days or weeks prior and had sort of an intent that day and they to probably caught people up in the energy. PART 2 23:00 Jill Sanborn: The piece of information we received, again, was a non attributable posting to a message board. And so very raw, very unvetted, we actually didn't receive that information until late, very late in the afternoon on the fifth and almost into the evening. And because of our emphasis on we need any intelligence, even though it was raw and attributed, and unvetted, the Norfolk office quickly wrote that up specifically in a document following our processes to disseminate that. So a situation information report is for the intentional purpose of sharing that with state and local partners. Not only did they write that up, because they knew how important that was to get that information out into the hands of folks that might need it, our state and local partners, within 40 minutes, they sent an email to the Washington field office with that information and Washington Field Office also then followed up with an email to all Task Force officers. And so several different mechanisms were happened here. And you know, we'd like to use the phrase 'belt and suspenders' we didn't want to make sure that one method of communication failed. So we wrote it up in the document for dissemination. We sent it in an email to all taskforce officers in the National Capitol Region, and that does include Washington Metro as well as Capitol. But again, not wanting to rely on those two mechanisms only it was then briefed verbally in a command post and interagency command post that we were doing briefings every couple of hours, though, that every agency in that command post have what we call a common operating picture. Knowing what all of us knew at any given time, it was briefed at 8pm on the evening of the fifth, and then taking it one step further, because we didn't want to limit our aperture to just the National Capital Region, because there's collection opportunity out there for all state and local partners and federal partners to help us, we loaded that suspicious information report into what we call the Leap Portal. And that is accessible by all state and local partners. So we really tried in various ways to make sure that we did not rely on one communication mechanism and really tried to rely on several so that the information would get to the right people. 34:46 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): We can talk all we want about January sixth, but really it's the decision making leading up to that. Someone made a bad judgment call and we need to be better prepared. If we're gonna fix this in the future, it isn't about calling the National Guard out quicker. It's about having 1000 people standing there before the riot happens to the riot doesn't happen. Hearing: U.S. Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms, Security Failures on January 6, House Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, February 25, 2021 Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Timothy Blodgett Acting Sergeant at Arms; U.S. House of Representatives Yogananda D. Pittman, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police. Transcript: 09:11 ** Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (CA):** The United States Capitol Police Force is not meant to be an army, expecting 1600 officers to hold back an unruly mob of eight to 10,000 people, many of whom were armed and had their own homemade explosive devices or had came with or weaponized, everyday items. It's not a position we should ever have to be in. 20:51 Yogananda D. Pittman: There's evidence that some of those who stormed the Capitol were organized. But there's also evidence that a large number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of this latter group that the department was not prepared for. Hearing: Dollars Against Democracy: Domestic Terrorist Financing in the Aftermath of Insurrection, Committee on Financial Services, February 25, 2021 Watch on YouTube Witnesses Iman Boukadoum Senior Manager, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks Executive Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross CEO of Valens Global Transcript: 03:28 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. 03:54 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Unlike ISIS, for example, these organizations are not pyramid shaped where funding comes from a handful of easily disruptable areas. An online fundraising drive for a legitimate charity, and one that helps support an extremist group can look very similar. 04:57 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): We need to conscientiously be mindful of the civil liberties concerns at play here. Unlike international extremist groups, law enforcement is constrained by the Constitution when dealing with domestic extremists, balancing the desire to give law enforcement the tools necessary to disrupt these groups with the need to respect the rights of all Americans and the Constitution to which we have all pledged an oath is essential. 05:36 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): While we all live through a brutal event on January 6th, undertaken by right wing extremists, no location on the political spectrum has a monopoly on extremism or violence. 10:08 Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): We're here against the backdrop of the January 6th insurrection. A deplorable yet predictable display of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys, the oathkeepers QAnon and others and nationalist violence incited by President Trump against the members of this body and against democracy itself. 12:51 Iman Boukadoum: Last month violent insurrection heavily fueled by white supremacy and white nationalism shocked the world. 13:52 Iman Boukadoum: We know, however, that even well intentioned national security laws are invariably weaponized against black, brown and Muslim communities. And that white nationalist violence is not prioritized making that policy failure the fundamental reason for what transpired on January 6th, not lack of legal authority. For this reason we oppose any legislation that would create new charges for domestic terrorism or any enhanced or additional criminal penalties. The federal government, including the Treasury Department, has many tools at its disposal to investigate. And also the FBI and DOJ have 50 statutes, at least 50 statutes and over a dozen criminal statutes, 50 terrorism related statutes, excuse me and over a dozen criminal statutes that they can use. They just need to use them to target white nationalist violence. 19:33 Lecia Brooks: Today, some white nationalist groups and personalities are raising funds through the distribution of propaganda itself. In November SPLC researchers reported that dozens of extremist groups were earning 1000s of dollars per month on a popular live streaming platform called D-Live. 20:21 Lecia Brooks: Crowdfunding is also being exploited by hate groups to earn money in this new decentralized landscape. Crowdfunding sites played a critical role in the capital insurrection, providing monetary support that allowed people to travel to Washington DC. They've also played a crucial role in raising hundreds of 1000s of dollars in legal fees for extremists. 20:43 Lecia Brooks: The violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6 should serve as a wake up call for Congress, the Biden administration, Internet companies, law enforcement and public officials at every level. 23:11 Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. 23:33 Daniel Glaser: During my time at the Treasury Department, I fought to cut off funding to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and Hezbollah, as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bush Administration, and eventually as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Obama Administration. My primary responsibility was to lead the design and implementation of strategies to attack the financial networks of these groups and other threats to our country's national security. And while we should never let down our guard with respect to those still potent terrorist organizations, it has become tragically clear that there are domestic extremist groups that in some ways present an even greater threat to our ideals and our democracy. We have the responsibility to target those groups with the same determination, creativity and sense of purpose that we displayed in the years following 9/11. 27:42 Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships the use of information sharing authorities and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. 30:10 Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popular popularized the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp outfits that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and form further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms including included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. 31:40 Daniel Rogers: We also found that a large fraction of the groups we studied have a tax exempt status with the IRS, a full 100% of anti muslim groups. 75% of anti-immigrant groups, and 70% of anti LGBTQ groups have 501-C-3 or 501-C-4 status. Over 1/3 of the militia groups that we identified, including the oathkeepers, whose leadership was recently indicted on charges related to January 6, have tax exempt status. This status gives them access to a whole spectrum of charity fundraising tools, from Facebook donations to amazon smile, to the point where most of the most common fundraising platform we identified across all of our data was Charity Navigator. 32:30 Daniel Glaser: I think it's important to remember that if you want to be able to use a cryptocurrency in the real economy, to any scale, it at some point doesn't need to be converted into actual fiat currency into dollars. That's the place where the Treasury Department does regulate cryptocurrencies. 42:10 Daniel Glaser: Cryptocurrency exchanges are regarded as money service businesses. They have full customer due diligence requirements. They have full money laundering program requirements, they have reporting requirements. The US Treasury Department just last month, issued a proposed rule relating to unhosted wallets of cryptocurrencies. And that's out for notice and comment. Right now. It addresses the particular issue of, of wallets that are not hosted on a particular exchange. And I think it's an important rule that's out there and I do encourage people to take a look at it, the comment period closes in May, and then hopefully, Treasury will be able to take regulatory action to close that particular vulnerability. 42:46 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did not to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. 44:37 Daniel Rogers: The days leading up to the insurrection, the oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes appeared on a podcast and solicited charitable donations to the oathkeepers Educational Fund. It can only be presumed that these funds which listeners were notably able to deduct from their federal taxes, went to transporting and lodging members of the group slated to participate in the ensuing riots. 46:06 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: In looking at the draft legislation that the majority noticed with this hearing, one bill stuck out to me and I think it's a good follow up for your from your most recent exchange. It seeks to amend title 31 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to allow designated employees of financial institutions to access classified information related to terrorism, sedition, and insurrection. Now, over the past three congresses, we've talked about the concept of a fusion center, not unlike we do in monitoring cyber risk and cyber crimes for this terror finance arena. We've never been able to come ashore on it legislatively. So I found that interesting. However, I'm concerned that when you deputize bank employees without any oversight, as to how the information would be protected or if there's really even a need for that. 46:53 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Could you describe how banks share information with law enforcement today and how they provide feedback on how we might change these protocols or if they're if that protocol change is necessary. Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: Thank you ranking member, there are four primary ways that banks share information now. The first is suspicious activity reports or the SAR. Financial institutions have to file these documents with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN. When there's a suspected case of money laundering or fraud, the star is designed to monitor activity and finance related industries that are out of the ordinary are a precursor to illegal activity, or can threaten public safety. Second, there's law enforcement's 314 a power under the Patriot Act, in which obtains potential lead information from financial institutions via fincen. Third, law enforcement can use its subpoena power, if a court issues a subpoena pursuant to an investigation, or to an administrative proceeding and forth where there are blocked assets pursuant to OFAC authorities, sanctions or otherwise, banks are required to report block assets back to OFAC. The information sharing in my view is currently quite effective. Treasury in particular has a very strong relationship with the US financial institutions. 48:24 Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to Finicen, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. 1:15:15 Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. 1:50:25 Daniel Rogers: I think there are a number of regulatory fronts that all kind of go to the general problem of disinformation as a whole. And I don't know that we have the time to get into all of them here, but I think they, they certainly fall into three three big categories, with the one most relevant to today's discussion being this idea of platform government and platform liability, that, you know, our data is showing how what a key role, these sorts of platforms play in facilitating the activities of these groups. And the fact that the liability is so nebulous or non existent through things like Section 230 and whatnot, which what we found is that there's there's already policies in place against all of these hate and extremist groups, but they're just simply not enforced. And so updating that kind of platform liability to help drive enforcement I think is one of the key areas that that that we can focus on. Hearing: JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, February 23, 2021 Day 1 C-SPAN Witnesses Captain Carneysha Mendoza Field Commander of the United States Capitol Police Special Operations Division Robert Contee Acting Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department Paul Irving Former Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives Michael Stenger Former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate Transcript: 27:11 Captain Carneysha Mendoza: On January 6th, we anticipated an event similar to the million MAGA March that took place on November 14th, where we would likely face groups fighting among one another. 39:21 Robert Contee: MPD is prohibited by federal law from entering the Capitol or its grounds to patrol, make arrests or served warrants without the consent request of the Capitol Police board. 39:32 Robert Contee: The President of the United States not the Mayor of the District of Columbia controls the DC National Guard. 39:57 Robert Contee: Since Mayor Bowser declared a public health emergency last March, the district has not issued permits for any large gatherings. Although the district and MPD take pride in facilitating the exercise of first amendment rights by all groups, regardless of their beliefs. None of the public gatherings on January 5th and sixth were issued permits by the city. 47:13 Steven Sund: The intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the January six protests were expected to be similar to the previous MAGA rallies in 2020, which drew 10s of 1000s of participants. 55:33 Paul Irving: We began planning for the protests of January 6th in December 2020. The planning relied on what we understood to be credible intelligence provided by various state and federal agencies, including a special event assessment issued by the Capitol Police on January 3rd. The January 3rd assessment forecast at the pros tests were ‘expected to be similar to the previous million MAGA March rallies that had taken place in November and December 2020.' Every Capitol Police daily intelligence report between January 4 and January 6, including on January 6th forecast the chance of civil disobedience or arrest during the protests as remote to improbable. 56:29 Paul Irving: The Chiefs plan took on an all hands on deck approach whereby every available sworn Capitol Police employee with police powers was assigned to work on January 6th. That meant approximately 1200 Capitol Police officers were on site, including civil disturbance units and other tactical teams. I also understood that 125 National Guard troops were on notice to be standing by for a quick response. The Metropolitan Police Department was also on 12 hour shifts, with no officers on day off or leave. And they staged officers just north of the Capitol to provide immediate assistance if required. The plan was brief to multiple law enforcement partners. Based on the intelligence we all believed that the plan met the threat. 1:00:57 Steven Sund: I actually just in the last 24 hours, was informed by the department that they actually had received that report. It was received by what we call, it's one of our sworn members that's assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is a task force with the FBI. They received it the evening of the fifth, reviewed it and then forwarded over to an official at the Intelligence Division over at the US Capitol Police Headquarters. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And so you hadn't seen it yourself? Steven Sund: No, ma'am. It did not go any further than that. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. And then was it sent to the House and Senate Sergeant in Arms? I don't believe that went any farther than from over to the sergeant at the intelligence. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And Mr. Irving. Mr. Stanger, Do you did you get that report beforehand? Mr. Stanger, Did you get the report? Michael Stenger: No. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay, Mr. Irving? Paul Irving: I did not Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. 1:05:36 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund, you stated in your written testimony that you first made a request for the Capitol Police board to declare an emergency and authorized National Guard support on Monday January 4th, and that request was not granted. Steven Sund: That is correct, ma'am. 1:05:47 Sen. Klobuchar: Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police corps resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard. Would you agree with that? That's one of the things we want to look at. Steven Sund: Yes, ma'am. 1:06:02 Sen. Klobuchar: Do you think that changes are needed to make clear that the Capitol Police Chief has the authority to call in the National Guard? Steven Sund: I certainly do. I think in an exigent circumstances, there needs to be a streamlined process for the Capitol Chief of Police for the Capitol Police to have authority. 1:07:23 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund your written testimony states that you had no authority to request t

The Whole View, Episode 464:  Forever Chemicals: What are PFAS? Welcome back to episode 464! (0:28) Science has shown, pretty unequivocally, how harmful these chemicals are for decades. It's not recent science. And what we see in modern days is regulatory agencies not being able to keep up with capitalism demands. This topic is difficult to see in something other than a "conspiracy" lens. But that is why it's important to Stacy and Sarah now, more than ever, to make sure they stick to scientific research as much as possible. There are specific areas known to have high levels of PFAS. If you know you're in one of those areas, it's possible to test your blood for your exposure levels. Stacy reminds the audience that she and Sarah are not medical professionals. So, if you have any health concerns around this topic, be sure to see a doctor.   What Are Forever Chemicals? PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals used to make products greaseproof, waterproof, and stain-resistant. (7:30) They are "forever chemicals" because they and their breakdown products are extremely persistent, lasting thousands of years or more. But, unfortunately, we have no way to speed up the breakdown, so they end up bioaccumulating in the environment and our bodies. Of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, the U.S. uses 600 alone! Countless products, including firefighting foam, cookware, cosmetics, carpet treatments, and even dental floss, contain PFAS compounds. PFAS stands for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances- chemicals with at least one aliphatic perfluorocarbon moiety (e.g., -CnF2n-). PFAS includes multiple subclasses of chemicals: PFAA - perfluoroalkyl acids and perfluoroalkylether acidsPFOS - perfluorooctanesulfonic acid  PFOA - perfluorooctanoic acid (C8, used to make PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene, aka Teflon) PFAA precursors Fluoropolymers Perfluoropolyethers other (primarily less reactive) PFAS  The most consistent feature within the class of PFAS is that their perfluorocarbon moieties do not break down or do so very slowly under natural conditions. This is why PFAS have often termed "forever chemicals." Because PFAS are persistent, they accumulate or concentrate in the environment, including water, air, sediment, soil, and plants. Elevated levels of PFAS and their widespread presence in environmental media and drinking water stem from industrial sites that produce or use PFAS, airports, military bases (fire-training and response areas), landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and the spreading of PFAS-contaminated biosolids. Some PFAS are highly mobile in either air or water. This allows them to travel long distances from their sources.  It's important to note that we don't metabolize PFAS molecules. Sarah recommends this great article and this review for more information.    How Do They Harm Health? A better question might be how do they not harm health because their detriment is incredibly pervasive. (10:50) Data from toxicokinetic studies of PFAA indicate that they are generally well-absorbed after ingestion. After absorption, they distribute blood to organs and tissues that receive high blood flow, such as the liver, kidney, lung, heart, skin, testis, brain, bone, and spleen. Because PFAA can occupy sites on multiple receptors, proteins, and cell interfaces in the body, they can produce physiological effects across various tissues. Nine nuclear receptors are activated (controls gene expression), including PPAR-alpha, which controls fatty acid beta-oxidation and is a major regulator of energy homeostasis.  They also bind to a variety of serum proteins, including steroid hormones and albumins, which are transport proteins (e.g., vitamin D-binding protein)  Scientists have found direct links (with mechanisms identified) between PFAS exposure and kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental toxicity, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced preeclampsia and hypertension, and changes in hormone functioning. Immune dysfunction, such as Asthma, Osteoarthritis, Crohn's & U.C., R.A., Type 1 diabetes, Lupus, and M.S, are also linked to PFAS. PFAA and the Immune System Effects on the immune system are some of the most well-studied health effects of PFAA. (14:51) Multiple lines of evidence support PFAA as immunotoxicants and, more specifically, immunosuppressants at small administered doses in rodents and measured serum concentrations in humans.  Findings of suppressed vaccine response in humans and T cell-dependent antibody response in experimental animals led the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) to classify PFOA and PFOS as presumed immune hazards to humans. In a recent draft toxicological profile, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) extended this finding to PFHxS and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA), identifying all four compounds as suppressants of antibody response in humans. They are also unregulated greenhouse gasses! Sarah explains that these chemicals are in our environment, all around, which makes them impossible to avoid. Also, there is data showing they can, in fact, be absorbed through the skin, not just when ingested, as many company websites indicate. Additional associations still need further study to identify mechanisms, but dose responses are very damning! Obesity & Diabetes: A Review of Epidemiologic Findings Association with risk of cardiovascular diseases Obesity (dose response) Type 2 diabetes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease Cardiovascular disease Osteoporosis PFAS magnifies metabolic effects of poor diet PFAS Buildup and Our Bodies Even more worrisome, this study showed 100% of breastmilk tested contained PFAS. An analysis of the available breast milk PFAS data from around the world showed that while the phased-out PFOS and PFOA levels have been declining, the detection frequencies of current-use short-chain PFAS have been increasing (with a doubling time of 4.1 years). This is consistent with the idea that they are forever and build-up. So even with using less, we're still seeing a build-up over time. There is a ton of current legislation pending to limit and/or ban PFAS in cosmetics. For listeners who might not know, Stacy is a huge advocate for clean beauty and safer skincare. She works with Beauty Counter to help get safer products into consumer's hands and uses her background in government to lobby for safer beauty standards. With all the safer skincare legislation Stacy has seen in recent years, she decided to research the history of PFAS to see if even more legislation is necessary. It turns out- it is. Sarah has recently gotten into the "Dark History" YouTube series by Bailey Sarian. Episode 1 is on this very topic, "The DuPont Chemical Poisoning."  The film "Dark Waters" (which Sarah just watched with a free Showtime trial) is a not-quite-as-cool Erin Brokovich approach to going into detail.   History: Discovery to Litigation  Stacy runs through a quick timeline: (25:52) 1930 General Motors and DuPont formed Kinetic Chemicals to produce Freon. 1935 Dupont opened "one of the first in-house toxicology facilities" on the advice of a DuPont in-house doctor named George Gehrmann. The facility was meant to thoroughly test all du Pont products as a public health measure to determine the effects of du Pont's finished products on the "health of the ultimate consumer" and that the products "are safe" before going "on the market".  6 April 1938 a 27yo research chemist worked at the DuPont's Laboratory with gases related to DuPont's Freonrefrigerants. When an experiment he was conducting produced an unexpected new product: polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a saturated fluorocarbon polymer—the "first compound in the family of Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) marketed commercially." It took ten years of research before polytetrafluorethylene (introduced under its trade name Teflon) became known for being "extremely heat-tolerant and stick-resistant." 1950s 3M manufactures PFAS, according to the 2016 lawsuit brought against 3M, 3M had "disposed of PFCs, and PFC-containing waste at a facility is owned and operated in Oakdale, Minnesota (the "Oakdale Facilities")" during the 1950s. It contaminated residential drinking water wells with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. It later became a city park after extensive cleanup. 1951 "The DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, began using PFOA in its manufacturing process." 1954 DuPont received an inquiry about C8's "possible toxicity." 1956 A study at Stanford found that "PFAS binds to proteins in human blood." 1960s DuPont knowingly buries hundreds of drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River  1963 The Navy began to work with 3M to develop aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). 1961 A DuPont in-house toxicologist said C8 was toxic and should be "handled with extreme care." 1965 DuPont sent an internal memo describing preliminary studies that showed that even low doses of a related surfactant could increase the size of rats' livers, a classic response to exposure to a poison. 1970s 3M (appears to) discover PFAS accumulate in human blood. 3Ms own experiments on rats and monkeys concluded that PFAS compounds "should be regarded as toxic." 1976 The Toxic Substances Control Act provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances generally excluded from TSCA include food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. This list did not disclose any PFAS contaminants. 1983 3M announced their $6 million hazardous waste cleanup from their disposal processes.  1998 "Dark Waters" lawyer, Robert Billott, took a case representing Wilbur Tennant, a W.V. farmer, whose had a herd of cattle decimated by strange symptoms. 1998 The EPA was first alerted to the risks of PFAS—human-made "forever chemicals" that "never break down once released and they build up in our bodies." In a 2000 Times article, the EPA said that they first talked to 3M in 1998 after they were first alerted to 3M's 1998 laboratory rat study in which "male and female rats [received] doses of the chemical and then mated. When a pregnant rat continued to get regular doses of about 3.2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, most of the offspring died within four days."  Summer of 1999 Bilott filed suit. 2000 a study widely detected PFOS in wildlife throughout the world" and that "PFOS is widespread in the environment." They said that "PFOS can bioaccumulate to higher trophic levels of the food chain" and that the "concentrations of PFOS in wildlife are less than those required to cause adverse effects in laboratory animals." 17 May 2000 3M stopped manufacturing "PFOS (perfluorooctanesulphonate)-based flurosurfactants using the electrochemical flouorination process," which is a "class of chemicals known as perfluorochemicals (PFCs). Stacy didn't even get into how the Navy and other public services used them to fight fires and increase environmental fire with Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF). 17 May 2000 3M stops manufacturing Scotchgard because of their "corporate responsibility" to be "environmentally friendly." Their tests proved PFOS, an agent that 3M used in the fabrication of Scotchgard— which lingers in the environment and humans. Barboza said that 3M's "decision to drop Scotchgard" would likely affect DuPont's use of PFOAs in the manufacturing of Teflon. Their testing showed "it does not decompose, it's inert—it's persistent; it's like a rock." August 2000 Bilott discovers PFOA or C8 in DuPont's dumping sites Fall of 2000 Bilott gets access to 110,000 pages of documents dated back to the 1950s of DuPont's "private internal correspondence, medical and health reports and confidential studies conducted by DuPont scientists." March 2001 DuPont settled the lawsuit filed by Billot on behalf of Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Bilott sends a 972-page submission to directors of all relevant regulatory authorities: EPA and US AG demanding "immediate action to regulate PFOA 31 August 2001 Bilott files a class-action suit on behalf of thirteen individuals in the "Leach case." 23 November 2004 The class-action lawsuit settled and "established a court-approved scientific panel to determine what types of ailments likely linked to PFOA exposure." This led to thousands of residents then opting to pursue individual lawsuits after medical monitoring showed harm.  2005-2006 The C8 Health Project undertaken by the C8 Science Panel "surveyed 69,030 individuals" who had "lived, worked, or attended school for ≥ 1 year in one of six contaminated water districts near the plant between 1950 and 3 December 2004." 2006 The EPA brokered a voluntary agreement with DuPont and eight other major companies to phase out PFOS and PFOA in the United States. 2014 The EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) developed and published a fact sheet which provided a "summary of the emerging contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), including physical and chemical properties, environmental and health impacts, existing federal and state guidelines, detection and treatment methods. 2016 The EPA "published a voluntary health advisory for PFOA and PFOS," which warned that "exposure to the chemicals at levels above 70 parts per trillion, total, could be dangerous." 13 February 2017 The 2001 class-action suit that Bilott had filed against DuPont, on behalf of the Parkersburg area residents, resulted in DuPont agreeing to pay $671 million in cash to settle about 3,550 personal injury claims. These claims involved a leak of perfluorooctanoic acid—PFOA or C-8— used to make Teflon in its Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works facilities. DuPont denied any wrongdoing. Fall 2017 abnormally high levels of PFAS found in Belmont, Michigan, became one of the first places where PFAS contaminations caught the media's attention.[71] Wolverine Worldwide, a footwear company, was said to be the cause due to their use of Scotchgard to "treat shoe leather" and had dumped their waste in that area decades ago. 2017 PFAS are on Canada's 2019 chart of substances prohibited by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and by Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. These substances are under these regulations because they are "among the most harmful" and "declared toxic to the environment and/or human health," are "generally persistent and bioaccumulative." The "regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of the toxic substances listed below, and products containing them, with a limited number of exemptions." [72] 10 January 2018 According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), studies in humans with PFAS exposure show certain PFAS may affect growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older children, lower a woman's chance of getting pregnant, interfere with the body's natural hormones, increase cholesterol levels, affect the immune system, and increase the risk of cancer." 30 January 2018 three branches of the EPA exchanged chains of emails with OMB, DoD, HHS, and the Pentagon, to put pressure on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It aimed to censor a report that measured the "health effects" of PFAS that are "found in drinking water and household products throughout the United States." An email by an unidentified white house administration forwarded by OMB said that "The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge. The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be."  March 2018 The United States Department of Defense's (DoD) 's report to Congress said the test they conducted showed the amount of PFAS chemicals in water supplies near 126 DoD facilities "exceeded the current safety guidelines." [65] The DoD "used foam containing" PFAS chemicals "in exercises at bases across the country." The DoD, therefore, "risks the biggest liabilities" concerning the use of PFAS chemicals, according to Politico (published May 2018) 21 June 2018 The Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR) 697-page draft report for public comment, "Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls," was finally released. June 2019 Described as a "huge step toward cleaning up the prevalence of and prevent further contamination from PFAS chemicals in-ground, surface and drinking water," the Department of Environmental Services of the state of New Hampshire submitted a "final rulemaking proposal" for new, lower maximum contaminant levels. They then filed a lawsuit against Dupont, 3M, and other companies for their roles in the crisis in drinking water contamination in the United States. The lawsuit claims that the polluted water results from the manufacture and use of perfluorinated chemicals, a group of more than 9,000 compounds collectively known as PFAS.[2] September 2019, Andrew R. Wheeler, EPA Administrator, met with industry lobbyists and said that "Congressional efforts to clean up legacy PFAS pollution in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2020" were "just not workable." Wheeler refuses to "designate PFAS chemicals as "hazardous substances" under the Superfund law." 1 October 2019 A lawsuit filed in the Merrimack County Superior Court by 3M and two others against the state aimed to prevent the new permitted levels for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS from implementation.  4 October 2019 over 100 scientific experts representing many countries "recommended that a group of hazardous chemicals"—"Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts, and PFHxS-related compounds"—be eliminated to better protect human health and the environment from its harmful impacts." 10 March 2020 EPA announced its proposed regulatory determinations for two PFAS in drinking water. In a Federal Register notice, the agency requested public comment on whether it should set maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS in public water systems.  April 2021: Landmark bipartisan legislation proposed to protect all Americans and our environment from harmful forever chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The package establishes a national drinking water standard for select PFAS chemicals, designates as hazardous to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up contaminated sites  https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2975 June 2021: No PFAS in Cosmetics Act introduced with bi-partisan support, coinciding with the publication of a study finding over half of cosmetics contain them. One study found toxic 'forever chemicals' widespread in top makeup brands. The act would require the Food And Drug Administration to ban the chemicals' use in such products within 270 days. June 2021 They also reintroduced the Personal Care Product Safety Act, a bill that would take a major step forward to update our laws governing cosmetics. These laws have largely stood unchanged since 1938. [caption id="attachment_45315" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Source: https://www.ewg.org/pfaschemicals/what-are-forever-chemicals.html[/caption] See this link for an even more detailed timeline of PFAS and toxic chemicals.   What Are PFAS In? PFAS functions in many capacities, including surfactants, friction reducers, and water, dirt, and oil repellents. (50:01) As such, they are used in a wide variety of consumer products to confer nonstick (waterproof, greaseproof, and stainproof) and low-friction properties.  Examples of products that contain or coated with PFAS include: Some grease-resistant paper, fast food containers/wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and candy wrappers  Nonstick cookware  Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics  Water-resistant clothing  Umbrellas, tents, any fabric that repels water (pet bed covers, some mattresses, shoes, etc.) Cleaning products  Personal care products (shampoo, dental floss) and cosmetics (nail polish, eye makeup)  Paints, varnishes, and sealants Electronics Some industrial glass and plastics PFAS are also used directly or as technical aids (dispersants and emulsifiers) in many industrial applications like metal coatings, lubricants for machinery, membranes, and firefighting foams.  PFAS are used in the synthesis of or as adjuvants in pesticides, in medical procedures and products, and in many other applications. PFAS in Cosmetics The FDA has a voluntary registration program (VCRP) which shows an overall decrease in use (about half from 2019 to 2020).  But their site states- "because registration and product listing are voluntary, this data cannot draw definitive conclusions about the types and amounts of PFAS present in registered cosmetics or to determine which cosmetics may contain PFAS but have not been registered in the VCRP." [caption id="attachment_45319" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Source: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics[/caption] The Environment and Water Supply Because of their widespread use, release, and disposal over the decades, PFASs show up virtually everywhere: soil, surface water, the atmosphere, the deep ocean—and even the human body.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site says that the agency has found PFASs in the blood of nearly everyone it has tested for them, "indicating widespread exposure to these PFAS in the U.S. population." Scientists estimated that more than 200 million people—most Americans—have tap water contaminated with a mixture of PFOA and PFOS. These are at concentrations of one part per trillion (ppt) or higher.   Problems with PFOA-Free (PFOS-free, PTFE-free) The most well-studied of these substances, PFOA, and PFOS, have been linked to various health problems. (59:45) Bad press and class-action lawsuits have put pressure on companies to discontinue the use of PFOA and PFOS, but not PFAS as a chemical class. The regulatory bodies have not kept up with the chemical industry either! When some major manufacturers phased out long-chain PFAS, most industries turned to structurally similar replacements. These include hundreds of homologues with fewer fluorinated carbons (short-chain PFAS) or other less well-known PFAS (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkylether-based substances). Producers marked these replacement PFAS as safer alternatives because of their presumed lower toxicity and lower level of bioaccumulation in human blood. However, several lines of evidence suggest that short-chain PFAS are not safer alternatives.  Research demonstrated that short-chain PFAS can be equally environmentally persistent and are even more mobile in the environment and more difficult to remove from drinking water than long-chain PFAS. Bioaccumulation of some short-chain PFAS occurs in humans and animals. For example, fish research suggests they can do more than the long-chain compounds they aim to replace.  Short-chain PFAS also can be more effectively taken up by plants. However, a growing body of evidence suggests they are associated with similar adverse toxicological effects as long-chain PFAS. The ongoing accumulation of persistent chemicals known or potentially hazardous increases human and environmental health risks over an indefinite period. Look for PFAS-free specifically. It's not enough to be PFOA, PFOS, and PTFE-free.   What Can We Do About It? The problem with these chemicals is that there unavoidable. However, we can take steps to protect ourselves. (1:05:01) Make sure the makeup brands you're using test for safety! PFAS and toxic chemicals are the kind of thing someone wouldn't know about unless they checked and tested the product for them. If you shop Beautycounter, use code cleanforall20 for 20% off your purchase. Of course, you can always email Stacy for advice at stacy@realeverything.com! Avoid plastics and coated papers for food storage whenever possible. Also, avoid nonstick cookware or look for ceramic coatings that are PFAS-free, like Le Creuset or Greenpan or silicone liners. Filter your water. Stacy and Sarah love AquaTru, which they talked about in Episode 406. Also, be sure to think about other exposure areas, such as clothing, carpeting, etc. Call Your Representatives! April 13, 2021, House representatives introduced the PFAS Action Act of 2021, a comprehensive 40-page piece of legislation that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take several significant PFAS regulatory actions. Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act (H.R. 2727) is soon to be reintroduced by Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell. Call your representatives to support the proposed environmental justice plan that specifically calls out forever chemicals, tackles PFAS pollution by designating PFAS as a hazardous substance, setting enforceable limits for PFAS in the Safe Drinking Water Act, prioritizing substitutes through procurement, and accelerating toxicity studies and research on PFAS." The new administration could carry out all of these goals unilaterally through executive action without Congress's cooperation. Dan Kildee (MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick are heading the bipartisan PFAS Task Force. They have a LONG list of people in the task force with goals.  No PFAS in Cosmetics Act Personal Care Product Safety Act Natural Cosmetics Act (not updated since introduced in 2019) Also, Stacy encourages you to text Better Beauty to 52886, which will cover these bases.  Support advocacy groups like Environmental Working Group, Toxic-Free Future | Science, Advocacy, Results, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Earthjustice: Environmental Law: Because the Earth Needs a Good Lawyer | Earthjustice other local groups. EPA says reverse osmosis (but not filters, like Brita, unfortunately) removes PFAS.  Lastly, don't get suckered into PFAS detoxes! Currently, there is no established treatment for PFAS exposure. However, blood levels will decrease over time after a reduction in exposure to PFAS.         

Photo: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testifying at a Senate hearing on the Defense Department budget WKL . CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor CBS Audio Network @Batchelorshow Donald Rumsfeld (1932-2021) did not believe in the Pottery Barn ule. @AmbJohnBolton https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/03/donald-rumsfeld-right-middle-east/ 

Photo: No known restrictions on publication.1930  Viewed from cockpit of plane, Army Air Corps planes doing aerial maneuvers over California, circa 1930 @Batchelorshow #GuestPodcast: Four Star Forum with Gen. Norton Schwartz, USAF (ret.), former chief-of-staff United States Air Force. @FRoseDC https://anchor.fm/francis-rose/episodes/8-Gen--Norton-Schwartz--USAF-ret--on-strengthening-the-US-national-security-apparatus-e13ra9n   “The debate is starting in Washington over appropriations and authorizations for the national security community in the coming fiscal year. That debate includes the Defense Department, but it also includes Congress, think tanks, and other stakeholders who contribute to the process of making U-S national security decisions. General Norton Schwartz (USAF ret.) is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analyses. He's former Chief of Staff of the US Air Force. He has a different take on the national security landscape, and what it needs to sustain itself into the future.” Four Star Forum By Francis Rose "Four Star Forum" features one-on-one conversations with award-winning broadcaster Francis Rose and the men and women who have achieved the highest ranks in today's military. It provides America's four-stars, both retired and active-duty, with a platform to talk about national security, defense, and geopolitical issues of the day, in a non-partisan, non-confrontational, thoughtful environment.

Fifty years ago this week, 'The New York Times' published the first in a series of articles based on a classified Defense Department study that was leaked to the paper by Daniel Ellsberg. This study came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. It chronicled decades of failed U.S. policy in Vietnam, and the ways the American public was misled in how the war was conducted. We listen back to archival interviews with Ellsberg and Ben Bradlee of 'The Washington Post,' who ran their own series on the documents. Later, we remember actor Ned Beatty, who died this week and critic David Bianculli reviews the Apple TV+ series 'Physical,' starring Rose Byrne.