From the Intercept: THE ANDROID ADMINISTRATION Google’s Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts

Obama's ties with Silicon Valley have been noted before.

- Click here for the article.

When President Obama announced his support last week for a Federal Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google — the cable and telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech policy were furious. AT&T chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House intervention on behalf of “the Google proposal.”

He’s hardly the first to suggest that the Obama administration has become too close to the Silicon Valley juggernaut.

Over the past seven years, Google has created a remarkable partnership with the Obama White House, providing expertise, services, advice, and personnel for vital government projects.

Precisely how much influence this buys Google isn’t always clear. But consider that over in the European Union, Google is now facing two major antitrust charges for abusing its dominance in mobile operating systems and search. By contrast, in the U.S., a strong case to sanction Google was quashed by a presidentially appointed commission.

It’s a relationship that bears watching. “Americans know surprisingly little about what Google wants and gets from our government,” said Anne Weismann, executive director of Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog organization. Seeking to change that, Weismann’s group is spearheading a data transparency project about Google’s interactions in Washington.

From the New Republic: Even Conservatives Agree on Obama’s Immigration Powers. Will the Supreme Court?

Conservatives tend to like expanded executive power, and have supported it in the past in regards to immigration policy. The article's author points out that many are on the side of the Obama Administration, and against the state of Texas, regarding the constitutionality of the deferred action program for some classes of illegal immigrants.

- Click here for the article.

. . . on June 25, 2012, en route to striking down draconian anti-immigrant restrictions enacted in Arizona, Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues, spelled out a solid foundation for DAPA. “A principal feature of the removal system,” the Court held, “is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.” The opinion went on to note that DHS must consider many factors in deciding when removal is appropriate, including both “immediate human concerns” and “foreign policy.”

Prominent conservative legal scholars and experts know that, as George Mason scholar and Obama critic Ilya Somin wrote at Volokh Conspiracy, “Obama’s decision to defer deportation is in line with those of past presidents, and well within the scope of his authority.” In Washington Examiner, Shikha Dalmia reminded “conservatives outraged” at the administration’s initiative that “whether they like it or not, existing immigration laws give the president vast discretion to temporarily legalize an unlimited number of foreigners.” University of Virginia professor Saikrishna Prakash, a former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas and a prominent specialist on separation of powers and presidential authority, has unequivocally stated that “President Obama has not suspended or dispensed any law” and “not violated his faithful execution duty.”

Here's more:

- Obama Reply Raises The Stakes For SCOTUS:Texas is Flat Out Wrong on Immigration Law.
- The “Lawfully Present” Confusion in the DAPA Case.
- Obama, immigration, and the rule of law.
- On immigration, Obama may be cynical, but he's not breaking the law.
- Response: The Statutory Nonenforcement Power.

From the White House: FACT SHEET: Charting a New Course on Cuba

This is the official release detailing the decision opening up relations with Cuba. It's the most comprehensive look at the range of the decision.

- Click here for it.

From Vox: 9 questions about Cuba you were too embarrassed to ask

Here's some reasonable background on the president's decision to begin the process to normalize relations with Cuba.

Vox also summarizes what each nation will provide to the other:

What the US will give Cuba

- Diplomatic opening: The U.S. will take steps toward restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, severed since 1961. The travel ban will still be in place, as will the embargo, but the embargo's impact will be eased. And some preexisting exceptions to the travel ban will be expanded.
- Embassy in Havana: This will include the goal of reopening a US embassy in Havana in the coming months. The embassy has been closed for over half a century.
- Release alleged Cuban spies: The US will release three Cubans who were convicted of espionage and imprisoned in the US: Gerardo Hernandez, Luis Medina, and Antonio Guerrero. All three prisoners were members of the "Wasp Network," a group that spied on prominent members of the Cuban-American community. CNN reports that Hernandez, the group's leader, was also linked to the downing of two two civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a U.S.-based dissident group.
- Easing business and travel restrictions: The U.S. will make it easier for Americans to obtain licenses to do business in Cuba, and to travel to the island. CNN reports that the new rules still won't permit American tourism, but will make it easier to visit for other purposes.
- Easing banking restrictions: Americans will be able to use credit and debit cards while in Cuba.
- Higher remittance limits: Americans will be able to send up to $2000 per year to family members in Cuba. Cuban-American remittances are a major source of income for many Cuban families.Small-scale imports of Cuban cigars and alcohol: US travelers will be able to import up to $400 in goods from Cuba, including $100 in alcohol and tobacco products.
- Review of basis for sanctions: Secretary of State John Kerry has been ordered to review Cuba's status as a "state sponsor of terrorism." If his review determines that Cuba no longer deserves that status, that will be a first step towards lifting at least some US sanctions.

What Cuba will give the US

- Release Alan Gross: US contractor Alan Gross had been imprisoned in Cuba for the last five years on charges of attempting to undermine the Cuban government. His detention has been a major issue for the US and the Obama administration. He has been released and is on his way back to the United States.
- Release political prisoners: Cuba will release 53 political prisoners from a list provided by the United States. CNN also reports that Cuba is releasing a US intelligence source who has been imprisoned in Cuba for more than 20 years, but it is not clear whether that individual was one of the 53 included on the list.
- Increased internet access: Cuba will allow its citizens increased access to the internet. The US has long sought this as a means of increasing pressure within Cuba for democratic reform.
- Access by the UN: Cuba will allow officials from the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to return to its territory.

A few posts on Obama's immigration

Obama's immigration executive order: Here are the details. This walks through the executive order.

Some explainers from Vox.com - click here for their section on immigration. 

11 key facts about Obama's immigration initiative.

Obama’s huge new immigration plan, explained.

Obama's executive action on immigration, explained in 2 minutes.

NYT: Obama’s New Approach Takes a Humorous Turn

A key part of a president's White House Staff is the communication office. Strategies for using the media effectively have been part of presidential administrations since Washington's day. Jefferson and Hamilton has newspapermen on their respective payroll's.

As media technology changes, so do the strategies.

The New York Times reports on President Obama's recent appearance on Funny or Die's Between Two Ferns.

The pop-culture appearance is the latest public relations gamble that Mr. Obama and his aides have taken in their pursuit of new ways to deliver their message to the connected-but-distracted generation. “Between Two Ferns,” which satirizes the low-budget look of public access television, much as “Wayne’s World” did, has had episodes that have been viewed as many as 30 million times, often because of their outrageous content.

“We have to find ways to break through,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser and chief communications strategist. “This is essentially an extension of the code we have been trying to crack for seven years now.”

Aides said Mr. Obama’s immediate reason for subjecting himself to Mr. Galifianakis is to urge young people to sign up for health insurance on the government’s website, healthcare.gov. As a March 31 deadline for enrolling for 2014 approaches, the White House is making one final push to try to increase the numbers.

Although Mr. Obama has hardly abandoned traditional set pieces like interviews with network anchors, he has been more willing than his predecessors to ditch the oh-so-serious playbook that dominated White House communications strategy for decades.

The president has appeared on several late-night comedy shows, including once “slow-jamming” the news with Jimmy Fallon. He has held Google Hangouts and Facebook town halls, and did an interview about housing onZillow.com, a real estate listings website. He has sat on the sofa with the ladies of “The View” and done an interview with the basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley. His televised town halls have appeared on MTV, Black Entertainment Television, the Country Music Channel and Univision, the Spanish-language network.

- Click here for the article, and here for a second.

Obama appoints Susan Rice as national security adviser

From the NYT:

President Obama announced on Wednesday afternoon that Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, would replace Tom Donilon, who is resigning, as national security adviser in a major shakeup of his foreign-policy inner circle.

The appointment, which Mr. Obama made in a Rose Garden ceremony, puts Ms. Rice, 48, an outspoken diplomat and a close political ally, at the heart of the administration’s foreign-policy apparatus.

It is also a defiant gesture to Republicans who harshly criticized Ms. Rice for presenting an erroneous account of the deadly attacks on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya. The post of national security adviser, while powerful, does not require Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama also named Samantha Power, a National Security Council official, as Ms. Rice’s replacement at the United Nations. Ms. Power, who has written extensively about genocide, is closely allied with Ms. Rice on human rights issues.

What is the national security adviser?

. . . a senior official in the Executive Office of the President who serves as the chief advisor, stationed in the White House, to the President of the United States on national security issues. This person also participates in the meetings of the National Security Council. The National Security Advisor's office is located in the West Wing of the White House. He or she is supported by the National Security Council staff that produces research, briefings, and intelligence for the APNSA to review and present either to the National Security Council or directly to the President.

History of the National Security Council.

Glenn Greenwald on the Obama leak investigations

Greenwald has been a consistent critic of the administration's aggressive pursuit of leakers.

He outlines his case here - good read if you need background on the issue.

Damage Control

The Obama Administration tries to contain three separate scandals with three separate actions yesterday

1 - Benghazi emails were released.
2 - The internim IRS commissioner was fired.
3 -  Media Shield laws were proposed.

We'll try to determine their effectiveness soon.

And since Obama is interested, James Carville offered unsolicited advice on how to address them.

Don’t let opponents lump all three issues into one, big scandal.

“They’re not related,” said Carville on MSNBC Thursday. Benghazi is “a scam, it’s not a scandal. Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen have already thoroughly investigated this.”

The IRS controversy is another matter, he said, one with “legitimate questions.”

“I think the president needs to get ahead of it,” advised Carville. “Probably put a new person in there, find out what happened, and report to the American people.”

President Obama on Thursday appointed Daniel Werfel as acting-IRS commissioner, after requesting and accepting Steven Miller’s resignation Wednesday. In a press release, Obama said that Werfel “has the experience and management ability necessary to lead the agency at this important time.”

As for the AP probe, Carville rejected Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s assertion that the sweeping subpoena of journalists’ phone records represented a White House “culture of intimidation.”

“It was an overly broad subpoena that was given power by a political appointee,” said Carville. “I have no idea what Sen. Rubio actually is talking about.”

Above all, Carville recommended keeping this week’s finger-pointing and inflammatory rhetoric in perspective and under control.

“Remember that the earth is warm, that the economy is growing, that the deficit is shrinking, that the healthcare costs are flattening out, that Benghazi was nothing,” he said.

More on the filibuster against Judge Halligan

There are four vacancies on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and Senate Republicans have been able to prevent President Obama from filling any of them. Democrats are strategizing to figure out how to respond.

From the NYT:

A fresh feud over federal judgeships has again begun to agitate the Senate, with Republicans so far blocking President Obama from filling any of the four vacancies on the nation’s most prestigious and important appeals court.

After Republicans this week filibustered the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Democrats quickly began discussions over how to respond. One possibility is for Mr. Obama to make several simultaneous nominations, in effect daring Republicans to find specific objections in multiple instances. Democrats say Republicans would be hard pressed to come up with legitimate reasons to disqualify all four.

“We need to design a strategy to counter the Republicans, and we are going to need the president,” said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico. “Rather than putting just one up, we should put before the Senate all four and expose what is happening here.”

If Republicans were to continue to steadfastly block a series of appeals court nominees, Democrats say they might then have justification to revisit Senate rules and claim new power to thwart filibusters.

Top federal executive positions remain vacant

ProPublica reports on the number of top executive positions that remain vacant in the Obama Administration (click here for data).

All presidential administrations have vacancies. But an analysis of appointments data by ProPublica shows that President Obama hasn’t kept up with his predecessors in filling them. A greater share of presidentially appointed positions that require Senate confirmation were sitting vacant at the end of Obama’s first term than at the end of Bill Clinton’s or George W. Bush’s first terms. At least 68 of the positions remain vacant, including 43 that have been vacant for more than a year.

The vacancies have been spread across dozens of different departments and agencies, with some hit harder than others. At the Department of the Interior, for instance, six of its 18 appointed positions were vacant at the end of Obama’s first term. The department had three vacancies midway through Clinton’s presidency and only one midway through Bush’s.

The lack of appointed leaders can create problems. Too many vacancies can put agencies “in stand-down, waiting for policymakers to show up,” said Terry Sullivan, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina who has studied appointments.

Acting heads of agencies “don’t make any big decisions,” said Cal Mackenzie, a professor of government at Colby College who has studied appointments since the 1970s. “Your authority is not going to be recognized in the same way a Senate-confirmed appointee is going to be recognized.”

NPR points out that delaying or denying these positions can be a strategic decision by opponents who cannot terminate an agency, but want to make it difficult for the agancy to carry out its mission.

Does a dysfunctional Congress allow for expanded executive powers?

The NYT reports on two recent Obama picks - one for Department of Energy and one for the Environmental Protection Agency - are likely to face resistance in Congress to any proposals they will pursue once in office. But each is expected to go forward with an agenda - including focusing on climate change - using powers already granted to each agency by Congress. |

McCarthy, a tough-talking native of Boston and an experienced clean air regulator, to take charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ernest J. Moniz, a physicist and strong advocate of natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner alternatives to coal, to run the Department of Energy.

The appointments, which require Senate confirmation, send an unmistakable signal that the president intends to mount a multifaceted campaign in his second term to tackle climate change by using all the executive branch tools at his disposal.

When we discussed the executve branch in 2305 we outlined a variety of factors that have led to an increase in executve powers. Perhaps we should Congressional gridlock to the mix.

Hagel's nomination to Defense Secretary to be filibustered

Which would be both unprecedented and a further indication that the partisanship that has calcified the House is doing the same to the Senate. Since we haven't talked this over that much in class, here's background:

- Hagel has rough outing before ex-colleagues.
- Chuck Hagel survives, now faces full Senate.
- Why Republicans are filibustering Chuck Hagel.
- Chuck Hagel blocked: Harry Reid doesn't have the votes.
- Harry Reid sets state for Chuck Hagel showdown.

We've yet to fully wade into the controversies over the filibuster, this helps remedy that.

John Kerry confirmed as Secretary of State, no thanks to Texas' Senators

John Kerry was confirmed by the Senate 94-3 after appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - which he actually chaired at the time. Speculation has held that Obama nominated Kerry because the two became close while Obama was a senator. Kerry became his mentor. This is payback, and also a way to obtain a secretary that will be loyal. That is not always a good thing.

- Click here for his opening statement.
- Click here for video of the hearing.

- The NYT details the process here.

Mr. Kerry, who is a Vietnam veteran, a former presidential nominee and the son of a diplomat, will be inheriting a difficult agenda. The conflict in Syria has killed more than 60,000 people. The international envoy on the Syrian crisis, Lakhdar Brahimi, who reported to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, has made no headway. Egypt is in turmoil. By Mr. Kerry’s own account, relations with Russia have deteriorated.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee during Mr. Obama’s first term, Mr. Kerry was a loyal ally of the White House and served as an interlocutor with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, among others.

During a nearly four-hour confirmation hearing last week, Mr. Kerry demonstrated familiarity with a broad range of issues, but he did not present any new ideas on how to address them.

Our two senators voted against him - along with Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe. The National Journal tries to explain why, while noting that Cornyn is a default "no" vote against all the president's nominees. Elections play a key role: 

Of the three senators to vote on Tuesday against President Obama's nomination of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to be the next secretary of state, two are up for re-election in 2014: Sen. John Cornyn, the GOP minority whip from Texas, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. The other is Cornyn's fellow Texan, the newly-elected Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

It's easy to figure out why Inhofe would oppose Kerry, as the two of them are staunch advocates on polar opposites on climate change policy. (Inhofe said as much in a statement explaining his vote). Inhofe also is not in significant danger of a primary challenge or losing the general election if he runs again.

Cornyn, however, does have reason to look over his shoulder, as home state conservatives are vowing to contest his re-election. And voting against Kerry certainly won't hurt Cornyn in Texas.

"Sen. Kerry has a long history of liberal positions that are not consistent with a majority of Texans. After reviewing the nomination hearing, Sen. Cornyn could not support Sen. Kerry's nomination," said Cornyn spokesperson Megan Mitchell in a statement reported by the Dallas Morning News.

Cruz won't have to run again until 2018, but it might be poor form to vote against the interest of the Tea Party since they were responsible for his electoral success. Cornyn's vote - again - points out the influence of the Republican primary voting bloc in the state. One of the commenters pointed out that Cornyn waited to vote until after Cruz. Once Cruz voted no, Cornyn had to.

It also highlights cultural differences between Texas and the nation at large.

The Chronicle highlights this statement from Cruz:

“I was compelled to vote no on Sen. Kerry’s nomination because of his longstanding less-than-vigorous defense of U.S. national security issues and, in particular, his long record of supporting treaties and international tribunals that have undermined U.S. sovereignty. Now that he has been confirmed, I look forward to working with him in the years to come, hopefully, to protect our interests and preserve U.S. sovereignty.”

Nothing to back up the allegations, but that might be worth investigating. Note his use the word sovereignty - which is a touchstone for conservative Texans.

Interview with Timothy Geithner

The New Republic has an interview with the outgoing Treasury Secretary.

Worth a quick read to get an inside look at how the financial crash was averted and how the Obama Administration works from the inside.

Wonkblog writes up his farewell to the President and the Treasury Department staff.

From David Frum: Obama Gets Tough

With no need to seek reelection, Obama feels he can start playing hardball.

Looking back on Obama's first term

The NYT does the honors, and links to a photo essay of the people in his first terms as it started.

Its a bit pro-Obama, so if that's not your thing - be forewarned.

$850,000,000,000,000,000

That's the estimated costs of the death star that over 30,000 people petitioned to begin building by 2016.



Apparently its not going to happen.

Here's the petition and the response.

Aside from the costs, the administration makes the following arguments against it:

- The Administration does not support blowing up planets.


- Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

Obama nominates his chief of staff to be the new Secretary of the Treasury

NYT has the story here, and here. More to follow, along with the many other appointments Obama has made recently.

We need to catch up on what all these changes mean. It is not unusual for presidents to have new faces in their second terms. The nature of Obama's selections have led some to suspect that he intends to make his mark on government this term. The first was about dealing with lingering crisis. His cabinet then was reflective of that. This time its different.

More on that soon.



Click here for info on Lew, and NYT's summary of Lew on key issues.

The many faces of John Brennan

He does look like the kind of guy you want heading the CIA.







Here he's being a softy: