Japan reportedly said Tuesday that President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew EPA rule would expand Trump officials’ powers to reject FOIA requests Democratic senator introduces bill to ban gun silencers Democrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question MORE assured leaders that he is committed to a major military treaty between the two nations, despite a report that he has privately expressed a desire to withdraw from it.

“The thing reported in the media you mentioned does not exist,” chief government spokesman Yoshihide Suga told reporters, according to Reuters.

“We have received confirmation from the U.S. president it is incompatible with the U.S. government policy,” he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bloomberg, citing unidentified sources, reported Monday that Trump believes the arrangement is one-sided because it requires the U.S. to defend Japan if attacked but does not hold Tokyo to the same standard. He is also reportedly dissatisfied with plans to relocate the U.S. military base in Okinawa.

The pact commits the U.S. to defending Japan after it renounced the right to wage war after World War II. In exchange, Japan provides the U.S. military bases, including Okinawa, the largest concentration of U.S. Marines outside the United States.

Withdrawing from the agreement could lead to a major drawdown of U.S. presence in Asia as China builds up its own military.

The Bloomberg report claims that Trump has not taken any concrete steps to alter the agreement, despite his complaints. The news outlet also said administration officials called changes to or withdrawal from the agreement unlikely.

Asked about the Bloomberg report, a White House official told The Hill: “We are aware of the article and have raised its many inaccuracies with the journalist.”

— This report was updated at 9:59 a.m.

Click Here: Celtic Football Shirts

Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharRules for first Democratic primary debates announced Senate set to bypass Iran fight amid growing tensions Sanders unveils student debt plan amid rivalry with Warren MORE (D-Minn.) and Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerHillicon Valley: Senate bill would force companies to disclose value of user data | Waters to hold hearing on Facebook cryptocurrency | GOP divided on election security bills | US tracking Russian, Iranian social media campaigns Ex-Obama counterterrorism official: Huawei could pose security threat to international intelligence community Bipartisan senators to introduce bill forcing online platforms to disclose value of user data MORE (D-Va.) introduced legislation on Tuesday aimed at preventing foreign nationals from purchasing political advertisements, the latest move by Senate Democrats pushing for election security legislation.

The Preventing Adversaries Internationally from Disbursing Advertising Dollars (PAID AD) Act would amend federal campaign finance laws to ban foreign nationals from purchasing ads that name a political candidate and appear on broadcast, cable, satellite or digital platforms.

The legislation would also make it illegal for a foreign government to purchase “issue advertisements” during an election year.

The senators argued that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), first passed in 1972, should be expanded beyond its current “narrow” definition of what constitutes “electioneering communication.” The law currently prohibits a foreign national from contributing to political campaigns, making independent expenditures or buying electioneering communication, but the senators want it to go further.

“Our intelligence community has been clear—foreign powers continue to interfere in our elections and they’ll keep doing so unless we stop them,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “Strengthening our campaign finance laws to prohibit paid political advertisements by foreign nationals and foreign governments is necessary to ensure American elections are free and fair.”

Warner emphasized that “we need to get serious about protecting our elections from foreign interference,” describing the PAID AD Act as “commonsense.”

In the House, a companion bill has already been introduced by Reps. Elissa SlotkinElissa SlotkinChaos within the EPA exposes Americans to toxins like asbestos Freshman Democrats call on McConnell to hold vote on election reform bill Pro-trade group targets Democratic leadership in push for new NAFTA MORE (D-Mich.) and Elise StefanikElise Marie StefanikOvernight Defense: Pompeo blames Iran for oil tanker attacks | House panel approves 3B defense bill | Trump shares designs for red, white and blue Air Force One House panel approves 3B defense policy bill Youngest black congresswoman says millennial colleagues have ‘less fighting over partisan nonsense’ MORE (R-N.Y.) as an amendment to H.R. 1, the For the People Act.

The House passed this sweeping election security and reform bill along party lines in March, but the bill is unlikely to receive a vote in the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellEXCLUSIVE: Trump on reparations: ‘I don’t see it happening’ Overnight Health Care — Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — Trump issues order to bring transparency to health care prices | Fight over billions in ObamaCare payments heads to Supreme Court Hillicon Valley: Senate bill would force companies to disclose value of user data | Waters to hold hearing on Facebook cryptocurrency | GOP divided on election security bills | US tracking Russian, Iranian social media campaigns MORE (R-Ky.) labeled the bill the “Democrat Politician Protection Act.”

The PAID AD Act is similar in some ways to another bill backed by both Klobuchar and Warner, the Honest Ads Act, which is meant to increase transparency of who buys online paid political ads.

Klobuchar and Warner have also been on the frontline of Senate Democrats’ efforts to pass election security legislation. Both Warner and Klobuchar have tried to force floor votes on other election security bills they sponsor during the last week, though both were blocked in these efforts by Senate Republicans.

McConnell has consistently refused to allow floor votes on election security measures, citing concerns around the potential for these bills to federalize elections.

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee considered a plan earlier this month that would have put Democrats on the record in their push to get special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerKamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump Schiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report MORE to testify before Congress.

During a closed-door GOP meeting, Rep. Doug CollinsDouglas (Doug) Allen CollinsHicks repeatedly blocked by White House from answering Judiciary questions Judiciary chair: Hicks broke with Trump on accepting foreign dirt on opponents Democrats bristle as Hicks appears for daylong Capitol Hill testimony MORE (R-Ga.) floated the idea of introducing a resolution to subpoena Mueller during Democrats’ first high-profile hearing on the Russia report that featured Watergate star John Dean, multiple sources told The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyTop Trump ally says potential Amash presidential bid could be problematic in Michigan Ocasio-Cortez on concentration camp remarks: Liz Cheney, GOP ‘manipulating pain for political purposes’ GOP rep: Trump needs to retaliate against Iran to deter other hostile nations MORE (R-Calif.) advised against proceeding with the approach, effectively stunting the proposed effort from moving forward, according to three GOP sources familiar with the discussions.

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

Since then, the House chairmen for the Intelligence and Judiciary committees have announced that Mueller will testify on Capitol Hill. He is slated to give public testimony before both panels on July 17.

Still, a subpoena resolution from a Republican several weeks ago would have undoubtedly caught Judiciary Democrats off-guard, putting them in a tight spot where they would be on record either for or against subpoenaing Mueller, a move Democrats at the time had yet to make amid some divisions.

But the GOP sources say McCarthy worried such a move would backfire.

“I think McCarthy thought it was the wrong move and would play against the effort at large,” according to a GOP source familiar with the matter, who said it “took a member-level meeting to bat down a plainly bad idea.”

Matt Sparks, McCarthy’s communications director, said in a statement: “The interaction described by anonymous and uninformed sources is wholly inaccurate.” Sparks did not respond to a request for comment to clarify whether a resolution was discussed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Collins and other top Republicans at the time had a week to decide how to respond to Democrats from when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerNadler apologized after repeatedly calling Hope Hicks ‘Ms. Lewandowski’ at hearing Hope Hicks: Trump campaign felt ‘relief’ after WikiLeaks released damaging info about Hillary Clinton House hearing marks historic moment for slavery reparations debate MORE (D-N.Y.) announced the Mueller report hearings to when the first hearing took place.

While planning discussions between members and House leaders often occur ahead of major hearings, the private talks about a possible Mueller subpoena resolution offer a glimpse into the options Republicans considered to counter Democrats, who are leading sprawling investigations into Trump and his administration.

Collins, who has repeatedly said he wants Mueller to testify, downplayed the subpoena resolution plan, telling The Hill “there’s been many considerations.”

A spokesperson for Collins declined to comment on the record about the potential resolution.

Asked last week if he shot down the resolution idea, McCarthy replied: “I don’t know anything about that.”

Three GOP sources said offering a Mueller resolution would have put Republicans on the same side as Democrats — an alignment that would be a bad GOP strategy, particularly because there are a growing number of Democrats voicing support for an impeachment inquiry.

“Secretly, a lot of us want to interview Bob Mueller,” a separate GOP source told The Hill before Tuesday night’s announcement. “I think it would be good, but we don’t want to be agreeing with the Democrats on impeachment-related things because then it looks like Republicans and Democrats agree.”

A third Republican source said pulling in Mueller to testify before Congress runs counter to the messaging coming out of the White House: “No collusion, no obstruction. Case closed.” Doing so, the source said, would signal that Republicans don’t have all the information they need.

While Mueller said he did not find sufficient evidence to conclude there was a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential race, the special counsel did not offer a determination as to whether the president obstructed justice.

Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrDemocrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question The Hill’s Morning Report – In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations EXCLUSIVE: Trump declines to say he has confidence in FBI director MORE and other Justice Department officials ultimately decided that the evidence in the report was not sufficient to charge the president with a crime.

Democrats, however, say that clearing Trump on obstruction was not Barr’s call to make and that it is their responsibility to conduct oversight and further examine the 10 episodes of possible obstruction of justice Mueller investigated.

Republicans have said they want to press Mueller on the origins of the Russia probe and allegations of impropriety.

As Democrats’ investigations get further underway and more of their members voice support for an impeachment inquiry, Republicans say their best strategy is to oppose Democrats’ oversight efforts.

As one GOP source put it: “From a strategy standpoint, I can’t think of a move [Democrats] would make that we wouldn’t oppose except to move on.”

Lawmakers expressed disbelief on Tuesday when a Google executive told a Senate panel that the company does not use persuasive techniques targeted at its users.

Maggie Stanphill, Google’s director of user experience, during a Senate Commerce technology subcommittee hearing, told the panel, “No, we do not use persuasive technology at Google.”

At issue before the panel was how algorithms used by companies like Google, Facebook and others might influence their users.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Stanphill’s statement prompted pushback from senators who had been scrutinizing the company over its content decisions on platforms like YouTube.

“You don’t want to clarify that a little further?” Sen. Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzOvernight Health Care — Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — Trump issues order to bring transparency to health care prices | Fight over billions in ObamaCare payments heads to Supreme Court Democrats call for restraint, oversight as Trump reportedly calls back Iranian strike Democrats mark World Refugee Day MORE asked. “Either I misunderstand your company or I misunderstand the definition of persuasive technology.”

Stanphill responded by saying “dark patterns and persuasive technology are not core to our design.”

“We build our products with privacy, security and control for the users,” she continued. “And ultimately this builds a lifelong relationship with the user, which is primary. That’s our trust.”

“I don’t understand what any of that meant,” Schatz said.

A skeptical Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that Stanphill’s answer was hard to accept given that persuasion appeared to be baked into Google’s business model.

“On the issue of persuasive technology, I find, Ms. Stanphill, your contention that Google does not build systems with the idea of persuasive technology in mind somewhat difficult to believe, because I think Google tries to keep people glued to its screens, at the very least,” Blumenthal says.

Many on the panel took Google and other internet platforms to task for the lack of transparency in their algorithms and how those technologies influence their users’ behavior.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneHillicon Valley: Senate bill would force companies to disclose value of user data | Waters to hold hearing on Facebook cryptocurrency | GOP divided on election security bills | US tracking Russian, Iranian social media campaigns GOP senators divided over approach to election security McSally on Moore running for Senate again: ‘This place has enough creepy old men’ MORE (R-S.D.), the chairman of the subcommittee, suggested that he was considering a bill that would tackle the issue and called for greater transparency from the industry.

“Congress has a role to play in ensuring companies have the freedom to innovate but in a way that keeps consumers interests and well-being at the forefront of their progress,” Thune said. “Consumers should have the option to engage with a platform without being manipulated by algorithms powered by their own personal data — particularly if those algorithms are opaque to the average user.

“Companies are letting algorithms run wild and only using humans to clean up the mess,” added Schatz, the top Democrat on the panel. “Algorithms are amoral. Companies designed them to optimize for engagement as their highest priority, and in doing so eliminated human judgment as part of their business model.”

The subcommittee also heard from Tristan Harris, a former Google programmer who has since become one of the foremost critics of social media companies’ design decisions. Harris told lawmakers that some internet platforms can easily predict from a user’s data what their sexuality is, their personality traits, whether they suffer from low self-esteem and whether they’re about to enter a relationship.

“It’s a race between who can better predict your behavior,” Harris said. “They can predict things about us that we don’t know about ourselves.”

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew EPA rule would expand Trump officials’ powers to reject FOIA requests Democratic senator introduces bill to ban gun silencers Democrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question MORE on Monday declared migrant detention facilities are better than they were under former President Obama, despite numerous reports describing worsening conditions in centers along the southern border and elsewhere.

“No, the conditions are much better than they were under President Obama,” Trump said during an exclusive interview with The Hill. 

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

Trump said the Obama administration built many of the facilities where migrants from Central America are behind held and incorrectly claimed that his predecessor created the policy of separating child migrants from their parents or adult guardians.

“When I came in, I took over Obama’s policy. It was a policy of separation. I’m the one that put them together,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Trump administration last year created a “zero tolerance” policy as a deterrent amid a growing number of Central American migrants crossing the southern border, which resulted in children being separated from their parents after families were detained by immigration authorities.

The previous administration did not have a sweeping policy of prosecuting adults in a way that required they be separated from their children. 

Trump later signed an executive order stopping the separations amid a major public outcry. 

The president is again fending off criticism over conditions inside facilities for children, which have struggled to handle the tens of thousands of migrants crossing the border each month.

The acting head of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), John Sanders, plans to step down next week amid the uproar, an agency official confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

The government recently moved children from a Border Patrol station outside El Paso, Texas, after reports that more than 300 were held without proper sanitation, food and water. A lawyer monitoring the facility told The New Yorker that children were forced to care for one another, had slept on cold floors, did not receive treatment for illnesses like the flu and were denied access to toothbrushes and soap.

Around 100 children were reportedly returned to the facility due to a lack of bed space at other detention centers, according to multiple reports. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezLawmakers ‘failed us’ says ICE chief Pelosi, Democratic leaders seek to quell liberal revolt over border bill Bronx restaurants thank Ocasio-Cortez for her endorsements MORE (D-N.Y.) earlier this month likened the conditions to concentration camps. Trump on Monday did not respond specifically when asked about Ocasio-Cortez’s description. 

He said he would “like to see them” receive toothbrushes and other toiletries, but added there may be issues providing them “from a strictly legal standpoint” while repeating his claim that “we’re taking care of people far better than President Obama did.”

A Justice Department lawyer recently argued in court that migrants in detention centers are not necessarily guaranteed access to toiletries under a 1997 legal settlement spelling out requirements for the detention of immigrant children.

The comment sparked outrage from Democrats and immigrant-rights activists, who said the agreement spells out that children should be held in “safe and sanitary” facilities.

Obama also faced criticism in 2014 for the conditions at makeshift facilities for child migrants, most of whom crossed the border unaccompanied. At the time, news outlets and advocates discovered thousands of children sleeping inside chain-link-fenced cages, oftentimes on the floor.

“Remember the big, the big deal where they showed the cells all over and they said, Donald Trump, and they showed young children in the cells and Donald Trump built these cells? It turned out they were built in 2014 when Obama was president,” Trump said.

The president also expressed pessimism about the possibility Congress will reach an agreement to change immigration laws, a condition he laid out last week when announcing he was delaying an operation to deport migrant families.

“I was called by some very good people that happen to be Democrat, and they asked me if I’d delay it. I said, ‘But listen, we are just kidding ourselves unless you’re gonna change the loophole provisions and unless you’re gonna change asylum.’ And if we can work on that, fine. And we may not get there. We probably won’t. It’s incredible,” Trump said.

House Democrats are working to pass a $4.5 billion package to address the flow of migrants at the southern border, which includes language requiring CBP to establish health and hygiene standards for children and adults in custody.

The White House has threatened to veto the measure, calling it a “partisan” bill that “underfunds” immigration enforcement efforts and “seeks to take advantage of the current crisis by inserting policy provisions that would make our country less safe.”

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an attempt by Democrats to pass legislation aimed at bolstering the country’s election infrastructure despite a stalemate in the chamber on the issue.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, tried to call up the Election Security Act, which would require backup paper ballots and provide election security grants to states, before it was blocked.

“We know there’s a continued threat against our democracy. What we need to do now is address these facts with a common purpose, to protect our democracy, to make sure that our election systems are resilient against future attacks,” Klobuchar said from the Senate floor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Under the Senate’s rules, any one senator can try to pass a bill or resolution by unanimous consent, but any one senator can also block that request.

Sen. James LankfordJames Paul LankfordGOP senators divided over approach to election security Hillicon Valley: Facebook unveils new cryptocurrency | Waters wants company to halt plans | Democrats look to force votes on election security | Advertisers partner with tech giants on ‘digital safety’ | House GOP unveils cyber agenda Democrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills MORE (R-Okla.) objected, arguing that he and Klobuchar were trying to draft separate legislation together and that he didn’t want to see election security become a partisan issue.

“I find myself at odds today with a partner in this … we have worked together in a very nonpartisan way to be able to resolve this issue. I think we still can resolve this and we can actually get a result, but a partisan proposal will not get us an end results where both parties come together and get to resolve this,” Lankford said from the Senate floor. 

Lankford and Klobuchar have partnered on election security bills, including the Secure Elections Act, during the previous Congress. The two senators are expected to reintroduce the bill. Lankford told The Hill last week that he was waiting for Klobuchar to sign off on changes to the legislation.

In addition to providing $1 billion in funding for states to bolster their cybersecurity and audits, the bill Klobuchar tried to pass on Tuesday would also require President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew EPA rule would expand Trump officials’ powers to reject FOIA requests Democratic senator introduces bill to ban gun silencers Democrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question MORE to release a strategy on how to protect U.S. institutions from cyberattacks.

Lankford argued that while he and Klobuchar agreed about the need for backup paper ballots, he said that funding from the federal government wouldn’t get it implemented in every state prior to the presidential election.

“No matter how much money we threw at the states right now, they could not make that so by the 2020 presidential election. It’s not possible to be able to get there,” he said.

The back-and-forth on the floor comes as election security legislation has hit a wall in the GOP-controlled Senate.

House Democrats passed a sweeping election and ethics reform bill earlier this year and are preparing a second wave of legislation aimed at responding to special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerKamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump Schiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report MORE‘s report on Russia’s election meddling in 2016. 

But Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntHillicon Valley: Senate bill would force companies to disclose value of user data | Waters to hold hearing on Facebook cryptocurrency | GOP divided on election security bills | US tracking Russian, Iranian social media campaigns This week: Congress set for clash on Trump’s border request GOP senators divided over approach to election security MORE (Mo.), the chairman of the Rules Committee and a member of GOP leadership, has indicated that he won’t bring up election security legislation in his committee, the Senate panel with primary jurisdiction on the issue.

Democrats have seized on Mueller’s findings, as well as Trump’s comments earlier this month where he suggested he was open to taking information on an opponent from a foreign government, as evidence that Congress needs to pass additional legislation.

Democrats worry that Trump’s remarks, in particular, could be seen by foreign governments as an invitation to meddle in the 2020 presidential election.

“There is a presidential election before us and if a few counties in one swing state or an entire state get hacked into there’s no backup paper ballots and we can’t figure out what happened, the entire election will be called into question,” Klobuchar said Tuesday.

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to consider equal protection claims in its forthcoming ruling on the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census following a lower court decision Tuesday.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote a letter to justices Tuesday arguing that an earlier appeals court decision to send a separate lawsuit on the question back to a lower court to review claims of discrimination “underscores the need” for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Francisco in his letter referenced the “Hofeller files” –– documents recovered from the hard drives of late Republican operative Thomas Hofeller, who is alleged to have played a previously undisclosed role in orchestrating the census citizenship question.

ADVERTISEMENT

Those documents show that Hofeller conducted an unpublished study in 2015 that found that asking about citizenship on the census would help Republican and white groups in redrawing congressional districts, while harming Democrats and Hispanic communities.

And the evidence suggests that Hofeller played a role in drafting a memo used by the Trump administration to argue for the citizenship question, and that he was contacted by a Census Bureau staffer in 2015 about potentially asking about citizenship on the 2020 survey.

If true, those claims undercut the Trump administration’s argument that the question rolled out by the Department of Commerce under secretary Wilbur RossWilbur Louis RossDemocrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question Apple in front lines of Trump trade war Supreme Court set to deliver ruling on census citizenship question MORE was added solely to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Francisco argued in his letter Tuesday that the Supreme Court should “address the equal-protection claim and the immateriality of the Hofeller files in its disposition” of the case “so that the lawfulness of the secretary’s decision can be fully and finally resolved.”

The solicitor general maintained that justices can rule on the equal protection claims because the administration referenced it in its opening brief for the case. And he said that the evidence involving Hofeller was also “put before this court” in a motion filed by the ACLU, asking the Supreme Court to send the case back down to a lower court to review the discrimination claims.

“Accordingly, the equal-protection issue is squarely before this court for resolution,” Francisco wrote.

In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued earlier Tuesday, the appellate court sent a separate lawsuit challenging the citizenship question down for reconsideration before U.S. District Judge George Hazel in Maryland.

Hazel, an Obama appointee, has said that new evidence rebutting the Trump administration’s argument that the citizenship question was added to enforce the Voting Rights Act “raises a substantial issue.” He had previously struck down the question, finding that officials violated federal law in adding it to the census.

Francisco, in the letter Tuesday, emphasized the Census Bureau’s deadline to finalize census materials by the end of June in order to get the 2020 survey out in time, as reason the Supreme Court should rule on the allegations of a discriminatory intent now.

He said that the possibility of Hazel finding there was a discriminatory intent and issuing a preliminary injunction against the census citizenship question “jeopardizes that schedule.”

“Were the district court to enter such an injunction, the government would be forced to seek emergency relief from this Court with a need for resolution by June 30, just five days from now. Thus, this Court would have to address the equal-protection issue anyway, only on a highly expedited basis,” Francisco argued.

He said that, in order to “avoid that needless prospect,” the justices “should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the secretary’s decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection.”

The Supreme Court could issue its ruling on whether it will allow the citizenship question to appear on the 2020 census as soon as Wednesday.

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

A group of experts on Tuesday warned a House panel that artificial intelligence is not capable of sweeping up the full breadth of online extremist content — in particular posts from white supremacists.

At a House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing, lawmakers cast doubt on claims from top tech companies that artificial intelligence, or AI, will one day be able to detect and take down terrorist and extremist content without any human moderation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Max RoseMax RoseGOP hopes dim on reclaiming House Republicans raise concerns over House campaign arm leadership Freshman Democrats call on McConnell to hold vote on election reform bill MORE (D-N.Y.), the chairman of counterterrorism subcommittee holding the hearing, said he is fed up with responses from companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook about their failure to take down extremist posts and profiles, calling it “wanton disregard for national security obligations.”

“We are hearing the same thing from social media companies, and that is, ‘AI’s got this, it’s only gonna get better,’ ” Rose said during his opening remarks. “Nonetheless … we have seen egregious problems.” 

“We’ve been looking at this problem for months now,” he continued. “We’ve been approached by the social media companies with this libertarian, technocratic elitism that’s highly, highly disturbing and it centers around the claim that AI can accomplish everything.”

The lineup of experts, including Facebook’s former chief security officer and current Stanford academic Alex Stamos, agreed that AI is not ready to take on the complicated issues of terrorist content — and raised questions over whether it ever will be able to.

Stamos said the “world’s best machine learning resembles a crowd of millions of preschoolers.” 

“No number of preschoolers could get together to build the Taj Mahal,” he explained.  

He also raised concerns about the variety of fringe platforms, such as 8chan and Gab, that seek to host white supremacist groups and ideologies.

“These white supremacist groups have online hosts who are happy to host them,” Stamos said. “That is not true for the Islamic state.”

The House Homeland Security Committee has kicked its investigation of online extremist content into high gear over the past several months, following the livestreamed and viral mass shooting of worshippers in a Christchurch, New Zealand, mosque.

The incident, which left platforms scrambling to take down millions of copies of the video, has sparked questions from lawmakers over how seriously the platforms treat acts of white supremacy.

Representatives with Facebook, Google and Twitter are slated to testify before the full House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday about their efforts to counter online terrorist content and misinformation.

Top tech companies, including Facebook, have claimed that their AI systems are already successfully detecting a huge swath of terrorist and extremist content. But experts at the hearing said those claims are often overblown.

“Context is vitally important and context can often be hard for algorithms to detect,” Ben Buchanan, an assistant teaching professor at Georgetown University, said.

It is often difficult for artificial intelligence systems to distinguish between educational videos about atrocities and content that is promoting those acts of violence.

After the hearing on Tuesday, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonDemocrats make U-turn on calling border a ‘manufactured crisis’ Hillicon Valley: Facebook unveils new cryptocurrency | Waters wants company to halt plans | Democrats look to force votes on election security | Advertisers partner with tech giants on ‘digital safety’ | House GOP unveils cyber agenda Top Democrats question legal basis for appointing Cuccinelli as temporary immigration chief MORE (D-Miss.) told reporters that the committee is currently in the exploratory stage and is not working on any legislative proposals.

“After we conduct all of our oversight, if the companies demonstrate that without governmental regulation, they can do this, then I would say that there’s no need,” Thompson said. “But we’re still in the informational stage of seeing whether or not that is, in fact, the case.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

The federal government on Tuesday filed a civil lawsuit against former White House aide Omarosa Manigault NewmanOmarosa Onee Manigault NewmanWhite House hires director of African American outreach after post was vacant for months: report Trump’s nastiest break-ups: A look at the president’s most fiery feuds Donald Trump Jr. inks book deal MORE, alleging that she failed to file a required financial disclosure report after she was fired.

The civil action alleges that Manigault Newman is in violation of the Ethics in Government Act “for knowingly and willfully failing to file the required public financial disclosure report after her employment terminated with the Executive Office of the President.”

The Department of Justice is seeking a fine of up to $50,000 against the former “Apprentice” contestant.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a statement to The Hill, Manigault Newman’s attorney John M. Phillips called the allegations “untrue” and claimed that the “White House chooses to abuse process and use the Department of Justice to carry out retaliation.”

Phillips maintained that many of the items his client would be required to report on the form were taken by the White House and the White House counsel’s office when she was fired. And he claimed that the White House didn’t agree to hand over those documents until May.

“We requested an extension until these documents could be returned. However, despite her efforts, they have continued to withhold these documents which are needed to complete the disclosure and now serve media with a complaint before she even has a chance to read it,” Phillips said.

“We will pick up these materials immediately and have requested same repeatedly,” he continued. “Omarosa Manigault Newman cannot even get a straight answer about the amount of materials wrongfully possessed. This is premature and retaliation. It should not be tolerated.”

The complaint, filed in federal court in D.C. on Tuesday, alleges that Manigault Newman was told in December 2017 — when she left the White House — that she needed to file a termination financial disclosure report by Jan. 18, 2018.

The document states that three emails were sent to her personal email address reminding her of her obligation to file the report.

The department alleged that ethics attorneys in the White House counsel’s office then made repeated attempts to contact Manigault Newman, telling her that her financial disclosure report was past due.

The court filing states that Manigault Newman did respond to one ethics attorney in March 2018, calling the lawyer to discuss the report.

“Later that day, on March 26, 2018, Stefan Passantino, then-Deputy Counsel to the President, sent Ms. Manigault Newman an email to the provided email address and to the second email address reminding her of her obligation to file her termination financial disclosure report,” the court document reads.

“Ms. Manigault Newman responded to Mr. Passantino’s email that same day using the provided email address but thereafter did not file the overdue termination financial disclosure report,” it continues.

The president’s office then referred the matter to the Department of Justice, and the civil action was authorized in March 2019.

Manigault Newman had a high-profile departure from the White House in December 2017 and later revealed that she had secretly recorded then-chief of staff John KellyJohn Francis KellyMORE firing her in the Oval Office.

Manigault Newman later released other tapes from her time in the Trump administration and campaign and wrote a tell-all book about her experience.

She also appeared on “Celebrity Big Brother,” where she spoke about her time working with the president.

This post was updated at 5:46 p.m.

Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoTrump calls on foreign countries to protect their own oil tankers Trump to travel to South Korea The Hill’s Morning Report – Crunch time arrives for 2020 Dems with debates on deck MORE met with Saudi King Salman bin Abudalaziz al Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Monday amid ongoing friction between the U.S. and Iran, according to the State Department.

“The Secretary, the King and the Crown Prince discussed the heightened tensions in the region and the need for stronger maritime security to promote freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,” State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They also agreed on the importance of working together with the Gulf Cooperation Council to counter the Iranian threat throughout the region and to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its malign behavior,” she added.

Pompeo on Sunday announced visits to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to discuss the nations’ strategic alliance with the U.S.

Pompeo told reporters Sunday he would be “talking with them about how to make sure that we are all strategically aligned and how we can go about a global coalition.”

The meeting comes after the U.S. reportedly planned, then cancelled, a retaliatory strike against Iran after the nation downed a U.S. drone that it claimed was in Iranian airspace.

The U.S./Saudi relationship has also been under heightened scrutiny in relation to the murder of Washington Post columnist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate. A United Nations report found evidence the Crown Prince ordered the killing but did not make a conclusion, calling for a broader probe.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

In an interview that aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, President TrumpDonald John TrumpConway defends herself against Hatch Act allegations amid threat of subpoena How to defuse Gulf tensions and avoid war with Iran Trump says ‘stubborn child’ Fed ‘blew it’ by not cutting rates MORE would not commit to ordering an FBI investigation into the matter.