Friday, November 10, 2023

Maryland confirmed as pick for new FBI headquarters

By Jennifer Shutt, William J. Ford, Danielle E. Gaines

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new headquarters will be in Maryland, a significant victory for the state following years of jockeying against Virginia and debate throughout several presidencies about where best to locate the law enforcement agency.

The General Services Administration picked the Greenbelt site Wednesday over the Springfield, Virginia, and Landover options, according to a source with knowledge confirming the GSA’s decision to Maryland Matters and States Newsroom.

GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan said in a written statement to States Newsroom and Maryland Matters that “GSA looks forward to building the FBI a state-of-the-art headquarters campus in Greenbelt to advance their critical mission for years to come.”

“Thank you to everyone at GSA, DOJ, FBI, Congress, and others who helped reach this important milestone after a comprehensive, multi-year effort,” Carnahan said.

A spokesperson for the federal agency said in a written statement that “GSA determined Greenbelt to be the best site because it was the lowest cost to taxpayers, provided the greatest transportation access to FBI employees and visitors, and gave the government the most certainty on project delivery schedule.

“It also provided the highest potential to advance sustainability and equity,” the spokesperson said.

The Washington Post originally reported the decision.

The Maryland congressional delegation along with several other officials, including Gov. Wes Moore (D) and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) said in a written statement that the decision is a “historic moment” for the FBI and the country.

“Our decades-long, bipartisan effort to bring the Maryland sites’ many merits to the GSA’s attention was never about politics,” they wrote. “It was always about making the case for what is best for the FBI, our region, and the country.”

Virginia Democratic U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a written statement they’re “deeply disappointed that despite the clear case that Virginia is the best home for the FBI, the Administration went a different direction.”

“We spent years appropriately criticizing the last Administration for politicizing the new FBI headquarters — only for a new Administration to come in and allow politics to taint the selection process,” Warner and Kaine said.

Virginia Democratic U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly said in a written statement that he was not given a heads-up about the decision.

“In making this decision, GSA has shamelessly caved to political pressure, putting blatant politics over the merits and amending the weighting of long-established criteria to make this decision all but predictable,” Connolly wrote.

“While Virginia’s loss is also the FBI’s, GSA’s reputation for objective procurement free from politics has taken a mortal hit today from which it will struggle to recover for years into the future,” Connolly added.

Congress will still need to provide funding for construction, which is expected to take several years to complete.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation will be moving from its current headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. The J. Edgar Hoover building, which opened in 1974, puts the FBI between the White House and the U.S. Capitol on a street that presidents often walk down during their Inauguration parades.

Nearly two decades ago, in 2005, the FBI’s Asset Management Plan indicated the agency would soon need a new headquarters, given the building’s structural and space issues.

Plans progressed slowly during the latter years of the Obama administration, but the Trump administration tried to keep the FBI in its existing location with reports alleging former President Donald Trump didn’t want the site potentially sold to a rival hotel.

Plans to move the FBI headquarters to the suburbs outside of Washington, D.C. began moving forward again during the Biden administration.

The Maryland and Virginia delegations pitched their states to the GSA in March, a provision that was required in a government spending package.


The GSA considered five criteria in picking the new location, including FBI mission requirements, access to transportation, site development flexibility, sustainability and equity, and cost.

FBI mission requirements included the distance to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia as well as the U.S. Department of Justice in downtown Washington, D.C.

The GSA weighted each of the categories, though it changed that criteria in July.

Proximity to the FBI mission-related locations moved from 35% to 25%, transportation access moved from 25% to 20%, site development flexibility stayed at 15%, sustainability and equity increased from 15% to 20% and cost increased from 10% to 20%.

Maryland officials react

The “Team Maryland” statement from congressional, state and county leaders said the failing infrastructure at the Hoover Building was no longer serving the FBI’s operational needs, “which has undermined our national security.”

“The once fabled building has crumbled before our eyes, with nets surrounding the facility for years to protect pedestrians from falling debris. Today’s decision by the General Services Administration (GSA) will ensure we fulfill the FBI’s dire, longstanding need for a new consolidated headquarters that meets the modern-day demands on the Bureau’s work to protect Americans and our nation,” the statement continued. “…We are committed to doing everything we can to ensure the FBI has the best possible headquarters in the quickest timeframe so that we can facilitate a smooth transition to Prince George’s County. We look forward to building a strong, productive partnership with the Bureau and its staff.”

Alsobrooks held a Zoom press briefing Wednesday night and praised Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) as “a leader” in the long effort. The county executive also said equity played a major part in the GSA’s decision.

For the last 15 years, the county executive said the federal government invested $460 billion in Virginia compared to $120 billion in Prince George’s.


“There’s a huge difference between equity and diversity. Virginia was very confused,” she said. “[Virginia officials talked] about counting heads, how many Black or brown people live in a jurisdiction. When we talked about equity, we’re talking about the investments that were made, how many federal dollars were spent in one jurisdiction versus another.”

She continued: “We know that these investments do yield income and allow for job growth to happen,” Alsobrooks said. “What we were saying is that we wanted to be able to grow our county in our state, and to have this important job center come down to Prince George’s County.”

Del. Jazz Lewis (D-Prince George’s), who was part of Hoyer’s staff between 2014 and 2021, praised his former boss.

“A big congratulations to Congressman Steny Hoyer for quarterbacking this over three presidential administrations, multiple GSA leads and FBI leads at the top of their departments,” Lewis said. “This is the right message to send for equity in the region as far as the placement of facilities. I’m very happy it is landing in gorgeous Prince George’s.”

Greenbelt Mayor Emmett Jordan, who was top vote-getter in Tuesday night’s election, said the city represents the best location that includes being in walking distance of a Metro station.

“We have the capacity to accommodate the project, which would create jobs [and] provide a boost to our local economy and attract retail and commercial businesses to Prince George’s County,” he said. “We’re very excited to hear that the GSA and the FBI have finally made a decision.”

This article originally appeared in the Maryland Matters on November 10th, 2023.  

Related Posts

U.S. House votes to censure Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib over Israel remarks, Michigan Advance


Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   


Michigan GOP senators sponsor resolution calling on Rep. Tlaib to resign

BY: 

The entire Michigan Senate Republican caucus has signed on to a resolution calling for U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) to resign from office, citing her “hurtful comments” about the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. 

Introduced by Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt (R-Porter Twp.), and supported by the 17 other Senate GOP members, the resolution asserts that Tlaib responded to the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by the militant group Hamas “in an insensitive and inappropriate fashion,” noting that she  “refused to condemn Hamas in her initial response” to the attacks and that in the wake of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza hospital, Tlaib “irresponsibly shared Hamas propaganda blaming Israel, despite U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Israel was not responsible for the blast.”  

It also cites her defense of the “use of the Hamas rallying cry, ‘from the river to the sea,’ which calls for the eradication of the Israeli state and the Jewish people.”

In a press release following the introduction of the resolution, Nesbitt went even further in his condemnation of Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress.

“Congresswoman Tlaib has gone well beyond her initial refusal to condemn the Oct. 7 terrorist acts on Israel into openly echoing Hamas catchphrases calling for the eradication of the Jewish state; this is unconscionable for a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives,” he said. “She is not fit to serve within the dignified office she holds, and Michigan’s leaders should unite their voices in calling for her resignation. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue of common moral decency.”

The resolution follows Tuesday’s 234-188 vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to censure Tlaib along similar lines, with 22 Democrats joining majority Republicans in approval.

Michigan’s delegation was divided on party lines, with seven Democrats voting against the measure and six Republicans voting for it.

While Tlaib has not returned a request for comment from the Michigan Advance about the resolution for her to resign, she did address her House colleagues in an emotional floor speech Tuesday, insisting she was being targeted for her support of Palestinian causes and advocacy for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

“I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable,” she said, her voice cracking. “We are human beings, just like anyone else.”

Hamas’ terrorist attack on Oct. 7 killed more than 1,400 people, mostly civilians. Israel’s counteroffensive has killed more than 10,000 people, according to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry. Most of the dead Palestinians were children, Tlaib said Tuesday.

“Speaking up to save lives, Mr. Chair — no matter faith, no matter ethnicity — should not be controversial in this chamber,” Tlaib continued. “The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity.”

Nesbitt’s resolution was assigned to the Senate Government Operations Committee, the committee where bills are traditionally sent to languish. The Legislature is expected to adjourn for the year on Tuesday.

This article originally appeared in the Michigan Advance on November 10th, 2023.  

Related Posts

U.S. House votes to censure Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib over Israel remarks, Michigan Advance


Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   



U.S. House votes to censure Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib over Israel remarks


The U.S. House voted late Tuesday to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib for remarks the Michigan Democrat has made about Israel and Palestine amid the ongoing war in the Middle East. The chamber voted, 234-188, to adopt a resolution written by Georgia Republican Rich McCormick that would censure Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, for a handful of statements in the month since the militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack into southern Israel. Twenty-two Democrats voted for the resolution. Michigan’s delegation was split on party lines, with all seven Democrats voting against the measure and all six Republicans voting for it.

The resolution cited Tlaib’s criticism of Israel the day after Hamas’ initial attack, her dissemination of a later-debunked report that Israeli rockets destroyed a hospital in the Gaza Strip and a video last week that included the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which is widely seen as advocating for the dissolution of the state of Israel.

Tlaib has called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Hamas’ attack has killed more than 1,400, mostly civilians. Israel’s counteroffensive has killed more than 10,000, according to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry. Most of the dead Palestinians were children, Tlaib said Tuesday.

In an emotional floor speech Tuesday, Tlaib said she was not antisemitic, but has long criticized the Israeli government. Her House colleagues were targeting her for her support of Palestinian causes and advocacy for a ceasefire, she said.

“I can’t believe I have to say this, but Palestinian people are not disposable,” she said, her voice cracking. “We are human beings, just like anyone else.”

As Tlaib paused to regain her composure, Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat who with Tlaib comprised the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, rose in a sign of support and put a hand on Tlaib’s back. Rep. André Carson of Indiana, who is also Muslim, placed a hand on Tlaib’s shoulder.

“Speaking up to save lives, Mr. Chair — no matter faith, no matter ethnicity — should not be controversial in this chamber,” Tlaib continued. “The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity.”

Resolution criticizes Tlaib

The day after Hamas’ surprise attack, Tlaib released a statement mourning “Palestinian and Israeli lives lost” but called Israeli policy “apartheid” that would lead to “resistance.”

The resolution said the language in that statement “justified” the attack.

The resolution also criticized Tlaib for echoing reports that Israeli rockets killed hundreds at a hospital in Gaza. U.S. intelligence later debunked that report, which was initially based on information from Palestinian officials.

The most recent event cited in the resolution was Tlaib’s tweet on Friday showing a video with pro-Palestinian protestors chanting “from the river to the sea.” The slogan, which refers to the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, is seen as a call to disband the state of Israel and grant the land to the Palestinian people.

In a follow-up tweet Friday, Tlaib called the slogan “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who is Jewish, led the floor debate against the resolution.

Raskin and Tlaib disagree about aspects of Israel-Palestine relations, but Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, said Tlaib was entitled by the First Amendment to speak her mind.

“The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ is abhorrent to me, even with her public explanation of what she means by it, which is very different from what Hamas says,” Raskin said. “But I would never think of punishing her or disciplining her because we disagree about that.”

McCormick responded that the resolution had nothing to do with Tlaib’s right to free speech, but was about the House taking a position.

“This is not about a First Amendment issue,” he said. “Rep. Tlaib has the right to spew antisemitic vitriol, even calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. But the House of Representatives also has the right to make it clear that her hate speech does not reflect the opinion of the chamber. And that’s what this resolution is about.”

 Pro-Palestinian rally in Detroit, Oct. 18, 2023 | Violet Klocko

Another resolution

The vote was the second time in as many weeks the House considered a resolution censuring Tlaib. The chamber voted Nov. 1 to quash a similar resolution sponsored by Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The chamber is scheduled to vote again late Tuesday on another motion to table Greene’s resolution.

The vote last week occurred before Tlaib’s tweets that included “from the river to the sea.”

If the House votes Tuesday to proceed to the Greene resolution, a vote on both that measure and the McCormick resolution are expected Wednesday.


This article originally appeared in the Michigan Advance on November 9th, 2023.  

Related Posts



Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   


Joe Manchin grows $11 million war chest as he mulls 2024 election plans


Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.V.) political future is unclear. With a campaign committee sporting $11.3 million on hand, the 76-year-old Democrat is weighing his options, ranging from retirement to an independent presidential run. 

While he has not announced whether he will defend his Senate seat in 2024, Manchin continued to raise more money than his Republican challengers last quarter, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of campaign finance reports, which cover fundraising from July to September.

The Cook Political Report ranks the race a toss-up, and the Democratic Party stands to lose its narrow Senate majority if Democrats don’t retain seats in key battleground states, including West Virginia. 

Manchin hasn’t announced a reelection campaign, but West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) and Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.V.) are vying for his seat in a heated, if lopsided, primary. Justice raised $613,000 last quarter, nearly double the amount Mooney raised over the same period, an OpenSecrets analysis of third-quarter Federal Election Commission filings found.

poll from the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, which has a political action committee that contributes to candidates, including Manchin during his 2008 gubernatorial run, showed Justice beating Mooney by 37 points in the Republican Primary.

Polls show Justice also winning the general election. An Emerson College poll released earlier this month had Justice leading Manchin by 13 points in a head-to-head matchup, with a margin of error of 4.2 points. The same poll predicted Manchin would win by 6 points against Mooney.

Former President Donald Trump, who won West Virginia by 39 points in 2020, endorsed Justice last week. 

Meanwhile, Mooney was the only candidate in the race to garner support from super PACs last quarter.

PACs affiliated with the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth reported spending over $377,000 supporting Mooney and opposing Justice in the third quarter and a total of $1.26 million since early 2022. 

The Senate Conservatives Fund, a PAC that supports Republicans running for Senate, spent an additional $122,000 backing Mooney between July 5 and Oct. 17.

Even though Mooney spent most of his third-quarter earnings, he started the quarter with more cash on hand than Justice and maintained a cash advantage. Mooney ended September with $1.6 million, compared to Justice’s $1.2 million.

Mooney sourced 16.5% of his campaign funds, or $51,800, from donors who gave $200 or less during the third quarter. Justice raised $51,400 — or 8.4% of his contributions — from small donors. 

Small donors made up just a quarter of one percent of Manchin’s direct fundraising.

Manchin led the pack in direct PAC support, receiving $104,000 from 28 committees. Despite his reputation for breaking the party line, Manchin’s campaign still received some money from fellow Democrats. 

Leadership PACs affiliated with Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bob Casey (D-Penn) gave a total of $15,000 to Manchin. He received another $10,000 from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (I-Ariz.) leadership PAC, Getting Stuff Done. Sinema left the Democratic Party last December. 

Mooney received $23,900 from Republican leadership PACs, including one affiliated with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Jordan’s leadership PAC gave Mooney $2,900 weeks before Mooney voted three times to support Jordan’s House speaker bid. In total, PACs gave Mooney $32,650.

Justice received $17,500 from PACs, with $16,000 coming from party members’ leadership PACs. While Justice raised less PAC money than Mooney, senior Republicans, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have reportedly signaled their support for him. 

Mooney and Justice each spent nearly twice as much as Manchin during the most recent quarter. Mooney’s campaign spent $272,000 from July to September, with $94,000 going toward digital and direct marketing.  Justice spent $254,000, $64,000 of which went toward digital advertising and consulting. 

Manchin spent $135,000 during the third quarter and did not report spending any money on advertising. 

No prominent Democrats have announced plans to primary Manchin. The last time Manchin lost a race was 1996, in his first bid for governor. He has since been elected three times to the U.S. Senate, two times as governor and once as West Virginia’s Secretary of State.


This article originally appeared in Open Secrets.org on October 26th, 2023.  


Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and this link for my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks   


Monday, November 6, 2023

Is Democratic Establishment Ready to Lose with Biden in '24?

The president has lost many of the activists who are needed to inform the ill-informed, to organize get-out-the-vote campaigns and mobilize occasional voters.

If you get your news from Biden-protecting outlets (MSNBC is just the most extreme of many), you’ve been warned daily that the Trump movement is preparing to steal the 2024 election. It’s a totally legitimate worry – given that MAGA forces nearly stole the 2020 election.

But there’s another totally legitimate worry that Biden-friendly media don’t like to discuss – that Joe Biden is such a weak candidate, he’s likely to lose a fair-and-square election in 2024. And likely to lose even to the discredited, unstable, repeatedly indicted Trump.

The New York Times/Sienna College poll of registered voters released Sunday should cause alarm: Biden is trailing Trump in head-to-head match-ups in five of the six most crucial battlegrounds states – all of which Biden won in 2020. The president trails Trump in Nevada by more than 10 points. He trails Trump in Georgia by six points, in Arizona and Michigan by five points, and in Pennsylvania by four points. (Only in Wisconsin does Biden lead, and that’s by only two points.)

If your news diet is provided by MSNBC or other pro-Biden corporate outlets, you may have heard Biden likened to the second coming of FDR, a savior to the working classes. That’s not how the working classes see him. They see him as economically ineffectual, especially in dealing with inflation. “Bidenomics” may be a success story in the studios of MSNBC or CNN or NPR; it’s not seen that way by the voting masses.

In fairness to Biden-allied media, many of those who voted for Biden in 2020 – but now tell pollsters they won’t do so in 2024 – are “low-information voters.” While some are misinformed by right-wing outlets, most don’t pay close attention to news or politics. You can tell that from the ill-informed quotes they gave to the Times.

But in my view, the new poll actually understates the problems for Biden. The president has lost many of the activists who are needed to inform the ill-informed, to organize get-out-the-vote campaigns and mobilize occasional voters. These activists are often highly informed. Indeed, they are so well-informed that they know all too well about Biden’s policy reversals and broken promises. For example, thousands of climate activists mobilized in swing states to help Biden defeat Trump in 2020. Will they in 2024?

As civilians in Gaza are being massacred day after day, Biden’s one-sided “I stand with Israel” policy is losing him countless young activists and racial justice organizers who mobilized for him against Trump in 2020. In Michigan and other swingstates, Arab and Muslim activists who detest Trump have said they won’t vote for Biden, let alone mobilize for him.

Let me be clear about my own position: On every issue where Biden’s policies are mediocre (like on climate or the corporate greed that has fed inflation) or awful (like Israel-Palestine), Trump’s policies are even worse. Far worse. That’s not debatable.

But the “not-as-bad-as-Trump” pitch is obviously not satisfying many Democratic-leaning voters and activists, especially young progressives who are angry with Biden over Gaza civilian deaths and other failings.

As my RootsAction colleagues and I have been pointing out for the last year via the Don't Run Joe and then Step Aside Joe campaign, there’s a major split between Democratic Party leaders and donors on the one hand, and Democratic voters on the other. Polls have long shown that the Democratic base does not want Biden to run in 2024. But Democratic leaders and officials have ignored the party’s core constituencies.

As for the big donors who’ve funded Biden for years (some of whom donate to both parties), they’d rather lose with Joe than risk the election of a change-oriented Democrat they don’t know well or can’t control.

There is only one scenario that offers hope for November 2024: the increasingly unpopular Joe Biden announces in the coming weeks that he won’t be seeking reelection (President Johnson took that step in March 1968). This would lead to a wide-open primary process featuring competition between Vice President Harris (with approval levels even lower than Biden’s) and various senators, Congress members, governors and activists.

In an open primary process, the activist base of the party – which is more progressive than the party leadership on every issue from racial justice and economics to climate and foreign policy – could exert its influence and make demands on the candidates. For example: given that most activist Democrats don’t believe “self-defense” justifies the day-in day-out massacre of Palestinian civilians, there’s a real possibility that the winning Democrat would have a more even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

What’s needed is a democratic and transparent primary process. Such a process could enable the party to unify and rally behind a Democratic nominee who is capable of soundly defeating Trump and Trumpism. 

The opinions expressed here are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the LA Progressive.

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news stories, and my brief bio.

On social media, visit me on 

Facebook: The Brooks Blackboard 

Twitter: @_CharlesBrooks