Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Fort Lauderdale shooting: possible terror motive still under investigation

FBI agent in charge of Miami field office says nothing has been ruled out after ‘hours-long’ interview with suspect Esteban Santiago

Passengers who were at Fort Lauderdale international airport during Friday’s shooting were rounded up and not allowed to leave until police could confirm they had nothing to do with the shooting. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

 in Fort Lauderdale-Saturday 7 January 2017

Terrorism was still being considered as a possible motive for the deadly shooting attack at Fort Lauderdale airport, the FBI said on Saturday, as investigators continued to delve into the past of the Iraq war veteran accused of killing five and wounding six others.

Esteban Santiago, 26, was held at the Broward County jail on Saturday with federal charges from the US attorney’s office expected that afternoon, said George Piro, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Miami field office.

At a Saturday morning press briefing, Piro said that Santiago, a former National Guardsman who had received extensive psychological treatment after returning from a 2011 tour of duty in Iraq, “was cooperative” during an hours-long interview . But Piro maintained that it was too early to establish the motive for the shooting.

“The indications are he came here to carry out this horrific attack. We have not identified any triggers that would have caused this attack but it’s very early in the investigation,” Piro said.

“We continue to look at all angles and motives and at this point we are continuing to look at the terrorism angle. We have not ruled anything out.”

At the same briefing, Scott Israel, the Broward County sheriff, downgraded the number of wounded during Friday’s attack, from eight to six.

Of the gunshot victims, he said, three were in “good” condition and three remained in intensive care.
Santiago’s mental issues would continue to be a focal point of the investigation, which was being carried out jointly by the FBI and detectives from the Broward sheriff’s office (BSO), Piro said.

Santiago, who has a girlfriend and four-month old baby in Alaska, flew to Fort Lauderdale from Anchorage via Minneapolis, and appeared to have acted alone. Piro said the suspect used a legally held 9mm semiautomatic handgun, which had been checked on to the flight in accordance with security requirements.

At an earlier briefing, Piro said Santiago, who was discharged from Alaska national guard for “unsatisfactory service” in August, had turned up at unexpectedly at the FBI’s office in Anchorage in November, complaining that voices in his head were telling him to follow the terror group Isis.

His brother, Bryan Santiago, told the Associated Press on Saturday: “The FBI failed there ... we’re not talking about someone who emerged from anonymity to do something like this.

“The federal government already knew about this for months, they had been evaluating him for a while, but they didn’t do anything.”

Santiago’s aunt, Maria Ruiz Rivera, was one of a number of family members who told reporters her nephew had “changed” and became increasingly unstable after returning from Iraq. “He had visions all the time,” she said in an interview from her home in Union City, New Jersey. “His mind was not right. He seemed normal at times but other times he seemed lost.”

Piro said investigators had spoken to all of Santiago’s family members identified so far, and had reviewed airport security footage and conducted about 175 witness interviews “in numerous locations not only in South Florida”.

“We’re looking not only at all the places he has resided but also the places he has travelled,” he said.
Meanwhile, several witnesses spoke of escaping the attack, including one man who said his life was saved by a laptop in his backpack.

Steve Frappier, from Atlanta, Georgia, said he was trying to shelter on the floor of the baggage hall “like a tortoise with the backpack on me” when he felt something hit him. “The bullet entered my backpack [and] hit my laptop,” he told CNN.

“It hit through the open backpack, exited, ran through the laptop and the casing and landed in an interior pocket.” He showed photographs of his shattered laptop and said the FBI had found the bullet in a pocket when they examined it.

A woman from Weston, Florida, who asked not to be named, said the shooter walked around the baggage carousel while he was firing. “He was just walking with his arms straight out, stone-faced,” she said. A female passenger standing next to her, she said, was shot in the head and killed.

Another witness, Mark Lea, from Minnesota, spoke of helping those who had been shot, including a woman with a shoulder wound who was looking for her husband.

“I saw that she had a through-and-through on the right shoulder, and she said: ‘Where’s my husband, where’s my husband?’” Lea told KETV. “I asked her to describe him and I looked right over there and saw a white-haired guy in a blue shirt. He was not moving, not breathing.”

Authorities have yet to formally identify any of the victims or survivors. Family members named an elderly couple from Council Bluffs, Iowa, as victims of the shooting, saying the husband, Michael Oehme, 57, had died and the wife, Kari, 52, was recovering in hospital with a gunshot wound to her shoulder.

Media reports also identified a 62-year-old grandfather from Virginia and a great-grandmother from Georgia, who was in Fort Lauderdale for a cruise to celebrate her husband’s 90th birthday, among the dead.

Rick Scott, the Florida governor, said at an early morning briefing Saturday that he had visited some of the victims of “an absolutely horrific day” at Broward Health medical center.

“We all want answers. Individuals have been killed and some are fighting for their lives,” he said. “I’m a dad and I’m a granddad. I just can’t imagine this happening to my family or any other family.”

Scott promised that the killer would be held responsible “to the fullest extent of the law”, and tried to reassure tourists that Florida was safe.

“We love our tourists and we’ll do everything we can to encourage them to come here,” he said, claiming that crime in the state was at a 45-year low.

The baggage hall in Terminal 2 remained closed on Saturday, although all other areas of the airport reopened and flights resumed after almost 16 hours shut down. Airport authorities said they were trying to reunite 20,000 bags and personal items, abandoned during the chaos on Friday, with their owners.

The last of thousands of passengers, stranded for hours on planes or the tarmac, and many forced to spend the night at a nearby cruise terminal, were evacuated from the airport by early Saturday.
The Associated Press contributed reporting

Trump-Netanyahu Democrats come to Israel’s aid in Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress in March 2015, a speech that accelerated the fracturing of Democratic Party support for Israel. (Heather Reed)

Michael F. Brown-Saturday 7 January 2017

The Trump-Netanyahu wing of the Democratic Party took aim Thursday at the Obama administration by helping pass a House resolution condemning the recent UN vote calling on Israel to stop building settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

The measure in Congress labeled UN Security Council Resolution 2334 “an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

For this wing of the party, Palestinians are expendable.

This has long been the case for the majority of US lawmakers, but this early bipartisan initiative signals that despite alarm-ringing about Trump, many Democrats will fail to stand up for human rights once the president-elect takes office.

The overall vote for the House resolution was 342-80. A majority of Democrats (109) joined with all but a handful of Republicans to back the measure, while 76 Democrats voted against it.

Texas Republican Louie Gohmert rejected the resolution on the grounds that it wasn’t pro-Israel enough because it mentioned a two-state solution. He said it would incur the wrath of God and “bring judgment down upon our nation for trying to partition Israel.”

The 109 Democrats rejected President Barack Obama’s belated willingness to allow the UN to condemn Israel’s illegal settlements, and were in effect Trump’s willing collaborators.

The Senate is expected to hold its own vote on the UN resolution soon.

Democrats delighted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who posted a video on social media praising the bipartisan vote.

Democratic split

But the fact that 76 Democrats voted against the preferred Israeli position is noteworthy.

In March 2015, some 50 House members, plus eight senators, skipped Netanyahu’s speech to Congress that aimed to derail Obama’s ultimately successful nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Less than two years ago, that was seen as an unusually high number showing displeasure with the Israeli prime minister.

So Thursday’s vote can be taken as more evidence of the ongoing fracturing in the Democratic Party over unconditional support for Israel.

Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, tweeted that the vote signaled the end of the days when AIPAC, the powerful Israel lobby group, “commanded near total loyalty.”

I remember not long ago when AIPAC commanded near total loyalty, maybe a handful defected. Those days are over. https://twitter.com/YousefMunayyer/status/817161679133954049 
Jewish Voice for Peace noted the “significant,” though still insufficient, dissent:


In his recent speech explaining why the US abstained in the UN vote, Secretary of State John Kerry did not use the word apartheid, but used a term that is just as potent: “separate and unequal” recalls the Jim Crow era of segregation and legally mandated white supremacy in the US South.

Yet the Trump-Netanyahu wing of the party – led by House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer – would rather defend Israeli expansionism and occupation than back their own president for expressing serious, though belated, misgivings about Israel’s repeated violations of international law.

Some Democrats did not just slam the outgoing administration, but went as far as courting the president-elect.
“I think support for Israel in Congress is bipartisan and should remain bipartisan and if President Trump is working with us on Israel, I’m perfectly happy to work with the president of the United States,” said Eliot Engel, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Hoyer explained that his opposition to the UN resolution was because it “fails to pressure Palestinians to abandon a so-called ‘right of return’ or recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

He warned that the US abstention in the Security Council that allowed the resolution to pass would “fuel the insidious BDS movement and embolden Palestinian leaders who continue to drag their feet.”
The text of the House resolution claims that the UN resolution “effectively lends legitimacy to efforts by the Palestinian Authority to impose its own solution through international organizations and through unjustified boycott or divestment campaigns against Israel.”

This is only one of many distortions that turn reality on its head: the BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – movement is an initiative of Palestinian civil society, not the PA.

Substantial shift in opinion

The divided Democratic caucus perhaps reflects a party base that is increasingly vocal against Israel’s actions, especially as Israel’s government lurches ever further to the right.

An influential Israeli think tank noted this week that during Obama’s term “the notion that the two nations have ‘shared values,’ appears to have eroded with the perceived weakening of Israel’s democratic ethos.”

The sight of some Democrats aligning with such an Israel, as well as with a new American president who attracts white supremacists and is unguarded about his own racism, is likely to sharpen differences over Israel.

The shift among a sizable segment of Democratic voters to positions more critical of Israel is well documented by recent polling.

The polarization was visible during the primary campaign, with supporters of Hillary Clinton significantly more likely to be strongly pro-Israel than supporters of Bernie Sanders.

According to a Morning Consult/Politico poll in late December, registered Democrats backed the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements by an overwhelming 47-16 margin. Overall, 53 percent of self-identified liberals backed the UN resolution, and just 14 percent opposed it. Among conservatives, the numbers are almost reversed.

And reflecting well established trends, support for the UN resolution was higher among younger people, African Americans and Latinos – the ascendant demographic groups in the Democratic Party. The American Jewish community is clearly split, with 42 percent supporting the UN resolution and 47 percent opposing it.

Netanyahu’s vitriolic attacks on Obama – who remains highly popular among Democrats – will also do nothing to shore up support for Israel.

By openly aligning with Trump and the US far-right, Israeli leaders may simply be accelerating the divisions over Israel within the Democratic Party and between the parties.

Nevertheless, it remains shocking that for now more House Democrats are prepared to side with the Likud Party Prime Minister of Israel than with their own Democratic president.

This fact underscores the need for activists to be ready to hold Democratic officials accountable, even as they think about how to resist Trump’s policies. This is especially true as the battle takes shape for the future of the party.

The risk is that on Palestinian rights, the Trump-Netanyahu wing of the Democratic Party might prevail.

U.S. intel report: Putin directed cyber campaign to help Trump

The intel community outlines its case for Russian hacking


By Yara Bayoumy and Warren Strobel -Sat Jan 7, 2017

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to help Republican Donald Trump's electoral chances by discrediting Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign, U.S. intelligence agencies said in an assessment.

Russia's objectives were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State Clinton, make it harder for her to win and harm her presidency if she did, an unclassified report released on Friday by the top U.S. intelligence agency said.

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," the report said. "We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

Russian authorities, which have previously denied interfering in the U.S. elections, offered no immediate comment on the report on Saturday, and the reaction of the country's media was low-key.

The report, although it omitted classified details, was the U.S. government's starkest public description of what it says was an unprecedented Russian campaign to manipulate the American body politic.

Reports of Russian interference in the already divisive election have roiled Washington, even as the U.S. Congress on Friday certified Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots.

The report's conclusions, though lacking details of how the Russians may have relayed the material to WikiLeaks and others, will give ammunition to Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans in Congress who want tougher action against Russia, setting the scene for a potential showdown with Trump.

It could also give a boost to members of Congress seeking an independent, bipartisan investigation of Russian hacking.

Trump, who has developed a rocky relationship with U.S. spy agencies and at times disparaged their work, defended the legitimacy of his election victory after receiving a nearly two-hour briefing Friday on the report.

The report neither assessed "the impact Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election" nor did it provide details on the evidence underpinning its conclusions, a fact likely to keep alive the controversy over what Moscow may have done.

In Moscow, state TV Channel One briefly covered the report, focusing on Trump's comments that the interference had no impact on the outcome of the election.

The broadcaster, which led its news program on Orthodox Christmas celebrations and unusually low temperatures in the Russian capital, also said the arguments used in the U.S. report had been widely mocked by Internet users.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin makes his annual New Year address to the nation in Moscow, Russia, December 31, 2016. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS--U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks briefly to reporters between meetings at the Mar-a-lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. December 28, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on foreign cyber threats, on Capitol Hill in Washington. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque--U.S. President-elect Donald Trump exits One World Trade Center following a meeting in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., January 6, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid - RTX2XSHY

RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

The report said U.S. intelligence agencies believe Russian military intelligence, the GRU, used intermediaries such as WikiLeaks, DCLeaks.com and the Guccifer 2.0 "persona" to release emails that it had acquired from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and top Democrats as part of the effort.

The release of the emails led to embarrassing media coverage for Clinton and triggered the resignation of the DNC's chief.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said he did not receive emails stolen from the DNC and top Clinton aide John Podesta from "a state party." However, Assange did not rule out the possibility that he got the material from a third party.

Russian actors were not found to have targeted U.S. systems that are involved in tallying votes, the report said. The report was produced by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.

Also on Friday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated U.S. election infrastructure as critical infrastructure, widening the options the government has to protect voting machines from cyber attacks.

While the report found Russia had conducted cyber attacks on both the Democratic and the Republican parties, it made clear that the primary aims were to harm Clinton whether or not she won the election and evolved over time.

"When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency," it said.

"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," it said. The CIA and FBI had high confidence in this judgment and NSA moderate confidence, the report said.

Neither the Russian Embassy in Washington, nor Clinton aides immediately responded to requests for comment.

The report suggested Putin was motivated in part by personal animus toward Clinton.

"Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him," it said.

'TROUBLING CHAPTER IN ONGOING STORY'

In a statement after his intelligence briefing, Trump did not squarely address whether he was told of the agencies' belief Russia carried out the hacking.

Instead, he said: "Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations" including the DNC.

"There was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said.

The businessman, who is to be inaugurated as president on Jan. 20, also said he would appoint a team to give him a plan within 90 days of taking office on how to prevent cyber attacks but suggested that he would keep their recommendations secret.

The report did not reveal how the intelligence agencies collected the evidence underpinning their conclusions or the evidence itself, including the means by which Russian military intelligence "relayed" the materials filched from the DNC and other hacking targets to WikiLeaks and others, omissions likely to leave the report open to criticism.

Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who was briefed on the report on Friday, took issue with Trump's comments.

"The President-Elect’s statement that the Russian hacking had 'absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election' is not supported by the briefing, report, or common sense," Schiff said.

"It is one thing to say that there was no tampering with vote tallying - which is true - it is another thing to say that the daily dumping of documents disparaging to ... Clinton that was made possible by Russian cyber operations had no effect on the campaigns," he said. "The consequence of these disclosures was hugely beneficial to the President-Elect and damaging to the Clinton campaign, just as the Russians intended."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said his panel would continue to compile "facts surrounding Russia's active measures," adding: "This is a troubling chapter in an ongoing story."

(Reporting by Steve Holland, Mark Hosenball, Yara Bayoumy and Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay in Washington; additional reporting by Amy Tennery in New York and Patricia Zengerle, Dustin Volz, David Alexander and Susan Heavey in Washington, Andrey Ostroukh in Moscow; Writing by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and John Stonestreet)
Ethics official warns against confirmations before reviews are complete

Rex Tillerson, President-elect Trump’s choice to serve as secretary of state, meets with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on Capitol Hill on Jan. 4, 2017. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

 

A top ethics official warned Saturday that plans to confirm Donald Trump’s top Cabinet choices before background examinations are complete are unprecedented and have overwhelmed government investigators responsible for the reviews.

The concerns came on the eve of the Trump administration-in-waiting’s first big test, with as many as seven nominees for Cabinet positions — many of them already the subject of questions about their qualifications — scheduled to visit Capitol Hill in the coming days for confirmation hearings.

The process begins Tuesday, when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s controversial nominee for attorney general, will begin two days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the big show is Wednesday, when five hearings are scheduled, bringing a marathon of nationally televised scrutiny to the thin public records and vast wealth of many of Trump’s Cabinet picks.

Democrats have vowed to cast the pageant of hearings as a proxy test of Trump himself, in hopes of discrediting his new government before it begins. They hope to remind the public of the president-elect’s own lack of government experience and reluctance to separate himself from an entanglement of global business interests while he leads the nation.

But even Democrats acknowledge that Trump’s slate of Cabinet officials will probably sail through. The packed schedule, similar to those for nominees of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Trump team. In addition, Trump has scheduled a news conference Wednesday morning that will overlap with several hearings, at which he has promised to talk about separating his presidency from his business interests.

Whether the schedule holds in the coming days is unclear. McConnell’s office declined on Saturday to respond to warnings by Walter M. Shaub Jr., director of the Office of Government Ethics, who said the current confirmation calendar is “of great concern to me” because nominees have not completed a required ethics review before their hearings.

The schedule “has created undue pressure on OGE’s staff and agency ethics officials to rush through these important reviews,” Shaub wrote in response to an inquiry by Democratic senators. “More significantly, it has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues shortly before their scheduled hearings.”

Shaub added: “I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process.”
Republican aides have disputed that notion, saying that in some cases, nominees of both parties have sat for hearings before the paperwork process was completed.

The OGE enforces federal ethics rules and reviews potential conflicts of interest for nominees to government posts. Shaub, a lawyer and political appointee of President Obama, took over the office in 2013. He donated a total of $500 to Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, federal elections records show.

Ethics experts from both political parties expressed dismay at the possibility that confirmation hearings would proceed before the OGE reviews were completed.

“This is unprecedented,” said Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission who has served as counsel to several Republican presidential candidates and Cabinet nominees in the past. “This suggests that there has been a real breakdown between the transition and the Office of Government Ethics.”

Much of the attention this week is expected to focus on Sessions and his controversial record on civil rights, and on ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice for secretary of state, who has never served in the public sector.

Tillerson will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday. The Senate’s health and education panel, meanwhile, is set to consider billionaire power broker Betsy DeVos, Trump’s choice for education secretary, while the Senate Intelligence Committee will review the nomination of Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Trump’s nominee for CIA director.

On Tuesday, in addition to Sessions, retired Marine general John Kelly will testify at a Homeland Security committee hearing to review his nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security. And Elaine Chao — a former secretary of labor who is married to McConnell — is set to appear before the Commerce Committee Wednesday to discuss her choice as transportation secretary.

“All the president-elect’s Cabinet appointments will be confirmed,” McConnell vowed last Wednesday as he called on Democrats to not delay votes on Trump’s less controversial choices for national security posts, including Kelly and retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, the nominee for secretary of defense.
“Basically, they can delay the process. They can’t stop it,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said of his Democratic colleagues.

Republicans said they’re proceeding quickly in hopes of confirming a handful of Trump picks on Inauguration Day, as happened eight years ago, when seven of Obama’s Cabinet nominees were confirmed unanimously on his first day in office.

But Democrats said Obama’s nominations moved quickly because nominees had submitted requisite paperwork by early January. On Saturday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Shaub’s warning “makes crystal-clear that the transition team’s collusion with Senate Republicans to jam through these Cabinet nominees before they’ve been thoroughly vetted is unprecedented.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that Trump “ran his campaign telling people he was about jobs and workers. Many of these nominees don’t share that view. Our responsibility is to make sure that we know what we are buying and the country knows what they bought.”

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: “We’re dealing with more billionaires than we’ve ever seen in one place in this Trump Cabinet. It creates a special challenge.”

Democrats said they plan to focus intently on nominees’ business interests and financial disclosures. Several nominees, including DeVos and other picks not yet scheduled for hearings, are likely to be grilled over past statements in support of dismantling portions of the departments they’ve been tapped to lead.

Kelly, Pompeo, Sessions and Tillerson are the furthest along in responding to written questionnaires and divulging personal and financial information, according to Senate aides. But reviews by the FBI and OGE are still underway for most nominees, according to the aides, who are tracking the process but not authorized to speak publicly about details. Sessions’s FBI check is complete, but other nominees have yet to complete all of the paperwork required by committees, because the FBI and OGE reviews continue, the aides said.

Many of Trump’s picks are widely unknown on Capitol Hill, prompting his transition team to recruit former GOP senators and the party’s top-flight communications and policy talent to make introductions and assuage concerns among Republicans and Democrats alike.

Nominees have been scheduled for more than 60 meet-and-greets with senators of both parties, according to Senate aides. Dress rehearsals to prepare for contentious lines of questioning have been underway for several days.

Given Trump’s refusal to release tax returns and other financial information during the presidential campaign, Democrats see his Cabinet choices as a way to revive the issue. But if Trump uses his scheduled news conference to divulge details of his finances amid a flurry of confirmation hearings, it may capture the news cycle and neutralize opposition.

While each committee has different disclosure rules for Cabinet picks, just three panels — Budget, Finance, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs — have the authority to require nominees to release three years of tax returns. Republicans have rebuffed Democratic requests to force all Cabinet nominees to do so.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, recalled that his panel’s long-standing tax disclosure rules unearthed trouble for several of Obama’s Cabinet choices, including former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who was forced to withdraw his nomination to serve as secretary of health and human services due to questions about unreported earnings and gifts.

With Democrats vowing to pepper Tillerson about his tenure as an oil executive, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said the former CEO’s decision to completely cut ties with ExxonMobil was “responsible.”

“It certainly takes away an issue that we knew had to be taken away,” Corker said. “I mean, my very first conversation with him — he knew that, Exxon knew that.”

Corker added that Tillerson is likely to have “one of the cleaner [financial] disclosures because his whole life and his whole net worth’s been in one company.”

Some Democrats on the judiciary panel say they have no plans to give Sessions an easy pass despite his status as a well-liked senator and a former U.S. attorney. Several have vowed to rehash his staunch opposition to immigration reform, his recent support for Trump’s call to require “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants and his civil rights record. Sessions was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 over charges of racial insensitivity and prejudice.

“A person’s whole lifetime career should be considered in such an important position,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), another former U.S. attorney and member of the judiciary committee. “This position is not just a government lawyer or another Cabinet position. It is the nation’s chief enforcer of the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our democracy.”

Schumer said last week that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and oversee changes to Obamacare, will endure heavy scrutiny once his hearing is scheduled. Price is bound to face attacks for his support for privatizing Medicare and over stock he’s owned in health insurance, pharmaceutical and biotech companies despite serving on a health-care subcommittee.
Schumer and others have called on the House Ethics Committee to begin investigating Price’s stock holdings before his confirmation hearing. Republicans noted that several senators on the health panel have similar stock holdings.

Democrats are also targeting Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a fiscal conservative tapped to lead the Office of Management and Budget; Andrew Puzder, a restaurant executive set to serve as labor secretary who opposes raising the minimum wage and has made controversial comments about women; Steve Mnuchin, a billionaire former Goldman Sachs partner set to serve as treasury secretary; and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who was picked by Trump to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, which he has sued in the past.

Anticipating political combat, Trump’s transition office has tapped incoming White House Communications Director Sean Spicer and Bryan Lanza, a veteran of the Trump campaign, to oversee hearing preparations. They are offering strategic advice and sitting in on practice sessions for nominees, according to R.C. Hammond, a transition spokesman.

Party luminaries including former Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Arizona senator Jon Kyl are also on board to vouch for the nominees, transition officials confirmed.

Kyl was spotted shadowing Sessions at the Capitol last week. Ron Bonjean, a long-time Republican operative who has worked for both the Senate and House leadership, also joined the transition team last week a adviser focused on the most politically-sensitive nominees.

Tillerson and Mnuchin, who some Republicans privately worry could face difficult exchanges with senators from both parties, are being staffed by several former officials from George W. Bush’s administration.

Mnuchin’s team includes Tara Bradshaw, a Bush-era spokeswoman at the Treasury Department and Mary Waters, an official in the Agriculture Department under Bush. Tillerson’s team includes Christian Whiton, who worked at the State Department during the Bush presidency; and Margaret Peterlin, a former Commerce Department official and senior House Republican aide.

Collectively, these former senators and administration officials, who come armed with deep familiarity with the arcane nature of the Senate and the complex policies a nominee will tackle, are known as “sherpas.”

But as one transition official quipped: “There’s no climbing equipment or walking toward mountains involved.”

Karoun Demirjian and Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.