53percenter's Blog

A recent report in the Guardian claims that Tesla cut an entire quality control department as part of recent mass workforce layoffs.

A report from The Guardian claims that as part of their recent cost-cutting measures, Elon Musk’s Tesla laid off an entire quality control department alongside a number of other essential staff. The Guardian spoke to Alan Ochoa, a former Tesla employee who worked at the company’s Fremont, California, plant alongside an entire quality control department — all of whom have been laid off. “I have no idea how they expect to run without us,” said Ochoa.

Tesla laid off seven percent of its workforce as it faces a “difficult road ahead” according to CEO Elon Musk. Ochoa says that the company’s “difficult road” will not be made any easier by laying off essential staff members. Ochoa commented on his last few days at the company stating: “My last repair on Friday was finding a rear fascia was missing a screw so if you pulled on it, it would pop out. I grabbed a drill, the screw, got down on my knees and made the repair myself. No one would have known about it unless they tugged on the edges of the rear fascia like I had made it a habit to do.” Ochoa added: “But I know once the car starts driving it would become unseated due to the wind pulling it out.”

Laid off employees reportedly received an internal document which explained that Tesla chose who to lay off “by evaluating the criticality of each position, identifying duplicate roles, and by assessing the specific skills and abilities of each individual in the company.”

Another employee, Anthony Lamendola, worked at the company’s Lathrop, California, facility for seven years; he discussed the company’s layoff methods stating: “They let all the people go who have been there level five or more, all level fours and threes, only kept one, two, some threes. I’ve never been late, never called in, never been wrote up in over six years. I’m just in shock for them to do this and keep temps and new hires.”

A current Tesla employee based out of the Lathrop facility who wished to remain anonymous stated that many long-term employees at the company were let go while interns and recent hires were kept on: “This was a move I was expecting due to the high price of raw metal from our president’s tariff war with China,” the worker said. “Tesla Lathrop has a large amount of people that wanted to go union.”

Another employee at the company’s Fremont plant who has worked there for four years was transferred to work on car seats following the company’s workforce restructuring. He stated that many employees were forced to take hourly pay cuts and some even left the company as a result: “It seems like they tried to get rid of the older, more experienced guys making more money than the entry level. I personally see and feel this is aimed at the higher-waged employees,” the employee said. “They replaced me with a $19 an hour worker. I make $26 an hour.”

The employee added: “I loved Tesla at one point. But four and a half years of living what I lived through, I don’t feel the love, what a good, dedicated employee should feel from a company.” Employees are also reportedly being forced to pick up the slack of their fired co-workers: “We’re going to have to take over their positions,” an employee said. “We have to do our job, plus the contractor job. Usually we have to work for two people, now, we’re going to have to work for three people.”

Ochoa expressed his fears that the quality of Tesla vehicles was going to take a hit following the firing of his department: “I fear the quality will be greatly diminished. Not all of my repairs were easy to see but would have a lasting effect.”

Read the full report in the Guardian.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan_ or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com

We’re finally getting some real collusion news that may alter the direction of Robert Mueller’s investigation, or hobble it altogether.

Former top FBI lawyer James Baker, the subject of a criminal investigation surrounding his alleged leaks to the media, revealed to lawmakers in October that he had a personal hand in the warrant the FBI received for surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The former FBI lawyer himself admitted it was an unusual move.

The transcripts of the interactions between congressional investigators and Baker have yet to be released to the public, but Fox News reported it was able to verify some of the details.

Baker reveals he didn’t want to get involved in the FISA process too close to the end, because once the warrant is ready for the FBI director’s certification, it’s tough to make changes.

TRENDING: GOP Lobbyist Has ‘Evidence’ That Could Reveal Why DNC Analyst Seth Rich Died [RETRACTED]

“So I wanted to see it when it was gelled enough but before it went through the process and before it went to the director,” Baker said. “I wanted to see it and I wanted to read it because I knew it was sensitive.”

When pressed by lawmakers about his decision to get involved in the process — an “abnormal or unusual step,” as the questioner put it — Baker simply said, “I wanted to make sure that we were filing something that would adhere to the law and stand up over time.”

The answer makes it sound routine, but clearly it wasn’t.

As fishy as that is, there’s another explanation Baker owes to the American people.

According to The Hill contributor John Solomon, there were two separate occasions when Baker helped a Hillary Clinton lawyer and a journalist get politically charged information to the FBI investigative team.

At one point, Solomin writes, Baker took information about Trump and Russia to the investigators from Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the Democratic Party and the Clinton campton.

At another, according to Solomon, Baker move an updated version of the infamously incorrect Christopher Steele dossier into the Russian team’s hands.

The original of this dossier is the same one former FBI Director James Comey confirmed was never verified, according to The Hill. Despite that, the author was used as “source #1” in the Carter Page wiretap.

“At the time Baker got the copy of the dossier, Steele already had been terminated by the FBI as a confidential human source in the Russia probe for violating bureau rules, lying about his contacts with the news media before the election,” Solomon wrote.

RELATED: There Was One Thing Notably Missing from the Stone Indictment: Russian Collusion

“So, at a time when the FBI was supposed to have severed its ties with Steele, Baker essentially functioned as a document courier. FBI memos I reviewed confirmed the version that Baker got from Corn was different from the one the FBI had from Steele before his termination.”

It didn’t take long for President Donald Trump to pick up on this news.

Former FBI top lawyer James Baker just admitted involvement in FISA Warrant and further admitted there were IRREGULARITIES in the way the Russia probe was handled. They relied heavily on the unverified Trump “Dossier” paid for by the DNC & Clinton Campaign, & funded through a…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2019

…big Crooked Hillary law firm, represented by her lawyer Michael Sussmann (do you believe this?) who worked Baker hard & gave him Oppo Research for “a Russia probe.” This meeting, now exposed, is the subject of Senate inquiries and much more. An Unconstitutional Hoax. @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2019

The journalist who provided the Steele documents to Baker, David Corn, isn’t exactly what we would consider an impartial reporter, either. Take a look at some of his Trump coverage:

“How Republicans Normalized Donald Trump’s Racism” – Mother Jones, Jan. 12, 2018

“We Already Know That Trump Betrayed America” — Mother Jones, July/August Issue, 2018

“What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump” — Mother Jones, Nov. 4, 2016

It appears as though Corn already has made up his mind about Donald Trump, which makes Baker’s acceptance of his materials even more suspicious.

This isn’t the first storm to rock Robert Mueller’s investigation, but it may be the last.

Americans can only take so much. With the anti-Trump texts from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the Christopher Steele debacle, the questions surrounding FISA warrants, and the new revelations about James Baker, the Mueller investigation may soon be looking at the straw that will break its back.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

There are three migrant caravans headed to the United States’ southern border with Mexico, according to top Pentagon official John Rood.

Rood testified to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that one of the caravans contains over 12,000 migrants.

“Current information shows that a caravan of over 12,000 people — there’s three that we are tracking, that the DHS is tracking en route, one that is over 12,000 by the latest estimate,” said Rood, who is the under secretary of Defense for policy.

Rood said there are currently more than 2,300 active duty troops at the southern border, down from a high of 5,900 in November.

But he says several thousands more active duty troops are expected to head to the border in the coming weeks, to assist the Department of Homeland Security with laying down more concertina wire, and helping to monitor the border between points of entry.

Democrats, who now control the House, called Pentagon officials in to testify on President Trump’s order of active duty troops to the border in October, which they have called a political stunt by the White House before midterm election.

But defense officials testified that it was the Pentagon — not the White House — decided that active duty troops were able to deploy faster and were better resourced to deal with the caravans headed to the border than National Guard and reserve forces.

“That was a decision made inside the Department,” said Navy Adm. Michael Gilday, the director for operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Democrat lawmakers also questioned whether there was a crisis that necessitated the deployment of troops, when the number of illegal immigrants coming across the border have been higher in previous years.

“The difference is really the caravans and really the nature of the asylum seekers,” Rood said.

Ranking Member Mac Thornberry (R-TX) agreed. “One of the things that changed is that now we have thousands, and tens of thousands of migrants who are coming in caravans which we have not seen before,” he said.

“The days when we had a greater number of people — but most of them were from Mexico, and you could simply put them back across the border — are very different from these large family groups, 10, 12,000 people coming. So yes, it changed the requirements,” he added.

“We have 42 percent increase in the number of family units. We have 60,000 unaccompanied children that were caught last year,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) added. “I’m a former teacher and a mom, this is a humanitarian crisis.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) noted that administrations have been sending active duty troops to the U.S. border with Mexico “since Alamo.”

“I’m just astounded by the fact that we continue to act stupid in Congress and fuss over things like $5.7 billion in fencing, and it cost us $11 billion dollars to shut the government down,” he said.

According to Rood, the projected costs for the active duty deployments by the end of January is $132 million. He said the costs for the National Guard deployment for 2018 and 2019 to amount to $550 million.

But Rood said that even with the troop deployments, illegal immigrants were still coming across the border.

“Just in the last three months alone, CBP reports apprehending 145,000 illegal immigrants,” Rood said.

He said last year, there were more than 521,000 apprehensions by law enforcement, with a larger amount of people not apprehended. He said that was up from 415,000 the year before.

“In the last two years alone, a larger number than the population of Washington, D.C. have been apprehended, or a city the size of San Francisco, apprehensions in two years,” he said.

Reps. Hartzler and Mo Brooks (R-AL) noted that there is existing authority the administration could use to have the military build a border barrier without declaring a national emergency, through Section 284 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

“Congress has actually given the DOD the ability to provide military support to law enforcement agencies specifically for countering the counter-drug purposes. Section 284 of Title 10 of the United States Code authorizes the DOD to provide support to counter drug activities to control the transnational organized crime,” she said.

“The law clearly identifies various activities that DOD is authorized to conduct including the construction of road and construction of fences. Light installation along smuggling corridors, aerial, ground reconnaissance and transportation,” she said.

Rood responded that Hartzler was correct.

“As you correctly point out, Section 284 of Title 10 does provide the secretary of defense the authority in performance of that counter drug mission such as blocking drug smuggling corridors to erect barriers, fencing, provide road construction things of that nature to aid in that counternarcotics mission,” he said.

“We have already given the authority to do this and we have a very critical mission to keep people safe and make sure that people don’t die as a result of these transnational drug cartel activity and currently they are. So it’s imperative for us to find a solution, and I’m very hopeful that in the next three weeks we can come together in a bipartisan fashion,” Hartzler added.

Brooks also pressed Rood on whether the Pentagon would carry out an order by Trump to build necessary barriers if he ordered them to pursuant to Section 284 without declaring a national emergency.

“If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes sir, and I assume it would be,” Rood said.