Story 1: Investigate, Indict, Arrest, and Prosecute The Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspirators To Subvert Trump Presidency: Clinton, Obama, Jarrett, Rice, Rhodes, Power, Clapper, Brennan, Holder, Lynch, Yates, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page and Accomplices — Betrayed Their Oath of Office To Preserve, Protect and Defend The United States Constitution, The American People and Election Process — Videos —
CIA Director Brennan set up Trump
FBI and DOJ in turmoil over handling of Clinton emails
Did John Brennan lie about the Trump-Russia dossier?
Brennan’s own people contradict his “galactically stupid” statements about the dossier
DiGenova: John Brennan should get a good lawyer
John Brennan: ‘A Lot The Public Doesn’t Know’ About Trump Tower Meeting | MTP Daily | MSNBC
Tucker Carlson & Kim Strassel Destroy Lies & Spies Of The Deep Dark State
Joe DiGenova – John Brennan Headed to Grand Jury, 2229
CONFIRMED!! Rosenstein is a SELL OUT, He’s UNDER a HUGE HEAT
FBI and DOJ in turmoil over handling of Clinton emails
DOJ watchdog completes draft report on Clinton probe
Corey Lewandowski on allegations Obama FBI spied on Trump campaign
Drive-By Media At DEFCON 1 Hysteria
DiGenova on Obama’s FBI Placing a Spy Inside Trump Campaign
Rush Limbaugh Podcast Thursday – May 17, 2018
NYT: Russia probe code name inspired by Rolling Stones song
The New York Times reports that FBI agents started an investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign called “Crossfire Hurricane” just 100 days before Election Day.
NYT: How FBI’s Russia probe began
FBI Kept 2016 Investigation Into President Donald Trump Campaign Secret | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Roger Stone Exposes The FBI Mole Inside Trump Campaign
More Details Emerge On Deep State Mole Secretly Spying on President Trump Campaign
BREAKING: New York Times CONFIRMS FBI Conducted SPY OPERATION On President Trump! SPREAD THIS!
Former acting CIA director on Russia hacking report, Trump’s reaction
BREAKING: EX-OBAMA CIA DIR. JUST WENT ROGUE, SAYS THE 1 THING OBAMA DIDN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW
#Trump Will Strike Down With Great Vengeance and Furious Anger Those Who Seek to Poison Our Republic
Why Mueller’s Witch Hunt Is Illegal, Unconstitutional and Crosses the Line
Trump: Report that Obama FBI spied on campaign could be ‘bigger than Watergate’
BY – 05/17/18 08:15 AM EDT
President Trump on Thursday touted a report saying the FBI under former President Obama spied on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential race, saying that the revelation could be “bigger than Watergate.”
“Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN IMBEDDED INFORMANT,'” the president tweeted in reference to a National Review report published last week.
“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”
The report alleges that Obama-led agencies used their surveillance powers to monitor the Trump campaign.
This is not the first time that the Obama administration has been accused of spying on the Trump campaign.
Last year, Trump accused the former president of wiretapping Trump Tower shortly before the 2016 election.
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped,’ in Trump Tower just before victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” the president tweeted in March 2017.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer later walked back the president’s claim, saying he did not mean that Obama literally wiretapped Trump Tower.
“The president used the word ‘wiretap’ in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that,” Spicer said. “There is no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 elections.”
It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to leakers’ fears about information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.
The New York Times published an article yesterday confirming the United States’ intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.
Here are a few quick takeaways.
1. FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign
The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign. Whereas FBI officials and media enablers had previously downplayed claims that the Trump campaign had been surveiled, in this story we learn that it was more widespread than previously acknowledged:
The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said…
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.
This is a stunning admission for those Americans worried that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies might use their powers to surveil, leak against, and target Americans simply for their political views or affiliations. As Sean Davis wrote, “The most amazing aspect about this article is how blasé it is about the fact that the Obama admin was actively spying on four affiliates of a rival political campaign weeks before an election.”
The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would “only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.” It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.
2. Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report
People leak for a variety of reasons, including to inoculate themselves as much as they can. For example, only when the secret funders of Fusion GPS’s Russia-Trump-collusion dossier were about to be revealed was their identity leaked to friendly reporters in the Washington Post. In October of 2017 it was finally reported that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee secretly paid for the Russia dossier, hiding the arrangement by funneling the money through a law firm.
The friendly reporters at the Washington Postwrote the story gently, full of reassuring quotes to downplay its significance. The information only came about because House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes subpoenaed the bank records of Fusion GPS, over the objections of Democrats on the committee. Even in this Times story, Clinton’s secret funding was not mentioned.
Likewise, the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month. In fact, the Wall Street Journalreported that people mentioned in the report are beginning to get previews of what it alleges. It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.
By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it. Of note is the story’s claim that very few people even knew about the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, which means the leakers for this story come from a relatively small pool of people.
3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia
In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.
The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:
A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.
No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?
4. Four Trump Affiliates Spied On
Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.
Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.
5. Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy
The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.:
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
This paragraph is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign — “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos” — before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.
Despite two years of investigation and surveillance, none of these men have been charged with anything even approaching treasonous collusion with Russia to steal a U.S. election.
6. More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently subpoenaed information from the FBI and Department of Justice. They did not publicly reveal what information they sought, but the Department of Justice responded by claiming that they were being extorted by congressional oversight. Then they leaked that they couldn’t share the information because it would jeopardize the life of a government informant. They also waged a public relations battle against HPSCI Chairman Nunes and committee staff.
But far from holding the information close to the vest, the government has repeatedly leaked information about this informant, and even that it was information about an informant that was being sought by Congress. From leaks of personally identifying information to the Washington Post, we’ve learned that this source works with the FBI and CIA, and is a U.S. citizen.
In The New York Times, additional information about a government informant leaked, including that the source met with Papadopoulos and Page to collect information. The information on an alleged source in the Trump campaign is so sensitive they can’t give it to Congress, but they can leak it to friendly press outlets like the Post and Times. It’s an odd posture for the Justice Department to take.
It is unknown at this point whether the informants were specifically sent by a U.S. agency or global partner, or whether the sources voluntarily provided information to the U.S. government.
7. Ignorance of Basic Facts
One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”
Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador. He describes the embassy where the meeting took place as the longest continually staffed embassy in London. The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.
Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page ‘had previously been recruited by Russian spies.’
It’s also inaccurate to say this was “election meddling,” necessarily. Clinton had deleted 30,000 emails that were housed on her private server even though she was being investigated for mishandling classified information. This could be viewed as destruction of evidence. She claimed the emails had to do with yoga.
FBI Director James Comey specifically downplayed for the public the bureau’s belief that foreign countries had access to these emails. There is no evidence that Russia or any other country had these emails, and they were not released during the campaign. To describe this legitimate national security threat as “election meddling” is insufficient to the very problem for which Clinton was being investigated.
The story claims, “News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Here’s an October 31, 2016, story headlined “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” It is sourced entirely to Steele. In September, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff took a meeting with Steele then published “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin” on September 23, 2016. That story was even used in the Foreign Intelligence Service Act application against Page.
The New York Times writes, “Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. ‘I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,’ Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.”
There are multiple problems with this claim. For one, Strzok wrote that text in all caps with obvious eagerness. As the Wall Street Journalnoted months ago, “Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the ‘insurance’ text. ‘OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,’ he texted.”
For another, Strzok repeatedly talked about how important and time-sensitive he felt the investigation was. As Andrew McCarthy highlighted in his deep look at some of these texts, as Strzok prepared for his morning flight to London, he compared the investigations of Clinton and Trump by writing, “And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure that we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.”
Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page “had previously been recruited by Russian spies.” In fact, while Russian agents had tried to recruit him, they failed to do so, and Page spoke at length with the FBI about the attempt before the agents were arrested or kicked out of the country.
The New York Times falsely reported that “Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them.” Comey has told multiple journalists that he specifically did not brief Trump on the Steele reports. He didn’t tell Trump there were reports, or who funded them. He didn’t tell him about the claims in the reports that the campaign was compromised. He only told him that there was a rumor Trump had paid prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed that the Obamas had once slept in.
The story also repeats long-debunked claims about the Republican platform and Ukraine.
8. Insurance: How Does It Work?
The story reminds readers that Strzok once texted Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” The article says Trump thought this “insurance policy” referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:
But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.
Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.
It’s worth asking whether reporters understand how insurance works. As reader Matt noted, “The fundament intent of Insurance is ‘Indemnification.’ Restoring back to original condition prior to loss. Trump was the peril, MSM the adjuster & his impeachment, the policy limits.”
The article’s repeated claims that the FBI didn’t think Trump would win do not counter the notion that an “insurance policy” investigation was in the extremely rare case he might win. People don’t insure their property against fire damage because they expect it to happen so much as they can’t afford to fix things if it does happen.
9. Eavesdropping, Not Spying, And Other Friendly Claims
The story could not be friendlier to the FBI sources who are admitting what they did against the Trump campaign. A few examples:
“[P]rosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page,” The New York Timeswrites, making the wiretapped spying on an American citizen sound almost downright pleasant. When Comey briefs Trump only on the rumor about the prostitutes and urination, we’re told “he feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.” Reporters don’t ask, much less answer, why someone fearing a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation would go out of his way to create an extreme caricature of a J. Edgar Hoover situation.
The story also claimed, “they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department,” before using controversial political appointee Sally Yates to claim that there was nothing worrisome. In fact, the subtext of the entire story is that the FBI showed good judgment in its handling of the spying in 2016. Unfortunately, the on-the-record source used to substantiate this claim is Yates.
Yates, who was in the news for claiming with a straight face that she thought Flynn had committed a Logan Act violation, is quoted as saying, “Folks are very, very careful and serious about that [FISA] process. I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.” If Yates, who had to be fired for refusing to do her job under Trump, tells you things are on the up and up, apparently you can take it to the bank.
10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence
This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation
Image
Days after the F.B.I. closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton in 2016, agents began scrutinizing the presidential campaign of her Republican rival, Donald J. Trump.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric “I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. Days after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her Republican rival. The two cases have become inextricably linked in one of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.
This month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release the findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to publicly chastise Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.
Those decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.
Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.
Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.
Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.
The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.
In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.
Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.
But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.
The F.B.I. now faces those very criticisms and more. Mr. Trump says he is the victim of a politicized F.B.I. He says senior agents tried to rig the election by declining to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, then drummed up the Russia investigation to undermine his presidency. He has declared that a deeply rooted cabal — including his own appointees — is working against him.
That argument is the heart of Mr. Trump’s grievances with the federal investigation. In the face of bipartisan support for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump and his allies have made a priority of questioning how the investigation was conducted in late 2016 and trying to discredit it.
“It’s a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said last month on Fox News. “And they know that, and I’ve been able to message it.”
Congressional Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, have begun to dig into F.B.I. files, looking for evidence that could undermine the investigation. Much remains unknown and classified. But those who saw the investigation up close, and many of those who have reviewed case files in the past year, say that far from gunning for Mr. Trump, the F.B.I. could actually have done more in the final months of 2016 to scrutinize his campaign’s Russia ties.
“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national security prosecutor during much of the investigation’s first nine months.
Crossfire Hurricane spawned a case that has brought charges against former Trump campaign officials and more than a dozen Russians. But in the final months of 2016, agents faced great uncertainty — about the facts, and how to respond.
Image
A Trump campaign rally in August 2016 in Texas. Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Anxiety at the Bureau
Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.
The mood in early meetings was anxious, former officials recalled. Agents had just closed the Clinton investigation, and they braced for months of Republican-led hearings over why she was not charged. Crossfire Hurricane was built around the same core of agents and analysts who had investigated Mrs. Clinton. None was eager to re-enter presidential politics, former officials said, especially when agents did not know what would come of the Australian information.
The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?
The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. Each was scrutinized because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.
Mr. Flynn, a top adviser, was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Manafort, the campaign chairman, had lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.
Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, was well known to the F.B.I. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.
Lastly, there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls, that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr. Papadopoulos to a Russian intelligence operation.
Mr. Trump was not under investigation, but his actions perplexed the agents. Days after the stolen Democratic emails became public, he called on Russia to uncover more. Then news broke that Mr. Trump’s campaign had pushed to change the Republican platform’s stance on Ukraine in ways favorable to Russia.
The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three officials said.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.
“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”
Andrew G. McCabe in December in Washington. Mr. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty, giving ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted.CreditChip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Abounding Criticism
Looking back, some inside the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say that Mr. Comey should have seen the political storm coming and better sheltered the bureau. They question why he consolidated the Clinton and Trump investigations at headquarters, rather than in a field office. And they say he should not have relied on the same team for both cases. That put a bull’s-eye on the heart of the F.B.I. Any misstep in either investigation made both cases, and the entire bureau, vulnerable to criticism.
And there were missteps. Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty about his conversations with reporters about Mrs. Clinton. That gave ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted. And Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. lawyer, exchanged texts criticizing Mr. Trump, allowing the president to point to evidence of bias when they became public.
The messages were unsparing. They questioned Mr. Trump’s intelligence, believed he promoted intolerance and feared he would damage the bureau.
The inspector general’s upcoming report is expected to criticize those messages for giving the appearance of bias. It is not clear, however, whether inspectors found evidence supporting Mr. Trump’s assertion that agents tried to protect Mrs. Clinton, a claim the F.B.I. has adamantly denied.
Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I. wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those agents,” Mr. Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve seen no evidence of it.”
Mr. Trump’s daily Twitter posts, though, offer sound-bite-sized accusations — witch hunt, hoax, deep state, rigged system — that fan the flames of conspiracy. Capitol Hill allies reliably echo those comments.
“It’s like the deep state all got together to try to orchestrate a palace coup,” Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said in January on Fox Business Network.
The Kremlin in Moscow. Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence officials told him that Russia had tried to sow chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.CreditMladen Antonov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Cautious Intelligence Gathering
Counterintelligence investigations can take years, but if the Russian government had influence over the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. wanted to know quickly. One option was the most direct: interview the campaign officials about their Russian contacts.
That was discussed but not acted on, two former officials said, because interviewing witnesses or subpoenaing documents might thrust the investigation into public view, exactly what F.B.I. officials were trying to avoid during the heat of the presidential race.
“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general, said in an interview. She would not discuss details, but added, “Folks were very careful to make sure that actions that were being taken in connection with that investigation did not become public.”
Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make.
Top officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made agents even more cautious.
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
Looking back, some at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. now believe that agents could have been more aggressive. They ultimately interviewed Mr. Papadopoulos in January 2017 and managed to keep it a secret, suggesting they could have done so much earlier.
“There is always a high degree of caution before taking overt steps in a counterintelligence investigation,” said Ms. McCord, who would not discuss details of the case. “And that could have worked to the president’s benefit here.”
Such tactical discussions are reflected in one of Mr. Strzok’s most controversial texts, sent on Aug. 15, 2016, after a meeting in Mr. McCabe’s office.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected,” Mr. Strzok wrote, “but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Mr. Trump says that message revealed a secret F.B.I. plan to respond to his election. “‘We’ll go to Phase 2 and we’ll get this guy out of office,’” he told The Wall Street Journal. “This is the F.B.I. we’re talking about — that is treason.”
But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.
Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.
Mr. Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials. He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.
In both cases, his argument lost.
As agents tried to corroborate information from the retired British spy Christopher Steele, reporters began calling the F.B.I., asking whether the accusations in his reports were accurate.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
Policy and Tradition
The F.B.I. bureaucracy did agents no favors. In July, a retired British spy named Christopher Steele approached a friend in the F.B.I. overseas and provided reports linking Trump campaign officials to Russia. But the documents meandered around the F.B.I. organizational chart, former officials said. Only in mid-September, congressional investigators say, did the records reach the Crossfire Hurricane team.
Mr. Steele was gathering information about Mr. Trump as a private investigator for Fusion GPS, a firm paid by Democrats. But he was also considered highly credible, having helped agents unravel complicated cases.
In October, agents flew to Europe to interview him. But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.
So as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the election.
That did not happen. Most news organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.
Congress was also increasingly asking questions. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, had briefed top lawmakers that summer about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow supported the Trump campaign — a finding that would not become public for months. Lawmakers clamored for information from Mr. Comey, who refused to answer public questions.
Many Democrats see rueful irony in this moment. Mr. Comey, after all, broke with policy and twice publicly discussed the Clinton investigation. Yet he refused repeated requests to discuss the Trump investigation.
Mr. Comey has said he regrets his decision to chastise Mrs. Clinton as “extremely careless,” even as he announced that she should not be charged. But he stands by his decision to alert Congress, days before the election, that the F.B.I. was reopening the Clinton inquiry.
The result, though, is that Mr. Comey broke with both policy and tradition in Mrs. Clinton’s case, but hewed closely to the rules for Mr. Trump. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that alone proves Mr. Trump’s claims of unfairness to be “both deeply at odds with the facts, and damaging to our democracy.”
Carter Page in December 2016. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.CreditPavel Golovkin/Associated Press
Spying in Question
Crossfire Hurricane began with a focus on four campaign officials. But by mid-fall 2016, Mr. Page’s inquiry had progressed the furthest. Agents had known Mr. Page for years. Russian spies tried to recruit him in 2013, and he was dismissive when agents warned him about it, a half-dozen current and former officials said. That warning even made its way back to Russian intelligence, leaving agents suspecting that Mr. Page had reported their efforts to Moscow.
Relying on F.B.I. information and Mr. Steele’s, prosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign.
That warrant has become deeply contentious and is crucial to Republican arguments that intelligence agencies improperly used Democratic research to help justify spying on the Trump campaign. The inspector general is reviewing that claim.
Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general under President Barack Obama, signed the first warrant application. But subsequent filings were approved by members of Mr. Trump’s own administration: the acting attorney general, Dana J. Boente, and then Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
“Folks are very, very careful and serious about that process,” Ms. Yates said. “I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.”
After months of investigation, Mr. Papadopoulos remained largely a puzzle. And agents were nearly ready to close their investigation of Mr. Flynn, according to three current and former officials. (Mr. Flynn rekindled the F.B.I.’s interest in November 2016 by signing an op-ed article that appeared to be written on behalf of the Turkish government, and then making phone calls to the Russian ambassador that December.)
In late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.
Democrats say that article pre-emptively exonerated Mr. Trump, dousing chances to raise questions about the campaign’s Russian ties before Election Day.
Just as the F.B.I. has been criticized for its handling of the Trump investigation, so too has The Times.
For Mr. Steele, it dashed his confidence in American law enforcement. “He didn’t know what was happening inside the F.B.I.,” Glenn R. Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, testified this year. “And there was a concern that the F.B.I. was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people.”
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, in January 2017. He assured Mr. Trump, who at the time was the president-elect, that the bureau intended to protect him as Mr. Steele’s reports were about to be published by news outlets.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times
Assurances Amid Doubt
Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence officials briefed him at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Russian hacking and deception. They reported that Mr. Putin had tried to sow chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.
Then Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them. Mr. Comey has said he feared making this conversation a “J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,” with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.
In a contemporaneous memo, Mr. Comey wrote that he assured Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. intended to protect him on this point. “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Mr. Comey wrote of Mr. Steele’s documents. “I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the F.B.I. had the material.”
Mr. Trump was not convinced — either by the Russia briefing or by Mr. Comey’s assurances. He made up his mind before Mr. Comey even walked in the door. Hours earlier, Mr. Trump told The Times that stories about Russian election interference were being pushed by his adversaries to distract from his victory.
And he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: “This is a political witch hunt.”
Correction:
An earlier version of this article misstated that news organizations did not report on the findings of the retired British spy Christopher Steele about links between Trump campaign officials and Russia. While most news organizations whose reporters met with Mr. Steele did not publish such reports before the 2016 election, Mother Jones magazine did.
Reporting was contributed by Michael S. Schmidt, Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matthew Rosenberg.
Russia carried out a campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 American presidential election, denigrating Hillary Clinton and boosting Donald J. Trump, according to American intelligence agencies. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally ordered it.
The F.B.I., citing four Trump campaign aides’ ties to Russia, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the summer of 2016 to determine whether Trump associates aided Russia’s election interference.
Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director, was appointed the special counsel in May 2017 to take over the investigation. The inquiry has expanded to examine whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation itself.
Nineteen people — including four Trump associates — and three companies have been indicted in the case. Five have pleaded guilty; 13 are Russians accused of meddling in the election. [See a breakdown of the charges here.]
THE MAJOR FOCUSES OF THE INVESTIGATION
Interference
Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the presidential race and sow discord by spreading inflammatory messages on social media and stealing emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman and the Democratic National Committee, which were then strategically released to undermine the Clinton campaign.
Coordination
Investigators are examining what Mr. Trump’s aides and associates knew about Russia’s meddling, particularly the release of thousands of stolen Democratic emails, and whether any of them aided Moscow’s effort.
Obstruction
Mr. Mueller is investigating an array of the president’s actions — including the firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey — to determine whether Mr. Trump sought to impede the investigation into Russia’s actions.
Foreign Influence
Mr. Mueller is investigating whether Trump associates ran afoul of American lobbying or anti-corruption laws. Two aides to the Trump campaign, including its onetime chairman, were charged with financial crimes related to their work as advisers to a pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.
NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement forbidding the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information.[2] The nondisclosure provision must be authorized by the Director of the FBI, and only after he or she certifies “that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person.”[3] Even then, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[4]
The constitutionality of such nondisclosure provisions has been repeatedly challenged. The requirement was initially ruled to be unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech in the Doe v. Gonzales case, but that decision was later vacated in 2008 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after it held the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act gave the recipient of an NSL that included a nondisclosure provision the right to challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court. In March 2013, a judge in the Northern District of California held the nondisclosure provision in an NSL was unconstitutional. But on August 24, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court held the “NSLs were issued in full compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements suggested by the Second Circuit in John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), which had held that the 2006 NSL law could be constitutionally applied” … and “the NSL law, as amended [by the USA FREEDOM ACT of 2015], was constitutional.” The two petitioners then appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling, holding that NSLs are constitutional, and stated, “the nondisclosure requirement does not run afoul of the First Amendment.” Under Seal v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, Nos. 16-16067, 16-16081, and 16-16082, July 17, 2017.
History
The oldest NSL provisions were created in 1978 as a little-used investigative tool in terrorism and espionage investigations to obtain financial records. Under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), part of the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978), the FBI could obtain the records only if the FBI could first demonstrate the person was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Compliance by the recipient of the NSL was voluntary, and states’ consumer privacy laws often allowed financial institutions to reject the requests.[5] In 1986, Congress amended RFPA to allow the government to request disclosure of the requested information. In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), part of the Stored Communications Act), which created provisions similar to the RFPA that allowed the FBI to issue NSLs. Still, neither RFPA or ECPA act included penalties for not complying with the NSL. A 1993 amendment removed the restriction regarding “foreign powers” and allowed the use of NSLs to request information concerning persons who are not the direct subject of the investigation.
In 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the use of the NSLs. In March 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act allowed for judicial review of an NSL. A federal judge could repeal or modify an NSL if the court found the request for information was “unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.” The nondisclosure provision the government could include in an NSL was also weakened. The court could repeal the nondisclosure provision if it found it had been made in bad faith. Other amendments allowed the recipient of an NSL to inform their attorney about the request and the government had to rely on the courts to enforce compliance with an NSL.
Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act (2001) allowed the use of the NSLs when seeking information “relevant” in authorized national security investigations to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act also provided the Department of Defense when conducting a law enforcement investigation, counterintelligence inquiry, or security determination. The Central Intelligence Agency has also allegedly issued NSLs.[6] The Patriot Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added potential penalties for failure to comply with an NSL or disclosing an NSL if the NSL included a nondisclosure provision.
Contentious aspects
Two contentious aspects of NSLs are the nondisclosure provision and judicial oversight when the FBI issues an NSL. When the Director of the FBI (or his designee) authorizes the inclusion of a nondisclosure provision in an NSL, the recipient may face criminal prosecution if it reveals the contents of the NSL or that it was received. The purpose of a nondisclosure provision is to prevent the recipient of an NSL from compromising both the current FBI investigation involving a specific person and future investigations as well (see 18 U.S.C. 2709), which could fetter the Government’s efforts to address national security threats.[7] An NSL recipient (later revealed to be Nicholas Merrill[8][9]) writing in The Washington Post said,
“[L]iving under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case…from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been.”[7]
Like other administrative subpoenas, NSLs do not require judicial approval. For NSLs, that is because the U.S. Supreme Court has held the types of information the FBI obtains with NSLs provide no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Because a person has already provided the information to a third party, e.g., their telephone company, they no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the information, and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment requirement to obtain a judge’s approval to obtain the information.[10] Nonetheless, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[11]
The media reported in 2007 that a government audit found the FBI had violated the rules more than 1,000 times in an audit of 10% of its national investigations between 2002 and 2007.[12] Twenty such incidents involved requests by agents for information not permitted under the law. A subsequent report in 2014 by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General concluded the FBI had corrected its practices and that NSLs complied federal statutes.
According to 2,500 pages of documents the FBI provided to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the FBI had used NSLs to obtain information about individuals who were the subject of an FBI terrorism or counterintelligence investigation and information from telecommunications companies about individuals with whom the subject of the investigation had communicated. According to a September 9, 2007, New York Times report,
“In many cases, the target of a[n FBI] national security letter whose records are being sought is not necessarily the actual subject of a terrorism investigation. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI must assert only that the records gathered through the letter are considered relevant to a terrorism [or counterintelligence] investigation.”[13]
In April 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that the military was using the FBI to skirt legal restrictions on domestic surveillance to obtain private records of Americans’ Internet service providers, financial institutions, and telephone companies. The ACLU based its allegation on a review of more than 1,000 documents provided by the Defense Department. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General later determined the Department of Defense (not the FBI) had lawfully obtained the information under the National Security Act of 1947, not through NSLs.
The lack of judicial oversight and the Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Maryland was the core of Doe v. Ashcroft, a test case brought by the ACLU concerning the use of NSLs. The lawsuit was file on behalf of “John Doe” plaintiff Nicholas Merrill, founder of Calyx Internet Access,[14] who had received an NSL. The action challenged the constitutionality of NSLs, specifically the nondisclosure provision. At the district court, Judge of the Southern District of New York held in September 2004 that NSLs violated the Fourth Amendment (“it has the effect of authorizing coercive searches effectively immune from any judicial process”) and First Amendment. However, Judge Marrero stayed his ruling while the case proceeded to the court of appeals.
Because of the New York district court ruling, while the case was still on appeal, Congress amended the USA PATRIOT Act to provide for more judicial review of NSLs and clarified the NSL nondisclosure provision.[15] Based on the U.S. Supreme Court rulings, there is still no requirement to seek judicial approval for the FBI issuing an NSL.
The government appealed Judge Marrero’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in May 2006. In March 2008, the Second Circuit ruled that nondisclosure provisions were permissible only when the FBI certified that disclosure may result in certain statutorily enumerated harms (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2709), and held the nondisclosure provision to a strict scrutiny standard. The Second Circuit then returned the case to the district court based on amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act that Congress had enacted while the case had been on appeal.
Letter in the Doe v. Gonzales case
Another effect of Doe v. Ashcroft was increased congressional oversight. The amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act mentioned above included requirements for semiannual reporting to Congress. Although the reports are classified, a nonclassified accounting of how many NSLs are issued is also required. On April 28, 2006, the Department of Justice reported to the House and Senate that in calendar year 2005, “The Government made requests for certain information concerning 3,501 United States persons pursuant to NSLs. During this period, the total number of NSL requests … for information concerning U.S. persons totaled 9,254.”[16]
In 2010, the FBI agreed to lift partially the nondisclosure provision to allow Merrill to reveal his identity.[17] Merrill has since created a corporation for the purposes of educating and researching privacy issues.[18]
On August 28, 2015, Judge Marrero rescinded the nondisclosure provision associated with the NSL Merrill had received, thereby allowing him to speak about the contents of the NSL. On November 30, 2015, the unredacted court ruling was published in full.[19]
Jump up^“National Security Letters and Gag Orders: Transcript”. On the Media. January 21, 2011. Although you’re allowed to challenge the gag every year now under the new [amended] law, the last time I did it, the government presented secret evidence that only they and the judge could see, and my attorneys could not see, and therefore could not challenge. It does kind of add up to a lot of responsibility, and that’s part of what motivated me to start my nonprofit organization, the Calyx Institute. Part of it is to defend people who are gagged. Part of it is also to promote best practices among telecommunications companies in regards to the privacy of customer data.
Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a “true bill” if it found cause to make the charge, or “no bill” if it did not find cause.
Indictments by country
India
The criminal law in India[1] is derived from the colonial-era British system, does not use a jury system and is codified in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Criminal offenses are divided into two broad categories: cognisable offenses and non-cognisable offenses. The police are empowered to start investigating a cognisable offense. The complaint is considered merely an accusation. However, in both cognisable and non-cognisable offenses, the trial starts only with the “Framing of Charges” similar to the concept of indictment. The trial court does not proceed with the trial if the evidence is insufficient to make out a charge.
United Kingdom
England and Wales
In England and Wales (except in private prosecutions by individuals) an indictment is issued by the public prosecutor (in most cases this will be the Crown Prosecution Service) on behalf of the Crown, which is the nominal plaintiff in all public prosecutions under English law. This is why a public prosecution of a person whose surname is Smith would be referred to in writing as “R v Smith” (or alternatively as “Regina v Smith” or “Rex v Smith” depending on the gender of the Sovereign, Regina and Rex being Latin for “Queen” and “King” and in either case may informally be pronounced as such) and when cited orally in court would be pronounced “the Crown against Smith”.[2][3]
The Indictment Rules 1971 were revoked by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2007[5] (on the whole) incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.[6] The form and content and the service of an indictment are governed by Rule 14 of the CPR 2012.[7]Additional guidance is contained in the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction Part IV.34.[8]
As to the preferring of a bill of indictment and the signing of an indictment, see section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (S.I. 1971/2084) made thereunder, as amended and modified by the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1988 (S.I. 1988/1783), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1992 (S.I. 1992/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1997 (S.I. 1997/711), the Indictments (Procedure) (Modification) Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3045) and the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000/3360).
Northern Ireland[
See the Indictments Act (Northern Ireland) 1945.[9]
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger”. The requirement of an indictment has not been incorporated against the states; therefore, although the federal government uses grand juries and indictments, not all U.S. states do.[10]
In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment. To protect the suspect’s due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect’s interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial.
The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of where, when, and how the defendant allegedly committed the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate count. Indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, may run to hundreds of pages. However, in other cases an indictment for a crime as serious as murder, may consist of a single sheet of paper.
Indictable offenses are normally tried by jury, unless the accused waives the right to a jury trial. Although the Sixth Amendment mandates the right to a jury trial in any criminal prosecution, the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by the plea-bargaining process.
Direct indictment (Canada)
A direct indictment is one in which the case is sent directly to trial before a preliminary inquiry is completed or when the accused has been discharged by a preliminary inquiry.[11][12] It is meant to be an extraordinary, rarely used power to ensure that those who should be brought to trial are in a timely manner or where an error of judgment is seen to have been made in the preliminary inquiry.[13]
Sealed indictment
An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.[14]
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., October 31, 2016. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)
The Steele-dossier author told Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson about a ‘human source.’Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a “human source” — i.e., a spy — inside the Trump campaign as the 2016 presidential race headed into its stretch run.
When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, “mischaracterized” what he’d been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign.
Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI’s human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. The latter date is significant for reasons we’ll come to.
A Spy and a Stonewall Simpson’s testimony on this point is worth revisiting because of a pitched battle between the House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department. Essential reporting on the controversy has been done by the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel (see here and here). On Thursday, she related that, yet again, Congress had faced down a DOJ/FBI attempt to stonewall the committee’s probe of investigative irregularities during the 2016 election season — particularly, abuse of government surveillance powers, which the Obama-led agencies used to monitor the Trump campaign.
Unable to get voluntary cooperation, committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) issued a subpoena demanding that the Justice Department disclose information about a top-secret intelligence source who is said to have assisted the Russia investigation. That investigation is now being run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But more interesting is how it got started.
On that question, officials have been suspiciously fuzzy in their explanations, and hilariously inconsistent in their leaks: initially settling on an origination story that hinged on the Steele dossier and a trip to Moscow by the obscure Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page; later pivoting to a tale of boozy blathering by an even more obscure Trump-campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, when the first story proved embarrassing — the dossier allegations having been unverified when the Justice Department included them in warrant applications to the FISA court.
The Justice Department’s inability, or at least unwillingness, to reveal exactly how, when, and why the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation has fueled suspicions that a spy who worked for both the FBI and the CIA was deployed against the Trump campaign, probably in Britain — where Papadopoulos had met with suspected agents of the Kremlin, and where Steele compiled the dossier via reports from his unidentified sources.
From painstaking research, Nunes and committee staff believe they have identified such a spy. When they demanded information about this person — whose name remains unknown to the public — the Justice Department’s response was not “No, you’re wrong, there was no spying.” It was first to bloviate that the department would not be “extorted” (Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s unusual understanding of what is more commonly known as congressional oversight) and then to claim that providing the information sought by the committee would risk “potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities.”
By now, Nunes has learned that if he is catching flak, he is over the target.
Simpson’s Senate Testimony about the FBI’s ‘Human Source’ This brings us back to Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, which was retained by the Clinton campaign (through its lawyers at Perkins Coie) to generate the Steele dossier, opposition research that focused on Donald Trump and Russia.
In his Senate testimony on August 22, 2017, Simpson explained that Steele had met with at least one FBI agent in Rome in mid to late September 2016. The former British spy had provided the unverified allegations he had compiled to that point (i.e., his private “intelligence reports,” later assembled into the “dossier”). Steele had developed a close working relationship with the FBI when he was a British agent. It is not surprising, then, that the Bureau did not just take his information; it reciprocated, imparting some sensitive information to him. Simpson explained to the Senate committee (my italics):
Essentially, what [Christopher Steele] told me was [the FBI] had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source, and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing, and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump campaign.
Simpson declined to answer more questions about this unidentified “human source.” But when the media treated his revelation as a bombshell, he realized it would cause a feeding frenzy: Congress, the media, and the public would demand to know what would cause the FBI, in the stretch run of a presidential race, to use an informant against one candidate’s campaign.
On a dime, Simpson backpedaled. Fusion GPS explained to friendly media that he believed he had “mischaracterized” the source. He must have been talking about George Papadopoulos — not a “human source” in the sense of willing informant or spy, but a person attached to the campaign whose statements to an Australian diplomat had been passed to the FBI (through channels that, we shall see, have still not been explained).
On further review, I don’t buy this explanation (although I uncritically accepted it in a column about Simpson’s testimony early this year).
The Timing Doesn’t Compute Simpson’s testimony was released to the public on January 9, 2018. That was just a few days after the New York Times had published its big New Year’s weekend story claiming, based on anonymous intelligence officials, that the Russia investigation had been opened sometime in July 2016. The catalyzing event, we were told, was a report to the FBI that Papadopoulos, a young Trump-campaign adviser, had alleged that Russia possessed thousands of stolen Hillary Clinton emails. According to the story, Papadopoulos had been informed of this by Joseph Mifsud, a London-based academic who professed to have Kremlin connections. A few weeks later, while drinking in a London bar in May 2016, Papadopoulos blabbed the news to Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat.
According to the Times, when hacked Democratic National Committee emails started being published in July 2016, Australian officials surmised that this development could be related to Papadopoulos’s boozy claim; therefore, the paper suggests, they routed the information to their American counterparts. But when we peruse the story, we find that the Times is drawing an inference that the FBI must have gotten the information from the Australian government; there is no solid confirmation that this happened. Indeed, the story evinces bewilderment that two months supposedly elapsed between the Papadopoulos–Downer meeting and the FBI’s learning about it. There is no attempt to describe how this assumed transmission occurred, and the Aussies refused to comment on the matter.
Though the Papadopoulos–Downer story is rickety, it nevertheless served Simpson’s purpose of backing away from his “human source” testimony. Alas, his story does not add up, either.
To repeat, while Simpson’s testimony became public in January 2018, he actually gave the testimony five months earlier, in August 2017. Papadopoulos’s name is not uttered in the 312-page transcript, just as it goes unmentioned in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos was virtually unheard of until October 30, 2017, when Special Counsel Mueller announced his guilty plea and filed a factual recitation of his offense conduct. Two weeks after that information became public, Simpson was asked about Papadopoulos in a fleeting exchange during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee (see November 14, 2017, transcript, page 163.) Interestingly, the subject came up in the context of Trump-related research Simpson had done separate and apart from his collaboration with Steele. Simpson claimed that he had been looking at Papadopoulos “for a while” and regarded him as “a clone of Carter Page”; but he admitted that he actually knew nothing significant about Papadopoulos beyond what Mueller had included in the information filed in court at the time of the guilty plea.
The information Mueller had filed in October said nothing about either Papadopoulos’s meeting with Downer or the subsequent purported transmission of Papadopoulos’s claims from Australian authorities to the FBI. That story did not come out until the Times article on December 30.
When Simpson testified that Steele told him the FBI had a human source, I think Simpson meant exactly what that testimony implied.
Only after that, and in the uproar over the January 9 release of Simpson’s five-month-old Senate testimony, did Fusion suggest that Simpson must have been referring to Downer, the Australian diplomat, when he told the Senate that the FBI had a “human source” inside the Trump campaign. That, however, is not credible. When Simpson gave the “human source” testimony in August 2017, there is no indication that he knew anything about Downer. Even if we buy his House testimony in November that he had heard of Papadopoulos before the latter’s October plea, Simpson conceded then that he knew nothing more than what Mueller had disclosed — which did not include the Papadopoulos–Downer meeting and the communication of it to the FBI.
Simpson is a smart guy, an accomplished investigative journalist, and now a full-time professional researcher, whose attention to detail is impressive. Steele is an experienced intelligence officer. The two are longtime friends and collaborators who understand each other well. Informants are central to both of their professions. By their telling, Steele’s decision to bring their research to the FBI and his subsequent dealings with the Bureau were a matter of extensive discussion and great concern.
Consequently, I do not believe that Steele gave his friend Simpson a cryptic account of his meeting in Rome with the FBI; nor do I believe that Simpson got confused and “mischaracterized” what he was told. When Simpson testified that Steele told him the FBI had a human source, I think Simpson meant exactly what that testimony implied: that someone from the FBI told Steele in August 2016 — while the investigation was heating up, while the FBI was ramping up its efforts in preparation for seeking surveillance warrants from the FISA court — that the Bureau had an informant.
A Human Source . . . in Britain, Not Australia Three other things to consider:
1. For months, the House Intelligence Committee sought disclosure of the “electronic communication” (EC) by which the FBI opened its counterintelligence-investigation file on Papadopoulos, reportedly in July 2016. Counterintelligence involves national-security powers, and it is a weighty matter to apply these powers — as opposed to criminal-investigative authorities — to American citizens. The committee therefore wanted to know what foreign intelligence had spurred the probe, particularly in light of intelligence leaks that an Australian government report about Papadopoulos was the cause.
Yet, when Nunes was finally allowed to look at the EC, only after threatening contempt proceedings against Justice Department officials, he learned that the FBI did not set forth any foreign intelligence — there was no Australian report, no “Five Eyes intelligence product” at all, Nunes told Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.
Did the FBI’s British operation involve using a spy to interact with Trump-campaign figures, such as Papadopoulos, on British soil?
If the FBI was not explicitly relying on intelligence from a foreign ally, on what was it relying to open a counterintelligence investigation focusing on an American political campaign? According to what the New York Times reported in April 2017, “current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials” said the investigation was triggered by Carter Page’s trip to Moscow. That would implicate the Clinton-campaign-generated Steele dossier, which claimed that Page’s trip furthered a Trump–Russia conspiracy. I’ve detailed how, as reliance on the unverified dossier has become more controversial, the media and intelligence agencies have tried to minimize its importance to the opening of the investigation.
Did the dossier instigate not only FISA surveillance but human spying against the Trump campaign?
2. As Larry O’Connor has recounted in the Washington Times, Obama’s former CIA director John Brennan was asked, by NBC’s Chuck Todd, whether the FBI’s investigation was triggered by intelligence from the Five Eyes (i.e., the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — five Anglosphere governments that have longstanding, unusually close intelligence-sharing arrangements). Brennan would not answer the question directly, but he emphasized U.S. ties not with Australia but with Britain:
The F.B.I. has [a] very close relationship with its British counterparts. And so, the F.B.I. had visibility into a number of things that were going on involving some individuals who may have had some affiliation with the Trump campaign. And so, the intelligence that we collected was pulsed against that. And I thought it would have been derelict if the F.B.I. did not pull the threads, investigative threads, on American persons who might have been involved with Russia and working on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly.
Sounds like the FBI, with support from the CIA, had some cooperative intelligence venture with British authorities that enabled the Bureau to monitor Trump-campaign figures. That is significant because Papadopoulos has acknowledged meeting in Britain with people who claimed Kremlin ties and who told him Russia had thousands of Clinton’s emails. Did the FBI’s British operation involve using a spy to interact with Trump-campaign figures, such as Papadopoulos, on British soil? Brennan didn’t say.
3. In December 2017, McCabe testified in a closed hearing before the House Intelligence Committee. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported that McCabe “said on more than one occasion that the FBI had worked hard to verify the dossier, telling lawmakers that the FBI had at one point sent investigators to London as part of that effort” (emphasis added).
Did the FBI’s work to verify the dossier in London involve a human source? Did it involve other human sources in other places?
Christopher Steele, the former British spy with extensive British intelligence and FBI connections, told his friend Glenn Simpson that the FBI had penetrated the Trump campaign with a “human source” who was helping corroborate the dossier. There seems to be more corroboration for this assertion than for the sensational allegations in Steele’s dossier.
Story 2: Secret Surveillance Spying Security State (S5) Abolishes Fourth Amendment With National Security Agency and National Security Letters — Congress Does Nothing Fearing Secret Surveillance Spying Security State Disclosures By United States Intelligence Community (IC) — Videos
America’s intelligence community, explained
History… The Origins of the U.S. Intelligence Community & Why It Spies on Americans
NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM
History… Interview with G. Edward Griffin “The Individual vs. The Collective”
Tragedy and Hope: Professor Carroll Quigley and the “Article that Said Too Little” by Kevin Cole
The Washington Post reported in 2010 that there were 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies in 10,000 locations in the United States that were working on counterterrorism, homeland security, and intelligence, and that the intelligence community as a whole includes 854,000 people holding top-secret clearances.[3] According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the U.S. intelligence community and account for 49% of their personnel budgets.[4]
Etymology
The term “Intelligence Community” was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith‘s tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History[
Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and distribute in response to government leaders’ questions and requirements. Intelligence is a broad term that entails:
Collection, analysis, and production of sensitive information to support national security leaders, including policymakers, military commanders, and Members of Congress. Safeguarding these processes and this information through counterintelligence activities. Execution of covert operations approved by the President. The IC strives to provide valuable insight on important issues by gathering raw intelligence, analyzing that data in context, and producing timely and relevant products for customers at all levels of national security—from the war-fighter on the ground to the President in Washington.[6]
Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]
Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the U.S., international terrorist and/or narcotics activities, and other hostile activities directed against the U.S. by foreign powers, organizations, persons and their agents;
Special activities (defined as activities conducted in support of U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the “role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly”, and functions in support of such activities, but which are not intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related support functions);
Administrative and support activities within the United States and abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities and
Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from time to time.
Organization
Members
The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
The National Intelligence Program (NIP), formerly known as the National Foreign Intelligence Program as defined by the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended), “refers to all programs, projects, and activities of the intelligence community, as well as any other programs of the intelligence community designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the head of a United States department or agency or by the President. Such term does not include programs, projects, or activities of the military departments to acquire intelligence solely for the planning and conduct of tactical military operations by the United States Armed Forces”. Under the law, the DNI is responsible for directing and overseeing the NIP, though the ability to do so is limited (see the Organization structure and leadership section).
The Military Intelligence Program (MIP) refers to the programs, projects, or activities of the military departments to acquire intelligence solely for the planning and conduct of tactical military operations by the United States Armed Forces. The MIP is directed and controlled by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In 2005 the Department of Defense combined the Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities program to form the MIP.
Since the definitions of the NIP and MIP overlap when they address military intelligence, assignment of intelligence activities to the NIP and MIP sometimes proves problematic.
Though the IC characterizes itself as a federation of its member elements, its overall structure is better characterized as a confederation due to its lack of a well-defined, unified leadership and governance structure. Prior to 2004, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was the head of the IC, in addition to being the director of the CIA. A major criticism of this arrangement was that the DCI had little or no actual authority over the budgetary authorities of the other IC agencies and therefore had limited influence over their operations.
Following the passage of IRTPA in 2004, the head of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The DNI exerts leadership of the IC primarily through statutory authorities under which he or she:
controls the “National Intelligence Program” budget;
establishes objectives, priorities, and guidance for the IC; and
manages and directs the tasking of, collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence by elements of the IC.
However, the DNI has no authority to direct and control any element of the IC except his own staff—the Office of the DNI—neither does the DNI have the authority to hire or fire personnel in the IC except those on his own staff. The member elements in the executive branch are directed and controlled by their respective department heads, all cabinet-level officials reporting to the President. By law, only the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency reports to the DNI.
In light of major intelligence failures in recent years that called into question how well Intelligence Community ensures U.S. national security, particularly those identified by the 9/11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and the “WMD Commission” (Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction), the authorities and powers of the DNI and the overall organizational structure of the IC have become subject of intense debate in the United States.
Data visualization of U.S. intelligence black budget (2013)
The U.S. intelligence budget (excluding the Military Intelligence Program) in fiscal year 2013 was appropriated as $52.7 billion, and reduced by the amount sequestered to $49.0 billion.[9] In fiscal year 2012 it peaked at $53.9 billion, according to a disclosure required under a recent law implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.[10] The 2012 figure was up from $53.1 billion in 2010,[11] $49.8 billion in 2009,[12] $47.5 billion in 2008,[13] $43.5 billion in 2007,[14] and $40.9 billion in 2006.[15]
On August 29, 2013 the Washington Post published the summary of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s multivolume FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, the U.S. intelligence community’s top-secret “black budget.”[16][17][18] The IC’s FY 2013 budget details, how the 16 spy agencies use the money and how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress. Experts said that access to such details about U.S. spy programs is without precedent. Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists, which provides analyses of national security issues stated that “It was a titanic struggle just to get the top-line budget number disclosed, and that has only been done consistently since 2007 … but a real grasp of the structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy has been totally beyond public reach. This kind of material, even on a historical basis, has simply not been available.”[19] Access to budget details will enable an informed public debate on intelligence spending for the first time said the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission Lee H. Hamilton. He added that Americans should not be excluded from the budget process because the intelligence community has a profound impact on the life of ordinary Americans.[19]
Background. Like Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act“), the FISA legislation was the result of congressional investigations into Federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security. Through FISA, Congress sought to provide judicial and congressional oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance activities while maintaining the secrecy necessary to effectively monitor national security threats. FISA was initially enacted in 1978 and sets out procedures for physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information. Initially, FISA addressed only electronic surveillance but has been significantly amended to address the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, physical searches, and business records.
FISA also established the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a special U.S. Federal court that holds nonpublic sessions to consider issuing search warrants under FISA. Proceedings before the FISC are ex parte, meaning the government is the only party present.
General Provisions. FISA, as amended, establishes procedures for the authorization of electronic surveillance, use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, physical searches, and business records for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
Electronic Surveillance Procedures – Subchapter I of FISA established procedures for the conduct of foreign intelligence surveillance and created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Department of Justice must apply to the FISC to obtain a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of foreign agents. For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances.
Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act“) , agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” that “a significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information,” and that appropriate “minimization procedures” are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.
Agents do not need to demonstrate that commission of a crime is imminent.
For purposes of FISA, agents of foreign powers include agents of foreign political organizations and groups engaged in international terrorism, as well as agents of foreign nations. 50 U.S.C. § 1801
Record Destruction: Where the government has accidentally intercepted communications that “under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States,” the government is required to destroy those records, “unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.” 50 U.S.C. § 1806.
Exception to Court Order Requirement: The President may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year without a FISC court order where the Attorney General certifies that there is “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a U.S. person is a party,” provided the surveillance is directed solely at communications among or between foreign powers, or “the acquisition of technical intelligence … from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. § 1802.
Physical Searches – Subchapter II of FISA establishes procedures for the physical search of “premises or property … owned, used, possessed by, or … in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” The procedures are substantially similar to the procedures established for electronic foreign intelligence surveillance.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Implications. FISA prohibits surveillance of or production of business records regarding a U.S. person based solely on First Amendment activities. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805, 1842, 1861. Section 1806 provides guidance on the sharing of foreign intelligence information among Federal agencies and with State and local partners, as well as guidance as to disclosure of foreign intelligence information in criminal proceedings. Section 1825 provides similar guidance regarding the use and disclosure of foreign intelligence gathered via a physical search, while section 1845 provides similar guidance for the use and disclosure of information acquired through pen registers and trap and trace devices gathered under Subchapter III. Note that “agents of foreign powers” may include U.S. citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control. Section 1801(b).
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458, amended the definition of “agent of a foreign power” in FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)), to add a new category of covered individuals called the “lone wolf” provision. Under the “lone wolf” provision, a non-United States person who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism is deemed to be an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA.
Further Information. The Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization that describes itself as providing “nonpartisan technical analysis on complex global issues that hinge on science and technology,” offers a compilation of links to FISA-related resources including annual FISA reports to Congress, various court cases, and Department of Justice memoranda.
Story 3: President Trump Attacks MS-13 As Animals — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Defend MS -13 — All Humans Are Animals — MS-16 Members Are Violent Thugs — Videos
The left turns Trump’s ‘animals’ comment into a controversy
President Donald Trump Says ‘Animals’ Remark Referred To MS-13 Gang Members | NBC News
Nancy Pelosi Defends Violent MS-13 Gang Members In Response To Trump, Says They’re Not Animals
Trump calls MS-13 gang members ‘animals’
Sanders: Trump referred to gang as ‘animals’ not immigrants
Trump says ‘animals’ remark referred to MS-13 members
Media take Trump’s ‘animals’ remark out of context
MS-13 gang members: Trump makes us stronger
A look inside the world of MS-13 gangs
True roots of MS-13
MS-13: Violent gang targeting US suburbia
ICE Chasing Down MS-13 Gang (Compilation)
El Salvador declares war on gangs
Trump calls some illegal immigrants “animals” in meeting with sheriffs
Tucker: There’s no defending MS-13, but the Left is
‘Hunting MS-13’: What we learned
MS-13 ‘Amercanizing’ with female members
National Geographic – MS13 [Mara Salvatrucha ] : America’s Deadliest Gang – full Documentary HD
Brit snaps MS-13 gang at jail guards won’t step in
ICE Chasing Down MS-13 Gang (Compilation)
Washington DC MS 13 Documentary
Inside Long Island’s war with MS-13
MS 13 Murder Documentary
MS-13’s Active Members Are Laughing At Trump’s Crackdown (HBO)
National Geographic – MS13 [Mara Salvatrucha ] : America’s Deadliest Gang – full Documentary HD
MS-13’s biggest rival: Barrio 18
5 Most Dangerous Gangs In The World!
CNN Took Trump’s ‘Animals’ Remark About Immigrants ‘Out of Context,’ Network Admits
“Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants,” network now says
Jon Levine | May 18, 2018 @ 5:51 AMLast Updated: May 18, 2018 @ 8:01 AM
Getty Images
CNN has officially clarified its reporting suggesting that President Donald Trump had referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals.”
In a Thursday piece, media reporter Oliver Darcy conceded that CNN — like many other news organizations, including the New York Times and the Associated Press — had taken Trump’s remarks “out of context” and that the president had only been referring to members of the violent MS-13 gang, many of whom come from Central America, and not to all immigrants in the U.S. without proper documentation.
“Other outlets did not directly accuse the President of calling immigrants ‘animals,’ but failed to include in tweets the entire context for Trump’s remark. Those outlets included CNN, CBS News, and NBC News,” wrote Darcy.
“Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes,” the network added in a thread response to its own (considerably more viral) original tweet that included the president’s quote without context.
CNN
✔@CNN
“We’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people — these are animals.” During a meeting with public officials who oppose California’s sanctuary policies, Pres. Trump criticized US immigration laws https://trib.al/jDvH1Vxpic.twitter.com/SsmCdaofHb
CNN
✔@CNN
As reported in the article above, Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes.
“AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s ‘animals’ comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members,” the news organization offered in an explanation.
The Associated Press
✔@AP
AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members.
The false narrative spread through the media this week after Trump made the tough remarks from the Cabinet Room of the White House.
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,”said the president. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”
On Wednesday, the White House press briefing had an animated moment when Press Secretary Sarah Sanders laced into media companies for falsely reporting this story.
“If the media and liberals want to defend MS-13, they’re more than welcome to,” said Sanders. “It took an animal to stab a man 100 times and decapitate him and rip his heart out … Frankly, I think that the term ‘animal’ doesn’t go far enough.”
“The president was very clearly referring to MS-13 gang members who enter the country illegally and whose deportations are hamstrung by our laws,” she added. “This is one of the most vicious and deadly gangs that operates by the motto of rape, control and kill.”
MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha; also known as simply MS or Mara) is an international criminal gang that originated in Los Angeles, California, US in the 1980s. The gang later spread to many parts of the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, and is active in urban and suburban areas. Most members are of Central American origin, principally El Salvador.
Members of MS are characterised by tattoos covering the body, previously including the face, and by the use of their own sign language. They are notorious for their violence and a subculturalmoral code based on merciless retribution. This cruelty of the distinguished members of the “Maras” or “Mareros” earned them a path to be recruited by the Sinaloa Cartel battling against Los Zetas in an ongoing drug war in Mexico.[5][6][7] Their wide-ranging activities have drawn the attention of the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who have initiated wide-scale raids against known and suspected gang members, arresting hundreds across the country.[8]
Etymology
There is some dispute about the etymology of the name. Some sources state the gang is named for La Mara, a street gang in San Salvador, and the Salvatrucha guerrillas who fought in the Salvadoran Civil War.[9]Additionally, the word mara means gang in Caliche slang and is taken from marabunta, the name of a fierce type of ant. “Salvatrucha” may be a combination of the words Salvadoran and trucha, a Caliche word for being alert. The term “Salvatruchas” has been explained as a reference to Salvadorian peasants trained to become guerrilla fighters, referred to as “Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front.”[10]
Aspirants are beaten for 13 seconds in order to join the gang, a ritual known as a “beat-in”.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
Minors make up the majority of suspects arrested for killings attributed to MS-13. Many school districts were reluctant to admit unaccompanied teenagers when they initially arrived from Central America, which left them home alone and vulnerable to gang recruitment.[17]
Many Mara Salvatrucha members cover themselves in tattoos. Common markings include “MS”, “Salvatrucha”, the “Devil Horns”, the name of their clique, and other symbols.[18] A December 2007 CNN internet news article stated that the gang was moving away from face tattoos so as to be able to commit crimes without being noticed.[19]
Members of Mara Salvatrucha, like members of most modern American gangs, utilize a system of hand signs for purposes of identification and communication. One of the most commonly displayed is the “devil’s head” which forms an ‘M’ when displayed upside down. This hand sign is similar to the same symbol commonly seen displayed by heavy metal musicians and their fans. Founders of Mara Salvatrucha borrowed the hand sign after attending concerts of heavy metal bands.[20]
MS-13 appears to use Texas as a stopping point for travel from Los Angeles to the East Coast and for the trafficking of drugs, humans, and weapons between Mexico and the United States. The largest concentration of MS-13 in Texas is in Houston.[22]
History
The Mara Salvatrucha gang originated in Los Angeles, set up in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in the city’s Pico-Union neighborhood who immigrated to the United States after the Central American civil wars of the 1980s.[23]
Originally the gang’s main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans and African-Americans.[24]
Many Mara Salvatrucha gang members from the Los Angeles area have been deported after being arrested.[25] For example, Jose Abrego, a high-ranking member, was deported four times.[26] As a result of these deportations, members of MS-13 have recruited more members in their home countries.[27] The Los Angeles Times contends that deportation policies have contributed to the size and influence of the gang both in the United States and in Central America.[25] According to the 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment, “The gang is estimated to have 30,000 to 50,000 members and associate members worldwide, 8,000 to 10,000 of whom reside in the United States.[1]
Since the first decade of the twenty-first century the gang has expanded into the Washington, D.C. area, in particular the areas of Langley Park and Takoma Park, Maryland.[28]
In 2004 the US FBI started the MS-13 National Gang Task Force. The FBI also began teaming with law enforcement in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico.[29]
In 2005 the office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement started Operation Community Shield. By 2011 this operation had made over 20,000 arrests, including more than 3,000 arrests of alleged MS-13 members.[30]
NYPD said that MS-13 were responsible for 17 murders between January 2016 and April 2016 in Long Island.[31]
On July 28, 2017, one day after 113 suspected MS-13 gang members were arrested by Salvadoran authorities,[32] President Donald Trump declared his goal of “eradicating” MS-13, calling them “animals” whose victims “die slowly because that way it’s more painful.”[33]
In an interview with Bill Ritter in late 2017, Nassau County, New York District Attorney Madeline Singas, referring to crimes committed by MS-13 gang members, stated: “The crimes that we’re talking about are brutal. Their weapon of choice is a machete. We end up seeing people with injuries that I’ve never seen before. You know, limbs hacked off. And that’s what the bodies look like that we’re recovering. So they’re brutal. They’re ruthless, and we’re gonna be relentless in our attacks against them.”[34]
Illegal immigration and human smuggling
According to The Washington Times, MS-13 “is thought to have established a major smuggling center” in Mexico.[35] There were reports by the Minuteman Project that MS members were ordered to Arizona to target U.S. Border Patrol agents and Minuteman Projectvolunteers.[36]
Robert Morales, a prosecutor for Guatemala, indicated to The Globe and Mail that some Central American gang members seek refugee status in Canada. Superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police integrated gang task force, John Robin, said in an interview that “I think [gang members] have a feeling that police here won’t treat them in the harsh manner they get down there.”[37] Robin noted that Canadian authorities “want to avoid ending up like the U.S., which is dealing with the problem of Central American gangsters on a much bigger scale”.[37]
The gang is violent to migrants on the southern border of Mexico.[38]
False Al-Qaeda connection
In 2005 Honduran Security Minister Oscar Álvarez and the President of El Salvador raised alarm by claiming that terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda was meeting with Mara Salvatrucha and other Central American gangs to help them infiltrate the United States. FBI agents said that the U.S. intelligence community and governments of several Central American countries found that there was no basis to believe that MS-13 was connected to Al-Qaeda or other Islamic radicals, although the head of the FBI task force on MS-13 did visit Central America to discuss the issue.[39]
Publicized crimes
The Central American population in North America is the primary victim of MS-13.[27] Many of the victims are minors.[17]
On July 13, 2003, Brenda Paz, a 17-year-old former MS-13 member turned informant was found stabbed to death on the banks of the Shenandoah River in Virginia. She was killed for informing the FBI about Mara Salvatrucha’s criminal activities; two of her former friends were later convicted of the murder.[40]
In 2004 the FBI created the MS-13 National Gang Task Force.[41] In 2005 the FBI helped create a National Gang Information Center (NGIC), and outlined a National Gang Strategy for Congress.[42]
On December 23, 2004, one of the most widely publicized MS-13 crimes in Central America occurred in Chamelecón, Honduras when an intercity bus was intercepted and sprayed with automatic gunfire from assault rifles,[43] killing 28 and wounding 14 civilian passengers, most of whom were women and children.[44] MS-13 organized the massacre as a protest against the Honduran government for proposing a restoration of the death penalty in Honduras. Six gunmen raked the bus with gunfire. As passengers screamed and ducked, another gunman climbed aboard and methodically executed passengers.[45] In February 2007 Juan Carlos Miranda Bueso and Darwin Alexis Ramírez were found guilty of several crimes including murder and attempted murder. Ebert Anibal Rivera was arrested over the attack after fleeing to Texas.[46] Juan Bautista Jimenez, accused of masterminding the massacre, was killed in prison; according to the authorities, fellow MS-13 inmates hanged him.[47] There was insufficient evidence to convict Óscar Fernando Mendoza and Wilson Geovany Gómez.[46]
An MS-13 suspect bearing gang tattoos is handcuffed.
On May 13, 2006, Ernesto “Smokey” Miranda, a former high-ranking soldier and one of the founders of Mara Salvatrucha, was murdered at his home in El Salvador a few hours after declining to attend a party for a gang member who had just been released from prison. He had begun studying law and working to keep children out of gangs.[48]
On June 6, 2006,[49] a teenage MS-13 gang member named Gabriel Granillo was stabbed to death at Ervan Chew Park, in the Neartown district in Houston, Texas.[50] Chris Vogel of the Houston Press wrote that the trial of the girl who stabbed Granillo, Ashley Paige Benton,[51] gave attention to MS-13.[52]
In 2007 Julio Chavez, a Long Island MS-13 member, allegedly murdered a man because he was wearing a red sweatshirt and mistaken for a member of the Bloods gang.[53]
On June 4, 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, police executed search warrants, made 21 arrests and laid dozens of charges following a five-month investigation.[54]
On June 22, 2008, in San Francisco, California, a 21-year-old MS-13 gang member, Edwin Ramos, shot and killed a father, Anthony Bologna, 48, and his two sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 as they were returning home from a family barbecue. Their car had briefly blocked Ramos from completing a left turn down a narrow street .[55]
On November 26, 2008, Jonathan Retana was convicted of the murder of Miguel Angel Deras, which the authorities linked to an MS-13 initiation.[56]
Gang graffiti
In 2008 the MS-13 task force coordinated a series of arrests and crackdowns in the U.S. and Central America that involved more than 6,000 police officers in five countries. Seventy-three suspects were arrested in the U.S.; in all, more than 650 were taken into custody.[citation needed]
In February 2009 authorities in Colorado and California arrested 20 members of MS-13 and seized 10 pounds of methamphetamine, 2.3 kilograms (5 pounds) of cocaine, a small amount of heroin, 12 firearms, and $3,300 in cash.[57]
In June 2009 Edwin Ortiz, Jose Gomez Amaya and Alexander Aguilar, MS-13 gang members from Long Island who had mistaken bystanders for rival gang members, shot two innocent civilians. Edgar Villalobos, a laborer, was killed.[58]
On November 4, 2009, El Salvadoran leaders of the MS-13 gang allegedly put out a contract on the federal agent responsible for a crackdown on its New York factions, the Daily News learned. The plot to assassinate the unidentified Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was revealed in an arrest warrant for reputed gang member Walter (Duke) Torres. Torres tipped authorities to the plan after he and four MS-13 members were stopped by NYPD detectives for hassling passersby on Northern Boulevard. in Queens, New York. He told police he had information to pass on; he was debriefed on October 22 at Rikers Island, where he was being held on a warrant issued in Virginia, according to court papers. Torres said “the order for the murder came from gang leadership in El Salvador”, ICE agent Sean Sweeney wrote in an affidavit for a new warrant charging Torres with conspiracy. Torres, who belonged to an MS-13 “clique” in Virginia, said he was put in charge, and traveled to New York in August “for the specific purpose of participating in the planning and execution of the murder plot”, Sweeney wrote. Gang members were trying to obtain a high-powered rifle to penetrate the agent’s bulletproof vest. Another MS-13 informant told authorities the agent was marked for death because the gang was “exceedingly angry” at him for arresting many members in the past three years, the affidavit states. The murder was supposed to be carried out by the Flushing clique, according to the informant. Federal prosecutors have indicted numerous MS-13 gang members on racketeering, extortion, prostitution, kidnapping, illegal immigration, money laundering, murder, people smuggling, arms trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking charges; the targeted special agent was the lead federal investigator on many of the federal cases.[59]
Sinaloa Cartel hierarchy in early 2008
In 2010 Rene Mejia allegedly murdered a Long Island 2-year-old baby and his mother.[53]
In August 2011 six San Francisco MS-13 members were convicted of racketeering and conspiracy, including three murders, in what was the city’s largest-scope gang trial in many years. Another 18 defendants reported to have ties to the gang pleaded guilty before trial.[60]
In 2011 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in New Haven, Connecticut was vandalized several times with the “MS-13 tag” and “kill whites” in orange spray paint.[61]
In February 2012 a Federal judge convicted three MS-13 gang members of murder. Danilo Velasquez, the former leader of the San Francisco branch of MS-13, was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 10 years, and is incarcerated at USP Hazelton.[62]
In January 2016, over 400 Boston police officers were involved in the arrests of 37 MS-13 members, 56 were charged altogether. Guns, knives and money were also seized at the homes of the gang members. Massachusetts State Police Lt. Col. Frank Hughes commented in a public conference “in my 30 years of law enforcement, I’ve never seen a more violent gang out there. These are very very violent individuals. The violence is unspeakable.” The charges included immigration violations, racketeering, firearm and drug trafficking.[63]
In August 2017, two undisclosed members were charged with the January murder of civilian 19-year-old Julio Cesar Gonzales-Espantzay who was lured to a forest in Long Island where he was attacked with machetes and stabbed with knives. Nassau County police also said the two members were responsible for 21 murders in New York just short of 2 years. Authorities said the motive was to gain reputation.[64]
On 13/14 of August 2017, MS-13 New Jersey faction member Walter Yovany Gomez who was added to the FBI most wanted list in April 2017,[65] was apprehended and charged with the 2011 brutal murder of his friend Julio Matute for associating with another gang. After a night of drinking, Gomez and another MS-13 member smacked Matute on the head with a baseball bat, sliced his throat with a knife and stabbed him in the back with a screwdriver 17 times. Gomez managed to evade arrest but was later captured in Virginia where he was hiding out with other MS-13 gang members.[66]
The Washington, DC think tank Center for Immigration Studies released a report that listed 506 cases of MS-13 criminal acts in the United States between 2012 and 2018.[67]
In 2017, two MS-13 members, Miguel Alvarez-Flores and Diego Hernandez-Rivera, were arrested for kidnapping, raping, torturing, and drugging a 14-year-old girl for over 2 weeks. According to the 14-year-old, the members also held another victim, “Genesis”, hostage in the same apartment.[68]
The East Coast kingpin of the MS-13, Miguel Angel Corea Diaz, was arraigned April 19, 2018 in Nassau County Court in Mineola, New York, Long Island, New York on charges including conspiracy to commit murder. He could be sentenced to life in prison if he is convicted. He was one of seventeen defendants in a 21 count indictment in January that charged him with several counts of conspiracy to commit murder and operating as a high level drug tracker of controlled substances. He was extradited on the week of April 23, 2018 from Prince George’s County, Maryland, where he was held since October. That earlier jailing was in lieu of $125,000 bail.[69]
Child prostitution
In 2011 Alonso “Casper” Bruno Cornejo Ormeno, an associate of MS-13 from Fairfax, Virginia was sentenced to 292 months in prison for child prostitution. Ormeno recruited juvenile females into a prostitution ring by locating runaway children.[70]
Rances Ulices Amaya, a leader of MS-13, of Springfield, Virginia was convicted in February 2012 for trafficking girls as young as 14 into a prostitution ring. He was sentenced in June 2012 to 50 years in prison for child prostitution. The girls were lured from middle schools, high schools, and public shelters. Once acquired by Amaya, they were required to have sex with as many as ten men per day.[71]
In September 2012 Yimmy Anthony Pineda Penado, also known as “Critico” and “Spike”, of Maryland was a former “clique leader” of MS-13. Penado became the eleventh MS-13 gang member to be convicted of child prostitution since 2011.[72]
Charlotte, North Carolina cases
In the first decade of the twenty-first century US authorities investigated MS-13 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Eventually the work led to charges against 26 MS-13 members, including 7 trial convictions in January 2010, 18 guilty pleas, and 11 multi-year prison sentences.[73]
This included the alleged first federal death-penalty conviction for an MS-13 member, Alejandro Enrique Ramirez Umaña, aka “Wizard” (age 25).[73]
In 2005, in Los Angeles, according to a jury in a later sentencing phase, Umaña murdered Jose Herrera and Gustavo Porras on July 27, and participated in and aided and abetted the killing of Andy Abarca on September 28. He later came to Charlotte, North Carolina, according to witnesses, as a veteran member of MS-13, to reorganize the Charlotte cell of the gang.[73]
According to witnesses at his trial on December 8, 2007, while in the Las Jarochitas, a family-run restaurant in Greensboro, North Carolina, Umaña shot Ruben Garcia Salinas fatally in the chest and Manuel Garcia Salinas in the head. Witnesses testified that the shootings took place after the Garcia Salinas brothers had “disrespected” Umaña’s gang signs by calling them “fake”. Firing three more shots in the restaurant, according to trial testimony, Umaña injured another person with his gunfire. Trial testimony and evidence showed that Umaña later fled back to Charlotte with MS-13 assistance. Umaña was arrested five days later in possession of the murder weapon. Additional evidence and testimony from the trial revealed that while Umaña was incarcerated awaiting trial he coordinated attempts to kill witnesses and informants.[73]
Umaña was indicted by a federal grand jury on June 23, 2008. During trial, he attempted to bring a knife with him to the courtroom, which was discovered by U.S. Marshals before he was transported to the courthouse. Thousands of hours were spent on the case over several years. International work was also involved.[73]
The case was investigated by the Charlotte Safe Streets Task Force. The case was prosecuted by Chief Criminal Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina, and Trial Attorney Sam Nazzaro from the Criminal Division’s Gang Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Don Gast and Adam Morris of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina were also members of the government’s trial team.[73]
On April 19, 2010, the jury convicted Umaña of all charges, and additionally found him responsible for the 2005 murders during the sentencing phase. On April 28 a 12-person federal jury in Charlotte voted unanimously to impose the death penalty. On July 27, 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of Charlotte, NC, formally imposed the federal death penalty sentence. Also commenting on the decision in the government press release were Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins of the Western District of North Carolina, Owen D Harris, Special Agent in charge of the Charlotte Division of the FBI, and Rodney Monreo, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief.[73]
In October 2012 the US Treasury Department announced a freeze on American-owned assets controlled by the organization and listed MS-13 as a Transnational Criminal Organization.[74] While the three leaders (José Luís Mendoza Figueroa, Eduardo Erazo Nolasco, and Élmer Canales Rivera) were imprisoned in El Salvador, they continued to give orders. As a result, the US Treasury Department imposed further sanctions in 2015, allowing the government to seize all assets controlled by these men and any business with these leaders would no longer be allowed.[75]
Principal characters of the feature movie Sin Nombre (2009) are members of MS in Chiapas, Mexico and many of the traditions and practices of MS are depicted accurately (killings, tattoos, initiation, exploitation of migrants, etc.).
2007 season 1 episode 2, titled “You Rat, You Die” – Former gang member turned informant Brenda Paz had been supplying the authorities with first-hand accounts of MS-13’s operations, later she was found dead.[82]
2008 season 1 episode 13, titled “Root of All Evil” – Reports on the drugs and prostitution rackets run by MS-13.[83][84]
In reference to ‘animals,’ Trump evokes an ugly history of dehumanization
ByEugene ScottMay 16Email the author
President Trump on Thursday pointedly referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals” in a statement his critics say betrays a gross misunderstanding of the plight of people who came to the United States illegally, and beyond that, little sympathy for them.
During an immigration roundtable at the White House with administration aides, political leaders and California law enforcement officials, Trump said his administration was deporting undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes.
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.
President Trump: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.
When it comes to undocumented immigrants, you don’t always know which Trump you are going to get. The same president who encourages attendees at his rally to chant “build that wall” also pledged to approach those who illegally immigrated to the United States as children with “great heart.”
The Post’s Robert Costa points out this isn’t the first time he’s used the term in an illegal immigration context.
More recently, during a March news conference for the signing of a spending bill, Trump said, “I can tell you this, and I say this to DACA recipients, that the Republicans are with you. They want to get your situation taken care of. The Democrats fought us. But I do want the Hispanic community to know and DACA recipients to know that Republicans are much more on your side than the Democrats, who are using you for their own purposes.”
And that comment came about two months after Trump reportedly expressed his frustration with staffers while discussing the protection of immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal.
“Why are we having all these people from s—hole countries come here?” Trump asked, according to several people at the meeting, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
Since Trump launched his presidential campaign calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” he has attracted scorn and praise for his hard-line immigration policies.
But while his critics previously called his policy proposals inhumane, these recent words caught on tape display how lowly Trump views those who commit crimes after arriving in the United States illegally.
This would not likely be a problem for much of Trump’s base. The president campaigned on a law-and-order platform, regularly providing examples of undocumented immigrants committing horrific crimes. To many of his supporters, honoring the humanity of individuals who behaved so inhumanely is not a priority.
But those who want to see the president take a more compassionate approach on immigration see statements like this as conflating the minority of undocumented immigrants who get involved with criminal activity with the “dreamers” and other law-abiding immigrants.
There’s important historical context here, too, that many social media users pointed out: Referring to marginalized groups as subhuman has been a way dictators have justified the abuse of those groups. This happened with the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It happen with the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide. And it is happening with the Rohingya people in Burma.
Before the Holocaust Jewish people were called “rats”
Before the Rwandan genocide Tutsis were called “cockroaches”
Calling undocumented people “animals” as the president just did is gravely serious. It’s not just an offensive word
Clint Smith
✔@ClintSmithIII
It’s easy to dismiss what Trump said as nonsense & it’s easy to see discussion about its potential impact as hyperbolic, but there is a long tradition of entire groups of people being likened to animals before & during periods of mass violence against them. pic.twitter.com/Ap943mO8x7
Generalizations and stereotypes led many citizens of those countries to view entire ethnic groups of people so negatively that respecting their lives was of little priority. This empowered people to discriminate against or even physically harm and kill them.
That’s a scary evocation, but more practically in the near term, Trump’s rhetoric will be fodder for his opponents as his party hurtles toward a midterm in which many of its endangered members will be saddled with Trump’s words.
Story 1: The Great Outing of Sexual Abusers in Big Lie Media and Congress — The CREEP List Grows Longer and Longer — Abuse of Power — Videos —
Sean Hannity 11/20/17 – Hannity Fox News Today November 20, 2017
Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/20/17 – Tucker Carlson Tonight November 20, 2017 Fox News
The Amoral Predatory Professional Left Have the Sexual Hangups, Not the Right and Lawful Gunowners
The Deluge and Explosion of Sexual Harassment Claims Hits Epic Proportions With No End in Sight
Secret Congress Sexual Scandal, Rep. John Conyers Implicated | True News
She Said A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.
“When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”
Originally posted on
Updated on
Paul McLeod
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Lissandra Villa
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances.”
Documents from the complaint obtained by BuzzFeed News include four signed affidavits, three of which are notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the documents are authentic.
Conyers confirmed he made the settlement in a statement Tuesday afternoon, hours after this story was published, but said that he “vehemently denied” the claims of sexual harassment at the time and continues to do so.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Rep. John Conyers speaks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 45th annual legislative conference, Washington, DC, September 18, 2015.
And the documents also reveal the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: a grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling, she told BuzzFeed News, that she had no option other than to stay quiet and accept a settlement offered to her.
“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go,” she said in a phone interview. BuzzFeed News is withholding the woman’s name at her request because she said she fears retribution.
Last week the Washington Post reported that Congress’s Office of Compliance paid out $17 million for 264 settlements with federal employees over 20 years for various violations, including sexual harassment. The Conyers documents, however, give a glimpse into the inner workings of the office, which has for decades concealed episodes of sexual abuse by powerful political figures.
“I was basically blackballed. There was nowhere I could go.”
The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.
Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process that involves counseling and mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward.
After this an employee can choose to take the matter to federal district court, but another avenue is available: an administrative hearing, after which a negotiation and settlement may follow.
Some members of Congress have raised major concerns with the current system over the years, but the calls for an overhaul have grown louder in the post-Weinstein era. Members have argued that 90 days is too long to make a person continue working in the same environment with their harasser; that interns and fellows should be eligible to pursue complaints through this process; and that it is unfair for a victim to have to pay for legal representation while the office of the harasser is represented for free by the House’s counsel.
In this case, one of Conyers’ former employees was offered a settlement, in exchange for her silence, that would be paid out of Conyers’ taxpayer-funded office budget. His office would “rehire” the woman as a “temporary employee” despite her being directed not to come into the office or do any actual work, according to the document. The complainant would receive a total payment of $27,111.75 over the three months, after which point she would be removed from the payroll, according to the document.
The draft agreement viewed by BuzzFeed News was unsigned, but congressional employment records match the timing and amounts outlined in the document. The woman left the office and never went public with her story.
The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.
“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”
Other lawyers named as representing the accuser could not be reached for comment. The Office of Compliance did not confirm or deny that it had dealt with the case.
“You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”
“Pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, the OOC cannot comment on whether matters have or have not been filed with the office,” Laura Cech, publications and outreach manager of the Office of Compliance, told BuzzFeed News in an email when asked to comment on this case.
Two staffers alleged in their signed affidavits that Conyers used congressional resources to fly in women they believed he was having affairs with. Another said she was tasked with driving women to and from Conyers’ apartment and hotel rooms.
Rep. Conyers did not admit fault as part of the settlement. His office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Monday, but released a public statement on the matter Tuesday afternoon.
The documents were first provided to BuzzFeed News by Mike Cernovich, the men’s rights figure turned pro-Trump media activist who propagated a number of false conspiracy theories including the “Pizzagate” conspiracy. Cernovich said he gave the documents to BuzzFeed News for vetting and further reporting, and because he said if he published them himself, Democrats and congressional leaders would “try to discredit the story by attacking the messenger.” He provided them without conditions. BuzzFeed News independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents with four people directly involved with the case, including the accuser.
In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.
She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.
In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”
“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.
Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.
One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)
The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”
The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.
“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.
A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.
“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.
“I don’t think any allegations should be buried…and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office”
The male employee said that in 2011 Conyers complained a female staffer was “too old” and said he wanted to let her go. The employee said he set up a meeting in December 2011 to discuss “mistreatment of staff and his misuse of federal resources.” The affidavit says that Conyers “agreed that he would work on making improvements as long as I worked directly with him and stopped writing memos and emails about concerns.”
Another female employee also attested that she witnessed Conyer’s advances, and said she was asked to transport women to him. “I was asked on multiple occasions to pick up women and bring them to Mr. Conyers[‘] apartment, hotel rooms, etc.”
BuzzFeed News reached out to several former Conyers staffers, all of whom did not want to speak on the record. One former staffer, who did not want to be named, said she was frustrated by the secretive complaint process.
“I don’t think any allegations should be buried…and that’s for anyone, not just for this particular office, because it doesn’t really allow other people to see who these individuals are,” said the former staffer. “When you make private settlements, it doesn’t warn the next woman or the next person going into that situation.”
Another staffer said Conyers’ reputation made people fearful to speak out against him. Aside from being the longest-serving House member and the ranking member of a powerful committee, Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”
In a statement to BuzzFeed News, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was not aware of the settlement.
“The current process includes the signing of non-disclosure agreements by the parties involved. Congresswoman Jackie Speier has introduced legislation that will provide much-needed transparency on these agreements and make other critical reforms,” Pelosi said in the statement. “I strongly support her efforts.”
BuzzFeed News; Source: Office of Compliance
“Speaker Boehner was not aware of this,” Dave Schnittger, a spokesperson for John Boehner, told BuzzFeed News in an email Tuesday. Boehner was the speaker of the House when the settlement was made.
Speaker Paul Ryan’s called the story “extremely troubling” in a statement the morning after the story broke.
“A Committee hearing last week examining this issue led to a new policy of mandatory training for all members and staff,” Ryan said. “Additional reforms to the system are under consideration as the committee continues its review. People who work in the House deserve and are entitled to a workplace without harassment or discrimination.”
The documents also show that there was a belief among at least some staffers that the office was a jealous environment. Some of the documents allege Conyers offered his protection when staff would complain to him about management in the office.
Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images
Rep. Jackie Speier speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing on preventing sexual harassment in the congressional workplace, November 14.
California Democrat Rep. Speier and colleagues in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would overhaul the complaint process, including requiring the Office of Compliance to publicly name the office of any member who enters into a settlement. The bill would also allow complainants to waive mediation and counseling, set up a victims’ counsel, and require all congressional offices to go through harassment training every year.
Conyers’ office has a history of ethical run-ins. In 2016, his former chief of staff Cynthia Martin pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property after she refused to reimburse $16,500 that was mistakenly deposited in her account. A preliminary investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics found that Conyers continued to pay Martin more than $13,000 per month when she was supposedly on unpaid leave.
In 2006, two former aides complained that Conyers made them babysit his children, run errands, and work on his reelection campaign while drawing their congressional salaries. There was also a bizarre incident in 2005 when 60 Thanksgiving turkeys, given to his staff to disperse to people, may have gone missing.
Conyers’ wife, former Detroit city councilor Monica Conyers, was sentenced to three years in prison over bribery charges in 2010. (One of the documents alleged Conyers began “aggressively acting out his sexual harassment behavior” following this.) Last year the couple renewed their vows. ●
If you have information or tips, there are a number of ways to securely share information with BuzzFeed News, including SecureDrop and postal mail. You can also email us at tips@buzzfeed.com or send us an encrypted message over Signal at (646) 379-1975. The best tips include specific information and documentation in addition to names. You can learn more about how to reach us here.
BuzzFeed: John Conyers secretly settled sex harassment complaint by ex-employee
Jim Finkelstein, Detroit Free Press Staff WriterPublished 12:06 a.m. ET Nov. 21, 2017
A stunning new BuzzFeed account throws Michigan Democratic Congressman John Conyers onto the growing roster of beloved public figures suddenly faced with accusations of sexually inappropriate behavior toward women.
BuzzFeed, in an article by Paul McLeod and Lissandra Villa posted late Monday, reports that Conyers settled a wrongful dismissal complaint with a former employee who charges she was fired because she wouldn’t “succumb to (his) sexual advances.”
Citing a complaint obtained by BuzzFeed including four signed affidavits from former staff members, the report says the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee made repeated sexual advances to female staff.
They allegedly included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, and rubbing their legs and backs in public.
The report goes on to bare “the secret mechanism by which Congress has kept an unknown number of sexual harassment allegations secret: A grinding, closely held process that left the alleged victim feeling … that she had no other option other than to stay quiet and accept the settlement …”
The article is entitled: “She Said That A Powerful Congressman Harassed Her. Here’s Why You Didn’t Hear Her Story.”
Read more:
Charlie Rose scandal: PBS, CBS suspend journalist after sexual-misconduct allegations
Analysis | Over the past 20 years, Congress has paid $17.2 million in settlements
In an exclusive video interview recently recorded at the presidential suite of the historic Watergate Hotel, the victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults – Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones – blasted the mainstream news media while praising Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, as well as Breitbart News for fairly reporting on their stories.
Watch the video below:
The women recalled how Drudge on January 17, 1998 broke the story alleging Newsweekwas sitting on a bombshell news item that White House intern Monica Lewinsky was having an affair with President Clinton.
Stated Broaddrick: “Drudge was my hero. Absolutely my hero during all of that time. I could go to Drudge and know what was going on or you could go to the mainstream media, which Drudge now is. I mean they blasted him. This man stood up for us. Matt Drudge is our hero.” Willey and Jones expressed agreement.
“And Aaron, you have been very fair to us,” added Willey. “And you have told our stories and been very fair and allowed us to talk and tell our stories and that means a lot to us. Not a lot of people in the media today who want to hear our stories. Mainstream media does not want to hear our stories.”
“No, they are saying crawl back in the woodwork where you belong,” stated Broaddrick.
“Exactly. You are just women,” continued Willey, referring to what she said was the media’s poor treatment of Clinton’s sexual assault accusers. “And you are bimbos. And you are trailer trash. And you are sluts. And nobody cares what you have to say.”
“You do not matter,” stated Broaddrick. “Go back where you were.”
The three women made the statements during an until now unreleased section of an extensive video interview recorded last month.
Willey’s words about the media allegedly calling Clinton’s female accusers “sluts” were recorded weeks before “The View” host Joy Behar landed in hot water by seemingly referring to Clinton’s accusers as “tramps.”
“I want to apologize,” Baher said earlier this month, the day after she made the controversial comments. “I never, ever intend to belittle sexual assault and the women who are victims of it ever… I made a joke… I’m sorry.”
Baher made the remarks in question during a discussion about Donald Trump bringing Willey and two other Clinton sexual assault accusers, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, to the second presidential debate earlier this month.
“The View” host Sunny Hostin suggested that Hillary Clinton may have missed an opportunity to address the controversy during the second presidential debate.
“This is the thing though… If a woman sleeps with your husband, you’re not going to necessarily embrace them… That’s why when he brought up these allegations, I wonder if she missed the opportunity to address it in a way that the public would understand…” Hostin mused.
Behar disagreed, joking that there wasn’t much Hillary Clinton could say to the women.
Behar suggested the Democratic nominee could say: “ ‘I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.’ Maybe she could have said that.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him onFacebook.
Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls
By Irin Carmon and Amy BrittainNovember 20 at 4:43 PM
Charlie Rose accused of making unwanted sexual advances
Charlie Rose accused of making unwanted sexual advances by multiple women(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.
There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.
Today’s Headlines newsletter
The day’s most important stories.
Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.
“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.
“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.
“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”
Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.
Reah Bravo was an intern and then associate producer for Rose’s PBS show beginning in 2007. In interviews, she described unwanted sexual advances while working for Rose at his private waterfront estate in Bellport, N.Y., and while traveling with him in cars, in a hotel suite and on a private plane.
Two women who worked for Charlie Rose say he emerged from a shower and walked naked in front of them while they were working at his home or traveling with him for business. Above, Rose at home in Bellport, N.Y. (Ben Baker/Redux)
“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” she told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”
Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, one of Rose’s assistants in the mid-2000s, recalled at least a dozen instances where Rose walked nude in front of her while she worked in one of his New York City homes. He also repeatedly called the then-21-year-old late at night or early in the morning to describe his fantasies of her swimming naked in the Bellport pool as he watched from his bedroom, she said.
“It feels branded into me, the details of it,” Godfrey-Ryan said.
She said she told Yvette Vega, Rose’s longtime executive producer, about the calls.
“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’ ”
In a statement to The Post, Vega said she should have done more to protect the young women on the show.
“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”
Godfrey-Ryan said that when Rose learned she had confided to a mutual friend about his conduct, he fired her.
Megan Creydt worked as a coordinator on the show from 2005 to 2006, overlapping with Godfrey-Ryan.
“It was quite early in working there that he put his hand on my mid-thigh,” said Creydt, who agreed to be interviewed on the record to support other women who were coming forward with what she deemed to be more serious claims concerning Rose.
She said that during the incident, Rose was driving his Mini Cooper in Manhattan while she was sitting in the passenger seat.
“I don’t think I said anything,” she said. “I tensed up. I didn’t move his hand off, but I pulled my legs to the other side of the car. I tried not to get in a car with him ever again. I think he was testing me out.”
Her then-boyfriend confirmed to The Post that she told him the story at the time.
In addition to the eight women who say they were harassed, The Post spoke to about two dozen former employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Six said they saw what they considered to be harassment, eight said they were uncomfortable with Rose’s treatment of female employees, and 10 said they did not see or hear anything concerning.
“He was always professional with me,” said Eleonore Marchand Mueller, a former assistant of Rose’s who worked for him from 2003 to 2005. “I never witnessed any unprofessional incidents.”
The show’s small, informal structure, with roughly 15 employees, and the centrality of Rose’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the women who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said.
The employees worked for Charlie Rose Inc., and not Bloomberg LP or PBS, which said they did not provide human resources support for the show.
The environment brimmed with the young and potentially vulnerable, hungry for scarce television jobs. “There are so few jobs,” said one of the women who said Rose groped her. “You know if you don’t behave a certain way, there’s someone else behind you.”
Rose traveled frequently, jetting off to interview world leaders across the globe and splitting time between two New York City residences and homes in Bellport — on Long Island — and North Carolina. Often at his side was a rotating cast of young assistants and producers.
The informal structure of Rose’s small show — with roughly 15 employees — and the centrality of the veteran journalist’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the woman who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said. Above, Rose at a gala in New York on Oct. 30, 2017. (Mike Coppola/Getty Images for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy)
The young women who were hired by the show were sometimes known as “Charlie’s Angels,” two former employeessaid. Rose frequently gave unsolicited shoulder rubs to several of them, behavior referred to among employees as “the crusty paw,” a former employee said.
Rumors about Rose’s behavior have circulated for years. One of the authors of this report, Outlook contributing writerIrin Carmon, first heard and attempted to report on the allegations involving two of the women while she was a journalist at Jezebel in 2010 but was unable to confirm them. In the past several weeks in the wake of accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Carmon and Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain jointly began contacting dozens of men and women who had worked on the “Charlie Rose” show or interviewed for jobs there.
A woman then in her 30s who was at the Bellport home in 2010 to discuss a job opportunity said Rose appeared before her in an untethered bathrobe, naked underneath. She said he subsequently attempted to put his hands down her pants. She said she pushed his hands away and wept throughout the encounter.
A woman who began as an intern in the late 1990s and was later hired full time described a “ritual” of young women at the show being summoned by Rose to his Manhattan apartment to work at a desk there. The woman described a day when Rose went into the bathroom, left the door open and turned on the shower.
She said he began to call her name, insistently. She ignored him, she said, and continued working. Suddenly, he came out of the bathroom and stood over her. She turned her head, briefly saw skin and Rose with a towel and jerked back around to avoid the sight. She said he said, “Didn’t you hear me calling you?”
She said she told someone in the office, and word got around. A few days later, she said, a male colleague approached her, laughing, “Oh, you got the shower trick.” The woman’s sister confirmed that her sibling had told her about the shower incident soon after it occurred.
Another woman said that during her internship in the early 2000s, Rose groped her breasts and stomach as she drove him from Bellport back to Manhattan. Her then-boyfriend, now husband, confirmed that she described the incident to him immediately after it occurred. When Rose invited her to work regularly and stay overnight at Bellport, her boyfriend told her to refuse the offer, and she did, both told The Post.
Prestige and fear
Rose’s eponymous show, with its trademark black background and round oak table, has been in production since 1991. What it lacks in mass viewership, the “Charlie Rose” show makes up for in prestige and high-profile bookings of the likes of former president Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett. Rose’s show is produced by Charlie Rose Inc., an independent television production company, and distributed by PBS. It is filmed at Bloomberg headquarters in Manhattan.
Rose’s stature has only grown in recent years.
CBS tapped him in 2011 to help revamp its ailing morning show, now called “CBS This Morning,” expanding his audience. He has also been a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes” for nearly a decade. His 2013 interview of Syria’s president won Emmy and Peabody awards. (None of the women who made accusations against Rose to The Post worked for PBS or CBS.)
Representatives from PBS, CBS and Bloomberg said they have no records of sexual harassment complaints about Charlie Rose.
When Time magazine named Rose one of its 100 most influential people in 2014, billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described him as “one of the most important and influential people in journalism.”
Rose joined “CBS This Morning” in 2011. Here, he’s seen with co-anchor Norah O’Donnell, left, and Gayle King on March 13, 2017. (Michele Crowe/CBS via Getty Images)
Rose, who was divorced in 1980, has long had a reputation as a ladies man. His “CBS This Morning” co-host, Norah O’Donnell, introduced him at a 2014 fundraiser dinner by joking, “We’re all here because with Charlie Rose, one woman is never enough.” Rose graciously accepted honors that night by saying that he was lucky to have worked throughout his career with “women who were smarter, more thoughtful and more eloquent than I was.”
There was also less flattering coverage. The now-defunct Radar magazine in 2007 called him a “toxic bachelor” and repeated an unnamed woman’s claim that Rose had “palmed her buttock like a honeydew.” His then-attorney, David Boies, who has recently drawn criticism for his representation of Harvey Weinstein, demanded a retraction. The magazine refused.
The “Charlie Rose” show prides itself on its highbrow intellectual ambition, but his life is glamorous, full of black-tie galas and famous friends. He can be charming and generous, consulting favored employees for their opinions on what to ask heads of state or whisking them off to exotic locations for interviews. But his wrath was swift and often fiercely personal, according to interviews with multiple former employees.
“Everybody is terrified of him,” said one of the women who said that Rose groped her when she was an intern. “He creates this environment of constant fear. And then he’ll shine a spotlight on you and make you feel amazing.”
Multiple women said they had at first been reassured by the presence of Vega, Rose’s executive producer, who has worked with him for decades. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega.
‘His poor judgment’
Working for the “Charlie Rose” show was a longtime dream for Reah Bravo, who in 2007 was a 29-year-old graduate student studying international affairs at Columbia University. She struggled to make ends meet during her unpaid internship, accruing credit card debt and eating free cereal in the Bloomberg food court.
One day, several months into the internship, Rose offered her a side gig at his home in Bellport on Long Island.
“Here is the deal: I’ll pay you $2,500 for the week plus all expenses for food, movies etc.,” he wrote to her on Aug. 9, 2007. “You will be there from Monday August 13-Friday afternoon, August 17. Your primary responsibilities are to organize and catalogue all my books and tapes and files … It will help me a lot, be fun for you, and you will have a car all the time for whatever you need to do.”
Before she left for Bellport, Bravo said Vega told her that personal time with Rose was a key to becoming part of the team.
(Obtained by The Washington Post)
Bravo said she took the train to Bellport, where she said Rose met her at the Ronkonkoma station and took her to a bank to withdraw money to cover her expenses. She stayed at the Bellport home for about a week, sleeping in a bedroom in the main house. Rose was gone much of the time.
While she was there, Bravo said she received a message from a male producer. If Rose did anything “sketchy,” she said he told her, she should not hesitate to call the show’s car service to return home.
Late one night, Bravo said, Rose returned home after a night out. She said she tried to hurry out of the library in the guesthouse to return to her bedroom in the main house before Rose came in, but he intercepted her. She said he insisted that they have a glass of wine at the dining room table in the main house.
Then, he suggested they walk out to his dock and look at the moon, Bravo said. Once there, “he came up from behind me and he put his arms around me,” she said, remembering that she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.”
Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.
A day or two later, Bravo said, Rose drove her back to Manhattan. She said he began to tell her that he felt very alone in life, despite his wealth and success. He recalled a brush with death a year earlier during heart surgery in Paris and began to tear up, and she said she patted him on the shoulder to console him.
“I didn’t necessarily buy it,” she said. “I thought, ‘I’ll keep my distance and I feel sorry for him.’ But I didn’t think of him as a predator at that time.”
Bravo soon returned to Bellport for a second trip. She was working in the guesthouse and caught a glimpse of Rose rinsing off nude in an unenclosed outdoor shower. She said she quickly averted her eyes and moved away from the window.
Later, he asked if she had seen him showering, she said, andseemed disappointed when she said no. While at Bellport, Bravo said Rose repeatedly insisted that he needed to hear that she was comfortable at Bellport and how much she enjoyed it there.
She emailed him about her work ideas and also mentioned Bellport.
“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort…that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”
That fall, she traveled with Rose to Aspen for a conference. On Oct. 1, after the trip, Bravo wrote an email to Vega, alluding to earlier issues with Rose:
“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”
Vega responded the same day:
“I have some concerns for you especially in what you are trying to tell me in this email. Please know the following about me, I have worked with Charlie for 16 years, so there is nothing that I haven’t heard or possibly experienced – and that anything you ever reveal to me would be kept in confidence from anyone and from the top down, so that you can feel comfortable in that confidence…”
From left: Rose, “Charlie Rose” show executive producer Yvette Vega and Beth Hoppe, a PBS executive, speak at the 2013 Summer Television Critics Association tour in Beverly Hills, Calif. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega. In a statement, Vega says she regrets not doing more to protect the young women on the show. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)
Toward the end of 2007, Bravo was given more responsibilities and Rose occasionally paid her for helping him prepare for interviews, speeches and conferences. Her new duties required more travel with Rose, and he frequently requested her company for working dinners, she said.
Rose would regularly hire drivers to take them around town. On more than one occasion, she said, he groped her in the back seat. One time, she said, he “grabbed me by my hair, holding a fist of it at the base of my scalp.” More than once, “he would grip my head tightly while talking to me. He held it so tightly that I couldn’t turn my neck in any direction. I was forced to look at him or to let him talk directly into my ear.”
In Indiana for a speaking engagement in March 2008, Rose summoned Bravo to his hotel suite to work on his speech. While she was working at a desk in the room, she said, he emerged naked from the shower and stood before a mirror where she could see him. She said she ignored him and kept working.
Later, flying on a small private plane alone with Rose, she said he requested that they watch a documentary about Algeria on a portable DVD player. Suddenly, she said, Rose got out of his seat and pressed his body onto hers.
“I felt at a loss. I mean, what am I going to do? We were how many feet up in the air?” she said, adding that they remained clothed. “I remember him being on top of me.”
Bravo said Rose’s advance was bizarre, brief and “animalistic.” Then he returned to his seat.
“I felt an immense sense of shame that I had greenlighted his actions because I didn’t fight back,” she said.
Bravo said she locked eyes with one of the two pilots as she disembarked. She said she interpreted his expression as one of “sympathy or maybe disgust.”
Later in 2008, she was hired as anassociate producer but was already looking for another job. The same year, Bravo was offered a job that paid three times as much as the one at the “Charlie Rose” show. In response, Rose took her to the Spotted Pig, a well-known restaurant in Manhattan, and dangled a position as a producer in Washington. She could even live in a Georgetown residence where he sometimes stayed, she said he told her.
She said she declined.
“I was leaving because I was getting away,” she said. “I would never want to live someplace where he had keys.”
Since then, Bravo has worked as a corporate speechwriter and now lives inEurope with her husband and their young son.
In retrospect, Bravo said she feels shame and embarrassment about her warm correspondence with Rose.
“I read old emails, and I sound so sycophantic, it makes me sick,” she said. “But it was what he wanted, it made my work easier, and to an extent, it was the same game most staff members played. Male staffers did it, too. They just weren’t feeling as pathetic about it.”
Looking back, she is struck by how calculated Rose’s approach seemed.
“He most definitely said, on numerous occasions, ‘I’ve never forced you to do something you didn’t want to do,’ ” she said. “He would say this forcefully and wait for my confirmation after he said this. I remember once wondering if I was being recorded.”
Blurred lines
Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was in her early 20s and had taken time off from her college studies in the mid-2000s when a friend offered to introduce her to Charlie Rose. She was unfamiliar with his show but was soon hired to be his assistant.
From the beginning, there was a blurring of the boundaries between Rose’s professional and private life, she said. On her first day on the job, Rose injured his foot. She tended to him as he recovered.
But soon, Godfrey-Ryan said, he began yelling at her, calling her stupid and incompetent and pathetic.
“He repeatedly attacked her in front of other people,” recalled a former producer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He once said that because she hadn’t gotten a college degree she would never amount to anything better than his secretary.”
After the bouts of rage, Godfrey-Ryan said, Rose would often be conciliatory.
“It would usually entail some version of him also touching me,” she said. “A hand on the upper thigh. He’d give a hug but touch the side of the breast.”
She said she ignored his actions. Then he began calling her as late as midnight and as early as 6 a.m.
“It would be wanting to know details of my sex life,” she said. “ ‘Who’s next to you? What do you do? Is he touching you?’ And I was like, ‘Okay, Charlie, I’ll see you tomorrow.’ I just acted like it wasn’t happening.”
She said other calls involved a “very specific, repetitive fantasy” of her disrobing at the Bellport home and swimming “back and forth in the pool in the moonlight” as he watched from his bedroom.
Her boyfriend at the time, now her husband, told The Post that he was often present for these calls but said he did not know what was being discussed. The content of the calls, however, was openly discussed in the office and even joked about, according to Godfrey-Ryan and the producer who worked there at the time.
Godfrey-Ryan also said Rose would repeatedly walk in front of her naked at one of his New York City residences. Her husband confirmed that she complained to him about it at the time.
She said she ignored the nudity. “He was getting more and more frustrated that I wouldn’t engage,” she said.
Godfrey-Ryan said she reported the touching and the calls to Vega, but nothing happened.
“She just made me feel like I was being a dramatic little girl,” Godfrey-Ryan said. She stopped reporting the behavior.
Godfrey-Ryan said she eventually confided to a mutual friend outside the show about Rose, and the friend told Rose.
She said Rose fired her.
“He took me out to lunch and told me how embarrassed he was, how he didn’t treat me like that,” she said. “It was really about how I got it wrong, and, obviously, I couldn’t work there anymore.”
She later went back to school at Columbia. She has since launched her own business, Tune.Studio, which uses infrasonic wave technology to treat stress and improve moods, leading to “peace and happiness.”
“It makes me a little upset to see him on television,” she said. “Everything I experienced with journalism there made me not want to stay.”
A job interview, then denial
Another woman gave multiple interviews to The Post about her experience with Rose but requested anonymity out of concern for her privacy.
In 2009, she was in her mid-30s, looking to break into broadcast journalism after studying politics and earning her graduate degree in Europe. While working at a cultural foundation in New York City, her boss offered to put her in touch with Charlie Rose.
Rose responded with interest.
The meetings that followed, she said, were unconventional: a dinner at a restaurant, late at night with Rose’s prominent friends, where he drank a lot of wine. A sudden weekend invitation to lunch continued with her tagging along as Rose shopped for furniture. When he drove her home, she said she listened in alarm as he berated a producer over the phone.
Then he turned to the job applicant. “He put his hand on my knee and said, ‘Oh, I’m sorry about that,’ ” she said. “He said, ‘I hope you don’t mind, I’m from the South, we’re touchers.’ ”
No job offer came, but on June 8, 2010, Rose got back in touch, according to an email the woman provided. She was still unemployed and the job Rose described sounded ideal.
“He talked about this position, which he referred to as being his intellectual partner, that I would be the executive producer for global content,” she recalled.
By now, she had been told the unorthodox interview process was standard because of Rose’s packed schedule and desire to do the hiring for all positions by himself.
As part of the process, she visited Bloomberg’s Manhattan office and also discussed the job with Rose at his apartment.
“My producers come here all the time to work,” she said he told her.
She said Rose mentioned a salary of $120,000, described the job as involving frequent international travel and asked for references. Rose soon suggested they see how they traveled together by having her visit his Bellport house, she said.
On June 18, Rose sent her an email inviting her to the house that evening.
“As I mentioned, I’m going to my place on long island tonight to write…and then coming back tomorrow for a dinner. This is to invite to visit…
“You have your own wing of the house, or even a guesthouse, It’s on the water, plus Olympic pool, tennis court, plenty of movies and books and sailing and I run on the beach at sunrise and sunset…This has no influence on our dialogue about work projects.”
He added near the end of the email: “Bring someone if you like. I’m on deadline, so i will be writing all the time and will not be entertaining except breaks for exercise and meals. Let me know…before noon.”
(Obtained by The Washington Post)
Eager to land the job, the woman agreed to travel with Rose to Bellport, which is about 60 miles from Manhattan.
She gave the following account:
That evening, after stopping for dinner and getting lost, they arrived at the house after midnight. She did not see anyone else there. Rose proposed she choose a DVD of his show that they could watch together. After the show, Rose gave her a tour of the property. The guesthouse, she noticed, was packed with clutter, uninhabitable.
At the pool, Rose dangled his legs in the water andthensaid that he needed to change because his pant legs were wet. He returned wearing a white bathrobe, which was open; he wore nothing underneath.
“I thought, I’m doomed,” she said. “I was completely panicked. In retrospect, I thought of a million things I could have done.”
She said she was not intoxicated — Rose had drunk his wine and then hers at the restaurant — but said he appeared to be. It was nearly 2 a.m. and she was exhausted, she said. She also said she felt alone and powerless. It was the middle of the night, they were on his secluded property, and she did not know how to drive.
“I started talking in this feeble and compulsive way,” she said. “I started talking about power, how the abuse of power can be. He completely lost it. ‘What are you talking about? That’s certainly not the case.’ ”
She said he then tried to put a hand down her pants.
“By the time he touched me the first time, he was already very angry,” she said. “I was scared, and I was also kind of frozen.”
After that, her memory is “hazy,” she said. They ended up in his bedroom.
“I really, honestly, I’ve tried so hard, especially recently, since I’ve been thinking about this, to try to remember what happened between sitting by the pool and being in his bed,” she said.“I have no recollection of how we went from here to there. I do remember I was crying the entire time.”
He reached down her pants again, she said, and she pushed his hands away. As she wept, she said, Rose asked her, “Baby, oh baby, why are you crying?”
The encounter ended when he appeared to be asleep and she felt she could leave the room, she said.
The next day, she said there was little mention of what had happened. She described the previous night to him “as a bit of a disaster” and he said, “What do you mean?”
A few days later, she followed up about the job.
In retrospect, she said, “Remaining silent allowed me to continue denying what had occurred. It was in that state of denial that I wrote to him asking about the job.”
He replied with his regrets.
“The whole thing was really the most humiliating and most degrading experience I’ve ever had,” the woman says now. A friend she confided in at the time described her as having been “distraught” in recounting what happened.
“To have been used in the way she was left her feeling really confused and really distressed,” the friend told The Post. The friend encouraged her to write about her experience, and she chose to do so as a short story.
In one of the drafts that she shared with The Post, a tall, drawling television host named “Johnny Pose” brings a young woman to his country home on Long Island to discuss a job opportunity.
The woman said she changed some key details about what happened by the pool. And in the story, unlike in real life, she said, she viewed the host with contempt rather than fear.
She said she submitted the story to several magazine editors in 2010 and 2011. Paris Review editor Lorin Stein declined to publish the story but wrote to her in March 2011, “It has the ring of truth (alas).”
The womantitled the story, “The Hunt.” The double entendre, she said, was intentional.
“I was hunting for a job,” she told The Post, “and he was hunting for me.”
Julie Tate and Alice Crites contributed to this report.
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush in the White House briefing room on February 24.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Sexual harassment claims against yet another powerful man in media inspired New York Times White House correspondent Glenn Thrush to post an impassioned note on his Facebook page in October, calling on his fellow journalists to stand by women entering the field.
In the post, which linked to an article about the latest accusations against political journalist Mark Halperin, Thrush wrote, “Young people who come into a newsroom deserve to be taught our trade, given our support and enlisted in our calling — not betrayed by little men who believe they are bigger than the mission.”
It was a noble statement — but some Washington journalists I spoke to say it rings hollow, given Thrush’s own behavior with young women in the industry.
“He kept saying he’s an advocate for women and women journalists,” a 23-year-old woman told me, recounting an incident with Thrush from this past June. “That’s how he presented himself to me. He tried to make himself seem like an ally and a mentor.”
She paused. “Kind of ironic now.”
Thrush, 50, is one of the New York Times’s star White House reporters whose chronicles of the Trump administration recently earned him and his frequent writing partner Maggie Haberman a major book deal.
Thrush and the young woman met at her colleague’s going-away party at a bar near the Politico newsroom, she told me,and shared a few rounds of drinks in a booth. The night, she said, ended on a Washington street corner, where Thrush left her in tears after she resisted his advances.
The encounter was troubling enough to the woman that her friend Bianca Padró Ocasio, also 23 and a journalist, confronted Thrush about his behavior via text message the next day.
“I want to make sure you don’t lure young women aspiring journalists into those situations ever again,” she texted. “So help me out here. How can I do that?”
Bianca Padró Ocasio confronted Glenn Thrush over text message about his behavior the night before with her friend, a 23-year-old journalist. Some messages have been redacted to protect the friend’s privacy.
Screenshots courtesy of Bianca Padró Ocasio
Thrush was apologetic but defensive.
“I don’t lure anybody ever,” he wrote, according to screenshots provided by Padró Ocasio. “I got drunk because I got some shitty health news. And I am acutely aware of the hurdles that young women face in this business and have spent the better part of 20 years advocating for women journalists.”
If Thrush is acutely aware of what young women face in the business of political journalism, he should also know it’s because he himself is one of the problems women face. Five years ago, when Thrush and I were colleagues at Politico, I was in the same bar as Padró Ocasio’s friend — perhaps the same booth — when he caught me off guard, put his hand on my thigh, and suddenly started kissing me. Thrush says that he recalls the incident differently.
Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differentlyabout these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.
Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.
“I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable,” Thrush said in a statement emailed to me on November 19.
In interviews with about 40 people in and around media who know Thrush, I got a picture of a reporter whose title doesn’t capture his power and stature. People who’ve worked with him say he can get a writer’s name in front of the right editor, if he wants. Newsroom leaders care what he thinks. Some reporters said Thrush had usedhis connections to help them land jobs or develop new sources.
When just sitting at a bar with a powerful man comes at a price
The downfall of Hollywood titan Weinstein has been a catalyst for a movement to stamp out workplace harassment, particularly the variety to pits powerful men against much less powerful women. They are facing consequences for their behavior like never before, including men in media. Halperin lost a coveted book deal. NPR news chief Michael Oreskes resigned. Leon Wieseltier lost funding for his new magazine. And Lockhart Steele, the editorial director of Vox Media, Vox’s parent company, was firedfor misconduct.
Thrush wasn’t my boss at Politico. He was a reporter and I was an editor. We were on different teams and hardly crossed each other’s paths. But he was an incredibly influential person in the newsroom and in political journalism, a world I was still trying to break into in a meaningful way at the time.
It wasn’t that Thrush was offering young women a quid pro quo deal, such as sex in exchange for mentorship. Thrush, just by his stature, put women in a position of feeling they had to suck up and move on from an uncomfortable encounter.
On that night five years ago, I joined Thrush and a handful of other reporters for a few rounds at the Continental, a Politico hangout in Rosslyn, Virginia. At first, nothing seemed strange, until the crowd had dwindled down to Thrush, me, and one other female colleague.
Thrush tossed a $20 bill at her and told her to take a cab and leave us, “the grown-ups,” alone. He slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.
In the morning, Thrush sent me an apologetic email. I didn’t save it, but I recall it as similar to the one he would later send to Padró Ocasio’s friend in June. He said he was sorry, but he didn’t say for what, exactly.
A few hours later, I saw him in deep conversation with a number of men I worked with. My gut told me something was up. I worried he was covering his tracks by spreading a rosy version of the night. As many people told me in the course of reporting this story, Thrush is a talker — or, as many put it, “a bullshitter.” He likes to hear gossip, and he likes to spread it.
Gradually, things in the office started to change for me. Certain men in the newsroom, I thought, started to look at me differently. Some of their comments seemed a bit too familiar or were outright offensive. I had a nagging sense that I just wasn’t as respected as I used to be.
I started to think maybe I shouldn’t be in journalism if I couldn’t hang in a tough newsroom. I found myself on edge, nervous and anxious all the time. I started to believe I had brought this all on myself.
In the course of reporting this story, I was told by a male reporter who’d worked at Politico at the time that my instinct was right. He said that the day after that night at the bar, Thrush told him about the incident, except with the roles reversed. I had come onto him, the reporter said Thrush told him, and he had gently shut it down.
In a statement, Thrush denied that he disparaged me to colleagues at Politico. He said that “the encounter described [in this story] was consensual, brief, and ended by me.”
The source said that Thrush frequently told versions of this story with different young women as the subject. He would talk up a night out drinking with a young attractive woman, usually a journalist. Then he’d claim that she came onto him. In his version of these stories, Thrush was the responsible grown-up who made sure nothing happened.
There was no conventional HR office at Politico at the time (a VP of human resources position was created there in 2016). So I brought my concern about the night to an experienced colleague right after the incident. When I believed rumors were damaging my standing in the office a few months later, I told a very senior editor. I was under the impression that nothing could be done. A spokesperson for POLITICO Brad Dayspring emphasized that no formal complaint ever reached the general counsel’s desk and that both the colleague and senior editor in question had left POLITICO years ago.
Women have a very different story to tell
One former Politico staffer told me that she’d become worried about her reputation after an encounter with Thrush sometime in the winter of 2012-’13. The scene was, again, a Politico going-away party. She said she and Thrush spoke most of the night, until they ended up the last two of the party left in the bar. She says she’d had a lot to drink and Thrush offered her a ride home.
Her recollection of the details is fuzzy, but one way or another, he ended up in her place.
“I had alcohol blur,” she says. But Thrush was far from being the grown-up who preventedthings from going too far; instead, she says, she was the one to raise objections. “I remember stopping him at one point and saying, ‘Wait, you’re married.’” After that, she says, he left almost immediately. “I remember that by the time he left, I didn’t have much clothes on.”
The woman says she was struggling at Politico at the time, and she wondered if gossip might have made her situation worse. “I don’t know if he told other male reporters or editors. Did that shade their opinion of me? There’s no way to know.”
She says she doesn’t believe she was pressured or that she’s a victim.
But she also says she wants others to know about what happened.
“The only regret I have is not telling more women. I told two. What if I had told five?”
One of the two women she told at the time shared with me her recollection of the conversation. “I remember she kept reemphasizing that they were both really drunk, that it was consensual,” the friend said. “And she did not believe it was an assault. But I do remember she was very rattled and upset and ashamed of what she saw as her role in it.”
Another woman described to me a 2013 Politico party that she attended in her early 20s. She said she was standing alone, Thrush came up to talk to her, and suddenly he leaned in and landed a wet kiss on her ear.
“It all happened very quickly. And he leaned in very quickly,” she said. “At the time, I remember thinking … adults sometimes kiss each other on the cheek. Then sometimes they miss and slobber on your ear. It was my way of thinking this wasn’t as weird as I thought.”
Over time, the “whisper network” of warnings about Thrush has grown louder
A 21-year-old woman arrived in Washington last year to intern in a journalism organization. She heard from people who don’t even work with Thrush to be careful. An employee at the Washington Post told her about him when she first arrived. A few months later, she says, a reporter at Roll Call warned her about him, too. She passed on the intel to four other female interns.
Multiple young women journalists I spoke to said that they’d heard serious warnings about Thrush from friends. The word among women just starting in Washington, they said, is to be careful if you meet him at an event with alcohol, or if he sends you a direct message on Twitter. (Thrush suspended his Twitter account in September, saying it was too much of a distraction.)
There’s something endearing and inspiring about interns who self-organized to guard themselves and each other against advances offered under guise of praise and professional advice — but there’s also something sad about a world in which the savvy move is to teach a young woman not to trust an older man who has something nice to say about her work.
And whispers don’t fix everything. When Bianca Padró Ocasio’s friend found herself at the bar with Thrush in June, with him asking her to leave and go to another bar with him, she went to the bathroom and texted Padró Ocasio and another female friend, both of whom were also in journalism.
“I’m drunk,” she texted, as saved screenshots of the messages show. “I’m nervous about this Glenn situation.”
The friends urged her to call an Uber.
“I am,” she responded. “I need to go home.”
“Who else is there??” one friend asked. “Is there a woman you can uber home with?”
Instead, the woman ended up leaving the bar with Thrush, who suggested they walk off some of their drinking — get some fresh air.
He repeatedly tried to take her hand as they walked, she recalls, but she kept pulling it away. They crossed the Key Bridge from the Virginia neighborhood where Politico’s office is located into Georgetown. He led her down an incline to a dimly lit path along the old C&O Canal bed. He kissed her, she says, and she panicked. Then her phone rang, jolting her. It was Padró Ocasio.
“I felt very protective of her,” Padró Ocasio said, describing the call. “I thought, she’s drunk right now. If I don’t do something, I’m not going to forgive myself.”
The young woman ordered an Uber — the receipt shows it was about 11 pm — and says she planned to call Padró Ocasio back once inside the car. In the few minutes she waited, she said, Thrush walked back over to her and started to kiss her again. She began to cry. When Thrush saw, he abruptly walked off, waving his hand flippantly, and left her alone to wait for her ride, she said.
Glenn Thrush sent an apologetic email to a woman who had met him at a going-away party. She described an unwanted encounter with him, but felt she had to send a cordial reply and stay on good terms.
Courtesy of the young woman on the email thread
Padró Ocasio’s friend received an email from Thrush the next morning with the subject line, “Nice meeting you!” followed by, “(And apologies?).” She responded congenially. “It was nice meeting you too! (And no worries haha).” She also met him a few weeks later at a tea shop near the White House, a meeting they’d discussed the night at the bar. Thrush sent her a few critiques of her stories. She said she feels that despite her misgivings, she has to stay on good terms with him since he is connected.
“I hate feeling obligated to make him think I think everything is fine,” she said. “It’s been this thing hanging over me. I feel like I have to be nice to this person just because he knows people.”
In his emailed statement, Thrush said that the night in June with the young woman was the last time he’s had a drink.He wrote:
The June incident [described above] was a life-changing event [for me]. The woman involved was upset by my actions and for that I am deeply sorry.
Over the past several years, I have responded to a succession of personal and health crises by drinking heavily. During that period, I have done things that I am ashamed of, actions that have brought great hurt to my family and friends.
I have not taken a drink since June 15, 2017, have resumed counseling and will soon begin out-patient treatment for alcoholism. I am working hard to repair the damage I have done.
“I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment”
In the course of his text dialogue with Padró Ocasio about the incident with her friend, Thrush wrote, “I feel really strongly about not creating a toxic environment.”
Back at Politico years ago, Thrush’s behavior contributed to a toxic environment I experienced. Dozens of people told me that Politico has changed dramatically since Carrie Budoff Brown took over a year ago as the publication’s editor. Multiple men and women who work for her say her standards are high and she has no time for the kind of behavior I described.
Budoff Brown was at the going-away party in June where Thrush was in the booth with the 23-year-old woman. She told me she noticed them talking but, like other attendees I talked to, she didn’t know that anything happened afterward.
“I was disappointed in Glenn but had no reason to think that anything would progress beyond the bar that night,” she said. “And I am saddened to learn in the course of your reporting that it did.”
“Great journalism and great business require a great workplace. My colleagues and I have worked hard to nurture a newsroom where people are supportive, good to each other, and where mutual respect is the way of life. We have zero tolerance for anything else.”
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush inside the White House briefing room on February 24.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
By the time of the June incident, Thrush was gone from Politico anyway — off to the New York Times, which has hired many of Politico’s top reporters over the years. But now he will be on hiatus pending a Times investigation that was sparked by my reporting for this story.
“The behavior attributed to Glenn in this Vox story is very concerning and not in keeping with the standards and values of The New York Times,” said Eileen Murphy, the senior vice president of communications for the New York Times, in a written statement. “We intend to fully investigate and while we do, Glenn will be suspended. We support his decision to enter a substance abuse program. In the meantime, we will not be commenting further.”
It’s the Times itself, of course, that has done so much to spark the current conversation around harassment with its exposés on Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. There’s probably no loftier perch in all of political journalism from which one could teach the trade and enlist young women into the calling — or, as the case may be, betray them.
Lindsay Menz posted the photo with Sen. Al Franken on Facebook in August 2010
She told her husband, father, mother and sister about the incident at the time
(CNN)A woman says Sen. Al Franken inappropriately touched her in 2010, telling CNN that he grabbed her buttocks while taking a photo at the Minnesota State Fair.
It is the first allegation of improper touching by Franken, who is a Democrat, while he was in office. It comes just days after Leeann Tweeden, a local radio news anchor in California, said that Franken forcibly kissed and groped her in 2006, when Franken was a comedian.
Lindsay Menz, a 33-year-old woman who now lives in Frisco, Texas, reached out to CNN on Thursday hours after Tweeden made her story public. Menz said she wanted to share an “uncomfortable” interaction that left her feeling “gross.”
According to Menz, she attended the Minnesota State Fair with her husband and father in the summer of 2010, almost two years after Franken was elected to the Senate. Her father’s small business was sponsoring a local radio booth, and she spent the day meeting various elected officials, political candidates and celebrities and taking photos with them as they stopped by the booth.
When Franken walked in, Menz and her husband, who also spoke with CNN, said they recognized him right away. Menz said she had a brief and cordial exchange with the senator.
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken “pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear,” Menz said. “It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek.”
“It wasn’t around my waist. It wasn’t around my hip or side. It was definitely on my butt,” she said, recalling that the brazen act lasted three or four seconds. “I was like, oh my God, what’s happening.”
“He reached around her and kind of pulled her into him,” said her husband Jeremy Menz, who didn’t see what happened behind his wife. “He pulled her in and pushed his head against her head. It was over pretty quick.”
Lindsay Menz told CNN that she walked away as soon as the photo was taken, without saying anything to the then-first term senator. When she reconnected with her husband moments later, she told him: “He totally grabbed my butt.” Jeremy Menz described that conversation the same way to CNN.
In a statement to CNN Sunday, Franken said he did not remember taking the photo with Menz and that he felt “badly” that she felt disrespected.
“I take thousands of photos at the state fair surrounded by hundreds of people, and I certainly don’t remember taking this picture,” Franken said. “I feel badly that Ms. Menz came away from our interaction feeling disrespected.”
“I felt gross. It’d be like being walking through the mall and some random person grabbing your butt,” Lindsay Menz said. “You just feel gross. Like ew, I want to wash that off of me.”
“I was upset. I wasn’t happy about it in the least,” Jeremy Menz said. “He was already gone and I wasn’t going to confront him. But yeah — I was in shock, really.”
Menz’s father, Mark Brown, was also in the radio booth that day but didn’t witness the moment. But he told CNN that his daughter told him about the incident right away.
Menz’s mother, Jodi Brown, also told CNN that she discussed the incident with her daughter immediately after it happened. She said she distinctly recalls her son-in-law saying to her: “Our senator just groped my wife right in front of me.”
In the photo of Menz and Franken, the side of the senator’s face is pressed up against Menz’s but the lower halves of their bodies are not shown. Both of them are smiling.
Menz posted the photo with Franken on Facebook at the time, on August 27, 2010. Her sister, Cari Thunker, commented under the photo: “Sorry, but you two aren’t Bibles (sic) width apart” — a reference, Thunker explained to CNN, to how physically close Menz and Franken were in the photo.
Menz responded to her sister on Facebook: “Dude — Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!” (The exchange is visible to Menz’s Facebook friends.)
Minnesota statutes state that “intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks” is not considered criminal sexual conduct.
Menz told CNN that what happened immediately after she took the photo with Franken that summer day in 2010 has also stayed with her. Standing nearby was another politician — then-Minnesota Rep. John Kline.
As she was getting ready to take a picture with Kline, Menz said the congressman asked her whether they should “mutually put our arms around each other” — an interaction that struck her as being in stark contrast with what she had experienced moments ago with Franken.
Reached on the phone on Friday, Kline, a Republican who retired from Congress this year, confirmed that he attended the Minnesota State Fair in 2010, as he did most years. Kline could not remember seeing the interaction between Menz and Franken. But when CNN described Menz’s recollection of her interaction with Kline before they took a photo together, he told CNN: “As a matter of practice, I did that all the time.”
“If somebody wanted a picture, I would ask: should I put my arm on your back or your shoulder?” Kline said. He said that as a congressman, he was particularly inclined to do this when taking photos with women.
Lindsay and Jeremy Menz moved from Minnesota to Texas in 2014. Lindsay Menz is now a stay-at-home-mom of three young kids. Neither is registered with a political party and she said she has equally supported Republican and Democratic candidates while he said he has tended to favor Republicans. The couple voted last year for Donald Trump, and Menz said she has voted for Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is a Democrat, in the past. Menz said she believes she has voted for Franken as well, but is not sure.
When Menz saw the news of Tweeden’s allegations against Franken on Thursday, she immediately discussed her own run-in with the senator from 2010 with her family. She also posted about it on Twitter and Facebook.
A friend encouraged Menz to contact a CNN reporter after seeing the network’s coverage of sexual harassment in recent days. Menz was emphatic that she “absolutely” would not have decided to share her story had Tweeden not done the same.
“I don’t want to paint my story in the same light as hers,” Menz said, saying she believes what happened to Tweeden is much worse.
Still, she said, “the reason I want to say something is if someone sees that I said something, maybe it would give them the courage to say something too.”
Franken has not made further statements to the press since releasing two apologies on Thursday. He has said he intends to fully cooperate if there is a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his behavior.
“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” he said in a statement. “I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.”
Story 2: A Two Charlie Day — Charlie Rose, Should Be Fired By CBS, and Charlie Manson, Dead At 83, Should Have Been Executed By State of California — Remember One of The Victims — Sharon Tate — Videos
Notorious cult leader Charles Manson dead at 83
Charles Manson Interview with Tom Snyder (Complete)
Charles Manson Interview with Charlie Rose on Nightwatch (Complete)
Charles Manson – Dianne Sawyer Documentary
Charlie Manson Exposes Illuminati Methods
Published on Jan 28, 2013
Some choice clips from 20 years of media interviews with Charlie Manson. I hope this shows some of you just how intelligent and ahead of his time this man was. The story about Manson that media has jumped through hoops to avoid is a 100x more interesting.
Check out the work of Dave McGowan, only Manson and the satanic Hollwood elite controlling the music, film, & TV industry at that time. SO many more millions are awakened in this past decade thanks to 9-11. By all the fake “9-11 truth” groups that we know now were cointel and disinfo franchises sponsored and employed by intelligent agencies for both the federal government and military intelligence. Not only that, more private mercenaries were employed than actual US soldiers, almost all to guard the same people trying to have guns taken away from the middle class.
Los Angelino, Dave McGowan, author of “Programmed to Kill”, has written a never-before seen expose of all the ’60’s rock stars and how they all were sons and daughters of high ranking military brass, many claimed to be satanists themselves by surviving victims who swore under oath in front of a judge and US Grand Jury.
The Wisdom of Charles Manson? Compilation
Charles Manson Today: The Final Confessions of a Psychopath
“Charles Manson never killed anyone.”
Is #HarveyWeinstein in “Europe” to Fight Rape Charge Extradition à la Roman Polanski or Phony Rehab?
Too Young to Die – Sharon Tate
The Real Reason We Don’t Hear About Elijah Wood Anymore
Shirley Temple – pedogate hollywood
The Sad Life Of Corey Feldman
Corey Feldman Reveals the Name of an Alleged Abuser
The Illuminati’s Final Warning for Corey Feldman! (2017-2018)
Hollywood Abuse | Barbara Walters Knew It All, But She Silenced Victim Corey Feldman
Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood, & Sexual Abuse
Swiss prosecutors won’t pursue Polanski rape case
Video: Meryl Streep Defends Child Rapist Roman Polanski “I am Really Sorry That He is In Jail”
Hollywood Liberals Celebrate Child Rapist
Roman Polanski Recently Accused Of Rape
Roman Polanski’s Arrest Ignites Controversy
Johnny Depp and Whoopi Goldberg Defending Pedophile Roman Polanski #Pizzagate
Roman Polanski’s Sexual Assault Victim Asks Judge To End 40-Year-Old Case | TIME
Geimer Interview: Inside Edition
CNN Official Interview: Roman Polanski’s victim tells what happened
Extradition hearing in Roman Polanski underage sex case
Roman Pulanski-Samantha Geimer sex scandal documentary biography
Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski – The End of a fairy tale
Roman Polanski’s Arrest Ignites Controversy
Samantha Geimer: ‘Why I Forgave Roman Polanski’ | Good Morning Britain
Victim in Roman Polanski sexual assault wants case dropped
Breaking News – Swiss prosecutors to examine Roman Polanski rape claims
Published on Oct 9, 2017
Swiss prosecutors said Monday that they will examine allegations made by a German woman that filmmaker Roman Polanski raped her in 1972 in the town of Gstaad, when she was 15.The procedural move means that Switzerland has not ruled out prosecuting the filmmaker, despite questions as to whether the statute of limitations for the alleged crime has lapsed.Renate Langer, a 61-year-old former actress, told Swiss police last month that she met Polanski while working as a model in Munich before travelling to his home in Gstaad, where he raped her.’The prosecutor’s office in the Canton of Bern has confirmed … it will handle (the file)’, prosecution spokesman Christof Scheurer said in an email.Langer is the fourth woman to publicly accuse Polanski of sexual assault.Polanski pleaded guilty in the United States to having unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer – aged 13 at the time – in 1977 but fled the country before he could be sentenced. He remains a fugitive from the US justice system.British actress Charlotte Lewis also accused Polanski of assault in 2010. Lewis claimed the director ‘forced himself’ upon her just after her 16th birthday.In August, a woman identified only as Robin told a news conference in Los Angeles she was ‘sexually victimized’ by the French-Polish film director when she was 16, in 1973.Polanski’s film career has continued to flourish since he fled the US for France, where many consider him an icon.He has eight Cesars – the French equivalent of an Oscar – as well as a best director Academy Award for Holocaust drama ‘The Pianist.’
Top 10 Craziest Things Charles Manson Has Ever Said
20/20 Truth and Lies : The Family Manson – MAY 13, 2017 (SPECIAL)
Charles Manson, the ’60s cult leader behind one of the most notorious killings in American history, died Sunday in California after a prolonged illness, officials said. He was 83.
Manson — who infamously wore a swastika tattoo between his eyebrows — had spent more than 45 years in prison after being convicted of directing his “Manson Family” clan of troubled, mostly female, followers to kill seven people in California in the summer of 1969. The dead included actress Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of director Roman Polanski, who was stabbed 16 times.
“I am crime,” Manson proudly proclaimed during a collect call to The Post from prison in the mid-2000s.
Born on Nov. 12, 1934, in Cincinnati, Ohio, to a prostitute named Kathleen Maddox, Manson was officially dubbed “no name Maddox” at birth and apparently never knew his biological father.
From a very young age, Manson was a self-styled “outlaw” who took pride in being a criminal and reveled in all the mayhem he caused.
Manson committed his first crimes at around 13 years old, robbing liquor stores to scrounge together enough money to eat and rent motel rooms.
During his teenage years, Manson was in-and-out of juvenile halls and was placed in the Indiana Boys School, where he was sexually assaulted before he escaped in 1951, according to a book, “Manson In His Words,” by Nuel Emmons.
Between 1951 and 1955, Manson was repeatedly arrested for a variety of federal and state offenses, including stealing cars and robbing gas stations.
He was sent to reformatories, but none of them could wean him off his appetite for trouble.
By 1957, Manson was doing hard time in the federal prison at Terminal Island in Los Angeles for violating his probation after he was caught stealing a car and driving it over state lines.
He was eventually paroled, but started a career as a pimp and tried to cash forged US Treasury checks.
Manson found himself back at Terminal Island, where, on March 21, 1967 – the day of his release – he pleaded with prison officials to keep him there because he had been institutionalized for most of his life up to that point.
The wild-eyed, gnome-like figure ended up staying in Los Angeles, where he wrote and played music with a guitar – and began a hippie cult that drew tough men and disaffected suburban young women.
But Manson’s inability to build a musical career led him to an even darker path.
Manson hung out with Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson and the band’s record producer, Terry Melcher, but the latter refused to give him a record deal.
Furious, Manson put together a plan to exact his revenge, ordering several of his drug-addled, brainwashed followers to kill everyone inside Melcher’s former residence.
Despite knowing that Melcher no longer lived there, Manson specifically chose that location because it represented the music industry that had snubbed him.
Just as importantly, Manson, who harbored bizarre racist theories and philosophies, wanted to start a race war – something he called “Helter Skelter,” named after the Beatles song by the same name.
On Aug. 9, 1969, Manson’s disciples, Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel, descended on Melcher’s former compound in Benedict Canyon, where pregnant actress Sharon Tate was now living with filmmaker Roman Polanski.
Polanski was overseas shooting a movie at the time, but Tate was hosting a low-key party with friends, including hair stylist Jay Sebring, coffee heiress Abigail Folger and her boyfriend, Wojciech Frykowski.
First, the killers fatally shot Steven Parent, who had been visiting a caretaker on the property. They then butchered to death Tate, Sebring, Folger and Frykowski.
The next night, Manson directed Watson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and another follower, Leslie Van Houten, to murder supermarket magnate Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary LaBianca, in their Los Feliz home.
In the decades since the murders, Manson has become an icon for troubled youth and a fixture in pop culture.
Charles Manson is escorted to his arraignment on conspiracy-murder charges in connection with the Sharon Tate murder case in 1969.AP
There have been numerous books written about the “Manson Murders,” as well as movies and documentaries detailing the case.
Manson himself reached almost mythical status through his strange and colorful prison interviews with notable media types, including Charlie Rose, Diane Sawyer and Geraldo Rivera.
In his final years in prison, Manson almost married Afton “Star” Burton, who moved from Mississippi to Corcoran just to be with him.
Although they filed for a marriage license, Manson never got hitched to the woman who is more than 50 years his junior.
No one who carried out murders at Manson’s behest has has ever been released from prison.
Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remained locked up in California while Atkins died in prison in 1989.
A board granted Van Houten – who at 19 was the youngest of the killers – parole in September.
But the ruling is still under review and California Gov. Jerry Brown will get to uphold, reject or modify the finding of parole early next year.
Sharon Marie Tate Polanski (January 24, 1943 – August 9, 1969) was an American actress and model. During the 1960s, she played small television roles before appearing in films and was regularly featured in fashion magazines as a model and cover girl. After receiving positive reviews for her comedic and dramatic acting performances, Tate was hailed as one of Hollywood‘s most promising newcomers.
On January 20, 1968, Tate married Roman Polanski, her director and co-star in 1967’s The Fearless Vampire Killers. On August 9, 1969, Tate and four others were murdered by members of the Manson Family in the home she shared with Polanski. At the time of her death, she was eight-and-a-half months pregnant with the couple’s son.
A decade after Tate’s murder, the actress’ mother, Doris Tate, in response to the growing cult status of the killers and the possibility of them being granted parole, organized a public campaign that resulted in amendments to the California criminal law. Tate’s mother went on to say that the law would “help transform Sharon’s legacy from murder victim to a symbol of victims’ rights”. A book by Tate’s sister, Debra Tate,[3] titled Sharon Tate: Recollection, was released in 2014.[4]
Life and career
Childhood and early acting career
Sharon Tate was born in Dallas, Texas, the eldest of three daughters, to Colonel Paul James Tate (1922–2005),[5] a United States Army officer, and his wife, Doris Gwendolyn (née Willett). At six months of age, Tate won the “Miss Tiny Tot of Dallas Pageant”, but her parents had no show business ambitions for their daughter. Paul Tate was promoted and transferred several times. By the age of 16, as a military brat, Tate had lived in six different cities, and she reportedly found it difficult to maintain friendships. Her family described her as shy and lacking in self-confidence. As an adult, Tate commented that people would misinterpret her shyness as aloofness until they knew her better.[6]
Tate attended Chief Joseph Junior High School (now Chief Joseph Middle School) from September 1955 to June 1958, and Columbia High School (now Richland High School) in Richland, Washington from September 1958 to October 1959. She attended Irvin High School in El Paso, Texas, from late fall 1959 to April 1960; and Vicenza American High School in Vicenza, Italy, from April to June 1960. She graduated from Vicenza American High School in 1961.
As she matured, people commented on Tate’s beauty; she began entering beauty pageants, winning the title of “Miss Richland” in Washington in 1959. She spoke of her ambition to study psychiatry, and also stated her intention to compete in the “Miss Washington” pageant in 1960, however, before she could do either, her father received orders to be stationed in Italy. With the family relocating in Verona, Tate learned that she had become a local celebrity owing to the publication of a photograph of her in a bathing suit on the cover of the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. She discovered a kinship with other students at the American school she attended in nearby Vicenza, recognizing that their backgrounds and feelings of separation were similar to her own, and for the first time in her life began to form lasting friendships.
Tate and her friends became interested in the filming of Adventures of a Young Man, which was being made nearby with Paul Newman, Susan Strasberg, and Richard Beymer, and obtained parts as film extras. Beymer noticed Tate in the crowd and introduced himself, and the two dated during the production of the film, with Beymer encouraging Tate to pursue a film career. In 1961, Tate was employed by the singer Pat Boone and appeared with him in a television special he made in Venice.[which?][citation needed]
Sharon Tate (at right wearing a dark wig) as Janet Trego in the 1964 “Giant Jackrabbit” episode of The Beverly Hillbillies with Max Baer, Jr. and Nancy Kulp
Later that year, when Barabbas was being filmed near Verona, Tate was once again hired as an extra. Actor Jack Palance was impressed by her appearance and her attitude, although her role was too small to judge her talent. He arranged a screen test for her in Rome, but this did not lead to further work. Tate returned to the United States alone, saying she wanted to further her studies, but tried to find film work. After a few months, Doris Tate, who feared for her daughter’s safety, suffered a nervous breakdown and her daughter was persuaded to return to Italy. [6]
The family returned to the United States in 1962, and Tate moved to Los Angeles, where she contacted Richard Beymer‘s agent, Harold Gefsky. After their first meeting, Gefsky agreed to represent her, and secured work for her in television and magazine advertisements. In 1963, he introduced her to Martin Ransohoff, director of Filmways, Inc., who signed her to a seven-year contract. She was considered for the role of Billie Jo Bradley, on CBS‘s sitcom, Petticoat Junction, but Ransohoff believed that she lacked confidence and the role was given to Jeannine Riley. Ransohoff gave Tate small parts in Mister Ed and The Beverly Hillbillies to help her gain experience, but was unwilling to allow her to play a more substantial role. “Mr. Ransohoff didn’t want the audience to see me till I was ready,” Tate was quoted in a 1967 article in Playboy.[7]
During this time, Tate met the French actor Philippe Forquet and began a relationship with him. They became engaged, but the relationship was volatile and they frequently quarreled. Career pressures drove them apart and they broke up.[citation needed]
In 1964, she met Jay Sebring, a former sailor who had established himself as a leading hair stylist in Hollywood. Tate later said that Sebring’s nature was especially gentle, but when he proposed marriage, she would not accept. She said she would retire from acting as soon as she married, and at that time she intended to focus on her career.[6]
Tate and Sebring traveled to London to prepare for filming, where she met the Alexandrian Wiccan High Priest and High Priestess Alex and Maxine Sanders.[10] Meanwhile, as part of Ransohoff’s promotion of Tate, he arranged the production of a short documentary called All Eyes on Sharon Tate, to be released at the same time as Eye of the Devil. It included an interview with Eye of the Devil director J. Lee Thompson, who expressed his initial doubts about Tate’s potential with the comment, “We even agreed that if after the first two weeks Sharon was not quite making it, we would put her back in cold storage,” but added he soon realized Tate was “tremendously exciting”.[6]
Tate played Odile, a witch who exerts a mysterious power over a landowner, played by Niven, and his wife, played by Kerr. Although she did not have as many lines as the other actors, Tate’s performance was considered crucial to the film, and she was required, more than the other cast members, to set an ethereal tone. Niven described her as a “great discovery”, and Kerr said that with “a reasonable amount of luck” Tate would be a great success.[6] In interviews, Tate commented on her good fortune in working with such professionals in her first film and said that she had learned a lot about acting simply by watching Kerr at work. Much of the filming took place in France, and Sebring returned to Los Angeles to fulfill his business obligations. After filming, Tate remained in London, where she immersed herself in the fashion world and nightclubs. Around this time, she met Roman Polanski.
Tate and Polanski later agreed that neither of them had been impressed by the other when they first met. Polanski was planning The Fearless Vampire Killers, which was being coproduced by Ransohoff, and had decided that he wanted the red-headed actress Jill St. John for the female lead. Ransohoff insisted that Polanski cast Tate, and after meeting with her, he agreed that she would be suitable on the condition that she wore a red wig during filming.
The company traveled to Italy for filming where Tate’s fluent Italian proved useful in communicating with the local crew members. A perfectionist, Polanski had little patience with the inexperienced Tate, and said in an interview that one scene had required 70 takes before he was satisfied. In addition to directing, Polanski also played one of the main characters, a guileless young man who is intrigued by Tate’s character and begins a romance with her.
As filming progressed, Polanski praised her performances and her confidence grew. They began a relationship, and Tate moved into Polanski’s London apartment after filming ended. Jay Sebring traveled to London, where he insisted on meeting Polanski. Although friends later said he was devastated, he befriended Polanski and remained Tate’s closest confidante. Polanski later commented that Sebring was a lonely and isolated person, who viewed Tate and himself as his family.[11]
Tate returned to the United States to film Don’t Make Waves with Tony Curtis, leaving Polanski in London. Tate played the role of Malibu and the film was intended to capitalize on the popularity of beach movies and the music of such artists as the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean. Tate’s character, billed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer publicity as “Malibu, Queen of the Surf”, wore little more than a bikini for most of the film. Disappointed with the film, she began referring to herself sarcastically as “sexy little me”. Before the film’s release, a major publishing campaign Coppertone sunsscreen featured Tate. The film opened to poor reviews and mediocre ticket sales, and Tate was quoted as confiding to a reporter, “It’s a terrible movie”, before adding, “Sometimes I say things I shouldn’t. I guess I’m too outspoken.”[6]
Polanski returned to the United States, and was contracted by the head of Paramount Pictures, Robert Evans, to direct and write the screenplay for Rosemary’s Baby, which was based on Ira Levin‘s novel of the same name.[9] Polanski later admitted that he had wanted Tate to star in the film and had hoped that someone would suggest her, as he felt it inappropriate to make the suggestion himself. The producers did not suggest Tate, and Mia Farrow was cast. Tate reportedly provided ideas for some of the key scenes, including the scene in which the protagonist, Rosemary, is impregnated.[citation needed] A frequent visitor to the set, she was photographed there by Esquire and the resulting photographs generated considerable publicity for both Tate and the film.
A March 1967 article about Tate in Playboy began, “This is the year that Sharon Tate happens …” and included six nude or partially nude photographs taken by Roman Polanski during filming of The Fearless Vampire Killers.[6] Tate was optimistic: Eye of the Devil and The Fearless Vampire Killers were each due for release, and she had been signed to play a major role in the film version of Valley of the Dolls. One of the all-time bestsellers, the film version was highly publicized and anticipated, and while Tate acknowledged that such a prominent role should further her career, she confided to Polanski that she did not like either the book or the script.[6]
Patty Duke, Barbara Parkins, and Judy Garland were cast as the other leads. Susan Hayward replaced Garland a few weeks later when she was dismissed.[12] Director Mark Robson was highly critical of the three principal actresses, but according to Duke, directed most of his criticism at Tate. Duke later said Robson “continually treated [Tate] like an imbecile, which she definitely was not, and she was very attuned and sensitive to this treatment”.[6] Polanski later quoted Robson as saying to him, “That’s a great girl you’re living with. Few actresses have her kind of vulnerability. She’s got a great future.”[11]
In interviews during production, Tate expressed an affinity for her character, Jennifer North, an aspiring actress admired only for her body. Some magazines commented that Tate was viewed similarly and Look published an unfavorable article about the three lead actresses, describing Tate as “a hopelessly stupid and vain starlet”.[6] Tate, Duke and Parkins developed a close friendship that continued after the completion of the film. During the shooting of Valley of the Dolls, Tate confided to Parkins that she was “madly in love” with Polanski.[7] “Yes, there’s no doubt that Roman is the man in my life,” Tate was quoted as saying in the New York Sunday News.[7] Tate promoted the film enthusiastically. She frequently commented on her admiration for Lee Grant, with whom she had played several dramatic scenes. Tate was quoted as saying, “I learned a great deal about acting in [Valley of the Dolls], particularly in my scenes with Lee Grant…. She knows what acting is all about and everything she does, from little mannerisms to delivering her lines, is pure professionalism.”[6]
A journalist asked Tate to comment on her nude scene, and she replied,
I have no qualms about it at all. I don’t see any difference between being stark naked or fully dressed — if it’s part of the job and it’s done with meaning and intention. I honestly don’t understand the big fuss made over nudity and sex in films. It’s silly. On TV, the children can watch people murdering each other, which is a very unnatural thing, but they can’t watch two people in the very natural process of making love. Now, really, that doesn’t make any sense, does it?[6]
An edited version of The Fearless Vampire Killers was released, and Polanski expressed disgust at Ransohoff for “butchering” his film. Newsweek called it “a witless travesty”, and it was not profitable. Tate’s performance was largely ignored in reviews, and when she was mentioned, it was usually in relation to her nude scenes. Eye of the Devil was released shortly after, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer attempted to build interest in Tate with its press release describing her as “one of the screen’s most exciting new personalities”. The film failed to find an audience, and most reviews were indifferent, neither praising nor condemning it. The New York Times wrote that one of the few highlights was Tate’s “chillingly beautiful but expressionless performance”.[6]
The All Eyes on Sharon Tate documentary was used to publicize the film. Its 14 minutes consisted of a number of scenes depicting Tate filming Eye of the Devil, dancing in nightclubs and sightseeing around London, and also contained a brief interview with her. Asked about her acting ambitions, she replied, “I don’t fool myself. I can’t see myself doing Shakespeare.” She spoke of her hopes of finding a niche in comedy, and in other interviews she expressed her desire to become “a light comedienne in the Carole Lombard style”.[6] She discussed the type of contemporary actress she wanted to emulate and explained that there were two in particular that she was influenced by: Faye Dunaway and Catherine Deneuve. Of the latter, she said, “I’d like to be an American Catherine Deneuve. She plays beautiful, sensitive, deep parts with a little bit of intelligence behind them.”[13]
Later in the year, Valley of the Dolls opened to almost uniformly negative reviews. Bosley Crowther wrote in The New York Times, “all a fairly respectful admirer of movies can do is laugh at it and turn away”.[14]Newsweek said that the film “has no more sense of its own ludicrousness than a village idiot stumbling in manure”, but a later article read: “Astoundingly photogenic, infinitely curvaceous, Sharon Tate is one of the most smashing young things to hit Hollywood in a long time.”[15] The three lead actresses were castigated in numerous publications, including The Saturday Review, which wrote, “Ten years ago … Parkins, Duke and Tate would more likely have been playing the hat check girls than movie-queens; they are totally lacking in style, authority or charm.”[6]The Hollywood Reporterprovided some positive comments, such as, “Sharon Tate emerges as the film’s most sympathetic character … William H. Daniels‘ photographic caress of her faultless face and enormous absorbent eyes is stunning.”[6]Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times praised Tate as “a wonder to behold”, but after describing the dialogue in one scene as “the most offensive and appalling vulgarity ever thrown up by any civilization”, concluded that, “I will be unable to take her any more seriously as a sex symbol than Raquel Welch.”[16]
Marriage to Roman Polanski
In late 1967, Tate and Polanski returned to London and were frequent subjects of newspaper and magazine articles. Tate was depicted as being untraditional and modern, and was quoted as saying couples should live together before marrying. They were married in Chelsea, London, on January 20, 1968, with considerable publicity. Polanski was dressed in what the press described as “Edwardian finery“, while Tate was attired in a white minidress.[9] The couple moved into Polanski’s mews house off Eaton Square in Belgravia.[7]Photographer Peter Evans later described them as “the imperfect couple. They were the Douglas Fairbanks/Mary Pickford of our time … Cool, nomadic, talented and nicely shocking.”[6]
While Tate reportedly wanted a traditional marriage, Polanski remained somewhat promiscuous and described Tate’s attitude to his infidelity as “Sharon’s big hang-up”. He reminded Tate that she had promised that she would not try to change him.[6] Tate accepted Polanski’s conditions, though she confided to friends that she hoped he would change. Peter Evans quoted Tate as saying, “We have a good arrangement. Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him.”[17]
Polanski urged Tate to end her association with Martin Ransohoff, and Tate began to place less importance on her career, until Polanski told her he wanted to be married to “a hippie, not a housewife”. The couple returned to Los Angeles and quickly became part of a social group that included some of the most successful young people in the film industry, including Warren Beatty, Jacqueline Bisset, Leslie Caron, Joan Collins, Mia Farrow, Jane Fonda, Peter Fonda, Laurence Harvey, Steve McQueen, Joanna Pettet, Peter Sellers; older film stars like Yul Brynner, Kirk Douglas, Henry Fonda, and Danny Kaye; musicians such as Jim Morrison and The Mamas & the Papas; and record producer Terry Melcher and his girlfriend Candice Bergen. Jay Sebring remained one of the couple’s most frequent companions. Polanski’s circle of friends included people he had known since his youth in Poland such as Wojciech Frykowski and Frykowski’s girlfriend, coffee heiress Abigail Folger. Tate and Polanski moved into the Chateau Marmont Hotel in Los Angeles for a few months [11] until they arranged to lease Patty Duke‘s home on Summit Ridge Drive in Beverly Hills during the latter part of 1968.[11] The Polanski house was often full of strangers, and Tate regarded the casual atmosphere as part of the “free spirit” of the times, saying that she did not mind who came into her home as her motto was “live and let live”.[11] Her close friend Leslie Caron later commented that the Polanskis were too trusting — “to the point of recklessness” — and that she had been alarmed by it.[18]
In the summer of 1968, Tate began her next film, The Wrecking Crew (1969), a comedy in which she played Freya Carlson, an accident-prone spy, who was also a romantic interest for star Dean Martin, playing Matt Helm. She performed her own stunts and was taught martial arts by Bruce Lee. The film was successful and brought Tate strong reviews, with many reviewers praising her comedic performance. The New York Times critic Vincent Canby criticized the film, but wrote, “The only nice thing is Sharon Tate, a tall, really great-looking girl.”[19] Martin commented that he intended to make another “Matt Helm” film, and that he wanted Tate to reprise her role.
Around this time Tate was feted as a promising newcomer. She was nominated for a Golden Globe Award as “New Star of the Year – Actress” for her Valley of the Dolls performance.[20]
She placed fourth behind Mia Farrow, Judy Geeson, and Katharine Houghton for a “Golden Laurel” award as the year’s “Most Promising Newcomer” with the results published in the Motion Picture Exhibitor magazine.[21] She was also runner-up to Lynn Redgrave in the Motion Picture Herald‘s poll for “The Star of Tomorrow”, in which box-office drawing power was the main criterion for inclusion on the list.[22] These results indicated that her career was beginning to accelerate and for her next film, Tate negotiated a fee of $150,000.[6]
She became pregnant near the end of 1968, and on February 15, 1969, she and Polanski moved to 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon.[7] The house had previously been occupied by their friends, Terry Melcher and Candice Bergen. Tate and Polanski had visited it several times, and Tate was thrilled to learn it was available, referring to it as her “love house”. At their new home, the Polanskis continued to be popular hosts for their large group of friends, although some of their friends still worried about the strange types who continued to show up at their parties.[7] Encouraged by positive reviews of her comedic performances, Tate chose the comedy Twelve Plus One (1969) as her next project, as she later explained, largely for the opportunity to co-star with Orson Welles. In March 1969, she traveled to Italy to begin filming, while Polanski went to London to work on The Day of the Dolphin (1973). Frykowski and Folger moved into the Cielo Drive house.
After completing Twelve Plus One, Tate joined Polanski in London. She posed in their apartment for photographer Terry O’Neill in casual domestic scenes such as opening baby gifts, and completed a series of glamour photographs for the British magazine Queen. A journalist asked Tate in a late July interview if she believed in fate, to which she replied, “Certainly. My whole life has been decided by fate. I think something more powerful than we are decides our fates for us. I know one thing — I’ve never planned anything that ever happened to me.”[6]
She returned from London to Los Angeles, on July 20, 1969, traveling alone on the QE2. Polanski was due to return on August 12 in time for the birth, and he asked Frykowski and Folger to stay in the house with Tate until then.[citation needed]
On August 8, 1969, Tate was two weeks from giving birth. She entertained two friends, actresses Joanna Pettet and Barbara Lewis, for lunch at her home, confiding in them her disappointment at Polanski’s delay in returning from London. That afternoon, Polanski telephoned her as did her younger sister, Debra, who called to ask if she and their sister, Patti, could spend the night with her. Tate declined, offering to have them over another time. Later that evening, Tate dined at her favorite restaurant, El Coyote Cafe, with Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger, returning at about 10:30 p.m.[6]
Shortly after midnight, they were murdered by members of Charles Manson‘s “family” and their bodies were discovered the following morning by Tate’s housekeeper, Winifred Chapman. Police arrived at the scene to find the body of a young man, later identified as Steven Parent, shot dead in his car, which was in the driveway. Inside the house, the bodies of Tate and Sebring were found in the living room; a long rope tied around each of their necks connected them. On the front lawn lay the bodies of Frykowski and Folger. All of the victims, except Parent, had been stabbed numerous times. The coroner‘s report for Tate noted that she had been stabbed sixteen times, and that “five of the wounds were in and of themselves fatal”.[8]
Police took the only survivor at the address, the property’s caretaker William Garretson, in for questioning. Garretson lived in the guest house that was located on the property, but a short distance from the house, and not immediately visible. As the first suspect, Garretson was questioned and submitted to a polygraph test. Garretson stated that Parent had visited him at approximately 11:30 p.m. and left shortly thereafter. Garretson informed police that he had no involvement in the murders and did not know anything that could help the investigation. Police accepted his explanation and he was released.
The Tate family burial plot at Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, California, in which Tate, her unborn son Paul, mother Doris, and sister Patti are interred
Polanski was informed of the murders and returned to Los Angeles where police, unable to determine a motive, questioned him about his wife and friends. On Wednesday, August 13, Tate was interred in the Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, California, with her son, Paul Richard Polanski (named posthumously for Polanski’s and Tate’s fathers), in her arms. Sebring’s funeral took place later the same day; the funerals were scheduled several hours apart to allow mutual friends to attend.
Life magazine devoted a lengthy article to the murders and featured photographs of the crime scenes. Polanski was interviewed for the article and allowed himself to be photographed at the entrance of the house, next to the front door with the word “PIG” — written in Tate’s blood — still visible.[23] Widely criticized for his actions, he argued that he wanted to know who was responsible and was willing to shock the magazine’s readers in the hope that someone would come forward with information.[11]
Curiosity about the victims led to the re-release of Tate’s films, achieving greater popularity than they had in their initial runs. Some newspapers began to speculate on the motives for the murders. Some of the published photographs of Tate were allegedly taken at a Satanic ritual, but were later proven to have been production photographs from Eye of the Devil. Friends spoke out against the portrayal of Tate by some elements of the media. Mia Farrow said she was as “sweet and pure a human being as I have ever known”, while Patty Duke remembered her as “a gentle, gentle creature. I was crazy about her, and I don’t know anyone who wasn’t.” Polanski berated a crowd of journalists at a news conference, saying that many times they had written that Tate “was beautiful. Maybe the most beautiful woman in the world. But did you ever write how good she was?”[6] Peter Evans later quoted the actor Laurence Harvey, who commented on Polanski immediately after the murders, “This could destroy Roman. Marriage vows mean nothing to him, but few men have adored a woman as much as he adored Sharon.”[17]
Polanski later stated that, in the months following the murders, he suspected various friends and associates, and his paranoia subsided only when the killers were arrested. Newspapers claimed that many Hollywood stars were moving out of the city, while others were reported to have installed security systems in their homes. Writer Dominick Dunne later recalled the tension:
The shock waves that went through the town were beyond anything I had ever seen before. People were convinced that the rich and famous of the community were in peril. Children were sent out of town. Guards were hired. Steve McQueen packed a gun when he went to Jay Sebring’s funeral.[24]
In September 1969, members of the Manson “Family” were arrested on unrelated charges, eventually leading authorities to a breakthrough on the Tate case as well. They explained that the motive for the murders was not the identity of the victims, but rather the house at that address, which had previously belonged to an acquaintance of Manson.
In 1994, the Tate/Polanski house was demolished and a new house was constructed on the site with the street address changed to 10066 Cielo Drive.[25]
Legacy
In 1992, the work of Sharon Tate’s mother, Doris Tate (seated), in support of victims’ rights was acknowledged by President George Bush. Sharon’s sisters, Debra and Patti, are also pictured.
In the early 1980s, Stephen Kay, who had worked for the prosecution in the trial, became alarmed that Manson Family member Leslie Van Houten had gathered 900 signatures on a petition for her parole. He contacted Tate’s mother, Doris, who said she was sure she could do better, and the two mounted a publicity campaign, collecting over 350,000 signatures supporting the denial of parole.[6] Van Houten had been seen as the most likely of the killers to be paroled; following Kay’s and Tate’s efforts, her petition was denied. Doris Tate became a vocal advocate for victims’ rights and, in discussing her daughter’s murder and meeting other crime victims, assumed the role of counselor, using her profile to encourage public discussion and criticism of the corrections system.[6]
For the rest of her life, she strongly campaigned against the parole of each of the Manson killers, and worked closely with other victims of violent crime. Several times, she confronted Charles Manson at parole hearings, explaining, “I feel that Sharon has to be represented in that hearing room. If they’re (the killers) pleading for their lives, then I have to be there representing her.” She addressed Tex Watson directly during her victim impact statement in 1984: “What mercy, sir, did you show my daughter when she was begging for her life? What mercy did you show my daughter when she said, ‘Give me two weeks to have my baby and then you can kill me’? … When will Sharon come up for parole? Will these seven victims and possibly more walk out of their graves if you get paroled? You cannot be trusted.”[6]
In 1992, President George Bush recognized Doris Tate as one of his “thousand points of light” for her volunteer work on behalf of victims’ rights. By this time Tate had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and her health and strength were failing; her meeting with Bush marked her final public appearance. When she died later that year, her youngest daughter, Patricia Gay Tate, known as Patti, continued her work. She contributed to the 1993 foundation of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, a nonprofit organization that aims to influence crime legislation throughout the United States and to give greater rights and protection to victims of violent crime.[26] In 1995, the “Doris Tate Crime Victims Foundation” was founded as a nonprofit organization to promote public awareness of the judicial system and to provide support to the victims of violent crime.[27]
Patti Tate confronted David Geffen and board members of Geffen Records in 1993 over plans to include a song written by Charles Manson on the Guns N’ Roses album “The Spaghetti Incident?”. She commented to a journalist that the record company was “putting Manson up on a pedestal for young people who don’t know who he is to worship like an idol.”[28]
After Patti’s death from breast cancer in 2000, her older sister Debra continued to represent the Tate family at parole hearings. Debra Tate said of the killers: “They don’t show any personal responsibility. They haven’t made atonement to any one of my family members.”[6] She has also unsuccessfully lobbied for her sister to be awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Colonel Paul Tate preferred not to make public comments; however, he was a constant presence during the murder trial, and in the following years attended parole hearings with his wife, and wrote letters to authorities in which he strongly opposed any suggestion of parole. He died in May 2005.[29][30]
Roman Polanski gave away all of his possessions after the murders, unable to bear any reminders of the period that he called “the happiest I ever was in my life”. He remained in Los Angeles until the killers were arrested. After, he fled to Europe to evade criminal charges of raping a 13-year-old girl. His 1979 film Tess was dedicated “to Sharon”, as Tate had read Thomas Hardy‘s Tess of the d’Urbervilles during her final stay with Polanski in London and had left it for him to read with the comment that it would be a good story for them to film together. He tried to explain his anguish after the murder of his wife and unborn son in his 1984 autobiographyRoman by Polanski, saying “Since Sharon’s death, and despite appearances to the contrary, my enjoyment of life has been incomplete. In moments of unbearable personal tragedy some people find solace in religion. In my case the opposite happened. Any religious faith I had was shattered by Sharon’s murder. It reinforced my faith in the absurd.”[11]
In July 2005, Polanski successfully sued Vanity Fair magazine for libel after it alleged that he had tried to seduce a woman on his way to Tate’s funeral. Among the witnesses who testified on his behalf were Debra Tate and Mia Farrow. Describing Polanski immediately after Tate’s death, Farrow testified, “Of this I can be sure — of his frame of mind when we were there, of what we talked about, of his utter sense of loss, of despair and bewilderment and shock and love — a love that he had lost.” At the conclusion of the case, Polanski read a statement, saying in part, “The memory of my late wife Sharon Tate was at the forefront of my mind in bringing this action.”[17]
The murders committed by the Manson “Family” have been described by social commentators as one of the defining moments of the 1960s. Joan Didion wrote, “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true. The tension broke that day. The paranoia was fulfilled.”[6]
Tate’s work as an actress has been reassessed after her death, with contemporary film writers and critics, such as Leonard Maltin, describing her potential as a comedian. A restored version of The Fearless Vampire Killers more closely resembles Polanski’s intention. Maltin lauded the film as “near-brilliant” and Tate’s work in Don’t Make Waves and The Wrecking Crew as her two best performances, as well as the best indicators of the career she might have established.[31]Eye of the Devil with its supernatural themes, and Valley of the Dolls, with its overstated melodrama, have each achieved a degree of cult status.
Tate’s biographer, Greg King, holds a view often expressed by members of the Tate family, writing in Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders (2000): “Sharon’s real legacy lies not in her movies or in her television work. The very fact that, today, victims or their families in California are able to sit before those convicted of a crime and have a voice in the sentencing at trials or at parole hearings, is largely due to the work of Doris [and Patti] Tate. Their years of devotion to Sharon’s memory and dedication to victims’ rights … have helped transform Sharon from mere victim, [and] restore a human face to one of the twentieth century’s most infamous crimes.”[6]
In 2012, the book Restless Souls was published; authored by Alisa Statman, a close friend of Patti Tate, two short chapters in the book are written by Tate’s niece, Brie Tate. The book contains portions of the unfinished autobiographies of Tate’s father, mother, and sister, Patti, along with Statman’s own “personal interpretation[s]”. [32] Debra Tate has questioned the book’s veracity.[33]
On June 10, 2014, a coffee table book by Debra Tate, called Sharon Tate: Recollection, was released. It is the first book about Tate that is devoted exclusively to her life and career without covering her death, its aftermath, or the events that led to it. [4]
In pop culture
Memorial art exhibition
in 2009, American contemporary artist Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell presented a comprehensive mixed media art exhibition ICON: Life Love & Style of Sharon Tate: In honor of the 40th anniversary of Tate’s passing. With the blessing of the Tate family, Corbell created a 350-piece historic art exhibition celebrating Tate’s style and life. The art and fashion based presentation showcased images of Tate’s never before revealed wardrobe by designers such as Christian Dior, Thea Porter, Ossie Clark and Yves Saint Laurent.[34][35]Sharon was also mentioned in Jim Carrol’s song “it’s too late”.
People of the State of California v. Roman Polanski
Verdict
Guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious actupon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]
Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation,[6] and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation.[7] However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation,[5][8]Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[9] Since then Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting countries likely to extradite him to the United States.
Rape case
On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, became embroiled in a sexual assualt case involving 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey[10] (now Samantha Geimer).[11] A grand jury charged Polanski with five charges:
rape by use of drugs
perversion
sodomy
lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen
This ultimately led to Polanski’s guilty plea to a different charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[12]
According to Geimer’s testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer’s mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,[13] which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski’s request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on 10 March 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. At the time the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a ski trip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.[14] “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.”[15] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated, adding: “We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this”.[16]
Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[18][19] each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.[12][20][21][22]
Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[23][24]Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.[25] Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she “wasn’t unresponsive”, and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.[26] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.” The officers quoted two psychiatrists’ denial of Roman being “a pedophile” or “sexual deviate”.[27]
Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[28]
Conviction and flight
Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming.[29] Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.[30] Polanski’s lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time.[31]
However, it is alleged in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, that things changed after an ex parte conversation between LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells and the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Wells was not an attorney of record on the case, but was an attorney for the People of the State of California, which was a party to the case. Thus, the communication with Wells was a one-sided external communication, which is prohibited by ethics law. Wells allegedly showed the judge a photo of Polanski with his arms around some ostensibly underage girls, and convinced Rittenband that Polanski should not be released.
Polanski’s attorneys assert that the judge suggested to them that he would send the director to prison and order him deported.[5] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski bought a one-way ticket to England and fled the United States.[2] Shortly after Polanski fled, Rittenband denied he ever did anything that the 2008 documentary would go on to allege, by issuing the following statement:
I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country.[32]
Polanski fled initially to London on 1 February 1978, where he maintained a residence. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the United States by Britain. Consistent with its extraditiontreaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens,[33] and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[34]Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and worked in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.[citation needed] In 1979, Polanski gave a controversial interview with the novelist Martin Amis in which, discussing his conviction, he said “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”[35][36][37][38]
Original reactions to his flight
Filmmaker Joseph Losey (who exiled himself to the UK after being blacklisted by HUAC) responded to Polanski’s flight by saying “I have not contacted him – and I’m not going to.” Actor Robert Stack called his flight “a coward’s way out,” and then added “the ranks are closing in on him.”[39]
Post-conviction
Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction.[40] The case was settled out of court in 1993. After Polanski missed an October 1995 payment deadline, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect at least US$500,000. The court held that Polanski still owed her over $600,000, but it was unclear as of 2009 if this had since been paid.[41]
In a 2003 interview,[15] Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.” In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, “I think he’s sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don’t think he’s a danger to society. I don’t think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever – besides me – and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It’s an unpleasant memory … (but) I can live with it.”[42]
In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski’s attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney’s office about prosecutor David Wells’ role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton sought judicial review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.[43] However, after Polanski’s arrest, David Wells recanted his statements in the film admitting that he had lied and “tried to butter up the story to make me look better”.[44]
In December 2008, Polanski’s lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing claims that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.[45] In January 2009, Polanski’s lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend to appear. In February 2009, Polanski’s request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[46][47][48] The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor’s focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.[49] Judge Espinoza also stated there was misconduct by the judge in the original case but Polanski must return to the United States to actually apply for dismissal.[50]
There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor.[51] While some legal experts interviewed in 2009 thought he might at that point face no jail time for unlawful sex with a minor, his failure to appear at sentencing is in itself a crime.[52]
On 7 July 2009, Polanski’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of mandate (the California equivalent of a writ of mandamus) with the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in order to seek review of Judge Espinoza’s decision on an expedited basis.[53] The next day, the Court ordered the prosecution to file an opposition, thus indicating that it was assuming jurisdiction over the case.[53] This was unusual; petitions for extraordinary writs are usually summarily denied without any explanation.[54]
On 26 September 2009, Polanski was detained by Swiss police at Zurich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 U.S. arrest warrant. Polanski had planned to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award.[55][56][57] The arrest followed a request by the United States that Switzerland apprehend Polanski. U.S. investigators had learned of his planned trip from a fax sent on 22 September 2009, from the Swiss Justice Ministry to the United States Department of Justice‘s Office of International Affairs, which had given them enough time to negotiate with Swiss authorities and lay the groundwork for an arrest.[58] Polanski had been subject of an Interpol red notice at the request of the United States since 2005.[59][60]
The Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police said Polanski was put “in provisional detention.” An arrest warrant or extradition to the United States could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Criminal Court and then the Federal Supreme Court, according to a ministry spokesman.[61] Polanski announced that he intended to appeal extradition and hired lawyer Lorenz Erni to represent him.[62][63] On 6 October his initial request for bail was refused by the Federal Department of Justice and Police; a spokesperson commented, “we continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight.”[64]
On 2 May 2010, Polanski published an open letter entitled “I can remain silent no longer!” on Bernard-Henri Lévy‘s web site.[65] In it, he stated that on 26 February 2010 Roger Gunson (the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, retired by the time of the letter) testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren (the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question Gunson) that on 16 September 1977 Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that Polanski’s term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence he would have to serve. Polanski also stated that Gunson added that it was false to claim (as the present district attorney’s office does in their request for his extradition) that the time he spent in Chino was for the purpose of a diagnostic study.
On 12 July 2010, the Swiss court rejected the U.S. request and released Polanski from custody.[66] Because Polanski fled the Los Angeles court before being sentenced, all six of the original charges are still pending against him.[67][68]
Reactions to the arrest
In reaction to the arrest, the foreign ministers of both France and Poland urged Switzerland to release Polanski, who holds dual citizenship of both countries,[69] but subsequently withdrew their support for Polanski.
France
The arrest provoked particular controversy in France, where over the years many had downplayed the severity of Polanski’s crime, highlighting instead his achievements as a film director and the many years that had passed since his flight from the United States.[70]
The French minister of Culture and Communication, Frédéric Mitterrand, was especially vehement in his support, all the while announcing his “very deep emotion” after the questioning of the director, “a French citizen” and “a film-maker of international dimension”: “the sight of him thrown to the lions for an old story which doesn’t make much sense, imprisoned while traveling to an event that was intending to honor him: caught, in short, in a trap, is absolutely dreadful. Polanski,” Mitterrand continued, “had a difficult life” but had “always said how much he loves France, and he is a wonderful man”. There is, he added, “a generous America that we love, and a certain America that frightens us. It’s that America that has just shown its face.”[71][72][73] These reactions, however, resulted in political backlash in France.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit criticized these statements by Mitterrand, mainly on the grounds that it was a “matter of justice” inasmuch as “a 13-year-old girl was raped”, adding “I believe that a minister of Culture, even if his name is Mitterrand, should say: I’ll wait and read the files [myself]”.[74] “It is a tough call, since it is true that a 13-year-old girl was raped, that she said in her own words ‘I complained [as it was happening]’ and that she afterwards added ‘I accepted a large sum of money’ [to remain silent]”.[75]
Marc Laffineur, vice president of the French National Assembly and a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s center-right party, criticized government ministers for rushing to judgment, saying the charges against Polanski should not be minimized.
Marine Le Pen, from the National Front, during a TV talk show on how to prevent sex crimes recidivism, criticized Mitterrand for his support of Polanski.[76] She recalled that in 2005, Mitterrand had published a book strongly similar to memoirs[77] in which he mentioned using adolescent “boy” prostitutes in Thailand. She contended that such apparent support of abusers of minors from a minister was at odds with the objective of the state to discourage sex tourism and the abuse of minors. The National Front started a petition for Mitterrand’s resignation.
The SACD, a society that collects authorship fees for film and theater works and redistributes them to authors, hosted an international petition in favor of Polanski.[78] The petition stated:
By their extraterritoriality, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.[78]
A number of celebrities, most of them French, expressed their support for Polanski by means of a public manifesto, whose concluding statements were “Roman Polanski is a French citizen, an artist of international reputation, now threatened to be extradited. This extradition, if brought into effect, would carry a heavy load of consequences as well as deprive the film-maker of his freedom.” The signatories concluded: “we demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.”[79] Not all assessments coming from the French film-making mainstream have been openly partisan, however. Luc Besson, for instance, remarked: “I do not know the history of the trial. (…) I feel a lot of affection for [Polanski], he’s a man I really like and I know him a bit, our daughters are very good friends but there is one justice, [and] it is the same for everyone”.[80][81]
On 30 September 2009, the French government dropped its public support for Polanski, on the grounds that he was not “above the law”. Government spokesman Luc Chatel said: “We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job,” adding: “One can understand the emotion that this belated arrest, more than 30 years after the incident, and the method of the arrest, have caused.”[82]
Public opinion polls in France consistently show between 65% and 75% of the population want to see him extradited to the United States.[83]
Poland
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded to early reactions by urging his cabinet ministers to exercise calm and reminding them that it is a “case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child.”[58]
An opinion poll showed that more than 75% of Poles would not like to see Polanski escape another trial.[84]
Switzerland
In Switzerland, the arrest caused widely varying reactions in the media and in politics, while the Swiss minister of justice, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, defended the arrest as legally required under the Swiss-U.S. extradition treaty and as a matter of equality before the law.[63]
United States
When asked if he would consider granting Polanski a pardon, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “I think that he is a very respected person and I am a big admirer of his work. But, nevertheless, I think he should be treated like everyone else. It doesn’t matter if you are a big-time movie actor or a big-time movie director or producer.” Schwarzenegger added: “And one should look into all of the allegations, not only his allegations, but the allegations about his case. Was there something done wrong? You know, was injustice done in the case?”[85]
Whereas a number of those in Hollywood have rallied behind Polanski, the Los Angeles Times reports that the rest of the nation seems to have a different perspective: “In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski.”[90]
Following the rearrest, David Wells announced that he had lied in the Wanted and Desired documentary, claiming that Marina Zenovich told him that the documentary would not air in America, if he refused to lie in it (which Zenovich denied). Wells then proceeded to blast Polanski, calling him a pedophile rapist.[91][92] Wells said “It’s outrageous. This pedophile raped a 13-year-old girl. It’s still an outrageous offense. It’s a good thing he was arrested. I wish it would have happened years before.”
Legal actions
On 30 September 2009, New York Times reported that Steptoe & Johnson’s Reid Weingarten, a well-known criminal defense lawyer and allegedly a close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, had been hired by Polanski for his defense along with attorneys Douglas Dalton, Bart Dalton, and Chad Hummel. According to the New York Times:[93][94]
Mr. Weingarten is expected to mount a legal effort to block Mr. Polanski’s extradition before the issue works its way through the Swiss legal system, according to people who were briefed on Mr. Weingarten’s involvement, but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
A critical step will most likely be a move to stop the extradition before United States authorities send the required documents to Switzerland. Mr. Polanski’s team may do so by arguing either that his crime does not qualify for extradition, because he was originally to have been sentenced to less than a year in prison, or that he has already effectively served his sentence, during a 42-day psychiatric evaluation.
On 21 October, after Swiss authorities had rejected Polanski’s initial pleas to be released on bail pending the result of any extradition hearing, one of his lawyers, Georges Kiejman, floated the idea of a possible voluntary return to the United States in an interview with the radio station Europe 1: “If this process drags on, it is not completely impossible that Roman Polanski could choose to go finally to explain himself in the United States where the arguments in his favor exist.”[95]
On 10 December, Division 7 of the California Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District heard oral argument on Polanski’s petition for writ of mandate.[53] Television stations including CNN, France 2 and TVN24 also filed applications to cover the hearing.
The Court denied Polanski’s petition in an opinion filed on 24 December. The Court reasoned that since Polanski had adequate legal remedies in 1977 and at present in 2009, there was no reason to carve out a special exception to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. In arriving at that holding, the Court pointed out that neither side had realized that Polanski had the option of simply asking to be sentenced in absentia, which would result in a hearing where Polanski could directly attack the trial judge’s alleged malfeasance in 1977. On 6 January 2010, upon remand to the superior court, Polanski’s lawyers followed the appellate court’s advice and presented a notarized letter from Polanski in which he asked to be sentenced in absentia. The court asked the parties to brief the issue and scheduled a hearing for 25 January. At the hearing, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled Polanski must be present in court for sentencing.[98]
On 12 July 2010, the Swiss authorities announced that they would not extradite Polanski to the U.S. in part due to a fault in the American request for extradition. Polanski was no longer subject to house arrest, or any monitoring by Swiss authorities. In a press conference held by Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, she stated that Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. was rejected, in part, because U.S. officials failed to produce certain documents, specifically “confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement.”[citation needed] According to Swiss officials, the records were required to determine if Polanski’s 42-day court-ordered psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison constituted Polanski’s whole sentence according to the now-deceased Judge Rittenband. Reasoning that if this was the correct understanding, then “Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.”[99]
In late October 2014, Polanski was questioned by prosecutors in Kraków, and released. Back in 2010 the Polish prosecutor general stated that under Polish law too much time had passed since the crime for Polanski to be extradited.[102] On 25 February 2015, Polanski appeared in a Polish court for a hearing on the U.S. request for extradition. The judge scheduled another hearing to be held in April or sooner, to give time to review documents that arrived from Switzerland.[103]
On October 30, 2015, Polish judge Dariusz Mazur denied a request by the United States to extradite Polanski. According to the judge, allowing Polanski to be returned to American law enforcement would be an “obviously unlawful” act, depriving the filmmaker of his freedom and civil liberty. His lawyers argued that extradition would violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Polanski holds dual citizenship with Poland and France.[104]
On November 27, 2015, Poland decided it will not extradite Polanski to the U.S. after prosecutors declined to challenge the court’s ruling, agreeing that Polanski had served his punishment and did not need to face a U.S. court again. Preparations for a movie he was working on had been stalled by the extradition request from last year.[105]
On August 17, 2017, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon rejected a request from Samantha Geimer to dismiss the case against Polanski.[107]
2016 electoral map projections from a wide range of sources. Select any of the links for the latest map and detail. All the maps are interactive, so you can use any of them as a starting point to create and share your own forecast.
Most recent projection for the 2016 election from Larry Sabato and the team at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Use this map as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 presidential election forecast.
Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, has written a book called The Bellwether, about Ohio’s record as a predictor of presidential elections. Only twice since 1896 have Ohio voters gotten it wrong.
NOTE: The actual total for Safe Clinton is 183; Likely Clinton 75. In Maine, Sabato rates the state Likely Clinton, with District 1 Safe.
Colors indicate likelihood for a Clinton or Trump victory in each state based on current polling. See the Princeton Election Consortium site for probability color scheme.
Updated hourly, this is an electoral map derived from the polls-plus forecast from FiveThirtyEight. This is defined as “what polls, the economy and historical data tell us about Nov. 8.”
The toss-up tan color is used when no candidate has a 60% or higher chance of winning. The colored gradients are used to show higher probabilities for Clinton or Trump, deepening as the chance of winning increases: Light (60%+), Medium (80%+), Dark (90%+).
Use this map as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 presidential election forecast.
Most recent projection for the 2016 election from Cook Political Report. Use this as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 presidential election forecast.
NOTE: The actual total for Safe Clinton is 188; Likely Clinton 50. In Maine, Cook rates the state Likely Clinton, with District 1 Safe.
Latest projection* for the 2016 election from Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report. Use this as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 election forecast.
The current electoral college ratings map from “The Fix” political team at The Washington Post. Use this as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 election forecast.
Follow @TheFix on Twitter for their latest commentary and analysis of the 2016 elections.
Current projection from Louis Jacobson, who has handicapped the electoral college in 2008, 2012 and 2016, most recently for Governing magazine, where he writes a twice-monthly column on state politics. Jacobson is also a senior correspondent with PolitiFact and senior author of the Almanac of American Politics 2016.
This analysis also ranks states from most likely to go Republican to most likely to go Democratic. Full report.
From ABC News: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is maintaining a decided advantage in the Electoral College this November, strengthening her grip around states tipping her way while forcing Republican nominee Donald Trump to defend a handful of typical GOP strongholds.
Use this map as a starting point to create and share your own 2016 presidential election forecast.
Today’s Electoral College Map
This map provides a state-by-state overview of the current polling. States for which we are currently at least 95% confident in the outcome are considered “safe states” and are colored in the darkest color. States for which we are less confident in the outcome are more lightly colored based on the direction in which they are currently leaning (either towards Clinton, or towards Trump). States which we currently view as tied are colored in white. Those states which are currently polling for Clinton are colored in blue, and those for Trump are colored in red. Because the map indicates probabilities and not margins, a state is intensely shaded when margins are consistent across multiple polls, even when those margins are small.
The number at the top of the map indicates the sum of electoral votes in individual states, giving leaners full credit. Note that this is different from the electoral vote totals given in the banner, which represent the median of all possible outcomes, which number in the quadrillions. The banner therefore does a better job of accounting for uncertainties in an election held today.
Presents 100-Day Plan To Make America Great Again – For Everyone
Gettysburg, PA: Today, in historic Gettysburg, PA, Donald J. Trump presented a game-changing plan for his first 100 days in office. This revolutionary “Contract with the American Voter” will ensure that America’s economy is revitalized and citizens are protected.
“I’m not a politician, and have never wanted to be one. But when I saw the trouble our country was in, I knew I couldn’t stand by and watch any longer. Our country has been so good to me, I love our country, I felt I had to act,” said Mr. Trump in his address.
“Change has to come from outside this broken system. The fact that the Washington establishment has tried so hard to stop our campaign is only more proof that our campaign represents the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime,” he continued.
“I am asking the American people to rise above the noise and the clutter of our broken politics, and to embrace that great faith and optimism that has always been the central ingredient in the American character. I am asking you to dream big.
“What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between Donald J. Trump and the American voter – and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington,” he concluded.
“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
On the same day, I will begin taking the following seven actions to protect American workers:
FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
2. End The Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act.Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
This is my pledge to you.
And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.”
– OCTOBER 22, 2016 –
DONALD J. TRUMP DELIVERS GROUNDBREAKING CONTRACT FOR THE AMERICAN VOTER IN GETTYSBURG
Presents 100-Day Plan To Make America Great Again – For Everyone
Gettysburg, PA: Today, in historic Gettysburg, PA, Donald J. Trump presented a game-changing plan for his first 100 days in office. This revolutionary “Contract with the American Voter” will ensure that America’s economy is revitalized and citizens are protected.
“I’m not a politician, and have never wanted to be one. But when I saw the trouble our country was in, I knew I couldn’t stand by and watch any longer. Our country has been so good to me, I love our country, I felt I had to act,” said Mr. Trump in his address.
“Change has to come from outside this broken system. The fact that the Washington establishment has tried so hard to stop our campaign is only more proof that our campaign represents the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime,” he continued.
“I am asking the American people to rise above the noise and the clutter of our broken politics, and to embrace that great faith and optimism that has always been the central ingredient in the American character. I am asking you to dream big.
“What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between Donald J. Trump and the American voter – and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington,” he concluded.
“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
On the same day, I will begin taking the following seven actions to protect American workers:
FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
2. End The Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act.Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to gives parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
This is my pledge to you.
And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.”
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner referred to the most famous speech ever given by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called the Gettysburg Address a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.”
There are five known copies of the speech in Lincoln’s handwriting, each with a slightly different text, and named for the people who first received them: Nicolay, Hay, Everett, Bancroft and Bliss. Two copies apparently were written before delivering the speech, one of which probably was the reading copy. The remaining ones were produced months later for soldier benefit events. Despite widely-circulated stories to the contrary, the president did not dash off a copy aboard a train to Gettysburg. Lincoln carefully prepared his major speeches in advance; his steady, even script in every manuscript is consistent with a firm writing surface, not the notoriously bumpy Civil War-era trains. Additional versions of the speech appeared in newspapers of the era, feeding modern-day confusion about the authoritative text.
Bliss Copy
Ever since Lincoln wrote it in 1864, this version has been the most often reproduced, notably on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. It is named after Colonel Alexander Bliss, stepson of historian George Bancroft. Bancroft asked President Lincoln for a copy to use as a fundraiser for soldiers (see “Bancroft Copy” below). However, because Lincoln wrote on both sides of the paper, the speech could not be reprinted, so Lincoln made another copy at Bliss’s request. It is the last known copy written by Lincoln and the only one signed and dated by him. Today it is on display at the Lincoln Room of the White House.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Nicolay Copy
Named for John G. Nicolay, President Lincoln’s personal secretary, this is considered the “first draft” of the speech, begun in Washington on White house stationery. The second page is writen on different paper stock, indicating it was finished in Gettysburg before the cemetery dedication began. Lincoln gave this draft to Nicolay, who went to Gettysburg with Lincoln and witnessed the speech. The Library of Congress owns this manuscript.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal.”
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow, this ground – The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.
It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Hay Copy
Believed to be the second draft of the speech, President Lincoln gave this copy to John Hay, a White House assistant. Hay accompanied Lincoln to Gettysburg and briefly referred to the speech in his diary: “the President, in a fine, free way, with more grace than is his wont, said his half dozen words of consecration.” The Hay copy, which includes Lincoln’s handwritten changes, also is owned by the Library of Congress.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Everett Copy
Edward Everett, the chief speaker at the Gettysburg cemetery dedication, clearly admired Lincoln’s remarks and wrote to him the next day saying, “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” In 1864 Everett asked Lincoln for a copy of the speech to benefit Union soldiers, making it the third manuscript copy. Eventually the state of Illinois acquired it, where it’s preserved at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here, have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bancroft Copy
As noted above, historian George Bancroft asked President Lincoln for a copy to use as a fundraiser for soldiers. When Lincoln sent his copy on February 29, 1864, he used both sides of the paper, rendering the manuscript useless for lithographic engraving. So Bancroft kept this copy and Lincoln had to produce an additional one (Bliss Copy). The Bancroft copy is now owned by Cornell University.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Source for all versions: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler and others.
Boritt, Gabor. The Gettysburg Gospel: The Lincoln Speech That Nobody Knows. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
Graham, Kent. November: Lincoln’s Elegy at Gettysburg. Indiana University Press, 2001.
Hoch, Bradley R. and Boritt, Gabor S. The Lincoln Trail in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.
Johnson, Martin P. Writing the Gettysburg Address. University Press of Kansas, 2013.
Kunhardt, Philip B., Jr. A New Birth of Freedom – Lincoln at Gettysburg. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983.
Mearns, David C., Dunlap, Lloyd A., Wilson, Douglas L., and Sellers, John R., contributors. Long Remembered: Lincoln and His Five Versions of the Gettysburg Address. Levenger Press, 2011.
Wills, Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America. Touchstone Books, 1993.
Story 1: Hillary’s War on Women Attacked By Sexual Predator Bill Clinton — The War Room — The Tag Team of Hillary The Verbal Abusing Bully and Bill The Raper Vs. Trump’s Miss Piggy Comment –Who Is Unfit To Be President? Hillary — Videos —
Do the Sexual Accusers of Bill Clinton Deserve to be Believed?
The Clintons’ War on Women: How Hillary Strong-Armed Women into Accepting Sexual Assault
The CLINTONS WAR on WOMEN
Juanita Broaddrick: The FULL story of just ONE of Bill Clinton’s RAPE VICTIMS
The Clinton’s War on Women
Morning Update 39 Til Election – Media Cuckold – Linda Tripp Spills the Beans
Monica Lewinsky Had Jealous Meltdown Over Clinton’s Other Affair, Book Claims
The Clintons’ War on Women | Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux
Secret Service Agent Tells All – Hillary Clinton is CRAZY – Gary Byrne – Full Interview
Bill Clinton Has Raped More Women Than Bill Cosby
If Trumps Wins, Hillary and Bill Clinton Go To Jail!
The Truth About Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) * RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.) * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) * RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.) * RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.) * RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) * RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.) * RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.) * RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accusers
By Shawn Boburg
Hillary and Bill Clinton pose for a photo on their wedding day, Oct. 11, 1975, in Fayetteville, Ark. (Courtesy of President William J. Clinton Library)
Hillary Clinton has wrestled with allegations surrounding her husband’s infidelities for much of their 40-year marriage, including a sexual harassment lawsuit, a grand jury investigation and an impeachment vote centered on his untruthfulness about a relationship with a White House intern.
Now, her Republican opponent Donald Trump and his surrogates have signaled that he may bring up the subject in the next presidential debate, treacherous territory, given his own infidelities and treatment of women.
Clinton’s friends say they have seen her deal with Bill Clinton’s conduct before, bristling at threats and countering them with steely determination. Her reaction, said longtime Arkansas friend Jim Blair, is to face accusers and respond thusly: “These people are not going to run over us.”
Her detractors, though, say that Clinton has unfairly lashed out over the years at the women involved in her husband’s indiscretions. Her responses have forced her to walk a fine line during the campaign on sexual assault issues, even as she builds strong political support among female voters.
Trump and his backers have kept the subject alive with taunting social-media messages, and this week, Trump congratulated himself for taking the high road Monday in the first debate by not saying something “extremely rough” about the Clinton family. He added that he might not show the same restraint at the next public forum on Oct. 9.
Eric Trump said Tuesday that his father had displayed “courage” by not waging the attack, even as Trump’s surrogates began to do so on national television. Clinton’s allies say she is well-equipped to fend off the attacks.
Clinton’s Little Rock pastor, the Rev. Ed Matthews, recalled a conversation with her in 1992 after he noticed explicit drawings of Bill Clinton in the parking lot just outside the church that Hillary and Chelsea Clinton attended.
The pastor said he asked her in a phone call how she was dealing with it.
She responded bluntly, the Methodist minister said in an interview, telling him that her family had dealt with such rumors for years and would get through it.
The Trump campaign has argued that the issue facing Hillary Clinton as a candidate is not the behavior of her husband but the role she played in shaping responses to accusers. She discredited claims later revealed to be true and worked behind the scenes to help manage the allegations, according to former aides.
In November, the issue surfaced again after the Democratic candidate sent out a tweet saying that assault victims deserve to be believed. At a public forum in December, a questioner confronted Clinton and asked whether her comment also applied to her husband’s accusers.
“I would say that everybody should be believed at first,” she said, “until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
On Wednesday, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement: “After his disastrous debate performance and his sexist attack on a former Miss Universe over her weight, Donald Trump is now trying to deflect by going after Hillary Clinton about her marriage.
“While Trump and lieutenants like Roger Stone and David Bossie may want to dredge up failed attacks from the 1990s, as many Republicans have warned, this is a mistake that is going to backfire. He can try to distract from his demeaning comments against women, but if Donald Trump thinks these attacks against Hillary Clinton are going to throw her off her game and what matters to move this country forward, he is wrong.”
‘She knew he liked attention’
Hillary Rodham moved to Arkansas in 1974, and Blair said rumors of Bill’s womanizing were not a dealbreaker for Hillary before she agreed to marry him in 1975.
[From spouse to senator: The evolution of Hillary Clinton, politician]
“She knew he liked attention, and he liked attention from anyone,” Blair said. “From the barber, the shoeshine boy, the homeless man. It didn’t matter.”
Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978 and served as attitudes were shifting about the relevance of politicians’ sex lives. Presidential candidate Gary Hart’s overnight cruise with a young woman doomed his hopes in 1987. Not long after, Bill Clinton’s then-chief of staff Betsey Wright confronted him and told him to come clean with his wife, Wright wrote in emails now archived at the University of Arkansas.
“Some day I hope Hillary will understand why Bill and I developed such a tense relationship,” Wright wrote in 1998.Wright declined interview requests.
A marital crisis erupted while Bill Clinton was governor, andHillary Clinton’s biographer Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman In Charge” that it involved his lengthy affair with a Little Rock woman.
Hillary Clinton may have become aware of her husband’s straying, “but she never accepted it,” said her longtime friend Ann Henry.
Form left: Paula Jones, who has accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment; Monica Lewinsky, who figures in allegations of a presidential coverup; and Gennifer Flowers, who claimed in 1992 to be the then-presidential candidate’s lover. (Photos by Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton has been forthcoming about these painful early times. She told Talk Magazine in 1998 that the couple confronted his cheating in the late 1980s. “I thought he understood it, but he didn’t go deep enough or work hard enough,” she said.
Blair said Hillary Clinton realized that the infidelities threatened more than their marriage. “Her idea, I think, was, if he’s going to be politically successful they have to become more conventional people who are more in tune with values of generations other than theirs,” Blair said.
When Bill Clinton launched a presidential run in 1991, his wife and senior staff considered how to deal with what came to be known as “bimbo eruptions.”
“I think, by then, Hillary had a very good notion of Bill’s behavior,” said her longtime friend Nancy Pietrafesa. “Maybe she endured it, but I don’t think she condoned it.”
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton dismissed an accusation made by Gennifer Flowers, the singer who sold her story to a supermarket tabloid after having previously denied an affair. In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, “I mean, I would crucify her.”
Hillary Clinton’s support for her husband was crucial, and she sat by his side during a crucial “60 Minutes” interview, saying she was not like the victim in Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man.” Campaign pollster Stan Greenberg said at the time that the public would disregard the allegations if they believed he had been truthful to his wife.
Hillary Clinton looks on as presidential candidate Bill Clinton responds to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview on Jan. 26, 1992. (CBS-TV via AP)
Six years later, Bill Clinton acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers.
As other women emerged, Hillary Clinton helped forge aggressive defenses.
Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
A millennial’s guide to Clinton scandals of the ’90s
EmbedShare
Play Video6:33
Nannygate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate: it’s tough to remember all the scandals that plagued then-President Bill and Hillary Clinton through the ’90s. For millennials — here’s what you missed. For everyone else, here’s a refresher. (Sarah Parnass, Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
By July 1992, the campaign hired private detective Jack Palladino to investigate the accusers involved in two dozen allegations.
In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged in a lawsuit that Bill Clinton groped her in a hotel room three years earlier. Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography, “Living History,” that she erred in opposing an early settlement.
Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000. During discovery, Jones’s attorneys found out about White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Her husband denied the relationship, and Hillary Clinton blamed the allegations on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Asked on “Good Morning America” if her husband had been truthful, she said, “I know he has.”
A former White House aide who spoke on the conditions of anonymity totalk about private discussions said Hillary Clinton blamed the scandal on political enemies and insisted that privacy was sacred.
Bill Clinton admitted his untruthfulness in August 1998.
First lady Hillary Clinton talks with “The Today Show” host Matt Lauer in a 1998 interview. Clinton responded to questions about her husband’s alleged affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (Agence France-Presse)
Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography that her husband claimed Lewinsky had misinterpreted his attention. “It was such a familiar scenario that I had little trouble believing the accusations were groundless,” she wrote.
A chill fell over the White House as the truth about Lewinsky emerged, former staffers and friends said.
“She had to do what she had always done before: swallow her doubts, stand by her man and savage his enemies,” Stephanopoulos wrote, describing Hillary Clinton’s reaction.
“I think it was obvious she was more than mad, more than upset,” said Mary Mel French, a White House aide during the Clinton years. “She wasn’t speaking to him. . . . It took a long time for that to settle down.”
Hillary Clinton did not speak publicly about Lewinsky and confided in few people. Matthews, her Little Rock pastor, said he offered to listen, but she warned him that he might be subpoenaed.
“She’s not the type of person who calls friends and cries about it,” Henry said.
Hillary Clinton opened up to Blair’s wife, Diane, a few weeks later, according to a diary kept by the now-deceased friend. “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles,” Diane Blair wrote. “It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a ‘narcissistic loony toon;’ but it was beyond control.”
Lewinsky wrote in Vanity Fair in 2014 that she found Hillary Clinton’s “impulse to blame the Woman — not only me, but herself — troubling.” She declined an interview request.
Accuser Juanita Broaddrick, whose claim of a 1978 sexual assault has been denied by the Clintons, thinks Hillary Clinton was too passive. “I always felt if she’d been a stronger person . . . she could have done something about his behavior,” she said.
Questions during Senate run
In 2000, while running for the U.S. Senate seat in New York, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she misled the public by defending her husband.
“It is something that I regret deeply that anyone had to go through,” she said. “And I wish that we all could look at it from the perspective of history, but we can’t yet.”
In her treatment of the accusers, Trump has called Clinton an enabler.
Her friends say it’s much more benign.
“I think she felt that she had committed her life to this guy,” Jim Blair said. “They can debate politics from breakfast until bedtime and never get tired of it. She wanted to spend the rest of her life with him. She loved him. It’s as simple as that.”
EXCLUSIVE – Linda Tripp Exposes Hillary’s Temperament: Threw Hard Objects, Endless Screaming, Profanity, Paranoia
In an exclusive interview, Linda Tripp, a former White House staffer whose workspace was located directly adjacent to Hillary Clinton’s second floor West Wing office, confirmed long-reported accounts of the former First Lady throwing hard objects at Bill Clinton.
Tripp further described what she characterized as Hillary Clinton’s significant temperament issues, including “endless screaming” and the constant use of profanity, as well as a general disdain for the U.S. electorate, the Armed Services and the honor and dignity of the institution of the American presidency, calling her public persona a “smoke and mirrors act.”
Tripp further stated that as early as the first days of the Bill Clinton administration there was already talk amongst senior staff about a future Hillary Clinton presidency, a position to which Hillary Clinton believed herself entitled.
Tripp spoke in an hour-long interview that aired on this reporter’s Sunday night talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and NewsTalk 990 AM in Philadelphia.
The issue of temperament has become a central theme of this year’s presidential election, with both Clinton and Donald Trump constantly accusing each other of lacking the trait many voters find so necessary to serving as the nation’s highest executive.
Tripp said Clinton’s method of attacking Trump on temperament is “positively mind-boggling” for “those of us who did get a first-hand peek behind the Clinton curtain.”
Stated Tripp:
“The voting public will never see behind the Clinton mask. But if they could they would see what I saw behind closed doors all of those years ago. They’d see a completely different human being from the one presented to the voters. Because in Hillary they’d see a coarse, profane political operative. With no moral compass. And a complete willingness to manipulate the rule of law to her benefit. They would see a fearsome, paranoid individual with zero concern for the masses. She sees the voting block merely as a necessary evil to achieve her goals. She is a total impressive smoke and mirrors act.”
Tripp revealed some of what she personally witnessed firsthand of Clinton’s temperament and the way she says White House staff feared the First Lady to the point of “cowering” in her presence.
“In the Clinton White House there was endless screaming,” she recalled. “Constant vulgar profanity on the part of both the President and the First Lady. And it’s hard for me to refer to her as the First Lady, frankly.
“You’ve heard all about the hurling of hard objects. All of that was true. But what you haven’t heard is the cowering of the White House staff in her presence. There was a contempt for the military. And this is a woman who believes she is entitled to be commander-in-chief. And that was very, very difficult for me. Having had a 20-year history with the military. And a deep, abiding respect for all the members of the Armed Services. She had a hatred of Republicans. And I have think we have seen that with her basket of deplorables (comments). Sometimes the truth just peaks out.”
Asked whether she actually saw Hillary throw hard objects at Bill Clinton, Tripp replied, “No, we just saw the result on the president’s face. Literally.”
She continued:
“I know that that sounds scandalous. And that sounds as though that couldn’t possibly be true. But 99% of the scandals are completely unbelievable to those who didn’t see behind the [Clinton] curtain. You know, it’s almost a piling on kind of a thing. Because most people in their average everyday lives, they are going to work; they are driving the kids to soccer; there is homework; there are bills to pay. They don’t pay as close attention as someone like myself might because they’re just too darn busy. And it sounds like what the Clintons constantly say. That it’s the partisan witch-hunt. That it’s the vast right-wing conspiracy. Everyone conspires against the Clintons. They take no ownership or accountability for all of the scandals they themselves created.
“But it’s completely understandable to me why most people would think that this can’t possibly be true. This is not the person we see debating. And she is a polished debater. You know this just can’t be true and yet it is.”
“I just think that when you talk about temperament you have to at least consider how the past portends the future,” Tripp added.
The Clintons possessed no respect or honor for the office of the presidency, Tripp charged:
“I remember a senior adviser to President Bush. A nice guy. I am not going to name his name. But a very senior advisor who had said to a few of us one day that he pinched himself every single day that he entered the White House to go to work. And he said further if you don’t feel that way you don’t belong here. And it resonated because those of us who did feel that way thought, ‘Ah, it’s not just us. There is a reverence. There is an honor.’ A feeling of history that we are so fortunate to be a part of. Of course, none of that pertains to the Clintons.”
Hillary Clinton has in the past claimed numerous times that she was not yet decided on whether to run for president. One notorious example was Clinton’s response to why she took six-figure speaking fees from Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks. “I wasn’t committed to running. I didn’t know whether I would or not,” Clinton said in February.
Tripp scoffed at the notion that Hillary was contemplating running for the presidency.
“Well, this is one of the funniest things because literally on my first day in the West Wing of the White House in January of 1993, right after the inauguration, there was a chant from various senior advisors to support staff of the president. And it was ‘Eight years for Bill. Eight years for Hill.’ In fact, some had started out with ‘Four years for Bill. Four years for Hill.’ And they were quickly corrected. But I didn’t know at that time that this runaway train was actually going to happen. Or worse, what it means for all of us today.
“And you know she had a plan to punch her ticket. And so to punch the ticket to get to the presidency you need to have a resume. And so the whole Senate thing was part of the plan.”
Tripp spoke generally of various ethical concerns during her time working in the West Wing:
“Both the Clintons operate from a position of ethical bankruptcy. And in doing so they have been stacking the deck for many years. They have ensured they are above the law, as we saw this year. So whether it was obstructing justice or hiding documents. You know the abusing and besmirching of women. Their patented strategy of personal destruction of those who would speak out against them. And perjury.
They have insulated themselves with total political power. And the accumulation of vast wealth. Those are hard things to go up against. So it’s worked well for them…
And there was always the commingling and the pay-for-play. And I mean from the smallest way to the largest way. There was the wholesale selling of the Lincoln bedroom. And rides on Air Force One. And money all the time. It was just very difficult for someone who had seen another White House operate in a way that one would expect a White House to operate.”
Tripp is well-known for her role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, documenting evidence of the young intern’s relationship with Bill Clinton and submitting the documentation to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, leading to the public disclosure of the affair.
However, many people may be surprised to learn of Tripp’s larger role in the West Wing, and her firsthand experiences behind the curtain of the Clinton scandal machine.
Tripp was brought to the Clinton administration from the George H.W. Bush White House, where she served as executive assistant to the deputy chief of staff to the president, a role that enabled her to become familiar with the inner workings of the West Wing.
During the Clinton administration, she first served as support staff to the Immediate Office of the President, where she sat just outside Bill Clinton’s Oval Office. After three months, Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster asked Tripp to work for the White House Counsel’s office as executive assistant to White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum, who played a lead role in defending the Clintons in their infamous scandals.
Last week, Breitbart News reported on the first part of Clinton’s interview on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” in which she discussed some of the most infamous scandals to rock the Bill Clinton White House.
Tripp possesses insider information on the scandals known as Travelgate, Filegate and Whitewater, and she personally witnessed the handling of documents from Vince Foster’s office the morning after he was found dead in an apparent suicide. Foster was heavily involved in defending the Clintons in the Travelgate, Filegate and Whitewater cases. Tripp was the last person known to have spoken to Foster before his death.
During the first portion of our interview, Tripp reopened each of those scandals – Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater and the issues surrounding Vince Foster’s death – and she used her unique vantage point to explain how the notorious cases foreshadowed many of the current Clinton controversies, from the Clinton Foundation to Hillary Clinton’s private email server troubles.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”
ALL THE EX-PRESIDENT’S SCANDALS
CLINTON RAPE ACCUSER DROPS TWITTER BOMB ON CHELSEA
‘Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator’
After Bill and Hillary Clinton’s daughter attacked GOP nominee Donald Trump for daring to mention her father’s sexual “transgressions” this week, Juanita Broaddrick – who famously accused former President Bill Clinton of raping her – took to Twitter Wednesday to deliver the bad news to Chelsea Clinton: “Your parents are not good people,” and “Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator.”
A series of six tweets came from Broaddrick, who says Clinton raped her in a hotel room 38 years ago. WND recently reported that a nurse who treated her after the alleged sexual assault confirmed Broaddrick’s account.
After the first presidential debate Monday, Trump said he didn’t want to discuss the issue of Clinton’s sexual “transgressions” because the former first daughter was present at the event.
“I didn’t want to do it with Chelsea … I didn’t want to say what I was going to say with Chelsea in the room,” Trump told ABC News.
“It’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election and to offer concrete, comprehensive proposals about the economy, or our public school system, or debt-free college, or keeping our country safe and Americans safe here at home and around the world. …
“And candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are Trump’s — and we talked about this when you interviewed me the night before the Iowa caucus — are Trump’s continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is].”
That’s what prompted Broaddrick to send the following six tweets to Chelsea:
As WND reported, Broaddrick has accused Hillary of concealing her husband’s sex crimes.
In 1978, during then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial bid, Broaddrick was a nursing home administrator and volunteer for the Clinton campaign.
She said Clinton noticed her during a campaign stop.“He would just sort of insinuate, you know when you are in Little Rock let’s get together. Let’s talk about the industry,” she recalled during a November interview on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” “Let’s talk about the needs of the nursing homes, and I was very excited about that.”
In the spring, Broaddrick attended a convention in Little Rock, along with her friend and nursing employee Norma Rogers. The two women stayed in a room at the Camelot Hotel.
When Broaddrick checked in with the Clinton campaign, she said she was given instructions to contact Clinton at his private apartment.
“I called his apartment and he answered,” she said. “And he said ‘Well, why don’t we meet in the Camelot Hotel coffee room and we can get together there and talk. And I said ‘That would be fine.’”
But then Clinton decided to meet her inside her room, rather than at the hotel coffee shop.
“A time later and I’m not sure how long it was, he called my room, which he said he would do when he got to the coffee shop,” she said. “And he said ‘There are too many people down here. It’s too crowded. There’s reporters and can we just meet in your room?’”
She continued, “And it sort of took me back a little bit, Aaron. But I did say, ‘OK, I’ll order coffee to the room,’ which I did and that’s when things sort of got out of hand. And it was very unexpected. It was, you might even say, brutal. With the biting of my lip.”
Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she says Clinton raped her
A lip-biting fetish
Broaddrick didn’t go into detail about the alleged rape, as she said most of the information has been reported through the years.
In 1999, she said Clinton kissed her and began biting her lip as she tried to pull away. Then, she claims, Clinton pushed her down onto the bed. She told NBC’s “Dateline”: “I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’”
At that point, she says, Clinton held her right shoulder down and continued biting her lip.
After the assault, she told “Dateline,” “[Clinton] got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”
In the November interview, Broaddrick recalled how her friend returned to their room to look for her after she noticed Broaddrick had been absent from the convention.
“I was in a state of shock afterward,” she told Aaron Klein. “And I know my nurse came back to the room to check on me because she hadn’t heard from me. … She came up and it was devastating to her and to me to find me in the condition that I was in.
“We really did not know what to do. We sat and talked and she got ice for my mouth. … It was four times the size that it should be. And she got ice for me and we decided then I just wanted to go home. I just wanted to get out of there, which we did.”
Broaddrick’s claim that Clinton bit her lip repeatedly is reminiscent of a similar charge by former Miss America pageant winner Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who had a consensual affair with Clinton. Gracen reported that Clinton bit her lip during their sexual encounters.
“And so then about that time, I see them coming through the kitchen area. And some people there are pointing to me,” she recalled. “He goes one direction and she comes directly to me. Then panic sort of starting to set in with me. And I thought, ‘Oh my God, what do I do now?’”
Broaddrick told Klein that Hillary said, “It’s so nice to meet you.”
“And [Hillary] said, ‘I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him.’ And I just stood there. I was sort of you might say shell-shocked.
“And she said, ‘Do you understand? Everything you do.’
“She tried to take a hold of my hand and I left. I told the girls I can’t take this. I’m leaving. So I immediately left.”
Broaddrick added, “What really went through my mind at that time is, ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.’”
Then, in 1991, Clinton approached Broaddrick at a meeting at the Riverfront Hotel in Little Rock.
When the Clinton campaign learned Broaddrick was at the meeting, she said, “they called me out of the meeting and pointed to an area to go down around the corner by an elevator area. And I walked around the corner and there he stands.”
“And he immediately comes over to me with this gushing apology. Like, ‘I’m so sorry for what happened. I hope you can forgive me. I’m a family man now. I have a daughter. I’m a changed man. I would never do anything like that again.’”
Broaddrick said she believed Clinton was remorseful until one week later – when he announced his campaign for the White House.
“But still I have to thank him for that day because the blame then went off of me and on to him. And I knew that it wasn’t my fault. I knew that I didn’t use good judgement but I knew that the incident was no longer my fault.”
The Only War On Women Is Hillary’s War on Bill’s Girlfriends
The War Room (1993) Documentary clip
The Murder Of Hillary Clinton’s Lover Vince Foster 1/2
The Murder Of Hillary Clinton’s Lover Vince Foster 2/2
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Role in Vince Foster’s Death
Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters ‘deplorable’
Presidential Debate | Was Hillary Clinton’s Strategy Effective?
This Video SHOULD Cost Hillary Clinton The Black Vote
Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger
Hillary Clinton Planned Parenthood FULL Speech
Black Genocide – Maafa 21 – Full Length
“Maafa 21” Exposes Black Genocide The documentary Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is an explosive exposé of the racist eugenics agenda of the abortion industry in the United States. It makes the case that, though abortionists claim to advocate privacy, women’s rights, and reproductive choice, their true motive is racial genocide and ethnic cleansing. …
Part 3 of 3 Story 2: The Winner of The Debate — Tie Goes To Trump — We The People Vs. Politicians, Big Lie Media and Donor Class — The Winner on Election Day — We The People — President of The United States — Donald J. Trump — Videos
Trump: I’m Not Running to be President of the World
Reaction To Clinton vs Trump Presidential Debate – Bret Baier & Megyn Kelly
FULL: Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton – First Presidential Debate 2016 – Hofstra University NY
Presidential Debate Analysis
Local reaction to presidential debate
SR #1216 – One Deplorable’s Response -Editorial Director Bill Still Goes-Off on Crooked Obama
Still Report #1214 – Hillary Clinton Campaign Gives Up on Ohio – Donald Trump Dominates Polls
Still Report#1213 –How Donald Trump Can Knock Out Hillary Clinton Tonight at the Presidential Debate
Why Trump’s outsider appeal can win him the working class
RUSH: TRUMP IS A ‘GENUINE OUTSIDER’
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Presidential Debate Analysis
Media waging a war against Trump?
Whoomp There It Is – Tag Team
Cognition: How Your Mind Can Amaze and Betray You – Crash Course Psychology #15
Trump pulled off presidential
James Robbins
Like Reagan in 1980, viewers saw a Trump who was better than the liberal talking points.
You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader.
In the run-up to the Hofstra presidential debate, the Clinton campaign mounted a concerted effort to make fact-checking the centerpiece of the event. Campaign manager Robby Mook argued that “it’s unfair to ask that Hillary Clinton both play traffic copwith Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.” Mook said that if Trump “lied,” it was moderator Lester Holt’s responsibility to point that out.
Fact-checking has never been an accepted role for debate moderators. Janet Brown, head of the Commission on Presidential Debates, said that a moderator should not “serve as the Encyclopedia Britannica.” And moderator Candy Crowley’s ill-advised intervention against Mitt Romney in 2012 showed why fact checking on the fly is a bad idea.
It was strange that the truth-challenged Clinton would want to make an issue of facts. But there was certainly no shortage of checking. Veteran debate moderator Bob Schieffer said that “the chief fact-checkers are the candidates,” and Clinton and Trump agreed, vigorously challenging each other over facts, policies and opinions. In addition, the social media hive-mind was scrutinizing every word in real time. Anyone who needed to track down a fact had the entire connected world at their disposal.
Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times
NALYSIS/OPINION:
The media coverage on the presidential contest seems to have come down to “fact-checking,” with The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico each doing articles depicting Donald Trump’s lies on the campaign trail.
This is dangerous territory for the profession, for as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Twitter: ” ‘Fact checking’ is opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity.”
Why you ask? Because most “fact-checkers” are merely liberal journalists looking to prove their preconceived narrative. They cherry-pick the statements to “fact-check” and then decide which data to back it up with. Statistics can be manipulated — for every study coming out of the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation can have a counter argument, depending on the methodology and surveys used. Moreover, much of what they decide to “fact-check” is subjective at best. Nothing that can be pinned down with undisputed data.
In addition, many times politicians use hyperbole to extenuate a larger point — and many times these “fact-checkers” ignore the larger point to focus on the validity of the minutia. Here are the eight most outrageous “fact-checks” used against Mr. Trump in the last few weeks, that explain why the American public’s trust in the media is at an all-time low.
The New York Times:
(1) Trumpquote: “Do people notice Hillary is copying my airplane rallies — she puts the plane behind her like I have been doing from the beginning.” (Twitter, Sept. 20)
Fact-check: “He did not invent the tarmac rally or the campaign-plane backdrop.”
(2) Trump quote/assertions: “Mrs. Clinton destroyed 13 smartphones with a hammer while she was secretary of state.” (Speeches in Florida, Sept. 15 and Sept. 19)
Fact-check: “An aide told the FBI of only two occasions in which phones were destroyed by a hammer.”
(3) Trump quote: “We have cities that are far more dangerous than Afghanistan.”
Fact-check: “No American city resembles a war zone, though crime has risen lately in some, like Chicago. Urban violence has fallen precipitously over the past 25 years.”
Of note, The New York Times wrote on Sept. 9 that “murder rates rose in a quarter of the nation’s 100 largest cities, and that “the number of cities where rates rose significantly was the largest since the height of violent crime in the early 1990s.”
Politico:
(4) Trumpquote: “We’re presiding over something the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable.” (Sept. 19, Fort Myers, Florida, rally)
Fact-check: “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”
(5) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, it’s a very substantial tax increase.” (Sept. 20 High Point, North Carolina, rally, and a similar statement at least one other time)
Fact-check: “Clinton has not released the full details of her tax plan, but she has sworn off tax hikes for households earning less than $250,000 a year. The vast majority of tax increases she proposes levying affect the highest earners.”
Of note, this fact-check says Mrs. Clinton will, indeed raise taxes. Additionally, in December, when ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos asked her “Is that a rock-solid promise?” (on not raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000) she hedged. “Well,” she said, “it certainly is my goal.”
(6) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton wants to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership; that deal will be a disaster for North Carolina, for every state. Your state.” (Sept. 20, High Point, North Carolina, rally)
Fact-check: “CNN tracked 45 instances in which Clinton supported the TPP, including in 2012 when she called it the “gold standard” of trade deals. But facing a challenge to her left from Bernie Sanders, Clinton this year said she opposed it and would continue to as president. The trade pact’s economic impacts are hotly debated, with some arguing it will hurt domestic workers while others arguing it will spur further exports and economic growth.”
Just to be clear, Politico is calling Mr. Trump a liar for calling out Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flop on TPP. Not to mention, her vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine was a vocal advocate of the trade-agreement for the Obama administration in Virginia (before he denounced it, once jumping on her ticket).
The Washington Post
(7) Trump quote: “The policies he [Rudolph Giuliani] put into place ultimately brought down crime by 76 percent and murder in New York by 84 percent.” (Speech in Pittsburgh, Sept. 22, 2016)
Fact-check: “It’s debatable whether the stop-and-frisk policies had such a direct impact on crime, as Trump suggests. Crime is affected by many factors, and New York’s decline in crime mirrored the decline in many other major cities at the time.”
The Post, after admitting the statistics were “debatable” still gave the assertion three Pinocchios. They used their preferable statistics to justify, saying Mr. Trump‘ “cherry-picked” his.
(8) “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it, you know what I mean. President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.” (Donald Trump, news conference, Sept. 16, 2016)
Fact-check: “Let’s review this again: No, Clinton and her campaign did not start the “birther” controversy.”
Although Mrs. Clinton herself can’t be tied to starting or spreading the birther conspiracy, her 2008 presidential campaign can. Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager said they had to fire a staffer (she couldn’t remember if he or she was paid or not) for sending an email relating to Mr. Obama’s birthplace.
Moreover, the former Washington, D.C., bureau chief of McClatchy alleged Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal asked him to investigate Mr. Obama’s birthplace, essentially starting a whisper campaign. McClatchy even sent a reporter to Kenya.
The Washington Post’s own fact-checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee admitted she heard about Mr. Blumenthal’s whisper campaign, so she called him and he said it wasn’t true (Remember: Mr. Blumenthal was responsible for spreading whisper campaigns about Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s — it’s been documented). But, The Washington Post fact-checker decided to believe Mr. Blumenthal, and gave Mr. Trump four Pinocchios instead.
Republican Donald Trump was kept on the defensive at the first presidential debate, in several instances having to debate the highly anticipated event’s moderator as well as his Democratic opponent.
Trump was challenged on his answers Monday night at Hofstra University in New York at least six times by NBC’s Lester Holt, according to the Washington Examiner‘s count. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile was no follow-up questions for the 90-minute debate.
The debate was separated into three segments: “Achieving Prosperity,” “America’s Direction” and “Securing America.”
In the first segment, Trump was asked about his reluctance to release his tax returns, which he has said he is unwilling to make public until a federal audit on them has been completed, an excuse he reiterated during the debate.
But Holt jumped in to ask him if he believed the public interest “outweighed” any concerns over an audit. Trump said he would be willing to go ahead and release the returns if Clinton would make available more than 30,000 emails she deleted from her tenure as secretary of the State Department, a controversy that has damaged her standing in trustworthiness with voters.
In the next segment, both candidates were asked how they would help heal racial divisions in the country. In his answer, Trump proposed making New York’s controversial “stop and frisk” policy more widespread.
Holt told Trump that the law was deemed unconstitutional by a federal court in 2013, to which Trump asserted that it was a ruling that could have been won on appeal.
Holt followed up again: “The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.”
In the same segment, dubbed “America’s Direction,” Holt asked Trump to account for his recent switch on President Obama‘s birthplace, which the GOP nominee has long suggested may not be in the U.S.
By Heat Street Staff|11:01 pm, September 26, 2016At tonight’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.
The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:
Hillary’s emails
Benghazi
The Clinton Foundation
While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.
Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).
CLINTON, TRUMP BATTLE FIERCELY OVER TAXES, RACE, TERROR
BY JULIE PACE AND JILL COLVIN
In a combative opening debate, Hillary Clinton emphatically denounced Donald Trump Monday night for keeping his personal tax returns and business dealings secret from voters and peddling a “racist lie” about President Barack Obama. Businessman Trump repeatedly cast Clinton as a “typical politician” as he sought to capitalize on Americans’ frustration with Washington.
Locked in an exceedingly close White House race, the presidential rivals tangled for 90-minutes over their vastly different visions for the nation’s future. Clinton called for lowering taxes for the middle class, while Trump focused more on renegotiating trade deals that he said have caused companies to move jobs out of the U.S. The Republican backed the controversial “stop-and-frisk policing” tactic as a way to bring down crime, while the Democrat said the policy was unconstitutional and ineffective.
The debate was confrontational from the start, with Trump frequently trying to interrupt Clinton and speaking over her answers. Clinton was more measured and restrained, but also needled the sometimes-thin-skinned Trump over his business record and wealth.
“There’s something he’s hiding,” she declared, scoffing at his repeated contentions that he won’t release his tax returns because he is being audited. Tax experts have said an audit is no barrier to making his records public.
Clinton said one reason Trump has refused is that he may well have paid nothing in federal taxes. He interrupted to say, “That makes me smart.”
Trump aggressively tried to turn the transparency questions around on Clinton, saying he would release his tax information when she produces more than 30,000 emails that were deleted from the personal internet server she used as secretary of state.
Trump’s criticism of Clinton turned personal in the debate’s closing moments. He said, “She doesn’t have the look, she doesn’t have the stamina” to be president. He’s made similar comments in previous events, sparking outrage from Clinton backers who accused him of leveling a sexist attack on the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party.
Clinton leapt at the opportunity to remind voters of Trump’s numerous controversial comments about women, who will be crucial to the outcome of the November election.
“This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs,” she said.
The televised face-off was the most anticipated moment in an election campaign that has been both historic and unpredictable. Both sides expected a record-setting audience for the showdown at Hofstra University in suburban New York, reflecting the intense national interest in the race to become America’s 45th president.
The centerpiece of Trump’s case against Clinton was that the former senator and secretary of state is little more than a career politician who has squandered opportunities to address the domestic and international she’s now pledging to tackle as president.
“She’s got experience,” he said, “but it’s bad experience.”
Both candidates portrayed themselves as best-prepared to lead a nation where many are still struggling to benefit from a slow economic recovery and are increasingly fearful of terror threats at home and abroad. When Trump jabbed Clinton for taking time off the campaign trail to study for the debate, she said, “I prepared to be president, and that’s a good thing.”
The candidates sparred over trade, taxes and how to bring good-paying jobs back to the United States.
Clinton said her Republican rival was promoting a “Trumped-up” version of trickle-down economics – a philosophy focused on tax cuts for the wealthy. She called for increasing the federal minimum wage, spending more on infrastructure projects and guaranteeing equal pay for women.
Trump panned policies that he said have led to American jobs being moved overseas, in part because of international trade agreements that Clinton has supported. He pushed her aggressively on her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact while she was serving in the Obama administration. She’s since said she opposes the sweeping deal in its final form.
“You called it the gold standard of trade deals,” Trump said. “If you did win, you would approve that.”
Disputing his version of events, Clinton said, “I know you live in your own reality.”
Trump struggled to answer repeated questions about why he only recently acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States. For years, Trump has been the chief promoter of questions falsely suggesting the president was born outside of America.
“He has really started his political activity on this racist lie,” Clinton charged.
Trump also repeatedly insisted that he opposed the Iraq War before the 2003 U.S. invasion, despite evidence to the contrary. Trump was asked in September 2002 whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with Howard Stern. He responded: “Yeah, I guess so.”
Presented with the comment during the debate, Trump responded: “I said very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows.”
The Republican also appeared to contradict himself on how he might use nuclear weapons if he’s elected president. He first said he “would not do first strike” but then said he couldn’t “take anything off the table.”
Clinton said Trump was too easily provoked to serve as commander in chief and could be quickly drawn into a war involving nuclear weapons.
“A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes,” she said.
Trump replied: “That line’s getting a little bit old.”
Some frequently hot-button issues were barely mentioned during the intense debate. Illegal immigration and Trump’s promises of a border wall were not part of the conversation. And while Clinton took some questions on her private email server, she was not grilled about her family’s foundation, Bill Clinton’s past infidelities or her struggle with trustworthiness.
Story 1: The Inescapable Consequences of Obama The Great Divider — Black Milwaukee Mob Race Riots and Violence — Law of The Jungle vs. Law and Order — Sheriff David Clarke Blames Milwaukee Riots On Progressive Liberal Democrats Pushing Government Dependency on Welfare State — Case of Big Government or State Failures — Getting Out The Black Vote —
How The Milwaukee Riot Started…Video Footage Of How It All Began
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE FULL INTERVIEW WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN FOX NEWS (8/15/2016)
Dr. Keith Ablow: Obama’s Anti-Police Rhetoric To Blame For Violent Protests In Milwaukee
Five favorite moments from the black race riot in Milwaukee
Black Lives Matter Riot In Milwaukee After Police Shooting Armed Robber
Riots Erupt In Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Police Shooting and Riots | True News
An independent journalist has quit reporting from Milwaukee, saying that the situation is too dangerous for anyone who looks like a white person to be walking the streets.
“For those that are perceivably white, it is just not safe to be here … that’s why I’m deciding to leave,” reporter Tim Pool said in a video. He posted the video to his Youtube page to inform fans that he was pulling out of Milwaukee because the rioters have targeted white people for attacks.
Pool, an award winning reporter who gained notice by his coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests in Chicago back in 2011, said even though he is not strictly white, he said he felt in danger as the protests morphed from a complaint over a police shooting to an excuse to attack white people simply for being white.
Wearing his signature pullover ski cap, the reporter told his viewers that he became too frightened for his personal safety after seeing an 18-year-old white kid being “shot in the neck” as rioters screamed for whites to be targeted.
Pool insisted he understood the anger of the crowd. “These locals are angry and they’re angry for a reason,” he said. “But things started to get really tense later in the night when people started screaming ‘f**k white people,’ ‘white people suck,’” Pool said before describing several incidents where rioters were angrily egging on their fellows to attack both white people and reporters.
The young reporter went on to stress that it “isn’t every protester” actively calling for such violence but he is still leaving the city. “For those that are perceivably white, it is just not safe to be here. And that’s why I’m deciding to leave,” he said.
“For those that are wondering, I’m actually Korean,” Pool added, “I’m mixed [race], but, you know, most people down here, you know, when I was covering this didn’t, they don’t make that conclusion, they just looked at me and they start saying things about white people … but when you hear a group directing their anger and hate towards white people, and seeing several white people be attacked, and then finally an 18-year-old white kid is shot in the neck, that’s when I’m like, ‘OK, I shouldn’t be here,’ right?”
BURN DOWN WHITE SUBURBS, SISTER OF MAN KILLED BY MILWAUKEE POLICE URGES RIOTERS
“Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down! We need our sh*t! We need our weave!”
Paul Joseph Watson – AUGUST 15, 2016
Video footage shows the sister of the man shot dead by police in Milwaukee calling on rioters to burn down white suburbs instead of their own neighborhoods.
“Burning down sh*t ain’t gonna help nothin’,” yells Sherelle Smith.
“You’re burnin’ down sh*t we need in our community.”
“Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down!” she demands.
“We need our sh*t! We need our weave! I don’t wear it, but we need it!”
According to police, body camera footage shows 23-year-old Sylville K. Smith aim a gun at officers before he was shot dead by an African-American cop.
The incident sparked a wave of violent unrest that continued through Sunday night.
Milwaukee is the most segregated metropolitan area in the United States, with whites almost exclusively living in the suburbs.
Between 1950 and 1990 there was a “white flight” from Milwaukee County into Waukesha County and suburbs of Milwaukee.
Smith’s call for rioters to stop burning down their own communities is being reported by the media as a rebuke to those behind the violence.
However, in reality she is really just calling for the mayhem to be inflicted on the suburbs, or in other words – where all the white people live.
Milwaukee Alderman Khalif Rainey responded to the weekend’s violence by tacitly threatening more riots if “oppression,” “unemployment” and “injustice” wasn’t addressed. Rainey failed to explain what this had to do with an armed man with a lengthy criminal record aiming a gun at police officers.
As we reported yesterday, the white people brave enough to venture through Milwaukee on Saturday night were directly targeted for racial attacks, with rioters yelling, “they white, get their ass!,” as they attempting to drag white drivers out of their vehicles.
Don’t expect a DOJ investigation or a national media “hate crime” outcry any time soon.
New Unrest in Milwaukee After Police Shooting Sparks Violence
byELISHA FIELDSTADTandTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Play
Violent Night in Milwaukee After Fatal Police Shooting of Armed Man 1:54
At least one person was wounded after shots were fired and protesters threw objects at police in Milwaukee late Sunday night, a day after violence erupted overnight in the wake of the fatal shooting of a man by police, authorities said.
Police said they were deploying armored vehicles to protect officers and to rescue a shooting victim, who was rushed to a hospital. At midnight Monday, police declared the protest an unlawful assembly and announced that they would begin making arrests.
The National Guard was activated Sunday, but Mayor Tom Barrett said they wouldn’t be deployed unless police deemed that they were needed. “I’m hopeful that that will not be necessary,” Barrett said. “But if it is necessary, we will do so.”
Barrett urged parents to keep their children home Sunday night.
“This is still a volatile situation. I don’t know what’s going to happen tonight,” he said, adding that a curfew would be enforced if needed. At least 150 specially trained officers will be patrolling in pairs Sunday night, police said.
Cars stand burned in the lot of a BP gas station Sunday after rioters clashed with Milwaukee police. Darren Hauck / Getty Images
The state is investigating the shooting, which killed Sylville K. Smith, 23, after he fled a police traffic stop on foot. Milwaukee Police Chief Edward said body camera video that hasn’t been released shows that there was a “credible threat” to the officer, who has been identified only as a 24-year-old African-American man.
At some point during the brief chase, Smith turned toward the officer with the gun in his hand, Flynn said, citing the video. Smith had a “lengthy arrest record” and 23 rounds in his gun, authorities said.
The officer has been placed on administrative duty pending an investigation. He has also left town in light of threats against him and other police officers, Flynn said.
Volunteers spent Sunday morning sweeping and picking up debris from the chaos of the night before — including bricks, bottle and bullet casings — after about 100 protesters clashed with a couple of dozen officers in a predominantly black north Milwaukee neighborhood.
Three men help clean Sunday after rioters clashed with Milwaukee police Department. Darren Hauck / Getty Images
“I commend the citizens who volunteered in clean-up efforts this morning,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said. This act of selfless caring sets a powerful example for Milwaukee’s youth and the entire community. I join Milwaukee’s leaders and citizens in calling for continued peace and prayer.”
Four businesses were destroyed or burned badly, seven squad cars were damaged, and four officers were injured in the chaosSaturday night. Seventeen people were arrested, and 48 shots or series of shots were fired, according to police. A teenage girl was injured by a stray bullet, police said.
Officials said no shots were fired by police, and there have been no reports of use of force by officers.
“Last night was unlike anything I have seen in my adult life in this city,” Barrett said. “I’m very proud of the way our police officers and firefighters responded.”
The protesters were largely black, and Alderman Khalif Rainey — who represents the district — said early Sunday that the city’s black residents are “tired of living under this oppression.”
“This entire community has sat back and witnessed how Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has become the worst place to live for African-Americans in the entire country,” Rainey said at the end of a news conference at which Barrett pleaded for calm. “Now this is a warning cry. Where do we go from here? Where do we go as a community from here?
Milwaukee was beset by protests and calls for police reform after an officer fatally shot Dontre Hamilton, a mentally ill black man, in 2014. In December, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it would work with Milwaukee police on reforms.
Flynn had asked for what’s known as a collaborative reform process after the federal government said it wouldn’t pursue criminal civil rights charges against the officer.
Black Lives Matter Is Pushing Our Cities Back to the Brink
by DAVID FRENCH August 15, 2016 2:46 PM
To listen to some of the protesters, the Milwaukee shooting was the excuse for the riot, not the reason.
What happens when a city combines body cameras, a “model” law requiring independent investigations of police shootings, and a police chief so committed to reforming the way cops interact with the black community that he’s profiled on public radio’s immensely popular program This American Life? What happens in that same city when a black cop shoots an armed black suspect toting a stolen gun — a gun the suspect reportedly refused to put on the ground despite repeated commands? Do the legal reforms increase community trust? Or does the city erupt in riots and violence?
If you chose “riots and violence,” you’re correct.That’s exactly what happened in Milwaukee this weekend in response to the police shooting of Sylville Smith. Police pulled Smith over on Saturday afternoon, he fled from the scene, and police gave chase. Smith was carrying a stolen handgun. An officer with six years’ experience caught Smith, reportedly ordered him to drop the gun, and opened fire when Smith failed to comply, shooting him the in the chest and arm. Smith died.
According to police, the shooting was caught on camera. (The footage has not yet been released.) But rather than wait for the evidence or for any semblance of an investigation, hundreds of Milwaukee residents rioted, burning police cars, looting stores, and attacking police. Indeed, to listen to some of the protesters and political leaders, the shooting was merely the excuse for the riot, not the justification. Here’s one protester telling reporters that riots are happening because “rich people, they got all this money, and they not . . . trying to give us none.”
And city alderman Khalif Rainey said that the riots were “byproducts” of “the injustice, the unemployment, the under-education” that he says makes Milwaukee the “worst place to live for African-Americans in the entire country.” He ended with an ominous warning: “Rectify this immediately because, if you don’t, this vision of downtown, all of that, you one day away. You one day away.”
Then, of course, Black Lives Matter leader Deray McKesson added his own helpful thoughts — without any meaningful evidence that the police shooting was unlawful: If radical activists have their way, American cities will be ungovernable. Any police shooting will excuse a riot, even without lies like “hands up, don’t shoot.” In such an environment, police reforms are less about improving police–community relations or about making poor communities safe than they are about the raw exercise of power.
Indeed, the results speak for themselves. Despite its reforms, Milwaukee has been wracked by levels of homicide not seen since the bad days of the early 1990s. Last year, the number of fatal shootings, disproportionately black-on-black violence, hit a 22-year high: (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) This year is set to be terrible as well, with 83 homicides already. More than three-quarters of the victims are black, and they are not being killed by cops.
So, yes, Alderman Rainey, Milwaukee may be a terrible place for African Americans, but it is not because of the police. Here is the sobering reality of modern urban life. If police use the kinds of aggressive policing techniques that have been part of the decades-old solution to the soaring crime rates of the 1980s and early 1990s, they increase interactions with the community and inevitably increase the potential for abuse.
If, however, the police back off appreciably, decreasing the number of arrests and stops, then, as we’ve seen in city after city, homicide rates soar. But being an activist means never saying you’re sorry, so in either case oppression and death are the cops’ fault. Police aggressively, and the police are to blame for strained community relations. Back off, and the police are to blame for the chaos and violence that ensues.
The destructiveness of Black Lives Matter lies in its fundamental inability to recognize that the primary responsibility for peace and justice within black communities belongs to the community itself. The police are not making black people kill each other at alarming rates. The police are not making black people drop out of school or black men father children out of wedlock. Yet it’s remarkable the extent to which anti-police activists simply take those factors as givens and then demand that police know exactly how to navigate and defuse the resulting, inevitable social pathologies.
In other words, activists demand the impossible and then riot when their impossible demands aren’t met. Unless cooler heads prevail, they will continue to push our cities back to the brink, back to the bad old days when murder rates were so high that people openly wondered if our great urban communities were doomed to fail. Want to save our cities? Then reject the radicals. In the name of justice, they bring chaos. In the name of peace, they bring death. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438992/milwaukee-riot-black-lives-matter-police-homicide-rate-khalif-rainey
Story 2: Hillary Clinton Wants More of The Same Spending on Government Programs, More of The Status Quo — No Hope, No Change, More Government Dependency On The Road To Serfdom — Videos
Joe Biden makes campaign trail debut
FULL SPEECH: Hillary Clinton campaign rally in Scranton, PA
FULL EVENT: Hillary Clinton & VP Joe Biden in Scranton – Donald Trump – Youngstown, “Radical Islam”
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel – Youngstown, OH
Full Speech: Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech in Youngstown, Ohio (August 15, 2016)
Full Event: Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech in Youngstown, Ohio (August 15, 2016)
Story 1: Part 2 of 2, Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump — Videos
Full Speech : Donald Trump Delivers Anti Hillary Clinton Speech in New York City 6/22/16
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 1!
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 2!
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 3!
FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 4!
Gutfeld: Meet the anti-Romney
Donald Trump seeking to destroy Hillary Clinton
The Real Story: June 22, 2016- Chris Wallace: Trump’s case has got to be against Clinton
Anonymous – Hillary Clinton: The Hillary Files Full Documentary
“Hillary’s America” Trailer | Official Teaser Trailer HD
Peter Schweizer talks Clinton Cash on CNN
Clinton Cash The Movie Official Trailer
Peter Schweizer
“Money and Politics” – Peter Schweizer
Peter Schweizer reacts to State Department IG report on Clinton Emails
• The Tangled Clinton Web • Clinton Cash • 4/24/15 •
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
YouTube Debate: Hillary – Are You a Liberal?
Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger
Hillary Clinton admires Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood
– JUNE 22, 2016 –
DONALD J. TRUMP ON THE STAKES OF THE ELECTION
Today I‘d like to share my thoughts about the stakes in this election.
People have asked me why I am running for President.
I have built an amazing business that I love and I get to work side-by-side with my children every day.
We come to work together and turn visions into reality.
We think big, and then we make it happen.
I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it.
So when people ask me why I am running, I quickly answer: I am running to give back to this country which has been so good to me.
When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton – only by me.
The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before –Jobs, jobs, jobs!
Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them.
We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place.
The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.
That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans. Importantly, this includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals.
Because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy.
It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages.
It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them.
It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools.
It’s rigged against you, the American people.
Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar –
just look at her pathetic email and server statements, or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total self-serving lie.
Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying far less.
Yesterday, she even tried to attack me and my many businesses. But here is the bottom line: I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars. I have always had a talent for building businesses and, importantly, creating jobs. That is a talent our country desperately needs.
I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first.
We are going to put America First, and we are going to Make America Great again.
This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians.
Here is my promise to the American voter:
If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C.
The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests.
Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft.
She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash.
Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public.
Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.
They totally own her, and that will never change.
The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control.
Those are the stakes.
Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders’ said, the judgement, to be president.
She believes she is entitled to the office.
Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.”
You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people.
She thinks it’s all about her.
I know it’s all about you – I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.
Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first.
We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.
We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed.
This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats.
This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.
We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again.
That’s what we mean by America First.
Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to our shores.
Our Founders understood this.
One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.
Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying:
“The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”
I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.
We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed.
Our trade deficit with China soared 40% during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State — a disgraceful performance for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned.
Then she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property – a crime which is continuing to this day.
Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself.
In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!
The book Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense.
She gets rich making you poor.
Here is a quote from the book: “At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton…at this critical time for US-china relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.”
These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.
She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing.
Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas – and give up Congressional power to an international foreign commission.
Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book – deletion is something she is very good at — (at least 30,000 emails are missing.)
But this latest Clinton cover-up doesn’t change anything: if she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will lose millions of jobs and our economic independence for good. She will do this, just as she has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career – and it will be even worse than the Clintons’ NAFTA deal.
I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and our workers.
We don’t make great deals anymore, but we will once I become president.
It’s not just our economy that’s been corrupted, but our foreign policy too.
The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world.
No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton.
Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched.
Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed — that’s right, when the phone rang at
3 o’clock in the morning, she was sleeping.
Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all.
She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die.
To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.
Here is what one of the victim’s mothers had to say:
“I want the whole world to know it: she lied to my face, and you don’t want this person to be president.”
In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world.
Libya was cooperating.
Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence.
Syria was under control.
Iran was being choked by sanctions.
Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel.
ISIS wasn’t even on the map.
Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed
to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East.
Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians.
Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.
She helped force out a friendly regime in Egypt and replace it with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened the Pandora’s box of radical Islam.
Then, there was the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure date from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS killers.
ISIS threatens us today because of the decisions Hillary Clinton has made.
ISIS also threatens peaceful Muslims across the Middle East, and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another.
It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.
Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize
the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.
But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power,
she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya.
She lacks the temperament, the judgment and the competence to lead.
In the words of a Secret Service agent posted outside the Oval Office:
“She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve
in the office…from the bottom of my soul, I know this to be true…Her leadership style – volcanic, impulsive…disdainful of the rules set for everyone else – hasn’t changed a bit.”
Perhaps the most terrifying thing about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is that she refuses to acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.
In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that’s an increase over President Obama’s already very high number.
Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.
Already, hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the U.S.
The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the
most repressive anti-gay and anti-women regimes on Earth.
I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people.
Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved
and gays put to death.
Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.
Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.
Here is some more of what we learned from the book,
Clinton Cash:
A foreign telecom giant faced possible State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran, and other oppressive regimes. So what did this company do? For the first time ever, they decided to pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a single speech. The Clintons got their cash, the telecom company escaped sanctions.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton appointed a top donor to a national security board with top secret access – even though he had no national security credentials.
Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was Secretary of State – plus millions more for her foundation. The Sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law, including the punishment of death by stoning for being gay. The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance.
Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death.
Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens.
To cover-up her corrupt dealings, Hillary Clinton illegally stashed her State Department emails on a private server.
Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments – perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China – putting all of America in danger.
Then there are the 33,000 emails she deleted.
While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do.
So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States.
This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency.
We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies.
National security is also immigration security –
and Hillary wants neither.
Hillary Clinton has put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States.
She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States
The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs. They are the ones she will hurt the most.
Let me share with you a letter our campaign received from Mary Ann Mendoza.
She lost her amazing son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Hillary Clinton.
Sadly, the Mendoza family is just one of thousands who have suffered the same fate.
Here is an excerpt from Mrs. Mendoza’s letter:
“Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.”
Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration.
For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America.
Hillary’s Wall Street immigration agenda will keep immigrant communities poor, and unemployed Americans out of work. She can’t claim to care about African-American and Hispanic workers when she wants to bring in millions of new low-wage workers
to compete against them.
Here are a few things a Trump Administration will do for America in the first 100 days:
Appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s radical judges will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment.
Change immigration rules to give unemployed Americans an opportunity to fill good-paying jobs
Stand up to countries that cheat on trade, of which there are many
Cancel rules and regulations that send jobs overseas
Lift restrictions on energy production
Repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare — it is a disaster.
Pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs.
Impose tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the Office of Secretary of State.
There is one common theme in all of these reforms.
It’s going to be America First.
This is why the stakes in November are so great.
On election day, the politicians stand trial before the people.
The voters are the jury. Their ballots are the verdict. We don’t need or want another Clinton or Obama.
Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out
their country.
They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people.
Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that can’t change.
My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance do it. This is our last chance to do it.
Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system, that built the great dams, and so much more.
Then we started thinking small.
We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions.
We lost our sense of purpose, and daring.
But that’s not who we are.
Come this November, we can bring America back – bigger and better, and stronger than ever.
We will build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth – the roads and railways and airports of tomorrow.
Our military will have the best technology and finest equipment – we will bring it back all the way.
Massive new factories will come roaring into our country – breathing life and hope into our communities.
Inner cities, which have been horribly abused by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, will finally be rebuilt.
Construction is what I know — nobody knows it better.
The real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years — but these wages will start going up, along with the new jobs. Hillary’s massive taxation, regulation and open borders will destroy jobs and drive down wages for everyone.
We are also going to be supporting our police and law enforcement — we can never forget the great job they do.
I am also going to appoint great Supreme Court Justices.
Our country is going to start working again.
People are going to start working again.
Parents are going to start dreaming big for their children again – including parents in our inner cities.
Americans are going to start believing in the future or our country.
We are going to make America rich again.
We are going to make America safe again.
We are going to make America Great Again – and Great Again For EVERYONE.
Story 1: Okie Doke President Barack “CLIPPER 1” Obama Endorses Hillary “CLIPPER 2” Clinton! What is A CLIPPER? Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist! Story 2: Democrats Cry Racist and Rollover Republicans Romney/Ryan Rollover On Trump and Plot Taking Nomination Away from Trump — Just Like George Romney Tried and Failed To Replace Goldwater With Nixon — Videos
clip 1
(klĭp)
v.clipped, clip·ping, clips
v.tr.
1. To cut,cutoff, or cutoutwith or as if withshears:clipcoupons;clippedthreesecondsofftherecord.
2. To makeshorter by cutting;trim:clip a hedge.
3. To cutofftheedgeof:clip a coin.
4. To cutshort;curtail.
5.
a. To shorten (a word or words) by leavingoutletters or syllables.
b. To enunciatewithclarityandprecision:clipone’swords.
6. Informal To hitwith a sharpblow:clipped me undertheeye.
7. Football To block(anopponent)illegallyfromtherear.
8. Sports To hit or kick(theball) in a certaindirection.
9. Slang To cheat,swindle, or rob.
President Barack Obama endorses Hillary Clinton for president | Hillary Clinton
TRUMP: Hillary Clinton Will Turn African American & Hispanic Communities Into Turmoil & Despair
WH Denies Endorsement Will Intimidate FBI Investigators
Jeanine Pirro: Clinton should ask for special prosecutor
HILLARY CLINTON FULL INTERVIEW WITH BRET BAIER (6/8/2016)
Did Hillary Clinton Violate The Espionage Act? – Email Scandal
White House confirms ‘criminal’ probe over Clinton emails, ‘shreds’ campaign claim
Still Report #935 – The Most Likely Scenario of the FBI Primary
Clinton Email Scandal : The Impact of New Sworn Testimony From Top Aides
Did Hillary Clinton Take Steps to Avoid Compliance With The Freedom of Information Act?
RickWells.US – Judge Napolitano on Hillary Clinton’s Lies, Crimes, FBI and Media
Testimony of Former Hillary Clinton Aide Released – Email Scandal
IG Report On Clinton Emails Contradicts Hillary Clinton
How Much Trouble is Hillary Clinton Really In? – Email Scandal
News Alert: State Department Announced That Hillary Clinton’s Conduct Violated Government Rules
US State Department Inspector General Contradicts What Hillary Clinton Has Been Saying
CROOKED HILLARY EXPOSED – Donald Trump Lays Out The Truth & Exposes Crooked Hillary Clinton
AV- Roger Stone the 2016 Election, Clinton’s War on Women and the Bush Crime Family
Donald Trump on The Adam Carolla Show (12/18/2015)
Donald Trump looks to unite GOP (Full June 7, 2016 speech)
Krauthammer says State Department IG Report shows Hillary Clinton broke the law
Modern Eugenics Movement in America
Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal
Anonymous – Hillary Clinton: Lying for 12 minutes straight
MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama…
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
“I’d Organize Hell” – Saul Alinsky TV interview 1966
Saul Alinsky: Brilliant, Epic Conversation on Revolution…A MUST SEE
Saul Alinsky speaking at UCLA 1/17/1969
William F Buckley Jr & Saul Alinsky – Mobilizing The Poor
Rules for Radicals: What Constitutional Conservatives Should Know About Saul Alinsky
Alinsky for Dummies (Mr. Joseph A. Morris – Acton Institute)
Rules for Radicals: An Analysis
Rules for Radicals — Matt Kneece
Adam Carolla on Alinsky’s Rule #5
Adam Carolla on Donald Trump and the 2016 Election
Our Enemy, The State – Albert Jay Nock
Jeffrey Tucker — Liberty Classics: Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
POSTED ONJUNE 9, 2016BYSTEVEN HAYWARD IN BILL CLINTON, HIGHER EDUCATION
3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business
Supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to ask the equivalent of ‘What difference does it make?’with regard to the former Secretary of State’s use of a personal email account to conduct official State Department business.
Meanwhile, many investigative reporters are combing through federal rules and regulations to discover what criminal charges Clinton could face for her actions.
Here are the three most frequently cited laws that appear to have been violated by Clinton:
“‘By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,’ Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.
‘This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.’”
Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch’s security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.
Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.
2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
According to the original story on Clinton’s emails published in The New York Times:
“Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.”
The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton’s private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.
3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:
“‘At this point in time, I think we’re the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,’ Arends said of his group’s Benghazi-related request.”
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:
“‘Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.’”
[mga_video id=8oBEhNirSSg]
These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.
Everyone knows about the problems with Trump University. Trump should just be glad that Trump U didn’t have a Division I NCAA football team, or else he might well have Title IX complaints to go with the class action civil suit.
But did you know that Bill Clinton was a university chancellor? I didn’t either. There he is, over to the left. Moreover, he was paid $16 million by Laureate International Universities to be their “honorary” chancellor. Just think how much Slick Willie could have pulled down if he’d been a real chancellor. Just what is Laureate International University? It’s the parent company of Walden University, a mostly online, for-profit diploma mill that is facing the same kind of civil suits and fraud allegations as Trump University. Funny how the media seems to be uninterested in this story.
Laureate Education has been sued over such programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees. Students says that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.
The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.
There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.
Some of the disgruntled students have made claim about high pressure sales tactics and poor quality instruction that sound exactly like the complainants against Trump U.
December: President Obama nominates Hillary Clinton for secretary of state.
2009
Jan. 13: Reports say the clintonemail.com domain was established.
Jan. 21: Senate confirms Clinton as secretary of state.
March 18: Clinton will later name this as the date she began using a private server for government business.
2012
Sept. 11: Islamic extremists launch the terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
October: Clinton convenes Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate State Dept. actions surrounding Benghazi.
After the ARB and Congress call for Benghazi-related documents, top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are allegedly present at a document sorting session in the basement of the State Dept., according to Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, who later told me he witnessed the operation. No law enforcement body contacted or interviewed Maxwell.
Nov. 7: Judicial Watch files Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request with State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.
December: I (then at CBS News) file a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information. A response is due within about 30 days under the law. However, it is not provided.
Dec. 10, 2012: Clinton cancels a trip due North Africa and the mideast to “illness” and a “bug.” State Dept. does not disclose she has fallen and received a head injury.
Dec. 13, 2012: State Dept. discloses that Clinton had “fallen” while suffering from a stomach virus sometime the previous week and gotten a “concussion” that was “not severe.” Bill Clinton would later say that her injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.”
Clinton postpones imminent Congressional testimony which had been scheduled.
Dec. 18-19: Clinton writes Congress promising to implement ARB recommendations and ARB officials provide briefing on their findings.
Judicial Watch files another FOI request with State Dept.
Dec. 30: State Dept. discloses discovery of “blood clot” in Clinton’s head from the concussion.
2013
Jan. 7: Clinton returns to work after her concussion.
March 22: “Guccifer” hacks Clinton’s emails via Clinton aide’s account. This showed that Clinton had received sensitive, confidential information on what was later revealed to be the private server she improperly used for government business.
Nov. 26: State Dept. tells me (then at CBS News) that it has posted all documents responsive to my Benghazi FOI request from Dec. 2012. This was later proven untrue since Clinton had withheld many documents, and also the State Dept. provided additional responsive documents to me in April of 2016, three and a half years late.
2014
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.
May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.
June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.
August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.
Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.
Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.
October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.
Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.
Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.
December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.
Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.
Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.
2015
Jan. 27: House Benghazi Committee holds third public hearing. Topic: federal agencies’ poor response to document requests and subpoenas.
February: White House and House Benghazi Committee meet to discuss Dec. 2014 document request. White House eventually produces 266 pages.
Feb. 13: State Dept. produces 300 emails to and from Clinton, but no other documents responsive to the House Benghazi Committee’s broader Nov. 18, 2014 request for all emails to and from Clinton and her senior staff.
Late Feb.: In discussions, the State Dept. informs the House Benghazi Committee that Clinton did not have a government email address, and that it had never had possession of her emails until her attorney first turned them over—in paper form—to the State Dept. in Dec. 2014.
March 2: New York Times reports Clinton may have violated federal regulations by using personal email account hdr22@clintonemail.com for public business as secretary of state.
March 4: Associated Press reports that Clinton’s personal email address traces to private email server at her Chappaqua, New York home registered under pseudonym.
House Benghazi Committee privately issues two subpoena: one for emails from Clinton’s personal account, the other for documents it requested in Nov. 2014 (but did not receive) relating to 10 senior State Dept. officials.
Clinton does not disclose the subpoena but tweets, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
March 10: Clinton answers questions about her email practices for the first time. She tells reporters:
It was more convenient to use the private server.
“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two.”
Last year, she deleted nearly 31,000+ emails that were “private.”
She will not turn over her personal email server.
She “fully complied” with the law.
She has turned over to the State Dept. 55,000 pages of work-related emails.
There were 62,320 emails in her account: 30,490 were public business; 31,830 were private.
March 11: Associated Press sues State Dept. for Clinton emails and documents not provided under FOI request.
April 12: Clinton announces she’s running for president.
April 15: Nearly two years after Congress first issues subpoena for ARB documents, the State Dept. produces 1,700+ pages.
April 23: State Dept. produces an additional 2,500 pages of ARB documents.
House Benghazi Committee writes Clinton’s personal attorney to reiterate its “request for her to turn over the server to a neutral, third party, such as an inspector general.”
April: White House produces 266 pages of documents including emails to and from National Security Staff. House Benghazi Committee sends White House another letter reiterating and refining its Dec. 2014 request for additional documents.
April 30: House Benghazi Committee announces the State Dept. has provided 4,000 more pages of documents, for the first time related to the ARB’s work.
Judicial Watch announces a lawsuit to release documents regarding Clinton’s use of iPhone or iPad for official business.
May 5-6, 2015: Judicial Watch files seven new FOI lawsuits related to Clinton’s use of private email server, seeking emails of her top aide Huma Abedin and records about Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation.
May 8: House Benghazi Committee releases interim report:
It has received 20,000+ pages of new emails and documents from State Dept. for the first time including emails to or from Clinton.
It has held 24+ classified and unclassified briefings with the Administration and Executive Branch agencies.
May 22: State Dept. releases 296 Benghazi-related emails from Clinton’s private email account.
Week of June 16: House Benghazi Committee deposes Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal behind closed doors in a deposition nearly nine hours long.
June 22: House Benghazi Committee releases 60 emails sent to Clinton by Blumenthal, including some regarding Libya.
June 25: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with some subpoenaed Benghazi-related emails that that Clinton had not turned over previously.
July 7: House Benghazi Committee releases news of Clinton subpoena (from last March) for the first time.
July 23: The New York Times reports that two Inspectors General have asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Clinton mishandled sensitive government information.
July 28: Clinton revises her statement regarding classified email to say she is confident she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time.
July 31: The federal judge in a Judicial Watch FOI suit, Emmet Sullivan, orders State Dept. to request that Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.
Aug. 5: State Dept. sends letter to Clinton including Judge Sullivan’s order.
Aug. 6: Cheryl Mills’ attorney tells Judicial Watch it has instructed Mills to “delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession” after her anticipated production of records on Aug. 10. Judicial Watch files an emergency request to block the destruction.
Aug. 11: Inspector General report to the Senate contradicts Clinton claims; some Clinton emails, says the IG, contained information that was classified at the time.
FBI takes custody of Clinton server and thumb drives.
Aug. 12: Clinton campaign strikes back as her poll numbers falter, including using theMedia Matters blog to print her talking points attacking news reports on NBC and Fox. The blog uses other left-wing Astroturf outlets such as “Vox” as supposed support for its claims.
Aug. 15: In a campaign appearance at the Iowa State Fair, Clinton revises her statement about classified email a second time, stating that she never sent or received any that were “marked” classified.
Aug. 19: Clinton’s personal lawyer tells a Senate committee that all data, including emails, was erased from her server prior to it being turned over to the FBI.
Clinton tells reporters the investigation surrounding her server “has nothing to do with me.” She contradicts the Inspector General by reiterating that she never sent or received classified material.
Aug. 20: State Dept. tells Judge Sullivan Clinton did not use State Dept. issued or secure Blackberry device; Blackberries used by Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin were likely destroyed.
Aug. 27: Appearing to read from notes, Clinton told an Iowa audience that using a personal email server “…clearly wasn’t the best choice..I take responsibility…” She repeated her modified statement, “I never sent nor received any e-mail that was marked classified. [emphasis added]”
Aug. 31: State Dept. publicly releases 7,000 pages of Clinton emails. Among other revelations, they show that Freedom of Information (FOI) law was violated since responsive emails had not been provided earlier under various FOI requests. Documents can be found by visiting the State Dept. FOI page and searching “Hillary Clinton.”
Sept. 3: Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills testifies to House Benghazi Committee behind closed doors.
Former Clinton campaign staffer and State Dept. official Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton’s personal server, tells Congress he will plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse the Congressional subpoena to testify.
Sept. 4: Former top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan testifies to House Benghazi Committee behind closed doors.
Sept. 8: A day after saying she had nothing to apologize for, Clinton says she’s “sorry” in an interview with ABC News.
Sept. 10: Pagliano takes the Fifth in a private meeting before the House Benghazi Committee.
Sept. 25: AP reports Obama administration has found work emails between Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus that she did not turn over. The dates call into question Clinton’s claim that she turned over all work related emails from her home system.
The State Dept. says it’s sending the House Benghazi Committee 925 more Clinton Benghazi and/or Libya-related emails that were not previously turned over.
October: Previously withheld Clinton emails reveal Clinton told daughter Chelsea almost immediately that terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, yet told the public they were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video.
Oct. 22: Clinton testifies before House Benghazi Committee for approximately 11 hours.
Nov. 30: State Dept. releases 8,000 more Clinton emails; some of the emails received “classified” markings.
2016
Jan. 15: The Inspector General for the intelligence community Charles McCullough tells members of Congress that several dozen additional classified emails have been identified in Clinton’s stash, including some with a higher classification than top secret, regarding highly sensitive programs.
April: The State Dept. provides a partial response to the Benghazi FOI request I filed in 2012 (that was due within about 30 days). It primarily consists of condolence letters sent to the U.S. from other countries.
May: FBI interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills around this time, according to reports. Mills reportedly leaves interview abruptly when certain questions are asked, but then returns and finishes the interview.
May 25: A report from the Inspector General for the State Department finds Clinton personally violated federal records law, that there were attempts to hack into her system, that some Clinton aides also used personal email accounts exclusively for government business and did not fully cooperate with the IG investigation and that Clinton failed to turn over all of the emails she was required to turn over to investigators.
Hillary Clinton Stands With
Planned Parenthood
The Kelly File”Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award. This is a woman
Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorses Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton Pick Up Planned Parenthood Endorsement – Fox Report
Hillary Clinton admires Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood
2016 Candidate Hillary Clinton Endorses Eugenics
Hillary Clinton “admires” Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
Planned Parenthood’s Racist History – Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics Abortion Program
THE MOTHER OF BLACK GENOCIDE..MARGARET SANGER..FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Planned Parenthood Exposed
Margaret Sanger’s Account Of Her Lecture To The Ku Klux Klan / Educational Video Film
PJTV — Forgotten Newsreel History: Margaret Sanger Declaring ‘No More Babies’
MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST
Paul Ryan: Trump’s judge comments are ‘textbook…
Paul Ryan endorses Donald Trump
Mitt Romney Goes After Donald Trump At University Of Utah
Story 1: US Economy Stagnating With Lowest Labor Participation in 38 Years of 62.4% With 94.6 Million Americans Not In Labor Force and 7.9 Unemployed and Only 142,000 Jobs Created In September — Recession in 2016? — Videos
U.S. economy gains 142,000 jobs in September
Does the weak jobs report take a Fed rate hike off the table?
The weak September jobs report and the markets
RETAIL APOCALYPSE CONTINUES SALES WORSE SINCE 2009
The last time September Retail Sales growth was this weak was 2009, limping aimlessly out of the ‘Great Recession’. With a mere 0.9% year-over-year growth, Johnson-Redbook data seems to confirm what Reuters reports is looming – the weakest U.S. holiday sales season for retailers since the recession. Consultancy firm AlixPartners expects sales to grow 2.8-3.4% during the November-December shopping period compared with 4.4% in 2014, based on analyzing consumer spending trends so far this year, noting (myth-busting for permabulls) dollars saved at the pump are being directed to personal savings or on non-retail activities.
Bursting Oil Bubble Could Put US Back in Recession
Commodities Report: October 2, 2015
Keep U.S. Jobs Numbers Volatility in Perspective: Krueger
Bad Jobs Report Prediction Understandable Says ‘Superforecasting’ Author
October 2, 2015 Financial News – Business News – Stock Exchange – NYSE – Market News
Gold Webcast – Gold climbs on weak US jobs report
Before the Asia Bell: October 2, 2015
Peter Schiff: Minimum Wage Will Result In Mass Unemployment & Self Service
MARC FABER – World Economy Grinding to a Halt. Don’t Trade With Leverage
Thom Hartmann “The Crash of 2016”
Keiser Report: Market Wasteland (E817)
The September Jobs Report in 11 Charts
By JOSH ZUMBRUN , NICK TIMIRAOS and ERIC MORATH
The U.S. economy added 142,000 jobs in September, but there’s more to the monthly jobs report than the number of jobs added. The report provides a wealth of information about the demographics of unemployment—about who is unemployed and why—summarized in the following 11 charts.
Over the past three months the economy has added jobs at the slowest pace since February 2014. Employers were adding an average of more than 200,000 jobs each month since the spring of last year, but now that pace has slowed.
Similarly, the annual pace of job creation has eased in recent months after peaking above three million late last year.
As a result of the weaker gains in August and September, job creation in 2015 has fallen well off last year’s pace. However, the economy is still on track to post the second-best year for employment growth in the past decade.
Every measure of unemployment is declining this year. The broadest gauge, which includes part-timers who would prefer full-time employment and Americans too discouraged to look for a job, fell to 10% last month. That’s the lowest rate since May 2008.
The median unemployed worker has been without a job for 11.4 weeks. That’s substantially shorter than during the first few years of this economic recovery, but still high by historical standards.
The number of Americans working full-time has finally returned to its prerecession levels, though this doesn’t account for an increase in the overall population.
The labor-force participation rate—that is, the share of the population either working or looking for work—declined to the lowest rate since 1977. The employment-to-population ratio, that is, the share of the population with a job, fell to 59.2% from 59.4%.
Much of the reason for the decline in the labor force is simply that a growing number of baby boomers are choosing to retire. Among workers ages 25 to 54, labor-force participation and employment rates are higher. Among this group of workers, dubbed prime-age by labor market economists, labor-force participation fell to 80.6% from 80.7% last month.
People can be unemployed for a range of reasons—whether it’s entering the job market for the first time; re-entering after going to school, starting a family or caring for a relative; quitting an old job with no new one lined up; or losing a job, either on a temporary layoff or permanently. As the recovery has progressed, the share of the unemployed who lost their previous job has declined. A growing share of the unemployed are new entrant or re-entrants to the work force.
College graduates have a significantly lower unemployment rate, which was unchanged at 2.5% this month. High-school dropouts have significantly higher unemployment, which climbed to 7.9% this month from 7.7%.
The unemployment rate has continued to come down for men, women, whites, blacks and Hispanics. The gaps in the unemployment rate between men and women have mostly closed, but significant gaps remain between racial groups.
Corrections & Amplifications
Monthly employment gains in 2015 have averaged 198,000. An earlier version of the chart “Slower, But Still Solid,” incorrectly showed an average gain of 221,000 jobs. Also, the number of Americans working full-time increased in September using a three-month moving average. An earlier version of the chart “Working Longer” included data for July, August and September that didn’t use the three-month average, while the post incorrectly suggested the number of full-time workers according to that measure had declined in September. (Oct. 2, 2015).
U.S. job growth stumbles, raising doubts on economy
BY JASON LANGE
U.S. employers slammed the brakes on hiring over the last two months, raising new doubts the economy is strong enough for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates by the end of this year.
Payrolls outside of farming rose by 142,000 last month and August figures were revised sharply lower to show only 136,000 jobs added that month, the Labor Department said on Friday.
That marked the smallest two-month gain in employment in over a year and could fuel fears that the China-led global economic slowdown is sapping America’s strength.
“You can’t throw lipstick on this pig of a report,” said Brian Jacobsen, a portfolio strategist at Wells Fargo Funds Management in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin.
The weak job growth took Wall Street by surprise and U.S. stocks sold off while the dollar also weakened and yields for government bonds fell.
Bets on interest rate futures showed investors only saw a 30 percent chance of a Fed rate hike in December, down from just under 50 percent before the job report’s release.
“(With) a weak report here, in combination with some of the other weakness that we are seeing across the globe, the odds get dinged for December,” said Tom Porcelli, an economist at RBC Capital Markets.
Investors saw virtually no chance the Fed would end its near-zero interest rate policy at its only other scheduled meeting this year, to be held later in October. Futures prices indicated investors were betting the Fed would probably hike in March.
U.S. factories are feeling the global chill and shed 9,000 jobs in September after losing 18,000 in August, according to the Labor Department’s survey of employers.
“We saw events in China lead to some global financial turmoil and you’re seeing that in the data here,” White House chief economist Jason Furman told Reuters.
New orders received by U.S. factories fell 1.7 percent in August, the Commerce Department said in a separate report..
Paul Ryan, a top Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives, said the weak turn in the economy should be a wake-up call for Washington to reform the national economy with new tax laws, free trade agreements and policies to get people off welfare. “This recovery continues to disappoint, but we can’t accept it as the new normal,” Ryan said.
The recent pace of job growth should have been enough to push the unemployment rate lower because only around 100,000 new jobs are needed a month to keep up with population growth.
But the jobless rate held steady at 5.1 percent. The unemployment rate is derived from a separate survey of households that showed 350,000 workers dropping out of the labor force last month, as well as a lower level of employment.
The share of the population in the work force, which includes people who have jobs or are looking for one, fell to 62.4 percent, the lowest level since 1977.
Average hourly wages fell by a cent to $25.09 during the month and were up only 2.2 percent from the same month in 2014, holding around the same levels seen all year and pointing to marginal inflationary pressures.
The report did have a few bright spots that might be welcomed by Fed chief Janet Yellen, who said last week the economy was doing well enough to warrant higher rates this year.
The number of workers with part-time jobs but who want more hours fell by 447,000 in September to 6.0 million.
Yellen has signaled that the elevated number of these workers points to hidden slack in the labor market that isn’t captured by the jobless rate. A measure of joblessness that includes these workers and is closely followed by the Fed fell to 10 percent, its lowest level since May 2008.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected job growth of 203,000 in September.
All told, revised estimates meant 59,000 fewer jobs were created in July and August than previously believed.
In another grim sign, the number of hours worked in the country fell 0.2 percent, raising the specter that some broader softness might have gripped the economy last month.
Some of the strongest headwinds on the U.S. economy come from the commodity sector, which has slowed in part because of weaker demand from China.
The price of oil has fallen nearly 50 percent over the last year, and U.S. mining payrolls, which include energy sector jobs, fell by 10,000 in September, the ninth straight month of declines.
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until USDL-15-1912
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 2, 2015
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 • cpsinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 • cesinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2015
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 142,000 in September, and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care and information,
while mining employment fell.
Household Survey Data
In September, the unemployment rate held at 5.1 percent, and the number of
unemployed persons (7.9 million) changed little. Over the year, the unemployment
rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.8 percentage point and
1.3 million, respectively. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.7 percent),
adult women (4.6 percent), teenagers (16.3 percent), whites (4.4 percent), blacks
(9.2 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (6.4 percent) showed little
or no change in September. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 268,000 to
2.4 million in September, partially offsetting a decline in August. The number
of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed
at 2.1 million in September and accounted for 26.6 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate declined to 62.4 percent in September;
the rate had been 62.6 percent for the prior 3 months. The employment-population
ratio edged down to 59.2 percent in September, after showing little movement for
the first 8 months of the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) declined by 447,000 to 6.0 million in September.
These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a
full-time job. Over the past 12 months, the number of persons employed part time
for economic reasons declined by 1.0 million. (See table A-8.)
In September, 1.9 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down
by 305,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 635,000 discouraged workers in September,
little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally
attached to the labor force in September had not searched for work for reasons
such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 142,000 in September. Thus far in
2015, job growth has averaged 198,000 per month, compared with an average monthly
gain of 260,000 in 2014. In September, job gains occurred in health care and
information, while employment in mining continued to decline. (See table B-1.)
Health care added 34,000 jobs in September, in line with the average increase of
38,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. Hospitals accounted for 16,000 of
the jobs gained in September, and employment in ambulatory health care services
continued to trend up (+13,000).
Employment in information increased by 12,000 in September and has increased by
44,000 over the year.
Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in September
(+31,000). Job growth has averaged 45,000 per month thus far in 2015, compared
with an average monthly gain of 59,000 in 2014. In September, job gains occurred
in computer systems design and related services (+7,000) and in legal services
(+5,000).
Retail trade employment trended up in September (+24,000), in line with its average
monthly gain over the prior 12 months (+27,000). In September, employment rose in
general merchandise stores (+10,000) and automobile dealers (+5,000).
Employment in food services and drinking places continued on an upward trend in
September (+21,000). Over the year, this industry has added 349,000 jobs.
Employment in mining continued to decline in September (-10,000), with losses
concentrated in support activities for mining (-7,000). Mining employment has
declined by 102,000 since reaching a peak in December 2014.
Employment in other major industries, including construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities, and
government, showed little or no change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek decreased by
0.2 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime declined by 0.2 hour to 3.1 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls, at $25.09, changed little (-1 cent), following a 9-cent gain in August.
Hourly earnings have risen by 2.2 percent over the year. Average hourly earnings
of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees were unchanged at
$21.08 in September. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +245,000
to +223,000, and the change for August was revised from +173,000 to +136,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 59,000 less
than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 167,000
per month.
_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday,
November 6, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category
Sept.
2014
July
2015
Aug.
2015
Sept.
2015
Change from:
Aug.
2015-
Sept.
2015
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
248,446
250,876
251,096
251,325
229
Civilian labor force
155,845
157,106
157,065
156,715
-350
Participation rate
62.7
62.6
62.6
62.4
-0.2
Employed
146,607
148,840
149,036
148,800
-236
Employment-population ratio
59.0
59.3
59.4
59.2
-0.2
Unemployed
9,237
8,266
8,029
7,915
-114
Unemployment rate
5.9
5.3
5.1
5.1
0.0
Not in labor force
92,601
93,770
94,031
94,610
579
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
5.9
5.3
5.1
5.1
0.0
Adult men (20 years and over)
5.3
4.8
4.7
4.7
0.0
Adult women (20 years and over)
5.5
4.9
4.7
4.6
-0.1
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
19.8
16.2
16.9
16.3
-0.6
White
5.1
4.6
4.4
4.4
0.0
Black or African American
11.0
9.1
9.5
9.2
-0.3
Asian
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.6
0.1
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.4
-0.2
Total, 25 years and over
4.7
4.3
4.2
4.1
-0.1
Less than a high school diploma
8.3
8.3
7.7
7.9
0.2
High school graduates, no college
5.3
5.5
5.5
5.2
-0.3
Some college or associate degree
5.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
-0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.5
0.0
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
4,521
4,143
4,070
3,908
-162
Job leavers
816
843
790
780
-10
Reentrants
2,805
2,447
2,349
2,436
87
New entrants
1,094
826
850
831
-19
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,372
2,488
2,095
2,363
268
5 to 14 weeks
2,495
2,257
2,374
2,218
-156
15 to 26 weeks
1,423
1,188
1,250
1,214
-36
27 weeks and over
2,951
2,180
2,187
2,104
-83
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
7,058
6,325
6,483
6,036
-447
Slack work or business conditions
4,165
3,828
3,841
3,569
-272
Could only find part-time work
2,528
2,213
2,242
2,134
-108
Part time for noneconomic reasons
19,579
19,891
19,760
19,971
211
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
2,226
1,927
1,812
1,921
–
Discouraged workers
698
668
624
635
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2014 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2015 (Third Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2015 (Revised Estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s
economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production, adjusted for price
changes -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the second quarter of 2015, according to the
"third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased
0.6 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.7
percent. With the third estimate for the second quarter, the general picture of economic growth remains
the same; personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and nonresidential fixed investment increased more
than previously estimated (see “Revisions” on page 2).
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
PCE, exports, nonresidential fixed investment, state and local government spending, and residential
fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Real GDP increased 3.9 percent in the second quarter, after increasing 0.6 percent in the first.
The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter reflected an upturn in exports, an acceleration in
PCE, a deceleration in imports, an upturn in state and local government spending, and an acceleration in
nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by decelerations in private inventory investment
and in federal government spending.
Real gross domestic income (GDI) -- the value of the costs incurred and the incomes earned in
the production of goods and services in the nation’s economy -- increased 0.7 percent in the second
quarter, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent in the first. The average of real GDP and real GDI, a
supplemental measure of U.S. economic activity that equally weights GDP and GDI, increased 2.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.5 percent in the first.
_______
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates
are in chained (2009) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA's Web site.
_______
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in
the first.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.6 percent in the first. Excluding
food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.2 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.2 percent.
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s
economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production -- increased 6.1 percent, or
$264.4 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $17,913.7 billion. In the first quarter, current-dollar
GDP increased 0.8 percent, or $33.3 billion.
Revisions
The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
PCE, to nonresidential fixed investment, and to residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a
downward revision to private inventory investment. For information on revisions, see "The Revisions to
GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
Advance Estimate Second Estimate Third Estimate
(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP............................... 2.3 3.7 3.9
Current-dollar GDP..................... 4.4 5.9 6.1
Real GDI............................... ... 0.6 0.7
Average of Real GDP and Real GDI....... ... 2.1 2.3
Gross domestic purchases price index... 1.4 1.5 1.5
Corporate Profits
Profits from current production
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $70.4 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of $123.0 billion in the first.
Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $34.6 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $23.4 billion in the first. Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations
increased $24.3 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $70.5 billion. The rest-of-the-world component of
profits increased $11.4 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $29.0 billion. This measure is calculated as
the difference between receipts from the rest of the world and payments to the rest of the world. In the
second quarter, receipts increased $24.9 billion, and payments increased $13.4 billion.
Taxes on corporate income increased $31.3 billion in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $5.5 billion in the first. Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $39.2 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $128.4 billion.
Dividends increased $1.2 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $6.3 billion
in the first. Undistributed profits increased $38.0 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $134.7 billion. Net
cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $48.1
billion, in contrast to a decrease of $135.5 billion.
The IVA and CCAdj are adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of
fixed assets reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in
the national income and product accounts. The IVA decreased $78.7 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $45.7 billion in the first. The CCAdj increased $7.7 billion, in contrast to a
decrease of $208.1 billion.
Corporate profits with IVA
Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $34.3 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $3.1 billion in the first. Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased
$17.0 billion, compared with an increase of $117.3 billion. The second-quarter increase in profits of
nonfinancial corporations primarily reflected an increase in “other” nonfinancial industries that was
partly offset by a decrease in retail trade industries. A small increase in manufacturing industries
reflected an increase in durable goods that was mostly offset by a decrease in nondurable goods.
Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business
Real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations decreased slightly in the second quarter.
Profits per unit of real value added increased, reflecting an increase in unit prices and a decrease in unit
nonlabor costs that were partly offset by an increase in unit labor costs.
* * *
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- October 29, 2015 at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2015 (Advance Estimate)
http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/GDP/GDPnewsrelease.htm
Story 1: Army Charges Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl For Desertion and Miss Behavior — If Found Guilty Should Be Executed — Death To Deserters and Traitors — Remember The Six Soldiers Who Were Killed Searching For Bergdahl — Pfc. Matthew Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen. Bottom row from left: Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews — Do Not Forget President Obama Released 5 Taliban Commanders For 1 Deserter — A Federal Crime of Giving Aid and Support To Terrorists — Impeach Obama — Videos
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl charged with desertion
Army statement on Sgt Bowe Bergdahl court martial
Could This POW Be Charged With Desertion
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Smoking Hot ➡ Nukes Obama Admin On Bergdahl Return To Regular Duty
The Bergdahl Decision – Lt Col Ralph Peters: The White House Is Pressuring The Army – Hannity
Six Soldiers Who Served with Bergdahl Speak Out • Kelly File • 6/5/14 •
Platoon Mates Say Bowe Bergdahl Was A Deserter • Kelly File • 6/2/14
What happened the night he disappeared
O’Reilly: Bergdahl Deal Another Example of Obama’s Damaged Leadership
Col. David Hunt: Clean up Bergdahl and then court martial him for being a deserter
Bergdahl’s Fellow Soldier: He’s “At Best A Defector, At Worst A Traitor”
Bowe Bergdahl: A Case Study In Desertion (Part 1)
Bowe Bergdahl: A Case Study In Desertion (Part 2)
Priceless cost for Bowe Bergdahl desertion 6 killed searching
High Priceless cost for Bowe Bergdahl desertion and the minimum six men reportedly killed during the search for him. Top row from left: Pfc. Matthew Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen. Bottom row from left: Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews
Bowe Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers consider him a deserter
The REAL Reason Obama Traded Taliban Defector Bergdahl For Five Terrorists
Bill O’Reilly: Is Susan Rice a moron?
Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With ‘Honor and Distinction’
Ambassador Susan Rice on Release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served with “Honor and Distinction”
Carney Won’t Say If Susan Rice Misspoke When She Said Bergdahl Served “With Honor And Distinction”
Susan Rice Defends Bowe Bergdahl Comments
Army nears decision on charges of desertion for Bergdahl
Officials: Detainee Swapped For Bergdahl Suspected Of Militant Activities
Bowe Bergdahl to face desertion charges: NBC
Michael Hastings Widow Speaks Out For The First Time To Piers Morgan,Piers Asks Was His Death
Traitor Bowe Bergdahl Linked to Michael Hastings Murder
Obama Could Be Facing 10 Years to Life in Prison
Bowe Bergdahl Charged With Desertion and Misbehavior Before the Enemy
Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, is being charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, his lawyer said Wednesday.
Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.
Bergdahl, 28, went missing from his base in Paktika province on June 30, 2009, and is believed to have grown disillusioned with the U.S. military’s mission in Afghanistan. He was held captive in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, an insurgent group allied with the Taliban, until the White House swapped him for five Taliban officials in a deal brokered through the government of Qatar.
The charges come after a lengthy investigation launched last June after his recovery and a review by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg. Bergdahl has faced a slew of accusations from his fellow soldiers that he abandoned them on the battlefield and triggered a manhunt that diverted resources from the war effort and put lives in danger.
Bergdahl will faces charges under articles 85 and 99 of the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, Fidell said.
Article 85, desertion, applies to a service member who “quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.” The maximum sentence for those convicted is death, although no soldier has faced that punishment since 1944, when Pvt. Eddie Slovik was executed by a firing squad after running away from combat duty in France.
Article 99, misbehavior before the enemy, applies to a service member who has run away in the face of the enemy, abandoned his unit, cast aside his weapon or ammunition or willfully failed “to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy.”
Thousands of U.S. service members are believed to have deserted their units during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bergdahl’s case is uncommon because he allegedly did so while on the battlefield. Most have escaped while in the United States, escaping prosecution in Canada, parts of Europe or other relatively friendly locations.
Bergdahl’s case has been controversial, with questions over whether the Obama administration handled the prisoner swap legally. Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security, also provoked criticism when she said after Bergdahl’s recovery that he had served “with honor and distinction.” She later acknowledged the remark was controversial, and said she was referring to the soldier’s decision to enlist in the first place.
“That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing,” she said.
How did 6 die after Bowe Bergdahl’s disappearance?
By Jake Tapper, CNN
Much attention has been given to the claim made by the former platoonmates of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl that he is partly to blame for the deaths of six soldiers who were killed in the months after Bergdahl disappeared.
Some soldiers have gone so far as to say the six died while searching for Bergdahl. Others say he is indirectly to blame — after Bergdahl vanished, essentially every operation became a mission to find their lost colleague in one way or another, they say.
“I can’t really say I blame Bergdahl to the fullest extent,” former Staff Sgt. Justin Gerleve, Bergdahl’s squad leader, told CNN last week, “but if he wouldn’t have deserted us, these soldiers very well could have been in a different place at a different time, rather than the place at the time of their death.”
Soldiers killed after Bergdahl left unit
Interviews with soldiers familiar with the specific missions in which the six died suggest the charge is complicated — but not without merit given how much the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment became focused on “PR” — personnel recovery — after Bergdahl vanished from his guard post on June 30, 2009.
Bergdahl’s five years in captivity
Bergdahl’s friend: I want to know why
Who is Bowe Bergdahl?
“The fact of the matter is, when those soldiers were killed, they would not have been where they were at if Bergdahl had not have left,” said former Sgt. Evan Buetow, Bergdahl’s former team leader. “Bergdahl leaving changed the mission.”
Those charges were repeated by a noncommissioned officer who requested anonymity because he is still in the Army, one who described himself as a two-time voter for President Obama, lest anyone think his comments were political in any way.
“If Bergdahl hadn’t left it’s entirely plausible that they wouldn’t have had those follow-on missions or been where they were,” said the NCO, who served in the 501st.
Some also argue that the personnel recovery mission angered the local population, and created patterns in troops’ movement that made insurgent attacks easier.
None of that has been enough to quell critics who accuse the soldiers of smearing Bergdahl and exaggerating the role his disappearance played in the deaths of the six men.
A New York Times story cited by critics of the soldiers from the 501st now calling Bergdahl a deserter doesn’t go into much detail about the six men from Bergdahl’s battalion, instead focusing on a separate attack that killed two mortarmen.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he didn’t “know of circumstances or details of U.S. soldiers dying as a result of efforts to find and rescue Sgt. Bergdahl.”
A U.S. official told CNN last week that Pentagon and Army officials have looked at the claims, and “right now there is no evidence to back that up.”
The six men killed were in the 501st Infantry. All of them were killed in Paktika Province between August 18 and September 6, 2009, after the intense initial search for Bergdahl concluded but within the two- to three-month period when, by accounts from more than 20 members of the 501st, essentially every mission in the province had a PR component to it. One of those killed was from Comanche Company, two of those killed were in Bergdahl’s Blackfoot Company, three were from Headquarters Company.
Here are the circumstances and details, gleaned from interviews with more than a dozen troops in the 501st, all of whom said they were motivated entirely by getting the truth out, regardless of the politics.
1) August 18, 2009 — Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED
Bowen and Morris were part of Headquarters Company, but attached to Comanche Company, which “was conducting a recon of polling sites in order to prepare for the election on August 20,” recalls a former officer from the 501st, one of whom describes his politics as left of center but who asked not to be named because of the rhetoric and accusations being leveled against troops who served with Bergdahl.
In the aftermath of the initial search for Bergdahl, called DUSTWUN (for DUTY STATUS: WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN), the officer recalls, “there were numerous polling sites that had to be closed because security was so poor. Their platoon slept overnight at a remote site, and when they started rolling again the next morning, an IED detonated.
A 501st soldier with Comanche Company recalled the device “had been located right under their right back tire.”
The mission was not specifically focused on personnel recovery but the officer said he believes Bergdahl’s disappearance played something of a role in the attack since this “was the absolute worst part of western Paktika province, and it was the subject of numerous air assaults in July” that were directly focused on Bergdahl. “I believe those contributed to the worsening security situation.”
Bowen, 29, was from San Antonio, Texas. Walker, 23, was from Fayetteville, North Carolina.
2) August 26, 2009 — Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss is killed by small arms fire
This incident occurred after the battalion received information that the Taliban shadow sub-governor of Sar Hawza district in Paktika province — a man who went by the name “Muslim” — had effectively taken a local clinic hostage as he received medical treatment for wounds he received during the election, according to the former officer from the 501st.
To the leadership of the 501st, the name “Muslim” prompted an immediate response as he was supposedly connected to Bergdahl’s captors, the former officer said.
An intelligence source told CNN the incident involved a commander with the terrorist Haqqani network, working directly for Mullah Sangin Zadran, the Paktika shadow governor, widely believed to have Bergdahl in his custody. “He was important as part of the mission to get to Bergdahl,” the source said.
The former 501st officer echoed that detail: “The relation to Bergdahl made him a priority target.”
The 4th Platoon from Delaware Company was sent to seize the Taliban official. Some from the insurgent group surrendered, but “Muslim” was nowhere to be found.
“Curtiss took his squad to search an empty building adjacent to the clinic that the Afghan National Police had supposedly cleared,” the officer recalled. “It was empty, but a storage room door was wedged shut. He and his squad kicked in the door, and Curtiss was the first guy in.”
Troops there that day say “Muslim” had been in the room hiding with three bodyguards, who shot Curtiss.
Additionally, 501st sources say, the insurgents threw Curtiss’ grenades at the squad, after which a two-hour firefight ensued — one that ended with Apache helicopters strafing the building. The building caught fire and killed all the insurgents except for one bodyguard, who was severely wounded. Curtiss’ body was recovered before the fire.
Curtiss, 27, was from Salt Lake City, and had already done two deployments in Iraq. He left behind a wife, son and daughter.
3) September 4, 2009 — 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc.Matthew Michael Martinek are attacked by an IED and a rocket-propelled grenade
Andrews and Martinek were in Bergdahl’s company, Blackfoot, and were in the village of Palau, just outside of Yaya Kayhl, one of the last places where Bergdahl was believed to have gone. After Bergdahl disappeared, local Afghans and intercepted insurgent chatter placed him in that area, according to multiple sources with the 501st.
Andrews and Martinek were there to conduct atmospherics — basically check anything and everything around Palau.
According to several sources in Blackfoot Company, among the many questions those soldiers wanted answered was: where is Bergdahl? Where are the guys who have him? Was Palau connected with the insurgents — who by then it was believed — had transported Bergdahl to Pakistan?
But the platoon hit an IED. In the aftermath, a cluster of soldiers tried to hook the vehicle up to chains for the wrecker and were stuck out there for hours on end. In the midst of the effort, an RPG hit them and an insurgent ambush began, according to multiple soldiers with Blackfoot company.
Andrews yelled that the RPG was coming and knocked a bunch of guys out of the way. “Jason watch out,” were said to have been his last words, soldiers told Andrews’ father. He was killed instantly.
The ambush brought relentless amounts of RPG and heavy artillery fire on the platoon. Martinek was trying to call for air support when he took a severely debilitating artillery round. He lived long enough to get to Landstuhl in Germany where he was taken off life support and died on September 11.
Other members of the platoon faced severe wounds, from a jaw blown off, to deafness, to severe psychological issues from that day, according to sources in Blackfoot company and the 501st. It wasn’t a formal DUSTWUN mission, but it wasn’t unrelated, the former 501st officer said.
Moreover, says Buetow, Blackfoot Company’s mission tasking was about to change.
“We were told we were moving south to start focusing on another area of the province,” Buetow says. “Our four-day mission to Observation Post Mest was going to be our last trip out there before moving south. Bowe Bergdahl left, so we then stayed in that area for several more months. We stayed in the area because Bergdahl was last known to be in that area. If he had never deserted, Andrews and Martinek would not have been on patrol in that area.”
Andrews, 34, was from Dallas. He and his wife had a 2-year-old son and were expecting their second child when he was killed. Martinek, 20, was from Dekalb, Illinois.
Andrews’ heroism eats at former Spc. Jose Baggett, a member of Blackfoot Company. “He pushed a sergeant out of the way” of the RPG, “and now I’m stuck watching” Bergdahl get attention from politicians, the military and the media “and they’re dead and he’s alive.”
4) September 5, 2009 — Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey is hit by an IED
Da Dila Panegir village was part of an area that had been subject to searches during the DUSTWUN, and Comanche Company was charged with trying to win the locals back. That day they conducted a foot patrol to hand out supplies and meet with the leaders. In the course of the mission, Murphrey stepped on a pressurized plate that unleashed an IED and was severely wounded; he died at Forward Operating Base Sharana’s hospital the next day.
That mission “wasn’t an exact search, it was a ‘Keep your eyes out for Bowe Bergdahl while you’re there,'” said former Spc. Joseph Cox of Comanche Company, who calls Murphrey his best friend and squad leader.
And yet, the intensity of the DUSTWUN search had also enraged Afghans, soldiers said.
“Our platoon alone conducted more than 20 inserted missions operations within three days. There were massive insertions to find him,” Cox said.
“This mission was probably the least related to Bergdahl” of the four missions, the former officer said, “but it was definitely in an area previously targeted — an area where they already hated us before, but hated us more because of the search.”
Murphrey, 25, left behind a wife, son, and daughter.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby had no specific comment about the four operations.
“Each death in war is tragic in its own right,” Kirby said. “We will always keep in our thoughts and prayers those we have lost, as well as their families. The Army will review the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl’s disappearance and captivity. Our focus right now is on making sure Sgt. Bergdahl gets the care he needs to recover and reunite with his family.”
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9716549/Untitled_1.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9716603/Screen_Shot_2017_11_19_at_2.08.34_PM.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9716619/GettyImages_645016982.jpg)
e
Create your own map at 
Soldiers killed after Bergdahl left unit
Bergdahl’s five years in captivity
Bergdahl’s friend: I want to know why
Who is Bowe Bergdahl?
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018, Story 1: Investigate, Indict, Arrest, and Prosecute The Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspirators To Subvert Trump Presidency: Clinton, Obama, Jarrett, Rice, Rhodes, Power, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch, Yates, Carlin, Comey, McCabe, Preistap, Strzok, Page and Accomplices — Betrayed Their Oath of Office To Preserve, Protect and Defend The United States Constitution, The American People and Election Process — Videos — Story 2: Secret Surveillance Spying Security State (S5) Abolishes Fourth Amendment With National Security Agency and National Security Letters — Congress Does Nothing Fearing Secret Surveillance Spying Security State Disclosures By United States Intelligence Community (IC) — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Attacks MS-13 As Animals — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Defend MS -13 — All Humans Are Animals — MS-16 Members Are Violent Thugs — Videos
Posted on May 18, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, American History, Applications, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Communications, Computers, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Desertion, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Islam, Israel, James Comey, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Middle East, Mike Pence, Movies, National Interest, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religion, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Science, Security, Senator Jeff Sessions, Servers, Sexual Harrasment, Social Networking, Social Science, Software, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: 17 May 2018, Accomplices, America, Arrest, Articles, Audio, Betrayal of Oath of Office, Breaking News, Brennan, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, CIA, Citizenship, Clapper, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clinton, Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspirators, Collectivism, Comey, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Department of Justice (DOJ), DOJ, DOJ IG Draft Report Completed, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, How FBI's Russia probe began, Indict, Individualism, Jarrett, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Lynch, McCabe, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, MS-13 Gang, National Security Agency (NSA), News, Obama, Opinions, Page, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Power, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rhodes, Rice, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Secret Security Surveillance State (S4), Show Notes, Spied on Trump Campaign, Strzok, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1079, The United States Constitution, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States Intelligence Community (IC), United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom, Yates |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018
Story 1: Investigate, Indict, Arrest, and Prosecute The Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspirators To Subvert Trump Presidency: Clinton, Obama, Jarrett, Rice, Rhodes, Power, Clapper, Brennan, Holder, Lynch, Yates, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page and Accomplices — Betrayed Their Oath of Office To Preserve, Protect and Defend The United States Constitution, The American People and Election Process — Videos —
CIA Director Brennan set up Trump
FBI and DOJ in turmoil over handling of Clinton emails
Did John Brennan lie about the Trump-Russia dossier?
Brennan’s own people contradict his “galactically stupid” statements about the dossier
DiGenova: John Brennan should get a good lawyer
John Brennan: ‘A Lot The Public Doesn’t Know’ About Trump Tower Meeting | MTP Daily | MSNBC
Tucker Carlson & Kim Strassel Destroy Lies & Spies Of The Deep Dark State
Joe DiGenova – John Brennan Headed to Grand Jury, 2229
CONFIRMED!! Rosenstein is a SELL OUT, He’s UNDER a HUGE HEAT
FBI and DOJ in turmoil over handling of Clinton emails
DOJ watchdog completes draft report on Clinton probe
Corey Lewandowski on allegations Obama FBI spied on Trump campaign
Drive-By Media At DEFCON 1 Hysteria
DiGenova on Obama’s FBI Placing a Spy Inside Trump Campaign
Rush Limbaugh Podcast Thursday – May 17, 2018
NYT: Russia probe code name inspired by Rolling Stones song
The New York Times reports that FBI agents started an investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign called “Crossfire Hurricane” just 100 days before Election Day.
NYT: How FBI’s Russia probe began
FBI Kept 2016 Investigation Into President Donald Trump Campaign Secret | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Roger Stone Exposes The FBI Mole Inside Trump Campaign
More Details Emerge On Deep State Mole Secretly Spying on President Trump Campaign
BREAKING: New York Times CONFIRMS FBI Conducted SPY OPERATION On President Trump! SPREAD THIS!
Former acting CIA director on Russia hacking report, Trump’s reaction
BREAKING: EX-OBAMA CIA DIR. JUST WENT ROGUE, SAYS THE 1 THING OBAMA DIDN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW
#Trump Will Strike Down With Great Vengeance and Furious Anger Those Who Seek to Poison Our Republic
Why Mueller’s Witch Hunt Is Illegal, Unconstitutional and Crosses the Line
Trump: Report that Obama FBI spied on campaign could be ‘bigger than Watergate’
BY – 05/17/18 08:15 AM EDT
President Trump on Thursday touted a report saying the FBI under former President Obama spied on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential race, saying that the revelation could be “bigger than Watergate.”
“Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN IMBEDDED INFORMANT,'” the president tweeted in reference to a National Review report published last week.
“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”
The report alleges that Obama-led agencies used their surveillance powers to monitor the Trump campaign.
This is not the first time that the Obama administration has been accused of spying on the Trump campaign.
Last year, Trump accused the former president of wiretapping Trump Tower shortly before the 2016 election.
“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped,’ in Trump Tower just before victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” the president tweeted in March 2017.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer later walked back the president’s claim, saying he did not mean that Obama literally wiretapped Trump Tower.
“The president used the word ‘wiretap’ in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that,” Spicer said. “There is no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 elections.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/388101-trump-report-that-obama-fbi-spied-on-campaign-could-be-bigger-than
10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign
By Mollie Hemingway
The New York Times published an article yesterday confirming the United States’ intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.
Here are a few quick takeaways.
1. FBI Officials Admit They Spied On Trump Campaign
The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign. Whereas FBI officials and media enablers had previously downplayed claims that the Trump campaign had been surveiled, in this story we learn that it was more widespread than previously acknowledged:
This is a stunning admission for those Americans worried that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies might use their powers to surveil, leak against, and target Americans simply for their political views or affiliations. As Sean Davis wrote, “The most amazing aspect about this article is how blasé it is about the fact that the Obama admin was actively spying on four affiliates of a rival political campaign weeks before an election.”
The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would “only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.” It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.
2. Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report
People leak for a variety of reasons, including to inoculate themselves as much as they can. For example, only when the secret funders of Fusion GPS’s Russia-Trump-collusion dossier were about to be revealed was their identity leaked to friendly reporters in the Washington Post. In October of 2017 it was finally reported that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee secretly paid for the Russia dossier, hiding the arrangement by funneling the money through a law firm.
The friendly reporters at the Washington Postwrote the story gently, full of reassuring quotes to downplay its significance. The information only came about because House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes subpoenaed the bank records of Fusion GPS, over the objections of Democrats on the committee. Even in this Times story, Clinton’s secret funding was not mentioned.
Likewise, the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month. In fact, the Wall Street Journalreported that people mentioned in the report are beginning to get previews of what it alleges. It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.
By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it. Of note is the story’s claim that very few people even knew about the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, which means the leakers for this story come from a relatively small pool of people.
3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia
In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.
It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:
No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?
4. Four Trump Affiliates Spied On
Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.
Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.
5. Wiretaps, National Security Letters, and At Least One Spy
The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.:
This paragraph is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign — “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos” — before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.
Despite two years of investigation and surveillance, none of these men have been charged with anything even approaching treasonous collusion with Russia to steal a U.S. election.
6. More Leaks About a Top-Secret Government Informant
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently subpoenaed information from the FBI and Department of Justice. They did not publicly reveal what information they sought, but the Department of Justice responded by claiming that they were being extorted by congressional oversight. Then they leaked that they couldn’t share the information because it would jeopardize the life of a government informant. They also waged a public relations battle against HPSCI Chairman Nunes and committee staff.
But far from holding the information close to the vest, the government has repeatedly leaked information about this informant, and even that it was information about an informant that was being sought by Congress. From leaks of personally identifying information to the Washington Post, we’ve learned that this source works with the FBI and CIA, and is a U.S. citizen.
In The New York Times, additional information about a government informant leaked, including that the source met with Papadopoulos and Page to collect information. The information on an alleged source in the Trump campaign is so sensitive they can’t give it to Congress, but they can leak it to friendly press outlets like the Post and Times. It’s an odd posture for the Justice Department to take.
It is unknown at this point whether the informants were specifically sent by a U.S. agency or global partner, or whether the sources voluntarily provided information to the U.S. government.
7. Ignorance of Basic Facts
One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”
Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador. He describes the embassy where the meeting took place as the longest continually staffed embassy in London. The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.
It’s also inaccurate to say this was “election meddling,” necessarily. Clinton had deleted 30,000 emails that were housed on her private server even though she was being investigated for mishandling classified information. This could be viewed as destruction of evidence. She claimed the emails had to do with yoga.
FBI Director James Comey specifically downplayed for the public the bureau’s belief that foreign countries had access to these emails. There is no evidence that Russia or any other country had these emails, and they were not released during the campaign. To describe this legitimate national security threat as “election meddling” is insufficient to the very problem for which Clinton was being investigated.
The story claims, “News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Here’s an October 31, 2016, story headlined “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” It is sourced entirely to Steele. In September, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff took a meeting with Steele then published “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin” on September 23, 2016. That story was even used in the Foreign Intelligence Service Act application against Page.
The New York Times writes, “Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. ‘I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,’ Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.”
There are multiple problems with this claim. For one, Strzok wrote that text in all caps with obvious eagerness. As the Wall Street Journal noted months ago, “Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the ‘insurance’ text. ‘OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,’ he texted.”
For another, Strzok repeatedly talked about how important and time-sensitive he felt the investigation was. As Andrew McCarthy highlighted in his deep look at some of these texts, as Strzok prepared for his morning flight to London, he compared the investigations of Clinton and Trump by writing, “And damn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure that we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS.”
Another New York Times error was the claim, repeated twice, that Page “had previously been recruited by Russian spies.” In fact, while Russian agents had tried to recruit him, they failed to do so, and Page spoke at length with the FBI about the attempt before the agents were arrested or kicked out of the country.
The New York Times falsely reported that “Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them.” Comey has told multiple journalists that he specifically did not brief Trump on the Steele reports. He didn’t tell Trump there were reports, or who funded them. He didn’t tell him about the claims in the reports that the campaign was compromised. He only told him that there was a rumor Trump had paid prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed that the Obamas had once slept in.
The story also repeats long-debunked claims about the Republican platform and Ukraine.
8. Insurance: How Does It Work?
The story reminds readers that Strzok once texted Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” The article says Trump thought this “insurance policy” referred to a plan to respond to the unlikely event of a Trump victory. It goes on:
It’s worth asking whether reporters understand how insurance works. As reader Matt noted, “The fundament intent of Insurance is ‘Indemnification.’ Restoring back to original condition prior to loss. Trump was the peril, MSM the adjuster & his impeachment, the policy limits.”
The article’s repeated claims that the FBI didn’t think Trump would win do not counter the notion that an “insurance policy” investigation was in the extremely rare case he might win. People don’t insure their property against fire damage because they expect it to happen so much as they can’t afford to fix things if it does happen.
9. Eavesdropping, Not Spying, And Other Friendly Claims
The story could not be friendlier to the FBI sources who are admitting what they did against the Trump campaign. A few examples:
“[P]rosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page,” The New York Timeswrites, making the wiretapped spying on an American citizen sound almost downright pleasant. When Comey briefs Trump only on the rumor about the prostitutes and urination, we’re told “he feared making this conversation a ‘J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,’ with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.” Reporters don’t ask, much less answer, why someone fearing a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation would go out of his way to create an extreme caricature of a J. Edgar Hoover situation.
The story also claimed, “they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department,” before using controversial political appointee Sally Yates to claim that there was nothing worrisome. In fact, the subtext of the entire story is that the FBI showed good judgment in its handling of the spying in 2016. Unfortunately, the on-the-record source used to substantiate this claim is Yates.
Yates, who was in the news for claiming with a straight face that she thought Flynn had committed a Logan Act violation, is quoted as saying, “Folks are very, very careful and serious about that [FISA] process. I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.” If Yates, who had to be fired for refusing to do her job under Trump, tells you things are on the up and up, apparently you can take it to the bank.
10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence
This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.
Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation
By Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos
WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric “I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. Days after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her Republican rival. The two cases have become inextricably linked in one of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.
[Read our briefing on secret government code names]
This month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release the findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to publicly chastise Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.
Those decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.
Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.
Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.
Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.
The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.
In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.
Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.
But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.
The F.B.I. now faces those very criticisms and more. Mr. Trump says he is the victim of a politicized F.B.I. He says senior agents tried to rig the election by declining to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, then drummed up the Russia investigation to undermine his presidency. He has declared that a deeply rooted cabal — including his own appointees — is working against him.
That argument is the heart of Mr. Trump’s grievances with the federal investigation. In the face of bipartisan support for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump and his allies have made a priority of questioning how the investigation was conducted in late 2016 and trying to discredit it.
“It’s a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said last month on Fox News. “And they know that, and I’ve been able to message it.”
Congressional Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, have begun to dig into F.B.I. files, looking for evidence that could undermine the investigation. Much remains unknown and classified. But those who saw the investigation up close, and many of those who have reviewed case files in the past year, say that far from gunning for Mr. Trump, the F.B.I. could actually have done more in the final months of 2016 to scrutinize his campaign’s Russia ties.
“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national security prosecutor during much of the investigation’s first nine months.
Crossfire Hurricane spawned a case that has brought charges against former Trump campaign officials and more than a dozen Russians. But in the final months of 2016, agents faced great uncertainty — about the facts, and how to respond.
Anxiety at the Bureau
Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.
The mood in early meetings was anxious, former officials recalled. Agents had just closed the Clinton investigation, and they braced for months of Republican-led hearings over why she was not charged. Crossfire Hurricane was built around the same core of agents and analysts who had investigated Mrs. Clinton. None was eager to re-enter presidential politics, former officials said, especially when agents did not know what would come of the Australian information.
The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?
The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. Each was scrutinized because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.
[Here are the key themes, dates and characters in the Russia investigation]
Mr. Flynn, a top adviser, was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Manafort, the campaign chairman, had lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.
Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, was well known to the F.B.I. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.
Lastly, there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls, that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr. Papadopoulos to a Russian intelligence operation.
Mr. Trump was not under investigation, but his actions perplexed the agents. Days after the stolen Democratic emails became public, he called on Russia to uncover more. Then news broke that Mr. Trump’s campaign had pushed to change the Republican platform’s stance on Ukraine in ways favorable to Russia.
The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three officials said.
Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.
“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”
Abounding Criticism
Looking back, some inside the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say that Mr. Comey should have seen the political storm coming and better sheltered the bureau. They question why he consolidated the Clinton and Trump investigations at headquarters, rather than in a field office. And they say he should not have relied on the same team for both cases. That put a bull’s-eye on the heart of the F.B.I. Any misstep in either investigation made both cases, and the entire bureau, vulnerable to criticism.
And there were missteps. Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty about his conversations with reporters about Mrs. Clinton. That gave ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted. And Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. lawyer, exchanged texts criticizing Mr. Trump, allowing the president to point to evidence of bias when they became public.
The messages were unsparing. They questioned Mr. Trump’s intelligence, believed he promoted intolerance and feared he would damage the bureau.
The inspector general’s upcoming report is expected to criticize those messages for giving the appearance of bias. It is not clear, however, whether inspectors found evidence supporting Mr. Trump’s assertion that agents tried to protect Mrs. Clinton, a claim the F.B.I. has adamantly denied.
Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I. wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those agents,” Mr. Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve seen no evidence of it.”
Mr. Trump’s daily Twitter posts, though, offer sound-bite-sized accusations — witch hunt, hoax, deep state, rigged system — that fan the flames of conspiracy. Capitol Hill allies reliably echo those comments.
“It’s like the deep state all got together to try to orchestrate a palace coup,” Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said in January on Fox Business Network.
Cautious Intelligence Gathering
Counterintelligence investigations can take years, but if the Russian government had influence over the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. wanted to know quickly. One option was the most direct: interview the campaign officials about their Russian contacts.
That was discussed but not acted on, two former officials said, because interviewing witnesses or subpoenaing documents might thrust the investigation into public view, exactly what F.B.I. officials were trying to avoid during the heat of the presidential race.
“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general, said in an interview. She would not discuss details, but added, “Folks were very careful to make sure that actions that were being taken in connection with that investigation did not become public.”
Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make.
Top officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made agents even more cautious.
The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
Looking back, some at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. now believe that agents could have been more aggressive. They ultimately interviewed Mr. Papadopoulos in January 2017 and managed to keep it a secret, suggesting they could have done so much earlier.
“There is always a high degree of caution before taking overt steps in a counterintelligence investigation,” said Ms. McCord, who would not discuss details of the case. “And that could have worked to the president’s benefit here.”
Such tactical discussions are reflected in one of Mr. Strzok’s most controversial texts, sent on Aug. 15, 2016, after a meeting in Mr. McCabe’s office.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected,” Mr. Strzok wrote, “but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Mr. Trump says that message revealed a secret F.B.I. plan to respond to his election. “‘We’ll go to Phase 2 and we’ll get this guy out of office,’” he told The Wall Street Journal. “This is the F.B.I. we’re talking about — that is treason.”
But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.
Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.
Mr. Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials. He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.
In both cases, his argument lost.
Policy and Tradition
The F.B.I. bureaucracy did agents no favors. In July, a retired British spy named Christopher Steele approached a friend in the F.B.I. overseas and provided reports linking Trump campaign officials to Russia. But the documents meandered around the F.B.I. organizational chart, former officials said. Only in mid-September, congressional investigators say, did the records reach the Crossfire Hurricane team.
Mr. Steele was gathering information about Mr. Trump as a private investigator for Fusion GPS, a firm paid by Democrats. But he was also considered highly credible, having helped agents unravel complicated cases.
In October, agents flew to Europe to interview him. But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.
So as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the election.
That did not happen. Most news organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.
Congress was also increasingly asking questions. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, had briefed top lawmakers that summer about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow supported the Trump campaign — a finding that would not become public for months. Lawmakers clamored for information from Mr. Comey, who refused to answer public questions.
Many Democrats see rueful irony in this moment. Mr. Comey, after all, broke with policy and twice publicly discussed the Clinton investigation. Yet he refused repeated requests to discuss the Trump investigation.
Mr. Comey has said he regrets his decision to chastise Mrs. Clinton as “extremely careless,” even as he announced that she should not be charged. But he stands by his decision to alert Congress, days before the election, that the F.B.I. was reopening the Clinton inquiry.
The result, though, is that Mr. Comey broke with both policy and tradition in Mrs. Clinton’s case, but hewed closely to the rules for Mr. Trump. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that alone proves Mr. Trump’s claims of unfairness to be “both deeply at odds with the facts, and damaging to our democracy.”
Spying in Question
Crossfire Hurricane began with a focus on four campaign officials. But by mid-fall 2016, Mr. Page’s inquiry had progressed the furthest. Agents had known Mr. Page for years. Russian spies tried to recruit him in 2013, and he was dismissive when agents warned him about it, a half-dozen current and former officials said. That warning even made its way back to Russian intelligence, leaving agents suspecting that Mr. Page had reported their efforts to Moscow.
Relying on F.B.I. information and Mr. Steele’s, prosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign.
That warrant has become deeply contentious and is crucial to Republican arguments that intelligence agencies improperly used Democratic research to help justify spying on the Trump campaign. The inspector general is reviewing that claim.
Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general under President Barack Obama, signed the first warrant application. But subsequent filings were approved by members of Mr. Trump’s own administration: the acting attorney general, Dana J. Boente, and then Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
“Folks are very, very careful and serious about that process,” Ms. Yates said. “I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.”
After months of investigation, Mr. Papadopoulos remained largely a puzzle. And agents were nearly ready to close their investigation of Mr. Flynn, according to three current and former officials. (Mr. Flynn rekindled the F.B.I.’s interest in November 2016 by signing an op-ed article that appeared to be written on behalf of the Turkish government, and then making phone calls to the Russian ambassador that December.)
In late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.
A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.
Democrats say that article pre-emptively exonerated Mr. Trump, dousing chances to raise questions about the campaign’s Russian ties before Election Day.
Just as the F.B.I. has been criticized for its handling of the Trump investigation, so too has The Times.
For Mr. Steele, it dashed his confidence in American law enforcement. “He didn’t know what was happening inside the F.B.I.,” Glenn R. Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, testified this year. “And there was a concern that the F.B.I. was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people.”
Assurances Amid Doubt
Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence officials briefed him at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Russian hacking and deception. They reported that Mr. Putin had tried to sow chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.
Then Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them. Mr. Comey has said he feared making this conversation a “J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,” with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.
In a contemporaneous memo, Mr. Comey wrote that he assured Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. intended to protect him on this point. “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Mr. Comey wrote of Mr. Steele’s documents. “I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the F.B.I. had the material.”
Mr. Trump was not convinced — either by the Russia briefing or by Mr. Comey’s assurances. He made up his mind before Mr. Comey even walked in the door. Hours earlier, Mr. Trump told The Times that stories about Russian election interference were being pushed by his adversaries to distract from his victory.
And he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: “This is a political witch hunt.”
Correction:
Reporting was contributed by Michael S. Schmidt, Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matthew Rosenberg.
Follow Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos on Twitter: @adamgoldmanNYT and @npfandos.
The Russia Investigation Is Complicated. Here’s What It All Means.
The special counsel is investigating events that span years and cross international borders.
By Mikayla Bouchard
THE BASICS
Russia carried out a campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 American presidential election, denigrating Hillary Clinton and boosting Donald J. Trump, according to American intelligence agencies. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally ordered it.
The F.B.I., citing four Trump campaign aides’ ties to Russia, opened a counterintelligence investigation in the summer of 2016 to determine whether Trump associates aided Russia’s election interference.
Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director, was appointed the special counsel in May 2017 to take over the investigation. The inquiry has expanded to examine whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation itself.
Nineteen people — including four Trump associates — and three companies have been indicted in the case. Five have pleaded guilty; 13 are Russians accused of meddling in the election. [See a breakdown of the charges here.]
THE MAJOR FOCUSES OF THE INVESTIGATION
Interference
Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the presidential race and sow discord by spreading inflammatory messages on social media and stealing emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman and the Democratic National Committee, which were then strategically released to undermine the Clinton campaign.
Coordination
Investigators are examining what Mr. Trump’s aides and associates knew about Russia’s meddling, particularly the release of thousands of stolen Democratic emails, and whether any of them aided Moscow’s effort.
Obstruction
Mr. Mueller is investigating an array of the president’s actions — including the firing of the former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey — to determine whether Mr. Trump sought to impede the investigation into Russia’s actions.
Foreign Influence
Mr. Mueller is investigating whether Trump associates ran afoul of American lobbying or anti-corruption laws. Two aides to the Trump campaign, including its onetime chairman, were charged with financial crimes related to their work as advisers to a pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/russia-investigation-guide.html
National security letter
hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes.[citation needed] NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge. The Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Right to Financial Privacy Act authorize the United States government to seek such information that is “relevant” to authorized national security investigations. By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.[1]
NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement forbidding the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information.[2] The nondisclosure provision must be authorized by the Director of the FBI, and only after he or she certifies “that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person.”[3] Even then, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[4]
The constitutionality of such nondisclosure provisions has been repeatedly challenged. The requirement was initially ruled to be unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech in the Doe v. Gonzales case, but that decision was later vacated in 2008 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after it held the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act gave the recipient of an NSL that included a nondisclosure provision the right to challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court. In March 2013, a judge in the Northern District of California held the nondisclosure provision in an NSL was unconstitutional. But on August 24, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court held the “NSLs were issued in full compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements suggested by the Second Circuit in John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), which had held that the 2006 NSL law could be constitutionally applied” … and “the NSL law, as amended [by the USA FREEDOM ACT of 2015], was constitutional.” The two petitioners then appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling, holding that NSLs are constitutional, and stated, “the nondisclosure requirement does not run afoul of the First Amendment.” Under Seal v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, Nos. 16-16067, 16-16081, and 16-16082, July 17, 2017.
History
The oldest NSL provisions were created in 1978 as a little-used investigative tool in terrorism and espionage investigations to obtain financial records. Under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), part of the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978), the FBI could obtain the records only if the FBI could first demonstrate the person was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Compliance by the recipient of the NSL was voluntary, and states’ consumer privacy laws often allowed financial institutions to reject the requests.[5] In 1986, Congress amended RFPA to allow the government to request disclosure of the requested information. In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), part of the Stored Communications Act), which created provisions similar to the RFPA that allowed the FBI to issue NSLs. Still, neither RFPA or ECPA act included penalties for not complying with the NSL. A 1993 amendment removed the restriction regarding “foreign powers” and allowed the use of NSLs to request information concerning persons who are not the direct subject of the investigation.
In 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the use of the NSLs. In March 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act allowed for judicial review of an NSL. A federal judge could repeal or modify an NSL if the court found the request for information was “unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.” The nondisclosure provision the government could include in an NSL was also weakened. The court could repeal the nondisclosure provision if it found it had been made in bad faith. Other amendments allowed the recipient of an NSL to inform their attorney about the request and the government had to rely on the courts to enforce compliance with an NSL.
Patriot Act
Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act (2001) allowed the use of the NSLs when seeking information “relevant” in authorized national security investigations to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act also provided the Department of Defense when conducting a law enforcement investigation, counterintelligence inquiry, or security determination. The Central Intelligence Agency has also allegedly issued NSLs.[6] The Patriot Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added potential penalties for failure to comply with an NSL or disclosing an NSL if the NSL included a nondisclosure provision.
Contentious aspects
Two contentious aspects of NSLs are the nondisclosure provision and judicial oversight when the FBI issues an NSL. When the Director of the FBI (or his designee) authorizes the inclusion of a nondisclosure provision in an NSL, the recipient may face criminal prosecution if it reveals the contents of the NSL or that it was received. The purpose of a nondisclosure provision is to prevent the recipient of an NSL from compromising both the current FBI investigation involving a specific person and future investigations as well (see 18 U.S.C. 2709), which could fetter the Government’s efforts to address national security threats.[7] An NSL recipient (later revealed to be Nicholas Merrill[8][9]) writing in The Washington Post said,
Like other administrative subpoenas, NSLs do not require judicial approval. For NSLs, that is because the U.S. Supreme Court has held the types of information the FBI obtains with NSLs provide no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Because a person has already provided the information to a third party, e.g., their telephone company, they no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the information, and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment requirement to obtain a judge’s approval to obtain the information.[10] Nonetheless, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[11]
The media reported in 2007 that a government audit found the FBI had violated the rules more than 1,000 times in an audit of 10% of its national investigations between 2002 and 2007.[12] Twenty such incidents involved requests by agents for information not permitted under the law. A subsequent report in 2014 by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General concluded the FBI had corrected its practices and that NSLs complied federal statutes.
According to 2,500 pages of documents the FBI provided to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the FBI had used NSLs to obtain information about individuals who were the subject of an FBI terrorism or counterintelligence investigation and information from telecommunications companies about individuals with whom the subject of the investigation had communicated. According to a September 9, 2007, New York Times report,
In April 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that the military was using the FBI to skirt legal restrictions on domestic surveillance to obtain private records of Americans’ Internet service providers, financial institutions, and telephone companies. The ACLU based its allegation on a review of more than 1,000 documents provided by the Defense Department. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General later determined the Department of Defense (not the FBI) had lawfully obtained the information under the National Security Act of 1947, not through NSLs.
Doe v. Ashcroft
Letter in Doe v. Ashcroft case
The lack of judicial oversight and the Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Maryland was the core of Doe v. Ashcroft, a test case brought by the ACLU concerning the use of NSLs. The lawsuit was file on behalf of “John Doe” plaintiff Nicholas Merrill, founder of Calyx Internet Access,[14] who had received an NSL. The action challenged the constitutionality of NSLs, specifically the nondisclosure provision. At the district court, Judge of the Southern District of New York held in September 2004 that NSLs violated the Fourth Amendment (“it has the effect of authorizing coercive searches effectively immune from any judicial process”) and First Amendment. However, Judge Marrero stayed his ruling while the case proceeded to the court of appeals.
Because of the New York district court ruling, while the case was still on appeal, Congress amended the USA PATRIOT Act to provide for more judicial review of NSLs and clarified the NSL nondisclosure provision.[15] Based on the U.S. Supreme Court rulings, there is still no requirement to seek judicial approval for the FBI issuing an NSL.
The government appealed Judge Marrero’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in May 2006. In March 2008, the Second Circuit ruled that nondisclosure provisions were permissible only when the FBI certified that disclosure may result in certain statutorily enumerated harms (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2709), and held the nondisclosure provision to a strict scrutiny standard. The Second Circuit then returned the case to the district court based on amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act that Congress had enacted while the case had been on appeal.
Letter in the Doe v. Gonzales case
Another effect of Doe v. Ashcroft was increased congressional oversight. The amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act mentioned above included requirements for semiannual reporting to Congress. Although the reports are classified, a nonclassified accounting of how many NSLs are issued is also required. On April 28, 2006, the Department of Justice reported to the House and Senate that in calendar year 2005, “The Government made requests for certain information concerning 3,501 United States persons pursuant to NSLs. During this period, the total number of NSL requests … for information concerning U.S. persons totaled 9,254.”[16]
In 2010, the FBI agreed to lift partially the nondisclosure provision to allow Merrill to reveal his identity.[17] Merrill has since created a corporation for the purposes of educating and researching privacy issues.[18]
On August 28, 2015, Judge Marrero rescinded the nondisclosure provision associated with the NSL Merrill had received, thereby allowing him to speak about the contents of the NSL. On November 30, 2015, the unredacted court ruling was published in full.[19]
See also
References
|url=value (help). The New York Times.External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
Indictment
An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt) is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment.
Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a “true bill” if it found cause to make the charge, or “no bill” if it did not find cause.
Indictments by country
India
The criminal law in India[1] is derived from the colonial-era British system, does not use a jury system and is codified in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Criminal offenses are divided into two broad categories: cognisable offenses and non-cognisable offenses. The police are empowered to start investigating a cognisable offense. The complaint is considered merely an accusation. However, in both cognisable and non-cognisable offenses, the trial starts only with the “Framing of Charges” similar to the concept of indictment. The trial court does not proceed with the trial if the evidence is insufficient to make out a charge.
United Kingdom
England and Wales
In England and Wales (except in private prosecutions by individuals) an indictment is issued by the public prosecutor (in most cases this will be the Crown Prosecution Service) on behalf of the Crown, which is the nominal plaintiff in all public prosecutions under English law. This is why a public prosecution of a person whose surname is Smith would be referred to in writing as “R v Smith” (or alternatively as “Regina v Smith” or “Rex v Smith” depending on the gender of the Sovereign, Regina and Rex being Latin for “Queen” and “King” and in either case may informally be pronounced as such) and when cited orally in court would be pronounced “the Crown against Smith”.[2][3]
All proceedings on indictment must be brought before the Crown Court.[4] By virtue of practice directions issued under section 75(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, an indictment must be tried by a High Court judge, a Circuit judge or a recorder (which of these it is depends on the offence).
As to the form of an indictment, see the Indictments Act 1915 and the Indictment Rules 1971 made thereunder.
The Indictment Rules 1971 were revoked by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2007[5] (on the whole) incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.[6] The form and content and the service of an indictment are governed by Rule 14 of the CPR 2012.[7]Additional guidance is contained in the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction Part IV.34.[8]
As to the preferring of a bill of indictment and the signing of an indictment, see section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (S.I. 1971/2084) made thereunder, as amended and modified by the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1988 (S.I. 1988/1783), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1992 (S.I. 1992/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1997 (S.I. 1997/711), the Indictments (Procedure) (Modification) Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3045) and the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000/3360).
Northern Ireland[
See the Indictments Act (Northern Ireland) 1945.[9]
Scotland
In Scotland, all of these cases brought in the High Court of Justiciary are brought in the name of the Lord Advocate and will be tried on Indictment. In the Sheriff Court where trials proceed using the Solemn procedure they will also be tried on indictment and are brought in the name of the Procurator Fiscal.
United States
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger”. The requirement of an indictment has not been incorporated against the states; therefore, although the federal government uses grand juries and indictments, not all U.S. states do.[10]
In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment. To protect the suspect’s due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect’s interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial.
The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of where, when, and how the defendant allegedly committed the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate count. Indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, may run to hundreds of pages. However, in other cases an indictment for a crime as serious as murder, may consist of a single sheet of paper.
Indictable offenses are normally tried by jury, unless the accused waives the right to a jury trial. Although the Sixth Amendment mandates the right to a jury trial in any criminal prosecution, the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by the plea-bargaining process.
Direct indictment (Canada)
A direct indictment is one in which the case is sent directly to trial before a preliminary inquiry is completed or when the accused has been discharged by a preliminary inquiry.[11][12] It is meant to be an extraordinary, rarely used power to ensure that those who should be brought to trial are in a timely manner or where an error of judgment is seen to have been made in the preliminary inquiry.[13]
Sealed indictment
An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.[14]
See also
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment
Did the FBI Have a Spy in the Trump Campaign?
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
The Steele-dossier author told Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson about a ‘human source.’Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele told him the FBI had a “human source” — i.e., a spy — inside the Trump campaign as the 2016 presidential race headed into its stretch run.
When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, “mischaracterized” what he’d been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign.
Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI’s human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. The latter date is significant for reasons we’ll come to.
A Spy and a Stonewall
Simpson’s testimony on this point is worth revisiting because of a pitched battle between the House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department. Essential reporting on the controversy has been done by the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel (see here and here). On Thursday, she related that, yet again, Congress had faced down a DOJ/FBI attempt to stonewall the committee’s probe of investigative irregularities during the 2016 election season — particularly, abuse of government surveillance powers, which the Obama-led agencies used to monitor the Trump campaign.
Unable to get voluntary cooperation, committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) issued a subpoena demanding that the Justice Department disclose information about a top-secret intelligence source who is said to have assisted the Russia investigation. That investigation is now being run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But more interesting is how it got started.
On that question, officials have been suspiciously fuzzy in their explanations, and hilariously inconsistent in their leaks: initially settling on an origination story that hinged on the Steele dossier and a trip to Moscow by the obscure Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page; later pivoting to a tale of boozy blathering by an even more obscure Trump-campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, when the first story proved embarrassing — the dossier allegations having been unverified when the Justice Department included them in warrant applications to the FISA court.
The Justice Department’s inability, or at least unwillingness, to reveal exactly how, when, and why the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation has fueled suspicions that a spy who worked for both the FBI and the CIA was deployed against the Trump campaign, probably in Britain — where Papadopoulos had met with suspected agents of the Kremlin, and where Steele compiled the dossier via reports from his unidentified sources.
From painstaking research, Nunes and committee staff believe they have identified such a spy. When they demanded information about this person — whose name remains unknown to the public — the Justice Department’s response was not “No, you’re wrong, there was no spying.” It was first to bloviate that the department would not be “extorted” (Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s unusual understanding of what is more commonly known as congressional oversight) and then to claim that providing the information sought by the committee would risk “potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities.”
By now, Nunes has learned that if he is catching flak, he is over the target.
Simpson’s Senate Testimony about the FBI’s ‘Human Source’
This brings us back to Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, which was retained by the Clinton campaign (through its lawyers at Perkins Coie) to generate the Steele dossier, opposition research that focused on Donald Trump and Russia.
In his Senate testimony on August 22, 2017, Simpson explained that Steele had met with at least one FBI agent in Rome in mid to late September 2016. The former British spy had provided the unverified allegations he had compiled to that point (i.e., his private “intelligence reports,” later assembled into the “dossier”). Steele had developed a close working relationship with the FBI when he was a British agent. It is not surprising, then, that the Bureau did not just take his information; it reciprocated, imparting some sensitive information to him. Simpson explained to the Senate committee (my italics):
Simpson declined to answer more questions about this unidentified “human source.” But when the media treated his revelation as a bombshell, he realized it would cause a feeding frenzy: Congress, the media, and the public would demand to know what would cause the FBI, in the stretch run of a presidential race, to use an informant against one candidate’s campaign.
On a dime, Simpson backpedaled. Fusion GPS explained to friendly media that he believed he had “mischaracterized” the source. He must have been talking about George Papadopoulos — not a “human source” in the sense of willing informant or spy, but a person attached to the campaign whose statements to an Australian diplomat had been passed to the FBI (through channels that, we shall see, have still not been explained).
On further review, I don’t buy this explanation (although I uncritically accepted it in a column about Simpson’s testimony early this year).
The Timing Doesn’t Compute
Simpson’s testimony was released to the public on January 9, 2018. That was just a few days after the New York Times had published its big New Year’s weekend story claiming, based on anonymous intelligence officials, that the Russia investigation had been opened sometime in July 2016. The catalyzing event, we were told, was a report to the FBI that Papadopoulos, a young Trump-campaign adviser, had alleged that Russia possessed thousands of stolen Hillary Clinton emails. According to the story, Papadopoulos had been informed of this by Joseph Mifsud, a London-based academic who professed to have Kremlin connections. A few weeks later, while drinking in a London bar in May 2016, Papadopoulos blabbed the news to Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat.
According to the Times, when hacked Democratic National Committee emails started being published in July 2016, Australian officials surmised that this development could be related to Papadopoulos’s boozy claim; therefore, the paper suggests, they routed the information to their American counterparts. But when we peruse the story, we find that the Times is drawing an inference that the FBI must have gotten the information from the Australian government; there is no solid confirmation that this happened. Indeed, the story evinces bewilderment that two months supposedly elapsed between the Papadopoulos–Downer meeting and the FBI’s learning about it. There is no attempt to describe how this assumed transmission occurred, and the Aussies refused to comment on the matter.
Though the Papadopoulos–Downer story is rickety, it nevertheless served Simpson’s purpose of backing away from his “human source” testimony. Alas, his story does not add up, either.
To repeat, while Simpson’s testimony became public in January 2018, he actually gave the testimony five months earlier, in August 2017. Papadopoulos’s name is not uttered in the 312-page transcript, just as it goes unmentioned in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos was virtually unheard of until October 30, 2017, when Special Counsel Mueller announced his guilty plea and filed a factual recitation of his offense conduct. Two weeks after that information became public, Simpson was asked about Papadopoulos in a fleeting exchange during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee (see November 14, 2017, transcript, page 163.) Interestingly, the subject came up in the context of Trump-related research Simpson had done separate and apart from his collaboration with Steele. Simpson claimed that he had been looking at Papadopoulos “for a while” and regarded him as “a clone of Carter Page”; but he admitted that he actually knew nothing significant about Papadopoulos beyond what Mueller had included in the information filed in court at the time of the guilty plea.
The information Mueller had filed in October said nothing about either Papadopoulos’s meeting with Downer or the subsequent purported transmission of Papadopoulos’s claims from Australian authorities to the FBI. That story did not come out until the Times article on December 30.
Only after that, and in the uproar over the January 9 release of Simpson’s five-month-old Senate testimony, did Fusion suggest that Simpson must have been referring to Downer, the Australian diplomat, when he told the Senate that the FBI had a “human source” inside the Trump campaign. That, however, is not credible. When Simpson gave the “human source” testimony in August 2017, there is no indication that he knew anything about Downer. Even if we buy his House testimony in November that he had heard of Papadopoulos before the latter’s October plea, Simpson conceded then that he knew nothing more than what Mueller had disclosed — which did not include the Papadopoulos–Downer meeting and the communication of it to the FBI.
Simpson is a smart guy, an accomplished investigative journalist, and now a full-time professional researcher, whose attention to detail is impressive. Steele is an experienced intelligence officer. The two are longtime friends and collaborators who understand each other well. Informants are central to both of their professions. By their telling, Steele’s decision to bring their research to the FBI and his subsequent dealings with the Bureau were a matter of extensive discussion and great concern.
Consequently, I do not believe that Steele gave his friend Simpson a cryptic account of his meeting in Rome with the FBI; nor do I believe that Simpson got confused and “mischaracterized” what he was told. When Simpson testified that Steele told him the FBI had a human source, I think Simpson meant exactly what that testimony implied: that someone from the FBI told Steele in August 2016 — while the investigation was heating up, while the FBI was ramping up its efforts in preparation for seeking surveillance warrants from the FISA court — that the Bureau had an informant.
A Human Source . . . in Britain, Not Australia
Three other things to consider:
1. For months, the House Intelligence Committee sought disclosure of the “electronic communication” (EC) by which the FBI opened its counterintelligence-investigation file on Papadopoulos, reportedly in July 2016. Counterintelligence involves national-security powers, and it is a weighty matter to apply these powers — as opposed to criminal-investigative authorities — to American citizens. The committee therefore wanted to know what foreign intelligence had spurred the probe, particularly in light of intelligence leaks that an Australian government report about Papadopoulos was the cause.
Yet, when Nunes was finally allowed to look at the EC, only after threatening contempt proceedings against Justice Department officials, he learned that the FBI did not set forth any foreign intelligence — there was no Australian report, no “Five Eyes intelligence product” at all, Nunes told Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.
If the FBI was not explicitly relying on intelligence from a foreign ally, on what was it relying to open a counterintelligence investigation focusing on an American political campaign? According to what the New York Times reported in April 2017, “current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials” said the investigation was triggered by Carter Page’s trip to Moscow. That would implicate the Clinton-campaign-generated Steele dossier, which claimed that Page’s trip furthered a Trump–Russia conspiracy. I’ve detailed how, as reliance on the unverified dossier has become more controversial, the media and intelligence agencies have tried to minimize its importance to the opening of the investigation.
Did the dossier instigate not only FISA surveillance but human spying against the Trump campaign?
2. As Larry O’Connor has recounted in the Washington Times, Obama’s former CIA director John Brennan was asked, by NBC’s Chuck Todd, whether the FBI’s investigation was triggered by intelligence from the Five Eyes (i.e., the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — five Anglosphere governments that have longstanding, unusually close intelligence-sharing arrangements). Brennan would not answer the question directly, but he emphasized U.S. ties not with Australia but with Britain:
Sounds like the FBI, with support from the CIA, had some cooperative intelligence venture with British authorities that enabled the Bureau to monitor Trump-campaign figures. That is significant because Papadopoulos has acknowledged meeting in Britain with people who claimed Kremlin ties and who told him Russia had thousands of Clinton’s emails. Did the FBI’s British operation involve using a spy to interact with Trump-campaign figures, such as Papadopoulos, on British soil? Brennan didn’t say.
3. In December 2017, McCabe testified in a closed hearing before the House Intelligence Committee. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported that McCabe “said on more than one occasion that the FBI had worked hard to verify the dossier, telling lawmakers that the FBI had at one point sent investigators to London as part of that effort” (emphasis added).
Did the FBI’s work to verify the dossier in London involve a human source? Did it involve other human sources in other places?
Christopher Steele, the former British spy with extensive British intelligence and FBI connections, told his friend Glenn Simpson that the FBI had penetrated the Trump campaign with a “human source” who was helping corroborate the dossier. There seems to be more corroboration for this assertion than for the sensational allegations in Steele’s dossier.
Story 2: Secret Surveillance Spying Security State (S5) Abolishes Fourth Amendment With National Security Agency and National Security Letters — Congress Does Nothing Fearing Secret Surveillance Spying Security State Disclosures By United States Intelligence Community (IC) — Videos
America’s intelligence community, explained
History… The Origins of the U.S. Intelligence Community & Why It Spies on Americans
NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM
History… Interview with G. Edward Griffin “The Individual vs. The Collective”
Tragedy and Hope: Professor Carroll Quigley and the “Article that Said Too Little” by Kevin Cole
Carroll Quigley on Tragedy And Hope
The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture
‘Russian election hack impossible’: NSA veteran & whistleblower
Tom Drake — Full Interview
NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake speaks at National Press Club 15, 2017 – The Best Documentary Ever
Tom Drake: US Largest Surveillance State in History (FULL)
NSA Whistleblower – Jesselyn Radack & Thomas Drake | London Real
President Obama’s Full NSA Speech
President Obama Defends N.S.A. Surveillance Programs | The New York Times
National Geographic Inside the NSA America’s Cyber Secrets
United States Intelligence Community
The United States Intelligence Community (IC)[1] is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which itself is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.
Among their varied responsibilities, the members of the Community collect and produce foreign and domestic intelligence, contribute to military planning, and perform espionage. The IC was established by Executive Order 12333, signed on December 4, 1981, by U.S. President Ronald Reagan.[2]
The Washington Post reported in 2010 that there were 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies in 10,000 locations in the United States that were working on counterterrorism, homeland security, and intelligence, and that the intelligence community as a whole includes 854,000 people holding top-secret clearances.[3] According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the U.S. intelligence community and account for 49% of their personnel budgets.[4]
Etymology
The term “Intelligence Community” was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith‘s tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History[
Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and distribute in response to government leaders’ questions and requirements. Intelligence is a broad term that entails:
Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]
Organization
Members
The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
Programs
The IC performs under two separate programs:
Since the definitions of the NIP and MIP overlap when they address military intelligence, assignment of intelligence activities to the NIP and MIP sometimes proves problematic.
Organizational structure and leadership
The overall organization of the IC is primarily governed by the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended) and Executive Order 12333. The statutory organizational relationships were substantially revised with the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) amendments to the 1947 National Security Act.
Though the IC characterizes itself as a federation of its member elements, its overall structure is better characterized as a confederation due to its lack of a well-defined, unified leadership and governance structure. Prior to 2004, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was the head of the IC, in addition to being the director of the CIA. A major criticism of this arrangement was that the DCI had little or no actual authority over the budgetary authorities of the other IC agencies and therefore had limited influence over their operations.
Following the passage of IRTPA in 2004, the head of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The DNI exerts leadership of the IC primarily through statutory authorities under which he or she:
However, the DNI has no authority to direct and control any element of the IC except his own staff—the Office of the DNI—neither does the DNI have the authority to hire or fire personnel in the IC except those on his own staff. The member elements in the executive branch are directed and controlled by their respective department heads, all cabinet-level officials reporting to the President. By law, only the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency reports to the DNI.
In light of major intelligence failures in recent years that called into question how well Intelligence Community ensures U.S. national security, particularly those identified by the 9/11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and the “WMD Commission” (Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction), the authorities and powers of the DNI and the overall organizational structure of the IC have become subject of intense debate in the United States.
Interagency cooperation
Previously, interagency cooperation and the flow of information among the member agencies was hindered by policies that sought to limit the pooling of information out of privacy and security concerns. Attempts to modernize and facilitate interagency cooperation within the IC include technological, structural, procedural, and cultural dimensions. Examples include the Intellipedia wiki of encyclopedic security-related information; the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Intelligence Centers, Program Manager Information Sharing Environment, and Information Sharing Council; legal and policy frameworks set by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, information sharing Executive Orders 13354 and Executive Order 13388, and the 2005 National Intelligence Strategy.
Budget[edit]
Data visualization of U.S. intelligence black budget (2013)
The U.S. intelligence budget (excluding the Military Intelligence Program) in fiscal year 2013 was appropriated as $52.7 billion, and reduced by the amount sequestered to $49.0 billion.[9] In fiscal year 2012 it peaked at $53.9 billion, according to a disclosure required under a recent law implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.[10] The 2012 figure was up from $53.1 billion in 2010,[11] $49.8 billion in 2009,[12] $47.5 billion in 2008,[13] $43.5 billion in 2007,[14] and $40.9 billion in 2006.[15]
About 70 percent of the intelligence budget went to contractors for the procurement of technology and services (including analysis), according to the May 2007 chart from the ODNI. Intelligence spending has increased by a third over ten years ago, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.[citation needed]
In a statement on the release of new declassified figures, DNI Mike McConnell said[when?] there would be no additional disclosures of classified budget information beyond the overall spending figure because “such disclosures could harm national security”. How the money is divided among the 16 intelligence agencies and what it is spent on is classified. It includes salaries for about 100,000 people, multibillion-dollar satellite programs, aircraft, weapons, electronic sensors, intelligence analysis, spies, computers, and software.
On August 29, 2013 the Washington Post published the summary of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s multivolume FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, the U.S. intelligence community’s top-secret “black budget.”[16][17][18] The IC’s FY 2013 budget details, how the 16 spy agencies use the money and how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress. Experts said that access to such details about U.S. spy programs is without precedent. Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists, which provides analyses of national security issues stated that “It was a titanic struggle just to get the top-line budget number disclosed, and that has only been done consistently since 2007 … but a real grasp of the structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy has been totally beyond public reach. This kind of material, even on a historical basis, has simply not been available.”[19] Access to budget details will enable an informed public debate on intelligence spending for the first time said the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission Lee H. Hamilton. He added that Americans should not be excluded from the budget process because the intelligence community has a profound impact on the life of ordinary Americans.[19]
Oversight
Intelligence Community Oversight duties are distributed to both the Executive and Legislative branches. Primary Executive oversight is performed by the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Joint Intelligence Community Council, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Management and Budget. Primary congressional oversight jurisdiction over the IC is assigned to two committees: the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee draft bills to annually authorize the budgets of DoD intelligence activities, and both the House and Senate appropriations committees annually draft bills to appropriate the budgets of the IC. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs took a leading role in formulating the intelligence reform legislation in the 108th Congress.
See also
References
Further reading
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
he Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)
50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-11, 1821-29, 1841-46, 1861-62, 1871.
Background. Like Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act“), the FISA legislation was the result of congressional investigations into Federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security. Through FISA, Congress sought to provide judicial and congressional oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance activities while maintaining the secrecy necessary to effectively monitor national security threats. FISA was initially enacted in 1978 and sets out procedures for physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information. Initially, FISA addressed only electronic surveillance but has been significantly amended to address the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, physical searches, and business records.
FISA also established the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a special U.S. Federal court that holds nonpublic sessions to consider issuing search warrants under FISA. Proceedings before the FISC are ex parte, meaning the government is the only party present.
General Provisions. FISA, as amended, establishes procedures for the authorization of electronic surveillance, use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, physical searches, and business records for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
Electronic Surveillance Procedures – Subchapter I of FISA established procedures for the conduct of foreign intelligence surveillance and created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Department of Justice must apply to the FISC to obtain a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of foreign agents. For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances.
Record Destruction: Where the government has accidentally intercepted communications that “under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States,” the government is required to destroy those records, “unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.” 50 U.S.C. § 1806.
Exception to Court Order Requirement: The President may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year without a FISC court order where the Attorney General certifies that there is “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a U.S. person is a party,” provided the surveillance is directed solely at communications among or between foreign powers, or “the acquisition of technical intelligence … from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. § 1802.
Physical Searches – Subchapter II of FISA establishes procedures for the physical search of “premises or property … owned, used, possessed by, or … in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” The procedures are substantially similar to the procedures established for electronic foreign intelligence surveillance.
Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes – Subchapter III of FISA establishes procedures for the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices for conducting telephone or e-mail surveillance.
Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes – Subchapter IV of FISA establishes procedures for obtaining a FISC order for third-party production of business records to acquire foreign intelligence information.
Amendments. FISA has been significantly amended by the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 103-359; 10/14/94), by the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999, (Pub. L. 105-272; 10/5/98), by the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56; 10/26/01), by the USA PATRIOT Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-178; (3/9/06), the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L.110-261; 7/10/2008), and by the FISA Sunsets Extension Act (Pub. L. 112-3; 2/25/11). It also “eas[ed] the restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States and afford[ed] the U.S. intelligence community greater access to information unearthed during a criminal investigation.” CRS Report RS21203, USA PATRIOT Act: A Sketch. Also see the other analyses of the PATRIOT Act for more on FISA changes as the result of passage of the PATRIOT Act. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 also amended the ECPA.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Implications. FISA prohibits surveillance of or production of business records regarding a U.S. person based solely on First Amendment activities. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805, 1842, 1861. Section 1806 provides guidance on the sharing of foreign intelligence information among Federal agencies and with State and local partners, as well as guidance as to disclosure of foreign intelligence information in criminal proceedings. Section 1825 provides similar guidance regarding the use and disclosure of foreign intelligence gathered via a physical search, while section 1845 provides similar guidance for the use and disclosure of information acquired through pen registers and trap and trace devices gathered under Subchapter III. Note that “agents of foreign powers” may include U.S. citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control. Section 1801(b).
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458, amended the definition of “agent of a foreign power” in FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)), to add a new category of covered individuals called the “lone wolf” provision. Under the “lone wolf” provision, a non-United States person who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism is deemed to be an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA.
Further Information. The Federation of American Scientists, a non-profit organization that describes itself as providing “nonpartisan technical analysis on complex global issues that hinge on science and technology,” offers a compilation of links to FISA-related resources including annual FISA reports to Congress, various court cases, and Department of Justice memoranda.
Story 3: President Trump Attacks MS-13 As Animals — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Defend MS -13 — All Humans Are Animals — MS-16 Members Are Violent Thugs — Videos
The left turns Trump’s ‘animals’ comment into a controversy
President Donald Trump Says ‘Animals’ Remark Referred To MS-13 Gang Members | NBC News
Nancy Pelosi Defends Violent MS-13 Gang Members In Response To Trump, Says They’re Not Animals
Trump calls MS-13 gang members ‘animals’
Sanders: Trump referred to gang as ‘animals’ not immigrants
Trump says ‘animals’ remark referred to MS-13 members
Media take Trump’s ‘animals’ remark out of context
MS-13 gang members: Trump makes us stronger
A look inside the world of MS-13 gangs
True roots of MS-13
MS-13: Violent gang targeting US suburbia
ICE Chasing Down MS-13 Gang (Compilation)
El Salvador declares war on gangs
Trump calls some illegal immigrants “animals” in meeting with sheriffs
Tucker: There’s no defending MS-13, but the Left is
‘Hunting MS-13’: What we learned
MS-13 ‘Amercanizing’ with female members
National Geographic – MS13 [Mara Salvatrucha ] : America’s Deadliest Gang – full Documentary HD
Brit snaps MS-13 gang at jail guards won’t step in
ICE Chasing Down MS-13 Gang (Compilation)
Washington DC MS 13 Documentary
Inside Long Island’s war with MS-13
MS 13 Murder Documentary
MS-13’s Active Members Are Laughing At Trump’s Crackdown (HBO)
National Geographic – MS13 [Mara Salvatrucha ] : America’s Deadliest Gang – full Documentary HD
MS-13’s biggest rival: Barrio 18
5 Most Dangerous Gangs In The World!
CNN Took Trump’s ‘Animals’ Remark About Immigrants ‘Out of Context,’ Network Admits
“Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants,” network now says
Jon Levine | May 18, 2018 @ 5:51 AMLast Updated: May 18, 2018 @ 8:01 AM
Getty Images
CNN has officially clarified its reporting suggesting that President Donald Trump had referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals.”
In a Thursday piece, media reporter Oliver Darcy conceded that CNN — like many other news organizations, including the New York Times and the Associated Press — had taken Trump’s remarks “out of context” and that the president had only been referring to members of the violent MS-13 gang, many of whom come from Central America, and not to all immigrants in the U.S. without proper documentation.
“Other outlets did not directly accuse the President of calling immigrants ‘animals,’ but failed to include in tweets the entire context for Trump’s remark. Those outlets included CNN, CBS News, and NBC News,” wrote Darcy.
Also Read:CNN Contributor April Ryan Dings Melania Trump as ‘Not Culturally American’
“Trump’s remarks late Wednesday were in response to comments about members of MS-13 and other undocumented immigrants who are deported for committing crimes,” the network added in a thread response to its own (considerably more viral) original tweet that included the president’s quote without context.
Also Thursday, the Associated Press went even further than CNN, deleting an earlier tweet about the president’s remarks.
Also Read:Sarah Sanders Defends Trump’s MS-13 ‘Animals’ Remark: ‘Doesn’t Go Far Enough’ (Video)
“AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s ‘animals’ comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members,” the news organization offered in an explanation.
The false narrative spread through the media this week after Trump made the tough remarks from the Cabinet Room of the White House.
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,”said the president. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”
Also Read:Michael Avenatti Teases ‘At Least 2’ More Women Signed NDAs With Trump (Video)
On Wednesday, the White House press briefing had an animated moment when Press Secretary Sarah Sanders laced into media companies for falsely reporting this story.
“If the media and liberals want to defend MS-13, they’re more than welcome to,” said Sanders. “It took an animal to stab a man 100 times and decapitate him and rip his heart out … Frankly, I think that the term ‘animal’ doesn’t go far enough.”
“The president was very clearly referring to MS-13 gang members who enter the country illegally and whose deportations are hamstrung by our laws,” she added. “This is one of the most vicious and deadly gangs that operates by the motto of rape, control and kill.”
https://www.thewrap.com/cnn-took-trumps-animals-remark-immigrants-context-network-admits/
MS-13
30,000–50,000 (Worldwide)[1]
MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha; also known as simply MS or Mara) is an international criminal gang that originated in Los Angeles, California, US in the 1980s. The gang later spread to many parts of the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, and is active in urban and suburban areas. Most members are of Central American origin, principally El Salvador.
In the U.S., MS-13 has an especially heavy presence in California, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, New York City and New Jersey, Boston, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Houston. There is also a presence of MS-13 in Toronto, Ontario.
Members of MS are characterised by tattoos covering the body, previously including the face, and by the use of their own sign language. They are notorious for their violence and a subcultural moral code based on merciless retribution. This cruelty of the distinguished members of the “Maras” or “Mareros” earned them a path to be recruited by the Sinaloa Cartel battling against Los Zetas in an ongoing drug war in Mexico.[5][6][7] Their wide-ranging activities have drawn the attention of the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who have initiated wide-scale raids against known and suspected gang members, arresting hundreds across the country.[8]
Etymology
There is some dispute about the etymology of the name. Some sources state the gang is named for La Mara, a street gang in San Salvador, and the Salvatrucha guerrillas who fought in the Salvadoran Civil War.[9]Additionally, the word mara means gang in Caliche slang and is taken from marabunta, the name of a fierce type of ant. “Salvatrucha” may be a combination of the words Salvadoran and trucha, a Caliche word for being alert. The term “Salvatruchas” has been explained as a reference to Salvadorian peasants trained to become guerrilla fighters, referred to as “Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front.”[10]
Aspirants are beaten for 13 seconds in order to join the gang, a ritual known as a “beat-in”.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
Physical appearance
An MS gang sign and tattoos
Minors make up the majority of suspects arrested for killings attributed to MS-13. Many school districts were reluctant to admit unaccompanied teenagers when they initially arrived from Central America, which left them home alone and vulnerable to gang recruitment.[17]
Many Mara Salvatrucha members cover themselves in tattoos. Common markings include “MS”, “Salvatrucha”, the “Devil Horns”, the name of their clique, and other symbols.[18] A December 2007 CNN internet news article stated that the gang was moving away from face tattoos so as to be able to commit crimes without being noticed.[19]
Members of Mara Salvatrucha, like members of most modern American gangs, utilize a system of hand signs for purposes of identification and communication. One of the most commonly displayed is the “devil’s head” which forms an ‘M’ when displayed upside down. This hand sign is similar to the same symbol commonly seen displayed by heavy metal musicians and their fans. Founders of Mara Salvatrucha borrowed the hand sign after attending concerts of heavy metal bands.[20]
Presence
MS-13 presence territories with a weaker presence territories with a stronger presence
In the U.S., MS-13 has an especially heavy presence in Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area in California; the Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas of Fairfax County, Virginia, Montgomery County, Maryland,[21] and Prince George’s County, Maryland; Queens, New York; Long Island, New York; Newark, New Jersey, Plainfield, New Jersey; Jersey City, New Jersey; Elizabeth, New Jersey; the Boston, Massachusetts area; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Houston, Texas. There is also a presence of MS-13 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
MS-13 appears to use Texas as a stopping point for travel from Los Angeles to the East Coast and for the trafficking of drugs, humans, and weapons between Mexico and the United States. The largest concentration of MS-13 in Texas is in Houston.[22]
History
The Mara Salvatrucha gang originated in Los Angeles, set up in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in the city’s Pico-Union neighborhood who immigrated to the United States after the Central American civil wars of the 1980s.[23]
Originally the gang’s main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans and African-Americans.[24]
Many Mara Salvatrucha gang members from the Los Angeles area have been deported after being arrested.[25] For example, Jose Abrego, a high-ranking member, was deported four times.[26] As a result of these deportations, members of MS-13 have recruited more members in their home countries.[27] The Los Angeles Times contends that deportation policies have contributed to the size and influence of the gang both in the United States and in Central America.[25] According to the 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment, “The gang is estimated to have 30,000 to 50,000 members and associate members worldwide, 8,000 to 10,000 of whom reside in the United States.[1]
Since the first decade of the twenty-first century the gang has expanded into the Washington, D.C. area, in particular the areas of Langley Park and Takoma Park, Maryland.[28]
In 2004 the US FBI started the MS-13 National Gang Task Force. The FBI also began teaming with law enforcement in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico.[29]
In 2005 the office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement started Operation Community Shield. By 2011 this operation had made over 20,000 arrests, including more than 3,000 arrests of alleged MS-13 members.[30]
NYPD said that MS-13 were responsible for 17 murders between January 2016 and April 2016 in Long Island.[31]
On July 28, 2017, one day after 113 suspected MS-13 gang members were arrested by Salvadoran authorities,[32] President Donald Trump declared his goal of “eradicating” MS-13, calling them “animals” whose victims “die slowly because that way it’s more painful.”[33]
In an interview with Bill Ritter in late 2017, Nassau County, New York District Attorney Madeline Singas, referring to crimes committed by MS-13 gang members, stated: “The crimes that we’re talking about are brutal. Their weapon of choice is a machete. We end up seeing people with injuries that I’ve never seen before. You know, limbs hacked off. And that’s what the bodies look like that we’re recovering. So they’re brutal. They’re ruthless, and we’re gonna be relentless in our attacks against them.”[34]
Illegal immigration and human smuggling
According to The Washington Times, MS-13 “is thought to have established a major smuggling center” in Mexico.[35] There were reports by the Minuteman Project that MS members were ordered to Arizona to target U.S. Border Patrol agents and Minuteman Projectvolunteers.[36]
Robert Morales, a prosecutor for Guatemala, indicated to The Globe and Mail that some Central American gang members seek refugee status in Canada. Superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police integrated gang task force, John Robin, said in an interview that “I think [gang members] have a feeling that police here won’t treat them in the harsh manner they get down there.”[37] Robin noted that Canadian authorities “want to avoid ending up like the U.S., which is dealing with the problem of Central American gangsters on a much bigger scale”.[37]
The gang is violent to migrants on the southern border of Mexico.[38]
False Al-Qaeda connection
In 2005 Honduran Security Minister Oscar Álvarez and the President of El Salvador raised alarm by claiming that terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda was meeting with Mara Salvatrucha and other Central American gangs to help them infiltrate the United States. FBI agents said that the U.S. intelligence community and governments of several Central American countries found that there was no basis to believe that MS-13 was connected to Al-Qaeda or other Islamic radicals, although the head of the FBI task force on MS-13 did visit Central America to discuss the issue.[39]
Publicized crimes
The Central American population in North America is the primary victim of MS-13.[27] Many of the victims are minors.[17]
On July 13, 2003, Brenda Paz, a 17-year-old former MS-13 member turned informant was found stabbed to death on the banks of the Shenandoah River in Virginia. She was killed for informing the FBI about Mara Salvatrucha’s criminal activities; two of her former friends were later convicted of the murder.[40]
In 2004 the FBI created the MS-13 National Gang Task Force.[41] In 2005 the FBI helped create a National Gang Information Center (NGIC), and outlined a National Gang Strategy for Congress.[42]
On December 23, 2004, one of the most widely publicized MS-13 crimes in Central America occurred in Chamelecón, Honduras when an intercity bus was intercepted and sprayed with automatic gunfire from assault rifles,[43] killing 28 and wounding 14 civilian passengers, most of whom were women and children.[44] MS-13 organized the massacre as a protest against the Honduran government for proposing a restoration of the death penalty in Honduras. Six gunmen raked the bus with gunfire. As passengers screamed and ducked, another gunman climbed aboard and methodically executed passengers.[45] In February 2007 Juan Carlos Miranda Bueso and Darwin Alexis Ramírez were found guilty of several crimes including murder and attempted murder. Ebert Anibal Rivera was arrested over the attack after fleeing to Texas.[46] Juan Bautista Jimenez, accused of masterminding the massacre, was killed in prison; according to the authorities, fellow MS-13 inmates hanged him.[47] There was insufficient evidence to convict Óscar Fernando Mendoza and Wilson Geovany Gómez.[46]
An MS-13 suspect bearing gang tattoos is handcuffed.
On May 13, 2006, Ernesto “Smokey” Miranda, a former high-ranking soldier and one of the founders of Mara Salvatrucha, was murdered at his home in El Salvador a few hours after declining to attend a party for a gang member who had just been released from prison. He had begun studying law and working to keep children out of gangs.[48]
On June 6, 2006,[49] a teenage MS-13 gang member named Gabriel Granillo was stabbed to death at Ervan Chew Park, in the Neartown district in Houston, Texas.[50] Chris Vogel of the Houston Press wrote that the trial of the girl who stabbed Granillo, Ashley Paige Benton,[51] gave attention to MS-13.[52]
In 2007 Julio Chavez, a Long Island MS-13 member, allegedly murdered a man because he was wearing a red sweatshirt and mistaken for a member of the Bloods gang.[53]
On June 4, 2008, in Toronto, Ontario, police executed search warrants, made 21 arrests and laid dozens of charges following a five-month investigation.[54]
On June 22, 2008, in San Francisco, California, a 21-year-old MS-13 gang member, Edwin Ramos, shot and killed a father, Anthony Bologna, 48, and his two sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 as they were returning home from a family barbecue. Their car had briefly blocked Ramos from completing a left turn down a narrow street .[55]
On November 26, 2008, Jonathan Retana was convicted of the murder of Miguel Angel Deras, which the authorities linked to an MS-13 initiation.[56]
In 2008 the MS-13 task force coordinated a series of arrests and crackdowns in the U.S. and Central America that involved more than 6,000 police officers in five countries. Seventy-three suspects were arrested in the U.S.; in all, more than 650 were taken into custody.[citation needed]
In February 2009 authorities in Colorado and California arrested 20 members of MS-13 and seized 10 pounds of methamphetamine, 2.3 kilograms (5 pounds) of cocaine, a small amount of heroin, 12 firearms, and $3,300 in cash.[57]
In June 2009 Edwin Ortiz, Jose Gomez Amaya and Alexander Aguilar, MS-13 gang members from Long Island who had mistaken bystanders for rival gang members, shot two innocent civilians. Edgar Villalobos, a laborer, was killed.[58]
On November 4, 2009, El Salvadoran leaders of the MS-13 gang allegedly put out a contract on the federal agent responsible for a crackdown on its New York factions, the Daily News learned. The plot to assassinate the unidentified Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was revealed in an arrest warrant for reputed gang member Walter (Duke) Torres. Torres tipped authorities to the plan after he and four MS-13 members were stopped by NYPD detectives for hassling passersby on Northern Boulevard. in Queens, New York. He told police he had information to pass on; he was debriefed on October 22 at Rikers Island, where he was being held on a warrant issued in Virginia, according to court papers. Torres said “the order for the murder came from gang leadership in El Salvador”, ICE agent Sean Sweeney wrote in an affidavit for a new warrant charging Torres with conspiracy. Torres, who belonged to an MS-13 “clique” in Virginia, said he was put in charge, and traveled to New York in August “for the specific purpose of participating in the planning and execution of the murder plot”, Sweeney wrote. Gang members were trying to obtain a high-powered rifle to penetrate the agent’s bulletproof vest. Another MS-13 informant told authorities the agent was marked for death because the gang was “exceedingly angry” at him for arresting many members in the past three years, the affidavit states. The murder was supposed to be carried out by the Flushing clique, according to the informant. Federal prosecutors have indicted numerous MS-13 gang members on racketeering, extortion, prostitution, kidnapping, illegal immigration, money laundering, murder, people smuggling, arms trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking charges; the targeted special agent was the lead federal investigator on many of the federal cases.[59]
Sinaloa Cartel hierarchy in early 2008
In 2010 Rene Mejia allegedly murdered a Long Island 2-year-old baby and his mother.[53]
In August 2011 six San Francisco MS-13 members were convicted of racketeering and conspiracy, including three murders, in what was the city’s largest-scope gang trial in many years. Another 18 defendants reported to have ties to the gang pleaded guilty before trial.[60]
In 2011 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in New Haven, Connecticut was vandalized several times with the “MS-13 tag” and “kill whites” in orange spray paint.[61]
In February 2012 a Federal judge convicted three MS-13 gang members of murder. Danilo Velasquez, the former leader of the San Francisco branch of MS-13, was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 10 years, and is incarcerated at USP Hazelton.[62]
In January 2016, over 400 Boston police officers were involved in the arrests of 37 MS-13 members, 56 were charged altogether. Guns, knives and money were also seized at the homes of the gang members. Massachusetts State Police Lt. Col. Frank Hughes commented in a public conference “in my 30 years of law enforcement, I’ve never seen a more violent gang out there. These are very very violent individuals. The violence is unspeakable.” The charges included immigration violations, racketeering, firearm and drug trafficking.[63]
In August 2017, two undisclosed members were charged with the January murder of civilian 19-year-old Julio Cesar Gonzales-Espantzay who was lured to a forest in Long Island where he was attacked with machetes and stabbed with knives. Nassau County police also said the two members were responsible for 21 murders in New York just short of 2 years. Authorities said the motive was to gain reputation.[64]
On 13/14 of August 2017, MS-13 New Jersey faction member Walter Yovany Gomez who was added to the FBI most wanted list in April 2017,[65] was apprehended and charged with the 2011 brutal murder of his friend Julio Matute for associating with another gang. After a night of drinking, Gomez and another MS-13 member smacked Matute on the head with a baseball bat, sliced his throat with a knife and stabbed him in the back with a screwdriver 17 times. Gomez managed to evade arrest but was later captured in Virginia where he was hiding out with other MS-13 gang members.[66]
The Washington, DC think tank Center for Immigration Studies released a report that listed 506 cases of MS-13 criminal acts in the United States between 2012 and 2018.[67]
In 2017, two MS-13 members, Miguel Alvarez-Flores and Diego Hernandez-Rivera, were arrested for kidnapping, raping, torturing, and drugging a 14-year-old girl for over 2 weeks. According to the 14-year-old, the members also held another victim, “Genesis”, hostage in the same apartment.[68]
The East Coast kingpin of the MS-13, Miguel Angel Corea Diaz, was arraigned April 19, 2018 in Nassau County Court in Mineola, New York, Long Island, New York on charges including conspiracy to commit murder. He could be sentenced to life in prison if he is convicted. He was one of seventeen defendants in a 21 count indictment in January that charged him with several counts of conspiracy to commit murder and operating as a high level drug tracker of controlled substances. He was extradited on the week of April 23, 2018 from Prince George’s County, Maryland, where he was held since October. That earlier jailing was in lieu of $125,000 bail.[69]
Child prostitution
In 2011 Alonso “Casper” Bruno Cornejo Ormeno, an associate of MS-13 from Fairfax, Virginia was sentenced to 292 months in prison for child prostitution. Ormeno recruited juvenile females into a prostitution ring by locating runaway children.[70]
Rances Ulices Amaya, a leader of MS-13, of Springfield, Virginia was convicted in February 2012 for trafficking girls as young as 14 into a prostitution ring. He was sentenced in June 2012 to 50 years in prison for child prostitution. The girls were lured from middle schools, high schools, and public shelters. Once acquired by Amaya, they were required to have sex with as many as ten men per day.[71]
In September 2012 Yimmy Anthony Pineda Penado, also known as “Critico” and “Spike”, of Maryland was a former “clique leader” of MS-13. Penado became the eleventh MS-13 gang member to be convicted of child prostitution since 2011.[72]
Charlotte, North Carolina cases
In the first decade of the twenty-first century US authorities investigated MS-13 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Eventually the work led to charges against 26 MS-13 members, including 7 trial convictions in January 2010, 18 guilty pleas, and 11 multi-year prison sentences.[73]
This included the alleged first federal death-penalty conviction for an MS-13 member, Alejandro Enrique Ramirez Umaña, aka “Wizard” (age 25).[73]
In 2005, in Los Angeles, according to a jury in a later sentencing phase, Umaña murdered Jose Herrera and Gustavo Porras on July 27, and participated in and aided and abetted the killing of Andy Abarca on September 28. He later came to Charlotte, North Carolina, according to witnesses, as a veteran member of MS-13, to reorganize the Charlotte cell of the gang.[73]
According to witnesses at his trial on December 8, 2007, while in the Las Jarochitas, a family-run restaurant in Greensboro, North Carolina, Umaña shot Ruben Garcia Salinas fatally in the chest and Manuel Garcia Salinas in the head. Witnesses testified that the shootings took place after the Garcia Salinas brothers had “disrespected” Umaña’s gang signs by calling them “fake”. Firing three more shots in the restaurant, according to trial testimony, Umaña injured another person with his gunfire. Trial testimony and evidence showed that Umaña later fled back to Charlotte with MS-13 assistance. Umaña was arrested five days later in possession of the murder weapon. Additional evidence and testimony from the trial revealed that while Umaña was incarcerated awaiting trial he coordinated attempts to kill witnesses and informants.[73]
Umaña was indicted by a federal grand jury on June 23, 2008. During trial, he attempted to bring a knife with him to the courtroom, which was discovered by U.S. Marshals before he was transported to the courthouse. Thousands of hours were spent on the case over several years. International work was also involved.[73]
The case was investigated by the Charlotte Safe Streets Task Force. The case was prosecuted by Chief Criminal Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Westmoreland Rose of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina, and Trial Attorney Sam Nazzaro from the Criminal Division’s Gang Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Don Gast and Adam Morris of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina were also members of the government’s trial team.[73]
Charges included:[73]
On April 19, 2010, the jury convicted Umaña of all charges, and additionally found him responsible for the 2005 murders during the sentencing phase. On April 28 a 12-person federal jury in Charlotte voted unanimously to impose the death penalty. On July 27, 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of Charlotte, NC, formally imposed the federal death penalty sentence. Also commenting on the decision in the government press release were Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins of the Western District of North Carolina, Owen D Harris, Special Agent in charge of the Charlotte Division of the FBI, and Rodney Monreo, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief.[73]
The case was automatically appealed under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[73]
Sanctions
In October 2012 the US Treasury Department announced a freeze on American-owned assets controlled by the organization and listed MS-13 as a Transnational Criminal Organization.[74] While the three leaders (José Luís Mendoza Figueroa, Eduardo Erazo Nolasco, and Élmer Canales Rivera) were imprisoned in El Salvador, they continued to give orders. As a result, the US Treasury Department imposed further sanctions in 2015, allowing the government to seize all assets controlled by these men and any business with these leaders would no longer be allowed.[75]
On November 16, 2017 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), officials announced that they arrested a total of 267 alleged MS-13 gang members and associates in Operation Raging Bull, which was carried out in two phases. The first phase was in September 2017, and resulted in 53 arrests in El Salvador. The second phases was between October 8 and November 11, 2017, and resulted in 214 arrests in the U.S. Charges included drug trafficking, child prostitution, human smuggling, racketing, conspiracy to commit murder.[76][77][78][79]
In film
See also
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13
In reference to ‘animals,’ Trump evokes an ugly history of dehumanization
President Trump on Thursday pointedly referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals” in a statement his critics say betrays a gross misunderstanding of the plight of people who came to the United States illegally, and beyond that, little sympathy for them.
During an immigration roundtable at the White House with administration aides, political leaders and California law enforcement officials, Trump said his administration was deporting undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes.
[Trump suggests Justice Department investigate Oakland’s Democratic mayor for tipping off immigrants]
Here’s the transcript:
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.
President Trump: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.
The Post’s Robert Costa points out this isn’t the first time he’s used the term in an illegal immigration context.
More recently, during a March news conference for the signing of a spending bill, Trump said, “I can tell you this, and I say this to DACA recipients, that the Republicans are with you. They want to get your situation taken care of. The Democrats fought us. But I do want the Hispanic community to know and DACA recipients to know that Republicans are much more on your side than the Democrats, who are using you for their own purposes.”
And that comment came about two months after Trump reportedly expressed his frustration with staffers while discussing the protection of immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal.
“Why are we having all these people from s—hole countries come here?” Trump asked, according to several people at the meeting, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
Since Trump launched his presidential campaign calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” he has attracted scorn and praise for his hard-line immigration policies.
But while his critics previously called his policy proposals inhumane, these recent words caught on tape display how lowly Trump views those who commit crimes after arriving in the United States illegally.
This would not likely be a problem for much of Trump’s base. The president campaigned on a law-and-order platform, regularly providing examples of undocumented immigrants committing horrific crimes. To many of his supporters, honoring the humanity of individuals who behaved so inhumanely is not a priority.
But those who want to see the president take a more compassionate approach on immigration see statements like this as conflating the minority of undocumented immigrants who get involved with criminal activity with the “dreamers” and other law-abiding immigrants.
There’s important historical context here, too, that many social media users pointed out: Referring to marginalized groups as subhuman has been a way dictators have justified the abuse of those groups. This happened with the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It happen with the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide. And it is happening with the Rohingya people in Burma.
Generalizations and stereotypes led many citizens of those countries to view entire ethnic groups of people so negatively that respecting their lives was of little priority. This empowered people to discriminate against or even physically harm and kill them.
That’s a scary evocation, but more practically in the near term, Trump’s rhetoric will be fodder for his opponents as his party hurtles toward a midterm in which many of its endangered members will be saddled with Trump’s words.
This post has been updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/16/trumps-animals-comment-on-undocumented-immigrants-earn-backlash-historical-comparisons/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79eed67d784c
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1079
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )