#the court ruled him as not being guilty. but then nothing happened to the agents. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sundayswiththeilluminati · 3 years

Text

The unplanned fourth part to my apparently-a-series on Essek Thelyss in the context of real-world espionage (parts 1, 2, and 3), today we look at an aspect of his story that doesn’t always apply in a D&D world: how do you prosecute espionage?

Psych! That’s not the real question. The real question is: do you prosecute espionage? The answer is a) not as obvious as it might seem; and b) going to differ between D&D and the real world, because D&D governments are storytelling tools and IRL governments are...not.

The benefits of prosecuting espionage are obvious: the interests of justice are served, the person responsible can be punished appropriately and in accordance with the law, the full extent of their crimes are revealed (including potentially exonerating other suspects), counterintelligence gets to chalk up a win, and other people thinking about committing espionage themselves are hopefully discouraged. But there are a surprising number of arguments in the “against” column.

Some agencies that identify enemy assets want to leave them in place for their own purposes. For about 20 years during the Cold War CIA reserved the right to just plain not tell the Department of Justice if they had proof someone was engaged in espionage because they wanted the opportunity to turn them as double agents, feed them misinformation, etc. rather than outing and punishing them (President Gerald Ford ended this arrangement by executive order in 1976). This isn’t necessarily a good idea IRL, but it forms the bread and butter of RPG espionage storylines and is definitely something to think about in a D&D context.

In the real world, ideally someone can only be found guilty of a crime and punished accordingly after a trial, and an agency often finds itself with sufficient evidence to doubt a person’s trustworthiness but not enough hard proof to take to court. In those cases agencies may decide to leave that person in place but cut off their access to classified info. Ironically, sometimes this means promoting them - moving the person into a higher-ranking job in a different area that just so happens not to deal in secrets. Sometimes the asset realizes they’re close to being rumbled and goes along with the effort, maybe taking retirement early or changing jobs before they can be pushed, and the whole matter will quietly lapse without anything so formal as a trial. Sometimes someone makes a mistake and sidelines a loyal, competent employee. That’s a judgement call.

In the real world, ideally someone can only be found guilty of a crime and punished accordingly after an open trial. Given how severe the punishments are for espionage, civilized countries do try to stick to that even though holding such a trial carries risks. Providing proof that someone stole secrets generally requires talking about said secrets, which means revealing classified info in court, which may negate trying to keep the information secret in the first place. They may also not want to reveal in court how they figured out that person was a spy, especially if it was a double agent or cryptographic source that fingered them. In D&D-land where monarchs are common and still wield judicial power, fantasy rulers may hand down whatever punishment they please based on whatever evidence they (or the DM) will accept, so this isn’t as much of a concern.

Even a D&D monarchy that doesn’t have to worry about revealing secrets in court might think twice before publicly punishing a high-ranking spy, though, because the only thing more embarrassing than failing to convict a major spy is succeeding. A government having to admit that its people were compromised, especially high-ranking people, is a body-blow to its standing both at home and abroad. It damages trust in the government, makes the public feel unsafe, and makes allies hesitant to share information lest their secrets be leaked as well. Lower-ranking government employees may think, “My boss is selling secrets, why not me too?” or “Why bother to follow security protocol when some mole will give it all away?” Every decision and contribution made by the asset becomes retroactively suspect, even those that had nothing to do with whatever secrets they leaked. The foreign nation to whom they passed information inevitably gets drawn in as well, negatively affecting those relations. And of course everyone involved looks very, very bad.

All of which leads me to say I think there’s a chance - maybe not a good chance, but a chance - that Essek could privately confess the affair to the Bright Queen without major public repercussions. Leylas Kryn could simply declare him a traitor and order his public execution without justifying herself, but it would raise a lot of questions and none of the answers would help her or the ruling dens; Den Thelyss allowing Den Kryn to unilaterally execute a high-profile member - a child of the umavi - without explanation would stoke ferocious rumors about what Essek might have done and cast a major shadow over the entire den. But publicly declaring what Essek had done also doesn’t do the Dynasty any favors. It makes everyone involved look very bad - how could they miss a spy at the highest level? so close to the Bright Queen herself?? who can be trusted??? - especially Den Thelyss, which might lose its place among the ruling three as a result. Publicly outing such a high-ranking Kryn official as compromised might set off the Dynasty equivalent of a Red Scare, too, since the Explorer’s Guide to Wildemount mentions the constant and well-justified Dynasty fear of agents sent by Lolth to destabilize the Kryn out of sheer spite that they got away from her.

By the time Campaign 2 ended the latest clash between Empire and Dynasty had been settled and neither side seemed to want to stir it up again right away. The fact that both stolen beacons have been returned also bolsters the case for letting the matter lie. A confession from Essek clears up remaining doubt on the Bright Queen’s end - while he doesn’t know every Empire agent in the Dynasty, he can tell her exactly how the beacons were stolen and who else was involved, probably clearing the names of many currently under suspicion. Essek would have to resign as Shadowhand, of course, and leave the Dynasty (at least for a couple centuries), but he never seemed interested in being Shadowhand and he wants to go exploring anyway. Den Thelyss definitely wants the whole affair swept under the rug and would go along with whatever story made that happen. Other than Verin I don’t get the impression many people would miss Essek except as a lost opportunity. I hope they’d give him long enough before leaving Rosohna to pack up his cool leyline-weathervane though. He could totally mount that on Yussa’s tower. Or Allura’s!

And that concludes this particular train of thought re: Essek Thelyss in the context of IRL spies and espionage. Again, all of this is only as relevant to the campaign as the players decide it is, so don’t go giving people crap for being “unrealistic” about their versions of how the beacon trade went down. Frankly the last thing you should want here is realism, because “realistic” espionage is a callous world of deception, manipulation, and general human pettiness with no sense of narrative flow.

None of what I’ve talked about is an excuse for Essek’s actions. But it is a reason. It’s why and how a person entrusted with precious national assets could get into a headspace where it seems reasonable, even necessary, to trade them away to foreign enemies. It’s how a person of otherwise decent character & beliefs can end up committing terrible crimes. It’s why that person might sincerely regret what they’ve done, and not just because they fear punishment. The Warmind Rasputin paraphrases Octavia E. Butler saying, “Misdirected by accident or intent, intelligence can foster its own ecstasies of growth and decay.” In other words: sometimes you get too far into your own head. Without an anchor to reality, without perspective, your own mind gets twisted up. Sometimes you just need a friend (or seven) to grab your arm and say, “Breathe.”

(This accidentally turned into a series on Essek & IRL espionage: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4)

#Critical Role #Critical Role spoilers #not really but just to be safe #Essek Thelyss #CR meta #hey let's talk about Cold War espionage!#trufax #And That's What I Think About That.#words words words #I hope you like words #this poor foolish drow #bless this dumbass #it's been a long pandemic

231 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 13 years

Text

New Jersey: Gov Christie praised Hamas-linked imam (who lied on immigration papers) as “man of great good will”

Originally posted August 6, 2011

As we told you back in 2008, when then U.S. Attorney and now New Jersey governor Chris Christie spoke out for the Hamas-linked imam, that imam was in the process of being deported for lying on his entrance application and shortly thereafter would be granted permanent residency. But it’s all “crap” according to Christie.

Chris Christie holding Koran

via Re: Standing up to Anti-Muslim American Bias « Commentary Magazine.

As I wrote back in January, Sohail Mohammed’s religion is not the issue. Nor would his role as a defense attorney for those who were arrested in the wake of 9/11 because of their ties to terror groups disqualify him for the bench. What is of interest is his role as a board member of the American Muslim Union, an extremist group that has its own questionable record in terms of rationalizing terror attacks and supporting others who do so. Of particular importance is one of Mohammed’s clients: Mohammed Qatanani, the imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic County and an influential member of the AMU. Qatanani is a Palestinian supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also admitted to being a member of Hamas when Israeli authorities arrested him in 1993. Qatanani lied about all of this when he subsequently came to this country. But he evaded deportation in 2008 because his lawyer was able to persuade a judge to accept his unproven claim the Israelis had tortured him. He also benefitted from the intervention on his behalf by, of all people, the man who was then United States Attorney for New Jersey: Chris Christie.

Acting on the behest of Mohammed and the American Muslim Union, Christie spoke out on Qatanani’s behalf and even appeared at his mosque and praised the Hamas supporter as a “man of great good will.” Christie’s willingness to make nice with the AMU and help keep Qatanani in this country had very little to do with opposition to religious prejudice and everything to do with an effort to gain sympathy among New Jersey Muslims during the prelude to his campaign for the governorship in 2009.

I happen to agree with Governor Christie that much of the discussion about sharia law in this country is absurd and possibly based in prejudice. While the effort to impose Muslim religious law on non-Muslims is a critical issue in Africa and Asia where the threat of Islamist theocracy is real, in most instances sharia is probably no more of a problem for the American justice system than is Jewish religious law.

So until the imposition of Islamic sharia law becomes a critical issue, challenging sharia and those who want to impose it in the U.S. is “absurd and possibly based in prejudice?” That sounds eerily Chamberlain-esque. Would things be different in Africa and Asia if more absurd and possibly based in prejudice discussions on the threat of Islamic sharia law took place?

But the questions raised about Sohail Mohammed, the American Muslim Union and Christie’s own conduct in the Qatanani case have nothing to do with such nonsense. Rather, this is about the willingness of some Americans to turn a blind eye to the prominent role of Islamists and terror supporters like Qatanani and to the political influence of fixers like Sohail Mohammed. Smearing as bigots those who have posed questions about Christie’s bad judgment is not the same thing as standing up against religious prejudice.

Hamas imam Qatanani - Christie’s “man of great good will”

Andrew McCarthy has more on Christie’s ‘Crazies’:

Governor Christie would have you believe opposition to Mr. Mohammed was sheer bigotry: “It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background,” he railed to reporters. It’s a narrative Christie fans would like to help cement. It’s not true.

For the record, Sohail Mohammed is not just an attorney. He served as a board member for an Islamist organization, the American Muslim Union, which, as Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin and terrorism expert Steve Emerson have shown, has a checkered past of rationalizing jihadist attacks and supporting jihadists.

Indeed, when the Holy Land Foundation was shuttered in 2001 for its facilitation of terrorist groups, Mohammed told the Bergen Record that the federal government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations. Seven years later, a jury convicted several HLF operatives for channeling millions of dollars to Hamas, the terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Mohammed also ripped the Justice Department’s prosecution of al-Arian as a “witch-hunt” and a “politically motivated indictment.” Al-Arian eventually pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge in a case that showed him to be a key operative of the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.

One of the AMU’s most influential members is Mohammed Qatanani, a 47-year-old Palestinian firebrand from Jordan, who is not just an associate but a client of Sohail Mohammed’s. According to federal law enforcement, Qatanani is a former Muslim Brotherhood member who, when apprehended by Israeli authorities in 1993, confessed to being a member of Hamas. Not surprisingly, Qatanani is also an avowed enthusiast of the Brotherhood-Hamas one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Mr. Tobin notes, he’d have the Jewish state disappear by its absorption into an Islamic “Greater Syria.”

New Jersey has one of the country’s largest Islamic populations, and Qatanani has been the imam of one of the state’s largest Muslim communities, the Islamic Center of Passaic County. His predecessor as imam there, Mohammed el-Mezain, is among the five defendants convicted of financing Hamas in the HLF case. In fact, el-Mezain boasted of raising money at the mosque for Hamas. No surprise, then, to learn, as Steve Emerson recounts, that imam Qatanani included his predecessor and the other HLF defendants in a 2007 prayer for relief from oppression

Oh Allah assist our brothers and sisters in Philistine [Palestine], and Iraq and Chechnya . . . Oh Allah remove occupation and oppression, and oh Allah improve the matters of our community . . . to assist our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land Foundation, ask oh Allah . . . to assist them and to remove the difficulty that they have been inflicted with, all of the brothers and sisters in this country, oh Allah to prove them non-guilty.

The Department of Homeland Security has been trying for some time to deport Qatanani for lying on his 1999 immigration paperwork. He’d been granted a religious-worker visa in 1996, enabling him to be the imam at the Islamic Center. When it expired in 1999, he sought to become a permanent U.S. resident. Though specifically asked about his criminal history, Qatanani failed to disclose that he was convicted in an Israeli military court for his membership in, and support of, Hamas. Mohammed’s firm helped Qatanani prepare the I-485, and Qatanani later claimed that he’d signed the form because he “trusted his attorney, Sohail Mohammed.” (See Homeland Security Investigation, Appendix, p. 4.)

The deportation case against Qatanani was heard by an immigration judge in 2008. Christie was then the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney for New Jersey, though his office did not handle the case. In light of Qatanani’s track record and the Islamic Center of Passaic County’s connections to the Bush Justice Department’s then-ongoing HLF prosecution, it is nothing short of shocking that U.S. attorney Christie went to Qatanani’s mosque for a Ramadan celebration while the immigration case was underway. There, he is reported to have embraced Qatanani and praised the former Hamas operative as “a man of great good will.”

More astoundingly, Christie permitted one of his assistant U.S. attorneys, Charles B. McKenna, to testify at the immigration hearing as a character witness on behalf of Qatanani — i.e., a Justice Department official was dispatched to undermine the Homeland Security Department’s case against Qatanani, which was built in part on an investigation conducted by the FBI, an agency of the Justice Department.

The immigration judge, Alberto Riefkohl, ultimately ruled in Qatanani’s favor, an absurd decision in which he baselessly discredited two federal agents who’d testified about Qatanani’s admission that he’d been arrested for Hamas activities, and irrationally discounted the evidence of Qatanani’s Israeli conviction. The judge stressed, in arriving at this ruling, how impressed he’d been by “law-enforcement officers that took time from their respective duties to appear before the court.” I’m sure. But the feel-good hallucinations of bridge-building can’t erase the reality of terror promotion. Judge Riefkohl was later reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that there was no basis for Riefkohl to have ignored the government’s evidence.

The questions about Governor Christie’s appointment of Sohail Mohammed and his exertions on behalf of Mohammed’s client, Mohammed Qatanani, have nothing to do with either sharia or the all-purpose smear of Islamophobia. They are about the governor’s judgment. They are about a U.S. attorney with political ambitions pandering to a politically active constituency at the expense of national security and enforcement of the immigration laws. They are about his decision to award a state judgeship to an attorney who was an active and vocal board member of a very troubling Islamist organization — and who has a penchant for presuming that perfectly valid anti-terror prosecutions are, instead, anti-Muslim persecutions.

Read it all.

Please Share & Help Wake America Up

#Islam #Muslim #Jihad #Sharia #Legal #Law #News #Media #Politics #Imam #Mosque #Immigration #Terror

8 notes · View notes

atheistforhumanity · 4 years

Text

The Case Against Flynn is Dropped and So is The Rule of Law

A few days ago I wrote about Flynn’s attempt to withdraw his guilty plea and how conservative news outlets claim there was a conspiracy against him. The case against Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI, which he pled guilty to twice, has been dropped by the DOJ. Republicans are celebrating this as a win against the “deep state.” However, I want to make a couple things clear on why Flynn’s case being dropped does not actually vindicate their conspiracy theories.

1. No conspiracy was proven and there were no admissions of misconduct. I had multiple people telling me to wait and see, and all this would be blown wide open. That’s not what happened at all. If you read my previous post I broke down what would need to be explained to prove a conspiracy, and nothing close to that has taken place.

2. Who dropped the case? Contrary to what Republicans may believe, the people who investigated and prosecuted Flynn did not flip their position. The case was dropped by Washington Attorney General Timothy Shea. Shea, who was a long time aide to Barr, was put into power by AG Barr in January. As everyone should know, AG Barr has been facing large bipartisan scrutiny for unethical practice and partisanship. The NYC City Bar association wrote a letter pleading with Congress’ leaders to investigate AG Barr. Barr himself was handpicked by Trump, who has a pattern of choosing people for loyalty rather than qualifications or ethical standing.

3. Flynn was not let off the hook because of any wrong doing by investigators. That’s not even the official reasoning for dropping the case. The case was dropped on the basis that Flynn’s lies were not material to the case. Let’s be clear that even in dropping the case, no one has denied that Flynn told multiple lies. Now, what it means for lies to be material is that they are directly relevant to the overall investigation agents are working on. Attorney Shea is claiming that the lies Flynn told were not directly relevant to the overall Russia investigation. There are multiple things wrong with this reasoning.

A. There is no precedent for the FBI ever dropping a case against someone who has already plead guilty twice. Virtually everything done by Trump and Barr is shocking and unprecedented with unethical overtones.

B. Shea claims that it would be too difficult to get the jury to believe that Flynn’s lies are material to the case. That’s why he is dropping it. This makes no sense though. Flynn already plead guilty, so the chance that a randomly selected jury would view him as innocent should be extremely low. If Flynn went into court using the defense of materiality (relevance), then he is making an admission that he is guilty of lying. Otherwise, the truth of his statements would be the focus.

C. Samuel Bell, a professor of law at Duke University, commented that the law’s definition of material is advantageous for the government in justifying interviews. Defense attorney James G. McGovern said that juries rarely buy a defendant’s claim that their lies are immaterial. Many other professionals have spoken out against this action and the reasoning behind it. The argument for dropping the case is razor thin.

This action is much more detrimental to our rule of law and democracy than I think most realize. There is a very short and clear line of authority connected to dropping the case against Flynn. Shea dropped the case, at the behest of AG Barr, and Barr acted in the publicly stated interest of The President to reverse Flynn’s charges. What has happened here is that a guilty man was not charged due to his relationship to the President. It doesn’t matter what the charge is or how serious. What matters is that our system of checks and balances have been completely broken.

Although the President does have power to pardon individuals, it is not their place to interfere with the investigation and prosecution of any American. That matter belongs solely to the DOJ, who is lead by the Attorney General. The AG stands separate from the President and holds the independence to disagree with the President and even curb their power in some situations. The independent AG is meant to be a check on the President’s power, not an arm of his will. Furthermore, it is the ethical responsibility for the AG to act without bias on any basis in his prosecution of the law. If you read the letter from the City Bar Association I linked above, you will see a clear record of AG Barr’s outrageous partisanship and bias. Barr even openly promotes the conspiracy theory that progressives and a deep state are working to destroy the country.

Whether or not someone is charged of a crime should never have anything to do with the personal feelings of a political figure, and not even of the AG. The rule of law demands that we face each case critically and objectively. For Trump and Barr to be attacking the prosecution of Flynn, not based on factual evidence, but rather on their partisan objectives is the most unethical act that can be taken by those two offices. To publicly assert that a conspiracy has taken place, and then reverse this sentence under weak pretenses with no evidence whatsoever of said conspiracy is a distortion of truth and justice that stains our entire country.

If we cannot count on individuals being investigated and charged purely on the basis of facts, but rather worry about who is “untouchable” due to political power, our entire democracy and way of life is abandoned. These types of actions are only seen in a dictatorship.

All of the republicans who are celebrating the dropping of Flynn’s case are celebrating the highest form of political corruption and the destruction of our nation.

#us politics #Michael Flynn #AG Barr #Trump #corruption #conservatives #republicans #Russia #current affairs #law #lawyers #justice #DOJ #Democrats #Liberals

23 notes · View notes

deniscollins · 4 years

Text

Steve Bannon Is Charged With Fraud in We Build the Wall Campaign

What would advise to Brian Kolfage, who lost both his legs and one of his arms during his service in Iraq, and created We Build the Wall as a GoFundMe page in December 2018, which was an immediate success, raising nearly $17 million in its first week online, but wanted to raise much more from donors: (1) Promise potential donors that he would not take a penny in salary or compensation and that all of the money he raised would be used “in the execution of our mission and purpose,” and then pay Kolfage $350,000 secretly from the donations for his personal expenses (and keep about $1 million for yourself too), or (2) find some other way to pay him? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former adviser and an architect of his 2016 general election campaign, was charged on Thursday with defrauding donors to a private fund-raising effort called We Build the Wall, which was intended to bolster the president’s signature initiative along the Mexican border.

Mr. Bannon, working with a wounded Air Force veteran and a Florida venture capitalist, conspired to cheat hundreds of thousands of donors by falsely promising that their money had been set aside for new sections of wall, according to a federal indictment unsealed in Manhattan.

The fund-raising effort collected more than $25 million, and prosecutors said Mr. Bannon used nearly $1 million of it for personal expenses.

Despite the populist aura he tries to project, Mr. Bannon is known to enjoy the high life, and he was arrested at 7:15 a.m. on a $35 million, 150-foot yacht belonging to one of his business associates, the fugitive Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, law enforcement officials said.

Working with the Coast Guard, special agents from the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan and federal postal inspectors boarded the yacht off Westbrook, Conn., the officials said. Mr. Bannon, 66, was on deck, drinking coffee and reading a book, when the raid occurred.

The criminal charges, filed a week before Mr. Trump was to accept the Republican nomination for a second term, marked a stark turn of fortune for the flamboyant political strategist. Mr. Bannon first came to prominence when he was in charge of the right-wing media outlet Breitbart, where he had aligned himself with the alt-right, a loose network of groups and people who promote white identity.

As chief strategist, Mr. Bannon was one of the most powerful figures in the White House early in the Trump administration, but he stepped down in August 2017 after frequently clashing with other aides.

With the indictment, Mr. Bannon became the seventh Trump associate to have been charged with federal crimes, a list that includes Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; and Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer.

The 24-page indictment, unsealed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, is by far the most politically sensitive case that Audrey Strauss, the acting United States attorney in Manhattan, has handled since she assumed her job after her predecessor, Geoffrey S. Berman, was fired in June by Mr. Trump.

At a brief arraignment on Thursday, Mr. Bannon, sunburned and his hair unbrushed, pleaded not guilty to charges of wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The government agreed to release him from custody on a $5 million bond.

Walking to his car after being freed, Mr. Bannon said, “This entire fiasco is to stop people who want to build the wall.”

Shortly after the charges were announced, Mr. Trump had sought to distance himself from Mr. Bannon and the fund-raising initiative, though the president also expressed sympathy for his former adviser.

“I feel very badly,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I haven’t been dealing with him for a very long period of time.”

The president said he knew nothing about the multimillion-dollar We Build the Wall campaign but quickly contradicted himself.

“I don’t like that project,” Mr. Trump said. “I thought it was being done for showboating reasons.” He called paying for the border wall privately “inappropriate.”

One of Mr. Trump’s sons, Donald Jr., publicly promoted the We Build the Wall effort at an event in 2019, calling it “private enterprise at its finest.”

Donald Trump Jr. said in a statement on Thursday that he had no involvement with the effort beyond praising it at that one event.

A White House official said that President Trump did not know Mr. Bannon would be arrested, and that he was told by aides after it happened.

Attorney General William P. Barr was briefed on the investigation several months ago, according to a Justice Department official, and the federal prosecutor’s office in Manhattan gave him notice that the indictment would be unsealed on Thursday.

According to the authorities, Mr. Bannon hatched the plot to defraud the donors with three other men: Brian Kolfage, a 38-year-old Air Force veteran and triple amputee from Miramar Beach, Fla.; Andrew Badolato, 56, a venture capitalist from Sarasota, Fla.; and Timothy Shea, 49, of Castle Rock, Colo.

Mr. Kolfage and Mr. Badolato were arrested in Florida on Thursday, and Mr. Shea, who prosecutors said funneled money for the group through a shell company he owned, was arrested in Denver.

Mr. Kolfage, who lost both his legs and one of his arms during his service in Iraq, created We Build the Wall as a GoFundMe page in December 2018. It was an immediate success, raising nearly $17 million in its first week online, prosecutors said.

To persuade potential donors to contribute to the effort, prosecutors said, Mr. Kolfage promised them that he would “not take a penny in salary or compensation” and that all of the money he raised would be used “in the execution of our mission and purpose.” According to the indictment, Mr. Bannon described We Build the Wall as a “volunteer organization.”

But all of that was false, prosecutors said. Instead, they claimed, Mr. Kolfage secretly took more than $350,000 in donations and spent it on home renovations, boat payments, a luxury S.U.V., a golf cart, jewelry and cosmetic surgery.

Mr. Bannon, working through an unnamed nonprofit organization, received more than $1 million from We Build the Wall, prosecutors said, some of which he used to pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses.

Mr. Bannon and three others are accused in a scheme to use funds raised for construction to pay for personal expenses.

Court papers suggested that prosecutors were in possession of several text messages between the men, including one in which Mr. Kolfage told Mr. Badolato that the payment scheme was “confidential” and should be kept on a “need to know” basis.

Mr. Kolfage initially pitched We Build the Wall as a way to sidestep the considerable legal and political obstacles to erecting Mr. Trump’s long-sought barrier. While the group has drawn approval from some top Homeland Security and Border Patrol officials, it has also prompted a backlash over its connections to Mr. Trump’s associates and its construction methods.

The federal government has built parts of the wall well within the American side of the border on federally owned land. But the sections built with private funds — slightly less than five miles in all, according to We Build the Wall’s website — have been erected along the riverbank of the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Texas.

Environmental groups have challenged those portions, citing potential harm. When experts recently said that sections along the river could fall into the river, even Mr. Trump criticized the project.

It remained unclear precisely when the yearlong investigation into the alleged scheme began. But last year, a bank informed Mr. Bannon that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records related to We Build the Wall, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Prosecutors said that despite the effort’s early success, there were questions almost instantly “about Mr. Kolfage’s background” and the viability of his promises to use the money he had raised to actually build Mr. Trump’s wall.

Because of these concerns, prosecutors said, GoFundMe warned Mr. Kolfage that if he did not find a “legitimate nonprofit organization” to handle the money, it would return it to the donors. Mr. Kolfage claimed that the group had determined that only $800,000 of the funds needed to be given back.

“No rules were broken,” he said in an interview last year.

As the problems with donors mounted, Mr. Kolfage said he would establish a board of advisers and incorporate the group as We Build the Wall Inc.

Mr. Kolfage enlisted Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state, to serve on the board. Mr. Kobach, a longtime Trump supporter and a prominent immigration hard-liner, was not named in the indictment.

Mr. Kolfage also brought in Mr. Bannon, who had joined Mr. Trump’s campaign as chief executive in August 2016 and later became the White House’s chief strategist.

Several times, prosecutors said, Mr. Kolfage falsely assured his donors that every dime they gave him would go to the wall.

“It’s not possible to steal the money,” he said at one point, according to the indictment. “We have an advisory committee.”

When special agents from the Manhattan federal prosecutor’s office and postal inspectors boarded Mr. Guo’s yacht, the Lady May, in Long Island Sound, they searched the vessel and seized Mr. Bannon’s cellphone, officials said.

The investigators also conducted other searches in Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri and Virginia, including at the homes of all of the defendants, the officials said.

Mr. Guo, a real-estate magnate, has been in exile since 2014 after fleeing China in anticipation of corruption and rape allegations by its government.

While living abroad — sometimes at a palatial apartment overlooking Central Park in Manhattan — he forged relationships with China hard-liners like Mr. Bannon and bought a membership to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla.

Almost immediately after leaving the White House, Mr. Bannon struck up lucrative financial ties to Mr. Guo that began with a $150,000 loan, according to a memo written in May 2019 and obtained by The New York Times.

The GoFundMe page through which Mr. Bannon and his co-defendants raised money is now inactive. On Wednesday, less than 24 hours before their arrests, Mr. Kolfage made an appearance on Mr. Bannon’s podcast and explained the deactivation as an example of how tech companies censor conservative speech online.

When Mr. Bannon asked how people could continue giving money to the wall campaign, Mr. Kolfage responded by directing potential donors to his personal website, as well as another specifically for wall funding.

“How do people get access to We Build the Wall?” Mr. Bannon said.

“Don’t go to GoFundMe anymore,” Mr. Kolfage replied. “Screw them. Go straight to our website.”

#Steve Bannon #Fraud

4 notes · View notes

cryptid-bloodhound · 5 years

Text

Legends Crime AU

After some great suggestions from: @daughterofthewinedude, @sunflower-key, @ajays-lullaby, and @unsightedjoker I decided to expand upon the Crime AU and fill in the blanks thanks to them! If there are more suggestions, let me know! I’m always open to them (:

So, again thank you for the suggestions, they’re a huuuge help!

Basic Roles

under the cut bcus I rambled again, oops. If yall want to know more, just hmu! I might make individual character ‘profiles’ if there’s interest. Also, if anyone wants to use this for their own crime setting/au then feel free! (i’d totally love to be tagged in stuff bcus im a hoe for crime aus)

Bloodhound - Unknown Assassin - They're independent and usually can’t be hired as they seem to be working down some sort of list. They aren’t in it for the money, clearly. However, if you plead your case and it’s a good one (in their eyes) the person you’re targeting might just disappear one day. Occasionally they’ll play the silent, scary backup if one of their associates/friends needs it. Nobody knows who they are, where they came from, how to contact them, or what the hell is up with them. It’s been noted that whenever they stop by a city, notoriously nasty criminals happen to go missing. All that’s known about them is that nobody escapes Bloodhound once they start their hunt.

Lifeline - Ex-Mob Princess/Mob Doc - Ajay Che would have been considered a Mob Princess if she had stayed within her Family Ranks. Her parents made very little effort to hide the truth of their profits from her. Disgusted, she left as soon as she could and swore to never join the life. Instead, she became a doctor in an effort to help people and make up for what her family has done. However, her childhood friend Octavio drug her back into the life unintentionally. He’d get hurt and show up at her doorstep again and again. Soon enough, other mobsters and criminals started arriving, earning her the unspoken title of Mob Doc. Now it’s not uncommon to find random Family members just lounging around her place. She decided to just say ‘to hell with it’ and try to act as some sort of Moral Compass for the crew.

Octane - Ex-Mob Prince/Demolitionist/Arsonist - His family and Ajay’s are closely intertwined. They grew up together thanks to the meetings between his parents and hers. However, unlike Ajay, he didn’t feel a moral repulsion at what their families were doing. If anything, he was bored. They weren’t extreme enough. It was almost all Blue Collar crimes, nothing explosive or violent. So, in typical Octavio fashion, he jumped ship and looked for something faster, flashier, more dangerous. It landed him in the ranks of his current Family as their Demolitions and Arson guy. He managed to drag Ajay back into their lifestyle after blowing off his own legs when he blew up the building of someone who pissed him off. He may not be the smartest or most level-headed member, but there’s no one more willing to jump into a fight or play with explosives than him.

Mirage - Jack of Trades - runs the ‘Cosa Nostra’-esque bar called the Paradise Lounge. It’s a neutral meeting grounds for the varying Families and it is an unwritten rule that nobody is allowed to fight in its premise. It’s the only ‘safe spot’ in the city. He has several different jobs for the Family. Aside from running the bar and helping to launder money, he is a document forger, a con artist, tech expert and is capable of talking people out of trouble one way or another. Basically, if someone needs to ‘disappear’ or get out of trouble, they come to ‘Mirage’.

Bangalore - Ground Enforcer/Collector - An ex-spec ops soldier who left the service after the mysterious ‘disappearance’ of her brother when he was on leave. She is certain it was a rival gang who did something to him. So, she’s started a crusade to find out what happened to him and avenge him one way or another. She joined the Family after crossing paths with them on more than one occasion. After witnessing her impressive skills, they offered her whatever resources she needed to finish her quest in exchange for her services leading and training their ‘troops’. She also isn’t shy on collecting the debts owed to the family.

Gibraltar - Allied Boss - Makoa Gibraltar isn’t your typical Crime Lord. For starters, he doesn’t actively harm innocent people. If anything, he is closer to a vigilante than an evil mobster. He started his biker gang after witnessing one too many hate crimes and seeing too many horrible people walk free from a corrupt system. He protects victims from their attackers during tenuous things like court trials and breaks up hate crimes he sees in progress. He’s become affectionately noted throughout the city by its citizens and even the police like to turn a blind eye when they can when he’s seen protecting someone (or beating the ever-loving shit out of some asshole). He has a shaky alliance with The Family. At the moment, they haven’t done anything notably horrible and have helped fund his growing group. They even slip him some info every now and again about places and people who might need a ‘meeting’ with Gibraltar.

Crypto - Double Agent Hacker - Tae Joon Park is technically ‘dead’. After being framed by The Family for the murder of his adopted sister Mila, he decided it was best to stick with the idea of being dead and created a new identity for himself. Filled with a searing need for revenge, he’s entered into the Family under the guise of being their expert Hacker and pro at Espionage. There’s no code he can’t crack and no information he can’t find. He’s capable of bringing empires down from behind his keyboard and screen. That’s exactly what he plans on doing to The Family. Only, he’s starting to notice a very strange pattern. Not everyone in the Family seems to be aware of the shady business going on. Some appear to be victims themselves that are being played. Now, he also has to decide who is guilty and who’s just like him - a pawn.

Caustic - Wild Card Killer - Considered an Associate as he refuses to formally join The Family as a Made Man. Alexander Nox is also technically ‘dead’. After a run-in with the law (and a subsequent escape from prison), he had the local forger Mirage falsify evidence of his death and craft him a new identity. He functions as an interrogator and a cleaner when he feels the fancy. He’s made it very clear that he is, under no circumstance, beholden to what the Boss wants. He helps because the Boss offers him a practically endless supply of test subjects in exchange for extracting information from the people and disposing of the bodies. He also mentors Wattson in the ways of proper disposal. What his end goals are, nobody really knows and nobody wants to ask.

Wraith - Shadow Broker/Assassin - Renee Blasey is something of an enigma. Few people know her name beyond ‘Wraith’ and fewer still know what she looks like. She hides in the shadows, gathering information and eliminating targets with precision. There’s a rumor that she’s the one who brought the newcomer Crypto into the fold and that they’ve worked together in the past. Perhaps he was the one who freed her from a rival gang’s clutches. Due to her apparent connections all over the place and an almost unending supply of information, she was held captive and tortured for information. After her violent and bloody escape, she stumbled across the Family and they welcomed the notable information broker with open arms. How she gets the information she does, no one knows. She is always elusive about it. ‘A little birdy told me.’ ‘The voices knew’.

Pathfinder - Transport Expert - A ‘defective’ MRVN unit because he was too free-thinking and asked too many questions, namely: ‘what happened to my creator?’ He was going to be decommissioned and shut down permanently when a group of strangers broke into the facility and ransacked the place. After they saved him from being decommissioned, he followed them around like a puppy and unintentionally joined the Family. He functions somewhere between ‘getaway/transport expert’ and ‘team mascot’. It’s thought that he might have witnessed some damning things and that’s why he was going to be decommissioned. In the process, his memories were corrupted so it’s almost impossible to truly tell. They’ve begun proper work on restoring his memories now that the technical geniuses Wattson and Crypto have joined up alongside Mirage.

Wattson - Security/Business Front/Cleaner- Daughter of an Associate. She didn’t know her dad worked with the mob until she was older. After the initial surprise, she joined in on the business, going so far as to becoming Made. She runs the security service front known as ‘Apex Protection’ that also doubles as their money laundering business. Nobody gets past her defenses to get to Family. (It helps that her dad was rather close with the notoriously effective cleaner Caustic. She’s picked up a few tips from him and now helps with the cleaning when needed)

#Apex Legends #Crime AU #this was longer than expected huh

16 notes · View notes

pepucz · 5 years

Text

Death Note personal thoughts

I saw a post about thoughts on “everyone goes to Mu” part of the manga by one of my favourite tumblr users - 13eyond13 and I originally replied to it, but I figured my thoughts were more about my personal feelings than adding something relevant to the original post, so I decided to post it totally separately here just for my own satisfaction. (also my English can suck hard, so if anyone decides to read this all, I’m sorry for any mistakes)

_______

I must admit I was rooting for Light and was truly a KIRA supporter at the beginning (till the moment he killed Lind L. Tailor), I also took the information from Ryuk about Mu as a fact for everyone just like Light did, but that's probably because I'm an atheist and I have lots of nihilistic thoughts, so Ryuk saying the “Mu” part would only prove my own views and beliefs - the nihilistic aspect of the whole story is also one of the reasons why Death Note remained one of my most favourite mangas of all my time and why I’m so happy to have my love for it fully restored and be actively back in the fandom...

So yeah I agreed with the original intention of Light with the Death Note, he was pretty careful with what kind of criminals he killed, he "wouldn't kill those who killed accidentally or without malice like car accident deaths for example" (chapter 47), but I didn't agree with his God complex, that was probably the first thing that didn't click right with me even though it does make a sense as Light wanted to set new rules for humanity by his own standarts, I just don’t like the idea of “God” or whatever, but the real endgame for me was the moment he killed Tailor, he didn't know if he was criminal, he killed him just because he challenged him. That was the point where I stopped rooting for him. I also saw killing Raye Penber and the rest of the FBI agents as even more unnecessary steps and also a pretty obvious way to cast suspicion against himself. But we wouldn't have a story if it wouldn’t happen 🙃 And I still loved his character even after this tbh :)

I must admit I don't value a human’s life as something more valuable than an animal's life (of course I do value my dearest's lives super lot, I would die for them anytime or rather I do continue living for them, but those lost humans' lives of people, whom I hadn't known personally, haven't heard their story or whom I simply didn’t like just don't spur any real pity for them in me, earth is overpopulated anyway, what truly upsets me in the worldwide spectrum is losing some extinct animal species - I even cry when I see the planet lost some animal species just because of the human greediness) and I'm sick of ppl making so much fuss over the loss of a human life than over animal's one especially if they don't know those humans personally. Death is part of the human life, sometimes it’s unfair how some lives end, but the World won’t stop spinning because of it and it’s not like humans are endangered species... it’s pretty much the other way around. I mentioned this bit of my feelings about general mankind because I was pretty irritated when the task force or someone in DN universe was upset with ppl dying even if they were/might be a piece of shit, just because it’s “human life!! Human!!”. Like - I loved Soichiro Yagami as a father figure and I really loved his love for Light, but I was totally done with him ruining L’s plans in Yotsuba’s arc XD Same for innocent Light in this arc, but at least he didn’t try to do anything that would ruin L’s plans just to stop the criminal’s deaths (Misa managed it in the end and everyone was satisfied thanks to that for the time being) XD

Back to the topic of using Death Note - I would plan to use it as Light did in the beginning, but target mainly animal abusers, it would also be super hard for me to find names and faces and 100% proof that they are the guilty ones. Also I would never think of myself as a God, that's totally stupid IMHO. I would be just a mass murderer like Light by human's standards. 'Murderer' is still a word invented by humans alone, so it wouldn't faze me as much as it fazed Light being called like that... Also maybe I would never use Death Note to the extent as Light did, because now even criminals have GDPR protection and their names and photos are often kept secret (which I find to be super unfair). Light would never commit a murder without a Death Note, and I’m the same (even though I can’t guarantee what I would do if I saw someone torturing animals/my loved ones in front of me.... I still think I would go berserk probably). Anyway even with knowing there is nothing after Death for sure, I would still try to make the world a better place by what I believe is right, I don’t care that it would seem evil to some ppl, I also don't give a shit there is no meaning for human's lives in the vast of the universe, I wouldn't care that this plan of making the World a better place would also mean nothing compared the whole Universe and its timeline... I would still try to do it, because it would satisfy me for the time of me being alive...

All humans have a choice to not hurt others, those who decide to do it especially when it concerns truly innocent human's lives or animal's ones (I truly hate humans, who abuse animals just for fashion, cosmetics, household products, money or for some sick sense of fun) just don't deserve their life in my mindset and I don't care how wrong it is in human society's view. I get especially angry when some criminal runs away from Borstal (because he is not put in prison as he is mentally ill and commited crime because of it) or from prison, of even worse when a criminal is released by the court for good behaviour or some shit and then that individual ends innocent life again.... in such cases I just get furious at the impotence of our laws because it means this individual can harm someone close to me too just as simply because “as a human” he still has all the human rights even after he violated someone else’s rights, that’s just super unfair. I also don't believe in real peace, human race is not capable of it imho. That's why we have to have laws... and here I’m getting back to Death Note - our laws serve the same purpose as Kira's law did in my opinion, only Kira was more successful because it was pretty definitive and striked even those who otherwise wouldn't give a shit about our weak laws. There are people who want to live peacefully and don't need any law for that, then there are some who live in peace just because of the fear of our laws' consequences and then we have those who don't give a shit about laws because it won't cost them their lives... + a small group who don't give a shit even it would cost them their life... (we don't have a death sentence in Czech Republic anymore as it was deemed too "inhuman", I must add that I must agree that there are crimes where it's almost impossible to convict the criminal as 100% guilty and it's better to just put them in the prison - as I already mentioned I would have a really hard time using the Death Note because I would be too afraid I might kill someone innocent). So Kira's idea about peace was no different than the current worlwide idea of peace with our laws.

Now to get somewhere else for a bit - I fell in love with L and Near and I was quite happy with the ending of Death Note and how Light was served and killed by Ryuk. I felt a bit of pity for his death, but it didn't traumatize me like L's (or Mello's) death tbh. I woudn’t really change a thing about L’s and Light’s deaths anyway...

When I look at the overal picture of Death Note, Light still managed to save more innocent lives than Near and L imho. During his time the crime dropped by 70% worldwide. 70% is truly a large number considering the worldwide measure. A lot of innocent humans didn't die because of rapists and murderers thanks to Light. But as DN is pretty nihilistic the world returned back to the old standards after Light's defeat and the crime percentage grew back as it was before Kira's reign. So defeating Kira served right only to people who's life’s purpose is fighting criminals - they need them to exist otherwise their job would be meaningless - and Kira almost took it from them. L's life purpose was solving crimes, but what would there be to solve if criminals were ceasing to exist? I see it as the main reason why he got involved in the Kira case at first even if he himself wouldn’t admit it. Kira was threatening his life's purpose. But of course that's just my impression. I still fell in love with L the most even if our views differed.

_________

Dunno if this whole rant makes sense or not but that’s just how I feel....

Death Note doesn't exist unfortunately and even if it would and I would get my hands on it, if it would be haunted by Ryuk, I would be definitely served by him pretty soon anyway, because he would probably get bored with me very soon 😂 I'm not a genius and I would be afraid of harming innocent beigns, so I would be extremely careful with using the Death Note.

Might try to bargain with apples but knowing Ryuk it wouldn't be enough to keep him from writing my name down sooner than my time is up 😂 I wouldn't even blame him 🙃 I'm simple and boring average woman, who is totally done with human race and most of the humans.

BTW I really love this little bit from the pilot chapter of Death Note:

"But that would probably mean you'd have to kill the majority of mankind." 👍

(might delete this whole post later because of my social anxiety or if I get too roasted for my opinions, because I'm a coward 😄 I do stand firmly behind my beliefs especially IRL but I also prefer to be invisible on public sites 😄)

#death note

4 notes · View notes

theromancewatcher100 · 6 years

Text

Michael Jackson: The Facts

Alright y’all the Leaving Neverland documentary controversy was really starting to get to me. It’s so difficult knowing what to believe so I decided to do some research of my own, something I suggest everyone does before making a judgment based on one documentary. It doesn’t matter what I think but I believe the facts here speak for themselves so I’ve collated a big list of all the current evidence that’s been going around recently. Read it and then make up your mind. Feel free to add anything if you like. Thanks.

*****************

Action to sue James Safechuck SNR for almost $1 million was filed on the 26th April 2013. Stephanie Safechuck had shares. James Safechuck Snr was served on the 14th of May 2013. Wade Robson appeared on the Today show on the 16th May 2013. James Safechuck Jnr sees it and realizes he also had been abused.

Michael Jackson was not living in California when the abuse supposedly took place.

Wade Robson had to ask his mother over twenty questions about his first few nights with Michael Jackson because he couldn’t remember

For the court case in 2005, a psychological profile was performed on Michael Jackson. A forensic psychologist from the University of Cincinnati named Michael Borack evaluated many pedophiles and said that Michael did not fit the profile. Borack stated, ‘His eccentric behavior is not typical of most offenders’. He went on to say, ‘most offenders are normal people who could be your neighbours’, not anyone we would consider weird. He also stated that ‘most paedophiles will keep toys or other such appealing items around to lure children, but they do not usually play with the items themselves’. Michael thoroughly partook in playing and enjoying games and toys surrounding him for his own personal enjoyment.

Safechuck’s mother says in 2009 she danced when Michael Jackson died because she knew he’d never hurt another child, even though her son didn’t realise he was abused until 2013.

Wade Robson says they visited Neverland hundreds of times. But he had said in court that they only went to Neverland 14 times. Michael was there 4 times out of the 14.

Safechuck in his lawsuit claimed he was abused by Jackson in New York in 1989 after he performed at the Grammy’s. But the Grammy’s were in Los Angeles that year and Jackson didn’t perform at the Grammy’s in 1989.

Safechuck said in 1987 he spent Thanksgiving with Jackson at his home. But Jackson was in Australia doing the Bad tour at the time

Prior to his death Michael Jackson was investigated by the FBI for 13 years and found nothing. 72 officers and 50 FBI agents

Found innocent at 2 trials

Michael’s bodyguard, Bill Whitfield has defended him stating, ‘everyone that knows me knows that if I believed or knew MJ would harm a child I would not have worked for him. As his personal security, I would have known if something wasn’t cool and trust me I would’ve kicked his ass myself! As I protected him in life I will protect his honour in death #igotyourbacksir’.

James stated that ‘Michael didn’t want us spending any time with women and cut contact with me after puberty’. Photographic evidence exists of James, Michael and his then current wife Lisa Marie Presley with James holding an umbrella for Michael

Wade stated that ‘I was molested by Michael between ages 7 and 14’. Wade is now 36 so the abuse happened between 1989 and 1996. So, the abuse happened during the Jordie Chandler investigation and during Michael’s marriage to Lisa Marie Presley - with the FBI finding nothing.

Manipulated footage of Michael exists. Michael was being honoured at the Regent hotel and supposedly recorded a message for Wade wishing him a Happy Birthday with Michael saying, ‘hello Wade, today is your birthday’. The video at the Regent Hotel was recorded on the 20th February 1990 while Wade’s birthday is on the 7th of September with the original video being intended for Elizabeth Taylor.

Wade defended Michael 3 times: 1993, 2003 and 2009

Wade has changed his story 4 times. During the first, he stated that Michael threatened and manipulated him that they’ll go to jail if he said anything. The second was that Wade didn’t realise he’d been abused. The third was that Wade felt shame. And the fourth was that Wade always knew what Michael did but didn’t realise it was bad.

James also has changed his story twice. He said that Michael and his people were threatening him to keep quiet and James refused to testify but he and his mum knew he had been abused. The second time he said that he didn’t realise he had been abused until 2014.

Wade had also maintained a relationship with Michael Jackson’s niece, which wasn’t mentioned in the documentary, Brandi Jackson and cheated on her with Britney Spears to get ahead in the fame game.

Mike Smallcombe who wrote the 2016 book Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson has accused James Safechuck of lying about his involvement in the 2005 trial. In the documentary, Safechuck said he refused to testify. However, Smallcombe stated that ‘in the documentary, Safechuck claims Jackson called him ‘near the end of the trial’ and asked him to testify on his behalf once again as he had done in 1993. Safechuck said he refused and that Jackson then got ‘really angry’ and threatened him. He repeated this claim under oath, in his ongoing lawsuit against the Jackson estate. However, it simply can’t be true. Very early on in the trial, the judge ruled that he would allow the jury to hear about five boys whom the prosecution claimed were sexually abused by Jackson’. Smallcombe claimed that Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Jason Francia, and Macaulay Culkin were among the boys asked to testify in court, adding that the judge presiding over the case had said Safechuck’s evidence would not be permitted. ‘The judge came to this decision because nobody had ever claimed they had seen Safechuck being abused’. This meant Jackson could not have asked him to testify at any point, but particularly not months after he had been ruled out as a witness when the trial was near its end. Smallcombe also claimed that both Robson and Safechuck are in debt to Jackson’s estate after they tried to bring lawsuits against it in 2013 and 2014 respectively, both of which were thrown out. ‘Robson owes the estate almost $70,000 million dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the estate several thousand dollars as well. Both Robson and Safechuck should have been questioned about their motives for trying to get hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from the estate. These things should have been put to them in the documentary, or by journalists in their television interviews. We still need to challenge, especially when there are credibility issues’

In 2005 he was found not guilty in regards to allegations of sexual abuse of another 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo.

Wade Robson’s allegations of child sex abuse against Michael Jackson have reportedly been disproved by his own mother in historic court documents. Mike Smallcombe, a Michael Jackson biographer claims a testimony from Joy in 1993 shows some of Wade’s allegations in the documentary cannot be true. Wade claimed the abuse started when his family went to the Grand Canyon and he stayed behind with Jackson. But Smallcombe claims his mother Joy told a court in 1993 that Wade did not join them on the trip. He argues that Joy’s testimony under oath is proof that Wade has lied. Smallcombe said, ‘in the documentary, Wade Robson described how he and his then 10-year-old sister stayed in Jackson’s bedroom the first two nights they were ever at Neverland in January in 1990. Wade the claimed that his family left to go to the Grand Canyon, while he stayed behind with Jackson alone at Neverland for the next five days. Wade claimed it was then when he was first abused by Jackson, going into graphic detail about what had allegedly happened over the course of several nights. His mother, Joy Robson testified under oath in a deposition in 1993/ 1994 in relation to the Jordie Chandler case that Wade had actually gone with them on that trip to the Grand Canyon before the entire family returned to Neverland for the second time the following weekend. Joy Robson had no reason to lie about this; she openly admitted that Wade stayed with Jackson alone on other occasions. She could have said, ‘Wade stayed behind with Michael when we went away to the Grand Canyon between weekends’, it wouldn’t have made a difference. Her words in that deposition were ‘we went to the ranch for the first weekend, and then we left and went to the Grand Canyon and we toured. We came back to the ranch for the following weekend’. She was asked to elaborate on who had gone to the Grand Canyon, and she said ‘my family’. There was no mention of Wade staying behind. To confirm this, later on, revealed that the first time Wade stayed alone with Jackson at the ranch without her was actually in 1993. She said, ‘my son has never been to the ranch without me up until this year (1993)’. Smallcombe said that when testifying in defence of Jackson in 2005, more than a decade after his mother’s deposition, Wade also testified that the only time he had been at Neverland without his mother was sometime in 1992 or 1993 when Macaulay Culkin and Jordie Chandler was also there. Smallcombe said, ‘when giving evidence and asked if his sister had stayed in the bed with him ‘the entire them’ they were at Neverland on that first trip, Wade answered ‘yes’. Meaning he never stayed alone with Jackson during that trip. HIs mum corroborated that when giving evidence the following day’. Smallcombe said that Wade admitted that he ‘did not know’ whether what happened that night ‘came from (his) own recollection of it was told to (him) by someone else’. In one email his mother, he also asked her scores of questions about what had happened that first weekend at Neverland. That was when Wade was drafting a book about the alleged abuse, having to get the Cirque du Soleil job with the estate. All of this shows that Wade’s story about being abused for the first time, while the rest of his family had supposedly left the ranch to go the Grand Canyon, is false. Of course, while this doesn’t categorically rule out that Jackson abused Wade Robson, it does make you wonder if this extremely detailed and key story in the documentary has been fabricated’

#leaving neverland #michael jackson #wade robson #james safechuck #evidence #allegations #facts #documentary #controversy

52 notes · View notes

sinrau · 4 years

Link

Donald Trump and COVID-19 survivor Brett Breslow (right; photo courtesy of Breslow family)

The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.

— Albert Einstein

“Don’t be afraid of Covid,” President Donald Trump tweeted Monday, hours before his release from Walter Reed Medical Center.

That didn’t sit well with Brett Breslow. The 50-year-old man from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, was on a ventilator for 19 days and spent a total of a month in the hospital. His wife, Amy, went on national and local news and pleaded through tears for federal officials to take action to help save his life, not knowing if she would ever see him again. Brett survived despite the federal government. The plasma donated from recovered COVID patients that she fought for never came.

“It (Trump’s tweet) really made me angry,” he said. “It made me angry because of all that I’ve been through.”

The tweet infuriated me, too. To think that Breslow, a tough dude with a big heart whom I’ve known for 15 years, was essentially being belittled by the president of the United States was beyond the pale. Was Trump saying the 210,000 who have died, and others who have suffered like Breslow — a Navy veteran of the Persian Gulf War and local football coach — weren’t tough enough? That death and unimaginable suffering are nothing to fear?

When Trump announced his presidential campaign, I dipped my toe cautiously into the waters of opinion writing after 18 years as a journalist following the credo of trying to be fair to both sides of the story. But now I know there is no “two sides” to this election.

There is good and there is evil. Those who vote for Trump in 28 days will be complicit in the death of thousands upon thousands of fellow Americans from COVID-19.

But it wasn’t just the Monday tweet.

· On Sunday, he briefly left the hospital for a joyride that endangered the health and lives of the Secret Service agents who accompanied him.

· On Monday, upon his release from the hospital, the decidedly contagious president ascended the stairs of the White House South Portico and removed his mask, in proximity to an official photographer and staffers who could be seen behind him on the balcony.

· Today, he was back to his one of his earlier hits, equating the virus to the seasonal flu — a post that Facebook pulled down for breaking its COVID-19 misinformation rule and Twitter let stand but with a message about it breaking their rules as well.

Four moments. Four microcosms of the malignant narcissism of the only truly evil president to govern the United States. Four instances illustrating why this man, by all rights, is guilty of manslaughter on an inconceivable scale.

Why is the United States the only developed country on Earth still ensnared in a continuous first wave of coronavirus? A death toll of tens of thousands was likely unpreventable, but why does the United States have one of every five victims worldwide even though we have only one-twenty-fifth of the population?

Trump not only doesn’t care about anybody besides himself but is psychologically incapable of doing so. The White House is supposed to be in the lead, setting a national strategy to limit the spread of COVID. No one ever foresaw that the superspreader was in the White House, both figuratively and literally.

Now Trump is contributing to more death. “Don’t be afraid of Covid” will be interpreted by his followers that they shouldn’t bother with masks or other precautions.

Researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) last month forecasted that the death toll will reach 410,000 by the end of 2020. With near-universal masking and the maintenance of social distancing and governmental limits on the size of gatherings, the total could be 288,000. Trump’s incitement can literally be quantified as a push toward killing nearly 125,000 additional Americans.

The Breslow family experienced that callous indifference personally. Recovered COVID patients were able to donate what is known as “convalescent plasma” at the time, but in Delaware, not in New Jersey. The federal government wouldn’t let the plasma be delivered across state lines. With Amy Breslow’s relentless pressure, there was intervention from local legislators, and two other patients from another local hospital were able to participate in a Mayo Clinic-led clinical trial. Renee Bannister, a teacher, and Andy Fei, an opera singer, were the first South Jersey residents to benefit from her heroics.

“I don’t think anybody really understands that choices were made in the federal government, such as disassembling the pandemic response team, but then he felt like he didn’t want to admit to a mistake and turn it back on,” said Breslow, who endured months of kidney dialysis, weeks with dizziness from inner ear damage, and still has other persistent physical issues. “And then he blamed the economy on the pandemic when he chose to do nothing about the pandemic.”

That’s what you sign on for if you vote for Trump: an unfeeling, dishonest, rudderless government, complicity in death, and tolerance of evil on the larger scale.

Trump’s focus is on mimicking North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Like Kim, Trump is trying to paint a picture of invulnerability — in this case by saying he beat COVID-19. Like Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Italian dictator of World War II, his balcony moment was meant to build a cult of personality.

Trump’s one move was to put up a highly porous closure of travel from China on Feb. 2, and then act as if it were mission accomplished. He did nothing more even though he told Bob Woodward five days later that he knew the coronavirus was “deadly stuff” transmitted by air, a threat “more deadly” than the flu (in comparison to his pulled-down Facebook post). Trump’s brand is a booming economy. He figures the only way he wins reelection is if people stop being afraid, get back to work, and get together at restaurants, theaters, and, of course, maskless Trump rallies.

This death toll would not have happened under Hillary Clinton. This would not have happened under Barack Obama. This would not have happened under George W. Bush or any of his predecessors. Not one would have the gall to put their own political fortunes before the lives of countless Americans. Not one would have come up with such twisted reelection logic.

Trump clearly doesn’t care about Democrats. He does care about Republicans, but only when they’re filling out their ballots for him. That’s as far as it goes. He is pro-life when it comes to abortion, but he could care less if they drop dead from catching the virus while attending one of his rallies. He doesn’t mind if they die while waiting in line to vote in person on Election Day, because he plans to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate mail-in ballots in swing states in the name of nonexistent fraud.

His White House is a hot zone. The Rose Garden ceremony for nominating Amy Coney-Barrett to the Supreme Court seems to have been the breeding ground to infect advisers Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway, spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany, campaign manager Bill Stepien, ex-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, three senators, and now immigration confidante Stephen Miller. Trump appeared maskless at a New Jersey fund-raiser last Thursday despite showing symptoms of COVID or perhaps already knowing he had tested positive.

“He has these non-social-distanced events,” fumed Breslow. “Everyone gets sick. It’s really disgusting.”

It feels quaint to think back to when I thought there were two sides to every story. There is only good and evil here. Vote for Trump and you are complicit in that evil and thousands upon thousands of needless deaths.

This election is good vs. evil: It’s that simple

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

wsmith215 · 4 years

Text

Attorney General William Barr on Michael Flynn, Obamacare and coronavirus restrictions – Transcript

The Justice Department on Thursday moved to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s first national security adviser. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the former Russian ambassador to the U.S. — but in January, Flynn asked the court to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, citing the government’s “bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement.”

In a motion filed in U.S. district court, federal prosecutors asked the judge to dismiss the single count of making false statements to the FBI, claiming the government concluded that the FBI’s interview of Flynn “was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”

Attorney General William Barr joined CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge to discuss the reasoning behind the motion.

Read Herridge’s full interview with Barr below.

Catherine Herridge: Attorney General Barr, thank you for speaking first to CBS News.

Attorney General William Barr: Hi, Catherine.

What action has the Justice Department taken today in the Michael Flynn case?

We dismissed or are moving to dismiss the charges against General Flynn. At any stage during a proceeding, even after indictment or a conviction or a guilty plea, the Department can move to dismiss the charges if we determine that our standards of prosecution have not been met.

As you recall, in January, General Flynn moved to withdraw his plea, and also alleged misconduct by the government. And at that time, I asked a very seasoned U.S. attorney, who had spent ten years as an FBI agent and ten years as a career prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, from St. Louis, to come in and take a fresh look at this whole case. And he found some additional material. And last week, he came in and briefed me and made a recommendation that we dismiss the case, which I fully agreed with, as did the U.S. attorney in D.C. So we’ve moved to dismiss the case.

So this decision to dismiss by the Justice Department, this all came together really within the last week, based on new evidence?

Right. Well U.S. Attorney Jensen since January has been investigating this. And he reported to me last week.

Does Judge Sullivan have a say?

Yes. Under the rules, the case can be dismissed with leave of court. Generally, the courts have said that that provision is in there to protect defendants, to make sure the government doesn’t play games by bringing a charge and then dismissing it; bringing another charge, dismissing it. But he does have a say.

But is the Flynn case effectively over today from the Justice Department’s point of view?

We think the case against Flynn for false statements should be dismissed, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned.

Attorney General Barr on why he moved to dismiss Flynn’s charges

And depending on the judge’s decision, could charges be brought against General Flynn in the future for other actions he took during the presidential campaign or during the transition?

Well, no charges like that have been brought. And I’m not gonna speculate about what charges there may be.

All of that said, General Flynn pled guilty to lying to federal investigators during his interview in January of 2017. And Flynn admitted in court, quote, his “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals with the campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” Does the fact remain that General Flynn lied to federal investigators?

Well to constitute a false statement, you need two things. One, you need a false statement, lie. And then it has to be material to a legitimate investigation. And I think on the question of lying, it’s as Comey, Director Comey said just a few months after this episode, he said it was a closed question. And that, while you might make that argument, it was a very closed question.

But it’s on the question of materiality that we feel really that a crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on. They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition. So.

Let me just also say that when he pled, the issue of materiality is related to whether the government has a bona fide investigation going on. And that’s information that’s really within the control of the government. The individual party would really not have that information. So as new information just became available that has a bearing on whether there was a legitimate investigation, that requires us, our duty, we think is to dismiss the case.

Does the new evidence show that the counterintelligence case against General Flynn was simply left open to lay a trap for lying?

Yes. Essentially. They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn.

On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open. So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador.

Let me say that, at that point, he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.

And that call, there was nothing wrong with it whatever. In fact, it was laudable. He– and it was nothing inconsistent with the Obama administration’s policies. And it was in U.S. interests. He was saying to the Russians, you know, “Don’t escalate.” And they asked him if he remembered saying that, and he said he didn’t remember that.

What should Americans take away from your actions in the Flynn case today?

Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.

Are the actions you’re taking today bigger than the Flynn case?

Well, I think they are bigger because I hope that it sends the message that there is one standard of justice in this country. And that’s the way it will be. It doesn’t matter what political party you’re in, or, you know, whether you’re rich or poor. We will follow the same standard for everybody. Was there a crime committed, do we believe a crime was committed? And do we have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And we don’t think either of those standards were applicable here.

Has this been one of the most consequential decisions that you have made as attorney general?

I don’t know. I let other people judge that. It’s certainly – I feel good about the decision because that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to do what’s right.

Not what’s easy.

Right.

Was it an easy decision?

It was an easy decision, yes. I think easy because once I saw all the facts and some of the tactics used by the FBI in this instance and also the legal problems with the case, it was an easy decision. You know, one thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates.

Deputy Attorney General Yates, I’ve disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings. They and, you know, Director Comey ran around that.

When the special counsel report was released last year, you were accused by critics of putting your thumb on the scale in the president’s favor. Are you doing the president’s bidding in General Flynn’s case?

No, I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it.

Barr says dismissing Flynn’s charges was an “easy decision”

President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case. He said, “What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again.” Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets?

No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and ’17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn.

And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this.

This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct.

The whole pattern of conduct before?

And after.

And after?

Yeah, the election.

After the election? Okay. You talk about the importance of timing in this decision. What was the evidence that helped you decide this issue?

I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it.

And that when they heard about the phone call, which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there’s no question as to what was discussed. The FBI knew exactly what was discussed. And General Flynn, being the former director of the DIA, said to them, you know, “You listen, you listen to everything. You know, you know what was said.”

So there was no mystery about the call. But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation, which didn’t fly. And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation. And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.

They didn’t warn him, the way we usually would be required by the Department. They bypassed the Justice Department. They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth. These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on.

Barr says FBI tried to lay a “perjury trap” for Flynn

You know you’re gonna take a lot of incoming, as they say in the military, for this decision. Are you prepared for that?

Yeah, I’m prepared for that. I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done.

Just to be clear, you said this was your decision.

Uh-huh.

Did you consult or discuss the decision in any way with President Trump?

No.

Did you advise the White House that you had made this decision?

No. They were aware, because of the schedule, that the Department would be saying something in court. And I said that we’d make up our mind what to do and file, you know, sometime before Monday. File our responses to what was going on in court. But other than that, no.

So the White House became aware of the decision when it filed today?

Yes.

Not earlier?

No.

Barr says DOJ did not consult with White House on Flynn decision

No. Okay. A lot of records have come to light. You talk about the records for closing the Flynn case. Were those new records to you? Because–

Yes.

–of Jensen? Okay. All right. In addition to those records, there are handwritten notes from January 24th, 2017. This was the day of Michael Flynn’s interview. And the writer states, “What is our goal? Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Is that a routine, by-the-book conversation between senior FBI officials?

Well, as many people point out, you know, it’s not unusual. In the course of a bona fide investigation, when you’re doing a criminal investigation or a counterintelligence investigation, that has a basis it’s not unusual to have an interview with someone and expecting that they might lie. But here’s what’s different here is that there was no underlying investigation that was legitimate. And the whole exercise was just about creating the lie.

But that language, does it bother you at all?

Well, my understanding is, just looking at the documents, the way I interpret them, is there was a disagreement. And that one of the agents, one of the senior agents felt that “Let’s not be game playing here. We have the transcript. Show him the transcripts and find out what you wanna find out.”

Instead of instead of, you know, essentially reading excerpts and saying, “Do you remember saying that?” which seemed to be all for the purpose of trying to catch him in something that could be called a lie. But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.

Who at the FBI was driving this?

Well, this particular episode, it looks like the impetus came from the seventh floor.

The seventh floor is Director Comey.

I believe it’s Director Comey and the deputy’s office.

Based on the evidence that you have seen, did senior FBI officials conspire to throw out the national security adviser?

Well, as I said, this is a particular episode. And it has some troubling features to it, as we’ve discussed. But I think, you know, that’s a question that really has to wait an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump’s administration.

What are the consequences for these individuals?

Well, you know, I don’t wanna, you know, we’re in the middle of looking at all of this. John Durham’s investigation, and U.S. Attorney Jensen, I’m gonna ask him to do some more work on different items as well. And I’m gonna wait till all the evidence is, and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is.

But if, you know, if we were to find wrongdoing, in the sense of any criminal act, you know, obviously we would, we would follow through on that. But, again, you know, just because something may even stink to high heaven and be, you know, appear everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute. And that we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies to everybody.

Barr says DOJ investigation is not over

It sounds to me like one of your objectives is to never allow the Justice Department to be used as a political weapon. That’s what you’re saying you think happened here?

I think, yes. I think there was an aspect of that. And I think, for the last several decades, the Department has been used more and more, or the efforts have been made to draw the Department into that. And I think it’s very important that that not happen.

People, you know, we should choose our leaders through the election process. And efforts to use the law enforcement process to change leaders or to disable administrations are incendiary in this country and destroy our republic.

Before we move on to some separate questions, many of these records should have been provided to Flynn’s defense team long ago. Do you still have confidence in FBI Director Christopher Wray?

Well, you know, Chris Wray has always supported and been very helpful in various investigations we’ve been running. He cooperated fully with Durham, cooperated fully with Jensen. But, you know, there are a lot of cases in the Department of Justice and I don’t consider it the director’s responsibility to make sure that all the documents are produced in each case. So I don’t– I wouldn’t say that this has affected my confidence in Director Wray.

Does Director Wray have what it takes to make the changes at the FBI?

Yeah, as I’ve said, you know, he’s been a great partner to me in our effort to restore the American people’s confidence in both the Department of Justice and the FBI. And we work very well together. And I think both of us know that we have to step up. That it’s very important to restore the American people’s confidence.

Does he have his arms around the gravity of what happened in 2016 and 2017?

I think he does.

Newly declassified footnotes in the Horowitz report suggest that the Steele dossier was likely the product of Russian disinformation. And there were multiple warnings to the FBI at that time, yet they continued to use that. How do you explain that?

I think that’s one of the most troubling aspects of this whole thing. And, in fact, I said it in testimony on the Hill, I can’t remember if it was my confirmation, that I said I was very concerned about the possibility that that dossier and Steele’s activities were used as a vector for the Russians to inject disinformation into the political campaign.

I think that is something that Robert Mueller was responsible for looking at under his charter, which is the potential of Russian influence. But I think it was ignored and there was mounting indications that this could very well have been happening and no one really stopped to look at it.

These are very smart people who were working in the special counsel’s office, and in senior levels of the FBI. So what drove them here?

Well, I think one of the things you have to guard against, both as a prosecutor and I think as an investigator, is that if you get too wedded to a particular outcome and you’re pursuing a particular agenda, you close your eyes to anything that sort of doesn’t fit with your preconception. And I think that’s probably the phenomenon we’re looking at here.

Barr on Steele dossier and Russia investigation

You know more about the investigation since Horowitz, since December. Do you see more evidence of personal or political bias today?

You know, I’m not gonna, again, get into reaching a conclusion at this point till I see everything. There’s certainly more information that has come out that, you know, points in that direction. But I haven’t reached a final conclusion.

Before we just move onto to a couple of off-topic questions, the last thing most Americans remember about General Flynn is that he resigned, was fired. And that he admitted lying to the FBI. Does the fact remain that he lied?

Well, you know, people sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes. And as I said, the question of lying, you know, it’s something he would know about. On its face, as Director Comey said, it’s not so clear. But the question of materiality is not something he would know about. That’s something that the government knows about. And we have now gotten into it, drilled down, obtained new information. And the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime.

Before we leave this topic, is there anything that you would like to add?

No.

Okay. Just on COVID-19. Some of the news of today. The valet at the White House has tested positive. Have you had any exposure or interaction with this valet?

I don’t think I have, no.

Do you have a view on whether the president, the vice president should self-quarantine or be separated?

No, you know, I don’t have a view on that. I don’t know about how close they were physically or what the medical advice is the president gets. But we’re tested pretty regularly when we’re over at the White House to visit.

Every day, every other day?

It depends how frequently, though at least once a week, but sometimes, you know, if you’ve been around and could have been infected, you can get further testing.

The president said that he’s urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act when it’s taken up in the Supreme Court later this year. What’s your position? Is that something the Justice Department will continue to back?

Yes. You know, we had an opportunity, all the stakeholders in the administration, to discuss this, and the Department is going to be taking the position as the president states.

Even if that means stripping millions of Americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic?

Well, the case isn’t gonna be argued until October. And the president’s made clear that he strongly supports coverage of preexisting conditions. And there will be coverage of preexisting conditions. And, you know, he expects to fix and replace Obamacare with a better health care system.

If governors continue to limit the size of gatherings, including religious services, what further action is the Justice Department prepared to take?

Well, I think initially, you know, at the very beginning of the crisis, before we knew very much — and while, in some places, the infection rates were skyrocketing and threatening to overwhelm our health care system, you know, the initial limitations may have been defensible. But as time goes by, it’s harder to justify those kinds of blanket restrictions on religious practice.

I think, if people can follow social distancing by leaving space, wearing masks and so forth, there has to be accommodation to religious practice. The Department has already entered a few cases around the country where there have been these sweeping prohibitions against religion where there were comparable secular activities are not controlled the same way.

On the Bureau of Prisons– currently 2,100 inmates and over 360 Bureau prison staff have tested positive for COVID-19. Will you make universal testing available to the inmates and the staff?

I think over time, we’ll be testing and perhaps get to that point. You know, we got, right at the beginning, I dealt with FEMA and I was able to get some of the Abbott machines. And we’ve been building up our testing capacity. And we’re doing more and more tests.

And, you know, we’ve been trying to keep our inmates as safe as we can. We let a lot of inmates who are older and don’t pose a threat to the community, we’ve put them on home confinement to get ’em outta the institutions. So we’re taking every measure we can to protect those inmates.

Generally speaking, historically, the infection rates roughly, from what I’ve seen, are comparable inside the institution (SIC) as they are in society at large. And we’ve been able to prevent our prisons from becoming Petri dishes where they sweep through with the same lethality that they have in, you know, nursing homes and so forth. It takes a lotta work, and the Bureau of Prisons has been working hard on that.

In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to– to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making?

Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.

Uh-huh.

I mean, it’s not gonna be the end of it.

What do you mean, it’s not the end of it?

Well, I said we’re gonna get to the bottom of what happened.

And later this year, do you expect a report from U.S. Attorney John Durham? Or do you expect indictments?

Well, as you know, I’m not gonna predict the outcome. But I said that we’re certainly — there probably will be a report as a byproduct of his work. But we also are seeing if there are people who violated the law and should be brought to justice. And that’s what we have our eye on.

And that would include individuals involved in the Flynn case?

I don’t wanna get into particular individuals.

Attorney General William Barr, thank you very much for joining us here at CBS News.

Thank you.

Source link

The post Attorney General William Barr on Michael Flynn, Obamacare and coronavirus restrictions – Transcript appeared first on The Bleak Report.

from WordPress https://bleakreport.com/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

#Coronavirus News

0 notes

junker-town · 5 years

Text

There’s nothing special about the Suns, which is why they’re succeeding

Phoenix is winning with an ordinary approach.

And that’s a really, really good thing.

Ten minutes into a press conference announcing his perennially dysfunctional franchise will hire its fifth head coach in the last four seasons, newly promoted Phoenix Suns general manager James Jones communicated his offseason plans about as clearly as one can.

“We need to add guys in their prime. We need to raise the floor of our team,” Jones said. “And you only do that with NBA players. Not prospects, but NBA players.”

As a rallying cry, “Raise the Floor” isn’t exactly “Trust The Process.” Still, it conveyed a specific message: we must walk before we can run, and the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Adding proven players wasn’t just a way for the Suns to avoid embarrassment. It’s the only way they could then take any next step.

That message didn’t break through in a summer where the Suns’ asset management ranged from adequate to baffling. It’s sure breaking through now as the Suns rise to the league’s third-best point differential in the very (very) early going of the 2019-20 season. They look like an actual basketball team, which is an incredible compliment given their recent past.

It’s difficult to find one specific reason for Phoenix’s surprising start. Outside of Aron Baynes turning into Splash Volcano, no Suns player has played well above their means. Their games aren’t really that exciting, unless effective screens and early rotations to the nail are your idea of appointment viewing. (Guilty.) One of their core young players is suspended until December, and the other is scoring and assisting less than he did last year. Their marquee free-agent signing is shooting 35 percent from the field.

But they’ve become a functional and possibly even good team precisely because they aren’t special. They’ve been bolstered not by top-level talent, but instead by the pristine positioning, floor spacing, and toughness from a crew of competent NBA role players. Or, as Jones put it, they’ve raised their floor.

“Aggressively competent” is how you’d describe recent additions like Baynes, Frank Kaminsky, Dario Saric, and Tyler Johnson. It’s how you’d describe Ricky Rubio at this stage of his career — consider that a good Jazz team let him walk to upgrade to Mike Conley. It’s how you’d describe 23-year-old rookie sharpshooter Cameron Johnson, selected way higher than anyone expected in the draft. It’s how you’d describe new coach Monty Williams, who slowly made the New Orleans Pelicans decent before they fired him to aim higher themselves.

The price for that aggressive competence wasn’t always ideal, but the total sum created a necessary baseline from which Phoenix is now building. The Suns’ early-season style of play is thoroughly unremarkable while also showing the power of executing a thoroughly unremarkable style of play effectively.

The Suns’ keep-it-simple ethos is most evident on defense. They do three things well and only three things well: pressure the ball, collectively pack the paint, and make second efforts if the first screen beats them.

Phoenix gets a lot of mileage out of being pains in the ass. Rubio is one of the NBA’s peskiest defensive point guards, but young wings Kelly Oubre and Mikal Bridges are also long and quick, while Saric never makes posting up pleasant. Even Booker, never known for his defensive energy, is blowing up dribble handoffs.

That ball pressure gets cranked up to 11 when backup point guard Jevon Carter enters. The days of the pitbull point guard defender that always seems to be in the opposing star’s grill are over, except in Phoenix, where Carter is relentless. Poor Tyus Jones needed 10 seconds just to get Memphis’ play going.

Ninety-four feetBall pressure is a life hack because it burns precious seconds off the shot clock, but you don’t see it much anymore for two reasons. One, it’s hard to defend physically without fouling. Two, it’s prone to backdoor cuts that ruin the system.

The Suns accept the first as a necessary tradeoff — they are dead last in the NBA in foul rate, which annoys Williams publicly, but probably not as much privately. They account for the second by aggressively rotating off perimeter players to pack the paint, especially when defending pick-and-rolls. The nail, which refers to a spot just above the free-throw line where an actual nail from the court’s structure peeks out, has become a second home for Suns perimeter defenders.

In theory, every NBA defensive scheme asks that help defender to stand on the nail to stop penetration. In practice, though, the nail defender is the one most stressed by the NBA’s spacing revolution. With the rise of the three-point shot and then the deep three-point shot, the nail defender is spread thin. It’s nearly impossible to plug rolls to the basket and also close out to their own man ready to fire from 27 feet. Worse, offenses have developed intricate tactics to distract that nail defender: switching two shooters along the three-point line, setting flare screens to delay closeouts, decoying a pick-and-roll to swing into another one, driving gaps instead of shooting, and many others I’m forgetting.

Phoenix’s early-season approach has vastly simplified those outcomes. Stopping dribble penetration is the only goal that matters, even at the expense of allowing spot-up three-pointers. That’s why you see Suns help defenders head to the nail before a pick-and-roll is even set, even if that may open up a shooter. They pre-rotate so they don’t have to rotate later.

That strategy works in concert with the Suns’ other core tenant: keep their big men by the basket and stay vertical rather than trying to swat shots. In this respect, Baynes has been an essential addition. The 32-year-old, 6’10, 260-pound center, acquired in a draft-day salary dump with the Celtics, is physically imposing, precise, and unconcerned with recognition or embarrassment — the role player’s holy trinity. He’s made an eight-year NBA career out of standing near the basket and putting his hands up.

With him patrolling the back line, Suns players can pressure their men and collectively pack the paint. They can also recover to the roller when the initial screen beats them and gain credit for a steal or deflection — impressive hustle to be sure, but also effort that only gets rewarded because Baynes held up the ball-handler.

The Suns’ offense has also benefited from simplifying the operation. Williams preaches an “0.5 system” in which every decision should happen in half a second or less. The concept isn’t new or even especially novel. Prior Suns coaches Earl Watson and Igor Kokoskov used similar terminology with far less success. But the Suns now have a roster of floor-raisers who can actually embody its principles.

Simply adding Rubio, an adequate floor general, has made a huge difference after not having anything remotely resembling one last year. Rubio is the guy who keeps the rest of the players focused and gets Phoenix into its sets early to maximize the time they have to score. This preseason possession showed both skills on display.

7 Plays Or Less - Random Observations.... 1. Want to see the impact Rubio's signing has on a team desperate for leadership? Watch him get to every player on the court after a bad transition D possession, that ended in Book/Ayton bickering. The result? Highlight of the game. pic.twitter.com/ZeDVbx26wf

— Seven Seconds Or Less Podcast (@7SOLpod) October 9, 2019

Rubio also takes a huge burden off Booker, who has responded by channeling more energy into defense and reading the floor. His scoring is down, but he’s getting better shots and moving the ball more effectively when a shot isn’t there. He’s launching more often within a normal flow of the offense and less often when the shot clock is winding down and he needs to bail the Suns out. Fifty-six of Booker’s buckets are assisted this season compared to just 36 last year, and more than 45 percent of his shots have come off one or zero dribbles this year, compared to just 34 percent last season.

He also can do less because Phoenix’s new collection of floor raisers follow two important offensive rules: keep moving, and never roll into the paint if someone else is already there. Kaminsky and Saric always seem to be zipping around somewhere, like flies attracted to light. Both run the equivalent of at least a full mile on offense while playing fewer than 28 minutes, according to NBA.com’s player tracking stats. Only one other player 6’10 or bigger has done that this year, and only nine did so last season.

That movement is contagious because it tilts the defense and facilitates more motion from other Suns players. The Suns have scored directly from a cut on 9.4 percent of their possessions this year, second-highest in the league behind the Zombie Warriors. Oubre, a player not exactly known for his decision-making, has been a major beneficiary, as Bright Side of the Sun’s Brendon Kleen noted.

Crucially, Phoenix doesn’t allows two players in the paint at the same time, which would only shrink the space for each. Instead, their bigs often hang on the perimeter to open the lane for their wings to cut through. Baynes’ remarkable mid-career transformation into a giant flamethrower is especially important: he’s taking nearly seven threes per 36 minutes while hitting 46 percent of them, which is astonishing. Nowadays, he sets screens, chills at the line as his guards drive, and waits for the opposing center to either help too much on the ball-handler or, hilariously, cede a wide open shot for a way better teammate in fear of his own shooting.

All of this is unremarkable, and that’s exactly the point. Protecting the paint? Good spacing? Proper positioning? Moving without the ball? These sound like prerequisites for NBA success, not bonuses. But the Suns haven’t taken any for granted, acquiring players who embody them and stressing a style of play that reinforces them. That’s a huge step considering how terribly they’ve built their rosters in the last decade.

Competence is not the same as brilliance, so don’t go printing those playoff tickets yet. In particular, I’m skeptical their defense will stay this elite once opponents realize their simple approach cedes open three-pointers. That’s already happening to some degree: the Suns are getting away with it largely because teams are only shooting 31 percent from downtown, which won’t happen over a full season.

In other ways, the Suns’ defense is getting a bit lucky. Opponent shot quality against Phoenix — which estimates the effective field goal percentage based on a model that considers the shot location and play context — is actually the fourth-worst in the league and more than five points higher than the actual effective field goal percentage the Suns are giving up. The incessant fouling will cost them more in the future, and it’s hard to see how they stop hacking when they are so physical with their ball pressure. Despite their pack-the-paint emphasis, the Suns also allow the sixth-highest percentage of shots at the rim, though they’ve effectively defended said shots so far.

But this is also the same organization whose owner brought live goats into his general manager’s office as a motivational ploy, only for them to shit everywhere in sight. Against that backdrop, competence will do just fine.

0 notes

elfnerdherder · 7 years

Text

Dread and Hunger: Chapter 4

You can read Chapter 4 Here

Chapter 4: Pinot Noir

Jack Crawford found him four days later while loitering outside of his apartment. In one hand he turned his car keys over and over and over, and in the other hand he grasped a familiar cream envelope. Will stopped, heart lurching at the sight. The fight or flight instinct left him, replaced with a quiet reassurance that in reality, he hadn’t actually done anything wrong.

Why did he feel so guilty, then?

“Is this where he leaves them?” Crawford asked, feigning nonchalance. In truth, he wasn’t very good at it. Will could smell the discontent.

“Every time,” Will replied hollowly. Jack nodded and gestured towards his front door.

“May I come in?”

“Sure.” Will wheeled his bike over and unlocked the door, hair rising up on end as he walked past the FBI agent and into his house, every cell inside of him screaming to run and run fast. Jack Crawford followed him into the apartment and shut it, effectively sealing off his only practical escape.

He didn’t bother concealing the three letters that sat on his table, open and unassuming. The seeds still intermingled with the flower petals and gravel on the table, the envelopes in a disheveled pile. Jack looked them over, brows raised in surprise, and he passed the new one to Will once his bike was put away. Will sat down in one of the dining room chairs, turning the letter over to study the thick build-up of wax on the seal.

“You open it,” Jack urged, and Will passed his thumb under the wax, popping it open. His heard was palpitating at the thought of what he’d find since the last note, and he numbly wondered if he should see a doctor. Heart palpitations couldn’t be healthy.

This time, violet hyacinth petals fell into his palm, followed by white tulips. Like before, they were freshly bruised, recently ripped from the stem where they’d taken the first of their last breaths. He turned his palm over, let them drop to the table, and he opened the letter.

Dear Will,

Dark house, by which once more I stand Here in the long unlovely street, Doors, where my heart was used to beat So quickly, waiting for a hand, A hand that can be clasp'd no more— Behold me, for I cannot sleep, And like a guilty thing I creep At earliest morning to the door. He is not here; but far away The noise of life begins again, And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain On the bald street breaks the blank day.

Yours,

-C.R.

“Did he kill someone again?” Will asked quietly, setting the letter down. He slid it to Jack whose eyes cut across it, devouring each line hungrily.

“Yes,” Jack replied once he finished the letter. Will shook his head and buried his face in his hands dismally.

“I told you,” he said, voice muffled.

“Why didn’t you bring these to me?” Jack asked, gesturing to the small pile of them. Accusation riddled his tone an ugly shade of red.

“You accused me of being the Chesapeake Ripper the first time. I didn’t think you’d listen.” Will said, lifting his head.

“I’m listening. I’ve got a man with no face kneeling before a cross with a note in his palm that has your name on it,” Jack said heavily.

“He’s apologizing,” Will realized after a moment. His mind reeled, hungry for the image he’d see when he faced the corpse, terrified at what it’d reveal. He shoved the hunger down, down, down.

“He’s apologizing for the murders?” Jack asked skeptically.

“He cornered me in an alley the other night, and he had a knife to me. At the last second, he pulled away. Maybe he knows how much it scared me, maybe he knows how…‘wrong’ it was. He’s come here before to apologize, but I wasn’t home and he blames himself.”

“Do you mind telling me why you didn’t call the cops then?” Jack growled.

“He knows enough about me that I thought he’d kill me if I did,” Will retorted. “Have you ever been hunted by a serial killer, Jack Crawford?”

“Plenty of times,” Jack assured him, eyes darkening. He studied Will across the table, and whatever he found beneath the hair and the surface of his skin, he didn’t quite like. “Would it help if I apologized? We should have listened. I should have listened to you. I looked you up afterwards; top of the class in forensics and criminology, and your professors say you have a knack for seeing things that no one else in their classes can see.”

“Yes,” Will agreed reluctantly.

“You have been able to reconstruct cases that were considered long dead, used as examples of cold case files, and in one of your reports, a theory was used that led to the capture of a serial killer over in North Dakota.”

“…Yes.”

“I also spoke with your old therapist.” Jack steepled his fingers and surveyed Will critically. “She said you were too smart for the therapy because you kept seeing through the techniques and deemed them useless.”

“Yes.”

“At twelve-years-old,” Jack added curtly.

“…Yes.”

“She said your empathy disorder made you so utterly disgusted with yourself that you could identify with literally anyone in the room, and your lack of stable barriers made their thoughts and ideals your own, so much so that you were afraid you were just as capable at killing as the boy that brought a gun to school in your tenth grade year.”

“Aren’t there laws about doctor-patient confidentiality?” Will asked snidely.

“You gave her express consent to discuss your therapy when you were sixteen-years-old, after that shooting,” Jack replied easily. “Now, you’ve got five personalized letters from a killer I’ve been hunting for years. The Chesapeake Ripper cornered you in an alley, and when he could have made you his next victim, he instead is sending you flowers and apology letters.” If Jack’s voice grew any louder, it’d be considered shouting. Will wondered if he pointed that it, Jack would lower his voice.

Probably not.

“I tried to tell you,” Will said, staring at the pile of letters.

“Yes, you did. Your old therapist said that you were on the spectrum.”

“More along the line of autistics and Asperger’s than narcissists and psychopaths,” Will tried to assure him.

“Your mind makes leaps no one can follow; you saw the Chesapeake Ripper’s message to you before anyone else could.”

“I’d just call it an over active imagination, nothing more or less,” said Will reluctantly.

“I’d like to borrow that imagination, Will. The Chesapeake Ripper is interested in you, and I need your help to understand why.”

“You can take the letters, but I don’t want any part of this,” Will said, holding his hands up and out. “I can’t say he won’t kill me for even talking to you right now.”

“You’d have an FBI escort to ensure nothing happened to you,” Jack pointed out.

“No, I just…I just want to be left alone.” After a beat, he added, “By all of you.” Will was ashamed at how his voice cracked, vulnerable. Jack nodded, and Will wasn’t sure if it was in understanding, or because he felt Will needed the validation.

“Just take one look, tell me what you see, and I’ll make sure everyone leaves you the hell alone.”

That is how Will Graham found himself escorted in a ritzy car to the FBI HQ, placed before a table full of photos and shots of the deaths that’d occurred ‘in his name’. His hands passed over the smooth texture of each photo, and he thought of the way it’d felt to be pressed up against the wall in the dank, foul alley. It’d been terrifying –that much was obvious. Alcohol made things swim, emotions that floated about before surfacing after they had the time to be softened, mulled over for a while. He tried to focus on the terror rather than the pleasure, the fear rather than the excitement. He wasn’t sure if the pleasure and excitement he recalled were his or the Chesapeake Ripper’s.

The man in the photos knelt before the cross at one of the churches, an old, catholic one by the looks of it. It would have been almost spiritual, if he’d had a face. Beside the photo, the note they’d pried from his hands held Will’s name in familiar, arching script.

“It’s nice paper,” Will commented.

“We checked the paper and the ink. Although nice, there are several boutique stores in the entire surrounding area that sell it, and even most chains can get their hands on it,” Jack grunted. When they’d arrived, he’d cleared the room of anyone lurking about. The older man, Price, had given Will a thumb’s up before clearing out, and Will wasn’t sure if it was a vote of confidence or a gesture of good will.

Maybe good luck, since Price felt that he needed it.

“What’s he do?”

“Have you read the papers?”

“Some. None of them look the same, go to the same places, or have anything remotely in common with one another until he decides they all belong in his collection.”

Jack stared at Will, and Will avoided his gaze. He plucked at a photo, staring at Persephone walking towards Hades. Was the Ripper telling him he offered a life of ruling within the darkness? He wanted to court him with the flowers, show him just what he could do for him, and when he went too far, he apologized. Maybe he had been moments from death in that alley, and then the Ripper decided he wasn’t done playing yet.

The thought made his palms sweat.

“He decides they belong in his collection,” Jack repeated when Will said nothing else. “Is the collection ongoing from the past years, or is each one new?”

“Each one is different and unique. Usually he works in sounders of three or so, doesn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“I wonder why.” Will slid three of the photos together: the courtship, Persephone, and the apology. “If he’s sticking to that rule, he’s finished.”

“Do you think he’s finished?”

“No,” Will murmured. “Why sounders of three?”

“Timing? Ease?” Jack thought out loud.

“I wonder.” Will frowned down at the photos, waiting for them to tell him.

“Where he didn’t kill you, then his plan, whatever that is, continues.”

“He could have killed me in that alley, and instead he’s apologizing. He knows I went to you with the first letter, so he gave you a reason to come and see the rest,” Will said.

“So he’s playing with us,” Jack realized, and Will nodded, glancing up.

“The apology is for me because he almost killed me and he wants to drag this out however he can. He wants me, but he doesn’t want to…end me. If he only wanted to apologize, he would have just sent a note, seeing as how not every note is a death, although every poem is. He wanted you to see, though.”

“See what, exactly?”

“The reason why he’s interested in me.” Will tapped the photo of the kneeling man, his face missing. “That’s him. You can’t see his face because he’s the Chesapeake Ripper, but he believes I can see the man behind the face.”

“Because of your…imagination?” Jack pressed.

“Yes.”

“Will you look at the body?”

“I don’t want to see the body.” Will shook his head sharply, pressing his hand flat to the photo. It was a lie, but at the same time it was also not a lie in the least.

“I just want you to look.”

“Normal people don’t want to see dead bodies,” Will retorted.

“There’s nothing wrong with looking to see if you see something that no one else does.”

“I can look, but the…the thinking will shut down. I don’t want to see him.” Will’s fingers tapped on the photo, and he glanced to the faceless man, throat dry. “I don’t.”

“You don’t want to see him because it’s a dead body or is it because you don’t want to see the Chesapeake Ripper?”

“Both. The second.” Definitely the second. Logic told him that it wasn’t the Chesapeake Ripper, that the Ripper certainly wasn’t finished with him, but the idea of inhaling the pungent smell of dead flesh and chemicals and staring at a face with no skin made his heart palpitate again –definitely needed to see a doctor.

“I need you to see, Will.” Jack said, and the words were clear: there wasn’t really a choice in the matter.

Will followed him to the adjoining room, the wall of body slabs metallic and clean to belie the foul things they hid inside. Jack opened one and hauled out the gurney, leaving Will with the gristly visage of a very dead man. Will wanted to close his eyes, but he forced himself to stare. The flesh was dingy, an ugly shade of grey.

“Death does not look good on you,” Will said quietly.

“You did a paper on intelligent psychopaths once that made your teacher post it in one of the school’s journals. You emphasized how difficult they were to catch because there is no traceable motive or rhyme and reason. They change methods; they are meticulous and tidy. This is the first time the Chesapeake Ripper has given us anything to go on, and it’s you. You’re his motive, and whatever he’s seeing when he looks at you is manifesting on these people.”

“He wants to understand me, and he wants to be understood,” Will said.

“What?”

“He thinks there’s something worthwhile in my mind. The Chesapeake Ripper is, above all, arrogant. He knows you won’t catch him. That’s why he’s toying with you. He…” Will gestured to the body, eyes glued to the man’s distinct lack of face. “He knows you won’t catch him because he leaves nothing but what he wants you to see and understand. That lends itself a certain isolation, though, doesn’t it?”

“Isolation?”

“The only person that knows who the Chesapeake Ripper is, is the Chesapeake Ripper.”

“You think the Chesapeake Ripper is lonely?” Derision colored Crawford’s word black.

“If you were the only one in the world that knew why you did what you did, wouldn’t you be lonely too?” Will asked. “A face that no one can see, and he thinks he’s found someone that could maybe understand.”

“You have a knack for understanding the monsters,” Jack said after a beat.

“I can understand anyone,” Will snapped. “Monsters, normal people, the ones that think they’re normal when they’re not.”

“He only cares about the fact that you can see him, though.”

Will nodded in agreement, and he finally tore his gaze away from the man’s sinew and muscle.

“I wonder why three,” he said.

“They were sounders of three before, but not now. Not if he’s just getting started,” Jack replied. Will nodded in agreement. If he was going to be left to live through whatever the Chesapeake Ripper had in store, then it was natural to assume other people were going to continue getting hurt.

There’d been a steady tapping noise in the background, and it was only when Jack walked away with him that he realized he’d been tapping fingers on the metal, just centimeters away from taking the man’s hand.

Will was kindly let go from his job at Sangre.

Somehow, amidst his penchant for avoiding eyes and remaining aloof, his bosses felt he was too much the ‘kicked puppy’ that people just felt the need to take home. He wasn’t quite sure how to take that critique –it came down to aesthetics rather than true criticism of his work ethic –but he handed in his itchy red vest and bowtie all the same.

He was just leaving the bar when Hannibal was walking in, and he was unable to meet the doctor’s eyes when they both stopped.

“Off work so early, Will?” Hannibal asked.

“I was fired,” Will said, studying the cracks on the sidewalk. He wondered if Hannibal cared about avoiding the cracks in the cement as much as he did.

“Fired?” Hannibal’s brows lifted and he shifted his stance. “What was their reasoning?”

“Apparently there is some sort of endearing quality to my face that just doesn’t sell.”

“I wasn’t aware that you had to work at selling alcohol. Don’t the consumers gladly come to you?”

“That’s what I thought.” Will scuffed his shoe on the sidewalk and looked up, eyes finding their way to Hannibal’s shoulder. “Back on the market, I suppose.”

“Are you going to attempt to remain within the service industry?”

“I’ve been told that I know how to make a really good Old Fashioned.”

“That you do,” Hannibal agreed.

“Should I pass along another message to someone here for you?” It was a teasing sort of question, something that bordered along the lines of almost flirtatious. Will instantly regretted it, willing himself to pull the words back into his mouth.

“Have you eaten yet?” Hannibal asked instead.

“What?” Will managed to find his way to his face, surprised to see a pleasant smile. The sunlight made his eyes tawny, and they were fixed very decidedly on Will.

“I’d imagine you haven’t had dinner. Allow me to pour the drinks for you instead.”

“Oh, Dr. Lecter, I couldn’t…”

“You’ve just lost a second job, and I would be remiss to see you go hungry because you forgot to eat in your haste to find a new occupation. It’s the least I can do.”

Maybe it was the way his expression was mischievous rather than piteous, or the fact that when Will looked at his feet, he saw that Hannibal wasn’t standing on any cracks in the cement. It could have been that he’d already been rung out and left to air dry by Jack just a few days before, or maybe it was because there was something vastly appealing about someone cooking dinner for him when they most certainly didn’t have to.

“Okay," he said, and the word gave him a small bolster of courage. "...Okay."

#hannibal fanfiction #hannibal #hannibal fanfic #hannibal au #will graham #will graham x hannibal #someone help will graham #he's being stalked by a cannibal yall #LiaS scribbles #hannibal has a crush

1 note · View note

teeky185 · 4 years

Link

Author’s Note: This is the first of a three-part series.To answer the question posed in last Tuesday’s column, Yes, Kevin Clinesmith did plead guilty Wednesday. Sort of.Well, maybe it was a smidge better than “sort of.” After all, it did happen in a federal-district-court proceeding (via videoconference) on Wednesday. And Judge James Boasberg did accept the plea after eliciting it in accordance with settled criminal-law rules. Sentencing is scheduled for December 10. So it’s official.But I’m sticking with “sort of.” If Clinesmith’s guilty plea is legally adequate, it is barely so. And neither a judge nor a prosecutor is required to accept an allocution sliced so fine. In “admitting” guilt, Clinesmith ended up taking the position that I hoped the judge, and especially the Justice Department, would not abide, in essence: Okay, maybe I committed the crime of making a false statement, but to be clear, I thought the statement was true when I made it, and I certainly never intended to deceive anyone.Huh?I don’t mean to make you dizzy, but in my view, Clinesmith is lying about lying. His strategy is worth close study because it encapsulates the mendaciousness and malevolence of both “Crossfire Hurricane” (the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation) and the “collusion” never-enders who continue to defend it. A defendant’s lying about lying does not necessarily make a false-statement guilty plea infirm as a matter of law. The bar is not high. Still, his story is ridiculous, in a way that is easy to grasp once it’s placed in context.So let’s place it in context.‘Page Is a Russian Spy’ — the FBI Plants Its Feet on a Fantasy Our point of reference is spring 2017.While indignantly denying news stories portraying him as a clandestine agent of Russian, Carter Page asserts that, actually, he’s been an informant for a U.S. intelligence agency. FBI officials should know that Page is telling the truth. They have already heard the same thing from the CIA and from Page himself.The CIA told the bureau ten months earlier, in a memo dated August 17, 2016 (i.e., two months before the FBI sought the first FISA warrant against Page). Page had been a CIA source who provided information about Russians. Page told the bureau about at least some of this work during voluntary interviews in 2009 and 2013, during the period when the CIA had authorized Page for “operational contact” with Russians. The FBI, meanwhile, actually used information from Page in a prosecution of Russian spies. (See my 2018 column, discussing of United States v. Buryakov.)And it’s not as if the CIA’s acknowledgment of Page’s informant status was the only exculpatory fact the FBI knew. Not by a long shot. Page was pleading with the FBI director to sit down with the bureau and explain himself, as he had done on other occasions over the years. More to the point, in August 2016 (again, two months before the first FISA warrant to permit spying on Page), Page had credibly insisted to a covert FBI informant, Stefan Halper, that key allegations about Page (derived from the bogus Steele dosser) were false: Page did not even know Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, let alone act as Manafort’s intermediary in a Trump–Russia espionage conspiracy; and Page had not recently met in Moscow with Putin-regime heavyweights Igor Sechin and Igor Divyekin.Thus, (a) Page had not done the very things that led the FBI to accuse him of being an active anti-American spy, and (b) Page’s prior contacts with Russians, on which the bureau further rationalized its overwrought suspicions, overlapped with Page’s years as a CIA operative. Weeks before the FBI and the Obama Justice Department first applied for a FISA warrant on the theory that Page was a spy for the Kremlin, the FBI team conducting the investigation had information showing the theory was untenable.Yet the bureau chose to plant its feet on the daft theory anyway. Apologists for the bureau and the Obama administration would now have you believe that this is because a single one of the FBI’s crack counterintelligence agents, Stephen Somma, dropped the ball -- that he alone knew Page was a CIA informant, but held out on his chain-of-command. Really? If they dropped as many balls in Times Square as Somma did -- purportedly without anyone noticing, in one the most significant investigations in the FBI’s history -- we’d have New Year’s once a week.The fact is, top officials were drinking the “Donald Trump must be colluding with Russia” Kool-Aid, so the story was too good to check. And once the farcical Steele dossier grabbed the investigators’ attention in late summer 2016, the bureau was off to the races, framing Page as a key cog in the Trump campaign’s “conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin.But that was autumn 2016. Now, remember, we’re in late spring of 2017. At this point, the FBI has been monitoring Page for over eight months. The Page-is-a-Russian-spy theory is in tatters. The surveillance turns up nothing. Halper has nothing. Steele’s dossier, a shoddy product on its face, is now a hot, steaming mess. Not only is it uncorroborated and unverifiable; Steele himself is dismissing it as “raw” information that needed to be investigated, and his “primary subsource,” Igor Danchenko, has discredited it as fiction and rumormongering.But alas, the FBI is dug in. This was not just office banter. The bureau had taken the claim that Page was a spy to court. It was the linchpin of the hypothesis that the Trump campaign was a Kremlin influence operation. This theory, bereft of supporting evidence and resistant to exculpatory evidence, had the imprimatur of FBI headquarters. By June 2017, in conjunction with the Justice Department, the FBI had made this claim under oath to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), three times: a first application in October 2016, and renewal applications in January and April 2017. Each time, based on the FBI’s representations, the FISC issued a 90-day surveillance warrant against Page.Disclosure Would Mean Epic Humiliation The warrant issued by the FISC on April 7 was due to expire in early July. By mid June, then, the bureau was well into its preparations to submit yet another renewal application.This is the salient time frame for Clinesmith’s case. His defense counsel and apologists would have you look at it as a snapshot. But it wasn’t just a moment in time. It was a moment shaped by the preceding ten months, since the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation (i.e., the Trump-Russia probe) was formally opened on July 31, 2016.By June 2017, it would have occasioned epic humiliation for the FBI to admit that it had on three occasions made false assertions under oath in order to persuade federal judges to issue classified surveillance warrants against an American citizen. Not just humiliation. FBI leadership had publicized the existence of the Trump–Russia probe, consciously promoting the media-Democratic political narrative that the president was beholden to the Kremlin. An admission that court warrants had been sought on false premises would have led to certain administrative discipline and potential criminal inquiries.This was not at the back of the bureau’s mind. It was front and center. Just read the FISA warrants. Read the in-the-interest-of-full-disclosure footnotes massaged into gibberish as the case was collapsing. And bear in mind: These laborious rationalizations did not come close to revealing the mounds of exculpatory information that the FBI was withholding.To hear FBI and Justice Department officials tell it, the FISA process is so well designed and diligently executed that, at all times, they are profoundly aware of their heightened duty of candor, of their obligations to submit only verified warrant applications. Of their duty to alert the FISC promptly if they discover that something they’ve represented to the court is inaccurate. They know, they tell us, about the imperative to be transparent regarding exculpatory information. And even if officials were ever to lose sight of these weighty responsibilities, even for a moment, we’re to take comfort that their recollection would quickly be refreshed by the multiple, high-level FBI and DOJ approvals the FISA statute mandates. These have spawned an infrastructure of lawyers, analysts, and verification procedures to ensure that the bosses don’t embarrass themselves by signing off on FISA warrant applications that are fraudulent, or at least recklessly irresponsible.That’s how it’s supposed to work . . . on the drawing board.Down here on Planet Earth, though, in all of government’s sprawl, there is no institution more self-conscious about its image, more energetic in promoting its pristine reputation, than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And thus there is none more resistant to damaging disclosures.At the bureau, officials are keenly aware that, when a misrepresentation is discovered, it is often just the visible part of what, on inspection, turns out to be a train of errors, oversights, poor judgments, and, occasionally, misconduct. The disclosure of a single glaring inaccuracy elucidates that investigators, analysts, or lawyers -- or all of them -- were aware of information that should have set off alarm bells, yet they all turned a deaf ear. Alarm bells, after all, signal underlying misfeasance . . . and sometimes malfeasance. If a judge gets spun up by one embarrassing disclosure, it can soon become two . . . then four . . . And then, next thing you know, a case is unraveling as a scandal unfolds.Clinesmith’s Motives Mirror His Superiors’ MotivesIn June 2017, on the thin line between business as usual and epic embarrassment, stood Kevin Clinesmith.He was then a 30-something assistant general counsel in the bureau’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch. It is part of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), then led by James Baker.Among the branch’s responsibilities, it reviews FISA warrant applications. The Carter Page applications, however, were handled in an unusual way. Details of the applications were scrutinized at the highest levels of the FBI and the Justice Department, to the point that the National Security branch’s once-over became superfluous.For example, Trisha Anderson, the OGC’s former deputy general counsel, told the House Intelligence Committee in 2018 testimony that, though she normally reviewed FISA warrant applications before they went to the upper ranks for statutorily required sign-offs, she did not do that with the October 2016 Page application. By the time it landed on her desk, it had already been reviewed “line by line” by such superiors as the FBI’s then–deputy director Andrew McCabe, as well as by then–deputy attorney general Sally Yates at Main Justice. It had even been perused by Anderson’s OGC superior, General Counsel Baker. Baker conceded to the committee that it was unusual for him to review a FISA warrant application, particularly at an early stage, as he did with the Page application.In the chain of command, Clinesmith ranked a few notches lower than Anderson: He reported to the National Security branch chief, who reported to Anderson, after which the chain ascended to Baker, McCabe, and ultimately Director James Comey. That is, Clinesmith was a junior officer -- support personnel. The decision to represent to the FISC that Page was a Russian spy had been made way above his pay grade. The bosses were so invested in it, they were relying on it to investigate the sitting president of the United States. And just a few weeks earlier, when the president fired Comey in May 2017, a special counsel had been appointed to take over the investigation. The Mueller team’s mandate from the deputy attorney general was to get to the bottom of links between the Russian regime and former Trump-campaign advisers, such as Page.This was not a train Clinesmith could have started or stopped on his own. Nevertheless, he was all in.We learn from the Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s FISA abuse that, from the very beginning, Clinesmith was in on OGC deliberations about seeking FISA surveillance of Page. Even before September 2016, when he first learned about Steele’s reporting, he told the IG he believed that there was a “50/50” chance of establishing probable cause that Page was a clandestine agent for Russia. For that assessment, he relied on “Page’s historical contacts with Russian intelligence officers.” At that point, he says he did not know that the CIA had told the FBI that Page was a CIA informant when these contacts took place. So, when the first FISA warrant was sought in October 2016 (and the second in January, and the third in April), he agreed that the probable-cause standard was easily satisfied by these contacts, weighed in combination with Steele’s (uncorroborated) claims about Page, as well as Page’s statements to Halper (as bowdlerized by the bureau).Echoing his bosses, then, Clinesmith adopted the “Page is a Russian spy” fantasy from the get-go. If subsequent developments ever called for scrutinizing the kamikaze portrayal of Page as a spy, Clinesmith was sure to be on the hook. And while the higher-ups would take most of the heat if the bureau proved to be embarrassingly wrong, it is always the underlings like Clinesmith who get hung out to dry for misinforming their superiors. That is how Washington works. Clinesmith, a Washington creature, realized this only too well.‘The Predication of Our Entire Investigation’ Is at RiskOf course, Clinesmith was not putting himself personally on the line with the FISC. That was to be the responsibility of the affiant, the FBI agent assigned to swear to the truth of the warrant application. This difference in the duties of that agent and Clinesmith, along with an obvious integrity disparity, explains the very different way they approached the matter.This affiant-agent is identified only as “SSA” in the criminal information filed against Clinesmith. (This affiant-agent is “SSA 2” in the IG report, one of several unidentified “supervisory special agents” who appear therein). Though nominally a supervising agent, the SSA operated at some remove from the rubber-meets-the-road investigating. In the bureau, the agent who signs a FISA warrant is not the supervisor of agents investigating the case; he is a headquarters “program manager.” Furthermore, the SSA was not assigned to Crossfire Hurricane until late December 2016. That is, he was not involved in the initial deliberations over whether Page was a Russian spy and whether to seek FISA surveillance on that theory.Having inherited sign-off responsibility in an ongoing surveillance that his superiors had already green-lighted, the SSA went with the flow, at least at the beginning. The IG report indicates that, in signing the first and second renewal applications (in January and April 2017), the SSA performed only a cursory review of the file. He assumed that other agents had done their work properly.It was only in June 2017, as the third renewal application was being prepared, that he became concerned. It was around that time that the SSA heard about Page’s vehement public denials that he was a Russian spy and claims that he had engaged Russians on behalf of an American intelligence service. It dawned on the SSA that he would be expected to swear, under penalty of perjury, that he believed there was probable cause to conclude that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia, working against the United States. Page’s public protestations gave him pause. They also created a potentially catastrophic problem for the bureau, which the SSA later summarized for the IG (I’d italicize -- but I’d have to italicize every word):> [If Page] was being tasked by another agency, especially if he was being tasked to engage Russians, then it would absolutely be relevant for the Court to know . . . [and] could also seriously impact the predication of our entire investigation, which focused on [Page’s] close and continuous contact with Russian/Russia-linked individuals.If Page had been a CIA operative during meetings with Russians — meetings that the FBI had sworn to the court showed Page was a traitorous spy — then the FBI would have some serious explaining to do. And if it turned out that, before applying under oath for the warrants, the FBI had been informed by the CIA that Page was a CIA operative, then the FBI would be humiliated.Bear in mind: The incumbent Democratic administration had opened an election-year investigation of its Republican opposition, and the FBI had heavily relied on bogus evidence generated by the Democratic campaign to claim that Page was a spy for Russia. With that as background, there would be only two possible explanations for the FBI’s failure to inform the court that Page was working for the CIA when the bureau had claimed he was working for the Kremlin: willful abuse of power or monstrous incompetence.End of Part 1.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2Ql90QR

#latest news #Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

rogerk471 · 4 years

Text

HW5case Q2

US PATRIOT ACT

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.html Abuse citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-collection-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court.html

In response to 9/11 the Government took a look at what allowed such an attack to take place. It was determined that the attack could have been prevented because various departments had information about the attack, the problem was there was a failure to communicate the various pieces of information between these individual departments. The attack slipped through the various cracks of our Government. One action that was taken was to build the Department of Homeland Security which took various departments and placed them into one larger Department. They also increased communication and information sharing between our various law enforcement agencies.

Another action was taken in addition to these. One that is highly controversial. On one hand it is credited with stopping over 50 terrorist attacks since it was put into place, on the other hand people say that it is a gross invasion of our privacy and a violation of our rights. Just over a month after 9/11, the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" act was passed. It is more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT act.

This act gave the government the ability to spy on people without probable cause, and it enabled law enforcement to bypass the bill of rights. One of the best examples of this is something called the 'sneak and peak' inwhich law enforcement can search your property or business without having to inform you, and without you ever knowing. Another notorious thing to come out of this was something that Edward Snowden leaked, and that is the NSA collecting phone records and search histories of anyone they wanted too, this despite the original stipulation of the target of such actions had to be a suspected terrorist. I guess when you give sweeping authority, everyone becomes a suspected terrorist.

At the center of this controversy is the struggle between security and liberty.

The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. People have famously said, "You have nothing to worry about as long as you have nothing to hide" I agree with this sentiment to a certain degree. I agree that logically it makes sense. However, we have to give up our privacy and the protections of the bill of rights if we accept this. Hence, the controversy.

Despite being able to recognize the argument for the USA PATRIOT act, I do not agree with some of its alleged abuses.

Questions:

1) Was the implementation of the USA PATRIOT act a sound decision following 9/11? I believe it was because at the time we did not know if more attacks were coming or to what degree we had been compromised. Considering the PATRIOT act has stopped over 50 such attacks, I believe the lives that were saved were worth the passing of the act. However, once the abuses started I am not so sure.

2) Is it worth giving up our liberties if it ensures our safety and security? I don't think it is. Our liberties are what makes America such a wonderful place to live. Once we start inviting authoritarianism into our lives, it will be a hard thing to shake. Any country that gives ultimate authority to its government loses the ability to stop their government if the power falls into the wrong hands. Not to mention there is a saying that "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

When you look at some of the abuses that people have alleged about the USA PATRIOT act, and the proof of those allegations, you see a trend of this prophecy already coming true. The people in our Government have abused the PATRIOT act in the past. It stands to reason if we gave up even more security we would see further abuses. Look at the FISA court in the news recently. Just last friday some footnotes were unredacted that indicate the FBI willingly used what was considered to be Russian propaganda to spy on a person running for President.

Love the President or hate him, the government is guilty of trying to overturn an election. That is not their right or their responsiblity to do. We should never allow people in government to have the power to overturn the will of the people.

3) Does using the PATRIOT act outside of fighting terrorism seem acceptable? The fact it has been used more to arrest drug dealers, etc.

Terrorism is in the name. Unless the drug dealers are part of some coordinated effort to harm our citizens, then I do not think it is just or fair to use powers intended to prevent terrorist attacks to make arrests. However, if the drug dealers are also involved in using violence and other means to harm or kill others, then that is another thing entirely. At that point, even I would classify them as domestic terrorists because that is what they are.

4) Is sneak and peak ethical? Can we trust that all people in positions to utilize this will do so as it was intended? Can we trust that all law enforcement will have the integrity to not abuse such powers?

I do not think it is ethical at all. People who wield such powers are almost certain to abuse them. I don't have the means to provide citation for this at this time, but very recently an FBI agent was caught on a nanny cam doing some questionable things with a child's under-garments. Such a disgusting thing is hard for me to even write about, but the fact it happened just goes to show you cannot just blindly trust people in Government. Even weirdo's get in. It stands to reason that all kinds of people are in positions in our government, including the type who would abuse their power.

In addition to that disgusting story I mentioned about the FBI agent, lets also remember the FISA court abuses. If people are violating things such as this, they are certain to violate a sneak and peak at some point in time. We need to limit the powers we give to our Government for that very reason.

5) In regard to our privacy, should the government have the power to view our search histories and our digital footprints? If they can monitor our text messages, the pictures we send to our significant others, etc. Should Americans be okay with that?

This is a clear violation of our right to a reasonable amount of privacy. The government is fully aware of this being a violation as well which is why it tried to keep such things a secret. I don't respect Edward Snowden very much, but I do appreciate the fact that he informed the public that this was going on. Though I wish he would have used legitimate means to do so, the fact the government was spying on essentially every American seems pretty crazy. People in position of power certainly would have abused this information.

Three Standard Questions Plus One

1.) How can you apply deontological ethics (rule-based) to this case?

The US Constitution is a pretty good set of rules to guide the USA PATRIOT act, unfortunately if we use this lens it becomes clear that the constitution was violated and therefore the USA PATRIOT act, or at the very least the people who used it in such a bad way, is unethical.

2.) How can you apply utilitarian ethics (similar to consequentialist ethics) to this case?

This is where things get interesting. If you consider the good of the many, then a few violations of liberty here and there is worth protecting the many from terrorist attacks, or the plague of drug dealers. It would only become unethical in instances where more harm is being done, which to those who say, "You have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide" would probably set the bar pretty high for that.

Protecting life is probably the most noble thing you can do, so if the ends justify the means then one would most likely consider the USA PATRIOT act to be ethical.

3.) How can you apply virtue ethics (character-based) to this case?

If those with integrity and good character were the ones using the PATRIOT act, then I believe we would not have seen some of the abuses that we have. People with good character would probably use the act as it was intended to be used and only use it on suspected terrorists. They would also be less likely to abuse it to spy on citizens or use it for their own personal reasons to violate someones rights.

4.) What connection can you devise to computer security?

Computer security is a pretty big factor in this. Because so many big tech companies willingly gave access to our private information, our security was compromised. At the same time, this violation of our rights has stopped many terrorist attacks, so by violating our rights they also violate the terrorists rights because of the wide net that was cast.

It stands to reason that if we take steps to provide computer security for the masses, we would also provide security to would-be terrorists. The more technology that becomes available to protect us online will also inevitably protect these terrorists too.

Therefore we are right back at the center of this debate between having to choose between security and liberty.

0 notes

marilynngmesalo · 5 years

Text

‘WHO ELSE WAS HE GOING TO CALL?’: Man who tried to hire KKK hit man to kill black neighbour jailed

‘WHO ELSE WAS HE GOING TO CALL?’: Man who tried to hire KKK hit man to kill black neighbour jailed ‘WHO ELSE WAS HE GOING TO CALL?’: Man who tried to hire KKK hit man to kill black neighbour jailed https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

GREENVILLE, S.C. — A white South Carolina man who pleaded guilty to trying to hire a hit man from the Ku Klux Klan to kill a black neighbour has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.

U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks sentenced 26-year-old Brandon Lecroy on Thursday, The State reported. Hendricks ruled that Lecroy’s offence qualified as a hate crime, but noted that the plan to have someone else killed was so serious she would have given him 10 years even if race wasn’t a factor. Ten years is the maximum sentence for the offence.

“It’s one thing to think these thoughts, but it’s a crime to undertake to do harm to another,” Hendricks said.

Hendricks’ ruling came after a spirited argument by Lecroy’s attorney, federal public defender Erica Soderdahl, who said race didn’t play a role. She said Lecroy was trying to get rid of an extremely troublesome neighbour who happened to be African American.

The neighbour, identified only by the initials “F.J.,” kept coming onto Lecroy’s property, trying to start fights, and asking for food and to use the phone, Soderdahl said. Lecroy had repeatedly tried to get local police to keep the neighbour from trespassing, to no avail, she said.

“But F.J. kept coming back,” Soderdahl said. “It’s not about an overriding feeling toward a race — it’s about one individual.”

Finally, in desperation after police wouldn’t act, Lecroy went on the internet and found a western South Carolina area code for a local Ku Klux Klan chapter, she said.

“Brandon called the KKK because who else was he going to call?” Soderdahl said. “It had nothing to do with the colour of his skin.”

She also told the judge that Lecroy had been bullied and beaten by his father from the time he was a child and the trauma left him with the psyche of a 6-year-old. She said her client can’t hold a job, receives disability checks, and loves to talk about childish things. She said Lecroy learned the racist language as a child from his father and uncle.

But federal prosecutor William Watkins told the judge that race had everything to do with the attempted hit.

“Your honour, the fact that he reached out to the KKK — this is not a low-functioning individual,” said Watkins, an assistant U.S. Attorney. “It’s telling that to get a black person eliminated, he turned to the KKK.”

Lecroy can be heard using racist language and making references to historically violent KKK symbols in secret audio recordings that law enforcement officials made, Watkins said. He said Lecroy also suggested to the undercover agent posing as the KKK hit man that he could use a flaming cross.

“He doesn’t call a biker gang,” Watkins told the judge. “What he had in mind for his neighbour was very race specific. … He targeted him because of his race.”

Lecroy pleaded guilty last fall to being part of a murder-for-hire plot. He was dressed in an oversized orange jail jump suit in court Thursday.

Soderdahl said Lecroy was too nervous to speak, but he wanted the judge and everyone to know he regretted his actions and apologized for them.

//<![CDATA[ ( function() { pnLoadVideo( "videos", "l7-gFwwH4xc", "pn_video_615277", "", "", {"controls":1,"autoplay":0,"is_mobile":""} ); } )(); //]]> Click for update news Bangla news http://bit.ly/2GkeIyf world news

#metronews24 bangla #Latest Online Breaking Bangla News #Breaking Bangla News #prothom alo #bangla news #b

0 notes

harrythegreekblr · 6 years

Text

Butina case is Judge Chutkan's third D.C. scandal cover-up in a year

Judge Tanya Chutkan (above)

Tanya Chutkan is one of 13 judges on the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia. An additional eight work part-time as Senior Judges.

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/district-judges

According to U.S. Court records, there have been 12,620 cases filed in the District of Columbia since Chutkan has been Judge.

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2018

Then how did Judge Chutkan get assigned the Mariia Butina, Fusion GPS, and Imran Awan cases?

The First Cover-up

Mariia Butina (above), the Russian spy?

Judge Chutkan can extend Mariia Butina’s solitary confinement and gag order with a five-year sentence Tuesday.

With good behavior, Mariia is eligible for a sentence reduction of up to 54 days a year.

Miss Butina plead guilty to being a Russian spy at a court hearing on Dec. 13th.

The 56-page transcript of this hearing which including her guilt plea is linked here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/397081041/Transcript-of-plea-bargain-hearing-of-Maria-Butina-dated-Dec-13th-2018

Mariia Butina (above)

Unless the gag order is extended, Mariia the has the opportunity to tell her story.

Will the Judge deny that opportunity for five years?

Chutkan has to allow the defense an opportunity to view all available evidence.

To deny it would nullify the plea agreement.

https://brassballs.blog/home/mariia-butinas-plea-hearing-forces-american-university-to-reveal-72-classmates-who-are-spies

Judge Chutkan has no obligation, however, to disclose the new evidence to the public.

The Judge can claim “national security”, blowing the cover for CIA operatives, as the reason for “sealing” it.

With that new evidence uncover the identities of other Butina student co-conspirators?

Does Butina’s attorney, Robert Driscoll, have time to prepare a proper defense?

As of today, Driscoll is still waiting for the new evidence.

Without an extension of the gag order, Mariia has the opportunity to tell her story.

It may take another five years to hear it.

Mariia Butina (above)

Miss Butina was arrested on July 15th, a Sunday.

Two days after the arrest, Presidents Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin of Russia, were to meet in Helsinki, Finland.

Was the arrest timed to disrupt the agenda of this meeting?

Mariia Butina

Mariia worked for Susan Rice at American University (AU). Their offices were next to each other.

Ambassador Rice was President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017.

Rice’s job at American University was to review NSA and FBI surveillance data, then organize it, for the benefit of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.

As Dean, Professor James Goldgeier was in charge of selecting 70 other students to help analyze the data with Butina as their student leader.

https://brassballs.blog/home/bruce-ohr-uses-student-spies-his-clinton-cronies-at-american-university-to-replace-president-donald-j-trump-with-hillary-clinton-susan-rice-sylvia-mathews-burwell-professor-james-goldgeier

Ambassador Susan Rice (far right) talking to a new recruits for American University

Butina is jailed in the William Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sheriff/info/default.aspx?id=8460

A Russian Orthodox Priest and Valery Butina, Mariia’s father, are approved visitors.

Father and daughter, Valery and Mariia Butina (above)

Butina complained about her cell being cold. It took five months for the prison to turn up the heat.

And Mariia’s parents and sister live in Siberia.

Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor can find guidelines on which to base Butina’s sentence. No one has ever plead guilty of the crime Mariia is pleading guilty to.

In fact, never the Judge nor the Prosecutor have a copy of last year’s federal sentencing guidelines.

It is on Page 44 of the plea agreement imaged here:

The Judge asked her the correct spelling of her first name. It is Mariia with two “i’s”.

Mariia Butina (above)

Chutkan has been a U.S. Federal District Judge in the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. since June 5th, 2014.

To get her appointed, President Barack Obama created or “packed” the D.C. Court with a “new position”.

At her Judicial Nomination hearing, Chutkan was asked about her lack of experience in criminal law. She had none.

Nor did Chutkan have trial experience.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tanya-Chutkan-Senate-Questionnaire-Final.pdf

She was approved by the Senate by a voice vote.

It avoids having one’s vote go into the Congressional Record.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Results%20of%20Executive%20Business%20Meeting%20-%2003-27-14.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/113th-congress/1042

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/022514QFRs-Chutkan.pdf

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/nominations-2014-02-25

According to the federal court’s system of records, Judge Chutkan has never tried a criminal case.

Or any case?

https://www.pacer.gov/

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2018

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statistics-data-tables

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distprofile0930.2018.pdf

Butina’s lawyer, Robert Driscoll, has no criminal law experience either.

Neither does anyone in his law firm.

https://www.mcglinchey.com/robert-driscoll/

Robert Driscoll (above)

Yet, Judge Chutkan has ruled that Driscoll has provided “competent” legal defense for Mariia.

After all, Mariia said so herself at her pre-sentencing hearing on Dec. 12th.

Chutkan issued a “gag order” on Butina’s case because of Driscoll’s repeated appearances for a national cable network, Fox.

Driscoll caused it.

Butina was punished for it.

Chutkan even assigned an “Advisory Attorney”, Mr. A.J. Williams, to monitor whether or not Butina has been violating the gag order since Dec. 12th.

Williams is a Federal Public Defender assigned to the District of Columbia since 1990.

According to Valery Butina, Mariia’s father, Driscoll’s fees reached $463,000 in July.

“But the lawyer did not abandon the case . . . and has been actually working for free since then”, said Mariia’s father.

“It is indeed a huge debt.

“The case is politicized, this is why the fees are that high”, said Valery Butina.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/putin-says-his-spy-chiefs-know-nothing-about-alleged-agent-butina-in-us-63786

Butina’s hometown in Siberia raised $14,500 for legal fees.

http://tass.com/world/1038115

Butina’s father said that Driscoll “helped the family” set up a fund to pay legal fees.

None of it goes to the Butina family.

How was Driscoll assigned the case?

The same scheduler who assigned Judge Chutkan the Fusion GPS and Imran Awan cases too?

Fusion GPS: Judge Chutkan’s second cover-up

Judge Tanya Chutkan was also assigned the case involving Fusion GPS.

Fusion was paid to write the Russian dossier.

Two of them.

Paid by the Russians through a Cleveland law firm.

Admitted to in sworn testimony before Congress. The details are linked here:

https://brassballs.blog/home/fusion-gps-ceo-testifies-that-cleveland-law-firm-hired-him-through-russians-to-write-two-dossiers-baker-hostetler-natalia-veselnitzkaya-mark-cymrot-prevezon-oil-ralph-blasey-cia-christopher-steele-peter-fritsch-baumgartner-edward-bean-llc

What happened to the checks that came and went from Fusion GPS?

Who did they pay to produce false narratives for the media?

https://www.sott.net/article/366063-Obama-appointed-judge-seals-Fusion-GPS-bank-records-insulating-Obama-Clinton-FBI

Chutkan ruled that the checks be “sealed”, never to be made public.

Chutkan’s Third Cover-up

Judge Chutkan was also assigned the case of Imran Awan, another D.C. scandal.

He was the “Pakistani mystery man”.

For 14 years, he headed the Spy Ring in Congress for 40 members of Congress.

Who knew?

In 14 years, how much intellectual property, patents, weapons, and pay-for-play deals were rinsed through Pakistan and sold to N. Korea, Iran, China, and Russia?

https://brassballs.blog/home/patents-remain-unprotected-says-inspector-general

Awan plead guilty to bank fraud. His six-month sentence was reduced to three months of “supervised” probation by Judge Chutkan.

“He suffered enough”, said the Judge.

Awan lives in Pakistan nine months out of the year.

Awan received immunity from prosecution without having to testify against anyone.

https://brassballs.blog/home/imran-awan-receives-immunity-for-allegedly-operating-a-spy-ring-in-congress-for-14-years-selling-state-secrets-to-pakistan-and-stealing-2-million-of-equipment

Exactly how did Awan suffer?

He was paid $160,000 working three months out of the year to manage Congresses’ computer systems.

Judges with lifetime appointments never have to explain anything.

Judge Tanya Chutkan

0 notes